A01540:194
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. ⟨p. 79⟩Mr. G. is not afraid to put it in; for he doth it in effect. But Mr. B. (who with all faithfulness, if you will believe him, relateth Mr. Gs. Arguments) cutteth it out himself in the relating of it, and then asketh Mr. G. why he putteth it not in. If this be not childish, I know not what is. It is like the Papists dealing with us, that clip the tongue of antiquity, and then ask us why we do not or dare not allege it.
T. G. ⟨p. 79⟩Mr. G. is not afraid to put it in; for he doth it in effect. But Mr. B. (who with all faithfulnesse, if you will beleeue him, relateth Mr. Gs. Arguments) cutteth it out himselfe in the relating of it, and then asketh Mr. G. why he putteth it not in. If this be not childish, I know not what is. It is like the Papists dealing with vs, that clip the tongue of antiquitie, and then aske vs why we doe not or dare not alledge it.
I. B. Is not the Minor to be the Subject, and the Major to be the Predicate of the Conclusion? I will not question the figure of this pretended Argument, if Sub, prae, prima, will serve the turn. And though I find it in no mood, yet will I answer the two fore-pieces thereof.
I. B. Is not the Minor to be the Subiect, and the Maior to be the Pradicate of the Conclusion? I will not question the figure of this pretended Argument, if Sub, prae, prima, will serue the turne. And though I finde it in no mood, yet will I answer the two fore-peeces thereof.
T. G. That part of the Minor and Major is to be so, I grant; and that I suppose Mr. B. meant. And that it is so in mine Argument would have easily appeared, if Mr. B. had related the Conclusion aright. The Argument thus standeth. To put a matter of mere indifferency to be done or not done to the hazard of the uncertain motion of any creature whether it shall be done or left undone, is lawful. But the using of a Lot in any business, be it serious or lusorious, so qualified and cautioned as before, is no other than the putting of a matter of such mere indifferency to the hazard of the creatures uncertain motion.