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…

The Holy Ghost, is the Holy Ghost, but neither the Father nor the Son, will you hence infer that he hath limits, and is not infinite? And is it not confessed not only by great Schoolmen, but even by our divines also, that the Son is produced of the Father per modum intellectus? Is he not the wisdom of the Father, and what difference between the wisdom of God, and the understanding of himself? And do they not also confess, that the H. Ghost proceeds from both per modum voluntatis? And as we say, Gods understanding is not his will, though it be no different thing from his will; and Gods will is not his understanding, though it be no different thing from his understanding, so we may adore the indivisible unity of the Godhead, notwithstanding the Trinity of the Persons, though we are not able to comprehended the mystery hereof. It is true, our understanding is such, as that, oportet intelligentem phantasmata speculari; & imaginatio non transcendit continuum. Yet notwithstanding we attain by discourse to the acknowledgement of things immaterial, as of our souls, yea and of Angels; yea and of the God both of men & Angels; yet not by material things as by the pictures of them, as you phrasify it, but ⟨p. 80⟩rather as in the effects; wherein as it were in glasses do shine the causes of them. Thus Aristotle from the motions of the heavens hath inferred the existence of immaterial and abstract substances as the movers of them. And we commonly say, that the World is as a glass wherein the glory of God is represented. His eternal power and Godhead being made manifest by his works, as the Apostle speaketh Rom. 1. 20. Of Gods illimited being we make no question; but well we may question the soundness of your arguments, whereby you prove it, as also the soundness of those consequences, which you make from it. And far better it is to content our selves with the simplicity of our Christian faith, in believing of God, what Gods word teacheth us, then to depend upon weak reason for the confirmation thereof. For weak reasons do rather betray a cause, then justify it. We believe that God is one, and that there is no plurality of natures in him, but only of Persons.

The Holy Ghost, is the Holy Ghost, but neyther the Father nor the Sonne, will you hence inferre that he hathe limits, and is not infinite? And is it not confessed not only by great Schoolemen, but even by our divines allso, that the Sonne is produced of the Father per modum intellectus? Is he not the wisedome of the Father, and what difference betweene the wisedome of God, and the understanding of himselfe? And doe they not allso confesse, that the H. Ghost proceedes from bothe per modum voluntatis? And as we say, Gods understanding is not his will, though it be no different thing from his will; and Gods will is not his understandinge, thoughe it be no different thinge from his understandinge, so we may adore the indivisible unitie of the Godhead, notwithstanding the Trinity of the Persons, thoughe we are not able to comprehended the mystery herof. It is true, our understanding is such, as that, oportet intelligentem phantasmata speculari; & imaginatio non transcendit continuum. Yet notwithstandinge we atteyne by discourse to the acknowledgment of thinges immateriall, as of our soules, yea and of Angells; yea and of the God both of men & Angells; yet not by materiall thinges as by the pictures of them, as you phrasify it, but