A14095:147
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.
2. To the Atheists demand, where God was before the world was; your answer is, God was in himself. I do not 1mislike it: and so I say, God is in himself still. For he is not changed. Only in the creation and preservation of all things, virtue did and still doth flow out of him always, so that with his sweet influence he filleth all things. To be contained in place, is too base a condition for the nature of God, he rather contains all things. So that even now, God is no where contained; before the world he was no where containing, because there was nothing without to be contained and nourished by him. Neither is it any thing harsh to say, that God was in no place, where there was no place for him, wherein to be. But between the question which you propose, and the answer thereunto, you do intersperse some strange assertions, affecting curiosity of discourse, more then sobriety of sense, as when you say; In respect of ⟨p. 98⟩eternity and immensity, no creature, no positive essence, no numerable part of this Universe, is so like unto him, as this negation of all things, which we describe by the name of nothing. A string may be strained so high, as by breaking to mar all the music; and some wits have affected so high a strain of subtlety of sentence, as that they have degenerated into non-sense. Such is this assertion of yours, wherein you affirm, that no numerable part of this Universe (as much as to say, neither man nor Angel; yet was man made after Gods image & likeness) is so like unto God as nothing. Ou• upon such abominable speeches; whereby God himself who is the breath of, our nostrils is made, if not just nothing, yet to come nearest unto nothing. What sport are Atheists like to make with this? why like Davids fool, say in their hearts, there is no God: when a Christian, and a Divine, and a great writer, whose works are current, when others are not, is found to profess, that no creature is so like unto God as nothing. Yet this is not all; for you say also, that no positive essence is so like unto God as nothing, as if God himself were not so like unto himself as nothing is. And indeed we commonly say nullum simile est idem. Yet by your leave the Son of God is the image of his Father, and dare you say that he is not so like his Father, as nothing is!
2. To the Atheists demaund, where God was before the world was; your answeare is, God was in himselfe. I doe not