A01540:58
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.
1. Our Laws do not simply or generally condemn or forbid Cards or Dice, but to some only, used in some manner, and at some times.
1. Our Lawes doe not simply or generally condemne or forbid Cards or Dice, but to some onely, vsed in some manner, and at some times.
2. It is not in regard of any such superstitious conceit of the unlawfulness of a Lot in them, as Mr. B. maintaineth, that either ours or any other Laws condemn or inhibit them.
2. It is not in regard of any such superstitious conceit of the vnlawfulnesse of a Lot in them, as Mr. B. maintaineth, that either ours or any other Lawes condemne or inhibite them.
3. It is a gross falsehood that I offend our Laws by allowing any Games that are thereby forbidden, so far forth as the Law forbiddeth them. Mine own words by Mr. B. himself produced clear me thereof: And it is too palpable a Calumny to charge me therewith. If a man should defend the lawfulness in themselves of bowling, coiting and logeting against some fantastical spirit that should question the same, (as othere is nothing almost so absurd but some or other have held) would any man, think we, be either so malicious or so senseless, as to tax him for the same as offending our Laws, because in the same Laws these are also prohibited, though there be no Lot in them, even as strictly as those other are? Or were he a justifier therefore of the abuses accompanying the same, that should defend them as in themselves not unlawful?
3. It is a grosse falshood that I offend our Lawes by allowing any Games that are thereby forbidden, so far forth as the Law forbiddeth them. Mine owne words by Mr. B. himselfe produced cleare me thereof: And it is too palpable a Calumnie to charge me therewith. If a man should defend the lawfulnesse in themselues of bowling, coiting and logeting against some fantasticall spirit that should question the same, (as