A Just Defense of Certain Passages, Part 3 · Argument
I. B.
Indeed, the certaine euent of an extraordinory Lot may in faith be expected, because of Gods speciall direction. And why not so in an ordinary Lot? Seeing God aduiseth vsus pag. 135. to vse Lots for the ending of Controuersies, Prou. 18. 18. and assureth vsus that the whole disposing of them is of him, Prou. 16. 33.
T. G.
I might answer in a word: Let Mr. B. make triall. But I referre my selfe to pAnswer to Mr. Fennors reason 4. chap▪ 7. §. 10. p. 158, 159.the instances giuen by me elsewhere, of diuers in seuerall places casting Lots vponupon the same persons for the selfe same places, and to what hereof hath been here before said. Only I adde that no such speciall assurance is giuen vsus by God for the one, as in such cases was for the other. Nor doth any such thing follow thence, because God hath aduised vsus rather thereby to end controuersies than to giuegive way to courses more inconuenient, that therefore God will by a speciall hand of his guide the Lot thus or thus, to wit, to fauour him that hath the better right in this, as to seuer the innocent from the nocent in that. How far forth qProv. 16. 33.the place produced proueth any such thing, commeth hereafter to be discussed.
I. B.
But Mr. G. hath answered this place before. Let vsus then consider what he hath answered.
T. G.
For the sentence of Salomon, there want notT. G. Answer. Of Lots, chap. 7. sect. 3. good Authors that expound it of iDe singularibus, mirabilibus, divinis, quas disterminant à politicis. Chytrae. in Iud. c. 1. 10. Winkelman profess. Marpurg. & Barthold. Krakevitz in Ion. c. 1. & Pe…cer. de divinat.singular extraordinarie; and miraculous Lots only: such, to vse the words of one of our kEastie hist. Gosp.Aduersaries, as are vsed immediatly to finde out Gods will: whereas these that we now dispute of are no such; lAuthores pra…ominati.neither is it now lawfull to vse any Lot at all to that end.
But the words seeme to be more generall, and are word for word thus in the originall, mProv. 16. 33. foreign Sicut Num. 26. 55. foreign terram tamen (quod attinet) sorte dividetur. Et Nehem. 9. 32. - foreign ….)The Lot, it is cast into the lap; nforeign ….but eueryevery iudgement or disposition of it (for there is no article there answering our English The) is of God. As hee saith else-where, o…. …. 26.Many seeke the Rulers face or fauour; pforeignbut each mans iudgement is from God. And, qProv. 21. 31.The Horse is prepared for the day of fight: rforeign sicut Psal. 3. 9. foreign Et Ion. 2. 9. foreignbut saluation is of God, or belongeth to God, i… Gods. Which words so read s… providentia, etiamsi … providentia in alijs …, … … munis providentia c…sum. Bellarm. de▪ cleric. l. 1. c. 5.import onelyonly thus much, that there is a prouidence of God in all things, euen in the least, in the most casuall things, and among the rest by name in a Lot: And so is there no more said of Lots there, than is spoken else-where not of Lots alone or things casuall onelyonly; but of all mens thoughts and purposes, and words and works, and counsels and courses; as we hauehave tChap. 2. §. 3.formerly shewn; and as beside the Authors there alledged, some of those that vrge this place for the proofe of this point, confesse else-where against themselues, when they say, that Balmford. dialog. Et Zanch. de sort. D…um omnia regere, igitur sortes etiam.The disposing of the Chance is secret, that it may be Chance indeed and wholly of God, who directeth *Prov. 16. 1, 3, 9, 3…. Balmf. ibid.all things.
