A01540:321
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.
I. B. Let us now proceed to that, which Mr. G. writeth touching both the doing of every Act, and the doing of it in this and that manner. Neither of which needeth warrant from the word, if natural reason of it self afford sufficient direction. Good Lord! What fearful shifting from the word is here? But why doth he join the doing it self of an Act with the manner thereof? Isle tell you: even to make a way to his Assumption. For if he stick close to that which he teacheth in immediate words, to wit, that an act it self is lawful in it self, if in the word it be either commanded or permitted expressly or by just consequence, he foreseeth, that it will be answered to the fore-part of his Assumption, that every Lot is not lawful in it self. Therefore he would trouble the Readers head with a supposed direction therein of natural reason, and that sufficient. I say supposed; for he showeth no direction therein of natural reason either sufficient or insufficient.
I. B. Let vs now proceed to that, which Mr. G. writeth touching both the doing of euery Act, and the doing of it in this and that manner. Neither of which needeth warrant from the word, if naturall reason of it selfe afford sufficient direction. Good Lord! What fearefull shifting from the word is here? But why doth he ioyne the doing it selfe of an Act with the manner thereof? Ile tell you: euen to make a way to his Assumption. For if he sticke close to that which he teacheth in immediate words, to wit, that an act it selfe is lawfull in it selfe, if in the word it be either commanded or permitted expresly or by iust consequence, he foreseeth, that it will be answered to the fore-part of his Assumption, that euery Lot is not lawfull in it selfe. Therefore he would trouble the Readers head with a supposed direction therein of naturall reason, and that sufficient. I say supposed; for he sheweth no direction therein of naturall reason either sufficient or insufficient.
T. G. Mr. B. here beginneth to bless himself; as if indeed some evil Spirit had appeared. This belike was the blasphemous matter that he met with in my Book. But he must not think with such scar-bugs to carry it away. He hath not ⟨p. 132⟩