A14095:959
A discovery of D. Jacksons vanity. Or A perspective glass, whereby the admirers of…A discovery of D. Iacksons vanitie. Or A perspective glasse, wherby the admirers of…
A discovery of D. Jacksons vanity. Or A perspective glass, whereby the admirers of D. Jacksons profound discourses, may see the vanity and weakness of them, in sundry passages, and especially so far as they tend to the undermining of the doctrine hitherto received. Written by William Twice, Doctor of Divinity, as they say, from whom the copy came to the pressA discovery of D. Iacksons vanitie. Or A perspective glasse, wherby the admirers of D. Iacksons profound discourses, may see the vanitie and weaknesse of them, in sundry passages, and especially so farre as they tende to the undermining of the doctrine hitherto received. Written by William Twisse, Doctor of Divinitie, as they say, from whom the copie came to the presse
Amsterdam: printed by the successors of Giles Thorp, 1631
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Which doctrine of yours you are not willing to take notice of, when in the next words according to your course of argumentation, you tell us, No man living (as you take it) will avouch any absolute necessity from all eternity, that God should inevitably decree the deposition of Eli's line from the priesthood, or his two sons destructions by the Philistines. For here you seem to imply a grant that God decreed it, but not inevitably, and that upon his decree there followed a necessity of his deposition, but not absolute. Now it is well known that Solomon deposed Eli's house in Abiathar freely, and the Philistines by free actions of theirs were the death of Eli's sons. And therefore if God decreed them, the very free actions of men are the objects of Gods decrees; and consequently no action by the freedom thereof is any way hindered from being the object of Gods decrees. All which is directly contrary to your opinion, who maintain contingency to be the object of Gods decree, and not the thing contingent, as you have plainly expressed and professed in another Treatise; and but erst you made the decrees of God to be brought forth suitable to the actions of men, as if the actions of men were no objects at all of Gods decrees.
Which doctrine of yours you are not willing to take notice of, when in the next words according to your course of argumentation, you tell us, No man living (as you take it) will avouch any absolute necessity from all eternity, that God should inevitably decree the deposition of Elies line from the priesthood, or his two sonnes destructions by the Philistims. For here you seeme to imply a grant that God decreed it, but not inevitably, and that upon his decree there followed a necessity of his deposition, but not absolute. Now it is well knowne that Solomon deposed Elies house in Abiathar freely, and the Philistims by free actions of theirs were the death of Elies sonnes. And therefore if God decreed them, the very free actions of men are the objects of Gods decrees; and consequently no action by the freedome thereof is any way hindred from being the object of Gods decrees. All which is directly contrary to your opinion, who maintaine contingency to bee the object of Gods decree, and not the thing contingent, as you have plainly exprest and professed in another Treatise; and but erst you made the decrees of God to be brought forth suitable to the actions of men, as if the actions of men were no objects at all of Gods decrees.