A01540:534
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. 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?