Yea take the words as they are vsually read, The Lot is cast into the lap, but xGenev. translat.the whole disposition, or yThe Kings Edit.the whole disposing thereof, is of the Lord; It may as truly be said with good warrant from diuers zI…sal. 33. 10, 11, 13, 14, to 20. & 37. 6, 7, 9, 12, to 16. & 127. 1, 2. Prov. 10. 22. & 19. 21. & 20. 24. & 21. 30, 31. Esai. 26. 12. & 34. 15, 16. Ierem. 10. 23. Matth. 6. 26, 30. & …0. 29, 30.other places of Scripture beside asupra.those by the Aduerse party produced, that the whole issue or euent and disposing of all things great and weighty, or lesse and lighter, is of the Lord: which yet excludeth not the meanes, that God worketh by or with, in the most of them, nor implieth an immediate prouidence vniuersally in them: but is therefore so said, and may truly be said, to shew, that it is wholly in Gods hands to dispose of the euent and issue of all things, and to crosse or giuegive way to them, as he shall see good. So that a man may as well, and vponupon as good ground out of the places concerning all other mens speeches and actions alledged by themselues, (together with those other, which are some of them yet more generall and of larger extent) exclude all things else whatsoeuer from game, as they may Lots, in regard of ought that concerning them can be picked out of this place.
I. B.
Before he saith, p. 144. Good Authors expound this I. B. Reply.place of singular extraordinary and miraculous Lots onelyonly.
T. G.
And if Mr. G. had stucke to this, I suppose Mr. B.T. G. Reioind. would not easily hauehave beene able to refute it, and so his Argument had stucke fast. But I refuse to take aduantage of ought that in mine owne iudgement I deeme vnsound. For it is rDisputa…is … is Christianae scopꝰ nō victoria, sed verita…. foreign. Greg. N…z. epist. 15.not victory, but truth onelyonly that I stand for.
I. B.
But, saith he, the words seeme to be more generall, and are, word for word, thus in the Originall, [The Lot is cast into the lap: but eueryevery iudgement or disposing of it, is of God.] Doth not confuting them, who hold onelyonly extraordinary Lots to be meant in this place; and translating the Text [EueryEvery iudgement] and expounding it [or disposing it] shew plainly that this place proueth mine Assumption to be vniuersally true?
T. G.
I perceiue a man must not be ouer-liberall with Mr. B. for i… a man giuegive him an inch, hee will too soone take an ell. He might well thinke me very silly, freely to grant him all this, and yet denie his Assumption, i… this were so plaine a Confirmation of it.
That I confute them is not true: I shew onelyonly my dissent from them. I leaue it to Mr. B. if he can, to confute them.
That I so translate and expound the Text, is true: but very sorry assistance ariseth to Mr Bs. Assumption from thence.
I. B.
So that I maruell that he denieth this place to proue mine Assumption, because it concerneth Lots in generall.
T. G.
And maruell well he might, did I reason on that manner. But hee wanteth matter, it seemeth, to maruell at, that he frameth such to himselfe. sIn eadem urna & aurum est & vipera. Si aurum ex urna sustuleris; quia illic & viper… est, non ideò mihi urna aurū dat, quia vipera… habet; sed aurum dat, cùm & viperā habeat. Sen epist. 87.It is one thing to say, It proueth not Mr. Bs. Assumption, though it concerne Lots in generall: and another to say, It proueth not Mr. Bs. Assumption, because it concerneth Lots in generall. That is all that can be gathered out of ought that I affirme. But Mr. B. his earnest desire belike to hauehave his Assumption confirmed, suggested this to him.
I. B.
For if it doe so, then it proueth that ordinary as well as extraordinary Lots, tend to the aduancing of the Name of God.
T. G.
It seemeth that Mr. B. hath forgotten his owne Assumption. If he hauehave, I will make bold to put him in mind of it. It is this, The vse of Lots directly, or of it selfe, and in speciall manner tendeth to the aduancing of Gods Name, in attributing to his speciall prouidence in the whole and immediate disposing of them, &c. Here is a great deale more than barely tending to the aduancing of Gods Name, which all things that are disposed by him (and tEsai. 26. 12. Dan. 4. 35. Math. 10. 29, 30.what is not disposed by him?) in some degree or other doe. A man might maruell therefore rather why Mr. B. should not so much, but at all maruell at Mr. Gs. deniall, that this place so vnderstood, doth proue Mr. Bs. Assumption; yea, he might maruell, that Mr. B. should not see that it did not, if he remembred what his Assumption was.
I. B.
Againe, p. 145. Mr. G. taking the words, as they are vsually read in the Geneua Translation, and the Kings Edition, to wit, [The Lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposition, or disposing thereof, is of the Lord] granteth that the whole euent is of God.
