A14095:198
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.
But then nothing being made, he had nothing to contain, & govern, and work by or in, as now he hath. As touching all other manner of being in all things, I content my self with ignorance. You magnify Trism g•sts definition of Gods immensity, and much good do it you. It is suitable with your discourse. But do you remember what censure Aristotle passed upon Empedocles, for this figurative & obscure manner of expressions in Philosophical discourse? And indeed when we take pains in searching out the truth, why should we encumber our selves with resolving figures into plain speeches, that so we may have something whereon to dispute. Heretofore you told us that God was the centre of all things, and that of supportance: now out of Trismegist you tell us, that God hath a Centre and that every where, but not of supportance passive I think, as whereby he should be supported, but of supportance active, whereby he supporteth all things. Now hereof we can easily find both a centre and a circumference. For Gods supporting of the earth, may well be accounted the Centre, and Gods supporting the heavens may well be accounted the Circumference of Gods supporting the earth. In as much as there is no divine supporting without it, at least of material creatures, but all with it. Though it be true, that God could & can make the world much bigger then it is. But Gods will hath herein circum•scibed himself, thus far to proceed as he doth, ⟨p. 123⟩in supporting all things & no farther. I do not like your phrase of enlarging the actual coexistence of Gods essence. For dare any sober divine say, that Gods actual existence hath bounds, and that these bounds may be more or less enlarged? And yet the face I confess of your discourse, looks hitherwards. How then do you say, that the bounds of Gods coexistence with his creatures are or can be enlarged? The only way to help it, is to say, that Gods existence is never enlarged, but the existence of creatures, by the increasing of new, may be enlarged, and consequently Gods coexistence with them may be said to be enlarged, not that his existence is more then it was, but that the existence of created substances, is more then it was. And more creatures coexisting with God, then formerly there did, he doth coexist with more then he did.
But then nothing being made, he had nothing to conteyne, & governe, and worke by or in, as nowe he hathe. As touchinge all other manner of being in all thinges, I content my selfe with ignorance. You magnify Trism gsts definition of Gods immensitie, and much good doe it you. It is suitable with your dicourse. But doe you remember what censure Aristotle passed vpon Empedocles, for this figurative & obscure manner of expressions in Philosophicall discourse? And indeede when we take paynes in searching out the truthe, why shoulde we encumber our selves with resolving figures into playne speeches, that so we may have somethinge wheron to dispute. Hertofore you tolde us that God was the center of all thinges, and that of supportance: now out of Trismegist you tell us, that God hathe a Center and that every where, but not of supportance passive I thinke, as wherby he shoulde be supported, but of supportance active, wherby he supporteth all thinges. Now herof we can easily finde bothe a center and a circumference. For Gods supporting of the earth, may well be accoumpted the Center, and Gods supporting the heavens may well be accoumpted the Circumference of Gods supportinge the earthe. In as much as there is no divine supporting without it, at least of materiall creatures, but all with it. Thoughe it be true, that God coulde & can make the world much bigger then it is. But Gods will hathe herein circumscibed himselfe, thus farre to proceede as he dothe,