A14095:74
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.
I grant, that upon this fiction nothing could restrain it from taking all bodily perfection possible to it self, in case it had power to give being to it self. But never any Philosopher maintained, that it had power to give being to it ⟨p. 42⟩self. For they that maintained a Chaos preceding the production of the world, maintained that out of this Chaos, God produced all things, and not that the Chaos or ought else gave being to itself. And Aristotle that denied such an eternal Chaos, & maintained the world had no beginning, was far from maintaining that the world gave being to it self. Secondly I answer, that though it should thus receive all bodily perfection possible, yet this should not be infinite, and without limits as you would have your Reader to suspect without proof, and indeed unless this be imagined, tis nothing no the purpose. The reason why in this case, it should not be infinite, is this; because all bodily perfection possible is but finite, as they conceived, and therein conceived nothing amiss. So of quantity or quality, the impossibility of either to be without measure in bodies, whose perfection is only finite, is a sufficient hinderance from taking either quantity or quality without measure. In like sort, let Vacuity (as you speak) be left free to give it self full and perfect act; let it take all possible perfection, yet since all possible perfection of bodies, is supposed to be only finite, it will not follow that the perfection taken shall be without limits: which yet you must prove, otherwise your discourse is of no force to prove, that whatsoever hath n• cause of bring distinct from itself, is without limits. Although the Philosophers that maintained the world or matter thereof preexistent to be without beginning, driven hereunto, because they conceived not how it was possible, that any thing should be made out of nothing; yet did they never maintain that the one or the other gave being to it self. Yet this fiction you pin upon their sleeve, to supply the weakness of your discourse. Much less could it enter into any sober mans conceit, that they gave power to a Vacuity, to give it self full and perfect act, seeing Vacuity is stark nothing; which the Chaos was not, but a material thing, though merely passive and nothing active.
I grant, that upon this fiction nothinge coulde restrayne it from takinge all bodily perfection possible to it selfe, in case it had power to give beinge to it selfe. But never any Philosopher maynteyned, that it had power to give beinge to it