A01540:480
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. I no where deny that any Prayer might have been used at that manner of assignment, but prayer only to such particular purpose. Which yet if it had been used, did not require ought against the tenths being holy, but that each tenth might come forth according to the due order of being yeaned.
T. G. I no where deny that any Praier might haue beene vsed at that manner of assignement, but praier onely to such particular purpose. Which yet if it had beene vsed, did not require ought against the tenths being holy, but that each tenth might come forth according to the due order of being yeaned.
I. B. The instance of election of Offices is besides the purpose. For it is not argued thus: Because Gods people prayed when they used a Lot; therefore there is an immediate ⟨p. 212⟩providence of God in a Lot. But thus: There is an immediate providence of God in a Lot: Therefore Gods people prayed when they used a Lot.
I. B. The instance of election of Offices is besides the purpose. For it is not argued thus: Because Gods people praied when they vsed a Lot; therefore there is an immediate ⟨p. 212⟩prouidence of God in a Lot. But thus: There is an immediate prouidence of God in a Lot: Therefore Gods people praied when they vsed a Lot.
T. G. Then belike it was produced to prove nothing at all that was to be proved. For the point to be proved was not that Gods people prayed at the use of a Lot, but that that a Lot doth suppose the determining presence, or immediate providence of God. Which hereby also Mr. B. endeavoured to prove. But now Mr. B. it seemeth, taketh that for a thing granted; which is the point that he is to prove. The instance is to the purpose; for it doth show that Prayer is not therefore implied in a Lot, as in an Oath, though it be used thereabout.