A14095:334
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.
Perhaps you will say, they loose the former days existence, and gain the following days existence: And so we do much more properly in this world, but without impediment to the same-ness of our existence: For to loose the former days existence, and gain the following days existence, is but to loose our coexistence with the former day, and gain a coexistence with the day following: Now this is no impediment to the same-ness of existence in duration; which I prove thus: It is incident to God, yet is he still the same in duration: And that 'tis incident to God, I prove thus; God himself was yesterday coexistent to yesterday, and now he is not; for if he were, then yesterday should now exist, which is not only untrue, but impossible to be true, for then time past should be present: And the reason why this is no impeachment to the most perfect sameness in duration is manifest; for to coexist with some thing yesterday, and not to day, may arise from no variableness from within, but only from variableness in something from without: As, namely, therefore God doth not ⟨p. 168⟩coexist to day, with many things to day, with which he did coexist yesterday, is not because of any change in God, but by reason of change in these outward things, which had a being yesterday, but to day have not.
Perhaps you will say, they loose the former dayes existence, and gayne the following dayes existence: And so we doe much more properly in this world, but without impediment to the same-nes of our existence: For to loose the former dayes existence, and gayne the following dayes existence, is but to loose our coexistence with the former day, and gayne a coexistence with the day following: Now this is no impediment to the same-nes of existence in duration; which I prove thus: It is incident to God, yet is he still the same in duration: And that 'tis incident to God, I prove thus; God himselfe was yesterday coexistent to yesterday, and now he is not; for if he were, then yesterday should now exist, which is not only untrue, but impossible to be true, for then time past should be present: And the reason why this is no impeachment to the most perfect same•nes in duration is manifest; for to coexist with some thing yesterday, and not to day, may arise from no variablenes from within, but only from variablenes in something from without: As, namely, therefore God doth not ⟨p. 168⟩