A01540:325
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.
for which therefore a man need not further warrant out of the word; not that the warrant of Gods word is in any wise needless; but that a man may thereby be well assured, that it hath warrant in Gods word. For what is the word of God for moral things, but the perfection of true Reason, and a Sum or Body of that Law of Nature at first imprinted in mans soul? So that either it must be held that there are some things in the Law of God not agreeable to Reason; or else it must needs follow, that xwhatsoever is agreeable to the rules and grounds of true Reason, is agreeable likewise to the Law of God: since that true Reason cannot possibly cross it self, nor swerve or disagree in ought from it self. To say therefore that for the doing of every Act, and the doing of it thus or thus, if natural Reason will not of it self afford sufficient direction, there must be warrant had out of Gods word: it is all one as to say, In proving of points in controversy between the Papists and us by Authorities, if a man be not very sure that his memory fail him not, he must have recourse to his Books. Which when a man saith, his meaning is not that he may allege ought that is not in the Books whence he allegeth it, but that if the allegations be so fresh and so firm in his memory, that he is well assured thereof, he need not make further search into his Books for it. Or to come nearer home, to say, In moral things, as well for every thing ⟨p. 137⟩that a man doth, as for the manner of doing it, if the word of God else-where afford not sufficient direction, there must be warrant had out of the Decalogue. Which speech should not argue that any action may be done of us, that we have no ground for in Gods Law: but that if we can find ground for it in any other part of Gods word, we may thereby be sure that it hath undoubted ground there. To the Reason that I adjoin taken from the end of the word, given in moral matters to supply the defect of natural Reason, &c. Mr. B. answereth nothing at all; but asketh only, if it be our best way to seek sufficient direction from natural Reason, before we consult with God in his word. No. Who saith it? But yet sometimes natural Reason affordeth grounds more readily without seeking, than the word doth.
for which therefore a man need not further warrant out of the word; not that the warrant of Gods word is in any wise needlesse; but that a man may thereby be well assured, that it hath warrant in Gods word. For what is the word of God for morall things, but the perfection of true Reason, and a Summe or Body of that Law of Nature at first imprinted in mans soule? So that either it must be held that there are some things in the Law of God not agreeable to Reason; or else it must needs follow, that