A14095:159
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.
And that the essence of God should be confined to one place, more then to another, yea to the Court of Heaven, rather then to the basest corner of the earth, is so absurd to my judgement, that I profess ingenuously, all the reason and wit that I have, is not sufficient to make it good of Angels, as being Spirits abstract from material extension. And I will remember how Aquinas 1makes Angels to be in place, only in respect of their operation. And places are for the natures of bodies, and not of Spirits: and Durand discourseth strange things of the nature of Angels, and such things, as I am willingly content they should continue as they do without the reach of my comprehension. How much more absurd were it to confine the essence of God more to one place, then to another. And indeed, to my judgement, to be in place, is too base a denomination to be attributed unto God. And Durand as already I have showed, professeth that God secundum se is in no place, but only secundum effectus, and so every where, for as much as he filleth all places with his effects. And as God is said to have been in seipso in himself, before the World was made, is he not so to be accounted still? according to those verses of course in this argument. Dic ubi tunc esset, cum praeter eum nihil esses: Tunc ubi nunc inse, quoniam sibi sufficit ipse.
And that the essence of God should be confined to one place, more then to another, yea to the Court of Heaven, rather then to the basest corner of the earthe, is so absurd to my judgement, that I professe ingenuously, all the reason and witt that I have, is not sufficient to make it good of Angells, as being Spirits abstract from materiall extension. And I will remember how Aquinas 1makes Angells to be in place, only in respect of their operation. And places are for the natures of bodies, and not of Spirits: and Durand discoursethe strange things of the nature of Angells, and such things, as I am willingly content they should continue as they doe without the reach of my comprehension. How much more absurd were it to confine the essence of God more to one place, then to another. And indeede, to my judgement, to be in place, is too base a denomination to be attributed unto God. And Durand as allready I have shewed, professethe that God secundum se is in no place, but only secundum effectus, and so every where, for as much as he fillethe all places with his effects. And as God is sayde to have bene in seipso in himselfe, before the World was made, is he not so to be accoumpted still? according to those verses of course in this argument. Dic ubi tunc esset, cum praeter eum nihil esses: Tunc ubi nunc inse, quoniam sibi sufficit ipse.