A01540:351
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. task is to instance if he mean to do ought, against what general Rule of Gods word a lusorious Lot is; for that is the issue that we now are at. But in stead thereof Mr. B. telleth us that that no man denies, that if it be in it self unlawful, it is not the more justifiable, because it is not against this first rule of order. And what is this to the purpose? I iask for a pickax, and Mr. B. reacheth me a spade. This is mine Argument, Game in general being allowed, and no particular matter or manner of it prescribed, any is lawful that is not against the general rules of Gods word: But Lottery is such, to wit, not against any general Rule of Gods word: therefore Lottery is lawful. That it is of it self lawful is the Conclusion; that it is not against any general rule of Gods word is the Assumption. Mr. B. denieth the Conclusion; saith it is unlawful; and that it cannot be made lawful, though it be not against some one such Rule. What manner of answering call we this, wherein nothing is denied or answered to, but that that indeed ought never to be denied?
T. G. Mr. Bs. taske is to instance if he meane to doe ought, against what generall Rule of Gods word a lusorious Lot is; for that is the issue that we now are at. But in stead thereof Mr. B. telleth vs that that no man denies, that if it be in it selfe vnlawfull, it is not the more iustifiable, because it is not against this first rule of order. And what is this to the purpose? I iaske for a pickaxe, and Mr. B. reacheth me a spade. This is mine Argument, Game in generall being allowed, and no particular matter or manner of it prescribed, any is lawfull that is not against the generall rules of Gods word: But Lottery is such, to wit, not against any generall Rule of Gods word: therefore Lottery is lawfull. That it is of it selfe lawfull is the Conclusion; that it is not against any generall rule of Gods word is the Assumption. Mr. B. denieth the Conclusion; saith it is vnlawfull; and that it cannot be made lawfull, though it be not against some one such Rule. What manner of answering call we this, wherein nothing is denied or answered to, but that that indeed ought neuer to be denied?
- i[Greek or Hebrew]. Plut. [Greek or Hebrew]. vel quod Rufino Hieron. Manū posceris, & pedem porrigis. Vel Academico Domino si serviret, facturum quod se Epictetus profitetur, [Greek or Hebrew]. Arian. dissert. l. 2. c. 20.