A14095:94
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.
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 ⟨p. 59⟩God, deified the nature. And commonly their several Gods denoted only several parts of the World, as Vesta the Earth, Jupiter the air, Baal or Bel, and as some say, Hercules, Tyrius the Sun. Yet several Nations, like enough had their several opinions, but all concurring in this, namely in adoring the creature, and specially all the host of heaven, in stead of the Creator. And then withal they had an universal Deity, whom they called Pan, representing the whole Universe. And according to Platonical opinion, God was accounted Anima Mundi. And thus with them, God was Totum quod vides, & totum quod non vides. Yet I may well grant, that more could not be said in fewer words, but this is in the way of falsehood, and not in the way of truth. The best construction, that can be made of it, is to say that God is the Author of all that we see, and of all that we do not see.