T. G. 1. Mr. B. is somewhat like those Lawyers of whom Aristotle saith, that *they would have little to say, if they were held to the matter that they are to deal in. He taketh occasion here to run out into a by-matter, which though all were granted him is anot a pin to the purpose. For the question is, whether Lots be not only sanctified, but appropriated so to the ending of Controversies, that to no other purpose they may be used, and whether Solomons testimony, Prou. 18. 18. prove as much. Now grant all that Mr. B. here pleadeth for, and that I deny not; That the use of Lots is enjoined in some cases, such as he last mentioneth, or, that it is enjoined by just consequence out of the word, is this sufficient to prove that it is therefore to that use only appropriated, or that this place of Solomon proveth the same? This I deny to follow; and (besides that reason it self evidently discovereth as much) Mr. B. himself belsewhere ⟨p. 227⟩cutteth the very sinews of his own Argument, where having objected that Bread and Wine are in the Sacrament to holy uses sanctified, and yet we may recreate our selves therewith; as also that singing of Psalms is sanctified to the praise of Gods Name, and yet with singing also we may recreate our selves, he answereth that those ends be not proper, though they be holy. So that all this granted, yet is his Assumption, by his own grant, as far from being proved as ever it was.
2. He chargeth me most untruly to deny that the use of a Lot for ending of any Controversy is no where enjoined in the word, either expressly, or by just consequence. I say only, that Solomon in that particular place questioned, neither enjoineth that use of it, nor restraineth it thereunto. Which latter branch it is especially, that Mr. B. must oppose & disprove, if he will from thence have any proof. But this is like cthe Argument that Bellarmine and some others use to prove Calvin and Erasmus, Arians, because they deny some places to be understood of Christs Deity, out of which the same is supposed to be confirmed by others. Doth a man necessarily say, Such a thing cannot at all be proved out of Scripture; if he say, that Out of this or that place it cannot be proved? dCalvin holdeth degrees of glory in heaven; and yet denieth that esome places affirm it, which are yet alleged commonly for the proof of it.
T. G. 1. Mr. B. is somewhat like those Lawyers of whom Aristotle saith, that *they would haue little to say, if they were held to the matter that they are to deale in. He taketh occasion here to run out into a by-matter, which though all were granted him is anot a pin to the purpose. For the question is, whether Lots be not onely sanctified, but appropriated so to the ending of Controuersies, that to no other purpose they may be vsed, and whether Salomons testimonie, Prou. 18. 18. proue as much. Now grant all that Mr. B. here pleadeth for, and that I deny not; That the vse of Lots is inioyned in some cases, such as hee last mentioneth, or, that it is inioyned by iust consequence out of the word, is this sufficient to proue that it is therefore to that vse onely appropriated, or that this place of Salomon proueth the same? This I deny to follow; and (besides that reason it selfe euidently discouereth as much) Mr. B. himselfe belsewhere ⟨p. 227⟩cutteth the very sinewes of his owne Argument, where hauing obiected that Bread and Wine are in the Sacrament to holy vses sanctified, and yet we may recreate our selues therewith; as also that singing of Psalmes is sanctified to the praise of Gods Name, and yet with singing also we may recreate our selues, he answereth that those ends be not proper, though they be holy. So that all this granted, yet is his Assumption, by his owne grant, as far from being proued as euer it was.
2. He chargeth me most vntruly to deny that the vse of a Lot for ending of any Controuersie is no where inioyned in the word, either expresly, or by iust consequence. I say onely, that Salomon in that particular place questioned, neither inioyneth that vse of it, nor restraineth it thereunto. Which latter branch it is especially, that Mr. B. must oppose & disproue, if he will from thence haue any proofe. But this is like cthe Argument that Bellarmine and some others vse to proue Caluin and Erasmus, Arrians, because they denie some places to be vnderstood of Christs Deity, out of which the same is supposed to be confirmed by others. Doth a man necessarily say, Such a thing cannot at all be proued out of Scripture; if he say, that Out of this or that place it cannot be proued? d
- *[Greek or Hebrew]. Aristot. rhet. l. 1. c. 1.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Aristot. rhet. l. 1. c. 1.
- a[Greek or Hebrew]. Nihil ad rem ipsam.〈non-Latin alphabet〉. Nihil ad rem ipsam.
- bDialogue.
- cVide Bellarm. praefat. ad Controvers. 2. & Apolog. Erasmi adv. articulos à monachia Hispanis sibi objectos. Sed & Aegid. Hunnium in Calv. Judais. & Paraum in Calv. Orthod. praefat.Vide Bellarm. praefat. ad Controvers. 2. & Apolog. Erasmi adv. articulos à monachia Hispanis sibi objectos. Sed & Aegid. Hunnium in Calv. Iudais. & Paraum in Calv. Orthod. praefat.
- dScripturae docent non aequalem s•re gloriae modum in coelis. Calvin. instit. l. 3. c. 25. §. 10.
- eDa•. 12. 3. 1 Cor. 15. 41. Vide Calv. comment. in haec loca.Da•. 12. 3. 1 Cor. 15. 41. Vide Calv. cōment. in haec loca.
