A14095:104
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.
as when more and more divisions in magnitude may be still made; and more and more revolutions in time may still succeed. And Aristotle might well deny that definition of infinity, which you propose. For by that definition, the uppermost sphere of the Heavens, might justly be accounted infinite. And other Philosophers, that proposed this definition, which you say was censoriously rejected by him, did as well as Aristotle understand Infinite only in quantity. And if you blame Aristotle, for this acception of the word, you must blame the rest as well as him. So that with all these that maxime, insinitum est, extra quod nihil est, signified, that an infinite body was such, as without which no body was, or no quantity was, the meaning whereof I conceive might be this; No measure of quantity could be imagined, that was not comprehended under infinite quantity. Now we know, that no quantity, or bodily dimensions are to be found in God, but altogether without him. Yet you seem to attribute such a kind of infinity unto God: for you would have the definition of infinite not to be appropriated to quantity only, but to be simply and absolutely considered, as much as to say, it should comprehend that which is infinite in quantity also. Yet we confess, immensity is one of the attributes of God, because he fills all places, but yet by your leave, without all quantity. Your comparison is very incongruous. For infinity in length comprehends all length formally; but will you say in like •ort, that Gods infinity ⟨p. 67⟩in being, comprehends all being formally? Is the being of a body of a man, of a beast in God formally? Exemplarily and virtually, or eminently they are in God; but so is not all longitude, in that which is infinite in longitude, but rather formally, and admi•th all denominations of length. God doth not admit all denominations of being. Thus, say you, did these Ancients feel after, and seek the Lord; whereas alas, they thought not at all of God in this their definition of infinitum, when they sayde, infinitum est extra quod nihil est. Aratus, I confess, was far more Theological, then most of them, when he said, that in God we live and move & have our being; but this hath little correspondency with the former definition of infinitum.
as when more and more divisions in magnitude may be still made; and more and more revolutions in time may still succeede. And Aristotle might well deny that definition of infinity, which you propose. For by that definition, the uppermost spheare of the Heavens, might justly be accoumpted infinite. And other Philosophers, that proposed this definition, which you say was censoriously rejected by him, did as well as Aristotle understande Infinite only in quantity. And if you blame Aristotle, for this acception of the word, you must blame the rest as well as him. So that with all these that maxime, insinitum est, extra quod nihil est, signified, that an infinite body was such, as without which no body was, or no quantitie was, the meaning wherof I conceave might be this; No measure of quantitie coulde be imagined, that was not comprehended under infinite quantitie. Nowe we knowe, that no quantitie, or bodily dimensions are to be found in God, but alltogether without him. Yet you seeme to attribute such a kinde of infinity unto God: for you would have the definition of insinite not to be appropriated to quantitie only, but to be simply and absolutely considered, as much as to say, it shoulde comprehend that which is infinite in quantitie allso. Yet we confesse, immensitie is one of the attributes of God, because he filles all places, but yet by your leave, without all quantitie. Your comparison is very incongruous. For infinity in lengthe comprehends all lengthe formally; but will you say in like ort, that Gods infinity