A14095:109
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.
There is no plurality of perfections in the Infinite essence; albeit the perfection of all things be in him. Of the Absolute Identity of the Divine essence and attributes.
There is no pluralitie of perfections in the Infinite essence; albeit the perfection of all thinges be in him. Of the Absolute Identitie of the Divine essence and attributes.
AS for the argument, which you propose, We must either allow the Gods to have bodies, or deny them sense, because sense is never found without a body. I see no great cause to mislike it; especially if it be rightly proposed, as it may be, thus, because sense (to wit in proper speech) cannot be found without a body. For is not sense an organical faculty, that is such a faculty as cannot exercise its function ⟨p. 70⟩without material instruments? How you dispute in justifying your censure upon this argument, let the Reader judge. God the supreme Artificer can make Virtus formatrix, (you say) do more then Epicurus can by all his sense and reason; and hence you conclude, that therefore God hath both sense and reason. Whereas you may as well prove that God hath bodily substance in him, both because he sets virtus formatrix, on work in producing bodies, and can do more then we can withal our bodies and souls. Therefore if you please, you may in confidence of such illations, proceed to say that God consists of a body, and soul too. The Psalmists Philosophy is a poor ground for you to build on. For you may as well conclude out of the Psalmist, that God hath eyes, and ears, and hands also, as when he say the, The eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, & his ears are open unto their prayers. The 1right hand of the Lord is exalted, the right hand of the Lord hath done valiantly. And if you are pleased to attribute sense unto God, why do you not attribute unto him feeling, and smelling, and tasting also? Whatsoever we come to understand by our five senses, why may not God understand the same without sense, as well as Angels. That God only is, and all things numerable are but mere shadows of his being, are your own principles and phrases; & to draw conclusions from such grounds, is to build Castles in the Air. You think to help it by saying, that Hearing sight and reason are in God according to their ideal patterns or perfections, you might have taken in three senses more as well, and have said that smelling, astinge and feeling are in God according to Ideal patterns and perfections; and justify Epicurus too, in maintaining that the Gods have bodies.