T. G. That I say there is no Lot, where no Controversy is, is untrue. I say only, Where no question or Controversy is. For a question may be where a Controversy is not. Since that a Controversy is properly ca Question between two parties contending; and a Question therefore more large than it. But unless some such controversy be about the matter of indifferency to be done or not done, my former fore-piece, saith Mr. B. it not true. If it be then, belike it is. What Mr. B. would say, I know not. What he doth say is this: To put a matter of indifferency so to the ⟨p. 81⟩hazard of an uncertain event, in a matter of controversy is lawful. But, To put it to hazard so out of matter of controversy, it is not lawful. The reason he giveth why it is lawful in the former, is because there is some necessity then of ending the controversy put to the determination of a Lot, and consequently it is not then merely in the will of man whether he shall do it, or not do it. Where 1. Mr. B. is too busy with a Lot, when it is not at all in the Proposition. 2. He presumeth that wheresoever any Controversy is, there cannot be but by Lot a determining of it. Which is so untrue, as that the contrary rather is most true, that nothing may be decided by Lot, but that that may by other means also be decided. 3. He misinterpreteth my words when I say of a thing that may be done, as if they were meant of putting or not putting the matter in question to the hazardous event, whereas my words are plain of the doing or not doing the thing it self, which for the doing or not doing is referred to that hazard. But if in any case it be lawful, that no way hurteth me.
The reason he rendereth why it is unlawful in the latter is, because such a matter unless it be controverted, cannot be the subject matter of a Lot; which we have nothing yet to do withal. And the words therefore, as they are untrue, nor do I any where so say, so they are altogether impertinent to the present Proposition. Here is Mr. Bs. Argument: There can be no Lot where no Controversy is. Therefore to put the question concerning a matter of indifferency to the hazard of some casual event whether it shall be ⟨p. 82⟩done or not done, unless some controversy be about it, is unlawful. Both the Antecedent is untrue; and the Consequence unsound. He might better have said, Where no Controversy is, no Lot can be:
T. G. That I say there is no Lot, where no Controuersie is, is vntrue. I say onely, Where no question or Controuersie is. For a question may be where a Controuersie is not. Since that a Controuersie is properly ca Question betweene two parties contending; and a Question therefore more large than it. But vnlesse some such controuersie be about the matter of indifferencie to be done or not done, my former fore-peece, saith Mr. B. it not true. If it be then, belike it is. What Mr. B. would say, I know not. What he doth say is this: To put a matter of indifferencie so to the ⟨p. 81⟩hazard of an vncertaine euent, in a matter of controuersie is lawfull. But, To put it to hazard so out of matter of controuersie, it is not lawfull. The reason hee giueth why it is lawfull in the former, is because there is some necessitie then of ending the controuersie put to the determination of a Lot, and consequently it is not then meerely in the will of man whether he shall doe it, or not doe it. Where 1. Mr. B. is too busie with a Lot, when it is not at all in the Proposition. 2. He presumeth that wheresoeuer any Controuersie is, there cannot be but by Lot a determining of it. Which is so vntrue, as that the contrary rather is most true, that nothing may be decided by Lot, but that that may by other meanes also be decided. 3. Hee misinterpreteth my words when I say of a thing that may be done, as if they were meant of putting or not putting the matter in question to the hazardous euent, whereas my words are plaine of the doing or not doing the thing it selfe, which for the doing or not doing is referred to that hazard. But if in any case it be lawfull, that no way hurteth me.
The reason he rendreth why it is vnlawfull in the latter is, because such a matter vnlesse it be controuerted, cannot be the subiect matter of a Lot; which we haue nothing yet to doe withall. And the words therefore, as they are vntrue, nor doe I any where so say, so they are altogether impertinent to the present Proposition. Here is Mr. Bs. Argument: There can be no Lot where no Controuersie is. Therefore to put the question concerning a matter of indifferencie to the hazard of some casuall euent whether it shall be ⟨p. 82⟩done or not done, vnlesse some controuersie be about it, is vnlawfull. Both the Antecedent is vntrue; and the Consequence vnsound. He might better haue said, Where no Controuersie is, no Lot can be:
- cControversia, quando de re quapiam controvertitur, vel lis aliqua instituitur.
