A01540:37
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.
Now why Mr. B. did not all that while reply upon mine Answer, which he was so instant to have, he rendereth two Reasons; in my mind very weak ones.
Now why Mr. B. did not all that while reply vpon mine Answer, which he was so instant to haue, he rendreth two Reasons; in my minde very weake ones.
1. He hoped, it would have died. And how was that likely, when his Challenge had revived it; and that bruited abroad, a Reply was expected. But his former Dialogue belike was enough to dash all that either had been or could be said without further Reply.
1. He hoped, it would haue died. And how was that likely, when his Challenge had reuiued it; and that bruited abroad, a Replie was expected. But his former Dialogue belike was enough to dash all that either had beene or could be said without further Reply.
2. The writing I sent him, had not my positive grounds. As if his own Arguments, had they been effectual, could not without them have been sufficiently defended.
2. The writing I sent him, had not my positiue grounds. As if his owne Arguments, had they beene effectuall, could not without them haue beene sufficiently defended.