A01540:214
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.
I proceed to his third Reason, p. 131. Which is this:1
- 1I. B. Answer.
If the use of Lots in game be of it self evil, then must it needs be a sin either against Piety in the first Table, or against Charity in the second.
If the vse of Lots in game be of it selfe euill, then must it needs be a sinne either against Piety in the first Table, or against Charitie in the second.
But the use of Lots in game is not of it self a sin against either Piety or Charity.
But the vse of Lots in game is not of it selfe a sinne against either Piety or Charitie.
Therefore it must be justified as agreeable to Gods word.