A01540:587
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. If Mr. Gs. Axiom hold in any, your Proposition is infringed. Any one particular denied, overthroweth an affirmative general. Let his Axiom alone therefore, and prove your Proposition. But that you will never be able to do: and do wisely therefore to let it alone. ⟨p. 257⟩Yea but if you will suppose and take that for granted, which was the ground of Mr. B. his first Argument, and without which never an one of them can subsist, then Mr. B. presumeth that Abraham would not have played at Cards or Dice, nor no other godly man: And what then? Why? Then we should have had no example either of Jew or Gentile recorded in Scripture that had done so. And consequently, (for that is the Proposition in Question) Nothing is warrantable, whereof there is no example in the word. Here is a deal of xloose sand without ought to bind it together. The main matter in Question still begged, and yet nothing inferred out of it, that is ought to Mr. Bs. Argument. No due proceeding in ought, only ya wheeling round about with a return to the old principle, of an immediate providence in every Lot, the ground of the first Argument: For that cometh in still to help at a dead lift, and is as good as the Tragedians their zGod in an Engine, that served to help out still when they were at a stress.
T. G. If Mr. Gs. Axiome hold in any, your Proposition is infringed. Any one particular denied, ouerthroweth an affirmatiue generall. Let his Axiome alone therefore, and proue your Proposition. But that you will neuer be able to doe: and doe wisely therefore to let it alone. ⟨p. 257⟩Yea but if you will suppose and take that for granted, which was the ground of Mr. B. his first Argument, and without which neuer an one of them can subsist, then Mr. B. presumeth that Abraham would not haue plaied at Cards or Dice, nor no other godly man: And what then? Why? Then we should haue had no example either of Iew or Gentile recorded in Scripture that had done so. And consequently, (for that is the Proposition in Question) Nothing is warrantable, whereof there is no example in the word. Here is a deale of