A01540:312
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. Is the second confirmation from Luk. 9. 50. much better? The words set down by Mr. G. be these, [He that is not against me is with me.] This place (forsooth) ⟨p. 125⟩is a Rule holding in the Subject Matter, &c. determined. As these words, [He that is not with me, is against me, Matth. 12. 30.] is a rule in the subject-matter, &c. determined. Both a like in conceit. And why may not Mr. Gs. conceit be the same touching things or actions? But let us see whether the conceit be not a be misted fantasy. In the former place Christs words are occasioned by his Disciples their forbidding one who cast out Devils in Christs Name. Forbid him not, saith Christ, for, He that is not against me is with me. In the latter place Christ spake those words upon occasion of the Pharisees their opposition. So that consider the two sentences with their occasions together, this indeed is the sum. All men are either with or against Christ, for there be no Neutrals. So that those two sentences are like these. He that is not a goat is a sheep; and he that is not a sheep is a goat. But Mr. Gs. argument is this: All men who are not against Christ are with him. Therefore circumstances not determined, nor forbidden, are lawful. Is this sound arguing?
I. B. Is the second confirmation from Luk. 9. 50. much better? The words set downe by Mr. G. be these, [Hee that is not against me is with me.] This place (forsooth) ⟨p. 125⟩is a Rule holding in the Subiect Matter, &c. determined. As these words, [He that is not with me, is against mee, Matth. 12. 30.] is a rule in the subiect-matter, &c. determined. Both a like in conceit. And why may not Mr. Gs. conceit be the same touching things or actions? But let vs see whether the conceit bee not a be misted phantasie. In the former place Christs words are occasioned by his Disciples their forbidding one who cast out Deuils in Christs Name. Forbid him not, saith Christ, for, He that is not against me is with mee. In the latter place Christ spake those words vpon occasion of the Pharisies their opposition. So that consider the two sentences with their occasions together, this indeed is the summe. All men are either with or against Christ, for there be no Neutrals. So that those two sentences are like these. He that is not a goat is a sheepe; and he that is not a sheepe is a goat. But Mr. Gs. argument is this: All men who are not against Christ are with him. Therfore circumstances not determined, nor forbidden, are lawfull. Is this sound arguing?