A01540:229
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. What Mr. B. meaneth by all this I do not well understand: save that he beggeth the Question pitifully, and applieth nothing of all this at all to mine Argument, or any part of it. Yet a word or two to it. 1. The Question is, utrum sit, and Mr. B. telleth us here quorsum sit. The Question is, whether Lots be hallowed or no: and Mr. B. telleth us to what end they be hallowed; apresupposing that, that being in question is to be proved. 2. He telleth us that an Oath is hallowed: bWhat needs it? It is choly of it own nature and in it ⟨p. 93⟩self: as the very definition of it it self will show. And a man may as well say, that prayer is hallowed to make an holy use of the invocating of the name of God, as that an Oath is hallowed to make an holy use of the testifying presence of God; or rather of calling in the testifying presence of God; if we regard the true nature of an Oath. But so is not a Lot: they are nothing therefore alike.
T. G. What Mr. B. meaneth by all this I doe not well vnderstand: saue that he beggeth the Question pitifully, and applieth nothing of all this at all to mine Argument, or any part of it. Yet a word or two to it. 1. The Question is, utrum sit, and Mr. B. telleth vs here quorsum sit. The Question is, whether Lots be hallowed or no: and Mr. B. telleth vs to what end they be hallowed; apresupposing that, that being in question is to be proued. 2. He telleth vs that an Oath is hallowed: bWhat needs it? It is choly of it owne nature and in it ⟨p. 93⟩selfe: as the very definition of it it selfe will shew. And a man may as well say, that prayer is hallowed to make an holy vse of the inuocating of the name of God, as that an Oath is hallowed to make an holy vse of the testifying presence of God; or rather of calling in the testifying presence of God; if wee regard the true nature of an Oath. But so is not a Lot: they are nothing therefore alike.