A01540:336
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.
I. B. Let us try the force of the Assumptions confirmation. It is true, that Recreation in general, indefinitely understood, is warranted by Gods Word. But I believe Mr. G. will not affirm all recreations taken up by men to be so warranted. Yes, (saith Mr. G.) we may recreate our selves with anything, that is not against the general rules; because touching things wherewith we may recreate, there is nothing determined.
I. B. Let vs try the force of the Assumptions confirmation. It is true, that Recreation in generall, indefinitely vnderstood, is warranted by Gods Word. But I beleeue Mr. G. will not affirme all recreations taken vp by men to be so warranted. Yes, (saith Mr. G.) we may recreate our selues with anything, that is not against the generall rules; because touching things wherewith we may recreate, there is nothing determined.
T. G. That which indeed was mine Assumption, Mr. B. hath now at length by good hap light upon. But knowing not well how to bring it otherwise in, he maketh it the Confirmation of mine Assumption, that is the confirmation of it self. Or rather, according to Mr. Bs. analysis and resolution of mine Argument, (which was not yet so hard to be brought into form) the confirmation not of mine, but of his own Assumption: and so the Argument should thus stand; ⟨p. 148⟩Recreation in general is warranted, and […] particular manner of it prescribed, &c. Therefore a Let is a thing lawful in it self, and the subject matter and manner &c. are not determined by Gods word, nor against the general Rules. You need not marvel why Mr. B. de•ieth not this Consequence▪ albeit it be most senseless. For if he should, he knoweth not any that would undertake to defend it, but turn it home to him the true feather indeed of it. But as he dealeth with me for mine Arguments; so he doth the like with his own inferences. He doth not believe, he saith, that I will defend all recreations taken up by men to be warrantable. And yet as controlling himself herein, he saith, Yes. What is that but as much as, he doth? Now how proveth he this gross Calumny? Thus forsooth. Mr. G. saith, we may recreate our selves with any thing that is not against the general Rules. And doth he that saith so, defend that All recreations taken up by men are allowable? This is