A01540:343
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 Mr. B. thinketh he hath got me on the hip. And either he will condemn me of great presumption and want of much wisdom, or else overthrow the main strength of mine Argument. That concerning recreation therefore there are no special rules prescribed in Scripture, whereby it is stinted to this or that particular matter, and is therefore (as from Calvin before was well and truly affirmed) to be directed by the generals; it that which I affirm, and Peter Martyr with me; as by my Margin (which Mr. B. had no list, it seemeth, to take notice of) may appear. Yea but no man without presumption, saith Mr. B. may so affirm, unless he put in this exception, so far as I know or I remember▪ Besides that Peter Martyr then was too presumptuous in this very particular: Our Divines that deal with the Papists are very1 far over-seen; with whom these assertions are so frequent and usual, aThat […] […] • Sacrament, there is no Scripture for it; That Pen•nce, or Orders, or extreme Unction, is a Sacrament, cannot out of Gods word be proved▪ […] […] Peter was ever at ⟨p. 151⟩Rome, or was Bishop there, or that he had a superiority of power and authority above the rest of the Apostles; or that the Pope succeedeth him either in his seat or in such right, cannot be made good out of Gods word. And again, cfor a man to repair to the Sacrament unshriven; to eat flesh in Lent, &c. are not against any word of God. Yea this is a general plea with them against most of the Popish superstitions, dthat there is no ground for them in Gods word. Whereas if they had consulted with Mr. B. before-hand, they should have been better advised, and have added always this exception; So far as I know or remember: and so given their Adversaries just cause to have laughed at them for their labour▪ Where observe we withal, what advantage Mr. B. here giveth to the Adversary, when he shall be pressed with ought in this kind. For tell we one of them, that for a man to refuse Shrift is not against ought in Gods word: After advice had with Mr. B. he may soon shape you an answer, that you are very presumptuous so to say: for can you, or any man else, remember all the sentences in Scripture, or know all just consequences that may be made from them? Which if it be a sound and sufficient answer, surely for many points of Popery, as some of their new Sacraments, &c.