A01540:256
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. If any Creature have any power to be a Lot, yet that power is not to be used unto Lottery, but in cases (whereof gaming is none) wherein God alloweth such use thereof.
I. B. If any Creature haue any power to be a Lot, yet that power is not to be vsed vnto Lotterie, but in cases (whereof gaming is none) wherein God alloweth such vse thereof.
T. G. This is but a denial of the Conclusion; and a plain begging of the point in Question: which is this, whether a Lot in game be (how, but by Gods word?) allowable.
T. G. This is but a deniall of the Conclusion; and a plaine begging of the point in Question: which is this, whether a Lot in game be (how, but by Gods word?) allowable.
I. B. To the enforcing of the Conclusion by a supposed confirmation of the Assumption, I say, it is a begging of the Question. For though a Dog having a natural power to hunt, be not exiled from recreation: yet ought a Lot creature to be, for reasons given, and to be given, or rather defended hereafter.
I. B. To the inforcing of the Conclusion by a supposed confirmation of the Assumption, I say, it is a begging of the Question. For though a Dog hauing a naturall power to hunt, be not exiled from recreation: yet ought a Lotcreature to be, for reasons giuen, and to be giuen, or rather defended hereafter.