A01540:99
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.
Here is the Sum indeed, it seemeth, of1 that that Mr. B. would have. He must have liberty, (by what rule I know not) to preach and print (for awhat he hath printed, he saith himself that he had preached) what he will; but his doctrine must not be contradicted either in Pulpit or by Press. He may ensnare and entangle Christian Consciences in public; but Mr. G. must not quiet them again but in private. Especially so long as his doctrine runneth in the Negative, bTouch not, taste not, handle not: (it is a Text not unfitly capplied to the present purpose, by one sometime of another judgement, but upon better consideration now concurring in justification of the lusorie Lot:) as if dthe Apostles had never affirmatively preached Christian liberty, or eopposed publicly the courses of those that sought to limit and restrain it, and that in things fnot absolutely necessary neither, but such as might well have been forborne.
Here is the Summe indeed, it seemeth, of1 that that Mr. B. would haue. He must haue libertie, (by what rule I know not) to preach and print (for awhat he hath printed, he saith himselfe that he had preached) what he will; but his doctrine must not be contradicted either in Pulpit or by Presse. He may insnare and intangle Christian Consciences in publike; but Mr. G. must not quiet them againe but in priuate. Especially so long as his doctrine runneth in the Negatiue,