A01540:430
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.
That therefore these games are unlawful because they depend upon Casualty, which maketh them to be Lots: and that therefore it is unlawful to use any game depending upon Casualty; because in that regard there is an immediate providence of God in it? Whereas Mr. B. therein crossing all this, and overturning his own grounds, here telleth us, that It is not said an immediate providence is in a Lot, as it is casual. But how then? forsooth as being casual it is wholly disposed by God to this or that event. That is as much as to say, An immediate providence of God is not in a Lot, as it is casual, (though that be the ground whereupon we have formerly affirmed it to be) but as there is an immediate providence of God in it; (idem per idem) for that is, to be wholly disposed by God; as Mr. B. still meaneth. Thus you see how Mr. B. hath now mended the matter, and made good his own grounds. But he will have somewhat out of my words yet, before he have done with them.
That therefore these games are vnlawfull because they depend vpon Casualty, which maketh them to bee Lots: and that therefore it is vnlawfull to vse any game depending vpon Casualty; because in that regard there is an immediate prouidence of God in it? Whereas Mr. B. therein crossing all this, and ouerturning his owne grounds, here telleth vs, that It is not said an immediate prouidence is in a Lot, as it is casuall. But how then? forsooth as being casuall it is wholly disposed by God to this or that euent. That is as much as to say, An immediate prouidence of God is not in a Lot, as it is casual, (though that be the ground whereupon we haue formerly affirmed it to be) but as there is an immediate prouidence of God in it; (idem per idem) for that is, to be wholly disposed by God; as Mr. B. still meaneth. Thus you see how Mr. B. hath now mended the matter, and made good his owne grounds. But he will haue somewhat out of my words yet, before he haue done with them.
I. B. So that from Mr. Gs. axiom this Argument may be framed. An immediate providence in an extraordinary Lot is acknowledged by Mr. G. as it is a Lot (say I) wholly disposed by God: Therefore an immediate providence is in an ordinary Lot, (as it is a Lot) wholly disposed by God. For there is no difference between these sorts of Lots (as they be Lots) and so disposed. For Mr. G. hath showed that