A01540:103
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.
For neither is it equal that some one particular 1act should for all circumstances be a general rule to all others: the practise of the Apostles themselves, and by name of gS. Paul being at other times in points of the very same kind to the contrary that Mr. B. here urgeth: hNeither is there the same reason of Dogmatical Divinity, by grounds of faith informing the Conscience concerning the true Nature of the things themselves, and of Ecclesiastical Discipline by Canons and Constitutions restraining not Christian Liberty▪ but the outward Use of it for Order sake, and the benefit of our Brethren.
For neither is it equall that some one particular 1act should for all circumstances be a generall rule to all others: the practise of the Apostles themselues, and by name of gS. Paul being at other times in points of the very same kinde to the contrary that Mr. B. here vrgeth: hNeither is there the same reason of Dogmaticall Diuinitie, by grounds of faith informing the Conscience concerning the true Nature of the things themselues, and of Ecclesiasticall Discipline by Canons and Constitutions restraining not Christian Libertie▪ but the outward Vse of it for Order sake, and the benefit of our Brethren.
- 1T. G.
- gSee the places above cited.See the places aboue cited.
- hSee Calvin. institut. lib. 3. cap. 19. sect. 10, 15, 16.