A14095:165
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.
So then if Gods operation be joined with the things themselves, it sufficeth, (by this opinion) to maintain, ⟨p. 110⟩that God is present with them by his essence; yet if you consider it well, you shall find, that this is all one with his presence in respect of his power; for that was expounded thus; God is in the whole Universe, by his power, because his operation reacheth unto every thing. Next, consider, how God is in every thing by his presence. First, to say that God is in every thing by his presence, seems a very absurd manner of speech: for it is as much as to say, that God is present in every thing by his presence. Then consider the explication of it. He knoweth all things, therefore he is present with all things: Now this seems very absurd. For we read that God revealed to Elisha, what was done in the King of Arams 1privy Chamber; might therefore Elisha justly be said to have been present in the Kings privy Chamber? We know the number of the Stars, what therefore, are we present with them? God foreknows things to come, is he therefore present with them also, which yet are not? Vasquius himself professed before, in confuting the opinion of Durand, that Nothing is said to be present with another, unless that other thing were conscious thereof, and he proved it out of the digests, and out of the law Coram; Coram Titio aliquid fecisse jussus non videtur praesente eo fecisse, nisi is intelligat; & also out of the 112. epistle of Austin, plane sorsitan satis est, si praesentia hoc loco intelligamus, quae praesto sunt sensibus, sive animi, sive corporis, unde etjam ducto vocabulo. praesentia nominantur. As if praesens were as much as prae sensibus. To this I may add that of Aeneas in Virgil, when the cloud wherewith his mother Venus had covered him, vanished away, then he breaks out into these words Coram, quem quaeritis adsum Troius Aeneas. But now consider, according to this interpretation of the word praesent God shall be said to be present with none, but with intelligent creatures: for such alone can know him and take notice of him; and because but few of them take notice of him; therefore he can be said to be present, but with a few of them also. Yet Aquinas his explication of Gods being in 2all things by his presence, is quite of a contrary nature, to wit, because God knows them, and not because they know ⟨p. 111⟩