A01540:144
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.
4. Yea but Mr. G. affirmeth them else-where to be lawful in themselves. And why is he fearful now to allow them as good in themselves? Though such words of mine be not found in the place pointed to: yet I fear not to own them, and it is like enough that else-where I may use them. Nor did I ever understand till now, that these ⟨p. 59⟩two were not equivalent, not to be evil, and to be lawful. Is there any medium in moral actions between lawful and unlawful? Or any difference between unlawful and evil? If not, then every thing that is not evil is not unlawful; and every thing consequently that is not evil, is lawful. Yea I add further, that every thing that is not evil, is in some sense, and that a good sense too, good. The word, good, therefore in common acception is taken two ways; sometime more strictly for some such tvirtuous act, as deserveth ua special note of commendation and praise; and in this sense there is some medium between good and bad. For some actions there be, as for a man xto make much of himself, to drink when he is a dry, yto love his own, zto befriend his friend, to amake amends for what he hath done amiss, &c. which though they be allowable, yet are not greatly commendable; bneither deserve they much praise and commendation when they are done, nor without much sin many times may they be omitted. Sometime the word is taken in a greater latitude of sense, for any action that is warrantable and allowable whatsoever, and so there is no medium at all between good and bad, every particular moral action being either warrantable or unwarrantable, as cin my Lots I have showed