T. G.
1. What I yeeld of my liberalitie, Mr. B. is one thing: What you must make good, if you will maintaine your owne cause, is another thing. That is the translation, say I, foreign.word for word. Which vnlesse therefore he can either disproue, or proue his Assumption out of it, his Argument is vndone, and his cause with it, hauing indeed no colour of ground beside that place much wrung and wronged to support and vphold it.
2. I take not the words so, but supposing them so to be taken, I say, that no more is therein said of Lots, than may be said of all things that are done in the world, though by meanes the most of them, that the whole issue and euent of them is of God, because he not only hath an hand in them, but it is in his power either to afford or to deny such issue vntounto them. And what hath Mr. Bs. cause gained hereby more than was granted it before? Or how is his Assumption hereby confirmed, when no more is yeelded to be said therein of Lots, than may be said of a game at boules?
I. B.
A grant, though true, yet turning the Reader aside from seeing the whole truth. For the Text is, [The whole disposing of the Lot cast into the lap.]
T. G.
And doe not I speake of Lots in generall? Or do I exclude any such as be cast into the lap? Or is it materiall, whether they be cast into lap, or xInto a bonnet, Litleton Tenures, l. 3. c. 1.hat, or yIn galeam. Homer. Iliad. n….helmet, or zforeign. de quo Aenigma apud Athē. dipnos. l. 10. Vide Casaub. ibid. c. 18.lot-box, or *In bydriam, five si…ulā. Plant. Casin.water-pot, or into none of all these, as in crosse and pile, or not cast at all, as in best-betrust? That Mr. G. should so slily seeke to conceale that, and by leger-demaine seeke to turne his Readers eye aside from it. But, saith Mr. B.
I. B.
If then the Lot cast into the Lap, that is, of purpose disposed by man vntounto a variable euent, be wholly disposed by God, so as the euent be that which pleaseth him, then God doth not mediately dispose the Lot to this or that euent: if not mediately, then immediately, because the whole disposition is of him.
T. G.
And what if the Lots then be not cast into the lap, or be not by man disposed at all? If that alter the case, as may seeme here implied, then that will not be true of eueryevery Lot, nor of many a Lot, that Mr. B. here saith.
But if Mr. Bs. meaning be (for I would faine vnderstand him) that there is an opposition betweene mans Act and Gods Act in the Text. So is there in those words, aProv. 16. 1.The preparations of the heart are in man: but the answer of the tongue i… of the Lord. Which yet proue not an immediate worke of God therefore to be in eueryevery answer that a man giueth, or in eueryevery word that he vttereth.
But vnlesse Mr. B. can find some stranger matter in those words, cast into the lap, more than here he discouereth, or any man (I beleeue) seeth beside himselfe, he saith no more than he said that I granted before, to wit, that the whole disposing of the Lot is of God, so as the euent is what he pleaseth. Which doth not necessarily inferre an immediate act of God in it: No more than, if a man should say, as he truly may say, that bPsal. 18. 29, 39. & 44. 3. 6, 7. & 60. 11, 12. foreign. In Dei arbitrio posita est victoria. Lactant. Contra quā Sen. Herc. fur. 1. Omnis in ferre est salus.the whole disposition of warre and battell (which *Sicut urbium expugnati…, ita sorti… temperatio à Domino est. Hebrae…rum nonnulli, teste Mercero in Prov. 16. 33.the Rabbines, some of them, compare here with a Lot, and so make this verse▪ cohere with the next before it) is of God the Lord of Hoasts, so that the issue and euent of it is such as he pleaseth; it would follow thereupon, that he denied cProv. 21. 30, 31. 2 Sam. 10. 12.armes to be of any vse in warre, or affirmed all victorie to come immediatly, and without meanes from God.
I. B.
Doth not this then make good mine Assumption?
T. G.
No indeed; not a whit: Vnlesse the asking of the Question doe ought in it.
