A01540:308
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 is a long and sore accusation; which might all well without any one word more be answered, only by pointing the finger to what formerly was said. But because Mr. B. so much presseth me, I will entreat the Readers patience for a little further discussion of what is here objected. All I say here is this, that Where the circumstances of Actions in themselves lawful are not determined in the word, all such are lawful as are not in the same word forbidden, or as are not against the general rules of the said word of God otherwise. And is it not strange that this Assertion should to Mr. B. seem so strange? Or is this any writhing from the rule of Gods word? ⟨p. 122⟩Yea but I cross my self else-where in it. For I say else-where that such things are lawful as are in Gods word either commanded or permitted either expressly or by just consequence. I say so indeed: and what contradiction is there between these two? For is not that by just consequence permitted, that is not prohibited? Yea, (since we are come to these precise terms) that is, neither expressly nor by just consequence prohibited? For I am sure Mr. B. will not deny that to be prohibited, as well that is by just consequence prohibited, as that is prohibited in express terms. Either Mr. B. then must give us some medium between permission and non prohibition, or else these two positions will have very friendly agreement. Yea but Mr. G. himself may seem to assign some when he saith, that in circumstances determined, there is no permission, though no prohibition be of any other. I answer in a word, that the very stinting of an action to those circumstances is a virtual prohibition of all other not expressed, albeit no exclusive particle in the injunction be adjoined. For example, when God bid Abraham otake Isaac and sacrifice him on an hill that he should show him: it was as effectual a prohibition of sacrificing him in any other place but on an hill, and on any other hill but that hill, as if God had said expressly (as he doth of the Jews sacrificing, pin the place that I assign and not elsewhere) upon that hill, and upon no other: And the reason is apparent; because that commandment could not be fulfilled if any branch of it, whereof the precise place was one, were broken.
T. G. Here is a long and sore accusation; which might all well without any one word more be answered, onely by pointing the finger to what formerly was said. But because Mr. B. so much presseth me, I will intreat the Readers patience for a little further discussion of what is here obiected. All I say here is this, that Where the circumstances of Actions in themselues lawfull are not determined in the word, all such are lawfull as are not in the same word forbidden, or as are not against the generall rules of the said word of God otherwise. And is it not strange that this Assertion should to Mr. B. seeme so strange? Or is this any writhing from the rule of Gods word?