A14095:96
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.
3. The analogy you speak of, is without all proportion. For the picture of a man, though it be no true man, yet it may be a true picture; and whether a true picture or no, yet undoubtedly it hath a true being, though imperfect, in comparison to the being of a man. And therefore herehence to conclude, that no creature truly is, is without all proportion: ⟨p. 60⟩Man indeed is but the Image of God, as some things are the Images of men: Whence it followeth; as the Images of men are not men, so man the Image of God is not God. But to infer that therefore man is not in truth, or hath no true being, hath no ground, no foundation. If the being of a creature is but the shadow of true being, then humanity (which is the being of a man) is but a shadow of true humanity, & brutality, which is the being of a beast, is but the shadow of true brutality. And is it proper think you to say, that the truth of all these are found in God, to wit true humanity &c. David and Solomon were types of Christ; but I never read, nor heard, that the creatures are types of the Creator. Effects they are, and the works of God; and as the cause doth shine in the effect, so Gods eternal power & 1Godhead are made manifest by his works. Yet the types of Christ, were not types according to their essence, but according to their course of life and actions. And yet the very actions, whereby they represented Christ, were true actions in themselves separate from typical signification; though the actions of Christ or office of Christ, were of far greater dignity and price then were the actions of men which represented him. Before the World was made, this proposition was true, God alone is, and he could again make it true if it pleased him, by turning all things into nothing, from whence they came. But now other things also are. Otherwise there could be no place, either for the name of creatures, or for the representation of God in them. And how can that be said not to be, or not truly to be which as you say, participates of Gods being? It is true, God alone is in such sort, as whose essence and existence are all one. For as much as possibility in him is mere necessity, not so in any creature; as who all were not, before they were, and again may return to nothing, if so it please him that made them, to dispose of them.
3. The analogy you speake of, is without all proportion. For the picture of a man, thoughe it be no true man, yet it may be a true picture; and whether a true picture or no, yet undoubtedly it hathe a true beinge, thoughe imperfect, in comparison to the beinge of a man. And therfore herehence to conclude, that no creature truly is, is without all proportion: