A01540:539
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. Let it be observed, that Mr. B. hath never a word here to prove that that is denied. It is denied, as Mr. B. himself here confesseth, that that place, Prou. 18. 18. doth restrain the use of Lots wholly to the ending of Controversies, so that they may not in any other case be used with good allowance. For this in effect I cite some of those that seem to concur in opinion with Mr. B. at least in part, Mr. Cartwright by name: Nor is there ought either in the Text or about it, as I there plead, to enforce any such thing out of it. *All which Mr. B. sliding by, and not offering by any Argument to make good any such thing out of the Text; pitcheth at length upon some instances in the very tail of my discourse, given of Lots wherein no controversy was to be ended. ⟨p. 231⟩His exceptions against them are two: 1. That they were all extraordinary Lots; which yet is more than of all he can make good. For how will he prove it to have been an extraordinary Lot, that was kcast upon the scape goat? But suppose there could be no instance given of any Lot in Scripture used where no controversy were. Would that prove that the place of Solomon restraineth it only to such? Nothing less: Nor do I offer to hazard my cause thereupon. My main Answer, which I rely upon is this, that out of the Text no such restraint can be proved or produced: Not to add, say I afterward, that Lots have been used oft to other ends, &c. as some also that in this point oppose us, confess. Besides that, it would be observed, that Mr. B. who hath so oft offered to argue from extraordinary to ordinary Lots, yet can by no means here endure to hear of any such arguing. He shall do well to remember that Rule given in both Laws, lWhat is not lawful to the one party, neither is lawful to the other. Though indeed neither do I, as may appear, frame any Argument at all out of it. 2. That by mine own confession, if they be not to end controversies they are no Lots at all. But he taketh my words, as I have showed formerly, a little too short. For I say not simply, controversy, but, question or controversy, as he himself here citeth me; the former whereof is a term more general than the latter, and easily salveth the seeming repugnancy.