A01540:375
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.
T. G. ⟨p. 169⟩I might well flet all this wild discourse pass; since it is nothing at all to the purpose, neither to the justifying of his Assumption, nor of the proof of it; yet since he saith it, we will see what he saith. That there is difference between an ordinary and extraordinary Lot, in regard of the subject matter, is most true, but no such difference as Mr. B. here assigneth. gWhat it is I show where I handle the nature of either. But that the subject matter of an ordinary Lot is ever some controversy, is not true, as I have formerly showed: nor if it were so, did it hinder, but that the Lot used in sport might be an ordinary Lot, since that a controversy is thereby also oft times ended. And again, that no controversy, but some other matter is the subject matter of an extraordinary Lot, is also as untrue: since that a controversy also may and oft is the subject matter of it also. Not to add, that lusorious Lots are without all reason here ranked among extraordinary Lots, no reason rendered why they should be so termed. So that here is much unsound matter packed together to no purpose.
T. G. ⟨p. 169⟩I might well flet all this wild discourse passe; since it is nothing at all to the purpose, neither to the iustifying of his Assumption, nor of the proofe of it; yet since he saith it, we will see what he saith. That there is difference betweene an ordinary and extraordinary Lot, in regard of the subiect matter, is most true, but no such difference as Mr. B. here assigneth. gWhat it is I shew where I handle the nature of either. But that the subiect matter of an ordinarie Lot is euer some controuersie, is not true, as I haue formerly shewed: nor if it were so, did it hinder, but that the Lot vsed in sport might be an ordinarie Lot, since that a controuersie is thereby also oft times ended. And againe, that no controuersie, but some other matter is the subiect matter of an extraordinarie Lot, is also as vntrue: since that a controuersie also may and oft is the subiect matter of it also. Not to adde, that lusorious Lots are without all reason here ranked among extraordinarie Lots, no reason rendred why they should be so termed. So that here is much vnsound matter packt together to no purpose.