A01540:462
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. Therefore I first marvel that Mr. G. forgetteth himself in concluding: That all Lots be unlawful, if there be an immediate providence in all Lots. What? Were extraordinary Lots unlawful too? Nay; he understandeth an exception of them, because they were commanded by God. So I say, ordinary Lots were advised by God to end controversies. Therefore using them in that case is no tempting of God.
I. B. Therefore I first maruell that Mr. G. forgetteth himselfe in concluding: That all Lots be vnlawfull, if there be an immediate prouidence in all Lots. What? Were extraordinary Lots vnlawfull too? Nay; he vnderstandeth an exception of them, because they were commanded by God. So I say, ordinary Lots were aduised by God to end controuersies. Therefore vsing them in that case is no tempting of God.
I. B. Mr. B. might, if he pleased, easily have seen what my Conclusion intendeth, not to determine ought concerning any such Lots as by Gods special appointment were sometime used with expectation of such a special and extraordinary providence in them, but of such only as may in these days be lawfully used, which alone we now deal with. Between which two sorts there is much difference in the case now questioned. It being no tempting of God to expect such an extraordinary work of his in the one, because without it that could not be certainly effected, for which he had enjoined them to be used. Whereas in the other it is; because neither the business whereunto they are used, requireth it, nor hath God himself any where promised it. So that ⟨p. 206⟩it is not the want of either command or warrant for the use of them, but the expecting or requiring that which there is no ground or promise of God for in the use of them, that maketh them guilty in that kind. That which followeth therefore I avow still, and can easily make good; both that all extraordinary Lots now used are unlawful, and no better than mere Sorceries; as the attempting by Lot to discover a malefactor would be, which yet was lawful when *