A14095:58
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.
Yet the vigour of food and nourishment was the same to both. Far better reasons might be alleged, if I mistake not, of this difference; and withal I see no reason to the contrary, but that men might be of a great stature in these days, as in former times, and that by course of nature; if it pleased God to have it so. But I have no edge to enter upon this discourse, it is unseasonable, and I desire rather to deal with you in matter of Divinity, and especially to encounter you in your Arminian Tenets. The question following, why vegetables of greatest vigour, do not engross the properties of others less vigorous, is a senseless question.
Yet the vigour of foode and nourishment was the same to both. Farre better reasons might be alleaged, if I mistake not, of this difference; and withall I see no reason to the contrary, but that men might be of a great stature in these dayes, as in former times, and that by course of nature; if it pleased God to have it so. But I have no edge to enter upon this discourse, it is unseasonable, and I desire rather to deale with you in matter of Divinitie, and especially to encounter you in your Arminian Tenets. The question followinge, why vegetables of greatest vigour, doe not ingrosse the properties of others lesse vigorous, is a senseles question.
For whether you understand it of vegetables in the same kind, or of a diverse kind, it is ridiculous. As for example. Would any sober man enquire after the cause, why that vegetable which is of the greatest heat, hath not the property of such a vegetable, that is of less heat? Or why that which is vigorous in heat, hath not the property of that which is vigorous in cold, or in any other disparate quality? Nay why should any man expect a reason why different kinds of things have different qualities? Is it not satisfaction sufficient to consider, that they are different kinds of things, and therefore no marvel if they have different ⟨p. 32⟩properties? The cause hereof derived from the vigour of that which propagates is very unsound; For that which propagates, and that which is propagated is of the same kind, and consequently of the same property. And the question proceeds equally as well of the one as of the other. If you should ask how it comes to pass, that man is not so intelligent a creature as an Angel; it were very absurd to say the reason is, because the Father of a man was not so intelligent as an Angel, and therefore he could not propagate a man as intelligent as an Angel; least so he should propagate a more intelligent creature then himself. I say this manner of answer would give little satisfaction. For the question was made of man, not of this man in particular, but of mankind, which comprehends the Father as well as the Sonne. And again, the Son may be more intelligent then the Father, though not after the same manner intelligent as the Angels are. The following question is as little worth the proposing as the former. For what hostility is to be feared between the air and the water? But you make choice to instance in the hostility between the earth and the water, as a matter of dangerous consequence. You demand the reason why the restless or raging water swallows not up the dull earth. I had thought the earth had been fitter to swallow up water, then water to swallow up earth. For suppose the Sea should overflow the Land, should it thereby be said to swallow it up? Then belike the bottom of the Sea is swallowed up by the Sea. And by the same reason, the Element of the Air swalloweth up both Sea and Land, because it covereth them;