A14095:136
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.
Of Divine immensity, or of that branch of absolute infinity whereof infinity in magnitude or space imaginary is the shadow.
Of Divine immensity, or of that branch of absolute infinity wherof infinitie in magnitude or space imaginary is the shadowe.
HENCE you draw us to the speculation of the several branches of absolute infinity; and first of Gods immensity, which you premise unto Gods eternity; whereof I muse not a little: considering that immensity is an attribute denominating God in respect of creatures; and is not any otherwise considered by School Divines nor by your self neither, but in this respect that he filleth all places. And therefore before the World was, and before there was any place to fill, he could not be said to fill all places. As for eternity in being without beginning, that is an absolute attribute, and was ever verified of God. Perhaps you consider immensity not as it signifieth his filling of all places, but as it signifieth his ability to fill all places. Yet this is in reference unto place, and we commonly confound Gods immensity with his ubiquity. Much less can I approve your Rhetoric, as when you make infinity of space to be the shadow of Gods immensity. First because infinity of space is neither existent nor possible to be existent, and to my judgement, such a thing seems not fit to be a shadow of that which is existent, such as you suppose the immensity of God to be. ⟨p. 88⟩Secondly immensity of space is in respect of that quantity which is called quantitas motis quantity of extension, and capable of division, but the immensity of God denominates him, in respect of that quantity, which is called quantitas virtutis, quantity of virtue, incapable of extension or division. And therefore the one seems no way sit to be the model of the other. Thirdly shadows do many times exactly represent the proportion of the thing shadowed; and if at some times they are far less, at other times again, they are far greater then the bodies which they represent, as when the day declineth and the shadows of the evening are stretched forth, as the Prophet speaketh. And indeed you may well say that