A01540:626
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.
In the second Argument, the former shape, he denieth this Proposition, That which best sorteth with the nature of a Lot, may a Lot most lawfully be used unto: which for my part shall never be further proved.
In the second Argument, the former shape, he denieth this Proposition, That which best sorteth with the nature of a Lot, may a Lot most lawfully be vsed vnto: which for my part shall neuer be further proued.
In the latter shape (the vain cavil to the form of it omitted) he denieth this Proposition; A matter of mere indifferency, such as a man may lawfully do or not do, and it is not material whether he do or omit, a man may lawfully put to the hazard of the uncertain motion of the Creature whether he shall do or no: yet with a restraint, unless it be a matter controverted. And let that, for me, rest too, and others judge of it.
In the latter shape (the vaine cauill to the forme of it omitted) he denieth this Proposition; A matter of meere indifferencie, such as a man may lawfully doe or not doe, and it is not materiall whether he doe or omit, a man may lawfully put to the hazard of the vncertaine motion of the Creature whether he shall doe or no: yet with a restraint, vnlesse it be a matter controuerted. And let that, for me, rest too, and others iudge of it.
In the third Argument he affirmeth, The use of a Lot in Game, as it is a Lot, to be against Piety, because it is not of faith; against Charity, because it scandali•eth. That is an idle consequence; this evidently untrue of a Lot in Game simply considered: and he maintaineth every Lot to be holy by some divine Institution, which I require to be produced.