A14095:583
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.
Thirdly you will not have this supposed motion to be divisible by succession, yet you do impute unto it succession. For but erst you affirmed that it had parts successively infinite. Now if it hath succession, how is it possible, but that it should be divisible into parts succeeding one another? For like as magnitude having extension of parts, must needs be divisible in respect of its extension; so motion fluent as it hath succession of parts, so it must needs be divisible in respect of this succession.
Thirdly you will not have this supposed motion to be divisible by succession, yet you doe impute unto it succession. For but erst you affirmed that it had parts successively infinite. Now if it hathe succession, how is it possible, but that it should be divisible into parts succeeding one another? For like as magnitude havinge extension of parts, must needes be divisible in respect of its extension; so motion fluent as it hath succession of parts, so it must needes be divisible in respect of this succession.
Yet you suppose the contrary, like unto the Friar in Chaucer, who to show his contentedness with a little, professed that he desired, but of bread a shiver, and of a goose the liver, and of a pig the head, but that for him, nothing must be dead. So you will have the motion you speak of, to consist of parts succeeding, yet not divisible into parts succeeding. Lastly, your disjunctive is not good, as when you say, in the false same instant, or in the least parcel of time. For your supposit on is of the revolution of the heavens, not in the least parcel of time at all, but in an instant, which you well know is no parcel of time.
Yet you suppose the contrary, like unto the Fryar in Chancer, who to shewe his contentednes with a litle, professed that he desired, but of bread a shiver, and of a goose the liver, and of a pigge the head, but that for him, nothing must be dead. So you will have the motion you speake of, to consist of parts succeeding, yet not divisible into parts succeeding. Lastly, your disi•nctive is not good, as when you say, in the false same instant, or in the least parcell of time. For your supposit on is of the revolution of the heavens, not in the least parcell of time at all, but in an instant, which you well knowe is no parcell of time.