A14095:68
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 Averroes in his commentaries upon the books of Aristotle's Metaphysics, gives a reason of it, disputing thus. 1If the World were made, and that of nothing, then it was possible to be made before it was made; which we willingly grant. Now saith he I demand, in what subject this possibility was? And withal telleth us that Joannes Grammaticus made this answer, that it was in Agent, which Averroes takes up in scorn, but confutes it not. Now Grammaticus his answer rightly understood is fair and full; not meaning that any possibility or power passive was in God; but that there was an active power in God so almighty as enabled him to make a World out of nothing, & consequently was foundation sufficient to denominate the World possible to be, before it was; not by any physical possibility, which always requires a subject really existent, to support it; but only Logical, which is nothing else but negatio repugnantia, which is appliable to non ens. For that which is not, may be denominated possible to be, in case there be an active power existent sufficient to produce it. But to proceed; against the opinion of Philosophers you dispute thus, If the Heavens can brook no limits of your duration, such as are beginning and end, why should it brook limits of extension? as it doth. For the heaven is supposed by them to be finite in extension. For answer whereunto I say the reason is manifest. For an infinite magnitude actual is impossible, and admits manifest ⟨p. 39⟩contradiction as Aristotle hath disputed the point at large. But to be without a beginning of duration, they conceived to be nothing impossible. Nay rather to the contrary, to have a beginning out of nothing, all of them conceived that to be a thing utterly impossible. And albeit in other cases they held motion, magnitude, and time to hold exact proportion, yet those cases were nothing to this purpose.
Yet Averroes in his commentaryes upon the bookes of Aristotles Metaphysickes, gives a reason of it, disputing thus. 1If the World were made, and that of nothing, then it was possible to be made before it was made; which we willingly grant. Now saythe he I demaunde, in what subject this possibilitie was? And withall telleth us that Ioannes Grammaticus made this answere, that it was in Agente, which Averroes takes up in scorne, but confutes it not. Now Grammaticus his answeare rightly understood is fayre and full; not meaninge that any possibilitie or power passive was in God; but that there was an active power in God so allmighty as inabled him to make a World out of nothinge, & consequently was foundation sufficient to denominate the World possible to be, before it was; not by any physicall possibilitie, which allwayes requires a subject really existent, to support it; but only Logicall, which is nothinge els but negatio repugnantia, which is appliable to non ens. For that which is not, may be denominated possible to be, in case there be an active power existent sufficient to produce it. But to proceede; against the opinion of Philosophers you dispute thus, If the Heavens can brooke no limits of your duration, such as are beginninge and ende, why shoulde it brooke limits of extension? as it dothe. For the heaven is supposed by them to be finite in extension. For answeare wherunto I say the reason is manifest. For an infinite magnitude actuall is impossible, and admits manifest