A01540:506
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.
Secondly, there is more inferred in the conclusion than was in the premisses, and that which followeth ⟨p. 219⟩not from ought in them. For the use of a Lot in play is ever to decide some question or controversy, though a light one it is like, yet a question or controversy truly so termed; otherwise it were no Lot.
Secondly, there is more inferred in the conclusion than was in the premisses, and that which followeth ⟨p. 219⟩not from ought in them. For the vse of a Lot in play is euer to decide some question or controuersie, though a light one it is like, yet a question or controuersie truly so termed; otherwise it were no Lot.
For the mending of these faults, the Argument may better be conceived on this manner:
For the mending of these faults, the Argument may better be conceiued on this manner:
That which God hath sanctified to some proper use, is not to be applied to any other, especially a worse use. But aGod hath sanctified Lots to this proper use, to wit, the deciding of controversies in matters of weight. A Lot therefore may not be applied to any other use, much less to a worse.
That which God hath sanctified to some proper vse, is not to be applied to any other, especially a worse vse. But a