A01540:573
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. 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