I. B.
But for all this Mr. G. will not hauehave it so. For as he translateth this place, he saith▪ It importeth thus much, [That there i… a Prouidence in all things, euen the least, & most casual.] And this he would confirme by these my words, viz. [The disposing of the Chance i… secret, that it might be Chance indeed, and wholly of God, who disposeth all things.] Doe these words iustifie Mr. Gs. interpretation of this place? Yes: for they say plainely, God directeth all things; and they say withall, The … of the Chance (that is, of the things purposely …isposed by a man vntounto a variable euent) vntounto a certaine euent, is secret, that it may be Chance indeed, that …, an euent not by the will of man, but wholly of God. …o that my words imply this Argument. God directeth …ll things: therefore much more, in our discerning a Lot, the whole disposing whereof is of him. This is far from saying that thi… place importeth only, That there is a prouidence in all things.
T. G.
Mr. B•. words I hauehave faithfully related; and they …ustifie as much as I alledge them for, to wit, a con…ession, that God directeth and disposeth as well all …ther things as Lots. What Mr. B. may please to fish further out of his owne words, I am well content he doe: what the words themselues of themselues import, any man may soone see.
I. B.
Neither doth Mr. Gs. translation inferre this imported interpretation.
T. G.
What it will necessarily inferre, is not materiall; what it will well beare, is for me enough. It is sufficient, that no more can be inferred out of it: and that is all that I auerre. But Mr. B. (you shall see) will shew that there may.
I. B.
For this discretion [But] doth so oppose eueryevery iudgement, or disposing of it (as he expoundeth Iudgement) to a Lot cast into the lap, as that eueryevery disposing, is all one with the whole disposing.
T. G.
The discretiue (for so I suppose his meaning is) but, doth no otherwise oppose here than in the place before cited; but dProv. 16. 1.the answer of the tongue is of the Lord: nor doth it any more proue, that eueryevery disposing is all one with the whole disposing, (though I refuse not that also in such sense as I hauehave shewed) than that eueryevery mans iudgement is all one with the whole iudgement of eueryevery man; in that speech also of Salomon, eProv. 29. 16.Many seeke to the Rulers face, but eueryevery mans iudgement is of God.
I. B.
This place so troubleth Mr. G. that from it he would hauehave no more gathered, than that the whole euent (as of all things, so) of a Lot, is of the Lord. Yet so, as working by meanes in the most of them, and not implying immediate prouidence vniuersally in them.
T. G.
Rather this place so troubleth Mr. B. being indeed the only maine bulwarke of his cause, that like a man in a maze he runneth backward and forward, from Mr. Gs. to the Geneua translation, and then backe to Mr. Gs. againe, as not enduring the triall of, or triall by either.
It is true, I auerre it, nor doth Mr. B. himselfe here denie, but that the whole euent of all things is of the Lord: nor hauehave the words of the Text in the ordinary Translations any one word more of a Lot, and no necessarie implication therefore of any immediate prouidence in them, which Mr. B. would pick out of them.
I. B.
I neede not examine the meanes or immediate prouidence of all the instances quoted in the margent. For here it is impliedly granted, (for he saith not, all, but, the most of them) that in some things God worketh not by meanes, and that there is an immediate prouidence particularly; for he denieth such a prouidence only, as being vniuersally.
T. G.
Mr. B. it seemeth, little passeth what hee say, though neuer so little to the purpose, so hee may seeme to say something. The instances some of them are by Mr. B. himselfe, though contrary to his owne purpose, alledged. Mine Argument standeth thus:
Nothing is said by Salomon in this place of Lots, but what may with good warrant from Gods word be truly said of all other humane actions, in the most whereof yet God worketh not immediatly, but by meanes. There is nothing therefore said of a Lot in this place, that may proue any immediate prouidence of God therein.
Now what is it to the purpose whether there be an immediate prouidence of God in some of them or no. This phrase that may be truly vsed, where none such is, proueth it not. The impropriety of speech here vsed I passe by, because it is nothing to the purpose. But till either the Antecedent here be disproued, or the Consequence (which I suppose no man will once question) infringed, Mr. B. remaineth cleane put beside his maine bulwarke.
