the other, (which much more nearly touched me) that I was charged to maintain in that my Treatise some Assertions that were blasphemous. The former he affirmed that he had heard by many. I told him, those many (if there were such) were very much to blame: And withal by solemn protestation, as in Gods presence, denied that I had by name in Pulpit refuted either him or any other that I dealt with in this Argument. How I named him or his Book rather, and so him with it, I told him: to wit, that having propounded the Question concerning the light use of a Lot, I recited those Authors that had written of this Subject, viz. B. King upon Jonah, B. Babington on the Decalogue, Peter Martyr on Judges, Danaeus of Lot-play, Perkins Cases of Conscience, Fennor of lawful Recreations, Easty history of the Gospel, Bamford Dialogue of Games consisting in Chance: whereof some were of one mind, some of another; and if I should dissent in decision of the Question from any of them, I desired it might be without offence, adding that bpromise that Mr. B. hath before related. After which having delivered mine own Judgement, & propounded and prosecuted the Reasons that I had for it; I then answered the Objections on the other ⟨p. 51⟩side, reduced to some heads, and according to those heads handling them, taking sometime also some part of one and the same Objection from one, and some part of it from another, who had somewhat further pursued it; but not naming (as those may testify that have my notes yet in their hands) any one of those whom then I dealt with. Upon relation of this, or the effect of it, with such protestation, Mr. B. affirmed that he was therein satisfied, and believed it to be so as I said. And now judge, I pray thee, what (I say not Charity or Conscience, but) candour and ingenuity at least Mr. B. hath showed, in charging me peremptorily, and that more than once (after this my protestation and his own acknowledgement of the truth) publicly in Print with confuting him by Name in open Pulpit, and breach of Charity in so doing. If Mr. B. were so chary of doing Mr. G. wrong, that to prevent, or at least, avoid the same, he added this Post-script, cwhy doth he wilfully wrong him in that very point, wherein he would seem here to salve his credit?
the other, (which much more neerely touched me) that I was charged to maintaine in that my Treatise some Assertions that were blasphemous. The former he affirmed that he had heard by many. I told him, those many (if there were such) were very much to blame: And withall by solemne protestation, as in Gods presence, denied that I had by name in Pulpit refuted either him or any other that I dealt with in this Argument. How I named him or his Booke rather, and so him with it, I told him: to wit, that hauing propounded the Question concerning the light vse of a Lot, I recited those Authors that had written of this Subiect, viz. B. King vpon Ionas, B. Babington on the Decalogue, Peter Martyr on Iudges, Danaeus of Lot-play, Perkins Cases of Conscience, Fennor of lawfull Recreations, Easty historie of the Gospell, Bamford Dialogue of Games consisting in Chance: whereof some were of one minde, some of another; and if I should dissent in decision of the Question from any of them, I desired it might be without offence, adding that bpromise that Mr. B. hath before related. After which hauing deliuered mine owne Iudgement, & propounded and prosecuted the Reasons that I had for it; I then answered the Obiectōs on the other ⟨p. 51⟩side, reduced to some heads, and according to those heads handling them, taking sometime also some part of one and the same Obiection from one, and some part of it from another, who had somewhat further pursued it; but not naming (as those may testifie that haue my notes yet in their hands) any one of those whom then I dealt with. Vpon relation of this, or the effect of it, with such protestation, Mr. B. affirmed that he was therein satisfied, and beleeued it to be so as I said. And now iudge, I pray thee, what (I say not Charitie or Conscience, but) candor and ingenuitie at least Mr. B. hath shewed, in charging me peremptorily, and that more than once (after this my protestation and his owne acknowledgment of the truth) publikely in Print with confuting him by Name in open Pulpit, and breach of Charitie in so doing. If Mr. B. were so chary of doing Mr. G. wrong, that to preuent, or at least, auoid the same, hee added this Post-script, cwhy doth he wilfully wrong him in that very point, wherein hee would seeme here to salue his credit?
- b[Greek or Hebrew]. Aristot. ethic. lib. 1. cap. 6. Pijque ac prudentis cujusque illud est, [Greek or Hebrew]. Lucian. asino.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Aristot. ethic. lib. 1. cap. 6. Pijque ac prudentis cujusque illud est, 〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Lucian. asino.
- cNae tu, inquit ille, homo imprudens es, qui culpam maluisti deprecari, cùm posses praecavere. Nam tu quod caver• possis, stultum est admittere. Ter. Eunuch. 4. 6. Seráque nimis & praepostera oratio, quae peractum castigat, cui occurri potuerat. Plin. ep. 6. l. 6.
