A01540:574
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.
They that do such wicked works as Abraham never did, nor would ever have done, (for even this also Mr. B. himself hereafter acknowledgeth to be intimated; which if it had here been mentioned, would have marred all) show themselves to be such as are no children of Abraham: But you do such wicked works as Abraham never did, nor would ever have done: for you offer to kill me for telling the truth: which Abraham would not have done: Therefore you show your selves thereby to be none of his children. So Piscator analysing and explicating the place: kThe Lord thus convinceth them from their doings: If ye were Abraham's sons, you would do Abraham's works; that is, such as he did, to wit, good. But you do not Abraham's works, that is, such as he did, to wit, good: and I instance in one, for you seek to slay me that have deserved well of you. Therefore you are not Abraham's sons. And it is well observed by Calvin, that not all things simply that Abraham did or did not, but lthose for which he is specially commended, are notes to distinguish the children of Abraham from others. Now observe but, I beseech you, what absurd, if not Logic, yet deductions and consequences Mr. B. would fasten upon our Saviour. For if this place help Mr. Bs. cause, or do prove that a man may reason in the ⟨p. 251⟩point now controversed, from matter of fact to matter of right, this must be the Argument: That which Abraham did not, no Christian man may do: But Abraham never played at Cards, or Abraham never used a sporting Lot: Therefore no Christian man may do either. Or put we some other Assumption to the former Proposition: But Abraham went not in doublet or hose: or, Abraham wore not bands and cuffs: or, Abraham never walked London streets, &c. Therefore no Christian man may warrantably do any of these. Yea to go a little further: if we should stretch, as Mr. B. doth, the words of our Saviour, we might thus reason: They that do not as Abraham did, are none of Abraham's children: But they that deny not their wives, do not as *Abraham did: Therefore they that deny not their wives, are not Abraham's children. Nor is this to control our Saviours Logic, but to show, what manner of Logic Mr. B. would either teach our Saviour, or make us believe that our Saviour used. In a word, here is the proof of Mr. Bs. Proposition: