A14095:382
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.
Your first resolution is, that he was a man and shall be a corps. This I say, is nothing to the question. For the question proposed is, not what he was, or what he shall be, but what he is in the instant of his dissolution.
Your first resolution is, that he was a man and shallbe a corps. This I say, is nothing to the question. For the question proposed is, not what he was, or what he shallbe, but what he is in the instant of his dissolution.
In the next place you seem to speak more to the purpose, when you say that in the instant of his dissolution, he ceaseth to be a man, and begins to be a corpse. But even this also, is not fully to the purpose. For the question is not, what he begins to be, or what he ceaseth to be, in that instant, but what he is.
In the next place you seeme to speake more to the purpose, when you say that in the instant of his dissolution, he ceaseth to be a man, and beginnes to be a corpse. But even this allso, is not fully to the purpose. For the question is not, what he beginnes to be, or what he ceaseth to be, in that instant, but what he is.
Yet because substantial forms have no degrees as accidental forms have, and therefore cease to be, or begin to be all at once; therefore I take your answer at the best to be this; that in the instant of his dissolution, he is a corps, and not a man, which is directly contrary unto that which formerly you affirmed saying, There was as much reason why he should in this instant be both, as either.
Yet because substantiall formes have no degrees as accidentall formes have, and therfore cease to be, or beginne to be all at once; therfore I take your answere at the best to be this; that in the instant of his dissolution, he is a corps, and not a man, which is directly contrary unto that which formerly you affirmed sayinge, There was as much reason why he should in this instant be both, as eyther.