T. G. Mr. Bs. Proposition in truth is this: That which there is no example of in Gods word is not warrantable by it. This to make good, he setteth against his first ground in the margin, a quotation of those two places. The Printer, it seemeth, had misprinted the one, and directed me to a wrong place, where finding nothing that carried any the least semblance of confirmation for the Point propounded, it may be, I say, that dopus est Delio natatore, to fetch ought out of those words; or that I am no eOedipus to assoil Mr. Bs. riddle, or some such like, (for I have no ⟨p. 249⟩copy now by me of that writing, nor had Mr. B. (I will not say, the honesty, but) that care of his word, that he should have had, to return me either answer, or it again) and that is all the pastime that Mr. B. here saith, I make with it. He should have done well to have set down my words, whereby it might have appeared, whether I had used any other terms therein, than might well stand with due reverence and regard to him. In which kind, whether either in that writing, or in my Book, after it published, I have been faulty, I appeal to any that have seen the one, and to all that may, if they will, take a view of the other.
But for the thing it self, how I should have known what it was that was intended, unless it were by fdivination; or how should I have answered it, before I knew what was intended, unless it had been by prophecy, (as he said sometime that ga proclamation was penned) I know not. But Mr. B. dealeth herein as Bellarmine is wont, who when he hath produced a testimony out of some new-found, and it may be new-coined Author, that hath not been long abroad; and those he dealeth with, it is like, never so much as once heard of; hand to this, saith he, the Heretics give no answer at all. But now we know what it is that Mr. B. would have, he shall not be long without an Answer. Where to omit that Mr. B. speaketh, as if our Saviour CHRIST had a Logic by himself, or would either here or elsewhere teach us a new Logic, or another Logic, than I say not Aristotle the Heathen, but Ramus and other Christian Logicians have taught: when as indeed he ⟨p. 250⟩wrongeth our Saviour in deducing from his words that which they will not bear, yea if they should bear, he that is iTruth it self, should be contrary to himself. Our Saviour, as it is apparent, reasoneth on this manner;
T. G. Mr. Bs. Proposition in truth is this: That which there is no example of in Gods word is not warrantable by it. This to make good, he setteth against his first ground in the margent, a quotation of those two places. The Printer, it seemeth, had misprinted the one, and directed me to a wrong place, where finding nothing that caried any the least semblance of confirmation for the Point propounded, it may be, I say, that dopus est Delio natatore, to fetch ought out of those words; or that I am no eOedipus to assoile Mr. Bs. riddle, or some such like, (for I haue no ⟨p. 249⟩copie now by me of that writing, nor had Mr. B. (I will not say, the honestie, but) that care of his word, that he should haue had, to returne me either answer, or it againe) and that is all the pastime that Mr. B. here saith, I make with it. He should haue done well to haue set downe my words, whereby it might haue appeared, whether I had vsed any other termes therein, than might well stand with due reuerence and regard to him. In which kinde, whether either in that writing, or in my Booke, after it published, I haue beene faulty, I appeale to any that haue seene the one, and to all that may, if they will, take a view of the other.
But for the thing it selfe, how I should haue knowne what it was that was intended, vnlesse it were by fdiuination; or how should I haue answered it, before I knew what was intended, vnlesse it had beene by prophecie, (as he said sometime that ga proclamation was penned) I know not. But Mr. B. dealeth herein as Bellarmine is wont, who when he hath produced a testimonie out of some new-found, and it may be new-coined Author, that hath not beene long abroad; and those he dealeth with, it is like, neuer so much as once heard of; hand to this, saith he, the Heretikes giue no answer at all. But now we know what it is that Mr. B. would haue, he shall not be long without an Answer. Where to omit that Mr. B. speaketh, as if our Sauiour CHRIST had a Logick by himselfe, or would either here or elsewhere teach vs a new Logick, or another Logick, than I say not Aristotle the Heathen, but Ramus and other Christian Logicians haue taught: when as indeed he ⟨p. 250⟩wrongeth our Sauiour in deducing from his words that which they will not beare, yea if they should beare, he that is
- dThere needs a Delian diver. A Proverb used by either Crates or Socrates, upon view of an obscure discourse. [Greek or Hebrew]. Laert. in Heraclit.There needs a Delian diver. A Prouerbe vsed by either Crates or Socrates, vpō view of an obscure discourse. 〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Laert. in Heraclit.
- eOne famous for arreading of riddles. Hinc ille apud Terent. Andr. 1. 2. Davus sum, non Oedipus.
- f[Greek or Hebrew]. Euripid. Hippol. Non sum divinus. Martial.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Euripid. Hippol. Non sum divinus. Martial.
- gMaster of Pauls School in Rich. 3. his time. Tho. More story.Master of Pauls Schoole in Rich. 3. his time. Tho. More story.
- hAd haec testimonia neque respondent adversarij, neque respondere aliquid possunt. Bellar. de Euchar. l. 2. c. 19. &c. 21.
- iJohn 14. 6.Iohn 14. 6.
