A brief reply to a late answer to Dr. Henry More his Antidote against idolatry Shewing that there is nothing in the said answer that does any ways weaken his proofs of idolatry against the Church of Rome, and therefore all are bound to take heed how they enter into, or continue in the communion of that church as they tender their own salvation.
About this Item
Title
A brief reply to a late answer to Dr. Henry More his Antidote against idolatry Shewing that there is nothing in the said answer that does any ways weaken his proofs of idolatry against the Church of Rome, and therefore all are bound to take heed how they enter into, or continue in the communion of that church as they tender their own salvation.
Author
More, Henry, 1614-1687.
Publication
London :: printed by J. Redmayne, for Walter Kettilby at the Sign of the Bishops-Head in St. Pauls Church-yard,
MDCLXXII. [1672]
Rights/Permissions
To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
Subject terms
Walton, John, fl. 1672. -- Brief answer to the many calumnies of Dr. Henry More.
Cite this Item
"A brief reply to a late answer to Dr. Henry More his Antidote against idolatry Shewing that there is nothing in the said answer that does any ways weaken his proofs of idolatry against the Church of Rome, and therefore all are bound to take heed how they enter into, or continue in the communion of that church as they tender their own salvation." In the digital collection Early English Books Online. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/a51289.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed May 14, 2024.
Pages
His Answer to the Argument from Physicks
in the fifth Paragraph.
To this he Answers, First, by asserting it possible,
That a Body occupying a space equal to it self in
one place, may ••et be elsewhere without occupying
any place at all; and he would prove this more then
possible, from the opinion of the Learned, who
maintain that actually the supreme Heaven occupies
no place. Secondly, by denying the Inferences I
make 〈…〉〈…〉 of one Body being in two
places at once, as first, That the Body will be equal
to those 〈◊〉〈◊〉 s••aces, What needs that, Mr. Doctor,
sa••s he, It is enough that in each of those two spa∣ce••
it be onely equal or commensurate to that deter∣mina••e
place it there occupies, suppose of six cub••••s,
and in neither of them equal or commensurate to a
descriptionPage 119
space of twelve Cubits. And then for my Inference,
That granting this Body equal to the spaces it occu∣pies
at once, it will be double to it self, he denies
the consequence. Because a Body of one Cubit rare∣••ied
into a double dimension, and therefore occupying
a double space, will not be double to it self. And
a rational Soul informing a Body of a span length,
when the Body is grown to another span still in∣formed
by the same Soul, it does not follow that
the Soul is double to it self. Is not this rare Di∣vinity,
says he. Let the Doctor show a material di∣sparity
in these two Cases, or else acknowledge the
unconclusiveness of his own Objection. This is the
sum and substance of that wherewith he would en∣••rvate
my Argument, drawn from Physicks against
Transubstantiation. What follows belongs rather to
his Answer to my Argument drawn from Meta∣physicks
which we shall consider there.
The Reply.
In the mean time to his first Answer, I Reply
thus, That it is a fetch beyond the Moon or
rather beyond the World, to endeavour the en∣ervation
of my Consequences from the supposal
of a Body in two internal places at once, that it
so filling those two places, is equal to the two
places equal to one another, and that therefore it
is double to it self; by saying, that a Body occu∣pying
a place equal to it self in one place, may
yet be elsewhere without being in any place, be••cause
the supreme or extimate Heaven is in no
descriptionPage 120
place; which yet is to be understood of no ex∣••ernal
place. But Eustachius and other School∣••hilosop••ers,
and all that hold an internal place
•• which Truth is plainly demonstrable) do
hold that it is in a place internal, upon which
our Argument goes, but is equally true of locus
externus. Nor then will this high flight beyond
〈◊〉〈◊〉 supreme or extimate Heaven serve for any
ev••••〈◊〉〈◊〉. For as much as we speak of Bodies
placed ••n this side of 〈◊〉〈◊〉 extimate Heaven, and
no Bo••y can b•• found amongst Bodies, but it
will be 〈◊〉〈◊〉 cumscr••bed b•• the ambient superficies
of the next Bodies about it, that superficies of
the ambient Bodies that do immediately compass
〈…〉〈…〉 Body being its place. And every
Body ••ill h••ve such a place that is found on this
〈…〉〈…〉 extimate Heaven. This is a Truth that
〈◊〉〈◊〉 be denied. And our Question is 〈◊〉〈◊〉
onely of suc•• Bodies as are on this side
〈◊〉〈◊〉 extimate Heaven. From which the unsea∣sonablen••ss
of my Adversaries subter••uge is
plainl•• d••cerned, which in no sense will serve
his turn, unle••s for the amuzing the minds of
the People.
