A01540:203
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. Whether a controversy in game be by Lot ever decided, ⟨p. 83⟩though there be oft, is not by me here questioned, nor doth the strength of mine Argument depend thereupon. But that a matter of indifferency is put to the hazard of a Lot in every Lot so qualified, as I had before required, must needs be, when eone of the Cautions there required is that the matter put to the hazard and decision of a Lot be a thing indifferent. Yet it is against common sense to say that the matters put to the hazard of a Lot in Game usually, (as who shall be on this side and who on that, who shall have the precedency at Tables or Chess, who shall have these and who those cards to make his Game with, and the like) are not things merely indifferent. If they be such, and there be controversy there-about, then by Mr. Bs. own grants, they may be put to the hazard of a various event, that is in short, to a Lot, as himself defineth it. That they are such no man of reasonable understanding will deny; nor that controversy may be about them in Game. It is lawful therefore by Mr. Bs. grounds to use a Lot in Game about them.
T. G. Whether a controuersie in game be by Lot euer decided, ⟨p. 83⟩though there be oft, is not by me here questioned, nor doth the strength of mine Argument depend thereupon. But that a matter of indifferencie is put to the hazard of a Lot in euery Lot so qualified, as I had before required, must needs be, when eone of the Cautions there required is that the matter put to the hazard and decision of a Lot be a thing indifferent. Yet it is against common sense to say that the matters put to the hazard of a Lot in Game vsually, (as who shall be on this side and who on that, who shall haue the precedencie at Tables or Chesse, who shall haue these and who those cards to make his Game with, and the like) are not things meerely indifferent. If they be such, and there be controuersie there-about, then by Mr. Bs. owne grants, they may be put to the hazard of a various euent, that is in short, to a Lot, as himselfe defineth it. That they are such no man of reasonable vnderstanding will denie; nor that controuersie may be about them in Game. It is lawfull therefore by Mr. Bs. grounds to vse a Lot in Game about them.