A01540:74
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.
The last passage now to be observed as matter 1of my wondering, is this. Notwithstanding, he confidently affirmeth that we may not do ought without warrant, p. 301. sufficiently confirmeth the same; because such an act is not done of Faith, and therefore not free from sin, Rom. 14. 23. but is a mere presumption, and tempting of God, pag. 313. & quot. a. & b. and earnestly reproveth one kind of Lottery (why not all against which the same reason is of like validity?) because not found revealed in any word of God, but brought in either by Satan, or by some of his Instruments, who are addicted to vanity, p. 315. & 316. and yet he avoucheth, That it is a sufficient warrant for the use of Lots; in that the oppugners, being learned, can say nothing against them, but what hath been, or may be sufficiently answered, pag. 235. May I not wonder that so judicious a Scholar doth not observe this discrepance? Lottery is unlawful, if not ⟨p. 27⟩warranted by the word; which position supposeth the word to be perfect, as is the Author thereof; and secondly Lottery is lawful, if learned men can say nothing out of the word against it. Which position supposeth two things, viz. that the word is like the Laws of Men, that is, imperfect, as be the Authors thereof: and, that learned men cannot so fail in diligence of reading, clearness of understanding, and firmness of memory, but that, if there were in the word any thing against Lottery, they could not but see it.
The last passage now to be obserued as matter 1of my wondring, is this. Notwithstanding, he confidently affirmeth that we may not doe ought without warrant, p. 301. sufficiently confirmeth the same; because such an act is not done of Faith, and therefore not free from sinne,