A14095:269
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.
Yet is your reason whereby you oppose this common saying very loose, as when you say, If time did devour things, what could possibly nourish them or continue them from their beginning to their end, And that in two respects; for neither the saying signifies that time should devour them, before the time appointed for the consumption of them: And though time did consume them, yet some thing else might continue them; For their own natures wherein God hath made them, are for a time apt to resist that which laboureth to corrupt them. And other means also there are for the preservation of them: As man by using means for his preservation may hold out longer then he which useth none; neither did the Authors or approvers of that saying, Tempus edax rerum, ever conceit that any thing should desire the destruction of it self, as you are pleased to rove in impugning it: And look in what sense time doth not destroy, but things are destroyed in time; in the same sense, things temporal have not the continuation of their being from time, but from somewhat else in time; For when things are preserved, by the wit and industry of man from putrefaction, they do not receive this preservation of theirs from time, but from the wit and industry of man: And ergo: as time doth not wast, so neither doth time preserve from wasting.
Yet is your reason whereby you oppose this common saying very loose, as when you say, If time did devoure things, what could possibly nourish them or continue them from their beginning to theyr end, And that in two respects; for neyther the saying signifies that time should devoure thē, before the time appoynted for the consumption of them: And though time did consume them, yet some thing els might contnue them; For theyr owne natures wherein God hath made them, are for a time apt to resist that which laboureth to corrupt them. And other meanes also there are for the preservation of thē: As man by using meanes for his preservation may hold out longer then he which useth none; neither did the Authors or approvers of that saying, Tempus edax rerum, ever conceit that any thing should desire the destruction of it selfe, as you are pleased to rove in impugning it: And look in what sense time doth not destroy, but things are destroyed in time; in the same sense, things temporall have not the continuation of their being from time, but from somewhat els in time; For when things are preserved, by the witt and industry of man from putrefaction, they doe not receave this preservation of theyrs from time, but from the wit and industry of man: And ergo: as time doth not wast, so neither doth time preserve from wasting.