A14095:752
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.
As for your Mathematical conceits of centre and circumference, I have already discovered in their places the vanity of them. To say that eternity is more then commensurable to time, is to grant that it is commensurable thereunto, which is very absurd. And how is it possible, that should be commensurable to a thing mensurable, which indeed is immensurable as being without beginning and without end. You say it is in all durations; not as contained in them (I hope) if as containing them, this also is untrue. For like as it is not Gods eternity whereby he made the World but by his power, so it is not by his eternity that he maintaineth the duration of it but by his power. What noon tide is we know and acknowledge to be some thing, but as for fluent instants we know none. For fluent is as much as succedent▪ and succession is not but in respect of parts, and an instant hath no parts. Yet if we give way to such imaginations, like as sluxus puncti in Longitudinem is not contained in the line, but is the line; so sluxus instantis is not contained in a set time, but is the very set time it self. Nor is it a part of it as noon-tide is of the day; And a most absurd thing it is to make the duration of the creature in respect of Gods eternity, to resen•ble the proportion that is between the part of time and the whole time, you may say as well the World is contained in Gods immensity, like as half the yard is contained in the whole yard. Your last position is more sober in all the parts of it then the rest; the proportion of the least beam of light, to the light of the World may be expressed; the proportion of things that are, to the things that God is able to produce cannot, the first is finite, this is infinite. Yet by your leave, there is no greater disproportion between Gods wisdom manifested and ⟨p. 293⟩manifestable, then between his power manifested and manifestable. In a word, God hath so far manifested his power and wisdom, that we plainly discern both of them to be infinite; and do you think God can so manifest either of them, or both of them, that we may discern them to be more then infinite? And if his wisdom manifestable doth but so far exceed his wisdom manifested, as his power man•festable doth exceed that which is already manifested, &c.
As for your Mathem•ticall conceyts of center and circumscrence, I have already discovered in their places the vanity of them. To say that eternity is more then commensurable to time, is to graunt that it is commensurable thereunto, which is very absurde. And how is it possible, that should be commensurable to a thing mensurable, which indeed is immensurable as being without beginning and without end. You say it is in all durations; not as contained in them (I hope) if as containing them, this also is untrue. For like as it is not Gods eternity whereby he made the World but by his power, so it is not by his eternity that he maintayneth the duration of it but by his power. What noone tide is we know and acknowledge to be some thing, but as for fluent instants we knowe none. For fluent is as much as succedent and succession is not but in respect of parts, and an instant hath no parts. Yet if we give way to such imaginations, like as sluxus puncti in Longitudinem is not contayned in the line, but is the line; so sluxus instantis is not contayned in a set time, but is the very set time it selfe. Nor is it a part of it as noone-tide is of the day; And a most absurd thing it is to make the duration of the creature in respect of Gods eternitie, to resenble the proportion that is betweene the part of time and the whole time, you may say as well the World is contained in Gods immensitie, like as halfe the yard is contayned in the whole yard. Your last position is more sober in all the parts of it then the rest; the proportion of the least beame of light, to the light of the World may be expressed; the proportion of things that are, to the things that God is able to produce cannot, the first is finite, this is infinite. Yet by your leave, there is no greater disproportion betweene Gods wisedome manifested and