There is somewhat else beside God and his providence, as in all other casual events, so in Lots, that such speeches may be applied unto. I am enforced too oft (I confess) to repeat what was ⟨p. 184⟩•aide down eat first, (while I tread the maze of sundry mens fancies;) that in casual events there are two distinct things, the work of the Creator and the act of the Creature: the latter whereof may such speeches be well applied unto, and so have no tang or taint at all of impiety or blasphemy. They build all upon this wrong ground, that there is a mere and immediate providence of God in all Lots, which is not true, as hath fformerly been proved, you may conceive it by examples of like casualty in other cases: To pass by actions of contingency carried by mans will and fore-cast oft crossing us in our lawful and warrantable courses, (as gin Davids despiteful wrong done him in the abuse of his Concubines by his own son Absalom,) wherein we use such like terms without any impeachment of or disparagement to the divine providence, which yet extendeth it self even unto those actions: Suppose a man riding on the way through the Forest, where a Deere rushing suddenly out of the covert maketh his Horse start and throw him: in this case for a man to say, what luck was this? or, what a cross accident was this? is no blasphemy, nor any accusing of Gods providence, but a complaining of the Creatures act and the event of it. Yea for any man to censure such a speech as blasphemous, or to construe it as if he should say, What a God is this? or, what a cross and crooked providence of God? were to make himself one of hthose Masters, whom the Apostle James reproveth: the rather for that he chargeth that with blasphemy, wherein he cannot show the least point of impiety.
There is somewhat else beside God and his prouidence, as in all other casuall euents, so in Lots, that such speeches may be applied vnto. I am enforced too oft (I confesse) to repeate what was ⟨p. 184⟩•aide downe eat first, (while I tread the maze of sundry mens fancies;) that in casuall euents there are two distinct things, the worke of the Creator and the act of the Creature: the latter whereof may such speeches be well applied vnto, and so haue no tang or taint at all of impiety or blasphemie. They build all vpon this wrong ground, that there is a meere and immediate prouidence of God in all Lots, which is not true, as hath fformerly beene proued, you may conceiue it by examples of like casualtie in other cases: To passe by actions of contingency caried by mans will and fore-cast oft crossing vs in our lawfull and warrantable courses, (as gin Dauids despitefull wrong done him in the abuse of his Concubines by his owne sonne Absolome,) wherein we vse such like tearmes without any impeachment of or disparagement to the diuine prouidence, which yet extendeth it selfe euen vnto those actions: Suppose a man riding on the way through the Forest, where a Deere rushing suddainly out of the couert maketh his Horse start and throw him: in this case for a man to say, what lucke was this? or, what a crosse accident was this? is no blasphemie, nor any accusing of Gods prouidence, but a complaining of the Creatures act and the euent of it. Yea for any man to censure such a speech as blasphemous, or to construe it as if he should say, What a God is this? or, what a crosse and crooked prouidence of God? were to make himselfe one of hthose Masters, whom the Apostle Iames reproueth: the rather for that he chargeth that with blasphemie, wherein he cannot shew the least point of impiety.
- eCap. 2 §. 3.4.
- fCap. 2 §. 5.
- g2. Sam. 16.21, 22 cum 12.11, 12.
- hJam. 3.•.Iam. 3.•.
