A01540:584
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. I will not endeavour to prove, that in the word there is matter of just consequence, either general or implied (which is a part of the Proposition) to allow, as well sweetening with sugar, &c. as Recreation in general: and therefore they may be lawful, though they be not mentioned in the word.
I. B. I will not endeuour to proue, that in the word there is matter of iust consequence, either generall or implied (which is a part of the Proposition) to allow, as well sweetning with sugar, &c. as Recreation in generall: and therefore they may be lawfull, though they be not mentioned in the word.
T. G. Here Mr. B. telleth us, that he will not endeavour to prove that which he need not, because it is not in question: and withal *in stead of proving what he should prove, he doth utterly himself overthrow it. That that he saith he will not endeavour to prove, is not at all questioned. For the entire Proposition made up out of Mr. Eastie and him doth not say, that whatsoever thing hath no allowance from Gods word is unlawful: but, whatsoever hath not allowance ⟨p. 256⟩either by precept or practise in Gods word is unlawful. In neither kind whereof, I suppose, Mr. B. can find ought touching divers of the particulars before mentioned, which yet he denieth not to be lawful. That he overthroweth directly that that he should prove, is apparent. For his Proposition is this; Whatsoever there is no example of in Gods word, is unwarrantable: And yet here he saith, that some things may be lawful, though they be not mentioned in Gods word. What is this but a direct contradiction of that?
T. G. Here Mr. B. telleth vs, that he will not endeuour to proue that which he need not, because it is not in question: and withall *in stead of prouing what he should proue, he doth vtterly himselfe ouerthrow it. That that he saith he will not endeuour to proue, is not at all questioned. For the entire Proposition made vp out of Mr. Eastie and him doth not say, that whatsoeuer thing hath no allowance from Gods word is vnlawfull: but, whatsoeuer hath not allowance