A01540:613
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. Here is no Question about it whether it be or no: but a Proposition, which Mr. B. hath all this while forgot, to be justified. As for the ranking of a Lot and an Oath together; and the supposed sacredness of a Lot, enough already hath been said. But why doth not Mr. B. answer here, the Question of Bowls and Balls, (for it is very material) and the point concerning a black pudding?
T. G. Here is no Question about it whether it be or no: but a Proposition, which Mr. B. hath all this while forgot, to be iustified. As for the rancking of a Lot and an Oath together; and the supposed sacrednesse of a Lot, enough already hath beene said. But why doth not Mr. B. answer here, the Question of Boules and Balls, (for it is very materiall) and the point concerning a blacke pudding?
I. B. And lastly, I affirm again, that God hath determined the use of a Lot to determine Controversies, so as ⟨p. 269⟩without Gods special appointment (which is not now to be expected) it cannot be lawfully used to any other purpose: Therefore an Argument from the Negative will hold by Mr. Gs. rule to disallow the use of any other Lot, as well lusorious as divinatory.
I. B. And lastly, I affirme againe, that God hath determined the vse of a Lot to determine Controuersies, so as ⟨p. 269⟩without Gods speciall appointment (which is not now to be expected) it cannot be lawfully vsed to any other purpose: Therefore an Argument from the Negatiue will hold by Mr. Gs. rule to disallow the vse of any other Lot, as well lusorious as diuinatorie.