A01540:348
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. 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 aas acute and judicious a writer as the most of those that these times of ours have afforded us, though one that lived in much obscurity; bon the former place of the Apostle he thus paraphraseth his words, If we Christians ought to be so careful in cherishing and improving piety, cthat we deem our selves restrained even from the lawful use of things that hurt or hinder piety, how much ought we to abstain from things of their own nature and every way unlawful. dOn the other place yet more plainly: But all things are not expedient: ethat is, but the use of some things is sometimes incommodious and harmful to a Christian man, in that that concerneth the defence and inner ease of his faith and piety, and the furtherance of his eternal safety. For it is not to be expected from earthly things, of which the Apostle principally here speaketh, such as are meat and drink, that they should directly further ⟨p. 157⟩