A01540:471
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. You see, if a man grant Mr. B. what he will, he ⟨p. 209⟩can prove what he list. We had this before in the brief Answer at first: Why doth he trouble his Reader now with it again? But you see, he cannot go on an inch unless that be still granted; which will never be made good.
T. G. You see, if a man grant Mr. B. what he will, hee ⟨p. 209⟩can proue what he list. Wee had this before in the briefe Answer at first: Why doth hee trouble his Reader now with it againe? But you see, he cannot goe on an inch vnlesse that be still granted; which will neuer be made good.
I. B. But, saith Mr. G. Prayer is of the essence of an Oath, and not of a Lot. I have said nothing to the contrary. So that he might have spared his definition of a Lot.
I. B. But, saith Mr. G. Praier is of the essence of an Oath, and not of a Lot. I haue said nothing to the contrary. So that he might haue spared his definition of a Lot.
T. G. But if he say nothing now to it, he answereth not mine Argument; that therefore prayer is not necessarily in every Lot either expressed or implied. Wherein also because I spake somewhat short then, it being sufficient to give the contradictory to Mr. Bs. assertion, I speak further home now and say, that it is not in any Lot at all; for it is one thing to be used about it, another thing to be in it. Prayer, and other discourse is used oft about or at our meals, but is not therefore in them.