A14095:201
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.
For first, it is a thing impossible, that a body should be infinite.
Secondly it is impossible, that a body infinite should be Spherical. If you ask, of what figure then should it be? my answer is, it should be of no figure. For figures are the bounds of quantities; & it is contradiction to make a boundless quantity consist of bounds; or a bounded and figured quantity without bounds. And yet, if all this were received as fit, and convenient, what shall we gain thereby, when all this while we imagine him to be merely corporal, who indeed is merely spiritual? For I do not think you look to find spheres any other where then among bodies.
Secondly it is impossible, that a body infinite should be Sphericall. If you aske, of what figure then shoulde it be? my answeare is, it should be of no figure. For figures are the boundes of quantities; & it is contradiction to make a boundles quantitie consist of boundes; or a bounded and figured quantitie without boundes. And yet, if all this were receaved as fitt, and convenient, what shall we gayne therby, when all this while we imagine him to be merely corporall, who indeede is merely spirituall? For I doe not thinke you looke to finde spheares any other where then among bodies.
We read and hear of the Spheres of Heaven; but I never read or heard of the Spheres of Angels or Spirits, as if they might be of a round or square figure as bodies are, much less is any such figure fit to resemble God. Yet upon these conceits as extraordinary achievements of yours in the way of Metaphysical discourse, you proceed in the next place to the solution of certain difficulties; that so Drismagist his definition of Gods immensity, may find the more easy admittance, into the Articles of our imagination, if not into the Articles of our Creed. Which yet truly I should not have excepted against, but rather have admitted, if to no other end, yet to this, even to cut of curious speculations about the immensity of God; had you not so far magnified it, as if it