A14095:865
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.
Thus we can devise how our duration comes from God, though far different from the flowing of the water from the Sea: but how our durations do exonerate themselves into God, or into his duration, it surpasseth the sphere of my imagination to devise. I do not think Paracelsus was ever able to interpret this. Yet some say he heard the devil read a lecture through a grate in the University of Toledo. Yet you have not done traversing your ground. Times future (you say) are said to come upon us, or to meet us, because our duration or existence cannot reach to future things whilst they are future. Your figure Catachresis when will it be at an end? when we talk of reaching, we suppose the thing to have existence whereat we reach, but time future as yet exists not. Yet you think God doth reach it by coexistence with it. Yet I mark of late you forbear th•s phrase. Is it not because it doth manifestly discover the error of your conceit? For to coexist with things future, doth imply that things future coexist, and consequently exist, and so they are present, and not future. The very Angels ⟨p. 352⟩are not of so long standing to day as they shall be to morrow. This I confess is something, but I would gladly know what inference you make herehence.
Thus we can devise how our duration comes from God, though farre different from the flowing of the water from the Sea: but how our durations doe exonerate themselves into God, or into his duration, it surpasseth the sphere of my imagination to devise. I doe not thinke Paracelsus was ever able to interprete this. Yet some say he heard the devill reade a lecture through a grate in the Vniversity of Toledo. Yet you have not done traversing your ground. Times future (you say) are said to come upon us, or to meet us, because our duration or existence cannot reach to future things whilest they are future. Your figure Catachresis when will it be at an end? when we talke of reaching, we suppose the thing to have existence whereat we reach, but time future as yet exists not. Yet you thinke God doth reach it by coexistence with it. Yet I marke of late you forbeare th•s phrase. Is it not because it doth manifestly discover the errour of your conceit? For to coexist with things future, doth imply that things future coexist, and consequently exist, and so they are present, and not future. The very Angells ⟨p. 352⟩