A01540:369
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.
This is said; but should be done. But Mr. B.1 having said, it shall be, presently slinketh away from it: nor doth ever after do what here he undertaketh, unless it be by saying that it is manifest to all that will see, that it is so as he saith.
This is said; but should be done. But Mr. B.1 hauing said, it shall be, presently slincketh away from it: nor doth euer after doe what here he vndertaketh, vnlesse it be by saying that it is manifest to all that will see, that it is so as he saith.
- 1T. G. Rejoinder.T. G. Reioinder.
I. B. First therefore let us consider the supposed distinction between ordinary and extraordinary Lots. Mr. G. speaketh of a distinction, but showeth not wherein (touching the Lots themselves) it doth consist. Indeed touching themselves (as they be Lots) there is no difference. For in an ordinary, as well as an extraordinary Lot, the things are by man of purpose intentionally disposed unto a variable event, and they are wholly disposed by God unto this or unto that event, which the user of a Lot expecteth. If so, then it followeth, that the use of all Lots (as they be Lots) whether ordinary or extraordinary, directly or of it self, and in special manner, tendeth to the advancing of the name of God. How? The use of Lots attributeth to Gods special providence in the whole and immediate disposing of the Lot, and in expecting the event. Doth this scarce carry good sense?
I. B. First therefore let vs consider the supposed distinction betweene ordinarie and extraordinarie Lots. Mr. G. speaketh of a distinction, but sheweth not wherein (touching the Lots themselues) it doth consist. Indeed touching themselues (as they be Lots) there is no difference. For in an ordinary, as well as an extraordinary Lot, the things are by man of purpose intentionally disposed vnto a variable euent, and they are wholly disposed by God vnto this or vnto that euent, which the vser of a Lot expecteth. If so, then it followeth, that the vse of all Lots (as they be Lots) whether ordinarie or extraordinarie, directly or of it selfe, and in speciall manner, tendeth to the aduancing of the name of God. How? The vse of Lots attributeth to Gods speciall prouidence in the whole and immediate disposing of the Lot, and in expecting the euent. Doth this scarce carry good sense?