A01540:333
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. To pass by the strange manner of speech, that Every Lot is a thing lawful in it self: which I suppose none but Mr. B. will use. That a Lot is a thing of it self indifferent, and consequently lawful in it self, was before showed. But I have nothing here to say to it: for in mine Assumption there is no mention of it. Mr. B. must answer, if he will, for his own Argument.
T. G. To passe by the strange manner of speech, that Euery Lot is a thing lawfull in it selfe: which I suppose none but Mr. B. will vse. That a Lot is a thing of it selfe indifferent, and consequently lawfull in it selfe, was before shewed. But I haue nothing here to say to it: for in mine Assumption there is no mention of it. Mr. B. must answer, if he will, for his owne Argument.
I. B. More clearly to answer the other part. It is to be ⟨p. 146⟩observed, that in this large Argument, it cannot be gathered what Mr. G. meaneth by Subject Matter. So the mind of the Reader may be troubled with words, which 1ought not to be. But by that which he writeth, p. 230. I understand, he meaneth the matter whereabout the Lottery is employed. If so, I affirm that the subject matter of a Lot is determined by God, namely, A controversy to be ended thereby: and therefore I also affirm, lusorious business (to use Mr. Gs. own word, p. 130.) to be a subject matter of a Lot, no less against the general Rules of the Word, than was the finding out of Jonah in Mr. Gs. judgement, p. 278. If then a lusorious Lot be not a thing lawful in it self, and if Lusorious business be a subject matter of a Lot, that is against the general Rules, then how can the manner and other circumstances, though neither determined, nor forbidden, be sufficient warrant for the use of a lusorious Lot.
I. B. More clearely to answer the other part. It is to be ⟨p. 146⟩