A01540:482
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. Then belike it was produced to prove nothing at all that was to be proved. For the point to be proved was not that Gods people prayed at the use of a Lot, but that that a Lot doth suppose the determining presence, or immediate providence of God. Which hereby also Mr. B. endeavoured to prove. But now Mr. B. it seemeth, taketh that for a thing granted; which is the point that he is to prove. The instance is to the purpose; for it doth show that Prayer is not therefore implied in a Lot, as in an Oath, though it be used thereabout.
T. G. Then belike it was produced to proue nothing at all that was to be proued. For the point to bee proued was not that Gods people praied at the vse of a Lot, but that that a Lot doth suppose the determining presence, or immediate prouidence of God. Which hereby also Mr. B. endeuoured to proue. But now Mr. B. it seemeth, taketh that for a thing granted; which is the point that he is to proue. The instance is to the purpose; for it doth shew that Praier is not therefore implied in a Lot, as in an Oath, though it be vsed thereabout.
I. B. If then there be an immediate providence of God in a Lot, and in regard thereof prayer is to be expressed or understood in the lawful use of a Lot, then praying and playing (though they rime well together, yet) run not well together in the lawful use of a Lot. Nay rather it followeth from both, That a Lot is not to be used but in a case of necessity more or less. And therefore strange (I will not say, absurd) is Mr. Gs. Position p. 111. to wit, The less weighty the matter is, wherein a Lot is used, the lawfuller the Lot is. Except it be proved, that the less weighty the matter is, the greater is the necessity of ending the controversy by a Lot. The said Position is more strange, because he granteth p. 95. That Prayer specially applied to the Lot may (in some case) be conceived, where the matter is more weighty, as in the choice of a Magistrate. But concerning ⟨p. 213⟩this also more shall be said in my next Reply.
I. B. If then there be an immediate prouidence of God in a Lot, and in regard thereof praier is to be expressed or vnderstood in the lawfull vse of a Lot, then praying and playing (though they rime well together, yet) run not well together in the lawfull vse of a Lot. Nay rather it followeth from both, That a Lot is not to be vsed but in a case of necessitie more or lesse. And therefore strange (I will not say, absurd) is Mr. Gs. Position p. 111. to wit, The lesse weightie the matter is, wherein a Lot is vsed, the lawfuller the Lot is. Except it be proued, that the lesse weightie the matter is, the greater is the necessitie of ending the controuersie by a Lot. The said Position is more strange, because he granteth p. 95. That Prayer specially applied to the Lot may (in some case) be conceiued, where the matter is more weightie, as in the choise of a Magistrate. But concerning