Discovery of Jacksons Vanity, Title page – Author to the reader
A 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.
Iob 38. 2. Who is this that darkeneth counsell by words without knowledge?
Imprinted ANNO M. DC. XXXI.
To the understanding Reader.
TWo sorts of men there are (to passe by the meer Politicians ready to serve the times, and their owne turnes without any fear of God or man) which now undermine that doctrine of grace, which formerly they themselves have beleived, and by the preaching wherof they have receyved the grace wherby they are what they are, in any true good. Some under a shew of modestic and simplicity, hold off themselves and others from admitting so high poynts; as not willing to beleive that which is above their comprehension. But others take up the cause a clean contrary way, and would bear the World in hand, that the failings of our divines, in this doctrine, came from shallownesse, and want of profound knowledge in Metaphysicall speculations. Of this later ranke, Mr. D. Iackson is the ringleader. This man doubteth not to professe, that he hath found no character of the incomprehensible Essences ubiquitary presence (no not in the Holy Prophets and Apostles writings) from which he hath receyved so full instruction, or reaped the like fruits of admiration, as from one of Trismegist, an Egyptian Priest. part. 1. pag. 55. So that the sentence which he passeth upon Vorstius (whom he seemeth more to aemulate in overturning the divine attributes, then any other) doth shreudly reflect upon himselfe: The evaporations of proud phantastick melancholy, hath ecclipsed the lustre of glorious presence, in this prodigious Questionists braine, which would bring us out of the Sunne-shine of the Gospell, into old Egyptian darknesse. From the same Aegyptian learning, thorough Plato and Plotinus, he taketh his draught of the divine decrees. For he acknowledgeth no decree of God, concerning humane actions, good or bad (no not of those which God promised to effect either concerning his mercy in Christ and Christians, or concerning his judgements to be effected by the wicked) but onelyonly disjunctive, that is by his owne instances, part. 2. Sect. 2. cap. 17. Aut erit, aut non erit; it shall eyther raine all day tomorrow, or befaire all day tomorrow (in which example of a false disjunction, he may seem to teach that Gods decrees may also be false;) the Sunne will eyther shine, or not shine, this day at twelve of the clocke. Surely from this character of a divine decree, though we can receyve no good instruction, yet have we as much fruit of admiration, as D. Iackson himself receyved from the former of ubiquity. For what Christian can satisfie himself in wondering, how erit illa die, (which is the usuall expression of Gods decree, in the Prophets phrase) can be interpreted by erit aut non erit? how all the promises, which declare Gods decree of dispensing his grace, upon all nations, by the ministery of men, as ra ne or dew upon hearbs, should be so glossed; it shall eyther raine, or not raine? or how all the decreed promises concerning the prevayling course of the Sunne of righteousnes in & by his, & his servāts activitie, should be flouted with this disjunction: it shall shine, or not shine? It would bring some fruit of admiration, if any Prince or Law maker, should make no other decree, about such things as concerne their, and their subjects good, but meerly disjunctive, eyther men shall doe so, or not so; eyther they shall doe good, or suffer evill: For though men have not power of determining absolutely future actions, yet they come neerer to that, then the indifferencie of an even-weighing disjunction doth import. They putte so much weight as the efficacie of their will can bear, to that scale wherin they place, this shall be. But Plato and Plotinus conceyved (or rather in some of their discourses expressed) no more then this: All Christians therfore are by D. Iackson called back agayne to this, as if by the Prophets and Apostles they had been caried too farre; It can not indeed be denied, but the Platonists did commonly so decipher their humane ideas of divine decreeing as D. Iackson doth. For Alcinons de doctrina Platonis, cap. 12. hath the same relation in plaine termes, which D. Iackson hath turned into his strong lines of Oxford: Sic fatum (ex sententia Platonis) pronunciat: quaecunque anima talem vitam elegerit, & hujusmodi quaedam commiserit, consequenter talia patietur. Libera ergo est anima, & in ejus arbitrio, vel agere, vel non agere ponitur; quod autem sequitur actionem, ab ipso fato perfinitur. Veluti ex eo quod Paris Helenam rapiet, quod quidem in ejus erat arbitrio, sequetur ut Graeci de Helena decertent. Indeterminatum atque indifferens natura sua, libertate nostra, in utram placuerit, statere lancem quodam modo declināte, mox aut verum aut falsum, ex possibili sit. But if D. Iackson had not too much been caried away with admiration of these ideas, he might have receyved a double inctruction from this Alcinons. 1. That Plato did overthrow his owne idea, by granting a fatall decree of the Grecians fighting against Troye (in which warre were conteyned so many thousands of humane actions as there were soldiers in the Grecian army) in exemplifying the liberty of humane actions from fatall decree. 2. That Plato went before Aristotle (of whom he was forsaken in better notions) in denying; upon that libertine ground, any contingent, especially free actions to come, to be true before they be acted. Which Swarez himselfe (in his Metaphysicks) confesseth to be no lesse an error then the overturning of Christian faith doth amount to, libertate nostra, mox aut verum aut falsum▪ ex possibili sit. Had not the same passion of admixation stood in the way, he might have learned out of Marsilius Ficinus (to whom he is beholding for other Platonicall notions) that Plato himself was, by fits of another minde. For so sayth this Author, de Theol. Platon. cap. 13. Deus naturarum omnium temperator, dum regit cuncta, singula pro singulorum regit natura. Quoniam vero motor primus praevalere debet & dominari, ideo sic animos (ut Plato vult) quasi cogit ad bonum, ut bonum ipsum nolle non possint. And that these secōd thoughts of Plato were more