A01540:433
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.
I. B. The other Argument is this, which is the Kill cow. If in every Lot there be necessarily an immediate work and providence of God, then it is in the natural power of man to make God work immediately at his pleasure. But to say that it is in mans power naturally to set God on working immediately at his pleasure, is absurd. There is not therefore an immediate work and providence of God necessarily in every Lot. Mr. G. like an Orator seemeth desirous to draw his Adversary into hatred by these words, [Necessarily, Natural power, Set God on working, At pleasure, To say, and Absurd] ⟨p. 194⟩Verba dumb sint, surdo canit. But hoping better, I answering his Logic deny the Assumption. For it is as much in mans natural power to set God on working immediately in an ordinary, as in an extraordinary Lot. For both God and man do respectively as much in the one Lot as in the other.
I. B. The other Argument is this, which is the Kil kow. If in euery Lot there be necessarilie an immediate worke and prouidence of God, then it is in the naturall power of man to make God worke immediatly at his pleasure. But to say that it is in mans power naturally to set God on working immediately at his pleasure, is absurd. There is not therefore an immediate worke and prouidence of God necessarily in euery Lot. Mr. G. like an Orator seemeth desirous to draw his Aduersary into hatred by these words, [Necessarily, Naturall power, Set God on working, At pleasure, To say, and Absurd] ⟨p. 194⟩Verba dum sint, surdo canit. But hoping better, I answering his Logicke deny the Assumption. For it is as much in mans naturall power to set God on working immediatly in an ordinarie, as in an extraordinary Lot. For both God and man doe respectiuely as much in the one Lot as in the other.
T. G. It is Mr. Bs. guise not mine to seek to draw his Adversaries into hatred, by traducing them as Pleaders for Dice play and such abuses as attend thereon, where it is used otherwise than it ought, because they deny every lusorious Lot to be unlawful, or dice play simply evil in regard of the Lot used in it. I reason but here from what Mr. B. himself granteth, as shall hereafter appear. But Mr. B. denieth the Assumption, which is this, To say that it is in mans power naturally to set God on working immediately at his pleasure, is absurd. And dare Mr. B. then deny this Assumption? He might as well say, It is in mans power naturally to set God on working of miracles at his pleasure; as say, It is in his power naturally to set God on working immediately at his pleasure. For is not every immediate work of God, or every work wrought without means, miraculous? Some miracles have been wrought by means: but nothing is wrought wholly without means, that is not miraculous. Well, I will not say, that it is blasphemous to erre this: but yet I believe it cometh nearer blasphemy than any thing in my Book doth. Yea but Mr. B. hath some good reason for the denial of mine Assumption. For, It is as much in