A14095:75
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.
But as for vacuity that is neither active, nor passive, as being stark nothing. And yet to this you add a further solecism in this your fiction; as when you ⟨p. 43⟩suppose this vacuity to have power to assume either bodily substances or spiritual; which the Chaos had not, no not so much as in capacity, being wholly material, whereas spiritual substances are immaterial. And yet, I confess as you give unto that which is nothing power to assume which it list, either bodily or spiritual substances; it may well be said that nothing hath power indifferently to assume either or both of them. This I propose by way of an universal negative, not by way of a particular affirmative as you do, making the term nothing, to be the subject in your propositions, and not an universal sign only. Yet all thus assumed (as you speak) should be but finite; because all possible perfection besides the nature of God it self, is but finite. Therefore I say it should be but finite, if any thing at all; which caution I do put in, because upon due account, it will be found, that the sum of all this, in a good sense, will prove to be no more, then just nothing. For suppose, nothing doth assume bodily substances; again suppose, nothing doth assume spiritual substances; put this together, and add nothing to nothing, and see whether the total will prove to be any jot more, then just nothing. You proceed further, and tell us that while we imagine it without cause of existence or beginning, no reason imaginable could confine it, to any set place of residence or extension, why rather in the centre, then circumference, or either rather then both. In this you seem to have reference to that which immediately went before, and that was a vacuity. And in very truth upon this supposition, where now the centre is, nothing was; where now the circumference is, nothing was; and in all the bodies between, nothing was. For you suppose a vacuity of all, and nothing to be, where now there is some thing. Yet this nothing by your leave, must be confined in reference to the places, where bodies were before or after. And the places where bodies were before, being the same, by your supposition, with the places which now are, must needs be finite. For undoubtedly, the space of this whole world, between the centre and circumference, yea & including both, is but finite.
But as for vacuitie that is neyther active, nor passive, as being starke nothinge. And yet to this you adde a further solecisme in this your fiction; as when you ⟨p. 43⟩