A14095:43
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.
CHAP. II.
Concerning two Philosophical maxims which are said to lead us to the acknowledgement of one infinite, & incomprehensible essence.
Concerning two Philosophicall maximes which are sayde to leade us to the acknowledgement of one infinite, & incomprehensible essence.
FROM light shows we come to solid discourse, at least we are promised such. The principles whereof are two, termed springs & fountains, that they may be the fitter, for the baptizing of Atheists, (so you speak) as they are fit enough for the confirming of Christians. The first is, Whatsoever hath limit or bounds of being hath some distinct cause, or author of being. This is taken for a proposition known of it self; yet are the terms very ambiguous, as namely the term limit or bounds. In one place you profess that beginning of being is one special limit of being. New I ⟨p. 24⟩confess, that in this sense, the proposition is evident thus, Whatsoever hath a beginning, hath a cause thereof distinct from it self; because nothing can have a beginning of being without a cause; Neither can any thing give being unto it self. And therefore, if all things in this World are acknowledged to have had a beginning; it must be acknowledged that they had a Maker which is God. But that this World hath had a beginning hath not been acknowledged by all: Nay the Learned est Men that ever were out of the Church of God, as Aristotle and his Followers, have utterly denied the World to have had a beginning as you well know; And therefore unless, the contrary be proved, & these Philosophers confuted, we have hereby nothing profited in convicting Mens consciences of this truth by the light of reason, That there is a God; and so are far enough from baptizing Atheists into the name of God the Father. Much more from baptizing them into the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the H. Ghost. And therefore I am persuaded that your proposition is not delivered in this sense, but rather you extend the word limits or bounds to a greater generality of signification, in which sense, you would have it supposed, that All things, besides God himself, have limit and bounds of being, not in regard only that they had a beginning which is questionable, but in regard that they are Entia finita, which is out of question; In like sort the word being, is of ambiguous signification; For it may be taken, either for being of essence, or for being of existence. The limits of existence or duration are such as whereby things are said to have a beginning or an end; and that at such a time or other.