A14095:341
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 to proceed along with you; In the next place you tell us, that God considered in himself, He is every way indivisibly infinite and interminable; not only, because he had no beginning, nor shall have ending: Here your attentive reader would expect what is answerable to this not only, and when you come in with but also; but here he must hold his breath till you have dispatched your parenthesis; and if he hold his breath till you come to make up this your imperfect sentence, he is likely never to draw it again: Again when you say, God is indivisibly infinite and interminable, considered in himself; you leave your Reader to suspect that your opinion is, that God considered not in himself, is not indivisibly infinite and interminable, and the meaning thereof I am yet to seek.
But to proceed along with you; In the next place you tell us, that God considered in himself, He is every way indivisibly infinite and interminable; not only, because he had no beginning, nor shall have ending: Here your attentive reader would expect what is answerable to this not only, and when you come in with but also; but here he must hold his breath till you have dispatched your parenthesis; and if he hold his breath till you come to make up this your imperfect sentence, he is likely never to draw it againe: Againe when you say, God is indivisibly infinite and interminable, considered in himselfe; you leave your Reader to suspect that your opinion is, that God considered not in himselfe, is not indivisibly infinite and interminable, and the meaning thereof I am yet to seeke.
But consider we what you insert in your parenthesis; For so might time or motion be held interminable, could the heavens have been created from everlasting: So they might, as much as to say, as well as that of whom but e•st you spake, and that was of none but God: But God, you said was indivisibly infinite, and interminable, not terminable: Wherein in making so incongruous a comparison, whether you had forgot your self, or strained to be delivered of some involved conceit, the ⟨p. 172⟩congruity whereof must be far fet, and dear bought, before a man can meet with it, I know not he obvious meaning which your text aims at, seems to be this; God is infinite and interminable, not only, because he is without beginning and without end; for so the heavens should be infinite and interminable, put case they were created from everlasting, but in an other respect also; which respect or cause you forget to express, to perfect the sentence of yours, which is otherwise very imperfect; Yet in this way of interpretation of your text, there are faults enough; for to make the heavens like unto God in this, you should putt the case, not only of being created from everlasting; but also of being to be continued without end, otherwise they cannot be like unto God both as he is without beginning, and also as he is without end: Secondly though the case were thus put, yet is it incongruous enough; for albeit herein they should be like unto God in being without beginning, and without end: Yet herein they should be nothing like unto God in being indivisibly infinite, and interminable; whereof notwithstanding proceeds your comparison: we acknowledge a difference in this, & that a mighty one, though the heavens had been created from everlasting, &c. not because all Gods continuance to come is present, as you devise; but because Gods duration and continuance is impossible to be divided, the continuance of a creature is not: For God can make the continuance of any creature to cease this day and hour; but it is impossible Gods continuance should cease; for he is of necessary being: As for the conceit of prius & posterius in Gods duration; that is a sorry conceit, for that is to be found no where, but where there is some motion or other, spiritual or corporal, either in place, or alteration in quality, or augmentation or diminution in quantity, or generation and corruption: