Selected quad for the lemma: truth_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
truth_n	deed_n	light_n	manifest_a	2,272	5	9.7572	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A03243	A modest reply to certaine answeres, which Mr. Gataker B.D. in his treatise of the nature, & vse of lotts, giveth to arguments in a dialogue concerning the vnlawfulnes of games consisting in chance And aunsweres to his reasons allowing lusorious lotts, as not evill in themselves. By Iames Balmford, minister of Iesus Christ.	Balmford, James, b. 1556.; Balmford, James, b. 1556. Short and plaine dialogue concerning the unlawfulnes of playing at cards or tables, or any other game consisting in chance.	1623 (1623)	STC 1336; ESTC S100662	39,722	144

writeth pag. 103. and 104. viz Where inconveniences that shall necessarily or in good probability appeare to accompany the thing questioned or ensu● vpon the doing thereof shall be such and so great as the Conveniences which stand on the other side shall not be able to countervaile there that action is worthily disallowed as Inconvenient and ● Lott consequently vnlawfull wha● he writeth in his spirituall Watch pag. 27. viz The rifer any evill i● in those places or ages we live i● the more carefull should we be to shunne and avoide such a sinne No doubt he would have taken heede how by writing he make way to the sinne of or by Lusorious Lotts Many Divines and intelligent men though of opinion that Lusorious mixed Lotts may be vsed lawfully yet wish that Mr. Gataker had never published his booke For a running horse say they needeth no spurring For my part I wish that Mr. Gataker had beene affected in writing as he professeth himselfe to be in the vse of lusorious Lottes pag. 266. Wel Whatsoever he writeth dogmatically he wisheth thee good Reader to imitate him in his practise to witt That albeit in judgment thou art rightly informed of the truth concerning the lawfulnesse of theis games in themselves yet in godly discretion thou wouldst rather abandō them considering the too too common and ordinary abuse of them and that many it may be among whom thou livest may remaine vnresolved and vnsatisfied touching the lawfulnes of them pag. 267. I desire the same and therewith a suspending thy judgment vntill thou hast well considered my Dialogue Mr. Gatakers answeres and my Reply together with mine answere to his positive groundes Here I promise with Mr. Gataker pag. 128. to raze what I have reared if my Reply and aunsweres be prooved insufficient and so commend thee to God and to the Word of his Grace which is able to build further Onely consider what I say and the Lord give thee vnderstanding in all things 14. Septemb. 1620. To the Reader THat I may doe Mr. Gataker no wrong I am to lett thee know that the 14. of March 1622. Stil Ang. Mr. Gataker denied naming me when he confuted mine arguments in Pulpit yet confessing that he named me in Pulpit with others diversely dissenting from him in judgment touching Lusorious Lotts when he entred into the question of playing with Lotts An Answere to Reasons inducing M. Gataker to allow lusorious Lottes as not evill in themselves Lib. 6. § 4. THIS Tenent seemeth to me more fearefull then beseemeth a learned man who after the turning over a wōderfull n umber of bookes to compile his Historicall and Theologicall Treatise of the Nature and Vse of Lotres setteth downe his judgment Allowing lusorious Lottes onely as not evill in themselves whereas he affirmeth them to be lawfull in themselves pag. 266. So that if theis games be vsed with due observation of all his cautions why is he fearefull to allow them as good in themselves How then may a scrupulous man who remembreth not onely his wicked wicked wayes but his deedes also that are not good build vpon such quagmiry grounds Againe Allowing theis games onely as not evill in themselves doth not manifest that Love of God which I doubt not is in Mr. Gatakers heart For whereas God is glorified by good workes and theis games be too too common and accompanied with many crying sinnes whereby God is every where and dayly much dishonoured the Love of God would have constrained him if doing truth to haue brought theis games to the light that thereby it might be made manifest that they are wrought according to God Lastly By this Tenent he sheweth not due Charity to his neighbour For now it is enoug for Gamesters to pleade A very learned man holdeth our Gaming to be not evill in it selfe Therefore they will not seeke further to know whither it be good in it selfe forgetting that it is writen The axe is putt to the roote of the trees therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruite is hewen downe and cast into the fire Is not then hereby his neighbour's spirituall daunger occasioned But here perhappes it may be said The first Reason prooving that a Lott may be matter of Recreation doth give me a checke It is a checke Then I will try if I cannot avoide the Mate The Argument collected with all faithfulnes as the rest and his aunsweres be is this That which may be ordinarily vsed in other Civill affaires be they more or lesse weighty may also be vsed for matter of recreation and delight But a Lott may be ordinarily vsed in other Civill affaires Therefore I see not what should banish it out of our disportes more than out of other though serious yet Civill affaires Is not this a fearefull conclusion like the Tenent Why doth not Mr. Gataker conclude positively thus Therefore a Lott may be vsed for matter of recreation and delighte He forsooth see 's not Can a blinde man goe stoutly on his way But blessed be God Mr. Gataker seeth well though not in this point Bernardus non vidit omnia For if God had opened his eyes in this point he might have seene plainely what should banish a Lott out of disportes more than out of other Civill affaires To witt Because God alloweth a Lott to be vsed in them but not in theis and It is praesumption of sett purpose to imploy God but as it may stand with his pleasure Hereof more hereafter In meane while in further aunswer to this argument I deny the Proposition thereof For an Oath may be ordinarily vsed in other Civill matters yet not for matter of Recreation Whereof also more hereafter Now I proceed to the 2. reason which is sett downe in twoo shapes The former is this That which best sorteth with the nature of a Lott may a Lott most lawfully be vsed vnto But the lightest matters best sort with the nature of a Lott Therefore about things of that nature may a Lott most lawfully be vsed The Proposition he prooveth thus Great is the vncertainty of a Lott Therefore not fitt to be vsed in any weighty affaire A Lott is sometimes taken for the instrument of purpose disposed vnto casualty as The Lott is cast into the lappe and sometime for the event as Give a perfect Lott Which howsoever it be casuall in relation to the former yet falleth out certainely this or that by God's whole disposing the former Prov. 16. 33. I therefore deny both the Proposition and Assumption perswaded that Mr. Gataker would never have sett downe this supposed reason if a Lott in the former acception had not drawne his religious eye from God as the onely disposer thereof to be a Lott in the latter acception So that I mervaile much that he findeth a Lott to be not fitt to be vsed in any weighty affaire For why Dividing the Land of promise Numb 26. 55. by Lott Discovering Achan

naturall reason for directio● in such actions The Assumptio● is thus prooved Recreation i● generall is warranted from th● Word as permitted and inioined if not expressely yet by iust consequence For the matter or manner or the thinges wherewith we may recreate our selves there is nothing determined Therefore any meanes that are not against the generall rules Of comelines and decency Rom. 13. 13. 1. Cor. 14. 40. Of conveniency and expediency 1. Cor. 6. 12. and 10. 23. Rom. 14. 21. Of Religion and Piety 1. Cor. 10. 31. Colos 3. 17. and the like are by the Word of God allowed I might as did Alexander loose Gordian's knott with one choppe and say The vse of Lottes in game is forbidden in the Word referring my selfe to what I have and shall write But for better satisfaction I will answere more particularly not doubting but that the Proverbe may now proove true viz In many wordes there cannot want iniquity First I observe fearefull shifting and then vnsound arguing The former thus appeareth He supposeth the thing must be lawfull in it selfe and disputeth onely about the subiect-matter c. Againe In the introduction he saith Th' vse of Lottes in game is not against God's Word but hath sufficient warrant from it which may imply this position That is against the Word which hath not sufficient warrant from it But in the Proposition of the maine argument his ground is Such things are lawfull which the Word doth not forbid Fower of his confirmations and his Assumption are to that effect or rather defect and his conclusion is answereable Is not this a fearefull shifting course of reasoning Now let vs consider his vnsound arguing Touching the Proposition of his maine argument I mervaile why Mr. Gataker avouching such subiect-matter c. to be lawfull as are not forbidden limiteth this assertion with theis wordes Of a thing lawfull in it selfe As if such a thing may warrant our retchlesnesse in and about the subiect-matter c. As if God doth not according to the olde