A01540:314
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. The third Confirmation is from a gloss. Here I remember an old saying, [A cursed gloss corrupteth the Text.] Now let us see whether Mr. G. have any blessing by this gloss. The words whereof in English be these, [All things are permitted by Law, which are not found prohibited.] Note that it speaketh of things. Therefore it maketh as well for Actions, as for Circumstances. Is this Divinity? But what Law? If the civill Law, what is that to the point? Except Mr. G. can prove the Civill Law to be a perfect Rule to us; and whatsoever it permitteth to be allowed of God. Howsoever (I say) this course of fetching proofs from any other Law than Gods Law is fitter for a Papist, who holdeth unwritten verities (so called) to be a supplement to the Scriptures, thereby to authorize Traditions of men, then for one1 that feareth God to walk in his ways. Is then this glossing sound arguing?
I. B. The third Confirmation is from a glosse. Here I remember an old saying, [A cursed glosse corrupteth the Text.] Now let vs see whether Mr. G. haue any blessing by this glosse. The words whereof in English bee these, [All things are permitted by Law, which are not found prohibited.] Note that it speaketh of things. Therfore it maketh as well for Actions, as for Circumstances. Is this Diuinitie? But what Law? If the ciuill Law, what is that to the point? Except Mr. G. can proue the Ciuill Law to bee a perfect Rule to vs; and whatsoeuer it permitteth to be allowed of God. Howsoeuer (I say) this course of fetching proofes from any other Law than Gods Law is fitter for a Papist, who holdeth vnwritten verities (so called) to be a supplement to the Scriptures, thereby to authorize Traditions of men, then for one1 that feareth God to walke in his wayes. Is then this glossing sound arguing?