A01540:186
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. I see, a man must be very peremptory that dealeth with Mr. B. or else he shall be nothing worth. But I shall desire him to pardon me, if I be not so peremptory, as he and some other are. But wherein, think we, doth this trembling and timorousness discover it self?
T. G. I see, a man must be very peremptorie that dealeth with Mr. B. or else he shall be nothing worth. But I shall desire him to pardon me, if I be not so peremptorie, as hee and some other are. But wherein, thinke we, doth this trembling and timorousnesse discouer it selfe?
I. B. In the Proposition he speaketh of a Lot in the former acception. In the Assumption, of a Lot in the latter acception. Indeed a man may be bolder with the Creature, so it be without relation to God, than with the Creator himself.
I. B. In the Proposition he speaketh of a Lot in the former acception. In the Assumption, of a Lot in the latter acception. Indeed a man may be bolder with the Creature, so it be without relation to God, than with the Creator himselfe.
T. G. What trembling argued this, if I did so? as indeed I do not. And Mr. Bs. eye-sight, it ⟨p. 78⟩seemeth, failed him when he made this exception. For how can I in the Proposition take a Lot either in this or that acception, when there is no word at all of a Lot in it? as even Mr. B. himself relateth it. In the Assumption I speak of a Lot as it is ordinarily taken, and as himself out of Lyra in effect defineth it, for aa variable event (or a casual rather) applied unto the deciding of some doubt, which that it hath any special relation to the Creator, more than any other ordinary civill Actions have, is denied.