Selected quad for the lemma: land_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
land_n	little_a	sea_n	see_v	1,312	5	3.4874	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A14095	A 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	Twisse, William, 1578?-1646.	1631 (1631)	STC 24402; ESTC S118777	563,516	728

no light unto it but barely suppose the truthe of it Secondly because you limit it in comparison of the like causes before the flood As if there were no Anakims knowne since the flood Of late yeares in the place where I dwell hathe bene taken up the bone of a mans legge broken in the digging of a well the bare bone was measured to be two and twentie inches about in the calfe and the spurre about the heele was founde allso that of a very vast proportion It seemes the whole body lyethe there If King Iames were alive and heard of it it is like enoughe that out of his curious and Scholasticall Spirite wherby he was caryed to the investigation of strange things he woulde give order that the body might be digged up the parts to be kept as monuments of the great proportion and stature of men in former times As touching the stature of men in these dayes what dothe Capteyne Smith write by his owne experience of the Sasque Sahanocts borderers upon Virginia on the Northe He professethe they seemed like Gyants to the Englishe One of their wero●nees that came aboord the Englishe the calfe of his legge was 3. quartars of a yard about and the rest of his limbes answearable to that proportion Sure I am the siege of Troy was since the flood and Homer writinge of the stone that Aeneas tooke up to throwe at his enimies calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And he was litle acquainted with Noahs flood that sayde Terra malos homines nunc educat atque pusillos Thirdly in these dayes some are very lowe some very tall of stature in comparison yet the vigour of causes nutritive and augmentative is the same to each So in all likelihood both before the flood and after such difference was founde The Spyes sent by Iosuah to take a viewe of the land of Canaan having seene the Sonnes of Anak seemed in their owne sight but as grassehoppers in comparison unto them Yet the vigour of foode and nourishment was the same to both Farre better reasons might be alleaged if I mistake not of this difference and withall I see no reason to the contrary but that men might be of a great stature in these dayes as in former times and that by course of nature if it pleased God to have it so But I have no edge to enter upon this discourse it is unseasonable and I desire rather to deale with you in matter of Divinitie and especially to encounter you in your Arminian Tenets The question followinge why vegetables of greatest vigour doe not ingrosse the properties of others lesse vigorous is a senseles question For whether you understande it of vegetables in the same kinde or of a diverse kinde it is ridiculous As for example Woulde any sober man enquire after the cause why that vegetable which is of the greatest heate hathe not the propertie of such a vegetable that is of lesse heate Or why that which is vigourous in heate hathe not the propertie of that which is vigorous in colde or in any other disparate qualitie Nay why shoulde any man expect a reason why different kindes of thinges have different qualities Is it not satisfaction sufficient to consider that they are different kindes of things and therfore no merveyle if they have different properties The cause herof derived from the vigour of that which propagates is very unsound For that which propagates and that which is propagated is of the same kinde and consequently of the same propertie And the question proceedes equally as well of the one as of the other If you shoulde aske how it comes to passe that man is not so intelligent a creature as an Angell it were very absurde to say the reason is because the Father of a man was not so intelligent as an Angell and therfore he coulde not propagate a man as intelligent as an Angell least so he shoulde propagate a more intelligent creature then himselfe I say this manner of answeare woulde give little satisfaction For the question was made of man not of this man in particular but of mankind which comprehendes the Father as wel as the Sonne And agayne the Sonne may be more intelligent then the Father though not after the same manner intelligent as the Angells are The followinge question is as litle worthe the proposinge as the former For what hostilitie is to be feared betweene the ayre and the water But you make choyse to instance in the hostilitie betweene the earthe and the water as a matter of dangerous consequence You demaunde the reason why the restles or raging water swallowes not up the dull earth I had thought the earthe had bene fitter to swallowe up water then water to swallowe up earthe For suppose the Sea shoulde overflowe the Land shoulde it therby be sayde to swallowe it up Then belike the bottome of the Sea is swallowed up by the Sea