A14095:256
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.
In the next place you tell us, that life (especially sensitive) is but the motion or progress of this capacity towards that which fills it; or as it were, a continual sucking in of present existence, or continuation of actual being, from somewhat preexistent. I think there is a liberal error in this, and instead of life sensitive, as I take it, there should be life vegetative. Now this doctrine of yours is wondrous strange. There is a motion & progress in life vegetative by way of augmentation, but not by way of generation.
In the next place you tell us, that life (especially sensitive) is but the motion or progresse of this capacity towards that which fills it; or as it were, a continuall sucking in of present existence, or continuation of actuall being, from somewhat preexistent. I think there is a liberall errour in this, and insteed of life sensitive, as I take it, there should be life vegetative. Now this doctrine of yours is wonderous strange. There is a motion & progresse in life vegetative by waye of augmentation, but not by waye of generation.
Neither hath the existence of any vegetable, much less man, any degrees: Neither is it of the nature of any substantial form, much less of a soul, least of all of the reasonable foul, to be brought in, much less to be sucked in, by degrees.
Neyther hath the existence of any vegetable, much lesse man, any degrees: Neyther is it of the nature of any substantiall forme, much lesse of a soule, least of all of the reasonable foule, to be brought in, much lesse to be sucked in, by degrees.
And if our existence be present, as you call it, how can it be sucked in? For we suck in that which we have not; not that which we already have. Neither could we have power to suck in ought, much less the actual sucking in of ought, unless already we had existence: For without existence presupposed there can be no motion. And of degrees of existence, especially of substantial forms, or of the things compounded of them, I never heard till now: Degrees, or rather a gradual extension of quantity is gotten by that act of vegetation which is called growth or augmentation. So then, not existence, simply, but of quantity rather; nor the existence of quantity neither, but a greater extension thereof is sucked-in by things that grow: Neither is this extension sucked in; but rather matter of nourishment is sucked in, which by the peculiar operation of the soul is first fitted for nourishment divers & sundry ways, and after that converted into nourishment, & appropriated to each part; and after that by another peculiar