A14095:83
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 the time from this day upwards is equal to the time from this day downwards; therefore the time from yesterday downwards is greater then the time from this day upwards; & consequently the time from yesterday upwards (being equal to the time from yesterday downward) is greater then the time from this day upwards; which is as much as to say, that the part is greater then the whole. These inferences depend upon this maxim most evident, that which is equal to a greater, is also greater. Now mark how Paulus Venetus answereth this argument, which is of his own devising; & his answer is this; This maxim the whole is greater then his part, hath place only in matter finite, not in matter infinite. A most absurd answer; for it is in effect to forbid all disputation against him. For we cannot dispute without grounds to insist upon. And no more evident grounds can be devised, then such as contain the rules of contradiction. Yet I will make it manifest, that this maxim must have place in all matter, whether finite of infinite. To maintain that the whole is not greater then the part in some case is to maintain that both parts of contradiction are true in some case. But both parts of contradiction cannot be true in any case; neither in matter finite nor in matter infinite; Therefore in no case can it be truly ⟨p. 51⟩maintained that the whole is not greater then the part. The minor I prove thus; there cannot be greater difference between matter sinite and matter infinite, then between ens & non ens. But both parts of contradiction cannot be true either about ens or non ens; (like as one part must be true de omni ente & non ente); therfore neither can they be true in any matter whether finite or infinite. Again if this which he saith were granted, then there could be no disputation as touching the nature of God, seeing he is infinite. And if we take away the rules of contradiction, we take away all disputation. Now I proceed in scanning that which followeth in your discourse.
But the time from this day upwards is equall to the time from this day downewards; therfore the time from yesterday downewards is greater then the time from this day upwards; & consequently the time from yesterday upwards (being equall to the time from yesterday downeward) is greater then the time from this day upwardes; which is as much as to say, that the part is greater then the whole. These inferences depende upon this maxime most evident, that which is equall to a greater, is allso greater. Nowe marke how Paulus Venetus answeareth this argument, which is of his owne devisinge; & his answeare is this; This maxime the whole is greater then his part, hath place only in matter finite, not in matter infinite. A most absurde answere; for it is in effect to forbid all disputation against him. For we cannot dispute without groundes to insist upon. And no more evident groundes can be devised, then such as conteyne the rules of contradiction. Yet I will make it manifest, that this maxime must have place in all matter, whether finite of infinite. To maynteyne that the whole is not greater then the part in some case is to maynteyne that bothe parts of contradiction are true in some case. But bothe parts of contradiction cannot be true in any case; neyther in matter finite nor in matter infinite; Therfore in no case can it be truly