A01540:445
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.
First therefore the using of Lots either in matters1 sage and serious, or of sport and delight is hnot of it self any desire of the manifestation of Gods special power and providence by an immediate disposition, unless men offend against the caution before given in doing it to this end, to try thereby whether God will vouchsafe to work immediately and extraordinarily or no; which being not of the nature of the thing it self, is not necessarily implied in the ordinary use of it. Neither is there any such calling in of God to decide doubts in game, but ithe matter in question is put to the casual disposition of the Creature; no more than there was any solemn calling of God in, or calling upon him to ⟨p. 199⟩determine the Tithe, in the example before alleged out of kthe Law. And therefore consequently lno such tempting of God, as is here charged, in the use of a Lot, be it used either in case of necessity or otherwise.
First therefore the vsing of Lots either in matters1 sage and serious, or of sport and delight is hnot of it selfe any desire of the manifestation of Gods speciall power and prouidence by an immediate disposition, vnlesse men offend against the caution before giuen in doing it to this end, to try thereby whether God will vouchsafe to worke immediately and extraordinarily or no; which being not of the nature of the thing it selfe, is not necessarily implied in the ordinary vse of it. Neither is there any such calling in of God to decide doubts in game, but ithe matter in question is put to the casuall disposition of the Creature; no more than there was any solemne calling of God in, or calling vpon him to