A14095:785
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.
But what knowledge soever we attribute to God, it can no more be said to be past, than to come according to your doctrine pag. 77. your words are these. Whatsoever can be ⟨p. 313⟩more properly said or conceived to be past than to be yet to come, or to be in every moment of time designable, can have no property of eternity. And in very truth Gods knowledge is not altered, but one and the same knowledge it is which God hath of things without him, before they were, when they are, and after they were. In the things themselves an alteration is found, but not in Gods knowledge of them: And therefore the knowing of all things that are, were, and are to come is commonly called Scientia visionis, in distinction from Scientia simplicis Intelligentiae, whereby God knows all necessary truths, and all things possible.
But what knowledge soever we attribute to God, it can no more be sayd to be past, than to come according to your doctrine pag. 77. your wordes are these. Whatsoever can be ⟨p. 313⟩more properly sayd or conceived to be past than to be yet to come, or to be in every moment of time designable, can have no propertie of eternitie. And in very truth Gods knowledge is not altered, but one and the same knowledge it is which God hath of things without him, before they were, when they are, and after they were. In the things themselves an alteration is found, but not in Gods knowledge of them: And therefore the knowing of all things that are, were, and are to come is commonly called Scientia visionis, in distinction from Scientia simplicis Intelligentiae, wherby God knowes all necessary truthes, and all things possible.
Your conclusion is, that God foreknows, and Man foreknows but with a difference, such as, you say, is oftentimes not well expressed by Teachers, nor duly considered by Readers; the identity of the word whereby we express both Gods foreknowledge, and mans foreknowledge making us apt to confound the different meaning of them. Which confusion of things arising from communion of the same term, you say is a fertile nursery of many errors in this Argument. And is it not, I pray, as well in other Arguments as in this? But I bear with you, for if you had professed so much, you had utterly broken the neck of your second Argument. Yet we are like to be beholding to you in good time. For the displanting of these errors. For you promise to endeavour this, and therein to imitate Heralds, who give the same Coat to diverse parties, but always which a difference.