A14095:81
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.
But this is untrue, though at first sight men are apt to be deceived with a show of parity, where indeed there is no parity. For though we shall continue as the Angels already do without end, yet herehence it shall never come to pass, that it can be verified of such that they have continued an infinite space of time; but still the space is finite, though with addition of continuance longer & longer in infinitum. But if the World were without beginning, then an infinite space of time were actually past already, which implieth manifest contradiction as before hath been showed. Now consider the answer to the former argument, & whether it be of any force. The only: course to weaken it is to maintain, that datur infinitum, infinito insinitius. One infinite may be greater then another, to wit an infinite number of years past, greater then an infinite number of days past. This at first sight seems to be a mad kind of answer. For hence it followeth that one infinite can not be admitted, but that therewithal you must admit an numberless number of infinites. As for example; If there were past an infinite number of years, then seeing every year contains 365. days, you must acknowledge that this infinite space of years consists of 365. parts, each whereof is infinite. And whereas if the World were eternal, & the space of time past, infinite, then the millions of years past were infinite also; whence we infer that the space of millions of years past being infinite consists of ten hundred thousand parts, each whereof is infinite, and each infinite part consists of 365. parts, each whereof is infinite also. And this is the ⟨p. 49⟩very argument that Aristotle useth in his Metaphysics to prove that there cannot be an infinite magnitude; for then it shoulde consist ex infinitis, now indeed this they do grant that strain their wits to maintain the possibility of infinity in magnitude as namely Hurtando de Mendosa in his disputations; 1as being necessarily driven hereunto. And the like course they must needs take that maintain the possibility of infinity in time past. But as for the possibility of it in time to come, that is altogether of another nature, as before I have showed. Now I will clearly overthrow this answer and prove evidently that an infinite number of years is not greater then an infinite number of days;
But this is untrue, thoughe at first sight men are apt to be deceaved with a shewe of paritie, where indeade there is no paritie. For thoughe we shall continue as the Angells allready doe without ende, yet herehence it shall never come to passe, that it can be verified of such that they have continued an infinite space of time; but still the space is finite, thoughe with addition of continuance longer & longer in infinitum. But if the World were without beginning, then an infinite space of time were actually past allready, which implyeth manifest contradiction as before hathe bene shewed. Now consider the answere to the former argument, & whether it be of any force. The only: course to weaken it is to maynteyne, that datur infinitum, infinito insinitius. One infinite may be greater then another, to witt an infinite number of yeares past, greater then an infinite number of dayes past. This at first sight seemes to be a madde kinde of answere. For hence it followeth that one infinite can not be admitted, but that therwithall you must admitt an numberles number of infinites. As for example; If there were past an infinite number of yeares, then seinge every yeare conteynes 365. dayes, you must acknowledge that this infinite space of yeares consists of 365. parts, each wherof is infinite. And wheras if the World were eternall, & the space of time past, infinite, then the millions of yeares past were infinite allso; whence we inferre that the space of millions of yeares past being infinite consists of tenne hundred thousand parts, each wherof is infinite, and each infinite part consists of 365. parts, each wherof is infinite allso. And this is the