A01540:402
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. And what if the Lots then be not cast into the lap, or be not by man disposed at all? If that alter the case, as may seem here implied, then that will not be true of every Lot, nor of many a Lot, that Mr. B. here saith. But if Mr. Bs. meaning be (for I would fain understand him) that there is an opposition between mans Act and Gods Act in the Text. So is there in those words, aThe preparations of the heart are in ⟨p. 180⟩man: but the answer of the tongue i• of the Lord. Which yet prove not an immediate work of God therefore to be in every answer that a man giveth, or in every word that he uttereth. But unless Mr. B. can find some stranger matter in those words, cast into the lap, more than here he discovereth, or any man (I believe) seeth beside himself, he saith no more than he said that I granted before, to wit, that the whole disposing of the Lot is of God, so as the event is what he pleaseth. Which doth not necessarily infer an immediate act of God in it: No more than, if a man should say, as he truly may say, that bthe whole disposition of war and battle (which *the Rabbins, some of them, compare here with a Lot, and so make this verse▪ cohere with the next before it) is of God the Lord of Hosts, so that the issue and event of it is such as he pleaseth; it would follow thereupon, that he denied carms to be of any use in war, or affirmed all victory to come immediately, and without means from God.
T. G. And what if the Lots then be not cast into the lap, or be not by man disposed at all? If that alter the case, as may seeme here implied, then that will not be true of euery Lot, nor of many a Lot, that Mr. B. here saith. But if Mr. Bs. meaning be (for I would faine vnderstand him) that there is an opposition betweene mans Act and Gods Act in the Text. So is there in those words, a