A14095:197
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.
You say that Gods being in every place and in every part of every body, so as not to be contained in them, doth exclude all conceit of coextension. But I see no reason for this assertion: it rather includes an extension of Gods being beyond all things, then hinders or excludes the conceit of coextension with the things that are: especially whereas you maintain that God is in all things not only as containing them (with cannot be attributed unto God in respect of his essence, as I have showed, but rather in respect of his power and will) but by way of penetration thorough all, and that in ⟨p. 122⟩respect of his essence, (and not in respect of his power only) like as light is diffused thorough our Hemi sphere; which similitude I am bold to add, because you fail in affording us any resemblance to succour our capacity of apprehension this way. But I dare not adventure upon such an apprehension, because in my opinion it is too gross to be attributed to the nature of God. I content my self with this, that as God before the world, was in himself, so he is in himself still according to that old verse, Tunc ubi nunc in se quoniam sibi sufficit ipse.
You say that Gods being in every place and in every part of every body, so as not to be conteyned in them, dothe exclud all conceyte of coextension. But I see no reason for this assertion: it rather includes an extension of Gods being beyond all thinges, then hinders or excludes the conceyte of coextension with the things that are: especially wheras you maynteyne that God is in all thinges not only as conteyning them (with cannot be attributed unto God in respect of his essence, as I have shewed, but rather in respect of his power and wil) but by way of penetration thoroughe all, and that in ⟨p. 122⟩respect of his essence, (and not in respect of his power only) like as light is diffused thoroughe our Hemi spheare; which similitude I am bolde to adde, because you fayle in affoording us any resemblance to succour our capacitie of apprehension this way. But I dare not adventure vpon such an apprehension, because in my opinion it is too grosse to be attributed to the nature of God. I content my selfe with this, that as God before the world, was in himselfe, so he is in himselfe still according to that old verse, Tunc ubi nunc in se quoniam sibi sufficit ipse.