A01540:176
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. Leaving and passing wholly by the enforcements before spoken of brought for the strengthening of mine Antecedent, which he should rather have dealt withal; nor denying the Consequence, which che giveth therefore as granted; Mr. B. here contrary to all rules of dispute denieth the Consequent, or in plainer terms, the Conclusion of mine Enthymeme or imperfect Syllogism: And by another Enthymeme grounded on four instances, endeavoureth ⟨p. 70⟩[…] ⟨p. 71⟩[…] ⟨p. 72⟩to prove the direct contrary to it. His Argument is this: The division of the land of promise, the discovery of Achan, the choosing of a King, and an Apostle, all done by Lot, were weighty affairs. Therefore a Lot may more lawfully be used about weighty affairs, than about affairs of less weight. For the Antecedent, I might well question one branch of it concerning the division of the Land of Promise by Lot, of which also I have spoken delse-where at large, and to avoid prolixity refer thither my Reader. Only thus much for the present. Whether that Lot were ordinary and now imitable or no, may be questioned. If it were done with respect to a former prophecy, and with expectation that the seats of the several Tribes should by virtue of the Lot fall out answerably thereunto, it was extraordinary, and not imitable now of any without the like special ground. If it were done only to determine which share each Tribe should have of the Land as equally as could be divided; though the business it self, to wit, the dividing of the Land was weighty, yet that which the Lot was to do in this business was it self of no great weight; for it was not much material which part this or that Tribe had, when little difference was between part and part; yea the less difference there was, the less inequality there could be; the less inequality there could be, the less weighty it was ⟨p. 73⟩how the Lot went; again, the less danger of inequality, the lawfuller the Lot, and consequently the less weighty the event, the lawfuller still the Lot. So that this instance either is of the same stamp with the other three, and must receive then the same answer with them; or if it be of another kind, yet it confirmeth not the consequent, because neither was that of much weight that the Lot was to do therein, nor will it follow, A Lot was used once (yea say more than once) in a weighty affair;