A01540:582
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. B. But Mr. G. in this answer speaketh of things merely natural or civill, as sweetening with sugar, &c.
I. B. But Mr. G. in this answer speaketh of things meerely naturall or ciuill, as sweetning with sugar, &c.
T. G. Name all, good Mr. B. There is besides, printing of Books, and shooting in guns, playing at bowls, tennis, chess, foot-ball, &c. against which the Argument will hold as well as against either Cards or Tables. And must not warrant be had as well for civill actions as for others? Or is not recreation, whereof we now dispute, a civill thing? Or must warrant be had by some example out of the word for Cards and Dice, more than for Chess, or else they are in that regard unlawful? I might here exclaim, as Mr. B. useth to do, yea ⟨p. 255⟩and that with better ground than Mr. B. so oft doth; Oh what a wide gap doth Mr. B. open here to licentiousness, when he implieth that for actions merely natural or civill, there needs no warrant at all be had out of Gods word! It grieveth my soul to see what will ensue hereupon. For now will ungodly men, when they are reproved for ought amiss in the course of their life and conversation, and required to show what warrant they have for it, be ready to say, These are but things merely either natural or civill: and therefore we need not care whether we have any warrant out of Gods word for them or no. And either Mr. B. must imply no less, or else his exception is idle, and of no use.
T. G. Name all, good Mr. B. There is besides, printing of Bookes, and shooting in guns, playing at boules, tennis, chesse, foot-ball, &c. against which the Argument will hold as well as against either Cards or Tables. And must not warrant be had as well for ciuill actions as for others? Or is not recreation, whereof we now dispute, a ciuill thing? Or must warrant be had by some example out of the word for Cards and Dice, more than for Chesse, or else they are in that regard vnlawfull? I might here exclaime, as Mr. B. vseth to doe, yea ⟨p. 255⟩