A14095:195
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.
7. Though I deem it not much worth the while to search after this distinction in Anselm, the place whereof you conceal. Yet I have taken that pains to the end I might the better consider in what sense, and upon what ground of reason he doth deliver it. And in his Monologion I find he discourseth of Gods being in time and place. But no such distinction can I find in him, nor any such assertions as you impute unto him. In his 19. chap. he disputeth that God is in no place and time. In the 21. How he is in all places, and in no place. In the 22. That It may be better understood that God is said to be always then in all time. In the 23. How it may be better understood, that God is said to be every where then in all places. But that it is fitter to be said of God that he is with place, then in place, I find no where nor in any place in Anselm. Yet you avouch it as the distinction of Anselm, and as well approved of good writers, but who they are, you keep to your self. Notwithstanding you tell us, that the resolution of doctrine according to the former distinction, is blameable in two respects. 1. For that it conceals much matter of admiration (which the description of immensity used by Barnard and others, doth promptly suggest. 2. Because it doth occasion an erroneous imagination of coextension in the divine essence. As touching the first; I see nothing to the contrary, but that Gods being with every place, doth every way contain the very same matter of admiration, which his being in every place doth. For the wonderful nature of his immensity in plain terms is but this, (though it may ⟨p. 121⟩be phrasified diverse ways as it pleaseth the writer) that he contains all things and is contained in none. Now this may as well be signified, by saying God is with every place, as by saying God is in every place. For being with a place is indifferent to admit, such a manner of being with it, as namely by way of containing it. But being in a place, doth rather incline to signify a being contained by it. Which is opposite to the active containing of it. Place say the Durand, may be 1considered two ways, either as a natural thing, or as containing the thing placed. As it is natural thing, so God is in every place; but as it contains the thing said to be in it, so he is in no place. For he contains all, and is contained of none.
7. Thoughe I deeme it not much woorthe the while to searche after this distinction in Anselme, the place wherof you conceale. Yet I have taken that paynes to the ende I might the better consider in what sense, and upon what grounde of reason he dothe deliver it. And in his Monologion I finde he discoursethe of Gods beinge in time and place. But no such distinction can I finde in him, nor any such assertions as you impute vnto him. In his 19. chap. he disputethe that God is in no place and time. In the 21. How he is in all places, and in no place. In the 22. That It may be better vnderstood that God is sayde to be allwayes then in all time. In the 23. How it may be better vnderstood, that God is sayde to be every where then in all places. But that it is fitter to be sayde of God that he is with place, then in place, I finde no where nor in any place in Anselme. Yet you avouche it as the distinction of Anselme, and as well approoved of good writers, but who they are, you keepe to your selfe. Notwithstanding you tell us, that the resolution of doctrine according to the former distinction, is blameable in two respects. 1. For that it conceales much matter of admiration (which the description of immēsitie used by Barnard and others, dothe promptly suggest. 2. Because it dothe occasion an erroneous imagination of coextension in the divine essence. As touching the first; I see nothing to the contrary, but that Gods being with every place, dothe every way conteyne the very same matter of admiration, which his being in every place dothe. For the woonderful nature of his immensitie in playne termes is but this, (thoughe it may