A14095:113
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.
3. Of the questions proposed by you, let the Reader judge, as they deserve; as also of your solution of them, & of your more accurate and exquisite distinction of universality, and totality, then the Platonics ever attained too, you distinguishing it, not only from that totality, which ariseth from aggregation of parts, but from that also, whose extent is not more then equal to all the parts: which last member, I confess, is very curious, to wit, that there should be a totality more then equal to all his parts; and I little wonder that the Platonics, were not acquainted with this subtle curiosity. Gods nature we acknowledge to have no parts, but yet contains all entities, not formally, but virtually, or eminently and exemplarily; which eminent comprehension is equivalent to a formal comprehension of all (if possible) though the number of them were infinite; but not greater, because a number cannot be imagined greater then infinite. Exhausting by particulars derived from them, belongs to natures that contain the particulars formally; as a bushel of wheat by subtraction of grains may be exhausted, it belongs not to natures, that contain particulars eminently. To say that God is being it self, or perfection, doth not exclude plurality in my judgement, and that for this reason. Humanity is humanity it self, yet this hindereth not, but that many thousands may be partakers of humanity. In like sort, though divine perfection be perfection it self, yet this hindereth not, but that many may be partakers of Divine perfection. But you speak, I confess, of plurality in the nature of God, and that in respect of attributes real, not of denominations personal. For plurality her of undoubtedly you do not deny. Now to say that God is all perfections eminently, doth no way hinder his formal unity; as likewise his formal unity doth nothing prejudice his perfectious eminent plurality.
3. Of the questions proposed by you, let the Reader judge, as they deserve; as allso of your solution of them, & of your more accurate and exquisite distinction of universalitie, and totalitie, then the Platonicks ever atteyned too, you distinguishinge it, not only from that totality, which arisethe from aggregation of parts, but from that allso, whose extent is not more then equall to all the parts: which last member, I confesse, is very curious, to witt, that there shoulde be a totalitie more then equall to all his parts; and I litle woonder that the Platonickes, were not acquainted with this subtile curiositie. Gods nature we acknowledge to have no parts, but yet conteynes all entities, not formally, but vertually, or eminently and examplarily; which eminent comprehension is equivalent to a formall comprehension of all (if possible) thoughe the number of them were infinite; but not greater, because a number cannot be imagined greater then infinite. Exhaustinge by particulars derived from them, belongs to natures that conteyne the particulars formally; as a bushell of wheate by substraction of graynes may be exhausted, it belongs not to natures, that conteyne particulars eminently. To say that God is being it selfe, or perfection, dothe not exclude pluralitie in my judgement, and that for this reason. Humanitie is humanitie it selfe, yet this hinderethe not, but that many thousands may be partakers of humanitie. In like sort, thoughe divine perfection be perfection it selfe, yet this hinderethe not, but that many may be partakers of Divine perfection. But you speake, I confesse, of pluralitie in the nature of God, and that in respect of attributes reall, not of denominations personall. For pluralitie her of undoubtedly you doe not deny. Now to say that God is all perfections eminently, dothe no way hinder his formall unitie; as likewise his formall unitie dothe nothing prejudice his perfectious eminent pluralitie.