A01545:507
Of the nature and use of lots a treatise historical and theologicalOf the nature and vse of lots a treatise historicall and theologicall
Of the nature and use of lots a treatise historical and theological; written by Thomas Gataker B. of D. sometime preacher at Lincolns Inn, and now pastor of Rotherhith.Of the nature and vse of lots a treatise historicall and theologicall; written by Thomas Gataker B. of D. sometime preacher at Lincolnes Inne, and now pastor of Rotherhith.
London: printed by Edward Griffin, 1619
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.
To conclude for this argument, I condemn willingly as much as any of the Authors produced do: But no one of them all condemn that which they do that allege them, and therefore they nothing at all concern that for which they allege them.
To conclude for this argument, I condemne willingly as much as any of the Authors produced do: But no one of them all condemne that which they doe that alleadge them, and therefore they nothing at all concerne that for which they alleadge them.
Yea to retort the argument applied to the present purpose. Were this problem propounded, not whether it were lawful for men to use dice; but whether it were not as lawful for children to play at even and odd, as at cherry-pit, or at heads and points as at Push-pin, or at cross and pile as at Spain-counter; I suppose there is none of the Authors formerly alleged either Heathen or Christian, but would judge it to be a question moved only in jest, and scarce worthy to be answered in good earnest. And yet is it not made a question only whether such children's sports be lawful, but it is put out of question that they are utterly unlawful, by those that condemn simply all lusorie Lots, whom we deal with principally in this point. Who had therefore need to see to it, that the grounds be good and sure which they build upon in condemning of that ⟨p. 231⟩which scarce any Heathen or Christian ever made scruple of before them.
Yea to retort the argument applied to the present purpose. Were this probleme propounded, not whether it were lawfull for men to vse dice; but whether it were not as lawfull for children to play at euen and od, as at chery-pit, or at heads and points as at Push-pin, or at crosse and pile as at Spain-counter; I suppose there is none of the Authors formerly alleadged either Heathen or Christian, but would iudge it to be a question moued onely in iest, and scarce worthy to be answered in good earnest. And yet is it not made a question onely whether such childrens sports be lawfull, but it is put out of question that they are vtterly vnlawfull, by those that condemne simply all lusorie Lots, whom we deale with principally in this point. Who had therefore need to see to it, that the grounds be good and sure which they build vpon in condemning of that