I. B.
Howsoeuer it be in other things, I thinke it is manifest to all, that will see, that God without meanes, and therefore immediatly, doth dispose the Lot cast into the lap vntounto this, or that euent, what pleaseth him, whereas man disposeth the things onelyonly vntounto a variable euent. As at cards a man shufleth them of purpose to dispose them vntounto a variable euent. But by the immediate prouidence of God, they are so shufled as that this or that euent followeth.
T. G.
Here Mr. B. letteth goe his hold of that Text, and without any direct Answer at all giuen to mine Argument against his deduction, now vponupon his bare word onelyonly telleth vsus, that it is so here, howsoeuer it be else-where, and we are all wilfully blinde if we see it not to be so as he saith. Let him pardon me; gforeign. Theocr. idyll. 7. Sed non ego credulus illi. Virgil. …clog. 9.I beleeue him not. He must first shew better Cards for it than he hath done yet, or else few wise men and well aduised, I suppose, will beleeue that either all Lots in generall, or the shufling of the Cards so and so, are effected without meanes. Any man, I thinke that hath his eies in his head, may soone see it to be otherwise.
I. B.
Therefore (with Mr. Gs. fauour) any reasonable man may iudge it not senslesse to say (which he doubteth of. p. 147.) that in Childrens plaies at euen and odde, or at Heads & Points, there is an immediate prouidence, in inclining the will of the Child, & guiding his coniecture.
T. G.
And with Mr. Bs. good fauour, I beleeue any iudicious Reader will smile to heare Mr. B. here affirme it. But I would gladly know of Mr. B. why he skippeth thus from place to place in his Answer, and doth not goe thorow with my discourse and Argument about this very particular, but balke or stride ouer all that lieth betweene that he last dealt with, and this that commeth in the very end of it. But especially I would hauehave him tell what hee can answer to that instance of a Lot propounded next immediatly before this, wherein two appeale to the Cards as they lie left by those that last vsed them without further shuffling, who (suppose it) left the Cards (though vnknowne to the appealants) in some certaine manner sorted as to themselues then best seemed; whether the euent fall out by an immediate prouidence therein or no. Or, which I now adde, when two shall determine to shape their course by the tracke of a beast gone before them, which being driuen to the market by its owner, taketh this rather than that way, because the market that way lieth, whether this be also by an immediate prouidence or no.
I. B.
Thus we see this place doth confirme mine Assumption, and the proofe annexed, Mr. Gs. interpretation notwithstanding.
T. G.
But no man, I am sure, vnlesse he borrow Mr. Bs. spectacles, will be able euer to see it.
I. B.
But he giueth two reasons against an immediate prouidence in ordinary Lots.
T. G.
Though I needed not to giuegive any: hAffirmanti incumbit probatio. Negans probare nō tenetur. Reiswich. reg. Iur.he that saith it, should proue it: yet I giuegive indeed not two onelyonly; but more than two, if Mr. B. had pleased to take notice of them in the very same place where I giuegive these.
I. B.
The former is this. That which agreeth to a thing as it is such, agreeth necessarily to all things that are such. Therefore if there be an immediate prouidence in a Lot, as it is casuall, then there is an immediate prouidence in all things that are casuall. But the latter is not true: ergò not the former, p. 143. Why not the latter, if these Positions be true? That which seemeth Chance to vsus, is a certaine word of God (saith Bernard,Sermo quidam. but Mr. G. translateth it, is as a word of God) acquainting vsus with his will, p. 17. and, In casuall euents there is nothing guiding them but Gods prouidence, p. 22.
T. G.
But for ouer-burdening this Booke, I would insert here mine owne Argument at large: but so much as Mr. B. relateth shall suffice. Hee denieth (it seemes) here the Assumption; and so auerreth that which all euidence of daily experience doth abundantly confute; and which some of those therefore that hauehave heretofore made this the maine ground of their opinion in this point now doe relinquish; that there is a speciall and immediate prouidence of God in eueryevery thing that falleth out casually, as in eueryevery meeting of any by the way vnsought for (though his businesse lying this way and mine that way at that time are the meanes of our meeting) the stumbling at a stone, or stepping in some vncleane thing, while a man looketh vp or aside at some sight in a shop-window, and the like infinite accidents that daily occurre. For mine owne part the Assertion to me seemeth so senslesse, that I will no more spend time to dispute it with him that shall offer to defend it, than with one that shall affirme all the Riuers in the world to run with salt water.
