A01540:335
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. Not to say, how fitly the place of Scripture in the Margin is here applied. For the simple Reader, if a man should stand to explain every School term, that, in such discourses and disputes as this, we are enforced oft to use, it would be a very tedious task both to Writer and Reader. Nor doth Mr. B. himself observe that Rule that he would tie others to: For doth he not oft speak of major, minor, proposition, assumption, mood and figure; Sub, prae, prima, &c. never informing his Reader what thereby is meant. But is it possible that so learned a man as Mr. B. should not understand what so familiar and ordinary a Logical term as the Subject Matter is, meaneth? But it is yet more strange that Mr. B. ⟨p. 147⟩should not understand what himself saith. For this Assumption he speaketh of, is not mine but his own: nor do I here speak any one word of the Subject Matter of Lottery: it is himself only that doth it. Which Subject Matter whether it be, as he saith, determined to be such as he here saith, shall in his due place appear. No more for the present, but that this Assumption I own not, and therefore need take no care for it, whether it fall or stand, so far forth as it cometh here in question.
T. G. Not to say, how fitly the place of Scripture in the Margine is here applied. For the simple Reader, if a man should stand to explaine euery Schoole terme, that, in such discourses and disputes as this, we are inforced oft to vse, it would be a very tedious taske both to Writer and Reader. Nor doth Mr. B. himselfe obserue that Rule that he would tie others to: For doth he not oft speake of maior, minor, proposition, assumption, mood and figure; Sub, prae, prima, &c. neuer informing his Reader what thereby is meant. But is it possible that so learned a man as Mr. B. should not vnderstand what so familiar and ordinary a Logicall terme as the Subiect Matter is, meaneth? But it is yet more strange that Mr. B. ⟨p. 147⟩should not vnderstand what himselfe saith. For this Assumption he speaketh of, is not mine but his owne: nor doe I here speake any one word of the Subiect Matter of Lottery: it is himselfe onely that doth it. Which Subiect Matter whether it be, as he saith, determined to be such as he here saith, shall in his due place appeare. No more for the present, but that this Assumption I owne not, and therefore need take no care for it, whether it fall or stand, so far forth as it commeth here in question.