A14095:616
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.
After this you come in with a new way of conceiving the first movers eternity, and that is as Mathematicians conceive the nature of a sphere, by imagining it to be produced by the motion of a semicircle upon the Axis. There is such a definition, I confess, of a sphere, which is defined to be transitus circumferentiae as which transitus I conceive to be emanation rather then motion, like as a line is imagined to be fluxus puncti in longitudinem; and a superficies is imagined to be fluxus lineae in latitudinem. But all these are very vain imaginations. For neither is it possible, that such things should have any flux, or if they had, that by their flux they should make either length, or breadth, or thickness in such a figure; but rather a length so made should consist of points, & a breadth so made should consist of lines, and a sphere so made, should consist of semicircles, which is utterly impossible.
After this you come in with a newe way of conceavinge the first moovers eternitie, and that is as Mathematicians conceave the nature of a spheare, by imagining it to be produced by the motion of a semicircle upon the Axis. There is such a definition, I confesse, of a spheare, which is defined to be transitus circumferentiae as which transitus I conceave to be emanation rather then motion, like as a line is imagined to be fluxus puncti in longitudinem; and a superficies is imagined to be fluxus lineae in latitudinem. But all these are very vayne imaginations. For neyther is it possible, that such things should have any fluxe, or if they had, that by theyr fluxe they should make eyther lengthe, or breadthe, or thicknes in such a figure; but rather a length so made should consist of points, & a breadth so made shoulde consist of lines, and a spheare so made, shoulde consist of semicircles, which is utterly impossible.
And shall we never line to compare the nature of God to the vain imaginations of such vain things? Yet seeing you will take your course, we will take liberty to consider it. And thus you proceed, For let the eternal be but thus imagined, to be an intellectual sphere, capable of momentany motion or revolution throughout this World, and the indivisible coexistence of his infinity to every part of time and place, will be very conceivable. Very conceivable, you say; but first let us try, whether this conceit of yours contain any conceivable truth. For if it doth not, are we not well advanced to the conceiving of Gods eternity, by comparing it to such impossibilities? And first you were as good bid us imagine God to be an intellectual body, as to be an intellectual Sphere.