A14095:212
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.
Whereas in truth you shall as soon prove the Diameter of a square commensurable to his, side as to prove the indivisible nature of God commensurable to a point of quantitie. Est quoddam ⟨p. 129⟩indivisibile, saith Durand, quod est aliquid quantitatis ut punctus: 1Aliud est indivisibile quod est totalitur extra naturam quantitatis, ut Deus. What an absurd thing were it to compare the soul of man to a point in a quantity; the soul being so indivisible as to be all in all, & all in every part; how much more so to compare an Angel, most of all the divine Essence? And the soul of man is much fitter to represent God by (man being made after the image of God) and God is all in all, and all in every part of the world, but not as forma informans, as the soul is, and consequently neither extended with the extension of the world, nor moved at the motion of the world; nor any part thereof. Hence you say it is that the most subtle Schoolmen or Metaphysical Divines as well ancient as modern, resolve it as a point irresoluble by humane wit; whether a mathematical point or centre, can be the complete, and definitive place of an Angel, albeit they hold the Angelical natures to be as truly indivisible, as points or centres are.
Wheras in truthe you shall as soone proove the Diameter of a square commensurable to his, side as to proove the indivisible nature of God commensurable to a point of quantitie. Est quoddam ⟨p. 129⟩indivisibile, saith Durand, quod est aliquid quantitatis ut punctus: 1Aliud est indivisibile quod est totalitur extra naturam quantitatis, ut Deus. What an absurd thing were it to compare the soule of man to a point in a quantitie; the soule being so indivisible as to be all in all, & all in every part; how much more so to compare an Angell, most of all the divine Essence? And the soule of man is much fitter to represent God by (man being made after the image of God) and God is all in all, and all in every part of the world, but not as forma informans, as the soule is, and consequently neyther extended with the extension of the world, nor mooved at the motion of the world; nor any part therof. Hence you say it is that the most subtile Schoolemen or Metaphysicall Divines as well ancient as moderne, resolve it as a point irresoluble by humane witt; whether a mathematicall point or center, can be the complete, and definitive place of an Angell, albeit they holde the Angelicall natures to be as truly indivisible, as points or centers are.