Yea but there be some sayings in mine owne Booke that auerre it. Let vsus heare them.
Why first Bernard saith, iBern. de divers. serm. 26.That which seemeth Chance to vsus, is a certaine word of God acquainting vsus with his will.
First for the Translation, then for the Exposition, and the end for which it is alledged. The words of Bernard are Sermo quidam, that is, word for word, some kinde of word, or to auoid ambiguitie, a word in some sort. For I hope Mr. B. when he translateth it, a certaine word, doth not take certaine in that sense that he did, who expounding the words of the Gospell, kLuk. 16. 19.There was a certaine rich man, obserueth thence, that though the Rich man there mentioned, were otherwise an euill man, yet he was sure and certaine of his word. But Mr. G. translateth it, as a word. And who knoweth not that quidam and quoddam are vsually notes of diminution and qualification? I wish Mr. B. had committed no greater fault in relating my words both here and elsewhere, than I hauehave committed in translating Bernard in that manner.
For the exposition of it how it is to be vnderstood, because I shew lOf Lots, Chap. 2. Sect. 3.there at large whence by Mr. B. it is cited, I doe thither refer my Reader. Only I adde thereunto, vponupon further view of the place, that it is euidently apparent by the whole sequell of the Sermon, (the maine scope whereof is to perswade men to rest satisfied with Gods will and pleasure in all accidents and occurrents, as losse of friends by decease, and the like) that Bernards *Dictorum siquidem intelligentia ex dicendi causis sumenda est Hilar. de trinit. Et Ioan. Savisber. ep. 254. Dictum determinatur secundùm suam causam. Reg. Iur.meaning is, that when ought falleth out, whether by casualtie (which hee mentioneth, because that might most be stuck at) or otherwise, Gods will was thereby manifested that so it should be, and therefore that we were to submit to Gods will in it. But no more will it hence follow, that there is an immediate prouidence of God in all casuall things, more than in any other sort of euents. Gods decreeing will in eueryevery euent is reuealed by his worke. And eueryevery euent, be it casuall, or not casuall, is a word of God reuealing his pleasure vntounto vsus, and acquainting vsus with his will.
For the latter allegation Mr. B. most shamefully abuseth me, or himselfe, and his Reader rather, clipping off iust so much of the sentence spoken by me; as to make it speake directly contrary to that that it doth. He bringeth me in affirming, that In casuall euents there is nothing guiding them but Gods prouidence. Whereas my words are these, mOf Lots, chap. 2. sect. 4.If in casuall euents we consider ought beside the creature and the vncertaine motion thereof, (vncertaine, I say, to vsus, because not determinable by vsus, though determined ordinarily by some naturall cause or other) there is nothing guiding them but Gods prouidence. I remember one that in the Schooles gaue this Position to be disputed of, Virtus est vitium; and being required to shew some Author for it, produced Horace, where he saith, nHorat. epist. 1.Virtus est vitium fugere. And I could relate the like trick that a Popish Priest sometime shewed me in some things that passed in writing betweene him and me. And such shifting may well be seeme such as they are. But I would wish Mr. B. to be better aduised than to deale thus, if he regard his owne credit. Which I wonder he would thus hazard the calling in question, vnlesse he thought that no body would take the paines to search the places quoted by him: where how that that I say, fitteth his turne, may soone be seene, or rather how directly it contradicteth it.
I. B.
But suppose there is not an immediate prouidence in all things that be casuall, what is that to the purpose? For all things casuall are not such with a Lot, wherein things are of purpose disposed by man vntounto an vncertaine euent: which things so disposed by man, are wholly disposed by God vntounto a certaine euent, this or that; so it is not in all other things that be casuall. Therefore all other casuall things and Lots are not such.
T. G.
Mr. B. before denied mine Assumption. Now he denieth either the Conclusion, or nothing. Though it be so, saith he, in other casuall things, yet in a Lot it is not so; for they are wholly disposed by God, that is, in Mr. Bs. vnderstanding, there is an immediate prouidence of God in them, which is the contradictorie of my Conclusion.
