A14095:552
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.
Secondly you will not have it called motion, but a product ⟨p. 214⟩of motions. Had you said you would not have these revolutions called one motion but many, there had been some sense in the speech, though little reason.
Secondly you will not have it called motion, but a product ⟨p. 214⟩of motions. Had you sayd you wold not have these revolutions called one motion but many, there had bene some sense in the speech, though litle reason.
For you profess these revolutions to be successive, and no where have you in the least manner signified them to be interrupt or discont nuall.
For you professe these revolutions to be successive, and no where have you in the least manner signified them to be interrupt or discont nuall.
And if you take them as continual, why should they not be styled one motion? But this I think is not it, you insist upon; For you dislike the name of motion it self; you will rather have it called the product of many motions.
And if you take them as continuall, why should they not be stiled one motion? But this I thinke is not it, you insist upon; For you dislike the name of motion it selfe; you will rather have it called the product of many motions.