agreeable to Christian faith, the same Marsilius Ficinus is witnesse, Epist. lib. 2. Epist. cui tit. Homo quam difficile extra habitum naturalem posilus felicitatem sequitur, tam facile hanc in naturalem habitum restitutus assequitur? where treating of the like question, he saith: Quid respondebimus? Magi, Pythagoraei, Platonici, Peripatetici forsan sic: Denique exactissima Theologorum examinatio rem omnem breviter ita concludit: Quamohrem motor ipse qui animum propriè vertit ad infinitum, est ipsamet sola infinita potestas, quae mentem, pro libera voluntatis natura, modo quodam movet ad eligendas vias maxime libero. Rursus pro infinita moventis potentia, ad appetendum finem usque adeo incitat, ut non appetere nequeat. From the same Platonist, D. Iackson might have learned also more sense, then to outface all his readers with that unheard of stinking bulle of his owne proper forging (which both in his epistle dedicatorie, and also in divers parts of his treatises, he maketh the basis of his vayne conceyts,) namely that if God should have certainly▪ and immutably decreed any singular action or end of man, then God should be deprived of his freedome. For let him but looke in Marsil. Ficin. Theolog. Platonica, de immort. anim. lib. 2. cap. 12. he shall finde this Title: Voluntas Dei necessaria est simul & libera. And in the Chapiter it selfe, he shall finde that the Platonists would be ashamed of such flim-flam. In ipso bono certe summa naturae necessitas una cum summa libertate voluntatis concurrit. Atque ibi naturae necessitas, voluntatis confirmat libertatem, & libertas necessitati consentit, usque adeo ut necessario liber voluntariusque Deus sit, & voluntarie necessarius. A nobis id tantum ubique affirmari optamus, quod Deo sit dignum, quale est, in Deo cum summa necessitate, summam congredi libertatem. Sed in hac re meminisse oportet, ut placet Thomae nostro, splendori Theologiae: quamquam divinae voluntatis actus, secundum conditionem, positionemve, quando dici potest rem hanc aut illam necessario velle, viz. postquam semel eam voluit, cum sit divina voluntas non aliter immutabilis, quam essentia, ipsum tamen suapte natura non habere eum necessitatis absolutae respectum ad effectus suos, quem ad seipsum habet. I would have englished these passages, but that I conceyve no man to be in perrill of misguiding by D. Iacksons fustian kinde of writing, except he understand not only a Latine stile, but one of yron, clay, brasse, sylver & gold, like the Babylonish image, which none but Daniel could interpret. Neyther is it needfull, that I should go about the examining or discovering of D. Iacksons dreames. It is done to my hands, with singular learning and judgement, in the ensuing censure. Which as it seemeth, was written by D. Twisse, for his owne contentment; as Scholars are woont to finde themselvs willing work in communing with those, which bring forth extraordinary notions. But in such a subject as this, it could not long be kept private. An honorable man therfore having gotten from the Author a copie, could not but communicate the same with his friends, by whom at length it came to the Printer, whose profession is to make such workes publick, as are of publicke use. And howsoever upon Politicke considerations, disputes of this kinde are forbidden and suppressed; yet it were to be wished, that more were found, amongst those that are able to defende the truth, which were not so servile unto the times, as by their silence to become accessary unto the murder of that religion, which they professe and beleive. In reason also, it were better that such as dislike of and undermine by piecemeal insinuations, the doctrine hitherto receyved amongst us, would lay us downe the full platforme of their opposite doctrine; and not contente themselves with some plausible snatchinges and catchinges, at commune tenents, not manifesting in the meane time, how they can bring their jarrings in those parts which they question, to agree with others, which as yet they dare not question. It is by experience proved, in the low Countries, that Arminianisme tendeth directly to Socinianisme, which is the only dangerous and damnabled heresie of this age. If our Arminians can shew us how to bound these waves of the same lake, or avoyd those rockes any better then they of Holland, they have no reason to envy us the common courtesie of Sea-men. Let them takeup therfore (if they love plaine dealing) the Remonstrants confession and Apologie, and either testifie their full consent with them; or signifie how farre we ought to sayle by that compasse, and in what part of that Sea-card we are to leave them, and where the danger lieth. D. Iackson would perswade us (pag. 1. sect. 3. cap. 18.) that if his doctrine of love and grace universall, were well taught and pressed in the particulars of it, all men would unfeignedly endeavour with fervent alacrity to be truly happy, and that with astonishing fruit. Surely if he know such particulars of any doctrine, as would bring forth such miraculous fruit (a hundred folde more then the doctrine of Christ himselfe and his Apostles could atteyne to, who never brought all their auditors to unfeigned endeavour and fervent alacritie in seeking of God) I say he knoweth such particulars, and will not impart them to the World, the engines which extorte confession, might be better imployed about him, then ever they were about any. It is well knowne by experience, that neyther the generalls, nor the particulars eyther of the Iesuits doctrine concerning universall grace in Spaine, or of the Lutherans in Germanie, or of the Arminians in Holland, have brought any such miraculous fruit of pietye. Neyther have I yet heard of any such extraordinary successe upon D. Iacksons doctrine at Newcastel or Oxford, but may at least be equalled (to say no more) by the successe of their doctrine, which have pressed the contrarie tenents, in a thousand congregations of England. Except therfore he declareth his doctrine in the particulars of it, he must pardon us, if we make no more account of his generall colours, then of those new inventions or projects, which promise so incredible wonders, that they can find no credite, but onelyonly with those that are willing to be deceyved.