A14095:54
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.
For that notion alone hath reference to a cause. But whether this doth infer that they are limited, I have already thereupon delivered my mind.
For that notion alone hathe reference to a cause. But whether this dothe inferre that they are limited, I have allready therupon delivered my minde.
3. Hence you proceed to the solution of new problems, and that as a mere naturalist. Why men in these days are not Giants; why Giants in former times were but men. And the reason you give is, because the vigour of causes productive or conservative of vegetables, of man especially, from which he receiveth nutrition and augmentation, is less now then it hath been, at least before the flood. The latter of your two questions is wild. For what do we understand by Giants, but men of a Giantlike stature? & is it a sober question to ask, how it cometh to pass, that men of an huge stature are but men? For suppose men were of never so vast a proportion ⟨p. 30⟩of parts, as great as the Image that Nabucliodonosor set up in the plain of Dura, or as great as the Colossus at Rhodes; should not men notwithstanding be men still? and neither Angels nor beasts; much less either inferior to the one or superior to the other. If the heavens were infinite as some conceive that an infinite body may be made by God, yet should those heavens be heavens still, and a body still.
3. Hence you proceede to the solution of newe problemes, and that as a mere naturalist. Why men in these dayes are not Gyants; why Gyants in former times were but men. And the reason you give is, because the vigour of causes productive or conservative of vegetables, of man especially, from which he receavethe nutrition and augmentation, is lesse nowe then it hathe bene, at least before the flood. The latter of your two questions is wilde. For what doe we understand by Gyants, but men of a Gyantlike stature? & is it a sober question to aske, howe it commethe to passe, that men of an huge stature are but men? For suppose men were of never so vast a proportion