A01540:577
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. B•. would make his Reader believe here that Mr. B. had laid this for a ground in his Book, that from matter of fact a man might reason in some case to matter of right; (which yet would do him as much good for the proof of his Proposition, if it were granted him, as a little water would in his shoo) and that for proof thereof Mr. B. having produced this place, Mr. G. in his writing had granted the same; (for so he would seem to imply, when he saith, Mr. G. doth not deny it) whereas indeed all this is but ma fiction, and a mere made matter. For howsoever in mine answer to the entire Argument, pieced up partly out of Mr. B. and partly out of Mr. Eastie, I speak of such arguing, yet in Mr. Bs. Dialogue there is no mention at all of it. But Mr. Bs. Proposition is, or must be, to make up his Conclusion, That which there is no example of in Gods word, is ⟨p. 253⟩unlawful. Now how do the Apostles words prove this? Or what other Argument to further Mr. Bs. cause could be framed out of them, but such as is above by him mentioned, and I supposed he would have made? But since he waiveth that, let us see how it will prove that that it should. nIt is not the custom, saith the Apostle, of Christians, to be contentious; as osome expound it; or as pothers, It is not a custom among Christians, for women to be unveiled. Therefore none ought to be such, to wit, contentious: or none ought to do so, that is, bring in such new fashions, as are both undecent, and unusual. Will it now follow hence, that because the Apostle either condemneth contentiousness, because qit is not the manner of Christians to be contentious: or women's appearing in the public congregation unveiled, because it was contrary to the custom of the Christian Churches; and rto break settled order in such things is not allowable: Will i, I say, follow hence therefore, that nothing is warrantable, whereof no example is in the word? If it do not, either let Mr. B. put it out of his Book, or else forbear at least to urge it.