A01540:196
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. That part of the Minor and Major is to be so, I grant; and that I suppose Mr. B. meant. And that it is so in mine Argument would have easily appeared, if Mr. B. had related the Conclusion aright. The Argument thus standeth. To put a matter of mere indifferency to be done or not done to the hazard of the uncertain motion of any creature whether it shall be done or left undone, is lawful. But the using of a Lot in any business, be it serious or lusorious, so qualified and cautioned as before, is no other than the putting of a matter of such mere indifferency to the hazard of the creatures uncertain motion. ⟨p. 80⟩Therefore the use of a Lot in such cases, be the business serious or lusorious, is not evil of it self, or, if Mr. B. will admit no other terms, is lawful. Thus is the Argument it self cleared against Mr. Bs. exceptions; let us hear his further Answer to the two fore-pieces of it.
T. G. That part of the Minor and Maior is to be so, I grant; and that I suppose Mr. B. meant. And that it is so in mine Argument would haue easily appeared, if Mr. B. had related the Conclusion aright. The Argument thus standeth. To put a matter of meere indifferencie to be done or not done to the hazard of the vncertaine motion of any creature whether it shall be done or left vndone, is lawfull. But the vsing of a Lot in any businesse, be it serious or lusorious, so qualified and cautioned as before, is no other than the putting of a matter of such meere indifferencie to the hazard of the creatures vncertaine motion. ⟨p. 80⟩Therefore the vse of a Lot in such cases, be the businesse serious or lusorious, is not euill of it selfe, or, if Mr. B. will admit no other termes, is lawfull. Thus is the Argument it selfe cleared against Mr. Bs. exceptions; let vs heare his further Answer to the two fore-peeces of it.
I. B. The former is not true, except Mr. G. understand a matter of mere indifferency controverted. For though such a matter may be the Subject matter of a Controversy, yet a matter controverted is the only subject matter of a Lot; otherwise it is no Lot, as Mr. G. truly writeth even in this case, p. 167. If Mr. G. so understand, then there it some necessity of ending the Controversy put to the determination of a Lot. And consequently it is not then merely in the will of a man whether he shall do it, or not do it.