A01540:205
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.
T. G. Indeed as Mr. B. had dismembered my Conclusion it was not: otherwise it is.
T. G. Indeed as Mr. B. had dismembred my Conclusion it was not: otherwise it is.
I. B. And note, that in both these Shapes, only lightness and indifferency of matters put to Lottery are pressed ⟨p. 84⟩as causes most justifying a Lot, yea so, as that in the confirmation of his former shaped Arguments Proposition, be positively affirmeth, that we shall find a Lot not fit to be used in a weighty affair. If so, then weightiness and necessity of matters controverted make Lottery less lawful, if not altogether unlawful. But of that also more in that Reply.
I. B. And note, that in both these Shapes, onely lightnesse and indifferencie of matters put to Lotterie are pressed ⟨p. 84⟩as causes most iustifying a Lot, yea so, as that in the confirmation of his former shaped Arguments Proposition, be positiuely affirmeth, that we shall finde a Lot not fit to be vsed in a weighty affaire. If so, then weightinesse and necessitie of matters controuerted make Lotterie lesse lawfull, if not altogether vnlawfull. But of that also more in that Reply.
T. G. Albeit it be sufficient to carry my Cause, that the lightness of the matters questioned be no plea sufficient against the use of a Lot; neither is it at all pressed here in the latter shape, as he termeth it: yet true it is that I affirm the lightest matters to sort best with the nature of it, and that it is not fit to be used in any weighty affair; to wit, where it is a matter of weight and much consequence whether it fall this or that way. Which neither say I alone, as my margin may there show; nor do I nakedly affirm it, but add something to strengthen it: And Mr. B. though he have oft again and again carped at it, yet neither offereth he to refute it, nor taketh notice of the backing of it, but posteth it off still to a further place. Yea I affirm now further, what Mr. B. in part hereupon inferreth, to wit, that the weightiness of the business, in regard of the event, maketh Lottery the less lawful, nor to be condescended unto without very great necessity, and to be used with far much more care and caution than were otherwise needful in it. And I say therefore the less lawful in such case, because there must needs be a fault either in the party so using it, or in those that urge the use of it, when in such case