What he talketh to no purpose in the world, of Lots not being such, is very friuolous. For either he vnderstandeth not what I say, or what himselfe would. I ground my Proposition, vponupon a generally receiued Axiome thus;
*Quod convenit tali quatenus tale, convenit omni tali.That which agreeth to a thing as it is such or such, agreeth necessarily to all things that are such; Therefore whatsoeuer agreeth to a Lot as it is a Casualty, must necessarily agree to eueryevery Casualtie.
Mr. B. denieth neither Antecedent nor Consequence: but telleth vsus, that all casuall things are not such with a Lot. To what, thinke we, doth this Answer? EueryEvery Casualty as it is a Casualty is such with each Casualty. For the same reason and common nature of Casualtie is in each; though each of them hauehave something ouer and beside distinct either from other. And what agreeth therefore to any Casualty as it is a Casualty, must needs agree vntounto all.
I. B.
Neither is it said, an immediate prouidence is in a Lot, as it is casuall, but as the Lot being made casuall is wholly disposed by God to this or that euent.
T. G.
Mr. B. hath here giuen so sore a cut to his owne cause, as oAfferat ipse licet sacras Epidamius berbas, Nulla sanabit hoc tibi vulnus ope. uti Ovid. ferè Pontil. 1.he will neuer be able to cure againe with all the skill that he hath. For what hath beene the maine ground, yea the onelyonly ground in effect whereupon these Games hauehave beene by his Master herein, himselfe, and those that concurre with them condemned, but this, because they depend vponupon Casualty either in whole or in part? Aske Mr. B. himselfe why these Games are vnlawfull; the very pThe vnlawfulnesse of games consisting in Chance.Title of his Booke telleth you, because they consist in Chance. In his Epistle dedicatory hee repeateth the same againe. In the entrance into his Dialogue, Dice are therefore vnlawfull, because they depend vponupon Chance. And after, Dice wholly euill, because they depend wholly vponupon Chance; Cards and Tables somewhat euill because they depend somewhat vponupon Chance: And are therefore Lots, for from thence they hauehave the denomination of a Lot, which in Latine is called Sors, that is, Chance or hazard; and therefore vnlawfull. And againe, Whether you call Cards and Tables Lots or no, you play with chance or vse Lottery, and by so doing make God an vmpire in play, which must needs be a sin: because you take the name of God in vaine and tempt the Almighty by a game some putting of things to hazard, and making play of Lotterie. Againe what doe those words imply, the disposing of chance is secret that it may be chance indeed, and wholly of God: but that therefore it is wholly (that is in Mr. Bs. meaning immediatly) of God, because it is Chance, which else it were not. Go… we a little higher from Mr. B. to his Teacher (as himselfe termeth him) herein Mr. F. qFennor of Recreat. rule spec. 4.The Nature of a Lot, saith he, lieth wholly in this, that although the thing be of vsus, yet the disposition is wholly of God, that is, he vseth not our meanes of cunning, practise, strength, &c. but taketh it wholly to himselfe. And therefore Dice, dealing of Cards, &c. where the matter is laid on hazard (as they call it) or rather Gods prouidence, without vsing any cunning of ours to dispose, is vponupon the same reason of a Lot vnlawfull. Yea hence he inferreth that to say, rIdem ibid.what lucke is this! how crooked! is in plaine termes (so he speaketh) as much as to say, what a God, or a crooked prouidence of God is this! as presuming that lucke, chance, or hazard, (for all is one in effect) is nothing else but Gods prouidence. Now what doth all this tend vntounto but this: That therefore these games are vnlawfull because they depend vponupon Casualty, which maketh them to bee Lots: and that therefore it is vnlawfull to vse any game depending vponupon Casualty; because in that regard there is an immediate prouidence of God in it? Whereas Mr. B. therein crossing all this, and ouerturning his owne grounds, here telleth vsus, that It is not said an immediate prouidence is in a Lot, as it is casuall. But how then? forsooth as being casuall it is wholly disposed by God to this or that euent. That is as much as to say, An immediate prouidence of God is not in a Lot, as it is casual, (though that be the ground whereupon we hauehave formerly affirmed it to be) but as there is an immediate prouidence of God in it; (idem per idem) for that is, to be wholly disposed by God; as Mr. B. still meaneth. Thus you see how Mr. B. hath now mended the matter, and made good his owne grounds. But he will hauehave somewhat out of my words yet, before he hauehave done with them.
