A14095:379
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.
And first the question proposed is, Whether Socrates in the instant of his dissolution or corruption, be a man or corps, or both. To be both (you say) implies contradiction, and yet you say, there is as much reason, that in this instant he should be both as either. Thus have we the question and that argued in part. Now followeth your resolution, as it were our of Plotinus, though you allege no crumb of any sentence of his for it. Now I observe that your solution, though you would have it seem to be but one, yet indeed it is diverse; the one nothing to the purpose, the other something to the purpose, but utterly overthrowing your former assertion, as when you said, There is as much reason he should be both as either. The third overthrowing the very foundation of the question it self, in effect professing that it proceeds from a false ground or supposition.
And first the question proposed is, Whether Socrates in the instant of his dissolution or corruption, be a man or corps, or bothe. To be both (you say) implyes contradiction, and yet you say, there is as much reason, that in this instant he should be both as eyther. Thus have we the question and that argued in part. Now followeth your resolution, as it were our of Plotinus, though you alleage no crumme of any sentence of his for it. Now I observe that your solution, thoughe you woulde have it seeme to be but one, yet indeede it is diverse; the one nothing to the purpose, the other something to the purpose, but utterly overthrowing your former assertion, as whē you sayde, There is as much reason he should be both as eyther. The third overthrowinge the very foundation of the question it selfe, in effect professing that it proceedes from a false ground or supposition.
A manifest evidence that you are still to seek how to satisfy your self herein, or others in this unprofitable speculation.
A manifest evidence that you are still to seeke howe to satisfie your selfe herin, or others in this unproffitable speculation.