A01540:231
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. Here we return to our old coal-worts again, which, I see, will still be thrust upon us, and we must not refuse, unless we will seem to say nothing to that that Mr. B. saith to little purpose so oft. 1. Here is the distinction revived again between not forbidden and warranted. As if that were not warranted, that is not forbidden. Let Mr. B. remember what he set us on, when he served in the same before in effect: *That is good for the doing whereof there is either precept or permission. Hence I reason, Whatsoever is good is warranted; whatsoever is permitted is good: whatsoever is not forbidden is permitted: whatsoever therefore is not forbidden, is warranted. But observe what consequents will follow upon this conceit of Mr. Bs. to wit, that Some things that are not evil, (for nothing is evil, ⟨p. 94⟩that is not forbidden) yet are not warrantable by Gods word: Some things that are against no part of Gods Law; (for if they be against any part of it, they are thereby forbidden) yet are sins; for whatsoever is not of faith is sin; and whatsoever is not warranted, is not of faith. Here are strange Positions, and new Divinity; and such it may be, as Mr. B. scarce dreamed of when he delivered this: and yet cfollow they necessarily upon the same. 2. Mr. B. passing by, as his manner is, the proof of mine Assumption before denied by him, disputeth against the Conclusion, or the Proposition denied. But let us hear his Argument: That use of a Lot is against Piety, that is not warranted by the word. But the use of a Lot in Game is not warranted by the word: Therefore it is against piety. The Assumption which he should prove especially, he proveth not at all. The Proposition, which indeed is unsound also, he proveth sorrily thus: Whatsoever is not of faith is sin, yea impiety. Whatsoever▪ is not warranted by the word, is not of faith: Whatsoever therefore is not warranted by the word, is against Piety. The Proposition taken in strict sense, as we dispute here of Piety and Charity, the one comprehending the sum of the first Table distinct from the second, and the other of the second Table distinct from the first, is not true. Many things are done without ⟨p. 95⟩