A01540:504
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.
This Argument thus conceived is faulty two1 ways. For first it goeth from the question, which is not whether any Creature or ordinance of God may be perverted, or perversely used; but whether the use of Lots questioned; be a perverting of them or no; whereas in the conclusion it is taken for granted that it is. Neither again is the question whether men may use Lots playing for money; (a thing incident to other games as well as these; which whether it be lawful or no, I shall not need now to discuss) much less, whether they may be used in game to that end, to get another mans money from him, or no; (which is no general use of them, nor hath any place at all there, where either there is no wagering at all, or where the Lot is used only at the beginning of the game, to decide who shall join, who lead, or the like:) but whether Lots may in any wise be used in sport.
This Argument thus conceiued is faulty two1 waies. For first it goeth from the question, which is not whether any Creature or ordinance of God may be peruerted, or peruersly vsed; but whether the vse of Lots questioned; be a peruerting of them or no; whereas in the conclusion it is taken for granted that it is. Neither againe is the question whether men may vse Lots playing for money; (a thing incident to other games as well as these; which whether it belawfull or no, I shall not need now to diseusse) much lesse, whether they may be vsed in game to that end, to get another mans money from him, or no; (which is no generall vse of them, nor hath any place at all there, where either there is no wagering at all, or where the Lot is vsed onely at the beginning of the game, to decide who shall ioyne, who lead, or the like:) but whether Lots may in any wise be vsed in sport.
- 1T. G. Answer. Of Lots, chap. 7. Sect. 13.
Secondly, there is more inferred in the conclusion than was in the premisses, and that which followeth