A01540:434
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. 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 ⟨p. 195⟩mans power naturally to set God on working immediately in an ordinary as in an extraordinary Lot. Very true, sas much in the one as in the other. That is in very truth in neither. If there be in an extraordinary Lot of Gods special appointment, (for in no other is there any certainty of it) an immediate providence, neither is that there by any power of man naturally procured, nor is God set a work therein at mans pleasure, but he worketh therein upon his own pleasure, and man only by his appointment. This Mr. B. himself saw well, and addeth therefore,
T. G. It is Mr. Bs. guise not mine to seeke to draw his Aduersaries into hatred, by traducing them as Pleaders for Dice play and such abuses as attend thereon, where it is vsed otherwise than it ought, because they deny euery lusorious Lot to be vnlawfull, or diceplay simply euill in regard of the Lot vsed in it. I reason but here from what Mr. B. himselfe granteth, as shall hereafter appeare. But Mr. B. denieth the Assumption, which is this, To say that it is in mans power naturally to set God on working immediatly 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 euery immediate worke of God, or euery worke wrought without means, miraculous? Some miracles haue beene wrought by meanes: but nothing is wrought wholly without meanes, that is not miraculous. Well, I will not say, that it is blasphemous to erre this: but yet I beleeue it commeth neerer blasphemy than any thing in my Booke doth. Yea but Mr. B. hath some good reason for the deniall of mine Assumption. For, It is as much in