saying Loue Adverbes An Oath is a thing lawfull in it selfe Are not we therefore to make conscience that the subiect-matter c. be agreable to the Word of God But I mervaile much more at this gronnd Such things are lawfull as the Word doth not forbid I set it downe thus because the confirmations tend to make this good and so conclude All things not prohibited are permitted and therefore the subiect-matter c. of a thing lawfull in it selfe I mervaile I say the more because Mr. Gataker confirmeth a thing or act it selfe to be lawfull in it selfe if it be in the Word either commaunded or permitted expressely or by iust consequence Which I acknowledge to be so cleare a truth that me think's Mr. Gataker cannot but in proportion of reason if he beleive the Word to be perfect vnto every good worke holde All thinges to be vnlawfull which are not lawfull one of theis two wayes and the rather because he peremptorily affirmeth pag. 95. All particular morall actions be they never so iūdifferent to be either conformable or disconformable to Gods Word and by particular actions he meaneth actions clothed with circumstances pag. 94. O that Mr. Gataker would holde to this doctrine Then should he thereby provoke all who make consciences of their wayes and doe truth that is doe good workes sincerily to come to the light that their deedes might be made manifest that they are wrought according to God On the contrary If he bring not disciples to the Law and Testimony by doctrine according to the Word but writhe from it by teaching that to be lawfull which is not forbidden as therein his light faileth so there by he shall make men carelesse to seeke for their warrant and wilfull to seeke after their owne heart and eyes after which they goe a whoring Well let vs examine his confirmations First Mr. Calvins testimony in English is this When the Scripture delivereth generall rules of a lawfull vse the vse is to be limited according to them From hence Mr. Gataker concludeth that a man hath a sufficient warrant for any circumstance he shall make choise of that is not against those rules Mr. Calvin speaketh of an Vse and of an Vse doe we dispute Mr. Gataker concludeth a Circumstance Mr. Calvin saith According Mr. Gataker concludeth Not against Is this sound arguing Is the 2. confirmation from Luke 9. 50. much better The wordes set downe by Mr. Gataker be theis He that is not against me is with me This place forsooth is a rule holding in the subiect-matter c. neither determined nor forbidden As theis wordes He that is not with me is against me Math. 12. 30. is a rule in the subiect-matter c. determined Both a like in conceipt And why may not M. Gatakers conceipt be the same touching thinges or actions But let vs see whether the conceipt be not a be-misted Phantasy In the former place Christ his wordes are occasioned ●y his Disciples their forbidding one who cast out Divels in Christ his name Forbid him not said Christ for He that is not against me is with me In the latter place Christ spake those wordes vpon occasion of the Pharises their opposition So that consider the two sentences with their occasions togither this indeed is the summe All men are either with or against Christ For there be no Neutralles So that those two sentences are like theis He that is not a goate is a sheepe and He that is not a sheepe is a goate But Mr. Gataker's argument is this All men who are not against Christ are with him Therefore Circumstances not determined nor forbidden are lawfull Is this sound arguing The third confirmation is from a Glosse Here I remember an olde saying A cursed glosse corrupt's the Text. Now lett vs see whether Mr. Gataker have any blessing by this glosse the wordes whereof in English be theis All things are permitted by Law which are not found prohibited Note that it speake's of things Therefore it make's as well for actions as for circumstances Is this Divinity But what Law If the Civill Law what is that to the point Except Mr. Gataker can proove the Civill Law to be a perfect rule to vs and whatsoever it permitteth is allowed of God Howsoever I say this course of fetching proofes from any other Law than God's Law is fitter for a Papist who holdeth Vnwritten verities so called to be a supplement to the Scriptures thereby to authorize traditions of men than for one that feareth God to walke in his wayes Is then this glossing sound arguing Hath the fourth confirmation more validity in it than the rest The former 3. proofes speake not directly of Circmmstances according to the proposition so doth Mr. Gataker dispute Adidem here he doth here then Iinquire If the Circumstances of Time and Place be at the pleasure of him that v●eth a thing lawfull in