A01540:379
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. Nay by Mr. Bs. leave, Mr. G. doth not so. He saith only that there is great difference between an extraordinary Lot wherein an immediate divine providence is, and an ordinary one, wherein the same is not. Not presuming that there is necessarily such an immediate divine providence in every extraordinary Lot, but that such there was in that extraordinary Lot by Mr. B. alleged, as also there is ever ⟨p. 171⟩in all such of that kind as are done by Gods special direction. I spare to speak much of the idle distinction here between an extraordinary Lot, which by Mr. Bs. own grant this was, and an extraordinary Act, which he would here imply that it was not, when he requireth proof of it. If the event were extraordinary, it is enough for my purpose, because Mr. Bs. Argument is in express terms concerning the event, wherein somewhat, but I know not what, (for he mentioneth nothing) is said to be attributed unto Gods special providence; which if it be therefore more than ordinary in such a Lot, there is no reasoning from it to any where it is not so, much less to all whatsoever in general. That this Act it self, or occasion and manner of vising it, was extraordinary, though neither I stand bound here to prove it, and the reason is senseless whereupon Mr. B. here requireth it, yet I have proved evidently hwhere I entreat particularly of it. But M. B. must remember that here it is his part to prove: it is mine only to answer, deny, or distinguish; and his to take away mine answers, if he will make his Arguments good.
T. G. Nay by Mr. Bs. leaue, Mr. G. doth not so. He saith onely that there is great difference betweene an extraordinarie Lot wherein an immediate diuine prouidence is, and an ordinarie one, wherein the same is not. Not presuming that there is necessarily such an immediate diuine prouidence in euery extraordinarie Lot, but that such there was in that extraordinarie Lot by Mr. B. alledged, as also there is euer ⟨p. 171⟩in all such of that kinde as are done by Gods speciall direction. I spare to speake much of the idle distinction here betweene an extraordinarie Lot, which by Mr. Bs. owne grant this was, and an extraordinarie Act, which he would here imply that it was not, when he requireth proofe of it. If the euent were extraordinarie, it is enough for my purpose, because Mr. Bs. Argument is in expresse termes concerning the euent, wherein somewhat, but I know not what, (for he mentioneth nothing) is said to be attributed vnto Gods speciall prouidence; which if it be therefore more than ordinarie in such a Lot, there is no reasoning from it to any where it is not so, much lesse to all whatsoeuer in generall. That this Act it selfe, or occasion and manner of vising it, was extraordinarie, though neither I stand bound here to proue it, and the reason is senslesse whereupon Mr. B. here requireth it, yet I haue proued euidently