A14095:786
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.
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.
Your conclusion is, that God foreknowes, and Man foreknowes but with a difference, such as, you say, is oftentimes not well expressed by Teachers, nor duely considered by Readers; the identitie of the word wherby we expresse 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 terme, you say is a fertile nursery of many errours in this Argument. And is it not, I pray, as well in other Arguments as in this? But I beare with you, for if you had professed so much, you had utterly broken the necke of your second Argument. Yet we are like to be beholding to you in good time. For the displanting of these errours. For you promise to endeavour this, and therin to imitate Heralds, who give the same Coate to diverse parties, but alwayes which a difference.
Thus we have gained a flourish of allusion unto the practise of Heralds, and with this Kickshaws we must be merry till more substantial provision cometh. As for my opinion, I acknowledge no existence of things in eternity, nor coexistence with eternity until the time of their actual production cometh. And so accordingly their coexistence with eternity first was to come, then is, afterwards is past, and ceaseth to be; and so accordingly foreknowledge, coknowledge, and after-knowledge of the same things may be attributed to God, all which are external denominatives attributed unto the knowledge of God, from the various condition