A14095:496
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.
By the way let me ask you, what that is which you call past before the World was; for before the World was, nothing at all was but God. Again, though we say the decrees of God, were before the world was, yet no divine that I know saith they were past before the World was; for the decrees of God are nothing but the Counsel and will of God, which undoubtedly we say continue the same and ever shall. In the last sentence you teach us that it may stand well enough with eternity, to be said to be past, present, and to come; so we do not affirm it to be more properly past, then present or to come. Yet I promise you, I nothing like to say that God is past, I had rather say he was and is, and is to come. As much as to say, God is of necessary being, and still continueth, and it is impossible he should be otherwise, in which respect we may truly and properly say he was coexistent with every thing that is past, (to wit in the time of its existence,) is coexistent to every thing present, shall be coexistent to every thing that is to come (to wit in the time of the existence of each thing) and all this not by any succession of parts in himself, (as who is subject to no motion) but by succession of parts in outward things, with which or whom, he is said to coexist, his own existence being perpetual and invariable.
By the way let me aske you, what that is which you call past before the World was; for before the World was, nothing at all was but God. Agayne, though we say the decrees of God, were before the world was, yet no divine that I know sayth they were past before the World was; for the decrees of God are nothing but the Counsayle and will of God, which undoubtedly we say continue the same and ever shall. In the last sentence you teach us that it may stand well enough with eternitie, to be sayd to be past, present, and to come; so we doe not affirme it to be more properly past, then present or to come. Yet I promise you, I nothing like to say that God is past, I had rather say he was and is, and is to come. As much as to say, God is of necessary being, and still continueth, and it is impossible he should be otherwise, in which respect we may truly and properly say he was coexistent with every thing that is past, (to witt in the time of its existence,) is coexistent to every thing present, shall be coexistent to every thing that is to come (to witt in the time of the existence of each thing) and all this not by any succession of parts in himselfe, (as who is subject to no motion) but by succession of parts in outward things, with which or whom, he is sayd to coexist, his owne existence being perpetuall and invariable.