A14095:88
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.
Of Infinity of Being, or of absolute Infinity and the right definition of it by Ancient Philosophers.
Of Infinity of Beinge, or of absolute Infinity and the right definition of it by Ancient Philosophers.
BEFORE you come to your Philosophical Divinity, you are pleased to acquaint us with some Logical formalities. You dispute that there is no medium between nihil & aliquid, praesupposinge that some Answerers in the Schools, ⟨p. 54⟩though few, would make choice to affirm a medium between these. You say to find a medium betwixt them by abnegation, is as hard as to assign a space or vacancy between a line and a point that terminates it. And this is a very hard matter I confess, even as hard (to requite you in your own Rhetoric) as to find a space between a part of a line and the point that joins it to the other part. To this you resolutely add, that what name soever we propose, unless it have some degree or portion of entity answering to it, we may justly say, It is just nothing. But this to my understanding is untrue. For to the name of God no degree or portion of entity is answering, but rather entity, without degree or portion. It may be you understand this part of your discourse as well as the former, of the names of entities create in distinct on from God the entity increate. For forthwith you confess, that these reasons notwithstanding though they firmly hold in secular disputes of predicamental or numerable entities, yet the infinite essence comes not within this division. So then God, is neither aliquid, nor nihil. And therfore it is not so hard to find a mean by abnegation between these, as to assign a space between a line and a point that terminates it; unless you will say, that to acknowledge a God is as hard, as to acknowledge such a space or vacancy. As then God is not nothing, so he is too excellent, you say, to be comprehended under the name of some thing. And indeed the word Aliquid signifieth a part of quiddity, or entity, which cannot be affirmed of God, neither in respect of created quiddity; For in that respect, he is verily nihil, and not at all aliquid creatum; Nor in respect of quiddity increate; for that hath no parts; and if it had, God should be rather all that quiddity, then a part of it. And thus we may say that aliquid and nihil are not contradictories: if they were, it could not be avoided, but God himself must admit the denomination of one of them.