A01540:432
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. How this that followeth cometh in with a, ⟨p. 193⟩So that, I know not. Yet let us see what it is. Mr. G. he saith, hath showed, (I grant it indeed, but I show it not; it is he that should show it, or he will never be able to convince those that say otherwise) that Prou. 16. 33 speaketh of Lots in general as well ordinary as extraordinary. Be it so, what of that? But I acknowledge also an immediate providence in an extraordinary Lot; and that is therein as it is a Lot; saith Mr. B. and therefore by Mr. Gs. Axiom, it must be so in an ordinary one also. For this I suppose it is that he would say. But he must first show where I acknowledge an immediate providence to be in every extraordinary Lot, which I deny to be in many thousands of them: and then prove it to be in such a Lot as it is a Lot; which to affirm and not prove, is to require that in effect without proof to be granted, which all the controversy is about, and which he must not think will be yielded upon his bare, I say.
T. G. How this that followeth commeth in with a, ⟨p. 193⟩So that, I know not. Yet let vs see what it is. Mr. G. he saith, hath shewed, (I grant it indeed, but I shew it not; it is he that should shew it, or hee will neuer be able to conuince those that say otherwise) that Prou. 16. 33 speaketh of Lots in generall as well ordinary as extraordinarie. Be it so, what of that? But I acknowledge also an immediate prouidence in an extraordinary Lot; and that is therein as it is a Lot; saith Mr. B. and therefore by Mr. Gs. Axiome, it must bee so in an ordinary one also. For this I suppose it is that he would say. But he must first shew where I acknowledge an immediate prouidence to be in euery extraordinary Lot, which I deny to be in many thousands of them: and then proue it to be in such a Lot as it is a Lot; which to affirme and not proue, is to require that in effect without proofe to be granted, which all the controuersie is about, and which he must not thinke will be yeelded vpon his bare, I say.