A01540:575
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.
Our Saviour proveth the Jews not to be the children of Abraham, because they would have killed him, which Abraham did not: Therefore whatsoever there is no example for in ⟨p. 252⟩Gods word, is unwarrantable. But let us see whether his next quotation stand him in any better steed.
Our Sauiour proueth the Iewes not to be the children of Abraham, because they would haue killed him, which Abraham did not: Therefore whatsoeuer there is no example for in ⟨p. 252⟩Gods word, is vnwarrantable. But let vs see whether his next quotation stand him in any better steed.
I. B. Of the other quotation the words be these: We have no custom, nor the Churches of God. The consequent implied is: Therefore women ought not to pray uncovered. Hereunto Mr. G. answereth indeed, but so, that he doth not deny that Paul argueth negatively from a matter of fact to a matter of right: which is all that I intended by the quotation; and not, to imagine this Argument, The Churches of God, and faithful men do not use Lots in gaming. Therefore such gaming is unlawful.
I. B. Of the other quotation the words be these: We haue no custome, nor the Churches of God. The consequent implied is: Therefore women ought not to pray vncouered. Hereunto Mr. G. answereth indeed, but so, that he doth not deny that Paul argueth negatiuely from a matter of fact to a matter of right: which is all that I intended by the quotation; and not, to imagine this Argument, The Churches of God, and faithfull men doe not vse Lots in gaming. Therefore such gaming is vnlawfull.