A14095:969
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.
Now I demand whether these contingent acts are the objects of Gods decrees or no. If not, what hath Gods decree to do with them? or they with the decree of God? let them rather be thought fit (if you please) to revolve upon the axis of Gods knowledge, and that will be with far less danger unto your tenet. For this revolution of contingent acts upon the axis of Gods decree, doth savour strongly of making them the object of Gods decrees. But this you may remember is directly opposite to your tenet, who maintain that God decreeth contingency but not the contingent things themselves.
Now I demaund whether these contingent acts are the objects of Gods decrees or no. If not, what hath Gods decree to doe with them? or they with the decree of God? let them rather be thought fitt (if you please) to revolve upon the axis of Gods knowledge, and that will be with farre lesse danger unto your tenet. For this revolution of contingent acts upon the axis of Gods decree, doth savour strongly of making them the object of Gods decrees. But this you may remember is directly opposite to your tenent, who mainteyne that God decreeth contingency but not the contingent things themselves.
The next member of the first sentence in this Section had been very mystical, had we not been already reasonably well acquainted with this dialect of yours in the chapter of eternity. And upon my remembrance of that your discourse, I take that, wherein the whole frame of succession and contingency is fully comprehended, to be no other then that precious creature called time, wherein all contingent things come to pass, and so are comprehended therein as in the measure of their existence and duration. For of such a comprehension (as I take it) you do discourse, not of substantial or integral comprehension; For I see no reason why the decree of God should ⟨p. 404⟩not be the axis of the whole body of contingent things as well as of any particular of them, whereon to revolve. But you make a far greater quiescent to be the axis of this, by which greater quiescent, I think you mean Gods eternity. For that alone is it, as heretofore you have expounded it, which draws all the successive parts of motion into an indivisible unity of duration permanent. I am now almost grown as perfect in this canting language as your self.