And by the same reason the Element of the Ayre swalloweth up both Sea and Land because it covereth them and the Element of fire in the same sense swalloweth up the Element of the ayre And the heavens swallowe up all the Elements for as much as they doe encompasse them Every Naturalist conceaves that it is not out of any hostilitie that the Element of water is disposed to cover the earth but out of inclination naturall to be above the earthe beinge not so heavy a body as the massie substance of the earth is And we knowe it is withdrawne into certeyne valleys by his power who jussit subsidere valles as the Poet acknowledgethe who was but a mere naturalist that in commoda● habitationem animatium that the earthe might become a convenient habitation for such creatures in whose nostrills is the breathe of life of whome the cheife is man made after the likenes and image of his maker and made Lord over his visible creatures The last question is worst of all and all nothinge to the purpose but mere extravagants What sober man would demaund a cause why the heavens doe not dispossesse the elements of their place might you not as wel demaunde why the fire dothe not dispossesse the ayre and then why it dothe not dispossesse the water lastly why it dothe not dispossesse the earthe of her seate which is as much as to say why is not the heaven where the eartheis and the earthe where the havens are wheras every man knowes that the more spacious place is fitter for the more spacious bodies and the higher places more agreable to lighter bodies like as the lowest place is most fitt for the body of the earthe To say that the nature of the heavens hathe not so much as libertie of egresse into neighbour elements is as if you shoulde say that light thinges have not so much as libertie of mooving downewards nor have heavy thinges libertie of moovinge upwardes Yet there are cases extraordinary when a

time consisting of parts which is not to answeare the question but utterly to overthrowe it and withall it openeth a way to a newe difficulty for in this case it may well be demanded what portion of this divisible time shall be allowed to the being of a man and what to the being of a corps and take heede least you ascribe one instant to the last of the first forme and another instant to the beginninge of the succeeding of the second forme For seing two instants cannot be immediate it will followe herhence that materia prima shall some space of time actually exist without any forme As for my selfe I never ●ept upon Plotinus his Parnassus nor was ever acquainted with his muses Nay I have bene so long time departed out of the universitie and while I was there so long remooved from these kinde of studies that I may well be sayde to have forgotten Aristole Nun● mihi sunt oblita sophis●ata Yet will I adventure to compare the remnants of my old Peripateticke store with your atchievements out of Plotinus I say then the resolution of this question depends upon the resolution of a more generall question And that is concerninge the beginninge and ceasing of forme now the rules therof most receaved as I remember are these The formes we speake of are eyther permanent or successive Formes permanent beginne per primum sui esse by the first instant of theyr beinge desi●unt per primum sui non esse they cease to be by the first instant of theyr not beinge In such sort as to say that immediately before such an instant they were not but at such an instant and in the time following they were Agayne touching theyr endinge you may say Immediately before such an instant they were in and after such an instant they were not As for formes successive such as are time and motion they are sayde to beginne per ultimum sui non esse by the last instant of theyr not beinge and to ende per primum sui non esse by the first instant of theyr not beinge That is at such an instant motion speaking of motion properly as it includes succession was not for it cannot be in an instant but immediately after it was Agayne touching the ending of motion we may say at such an instant motion was not but immediately before it was And accordingly to the question proposed I answeare Corruption or dissolution is taken eyther in a complicate signification comprehending the whole alteration that went before the ceasing of the forme and then all that while undoubtedly Socrates was a man and not a carcase But if only for the desinency or ceasing of the forme humane I say in that instant wherin he is sayde to desinere or cease it being the first instant of his not being as before hathe bene shewed to be the manner of desinence or ceasinge of all forms permanent he is a corps but immediately before he was a man In the next place you tell us of Plotins conclusion namely That while we seeke to sit that which truly is with any portion of quantity the life of it being thus divided by us looseth its indivisible nature First I like not that assertion whether it be yours alone or derived from Plotin in sayinge that God alone