A01540:358
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.
I. B. Yet it is to be observed, that all the Rules require Things and Actions to be according to them. But Mr. G. by only speaking of them, would justify circumstances, and means of playing with Lots, if (forsooth) they be not against them.
I. B. Yet it is to be obserued, that all the Rules require Things and Actions to be according to them. But Mr. G. by onely speaking of them, would iustifie circumstances, and meanes of playing with Lots, if (forsooth) they be not against them.
T. G. Of that frivolous exception, and distinction of according to them, and not against them, enough already hath been said. For the rest here objected, that by only speaking of them, I would justify circumstances and means of playing with Lots, if they be not against them, albeit neither I, nor any man else, I believe, besides Mr. B. himself, understandeth well what it meaneth: yet to clear my self from such aspersion, as it may seem to cast on me; I will briefly relate the sum ⟨p. 161⟩of mine Argument reduced into due form. Thus then it standeth: Any means or manner of recreation that is not against the general Rules of Gods word, these and the like, is allowable. Lottery is such a means of recreation as is not against any of the general rules of Gods word, these or the like. Lottery therefore is a means of recreation allowable. The Proposition I thus proved: Where a thing is allowed, and the means, manner, and other circumstances are not in particular determined; there is any means or manner of it allowed that is not against those generals. But such is recreation: for it is allowed in general, nor are the means, and manner, and other circumstances of it determined in particular. Any means or manner of it therefore is allowed that is not against the general rules of Gods word. In explication of the first Proposition, I relate those Rules: For confirmation of the Assumption, • require to be nominated, against what general rule Lottery used in game doth offend. Now let Mr. B. show which way herein I offend.