A14095:646
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.
You have already entreated of Gods immensity and eternity; and therein you have told us, that no positive entity, no numerable part of this vinverse, doth so well represent the immensity and eternity of God, as the negation of all things, which we describe by the name of Nothing. I think there never dropped a more vile assertion from the pen of any wise man then this; yet you desire here again to commend it unto the Reader as some quaint observation. But what do you mean to repeat it under such form, as by calling it something though imperfect. Is Nothing, or the negation of all things, to be accounted something though imperfect? yet the same observation you will have to have place here also. As if this which we call nothing were the most fit to represent Gods immensity by, yea and his eternity, yea and his infinite power also.
You have allready intreated of Gods immensity and eternity; and therein you have tolde us, that no positive entity, no numerable parte of this vinverse, doth so well represent the immensity and eternity of God, as the negation of all thinges, which we describe by the name of Nothinge. I thinke there never dropt a more vile assertion from the penne of any wise man then this; yet you desire here agayne to commende it unto the Reader as some quainte observation. But what doe you meane to repeate it under such forme, as by calling it somethinge though imperfect. Is Nothinge, or the negation of all thinges, to be accoumpted somethinge though imperfect? yet the same observation you will have to have place here allso. As if this which we call nothinge were the most fitt to represent Gods immensity by, yea and his eternity, yea and his infinite power allso.
How near draws this to the making of God to consist of nullities, since you say his natural properties are best resembled unto nullities? well, we have heard what that is which best representeth his immensity and eternity, now we are to expect what that is which best represents his infinite power. And this after a long deduction, you express to be the centre of the earth, which you say is matter of nothing.
How neere drawes this to the making of God to consiste of nullities, since you say his naturall properties are best resembled unto nullities? well, we have heard what that is which best representeth his immensity and eternity, now we are to expecte what that is which best represents his infinite power. And this after a long deduction, you expresse to be the center of the earth, which you say is matter of nothing.