truly is I well knowe our beinge is of a quite different nature from Gods being but to deny that we creatures have a true beinge is as good as to deny that we have any being at all Secondly I knowe no man that goethe about to fitt Gods nature with any proportion of quantitie Yet we maynteyne he was coexistent with all thinges past is coexistent with all thinges present shall be coexistent with all thinges that are to come in their order that without all divisibility or succession in himselfe his coexistence after the manner forementioned implying only divisibilitie and succession in the creatures Of time you say no part truly is but the present So then the present time at least truly is Yet but a litle before and often hertofore you have professed that nothing but God truly is Now give me leave to maynteyne some paradoxes as well as you I say all time truly is and is present as well as that which you accoumpt to be only present For how dothe this present houre exist but by succession of parts If you accoumpt nothing present but an instant it is well knowne that an instant deserves no more to be accoumpted time then a point deserves to be accoumpted magnitude But if you speake of time properly it must have parts which cannot exist together but only by succession As for example this minute of an houre is present but how only as having a part past and a part to come For this only to exist is to exist by way of succession In like sort this present houre dothe truly exist but how 〈◊〉 as havinge a part past and a part to come So this present yeare dothe truly exist as having a part past and a part to come In like sort the time of the Gospell accoumpting from the day of Pent●cost when the H. Ghost came downe upon the Apostles unto the ende of the World may as well be sayde truly to exist namely thus as having a part past and a part to come So dividing the World into two parts The old world from the beginninge of time by creation unto Noahs flood and the newe World computed from Noahs flood to the ende of the World I say the time of this World dothe only exist as havinge a part past and a part to come So the time of the whole World from the beginning to the ende may be sayde truly to exist to witt by way of succession of parts havinge one part past and another to come For not the least part of time dothe exist otherwise to witt by coexistence of parts but only by succession of parts They who made doubt whether navigators were to be accoumpted amongst the living or amongst the dead affected more witt then truthe For if Navigators undoubtedly they are livinge and not dead Indeede after they have sett foorthe we are uncerteyne what is become of them and equally as uncerteyne may we be what is become of our freindes that are travayled unto China by the way of the Continent But to make doubt whether time consists rather of being then of not being is a conceyte litle becomming a Philosopher in my judgement thoughe it may become such a one as enterteynes a vulgar contemplation of thinges successive and in motion whether by Sea or land I should thinke that sory imagination is grounded upon conceavinge that nothing in time is but an instant which if it were true woulde inferre that time were nothing but a succession of instants But were it so yet surely the shortnes of continuance of any thinge nothinge hinders the true beinge therof when it is A childe of a day olde hath as true being as Methusalch had who

commend your wit in this for I professe of all inartificiall arguments I never heard any answerable unto this Now if you had added an artificiall argument unto this inartificiall which you might have had the hap to have read in Southwell it had beene most compleat and I had not easily devised what could have beene added hereunto And the argument is this Suppose God the Father had written this and that with the pen of his Spirit dipt in the bloud of his Sonne would you not then have believed it I presume you would why then believe it now for the difference is not in substance but onely circumstance It is the onely thing I remember in that booke of Southwell and this argument of yours I may perhaps remember when you have forgotten it But I pray consider what sect is there in the world that might not use the like Perhaps you will say they might use it not so truely as you doe But then I pray consider what evidence have wee for the truth of it on your part but your owne confidence and your bare word expressing it And I hope you will give every sect leave to be as confident of the truth of their owne way as you are of yours and as liberall in proving their bare words for it as your selfe I have read in Chaucer to betray unto you what use I can make of him as well as you of Silius Italicus of somo rime that is called rime dogrell and if there bee any Logick dogrell I thinke this is it But I doe not meane to let your grave discourse passe thus those Oracles God is love and would have all men to be saved you suppose doe naturally afford your doctrines to