A14095:789
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.
For first our foreknowledge of things to come, is not foreknowledge only, save so long as the things themselves are to come; but when they come, we know them never a whit the less, and after they are gone and past. As the Eclipse of the Sun and Moon is known by us before it comes, when it comes, and after it is past. It is true, before they come, the knowledge of things is only foreknowledge, and not in man only, but God also. When they do coexist with God, then Gods knowledge is no longer foreknowledge, but till they do coexist with God, his knowledge of them is foreknowledge of them, as well as ours. For it is before them, and only before them; for it is neither with them, nor after them. Not with them, for then they should coexist with God, and that from all eternity, which is most untrue. For if they did coexist with God, then they did exist, and that from all eternity, which is most untrue. Much less is it after them. For if so, then their coexistence with God were past, but we suppose it to be to come. And impossible it is that the same things should at once be both past, and also to come. And as for the duration of our knowledge, whereas you say it doth not reach to the things that are to come; I say neither doth the duration of Gods knowledge reach thither. For if the duration of Gods knowledge did reach unto things to come, then Gods knowledge should in this present coexist with things to come, which is untrue. For if Gods knowledge did coexist with things to come, at this present, then ⟨p. 315⟩things to come at this present should coexist with the knowledge of God, and consequently they should exist, that is, they should be present, and not to come. It is no way required to knowledge to coexist with things known. In like sort neither doth Gods duration at this present reach unto things to come any more than ours. For if God did at this present coexist with things to come, then at this present things to come should coexist with God; for coexistence includes existence on both sides. But things to come do not at this present coexist with God, for if they did coexist, then they should exist, and consequently they should be said to be present, and not to come. And in a word, to maintain that God coexists with all things to come, is to maintain by just consequence, that the world did exist from all eternity.
For first our foreknowledge of things to come, is not foreknowledge onely, save so long as the things themselves are to come; but when they come, wee know them never a whit the lesse, and after they are gone and past. As the Eclipse of the Sunne and Moone is knowne by us before it comes, when it comes, and after it is past. It is true, before they come, the knowledge of things is onely foreknowledge, and not in man onely, but God also. When they doe coexist with God, then Gods knowledge is no longer foreknowledge, but till they doe coexist with God, his knowledge of them is foreknowledge of them, as well as ours. For it is before them, and onely before them; for it is neither with them, nor after them. Not with them, for then they should coexist with God, and that from all eternity, which is most untrue. For if they did coexist with God, then they did exist, and that from all eternity, which is most untrue. Much lesse is it after them. For if so, then their coexistence with God were past, but we suppose it to be to come. And impossible it is that the same things should at once bee both past, and also to come. And as for the duration of our knowledge, whereas you say it doth not reach to the things that are to come; I say neither doth the duration of Gods knowledge reach thither. For if the duration of Gods knowledge did reach unto things to come, then Gods knowledge should in this present coexist with things to come, which is untrue. For if Gods knowledge did coexist with things to come, at this present, then