A01540:535
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.
But whether either this or any other place of Scripture do prove that the use of Lots is enjoined for the ending of Controversies, is nothing to the purpose, unless it be proved also that they restrain it wholly thereunto. ⟨p. 228⟩3. A man if it were to the purpose, might well make question, whether the use of Lots to end controversies, be so necessary as recreation is. Since many an one have lived quietly enough, and done well enough without use of the one, which no man living can do without the use of the other. 4. Why doth Mr. B. offer to join issue hereupon here, where it is nothing to the purpose, and not rather accept of it before offered him, in the last of my Arguments, concerning other recreations, as Bowls, Chess, &c. generally justified, and some other civill actions; but slyly slink by it there, as if no such matter had at all been once mentioned? And I would gladly yet hear what proof he would bring out of Gods word for recreation by Bowls or Chess, or for wearing band and cuffs, ruffs or falls, and the like. Here it needeth not: for I grant all he requireth; and doubt not but that in some special cases, though very few, a Lot is enjoined necessarily, & that by the word the same may be showed. But Mr. B. is very forward indeed to prove that that is not denied: but that that is most denied, he still obtrudeth upon us without proof, to wit, that God is in a Lot present by his immediate providence. For that cometh in also here again. It is as the Cross with the Papists; fnothing can be done without it.
But whether either this or any other place of Scripture doe proue that the vse of Lots is inioyned for the ending of Controuersies, is nothing to the purpose, vnlesse it be proued also that they restraine it wholly thereunto. ⟨p. 228⟩3. A man if it were to the purpose, might well make question, whether the vse of Lots to end controuersies, be so necessary as recreation is. Since many an one haue liued quietly enough, and done well enough without vse of the one, which no man liuing can doe without the vse of the other. 4. Why doth Mr. B. offer to ioine issue hereupon here, where it is nothing to the purpose, and not rather accept of it before offred him, in the last of my Arguments, concerning other recreations, as Boules, Chesse, &c. generally iustified, and some other ciuill actions; but slily slincke by it there, as if no such matter had at all beene once mentioned? And I would gladly yet heare what proofe he would bring out of Gods word for recreation by Boules or Chesse, or for wearing band and cuffs, ruffs or falls, and the like. Here it needeth not: for I grant all he requireth; and doubt not but that in some speciall cases, though very few, a Lot is inioyned necessarily, & that by the word the same may be shewed. But Mr. B. is very forward indeed to proue that that is not denied: but that that is most denied, he still obtrudeth vpon vs without proofe, to wit, that God is in a Lot present by his immediate prouidence. For that commeth in also here againe. It is as the Crosse with the Papists;