wit that Gods infinite love extends to all and every one as that hee will that all and every one should bee saved But no such things doe these oracles afford either expresly or by any just consequence And of the first God is love it is apparant that it containeth no such thing expresly and as for the deducing of any such consequence herehence your selfe never yet adventured nor yet doe you may as well deduce herehence that hee will save all Angells as well as all men yea the very devills And as for the second you think that doth expresly signifie as much but that is untrue the Scripture phrase doth use that universall signe frequently in another sense as when it saith of the Pharisees that they did tithe omne olus which cannot be meant of every herbe in particular but of every sort of herbe in speciall as Austine himselfe 1200. years agoe observed So Peter is said to have seen a vessell let down from heaven wherein was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which cannot be meant of every particular but only that of every sort or of most sorts or of many sorts some one So it is said that all Ierusalem and all Iudea went forth to Iohn the meaning whereof can bee no other then that of all parts of Iudea and of Ierusalem some went forth unto him As for the plentifull encrease of Gods glory and the peoples comfort which you promise upon the preaching of your doctrine this is onely upon your word which unlesse you take upon you to be a Prophet and be received also for such a one is of no force But suppose it had beene preached and not received nor believed by the hearers I pray what then Had the peoples comfort beene any whit the more encreased And for you to presume that upon the preaching of it it had beene received is to take upon you too much the Gospell it selfe when first preached the Iewes told S. Paul when hee came to Rome it was every where spoken against Yet I confesse the more erroneous a doctrine is especially if it be plausible to the judgement of flesh and bloud the more apt it is to bee entertained by flesh and bloud But I pray what comfort is this you speake of is it comfort in things spirituall or comfort in Gods blessings temporall I graunt willingly that the truth of God is more apt to breed comfort spirituall then errours in matters of faith Now first you must prove your doctrine to be true and then wee will nothing doubt but it shall be comfortable You take too much upon you to prophesie that it shall be comfortable and therehence inferre that it is true But if you speake of comfort in respect of blessings temporall as I guesse by comparing this with what you delivered in the Epistle dedicatory wee have but your bare word for this also But suppose it would prove so shall we from the temporall comforts wee may enjoy conclude that therefore our religion is the true religion Alas what comfort in outward things had christianity in the first three hundred yeares why may you not as well conclude that the Synagogue of Antichrist is the very Church of Christ and our Churches which wee call reformed are no Churches of Christ seeing for many yeares God hath humbled us under their hands and given us over into the hands of beastly men skilfull to destroy and still sends serpents and cokatrices amongst us that will not be charmed Well this wee see is the comfort you afford us in these heavy times you give us to understand that t is Gods just judgement upon us for preaching so much of Gods absolute decree of electing some and reprobating most And yet the Lutheran Churches preach as little of this as you doe and yet wherein have they fared better then their brethren the Calvinists witnesse the Marquisate of Baden the land of Brunswick the land of Hulst the land of Pomerania and Meckelburgh And the whole kingdome of Bohemia wherein it is well knowne the Calvinists were but few in comparison to the Lutherans In the dayes of King Iames a restraint began of preaching the doctrine of predestination Did the peoples comforts or the comforts of this kingdome encrease any whit hereupon Within these foure yeares space bookes savouring of Arminianisme such as youas have had the presse open unto them with farre greater libertie then their opposites yet how do the comforts of the people and of this kingdome encrease Yet this is an old trick of Satan who is therefore called by one 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a circkling Dragon For in Saint Austines dayes when the Empire began to bee invaded by the Gothes the cause of this was by the heathens alledged to be the embracing of Christian religion whereupon it was that Austine was moved to write his two and twenty books of the Citie of God Why may not wee as well say that the cause why we taste so little of the grace of God is because there are so many risen up with might and maine impugning the grace of God And it is well known no reformed Churches prosper so well as the Hollanders though no doubt they have as ranke sinnes to bee found in them as others yet this