A14095:574
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.
Now I find no proportion between this and the former member, though they be coupled together with a particle of similitude, So. For if the revolution be as it is supposed by you; to be in an instant of time, why should not the duration of it also be accounted in an instant of time? So likewise, if you conceive diverse revolutions, yea infinite revolutions, to be in the same instant of time; what reason is there why their duration should not be accounted also, in the same ⟨p. 218⟩instant of time? For if these infinite revolutions you speak of, have each of them a several instant, why should not the duration of each be accounted in each several instant, and the aggregate duration of them all, be reckoned to be, in an aggregation of all the several instants, in each whereof, one of the former revolutions is found?
Nowe I finde no proportion betweene this and the former member, thoughe they be coupled together with a particle of similitude, So. For if the revolution be as it is supposed by you; to be in an instant of time, why shoulde not the duration of it also be accoumpted in an instant of time? So likewise, if you conceave diverse revolutions, yea infinite revolutions, to be in the same instant of time; what reason is there why theyr duration should not be accoumpted allso, in the same ⟨p. 218⟩instant of time? Fof if these infinite revolutions you speake of, have each of them a severall instant, why shoulde not the duration of each be accoumpted in each soverall instant, and the aggregate duration of them all, be reckoned to be, in an aggregation of all the severall instants, in each wherof, one of the former revolutions is founde?
Secondly, you do not well to join an instant, and a portion of time together, as terms equipollent, because; no portion of time is an instant, nor is an instant any portion of time; more then a point is a part of magnitude. For every thing consisteth of its parts; but neither magnitude consists of points, nor points of instants.