A14095:880
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.
In that which followeth we agree with you, that immutability is a perfection, & mutability an imperfection; likewise that to work freely is a perfection, to work necessarily is an imperfection; and where both immutability and freedom of operation meet, the perfection of that nature is so much the greater. But this I find not so scholastically expressed, when you say, That if man were as immortal as the heavens are, he would be more perfect then they can be. This I say wants much of accurateness. For the heavens are not immortal. Aristotle conceived them to be incorruptible, but not immortal. For like as in case they were corruptible, yet could they not be counted mortal, because they have no life to lose; so though they be granted to be incorruptible, yet could they not thereupon be accounted immortal, and that for the same reason, because they have not life, which alone makes a thing capable of the denomination of immortal, and for want of life, the meanest of creatures having life do in excellency surpass the heavens.
In that which followeth we agree with you, that immutabilitie is a perfection, & mutability an imperfection; likewise that to worke freely is a perfection, to worke necessarily is an imperfection; and where both immutability and freedome of operation meet, the perfection of that nature is so much the greater. But this I finde not so scholastically expressed, when you say, That if man were as immortall as the heavens are, hee would be more perfect then they can be. This I say wants much of accuratenesse. For the heavens are not immortall. Aristotle conceived them to be incorruptible, but not immortall. For like as in case they were corruptible, yet could they not bee counted mortall, because they have no life to lose; so though they be granted to be incorruptible, yet could they not thereupon be accounted immortall, and that for the same reason, because they have not life, which alone makes a thing capable of the denomination of immortall, and for want of life, the meanest of creatures having life doe in excellency surpasse the heavens.
And if Aristotle had lived in our days to be acquainted with such Astronomical observations as we are, of so many Comets and blazing Stars in the celestial Region, not only above the Moon, but even in the firmament it self, and that of long continuance, and at length wasted and consumed; it is more then probable that his opinion concerning the incorruptibility of the heavens would have been changed, considering his apologies and excuses in his books De Caelo, that the body of the heavens being so far remote, and little certain experience (whereupon all natural reason is grounded) to be had of such things as might discover the nature thereof: therefore his discourse thereof whatsoever to be taken in the better part, and extraordinary performances thereabouts