A01540:552
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. Doth he not grant p. 91. that Prayer may be conceived in weighty matters, as in the choice of a Magistrate, which is not a matter of mere indifferency, that is such as is not material whether it be done or omitted.
I. B. Doth he not grant p. 91. that Praier may be conceiued in weighty matters, as in the choise of a Magistrate, which is not a matter of meere indifferency, that is such as is not materiall whether it be done or omitted.
T. G. And in the choice of a Magistrate, if there appear a material difference between party and party, in regard whereof it may be of consequence whether the one have the office or the other, it is not lawful to put it to the hazard of a Lot, unless some far greater inconvenience enforce it. Which when it shall so do; it may be lawful to entreat God so to direct the Lot, that the mischief may not ensue; but yet there is no assurance (it is but as prayer for other temporal things) that the Lot shall be so directed. For whither the choice of a Magistrate be a matter of mere indifferency or no, is no whit to the purpose. It is not Magistracy it self that is put to the Lot, in such cases, whether men shall live without it or no, but that presumed that Magistracy must be maintained, and Magistrates consequently designed, whether this man or that man shall have the place, which i• they be both alike fit for, it is a thing indifferent, and not material at all, whether o• them have it.
T. G. And in the choise of a Magistrate, if there appeere a materiall difference betweene party and party, in regard whereof it may bee of consequence whether the one haue the office or the other, it is not lawfull to put it to the hazard of a Lot, vnlesse some far greater inconuenience enforce it. Which when it shall so doe; it may be lawfull to entreat God so to direct the Lot, that the mischiefe may not ensue; but yet there is no assurance (it is but as prayer for other temporall things) that the Lot shall be so directed. For whither the choise of a Magistrate be a matter of meere indifferency or no, is no whit to the purpose. It is not Magistracy it selfe that is put to the Lot, in such cases, whether men shall liue without it or no, but that presumed that Magistracy must be maintained, and Magistrates consequently designed, whether this man or that man shall haue the place, which i they be both alike fit for, it is a thing indifferent, and not materiall at all, whether o them haue it.