A01540:326
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.
And it is a certain truth, that ya Reverend Divine hath, that In every action of common life (yea in many of them, say I, whereof no doubt or question is made by any) to find out some sentence clearly and infallibly setting before our eyes what we ought to do, seem we in Scripture never so expert, would trouble us more than we are aware. To reflect upon our former instance concerning the Decalogue, who doubteth but that all a mans actions ought to be grounded upon it, since that they are all lawful or unlawful so far forth as they are either consonant unto or dissonant from that that is therein contained. Yet how many actions are there, the lawfulness whereof may be demonstrated much more readily from some other, either proofs of Scripture, or grounds in Nature, than from ⟨p. 138⟩any Branch of it? Yea in resolution of doubts, how oft do the 2best and religiousest Divines resolve Cases of Conscience concerning Civill actions, by grounds of Reason, without allegation of any Scripture? Yea but, saith Mr. B. need not a man know that he hath warrant from Gods word, if in his persuasion he have sufficient direction from natural Reason? How doth this follow from ought that I say? If it do not, as it doth not, I might well return it to Mr. B. and request him to return an answer to it himself. But I answer: If he be sure he hath, he may thereby know it, and need not therefore in that regard to seek further for it, save for the further strengthening of his faith, if some doubt should arise of it. If he be falsely persuaded of it, the case is all one, concerning direct warrant from the word. For be he falsely persuaded of sufficient direction either from natural Reason, or the written word, ahe hath just cause to look further, though he be not aware of it. But doth that Maxim, What is not of faith is […], intimate, that whatsoever is done by sufficient direction from natural Reason is of Faith? Here is a new quare, that I am not bound to answer. Nor do I, as Mr. B. would intimate, deduce any such thing from thence. Yet I say, that whatsoever is so done […] of faith: because whatsoever is so done, as before was showed, hath sufficient warrant from the word. Yea but natural Reason is not defective only, but corrupted also. What then? Is it so utterly defaced