A14095:32
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.
Although they have not only ⟨p. 14⟩some cause, but the same cause also, namely God. Like as though things have different causes, yet it followeth not that they are of different kinds: As all mice are of the same kind, though some are bred equivocally, some univocally; so of life and diverse others. For although Averroes were of opinion, that mice bred equivocally, & mice bred univocally, by generation were of different kinds, & thereupon maintained that such as were bred equivocal, did never propagate their like by generation; yet I do not think you are of that opinion, it being contrary to manifest experience. And to us it is manifest (who believe the creation) that the first creatures were not produced by way of generation, yet did propagate their like, & were of the same kind with creatures propagated from them. But Averroes was an Atheist even amongst Arabians, & denied all creation. I am sorry, you are so unhappy in defending truth, especially such a truth as the being of God; but th• best is, that truth needeth no mans defence. I hope you will prove nothing more happy in defending errors. Yet I deny not, but that the greatest Divines do conclude that there is a first cause (that is God) because the progress from effects to causes, & from causes inferior to causes superior cannot be infinite. According whereunto your argument should have proceeded thus. In generations, as of th• Son by the Father, the progress upwards cannot be infinite. Therefore at length, we must ascend to th• first of Men, as Adam, who was not borne by generation of Man; (for then he had not been th• first) but otherwise; and in like sort of the generations of all other things, that they had their beginning from some superior cause, to their own natures; which supreme cause of all, we account to be God. But yet I think you are not ignorant, that some Schoolmen maintain the world might have been everlasting, and that by creation; in which case there should be an infinite progress in generations;
Allthoughe they have not only ⟨p. 14⟩some cause, but the same cause allso, namely God. Like as though thinges have different causes, yet it followeth not that they are of different kindes: As all mise are of the same kinde, though some are bred equivocally, some univocally; so of lise and diverse others. For although Averroes were of opinion, that mise bred equivocally, & mise bred univocally, by generation were of different kindes, & therupon maynteyned that such as were bred equivocall, did never propagate their like by generation; yet I doe not thinke you are of that opinion, it being contrary to manifest experience. And to us it is manifest (who believe the creation) that the first creatures were not produced by way of generation, yet did propagate their like, & were of the same kinde with creatures propagated from them. But Averroes was an Atheist even amongst Arabians, & denyed all creation. I am sory, you are so unhappy in defendnge truthe, especially such a truthe as the being of God; but th best is, that truthe needethe no mans defense. I hope you will proove nothing more happy in defending errours. Yet I deny not, but that the greatest Divines doe conclude that there is a first cause (that is God) because the progresse from effects to causes, & from causes infrior to causes superior cannot be infinite. According wherunto your argument should have proceeded thus. In generations, as of th Sonne by the Father, the progresse upwardes cannot be infinite. Therfore at lengthe, we must ascend to th first of Men, as Adam, who was not borne by generation of Man; (for then he had not bene th first) but otherwise; and in like sort of the generations of all other thinges, that they had their beginninge from some superior cause, to their owne natures; which supreame cause of all, we accoumpt to be God. But yet I thinke you are not ignorant, that some Schoolemen maynteyne the world might have bene everlastinge, and that by creation; in which case there shoulde be an infinite progress in generations;