To 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Second Answer I return this; To the
first 〈◊〉〈◊〉 thereof, That it is not onely enough to
him but it is also en••ugh to me that in each of
the two ••paces the Body be equal to that de∣••erminate
place it t••ere occupies, understanding
either an internal or external place. For sup∣pose
one and the ••ame Body at each place at
••nce 〈◊〉〈◊〉 either an internal or external place of
descriptionPage 121
such a quantity, of six Cubits suppose, which it
cannot fill unless it be commensurate to them, it
is plain it fills as much space as comes to twelve
Cubits, if six and six make twelve, which is as
sure as two and two make four. And there∣fore
that it is equal to twelve Cubits, be∣cause
it plainly fills up the space of twice six
Cubits. Or how ever at the same time fills
the ambient superficieses that would exactly fit
twice six Cubits in several. There is no great∣er
demonstration of equality then this, which
the Geometricians call 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or Co••gruen∣tia.
So certain is it that a Body adequately fil∣ling
two places of six Cubits big at once,
has it self the magnitude of twelve Cubits:
But the Body is supposed but one and the
same Body in both places, and therefore can
be but six Cubits. Wherefore it is both six
Cubits and twelve Cubits at once, that is to
••ay, it is double to it self at the same time,
which is impossible.
Nor does the Second part of my Adversa∣ries
Answer evade this Impossibility: That it
will no more follow that a Body occupying at
••he same time two places, and so being equal
to those two places, which are double to one
single place, that the Body is double to it self,
then that a Body of one Cubit ••a••ified into a
double dimension and therefore occupying a
double space is double to it self: Or the rational
••oul informing a Bod•• of a span length at first, but
〈◊〉〈◊〉 the same Body grown another span, is thereby
descriptionPage 122
double to it self. For not at all to quarrel with
the mistake of the nature of Rarefaction, which
I must confess I take to be the Cartesian way not
the ••ristotelean, and candidly interpreting his
meaning, in those words, (a body of a span length
and then grown up to another span) which grown
up to another span naturally implies the Body
not double but octuple to what it was before,
passing by these and medling onely with his own
meaning, (as it may be hoped) and Hypotheses,
the examples do not at all reach the present pur∣pose.
For speaking in his sense, a body of one
Cubit rarified into a double dimension is double
to it self unrarified; that is, It is as big again as
it was when it was unrarified. But it is not as
big again or double to it self at the same time,
but double it is to what it was before. And the
same is to be said of the soul, (in such a sense as
extension is applicable to her, and increase or de∣crease
of it, namely by dilatation and contraction
Spiritual) that it is double when the Body is grown
as big again as it was when it was but a span long,
to what it was when the Body was but a span
long. But here in the present Case a Body is de∣monstrated
double to it self, compared with it
self and its present condition at the same time:
Which is impossible, viz. That the same Body
should be double now to what it is now. That it
now should be as big again as it self is now. For
neither can the Soul her self be said to be now
as wise again as she is now, but onely as wise
again as she was some time ago. And so my
descriptionPage 123
Adversaries Answer does not at all reach the
point in hand. And therefore my Demonstrati∣on
stands firm and unshaken, of the Impossibili∣ty
of Transubstantiation from this Argument taken
from Physicks, as any unprejudiced eye may easily
discern. Nor had we any need here to consider
the continuity or discontinuity of places. But all is
clear from what we have thus briefly represented.
email
Do you have questions about this content? Need to report a problem?
Please contact us.