A01540:68
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.
The Question therefore is not between Mr. B. and me, whether Dice-play, which so oft he hath up, that he might traduce me as a maintainer of it, as it is over-frequently used or abused rather, is allowable or no; but whether any Lot at all in the largest sense taken, used in game, or to speak as himself doth in the very Title of his Book, whether any Game at all consisting in chance, be allowable. So that Mr. B. if he please, may put the Question as well of Even and Odd, or of Best by trust, or of Heads and Points, or of Cross and Pile, as of Dice; and of Shuffling of Arrows blind-fold or behind a mans back, or of Casting Bowls together out of some one mans lap or arms to decide or sort who shall side, as of Cards & Tables, which come here into disquisition only, in regard that a Lot either is, or is deemed to be in them. And I marvel why Mr. B. as he peremptorily condemneth Cards & Tables, & requireth an utter necessary abolition of them, ⟨p. 23⟩doth not withal also very seriously and severely enjoin all Parents to restrain and utterly inhibit their Children from playing at Cockall, and Cross and Pile, and Even and Odd, and Heads & Points, considering that these are Lotteries likewise or Games consisting of chance as well as those are; and there is impious iniquity therefore (to use Mr. Bs. tragical terms) by his Grounds, as well in the one as in the other. But it would peradventure have been somewhat too ridiculous if he should so have done.
The Question therefore is not betweene Mr. B. and me, whether Dice-play, which so oft he hath vp, that he might traduce mee as a maintainer of it, as it is ouer-frequently vsed or abused rather, is allowable or no; but whether any Lot at all in the largest sense taken, vsed in game, or to speake as himselfe doth in the very Title of his Booke, whether any Game at all consisting in chance, be allowable. So that Mr. B. if hee please, may put the Question as well of Euen and Od, or of Best by trust, or of Heads and Points, or of Crosse and Pile, as of Dice; and of Shuffling of Arrowes blind-fold or behind a mans backe, or of Casting Bowles together out of some one mans lap or armes to decide or sort who shall side, as of Cards & Tables, which come here into disquisition only, in regard that a Lot either is, or is deemed to be in them. And I maruell why Mr. B. as he peremptorily cōdemneth Cards & Tables, & requireth an vtter necessary abolition of them, ⟨p. 23⟩