A14095:91
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.
Secondly, there is little congruity between ens that which hath being, & hot or white, that which hath heat and whiteness. For that which hath whiteness in it, or ⟨p. 56⟩heat, is a substance, or subject really existent, wherein the quality of heat or whiteness is found. But the word ens admitteth no division comparable, or congruous hereunto. For you cannot with sobriety say, that ens signifieth a nature really existent, wherein essence is found distinct from the nature signified, or coming over and above unto it, as heat doth over and above to the constitution of the subject. And therefore it followeth not, that because hot doth signify a subject participating of heat, therefore ens also signifieth a subject participating of essence. A great deal of difference there is between concretes of accidental denomination, and concretes of essential denomination. As Homo & Animal, which may be accounted concretes, in respect of such abstract notions, as are conceived under the terms of Humanitas and Animalitas. The specific essence being constituted by the abstract notion, and not participating of it, as bodies participate of heat. The truth is, all compounds do properly admit a concrete denomination, as in whom the suppositum (as Homo and Animal, differeth from the nature denominating it, as Humanitas & Animalitas. But in things not compound it is not so, least of all in God. For though Homo be not Humanitas, yet Deus est ipsa Deitas. Aquin. 1 q. 3. art. 3. De rebus simplicibus loqui non possumus nisi per modum compositorum, a quibus cognitionem accipimus; & ideo de Deo loquentes, utimur nominibus concretis ut significemus ejus subsistentiam, quia apud nos non subsistunt nisi composita. Et utimur nominibus abstractis, ut significemus ejus simplicitatem. Quod ergo dicitur Deitas, vel vita, vel aliquid hujusmodi esse in Deo, referendum est ad diversitatem, quae est in acceptione intellectus nostri, & non ad aliquam diversitatem rei. That God is one, by whom all things are, is true; but this description is little congruous to the nature of God; in as much, as it could have no place before the creation, or in case the World had never been created. Yet Gods nature is still the same. I cannot admit that things created participate of Gods being. They have their being from God, I grant;
Secondly, there is litle congruity betweene ens that which hath beinge, & hot or white, that which hathe heate and whitenes. For that which hathe whitenes in it, or ⟨p. 56⟩