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…

I. B. Lastly, It serveth my turn that Mr. G. acknowledgeth that Gods name, and an Holy thing is abused, whensoever an extraordinary Lot is contemned, because an immediate providence of God is therein. For the same cause an ordinary Lot is the Name of God and an Holy thing, and therefore not to be abused in sport. But Mr. G. hath shown before, that a Lot is not in it self an Holy thing. Indeed; he would have shown in his third ⟨p. 214⟩Reason, inducing him to allow lusorious Lots, as not evil in themselves, that a Lot is not holy either in it self, or by divine institution. Whereunto I have already answered somewhat. But having learned more (occasionally) by his further dispute, I will now for some more satisfaction, answer somewhat more. A Lot (saith Mr. G. p. 132, & 133.) is not holy either in it self, because a Casualty hath no holiness in it self: For then all Casualties should be holy: or by divine institution in the word sanctifying it to some holy Use. I answer briefly. Is an extraordinary Lot the Name of God, an holy thing in it self, because of Gods immediate providence therein, and not an ordinary Lot in respect of the same providence? If it be, Then though all casualties be not holy in themselves, yet all lawful Lots be holy in themselves. So that as the Bush that burnt and wasted not, was holy, when God manifested himself to Moses in it, p. 156. So a Lot is holy, because of Gods special presence therein. Herein they differ. The Bush was holy but for a time, because God was present in it but for a time: Where as a Lot is holy from time to time, so oft as it is lawfully used, because of Gods special presence therein from time to time. Therefore howsoever sport might have been made with the Bush, the presence of God being removed; yet ought sport never be made with a Lot, because Gods special presence is ever therein.

I. B. Lastly, It serueth my turne that Mr. G. acknowledgeth that Gods name, and an Holy thing is abused, whensoeuer an extraordinary Lot is contemned, because an immediate prouidence of God is therein. For the same cause an ordinarie Lot is the Name of God and an Holy thing, and therefore not to be abused in sport. But Mr. G. hath shewen before, that a Lot is not in it selfe an Holy thing. Indeed; he would haue shewen in his third ⟨p. 214⟩Reason, inducing him to allow lusorious Lots, as not euill in themselues, that a Lot is not holy either in it selfe, or by diuine institution. Whereunto I haue already answered somewhat. But hauing learned more (occasionally) by his further dispute, I will now for some more satisfaction, answer somewhat more. A Lot (saith Mr. G. p. 132, & 133.) is not holy either in it selfe, because a Casualtie hath no holinesse in it selfe: For then all Casualties should be holy: or by diuine institution in the word sanctifying it to some holy Vse. I answer briefly. Is an extraordinary Lot the Name of God, an holy thing in it selfe, because of Gods immediate prouidence therein, and not an ordinary Lot in respect of the same prouidence? If it be, Then though all casualties be not holy in themselues, yet all lawfull Lots be holy in themselues. So that as the Bush that burnt and wasted not, was holy, when God manifested himselfe to Moses in it, p. 156. So a Lot is holy, because of Gods speciall presence therein. Herein they differ. The Bush was holy but for a time, because God was present in it but for a time: Where as a Lot is holy from time to time, so oft as it is lawfully vsed, because of Gods speciall presence therein from time to time. Therefore howsoeuer sport might haue beene made with the Bush, the presence of God being remoued; yet ought sport neuer be made with a Lot, because Gods speciall presence is euer therein.