A01540:571
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. He may do well to show what parts and where. For I know not, for my part, what he hath as yet either confuted or confirmed. Yet a little, by his leave, to the Assumption; though not his, yet Mr. Easties, joined here with his; and by him acknowledged: It is this in effect; There is not any warrant in the word for the ludicrous use of Lots either by precept or practise, general or special, expressed or implied. Now if we believe Mr. B. this is a very presumptuous Assertion, and such as no man may avow, unless he had a memory able to contain every sentence of Scripture, and an understanding so absolute, as to know every consequent that might be deduced and drawn from each of them. And therefore ⟨p. 248⟩Mr. E. or Mr. B. ought to have said, There is no such warrant, by precept or practise, so far as I know, or to my best remembrance. And thus might Mr. G. with a knife lent him by Mr. B. cut a sunder this cGordian knot, to use Mr. Bs. words, and so let the denial of the Proposition alone. But we will not take all advantages that Mr. Bs. offers may afford.
T. G. He may doe well to shew what parts and where. For I know not, for my part, what he hath as yet either confuted or confirmed. Yet a little, by his leaue, to the Assumption; though not his, yet Mr. Easties, ioyned here with his; and by him acknowledged: It is this in effect; There is not any warrant in the word for the ludicrous vse of Lots either by precept or practise, generall or speciall, expressed or implied. Now if we beleeue Mr. B. this is a very presumptuous Assertion, and such as no man may auow, vnlesse he had a memorie able to containe euery sentence of Scripture, and an vnderstanding so absolute, as to know euery consequent that might be deduced and drawne from each of them. And therefore ⟨p. 248⟩Mr. E. or Mr. B. ought to haue said, There is no such warrant, by precept or practise, so far as I know, or to my best remembrance. And thus might Mr. G. with a knife lent him by Mr. B. cut a sunder this cGordians knot, to vse Mr. Bs. words, and so let the deniall of the Proposition alone. But we will not take all aduantages that Mr. Bs. offers may afford.