A01540:596
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. ⟨p. 262⟩For the use of Lots in game is prohibited by just consequences, as I have demonstrated.
I. B. ⟨p. 262⟩For the vse of Lots in game is prohibited by iust consequences, as I haue demonstrated.
T. G. If Mr. G. left it indefinite, as Mr. B. in his very next words before intimated, and expressed not himself, whether he meant prohibited expressly only, or by just consequence also: how hath Mr. B. enough by Mr. G. granted for the effecting of ought that here he would have? If he did express himself therein, why was Mr. B. pleased to question what his meaning was? But how Mr. B. hath not proved only, but *demonstrated, what he here saith he hath done, I know not; unless nPythagoras be revived again in him, and ohis bare word be as authentical as the best proof that is. Such pgreat words might have been well spared, unless his proofs had been more pregnant: least it be said of him, as he said sometime of the Athenians, that they were like old men, that qblew hard, but did little.
T. G. If Mr. G. left it indefinite, as Mr. B. in his very next words before intimated, and expressed not himselfe, whether he meant prohibited expresly only, or by iust consequence also: how hath Mr. B. enough by Mr. G. granted for the effecting of ought that here he would haue? If he did expresse himselfe therein, why was Mr. B. pleased to question what his meaning was? But how Mr. B. hath not proued onely, but