A01540:554
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.
I. B. ⟨p. 239⟩Did God specially appoint Lots to be used about only matters of weight? and must man so far swerve from Gods example as to strive only about matters of such indifferency, and then to put only such controverted to the determination of a Lot?
I. B. ⟨p. 239⟩Did God specially appoint Lots to be vsed about only matters of weight? and must man so farre swerue from Gods example as to striue onely about matters of such indifferencie, and then to put onely such controuerted to the determination of a Lot?
T. G. Mr. Bs. Rhetoric will not so carry it. What men may strive or not strive about is not now to be discussed (and yet who dare condemn lusorie controversies: or what strifes in themselves are more harmless than they are?) nor what one mans iniquity may enforce another to put to the hazard of a Lot. But in all controversies be the matter in question of more or less weight, the more equality things are reduced unto on either side, the less material it is which way the Lot goeth; and the less material it is which way the Lot goeth, the less danger of wrong or inconvenience; and consequently the lawfuller the Lot. Let Mr. B. lay aside his Rhetorical amplifications, and answer this Argument.
T. G. Mr. Bs. Rhetoricke will not so carry it. What men may striue or not striue about is not now to bee discussed (and yet who dare condemne lusorie controuersies: or what strifes in themselues are more harmelesse than they are?) nor what one mans iniquitie may enforce another to put to the hazard of a Lot. But in all controuersies bee the matter in question of more or lesse weight, the more equality things are reduced vnto on either side, the lesse materiall it is which way the Lot goeth; and the lesse materiall it is which way the Lot goeth, the lesse danger of wrong or inconuenience; and consequently the lawfuller the Lot. Let Mr. B. lay aside his Rhetoricall amplifications, and answer this Argument.