I. B.
So that from Mr. Gs. axiome this Argument may be framed. An immediate prouidence in an extraordinary Lot is acknowledged by Mr. G. as it is a Lot (say I) wholly disposed by God: Therefore an immediate prouidence is in an ordinary Lot, (as it is a Lot) wholly disposed by God. For there is no difference betweene these sorts of Lots (as they be Lots) and so disposed. For Mr. G. hath shewed that Prou. 16. 33. speaketh as well of one sort of Lots, as of another.
T. G.
How this that followeth commeth in with a, So that, I know not. Yet let vsus 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 eueryevery 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 vponupon his bare, I say.
I. B.
The other Argument is this, which is the Kil kow. If in eueryevery 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 eueryevery 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] 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 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 eueryevery 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 eueryevery immediate worke of God, or eueryevery worke wrought without means, miraculous? Some miracles hauehave 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 mans power naturally to set God on working immediatly in an ordinary as in an extraordinary Lot. Very true, sQuod ille olim, tam doctrina quam moribus: cum neutra ex parte idoneum ad gradum offerret.as much in the one as in the other. That is in very truth in neither. If there be in an extraordinary Lot of Gods speciall appointment, (for in no other is there any certainty of it) an immediate prouidence, neither is that there by any power of man naturally procured, nor is God set a worke therein at mans pleasure, but he worketh therein vponupon his owne pleasure, and man onelyonly by his appointment. This Mr. B. himselfe saw well, and addeth therefore,
I. B.
But an extraordinary Lot is by the speciall direction of God. True; So is an ordinary Lot by Gods speciall aduice to end a controuersie.
T. G.
It followeth not from the one to the other. And the reason is apparent. Because in the extraordinary Lot the euent required, be it, to finde out a malefactor, as in tIosh. 7. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18.Achans case, or to discouer who the man is that God hath fore-appointed to such an office, as in u1 Sam. 10. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22.Sauls case, cannot certainly bee effected without such an immediate prouidence; whereas in the ordinary Lot, nothing is to be determined, but may well and certainly be decided without it. But if it be so, as Mr. B. saith, that therefore in an ordinary Lot there is an immediate prouidence; and therefore a setting of God on working immediately so oft as such a Lot is vsed, because an ordinary Lot is by Gods speciall aduice to end a Controuersie: How is that true both in his Dialogue, and in the very next words implied by him, that in a lusorious Lot God is thus set on working? For if God hauehave giuen no allowance for lusorious Lots, how is he in them set so on working, who doth not so worke, but where Lots are vsed by his owne allowance? Or how sinne they in setting God on working there, where he doth not worke? Mr. B. therefore here hangeth fast in the briers.
I. B.
If then eueryevery Lot be a setting of our glorious God on working, there ought to be praier, if not by words, yet in heart in the vse as well of ordinarie as extraordinarie Lots. If so, then Lots are not to be vsed in sports.
T. G.
If eueryevery Lot be, saith Mr. B. contrary to what before he implied, that vnlesse it be done by Gods assignement, it is not. If it be so indeed, the rest will follow. But that is it that is to be proued. And for Conclusion of this Argument, let it be obserued, that Mr. B. cannot make this good, whereupon the whole strength of this his principall Argument dependeth, & for the proofe wherof he alledgeth, Pro. 16. 33. to wit, that there is an immediate prouidence of God in eueryevery Lot whatsoeuer, vnlesse this absurd Position be also granted him, that
It is naturally in eueryevery mans (nay in eueryevery childs) power, to set God on working immediately at pleasure:
And that little children as oft as they cast for crosse and pile, cause God therein to worke a miraculous worke. That which the rather I require to be obserued and remembred, because the whole pith of the next Argument, yea of all the rest in a manner, dependeth vponupon this point.