A14095:93
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.
I am that I am say the the Apostle, but by the grace of God. God only is in such sort as that his existence is his essence, we are in such sort, as that our existence is not our essence. For sometimes we were not; and if it pleased God, we might cease to be. But yet we live and move, and have our being, & all in him. I cannot admit that Angels participate of Gods essence, or that God communicates his essence to any, but to his Sonne. They, as all other things, have their essence from God, but not his; Yet are they according to the Image of God. Other creatures may have vestigia footsteps of God. In the reasonable nature alone is found the Image of God; I say the Image of God, but not the essence of God.
I am that I am say the the Apostle, but by the grace of God. God only is in such sort as that his existence is his essence, we are in such sort, as that our existence is not our essence. For sometimes we were not; and if it pleased God, we might cease to be. But yet we live and moove, and have our beinge, & all in him. I cannot admitt that Angells participate of Gods essence, or that God communicates his essence to any, but to his Sonne. They, as all other things, have their essence from God, but not his; Yet are they according to the Image of God. Other creatures may have vestigia footestes of God. In the reasonable nature alone is found the Image of God; I say the Image of God, but not the essence of God.
2. Whether Angels are creatures, and consequently of a finite nature, no Christian makes question. But as touching their nature, understanding, place, and motion attributed unto them, they are such secrets and mysteries unto me, that I have no heart to meddle with them. The Scriptures, tell us, that 1a Legion of devils were in one man; and of the good, that 2the Angels of little children do always behold the face of God their Father. But touching the nature of God, to say that his indivisible unity, comprehendeth all multiplicity is an ambiguous speech; both because multiplicity is found in evil as well as in good; and the phrase of including, to my thinking, inclines to signify, comprehension formal rather then virtual. As for Seneca's sentence, which you so much magnify, as if we could not say more of him in fewer words, I judge to be an unworthy speech to denote the nature of God, as indeed more false then true, or rather false throughout, and void of all truth. And why should we expect any tolerable description of the nature of God from an heathen man, and from a Stoic, as Seneca was. So Lucan, Deus est quodcunque vides, quocunque mover, out of the mouth of Cato Uticensis, a man of Stoical profession, as Seneca was. And such sayings as these, Deus est totum quod vides, & totum quod non vides, savour hotly of an Atheistical opinion, of such, as being ignorant of the nature of the true