A14095:148
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.
No marvel if the Spirit of confusion overspreads your discourse like a garment. For what sense, I pray, is there in this speech of yours as when you say, that this name, nothing, is the description of the negation of all things; whereas indeed the negation of all things, is much fitter to be the description of this name, nothing; then the name, nothing to be the description of the negation of all things. For the description is usually larger then the term described. The reason you bring to justify so uncouth a speech, is as absurd and odious, and false as your former assertion, as when you say, Nothing hath neither beginning nor end of days. Fie, fie upon such shameful assertions, as much removed from wit as from honesty. Hath nothing neither beginning nor end of days, which is as much as to say, that the days of it are everlasting? why I say, It hath no days at all, no being at all, no not so much being as propositions attribute unto negations ⟨p. 99⟩and privations. I say it never had, nor hath, nor ever shall have any days, at all, neither is i• possible it should have days, for as much as it is utterly impossible, that God should not be, or cease to be, who is the sovereign being, and i• whom but erst, you professed that all things are, and that in a better manner then they are in themselves. And shall this name nothing be now so far advanced, as to be above all positive essences, or parts of this World, in likeness unto God, and that in respect of eternity, and immensity? But what eternity or immensity of being is to be found in that which hath no being at all, nor ever had, nor ever shall have, nor can have, no not so much as negations have? Yet the Heavens have had continuance so long, as not very well known to man; and so have the Angels had, and shall have for ever. The smallest part of this Universe, hath some magnitude; some parts have quantitatem motis, quantity of extension, and that all most incredibly great, certainly incomprehensible by the wit of man, as the Heavens; other parts have quantitatem virtutis, quantity of spiritual perfection, as the Angels, and that also inscrutable by the wit of man.
No merveyle if the Spirite of confusion overspreades your discourse like a garment. For what sense, I pray, is there in this speeche of yours as when you say, that this name, nothinge, is the description of the negation of all thinges; wheras indeede the negation of all thinges, is much fitter to be the description of this name, nothing; then the name, nothing to be the description of the negation of all thinges. For the description is usually larger then the terme described. The reason you bring to justifie so uncouth a speeche, is as absurd and odious, and false as your former assertion, as when you say, Nothing hathe neyther beginning nor ende of dayes. Fye, fye upon such shamefull assertions, as much remooved from witt as from honestie. Hathe nothing neyther beginning nor end of dayes, which is as much as to say, that the dayes of it are everlastinge? why I say, It hathe no dayes at all, no being at all, no not so much beinge as propositions attribute unto negations