A14095:213
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.
I doubt there is little truth & sobriety in all this. If there be, I must confess• I was never acquainted with any of these concealed Schoolmen or Divines either ancient, or modern, at least in these particulars; For you tell me that, which I never heard or read of before; yet I have been acquainted with fopperies more then enough, amongst them, & might have been with more, if I had any mind thereunto. But for the most part I have ever shunned those trifling subtleties. But consider we the particulars, which here you give us a part. For to make your assertion good, you are to show, not only that these Schoolmen you intimate, do hold the point you speak of irresoluble, but also that Hence they do hold it so; that is, because the indivisibility of centres, or points, & of spiritual substances are heterogeneall and asymmetrall, that is, not exactly commensurable.
I doubt there is litle truthe & sobrietie in all this. If there be, I must confess• I was never acquainted with any of these concealed Schoolemen or Divines eyther ancient, or moderne, at least in these particulars; For you tell me that, which I never heard or read of before; yet I have bene acquainted with fopperyes more then enoughe, amongst them, & might have bene with more, if I had any minde thereunto. But for the most part I have ever shunned those trifling subtilties. But consider we the particulars, which here you give us a part. For to make your assertion good, you are to shewe, not only that these Schoolemen you intimate, doe holde the point you speake of irresoluble, but allso that Hence they doe holde it so; that is, because the indivisibilitie of centers, or points, & of spirituall substances are heterogeneall and asymmetrall, that is, not exactly commensurable.
But let us consider the point it self, concerning a Mathematical point. Now I pray consider this: As Mathematical quantity is herein distinct from quantity Physical, because that is abstract from matter, this is not: so a Mathematical point, must herein be distinct from a point Physical, in as ⟨p. 130⟩