A14095:815
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.
Fourthly, it is possible that Antichrist shall fall in the year 1630, it is possible that he should fall the year before, it is possible he should fall the year after: it was possible he should have fallen ten years ago; it is possible he should fall ten years hence: all these being real effects possible, must by your doctrine be found eminently in the divine essence, and God knowing his divine essence, must know them all, and not only that they are possible, but that they shall all come to pass: For in this sense you speak of Gods knowledge of future contingents, namely, of knowing that they shall come to pass, and when they shall come to pass.
Fourthly, it is possible that Antichrist shall fall in the yeare 1630, it is possible that he should fall the yeare before, it is possible he should fal the yeare after: it was possible he should have fallen ten yeares agoe; it is possible hee should fall ten yeares hence: all these being reall effects possible, must by your doctrine be found eminently in the divine essence, and God knowing his divine essence, must know them all, and not onely that they are possible, but that they shall all come to passe: For in this sense you speake of Gods knowledge of future contingents, namely, of knowing that they shall come to passe, and when they shall come to passe.
Again, set we the fall of Antichrist at an hundred different points of time, whereof let us suppose one to be true, and the other false; yet all in their own nature alike possible: ⟨p. 326⟩why should the fall of Antichrist in the true point of time be included in Gods essence more then the other, all being alike possible; and that very instant wherein the fall of Antichrist shall be, it being as possible that it should not be, and that possibility also being included in the essence of God, as well as any other? Perhaps you will say that this being a truth is included in the essence of God, and not the others, being untruths. But then I demand how this became to be a truth, that Antichrist should fall at such a time, rather then at another, it being as possible to fall out at any other time as at this, and as possible not to fall out at this time as at any other, and all these possibilities equally included in the essence of God I say again, how came this to be a truth, answer me, not of its own nature, for the contrary hereunto is supposed on both sides, namely, that of his own nature it was only possible: therefore you must assign some cause from without; and because you like not to acknowledge the determination of Gods will to be the cause hereof, you must allege some other cause. I see you usually fly to the infinity of Gods knowledge, but in vain; for Gods knowledge is to know truths, and not to make them.