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…

but such as the creature can afford if you give me leave to make use of, I say that every thing which a glass represents, is not identically contained in the glass, neither is it true, that whatsoever is known by the understanding of man or Angel, is identically contained in the understanding or spirit of man or Angel. As I have said, so I say again; I see no evidence of that consequence you make thus; God is illimited, therefore all things are in God; and therefore also, all things that are in God, or are attributed unto him are all one. That which you add, when you say, whatsoever is uncapable of limit, is uncapable of division or numerical difference, is very ambiguous; and the ambiguity being cleared, will prove partly to be without all question, and nothing to the purpose, partly as questionable as ever, where it is to the purpose. For that, that which is infinite in essence, must be one and not many, I think is without question even amongst Atheists nowadays, that have any learning in them; although a man may fail in the demonstration of it, as here you do. For to be infinite in essence, is to comprehend all specific entities not numerical. For such, as such, differ not in essence. And for it to be multiplied according to numerical differences only, seems nothing prejudicial to the infinity of the essence, save only as infinity of essence is corruptly conceived to imply quantity. Infinity of power doth more evidently include opposition to numerical plurality, then infinity of essence in my judgement. But be it, not only ⟨p. 78⟩without question, but also supposed to have been made evident by some demonstration of yours, yet is it nothing to the present question. For the question in present is not, whether there may be two Gods: but only, whether in the one nature of God, there be not things different; to wit whether Gods wisdom be not different from his power, and both these different from his goodness; that is in a word, whether there be not any accident in God. And yet, unto this question you are arrived, but in a very indecent, and incongruous manner. For whereas before you had undertaken to prove, that all things were in God according to ideal perfections, by all things understanding substances chiefly, as of Angels, and men, and beasts of all sorts.

but such as the creature can affoard if you give me leave to make use of, I say that every thing which a glasse represents, is not identically conteyned in the glasse, neyther is it true, that whatsoever is knowne by the understanding of man or Angell, is identically conteyned in the understanding or spirite of man or Angell. As I have sayde, so I say agayne; I see no evidence of that consequence you make thus; God is illimited, therfore all thinges are in God; and therfore allso, all thinges that are in God, or are attributed unto him are all one. That which you adde, when you say, whatsoever is uncapable of limit, is uncapable of division or numericall difference, is very ambiguous; and the ambiguitie being cleered, will proove partly to be without all question, and nothinge to the purpose, partly as questionable as ever, where it is to the purpose. For that, that which is infinite in essence, must be one and not many, I thinke is without question even amongst Atheists nowadayes, that have any learning in them; allthough a man may fayle in the demonstration of it, as here you doe. For to be infinite in essence, is to comprehend all specificall entities not numericall. For such, as such, differ not in essence. And for it to be multiplied according to numericall differences only, seemes nothing prejudiciall to the infinitie of the essence, save only as infinity of essence is corruptly conceaved to imply quantitie. Infinity of power dothe more evidently include opposition to numericall pluralitie, then infinity of essence in my judgement. But be it, not only