A14095:869
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.
CHAP. IX.
Of Divine Immutability.
IN the first place you tell us that some Schoolmen mould immutability in the same conceit with eternity, and that others make that the off-spring of this; but you conceal your Authors. I see no reason for either, but manifest reason I have against the first. For if the conceit of eternity were one and the same with the conceit of immutability, then no man could conceive a thing to be eternal, but forthwith he must conceive it to be immutable. But this is most untrue. For Aristotle conceived the heavens and elements to be eternal both ways, without beginning, and without end; yet did not conceive them to be immutable, for as much as he acknowledged them to be all under motion; and the elements also, as touching their parts subject to corruption. Plato though he maintained the world to have had a beginning, yet he acknowledged it to be eternal one way, that is, without end, yet did not conceive it to be immutable. The first matter was generally held to be eternal both ways, yet none maintained it to be immutable. And no marvel. For mutation comprehends all kind of motion, and consequently immutability excludes all possibility of motion, but eternity signifieth only continuance for ever.
IN the first place you tell us that some Schoolemen mould immutability in the same conceit with eternity, and that others make that the off-spring of this; but you conceale your Authors. I see no reason for either, but manifest reason I have against the first. For if the conceit of eternity were one and the same with the conceit of immutability, then no man could conceive a thing to bee eternall, but forthwith he must conceive it to be immutable. But this is most untrue. For Aristotle conceived the heavens and elements to be eternall both waies, without beginning, and without end; yet did not conceive them to be immutable, for as much as hee acknowledged them to be all under motion; and the elements also, as touching their parts subject to corruption. Plato though he maintained the world to have had a beginning, yet hee acknowledged it to be eternall one way, that is, without end, yet did not conceive it to be immutable. The first matter was generally held to be eternall both wayes, yet none maintained it to be immutable. And no marvell. For mutation comprehends all kinde of motion, and consequently immutability excludes all possibility of motion, but eternity signifieth only continuance for ever.