A14095:577
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.
It were no hard supposal to conceit that a mover of strength and vigour infinite, should be able to move a body in a moment: This cannot be meant of any other moment then of time. For to move a body in an instant of eternity, requires not a mover of infinite strength; the meanest motion of the meanest mover, is comprehended (as you acknowledge) within the instant of eternity. Nay all the revolutions you speak of, though successively infinite, are upon your supposition in one and the same instant, which cannot be understood otherwise, then of an instant in time. Now is it fit, that the duration of such a motion or motions, the beginning and end whereof are both in a instant of time, should be styled eternity?
It were no hard supposall to conceyte that a moover of strengthe and vigour infinite, shoulde be able to moove a body in a moment: This cannot be meant of any other moment then of time. For to moove a body in an instant of eternitie, requires not a moover of infinite strengthe; the meanest motion of the meanest moover, is comprehended (as you acknowledge) within the instant of eternitie. Nay all the revolutions you speake of, thoughe successively infinite, are upon your supposition in one and the same instant, which cannot be understood otherwise, then of an instant in time. Now is it fitt, that the duration of such a motion or motions, the beginning and ende wherof are both in a instant of time, shoulde be stiled eternitie?
And how can that be called permanent, which both begins and ends in one and the same instant of time? Or ⟨p. 219⟩how can that motion be counted indivisible, which hath parts successively infinite as your self profess in the sentence immediately before? If these be sober conceits, I never knew, what sobriety in this kind meaneth. But let us proceed to the next; The motion of the eighth sphere supposed to be such as hath been said, that is motion infinitely swift, or not divisible by succession; the Sun moving successively as now it doth should have local coexistence to every star in the eighth sphere, to every point of the ecliptic circle, wherein it moves, at one and the self same instant, or in every least parcel of time. The substance of this hath reasonable good consequence, from the former supposition of a thing utterly impossible, and consequently it is not more impossible then the former. Yet by your leave, you err in many a circumstance.