A01540:271
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. I come to the other. I might here refer the Reader to my Dialogue, and to my Reply, by which it will appear evidently, that a lusorious Lot is forbidden, and therefore not indifferent.
I. B. I come to the other. I might here refer the Reader to my Dialogue, and to my Reply, by which it will appeare euidently, that a lusorious Lot is forbidden, and therefore not indifferent.
T. G. How *evidently this will there appear, shall then appear, when the Reply cometh to be discussed. Mean while Mr. B. here denieth only the Conclusion of my Syllogism. For the second branch of the Assumption, to wit, that a Lot is a thing simply forbidden, (which he would seem to deny, and should deny and disprove if he did ought) he neither here opposeth, nor in his Dialogue or Reply, doth he either defend, much less make good, but maintaineth the contrary rather, that in some cases it is allowable, which it were not, if it were simply forbidden, and so absolutely evil. The Argument therefore from Mr. Fennor his ⟨p. 107⟩Teachers grounds standeth good, if his grounds at least be good.
T. G. How *euidently this will there appeare, shall then appeare, when the Reply commeth to be discussed. Meane while Mr. B. here denieth onely the Conclusion of my Syllogisme. For the second branch of the Assumption, to wit, that a Lot is a thing simply forbidden, (which he would seeme to denie, and should denie and disproue if he did ought) he neither here opposeth, nor in his Dialogue or Reply, doth he either defend, much lesse make good, but maintaineth the contrary rather, that in some cases it is allowable, which it were not, if it were simply forbidden, and so absolutely euill. The Argument therefore from Mr. Fennor his ⟨p. 107⟩