A14095:117
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.
but this is more then hitherto you have proved. And till you have proved it, they may be conceived as distinct from the essence (as before hath been said) without any prejudice to the infinity of Gods essence, or danger of exposing it unto nakedness, for ought your discourse, hath as yet alleged to the contrary.
but this is more then hitherto you have prooved. And till you have prooved it, they may be conceaved as distinct from the essence (as before hathe bene sayde) without any prejudice to the infinity of Gods essence, or danger of exposing it unto nakednes, for ought your discourse, hathe as yet alleaged to the contrary.
5. As for that definition of a thing absolutely infinite; Infinitum est, extra quod nihil est, which you make so much reckoning of; I take it to be a vain conceit; considering that the Philosophers who urged it, never made any such construction of it, as you do; but applying it only to material bodies of quantity and extension, maintained that in this sense the World was infinite. But Aristotle doth not approve of such a notion of infinite, as nothing agreeable with the denomination; the world being finite rather then infinite in his opinion; and yet as they all thought, without the world nothing was. Yet some in my knowledge have avouched the world to be infinite, though I nothing commend either their learning, or their honesty herein. And in those former days finitum & infinitum, were taken only for material differences of bodies nothing at all belonging to immaterial natures, abstract from bodily or material extension of parts. And Zabarell (as I remember) observes as much (as touching the opinion of Aristotle) upon the last chapters of the eighth book of Physics. And how far forth infinitum is to be acknowledged in nature, Aristotle in his Physics hath discoursed. Now in the sense before spoken of, it is very absurd, to attribute such a definition of infinity unto God, who is not only a Spirit but the Father of Spirits, and incapable of parts, much more of extension in any material manner. But let the words be shaped after such a construction as you devise to make the definition suitable to the nature of God; to wit, as if he were such an entity, as comprehends all entity.