A01540:489
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. But it is not sanctified to an holy use. I have showed otherwise.
I. B. But it is not sanctified to an holy vse. I haue shewed otherwise.
T. G. Where? Can you tell?
I. B. But what then? Is not a Lot therefore always holy in it self? as Mr. G. saith in this passage.
I. B. But what then? Is not a Lot therefore alwaies holy in it selfe? as Mr. G. saith in this passage.
T. G. ⟨p. 216⟩I no where say, that a Lot is not always holy in it self, (nor is any at all so) but only, that Lots are not always sacred.
T. G. ⟨p. 216⟩