therefore a Lot may more lawfully be used about weighty affairs, than it may about those that are of less weight.
This premised for that branch of the Antecedent; I deny now Mr. Bs. not Consequent, but Consequence. And that for two causes: 1. Because though it were granted that the instances were to purpose, yet the Consequent will not necessarily flow from thence; In such three cases and upon such occasions a Lot was used in weighty affairs: therefore a Lot may more lawfully, &c. as before. All that will follow; all granted that Mr. B. himself requireth; is but this, Therefore in weighty affairs sometimes a Lot is not unlawful; or (for I had almost forgotten my self) the use of a Lot is lawful.
2. Because the instances are nothing to purpose, being of such Lots as were extraordinary, and are not now imitable, as may appear by Mr. Bs. own grants in the very next words to these. The Question is about the lawful use ⟨p. 74⟩of a Lot, that is, how and wherein we may lawfully use Lots, & whether in such Lots as we may now lawfully use, the less weighty the matter be, the lawfuller the Lot is. Now to disprove mine Affirmative herein, or to prove the contrary thereunto, Mr. B. produceth three Instances of Lots used in such cases, as none lawfully now may use them in; in some whereof indeed, had not the Lot by an extraordinary providence bin certainly directed, the event was in hazard to have been of foul and fearful consequence, either some innocent condemned, or some unfit person designed to a place of the highest moment. That these examples are such, I have showed evidently *else-where, which Mr. B. ought to have taken notice of. Nor will any wise man, I trow, be so absurd or senseless, as to imagine, that to find out a thief or a murderer, or the like, a Lot may now be used, or that in choice of a King, where the place is elective, a Lot may be cast upon the body of the State without exception of any, as in Sauls case it was, for the settling of the succession, lest it should fall out as it did bwith the Jews, when they cast Lots for an High-Priest, the Lot lighting upon ca most silly ignorant Ass. So that to reason on this wise is all one, the very self-same, with this, Our Saviour *Christ opened ones eyes with clay, matter fitter to put out than to open a mans eyes.
therefore a Lot may more lawfully be vsed about weighty affaires, than it may about those that are of lesse weight.
This premised for that branch of the Antecedent; I denie now Mr. Bs. not Consequent, but Consequence. And that for two causes: 1. Because though it were granted that the instances were to purpose, yet the Consequent will not necessarily flow from thence; In such three cases and vpon such occasions a Lot was vsed in weightie affaires: therefore a Lot may more lawfully, &c. as before. All that will follow; all granted that Mr. B. himselfe requireth; is but this, Therefore in weighty affaires sometimes a Lot is not vnlawfull; or (for I had almost forgotten my selfe) the vse of a Lot is lawfull.
2. Because the instances are nothing to purpose, being of such Lots as were extraordinarie, and are not now imitable, as may appeare by Mr. Bs. owne grants in the very next words to these. The Question is about the lawfull vse ⟨p. 74⟩of a Lot, that is, how and wherein we may lawfully vse Lots, & whether in such Lots as we may now lawfully vse, the lesse weighty the matter be, the lawfuller the Lot is. Now to disproue mine Affirmatiue herein, or to proue the contrary thereunto, Mr. B. produceth three Instances of Lots vsed in such cases, as none lawfully now may vse them in; in some whereof indeed, had not the Lot by an extraordinarie prouidence bin certainly directed, the euent was in hazard to haue beene of foule and fearefull consequence, either some innocent condemned, or some vnfit person designed to a place of the highest moment. That these examples are such, I haue shewed euidently *else-where, which Mr. B. ought to haue taken notice of. Nor will any wise man, I trow, be so absurd or senslesse, as to imagine, that to finde out a theefe or a murtherer, or the like, a Lot may now be vsed, or that in choise of a King, where the place is electiue, a Lot may be cast vpon the bodie of the State without exception of any, as in Sauls case it was, for the setling of the succession, lest it should fall out as it did bwith the Iewes, when they cast Lots for an High-Priest, the Lot lighting vpon ca most silly ignorant Asse. So that to reason on this wise is all one, the very self-same, with this, Our Sauiour *Christ opened ones eyes with clay, matter fitter to put out than to open a mans eyes.
- *Of Lots, chap. 10. sect. 3. & 5.
- bJoseph. capt. l. 4. c. 12.Ioseph. capt. l. 4. c. 12.
- c[Greek or Hebrew].〈non-Latin alphabet〉.
- *John 9. 6, 11.Iohn 9. 6, 11.
