A01540:372
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. Against the proof of the proof of Mr. Bs. assumption, ⟨p. 166⟩from Act. 1. 24, 26. I object two things: 1. That it is but one particular example, and therefore cannot prove a general. To which exception Mr. B. here answereth not a word; and the exception therefore standeth good still; and is enough to infringe the validity of all proof drawn here from that place. 2. That it is of an extraordinary Lot: and from extraordinary actions, much more from some one of them to conclude of all ordinary, is an unreasonable kind of reasoning. And indeed it is as if a man should thus reason; There was a special hand of God in Pharaohs adream: There is the like therefore in all dreams whatsoever. Or, bThe Bush was holy that God appeared to Moses in; And therefore every common Hawthorne is holy. So, The Lot whereby Matthias was elected, was by Gods special providence immediately disposed: Therefore the like is in every Lot. Now Mr. B. that he might seem to say somewhat to this at least; Saith that I deliver a distinction of Lots ordinary and extraordinary, but show not wherein touching the Lots themselves it consisteth. He that readeth cmy Book may soon see where I define either, what difference I assign between them: and Mr. B. himself in part also hereafter acknowledgeth it. Yea but saith he so far forth as they are Lots, there is no difference between them. No reason there should; for the same general nature of a Lot is common to both: as the same nature of a dream is common to all dreams: the same nature of a bush is ⟨p. 167⟩common to all bushes. Nor did Pharaohs dream, as it was a dream, differ from other dreams: nor that holy bush, as it was a bush, differ from any other bush. But what is the common nature of a Lot? Hear Mr. B. himself, and he will tell you truly and fully else-where, that dit is the variable event of some sensible thing applied to the determining of some doubtful matter. But because that will not here serve his turn, he changeth his note now, and maketh this the general nature of a Lot common to all Lots, (begging withal pitifully that that is in controversy) that things be by man of purpose intentionally disposed unto a variable event, and wholly disposed by God unto this or that event, which the user of a Lot expecteth.