A01540:550
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. Here then we may enter into further consideration of that which Mr. G. writeth, p. 135. to wit, That by the force of our discourse against playing with a Lot, the only lawful use is condemned, and an unlawful use is allowed in the room thereof. What is that only use of a Lot? I can find none other than the putting of that to a Lot which he calleth, (p. 130.) A matter of mere indifferency, that is, Such as is not material, whether a man do or omit. Howsoever there may be a lawful use of a Lot about such a matter questioned, to determine, or prevent a Controversy, yet I wonder that Mr. G. deemeth that only lawful.
I. B. Here then we may enter into further consideration of that which Mr. G. writeth, p. 135. to wit, That by the force of our discourse against playing with a Lot, the onely lawfull vse is condemned, and an vnlawfull vse is allowed in the roome thereof. What is that onely vse of a Lot? I can finde none other than the putting of that to a Lot which he calleth, (p. 130.) A matter of meere indifferencie, that is, Such as is not materiall, whether a man doe or omit. Howsoeuer there may be a lawfull vse of a Lot about such a matter questioned, to determine, or preuent a Controuersie, yet I wonder that Mr. G. deemeth that onely lawfull.
T. G. Mr. B. is like children, that are willing rather to go any whither than to come home. But it is our task now to follow him; and to tread in his steps. What I there say therefore, I stand still unto. And I marvel as much at Mr. B. that he should once imagine that a man may safely put any other matter then is here specified, to the hazard of a Lot. For ⟨p. 238⟩may a man put it to the hazard of • Lot, 1whether he shall either omit some necessary duty, enjoined him of God, or commit ought that is naught and evil. If he may neither, of those there is nothing left for a Lot to deal but such things as are indifferent, and may consequently be either done or omitted.