A14095:214
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 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⟩much as that is abstract from matter, this is not.
But let us consider the point it selfe, concerning a Mathematicall point. Now I pray consider this: As Mathematicall quantitie is herein distinct from quantity Physicall, because that is abstract from matter, this is not: so a Mathematicall point, must herein be distinct from a point Physicall, in as ⟨p. 130⟩much as that is abstract from matter, this is not.
Now quantity, and points Mathematical thus abstract from matter, are but only in imagination. And do the Schoolmen, you speak of, maintain it as a point irresoluble, whether an Angel may be defined within a point of imagination only? what were this, but to have no being at all but in mans imagination? Wherefore you may be advised, to let the question run rather of a point physical, then of a point Mathematical, unless you look for some succour, from that rule of course Mathematici abstrahunt, nec mentiuntur.
Now quantity, and poincts Mathematicall thus abstract from matter, are but only in imagination. And doe the Scholemen, you speake of, maynteyne it as a point irresoluble, whether an Angell may be defined within a point of imagination only? what were this, but to have no being at all but in mans imagination? Wherfore you may be advised, to let the question runne rather of a point physicall, then of a point Mathematicall, unles you looke for some succour, from that rule of course Mathematici abstrahunt, nec mentiuntur.