A01540:347
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. At last let us religiously consider the general Rules so oft spoken of, and we shall find, that Mr. G. should have done well not to have pleased Libertines by pleading Not against, but to have given the word due honour by saying with Mr. Calvin. [The use of things is to be limited according to the general rules.] For these rules require Decency, Expediency, and Piety, and therefore they are not obeyed by the use of things not undecent, not inexpedient, and not impious. For it is to be noted, that in 1 Cor. 6. 12. & 10. 23. Paul saith not, All things are lawful, but some things are inexpedient; but in both places thus; All things are lawful, but all are not expedient.
I. B. At last let vs religiously consider the generall Rules so oft spoken of, and we shall finde, that Mr. G. should haue done well not to haue pleased Libertines by pleading Not against, but to haue giuen the word due honour by saying with Mr. Caluin. [The vse of things is to be limited according to the generall rules.] For these rules require Decency, Expediency, and Piety, and therefore they are not obeyed by the vse of things not vndecent, not inexpedient, and not impious. For it is to be noted, that in 1 Cor. 6. 12. & 10. 23. Paul saith not, All things are lawfull, but some things are inexpedient; but in both places thus; All things are lawfull, but all are not expedient.
T. G. Of this distinction we heard before, and answer thereunto was there given. Yet lest I seem to pass by so grave and serious observations with silence, First, if those rules require more than not undecent, ⟨p. 156⟩not inexpedient, &c. then whatsoever is not more than so, is against those rules, and is no more by Mr. G. allowed than by Mr. B. himself, for ought that Mr. G. here saith: which Mr. B. also might soon see, if he knew what he would have. And therefore his, It is to be noted, might very well have been spared, for any hurt it doth Mr. Gs. cause, if that be all that it prove. Again, though this might suffice to keep Mr. Bs. exception from fastening on ought that I say: Yet let us see of what weight his annotation here is. The Apostle saith not, Some things are inexpedient, but, all things are not expedient. Why? what difference is there in the Apostles meaning here between these two? Hear we the exposition of