A14095:71
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 should prove, that whatsoever hath limits of extension, the same also hath beginning of duration: which yet I deny not to be a truth, and demonstrable, but of the demonstration hereof, your discourse hath failed hitherunto. When you argue thus, It is as possible to put a new fashion upon nothing; as for any thing that is, to take limits, or set form of being from nothing. You corrupt the opinion of your opposites and not refute it. For they that maintain the World had no beginning, do also maintain, that it took no beginning of the limits thereof: And as they do not say, the World took his beginning from nothing; so neither do they say, that the World took the beginning of his limits, or took his limits or form from nothing. Now you, by this form of your dispute, do instruct Atheists how to discourse against the creation of the World, thus; If God made the World out of nothing, then he put a new fashion upon nothing: But it is impossible that any new fashion should be put upon nothing; therefore it is impossible that God should make the World out of nothing. Now in this Syllogism the minor is most true. For not any thing can consist of nothing as the matter and of a fashion, as the form thereof. But the consequence of the major, is most untrue. For when we say that God made the World out of nothing, our meaning is not that nothing was the matter whereof the World was made, but only that it was the terminus a quo, not materia ex qua. As much as to say God made the World, whereas nothing went before, neither had God any matter whereon to work when he made the World. And Philosophers affirming that the World had no beginning, do therewithal deny that the World took either being or limits from any thing. You turn their negative into an affirmative, so to corrupt their opinion, in stead of confuting it. They thought, it needed not any thing to give it being or bounds of being, least they should be driven to affirm that something could be made out of nothing: whereas they had rather maintain; that the world ⟨p. 41⟩ever had existence by necessity of nature.
You should proove, that whatsoever hath limits of extension, the same allso hath beginninge of duration: which yet I deny not to be a truthe, and demonstrable, but of the demonstration herof, your discourse hathe fayled hitherunto. When you argue thus, It is as possible to put a newe fashion upon nothing; as for any thing that is, to take limits, or set forme of being from nothinge. You corrupt the opinion of your opposites and not refure it. For they that maynteyne the World had no beginninge, doe allso maynteyne, that it tooke no beginninge of the limits therof: And as they doe not say, the World tooke his beginninge from nothinge; so neyther doe they say, that the World tooke the beginninge of his limits, or tooke his limits or forme from nothinge. Nowe you, by this forme of your dispute, doe instruct Atheists howe to discourse against the creation of the World, thus; If God made the World out of nothing, then he put a newe fashion upon nothinge: But it is impossible that any newe fashion shoulde be put upon nothinge; therfore it is impossible that God shoulde make the World out of nothinge. Nowe in this Syllogisme the minor is most true. For not any thinge can consist of nothing as the matter and of a fashion, as the forme therof. But the consequence of the major, is most untrue. For when we say that God made the World out of nothinge, our meaninge is not that nothing was the matter wherof the World was made, but only that it was the terminus a quo, not materia ex qua. As much as to say God made the World, wheras nothing went before, neyther had God any matter wheron to woorke when he made the World. And Philosophers affirminge that the World had no beginninge, doe therwithall deny that the World tooke eyther being or limits from any thinge. You turne their negative into an affirmative, so to corrupt their opinion, in steade of confutinge it. They thought, it needed not any thinge to give it beinge or bounds of beinge, least they shoulde be driven to affirme that somethinge coulde be made out of nothinge: wheras they had rather maynteyne; that the world