A14095:802
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.
That which you add concerning the nature of Gods knowledge, as being without succession, is nothing to the purpose. For though our knowledge be subject to succession, yet this nothing hindereth us from foreknowing things to come, so they be knowable, whether by natural reason, or by divine revelation. On the other side, though Gods knowledge be not capable of succession, yet things not knowable ⟨p. 321⟩he cannot know; things impossible he cannot know to be possible, and things which are only possible, and not future he cannot know to be future. And such a manner of knowledge, is no knowledge indeed, but error rather.
That which you adde concerning the nature of Gods knowledge, as being without succession, is nothing to the purpose. For though our knowledge be subject to succession, yet this nothing hindreth us from foreknowing things to come, so they be knowable, whether by naturall reason, or by divine revelation. On the other side, though Gods knowledge be not capable of succession, yet things not knowable ⟨p. 321⟩he cannot knowe; thinges impossible he cannot know to be possible, and thinges which are only possible, and not future he cannot know to be future. And such a manner of knowledge, is no knowledge indeed, but errour rather.
And as for your terms of interposed, and expiring acts, and interminable knowledge; well they may serve to conjure your Reader from understanding you, but they have no force either of illustration, or probation of ought. In the close you acquaint us with a *new mystery, as if Gods knowledge were like the suspending of a mans judgement, for as much as the act of knowledge in God doth not expire. A vile conceit and ridiculous, were it not concerning the nature of God. For what? because Gods knowledge and judgement doth not expire, but continueth without alteration, shall he therefore be said to suspend his judgement? Belike Daniel was cast into the Lyons den not by judgement, but by suspension of judgement; For the Laws of the Medes and Persians were unalterable.