A01540:555
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. 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.
I. B. So that I doubt not, but that with sound judgement, and a clear conscience not accusing me of not duly respecting the special providence of God by his immediate disposing of a Lot, I may affirm, That the more weighty the subject matter of a controversy is, the more justifiable is the Controversy: and be that matter of more or less weight, the greater the necessity of ending a Controversy is, the more justifiable is the use of a Lot. Is not then playing with a Lot an irreligious abusing of Gods ordinance?
I. B. So that I doubt not, but that with sound iudgement, and a cleare conscience not accusing me of not duly respecting the speciall prouidence of God by his immediate disposing of a Lot, I may affirme, That the more weightie the subiect matter of a controuersie is, the more iustifiable is the Controuersie: and be that matter of more or lesse weight, the greater the necessitie of ending a Controuersie is, the more iustifiable is the vse of a Lot. Is not then playing with a Lot an irreligious abusing of Gods ordinance?