A01540:538
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 denied, That the use of a Lot is restrained to end controversies, much less great quarrels only; and ⟨p. 228⟩[…] ⟨p. 229⟩[…] ⟨p. 230⟩sundry instances are given of using Lots to other ends than to end Controversies. But all those Lots were extraordinary. Therefore whereas in the beginning of this Answer, where he would find fault with mine Argument, he saith, That the use of Lots in play is ever to determine some question or controversy, though a light one (it is like) yet a question or controversy truly so termed, otherwise it were no Lot. If he mean a Lot in general, then (with his favour) he forgetteth himself, in saying, Lots by him quoted were not to end controversies. If he speak of a Lot in play, as being an ordinary Lot, then he faileth in judgement, In denying that the use of ordinary Lots (whereof is the question) is restrained to end controversies: and the instances which he giveth being extraordinary Lots, are not to the point.
I. B. But it is denied, That the vse of a Lot is restrained to end controuersies, much lesse great quarrels onely; and ⟨p. 228⟩〈…〉 ⟨p. 229⟩〈…〉 ⟨p. 230⟩sundry instances are giuen of vsing Lots to other ends than to end Controuersies. But all those Lots were extraordinary. Therefore whereas in the beginning of this Answer, where he would finde fault with mine Argument, he saith, That the vse of Lots in play is euer to determine some question or controuersie, though a light one (it is like) yet a question or controuersie truly so termed, otherwise it were no Lot. If he meane a Lot in generall, then (with his fauour) he forgetteth himselfe, in saying, Lots by him quoted were not to end controuersies. If he speake of a Lot in play, as being an ordinarie Lot, then he faileth in iudgement, In denying that the vse of ordinary Lots (whereof is the question) is restrained to end controuersies: and the instances which he giueth being extraordinary Lots, are not to the point.