A01540:315
A just defence of certain passages in a former treatise concerning the nature and…A iust defence of certaine passages in a former treatise concerning the nature and…
A just defence of certain passages in a former treatise concerning the nature and use of lots, against such exceptions and oppositions as have been made thereunto to Mr. I.B. Wherein the insufficiency of his answers given to the arguments brought in defence of a lusorious lot is manifested; the imbecility of his arguments produced against the same further discovered; and the point it self in controversy more fully cleared; by Thomas Gataker B. of D. and author of the former treatise.A iust defence of certaine passages in a former treatise concerning the nature and vse of lots, against such exceptions and oppositions as have beene made thereunto to Mr. I.B. Wherein the insufficiencie of his answers giuen to the arguments brought in defence of a lusorious lot is manifested; the imbecillitie of his arguments produced against the same further discouered; and the point it selfe in controuersie more fully cleared; by Thomas Gataker B. of D. and author of the former treatise.
London: printed by John Haviland for Robert Bird, 1623London: printed by Iohn Haviland for Robert Bird, 1623
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.
T. G. Or rather is all this any more than *mere cavilling? To let Mr. Bs. grave notes upon this Gloss, and his serious inferences upon the allegation of it pass, wherein he maketh himself lmost ridiculous. All this ado is, because in the margin of my Book (which a Scholar may make use of) I allege out of the Glossers of the Civill Law, certain Rules that in their Law concur some with the one branch, some with the other of the distinction I there use. It is but as if one handling some point of Divinity about lawful and unlawful silence ⟨p. 128⟩should say, In some cases that Rule of the Canon Law holdeth▪ nSilence is deemed as consent: in other cases that other Rule, oSilence is held no denial, and yet no consent neither: or determining how far forth the desire goeth for the deed, should say, In this case, that of the Civill Law holdeth, pThe Affection is punished, though it take not effect: in that case it holdeth not, but that other rather, qThe affection is not held faulty, if no effect follow. Which (forsooth) in Mr. Bs. conceit must needs therefore be one ground of the truth maintained, or else all is nothing worth. But he wanted better matter, it seemeth, to work upon.
T. G. Or rather is all this any more than *meere cauilling? To let Mr. Bs. graue notes vpon this Glosse, and his serious inferences vpon the allegation of it passe, wherein hee maketh himselfe lmost ridiculous. All this adoe is, because in the margine of my Booke (which a Scholler may make vse of) I alledge out of the Glossers of the Ciuill Law, certaine Rules that in their Law concurre some with the one branch, some with the other of the distinction I there vse. It is but as if one handling some point of Diuinitie about lawfull and vnlawfull silence