A01540:603
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. Whether Mr. B. grant this part of mine Answer or no, yea whether it be sound or unsound is nothing material, since that the strength of mine Answer for the disproof of the Proposition resteth wholly upon the other part, to wit, that from matter of fact not expressed in Scripture, it is no good arguing to matter of right or wrong; and that a thing may be lawful without either precept or practise recorded in the word express or implicit: and much less is it ⟨p. 264⟩material what become of Mr. Bs. queries: which I needed not therefore stand to answer; nor doth ought therefore that followeth here, at all touch our cause. But let us hear Mr. Bs. quaere. He maketh it a Question; Whether the Argument therefore only holdeth from the negative for the substance of Gods worship, because God hath determined it? I answer: It is enough for my purpose if it do hold therefore. Which Mr. B. it seemeth, doth not deny. And in many cases it holdeth only therefore: For why we should use water and not swine in Baptism: why bread, rather than troasted flesh in the Lords Supper, and why bread only and not cheese too, as usome have used, no reason can be rendered, but xbecause God so pleased to determine the elements in either. It is true indeed that some sorts of Worship are in themselves yimpious, and are therefore also disallowed. But let us hear the reason why this Quaere is made.
T. G. Whether Mr. B. grant this part of mine Answer or no, yea whether it be sound or vnsound is nothing materiall, since that the strength of mine Answer for the disproofe of the Proposition resteth wholly vpon the other part, to wit, that from matter of fact not expressed in Scripture, it is no good arguing to matter of right or wrong; and that a thing may be lawfull without either precept or practise recorded in the word expresse or implicite: and much lesse is it ⟨p. 264⟩