A14095:143
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.
For nothing without him is able to contain him; but in respect of his effects, he is in all places; because he is contained of nothing, but rather containeth all things, and preserveth them. But in respect of his effects he is every where. For he filleth every place with his effects; & in this sense, it is proper to God to be every where. Hereupon some may conceive that God may be called [Greek or Hebrew] place, because he containeth all things, rather then is contained. Yet we know that the continency of place is corporal, and ordinarily the place is more base then the things contained therein. But Gods continency is merely virtual and spiritual, and in ⟨p. 94⟩dignity infinitely beyond the most noble creatures. And we have no great cause to dote upon the Rabbins, whose Philosophy was never a whit better then their divinity. Yet one thing more: The question was whether God might be said to be in Uacuo, and your discourse is only to deny, that there is any such infinite space as is imagined, either now to be without the heavens, or heretofore to have been before the world was, but you take no notice of the Arguments made to the contrary, much less do you take any care to answer any one of them. And yet to my thinking some are shrewd ones, and different courses are taken in answering them; which argues that one mans answer gave little satisfaction to another. I will therefore take this pains in part for you, & represent the arguments of Bradwardine, who takes upon 1him to prove, that God is essentially and presentially every where, not only in the World, and all the parts thereof; but also without the World, in that Vacuum or site imaginary; & withal I will make bold to show you my judgement of them. His first argument is large; in effect this: God can move the World by a direct motion further Eastward, or further Westward. Upon this supposition he proceedeth thus. Either God was here before, whether the World is now moved or no; Again, either God continueth there from whence the World was moved, or no. If God was there before his motion thither, and continueth still where he was before the motion from thence, then it is manifest he was and is in Vacuo.
For nothing without him is able to conteyne him; but in respect of his effects, he is in all places; because he is conteyned of nothing, but rather conteyneth all things, and preservethe them. But in respect of his effects he is every where. For he fillethe every place with his effects; & in this sense, it is proper to God to be every where. Herupon some may conceave that God may be called place, because he conteynethe all thinges, rather then is conteyned. Yet we knowe that the continency of place is corporall, and ordinarily the place is more base then the things conteyned therein. But Gods continency is merely vertuall and spirituall, and in