A01540:469
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.
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⟩But whereas Mr. B. here averreth that no right of ought is in an ordinary Lot put to Question, because the use of it is only to end Controversy; the reason is most frivolous: For are not Controversies most frequent about matter of Right? and many of them more impossible to be ended by any other course, than other Controversies ordinarily are? And sure if there be such an immediate providence and a determining presence of God in them, as by Mr. B. is presumed, why should not questions of right, where they cannot well be determined otherwise, be referred to a Lot, as well, if not rather, than any other? Since also that that place in the Proverbs speaketh of Controversies in general, without distinction or exclusion of any. For to reason, as Mr. B. here from a particular to a general, There was no question of right (though that also may be questioned by those that rank that among extraordinary Lots) in the division of the land of Canaan; Therefore there is none in any: I say no more but that it is like Mr. Bs. reasoning oft else-where.
T. G. I set downe no more as Mr. Bs. but what is his, and he himselfe in precise termes hath set downe before me. Onely I shew diuers differences, and those materiall betweene an Oath and a Lot, in regard whereof there is no sound reasoning from the one to the other. And among other things withall shew, that there is no necessitie of Gods determining presence in such manner as is here presumed in a Lot, because there is nothing in an ordinary Lot put vpon Lottery, that requireth any such diuine determining presence. ⟨p. 208⟩But whereas Mr. B. here auerreth that no right of ought is in an ordinary Lot put to Question, because the vse of it is onely to end Controuersie; the reason is most friuolous: For are not Controuersies most frequent about matter of Right? and many of them more impossible to be ended by any other course, than other Controuersies ordinarily are? And sure if there be such an immediate prouidence and a determining presence of God in them, as by Mr. B. is presumed, why should not questions of right, where they cannot well be determined otherwise, be referred to a Lot, as well, if not rather, than any other? Since also that that place in the Prouerbs speaketh of Controuersies in generall, without distinction or exclusion of any. For to reason, as Mr. B. heere from a particular to a generall, There was no question of right (though that also may be questioned by those that ranke that among extraordinary Lots) in the diuision of the land of Canaan; Therefore there is none in any: I say no more but that it is like Mr. Bs. reasoning oft else-where.