A01540:19
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.
By whom Mr. B. heard this I know not. If1 they told him ought that was untrue, the fault was not mine but itheirs; peradventure khis also, in being over-credulous in that which the party, whom he made use of between himself and me, could have informed him to be otherwise. And I cannot but wonder by the way, that Mr. B. who here telleth his Reader that he dareth not rely upon reports, yet hath not doubted upon bare report, (if any such were) especially having since the same been better informed, to avow peremptorily in print, that I confuted him by Name in open Pulpit. lThese things sure do not agree well together. If he durst not rely upon report then, how dare he ⟨p. 5⟩now so far forth rely upon it, as to aver that in print, which he could not have but by report? unless his judgement be altered since concerning that point.
By whom Mr. B. heard this I know not. If1 they told him ought that was vntrue, the fault was not mine but itheirs; peraduenture khis also, in being ouer-credulous in that which the party, whom he made vse of betweene himselfe and me, could haue informed him to be otherwise. And I cannot but wonder by the way, that Mr. B. who here telleth his Reader that he dareth not relie vpon reports, yet hath not doubted vpon bare report, (if any such were) especially hauing since the same beene bettet informed, to auow peremptorily in print, that I confuted him by Name in open Pulpit. lThese things sure doe not agree well together. If he durst not relie vpon report then, how dare he ⟨p. 5⟩