A01540:428
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. Neither is it said, an immediate providence is in a Lot, as it is casual, but as the Lot being made casual is wholly disposed by God to this or that event.
I. B. Neither is it said, an immediate prouidence is in a Lot, as it is casuall, but as the Lot being made casuall is wholly disposed by God to this or that euent.
T. G. Mr. B. hath here given so sore a cut to his own cause, as ohe will never be able to cure again with all the skill that he hath. For what hath been the main ground, yea the only ground in effect whereupon these Games have been by his Master herein, himself, and those that concur with them condemned, but this, because they depend upon Casualty either in whole or in part? Ask Mr. B. himself why these Games are unlawful; the very pTitle of his Book telleth you, because they consist in Chance. In his Epistle dedicatory he repeateth the ⟨p. 191⟩same again. In the entrance into his Dialogue, Dice are therefore unlawful, because they depend upon Chance. And after, Dice wholly evil, because they depend wholly upon Chance; Cards and Tables somewhat evil because they depend somewhat upon Chance: And are therefore Lots, for from thence they have the denomination of a Lot, which in Latin is called Sors, that is, Chance or hazard; and therefore unlawful. And again, Whether you call Cards and Tables Lots or no, you play with chance or use Lottery, and by so doing make God an umpire in play, which must needs be a sin: because you take the name of God in vain and tempt the Almighty by a game some putting of things to hazard, and making play of Lottery. Again what do those words imply, the disposing of chance is secret that it may be chance indeed, and wholly of God: but that therefore it is wholly (that is in Mr. Bs. meaning immediately) of God, because it is Chance, which else it were not. Go• we a little higher from Mr. B. to his Teacher (as himself termeth him) herein Mr. F.