A01540:468
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. Again it is to be observed, that he sets down a Comparison between an Oath and a Lot, which I set not down, whereby the mind of the Reader may be troubled. For I say not: As the truth of a thing is by an Oath put to Gods Testimony; so in an Ordinary Lot the right of a thing is put to Gods immediate providence. This is it that I say: As an Oath in the Nature thereof supposeth the testifying presence of God: so a Lot, in the Nature thereof, supposeth the determining presence of God. My reason is, Ending a Controversy; I say not, Deciding a right: For before dividing the land of promise by Lot, no Tribe, or family could challenge more right to one portion than to another. Ending (I say) a controversy is by a Lot referred to Gods determining, the same by his whole or immediate disposing the uncertain Lot to a certain event.
I. B. Againe it is to be obserued, that he sets downe a Comparison betweene an Oath and a Lot, which I set not downe, whereby the minde of the Reader may be troubled. For I say not: As the truth of a thing is by an Oath put to Gods Testimony; so in an Ordinary Lot the right of a thing is put to Gods immediate prouidence. This is it that I say: As an Oath in the Nature thereof supposeth the testifying presence of God: so a Lot, in the Nature thereof, supposeth the determining presence of God. My reason is, Ending a Controuersie; I say not, Deciding a right: For before diuiding the land of promise by Lot, no Tribe, or family could challenge more right to one portion than to another. Ending (I say) a controuersie is by a Lot referred to Gods determining, the same by his whole or immediate disposing the vncertaine Lot to a certaine euent.
T. G. I set down no more as Mr. Bs. but what is his, and he himself in precise terms hath set down before me. Only I show divers differences, and those material between an Oath and a Lot, in regard whereof there is no sound reasoning from the one to the other. And among other things withal show, that there is no necessity of Gods determining presence in such manner as is here presumed in a Lot, because there is nothing in an ordinary Lot put upon Lottery, that requireth any such divine determining presence. ⟨p. 208⟩