A01540:69
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.
But to leave that, in their judgement concerning such Games, there is the more seeming difference among Divines and others, because athey do not generally agree about the Definition of a Lot, in regard whereof also it is ofttimes uncertain whether they do allow a Lot in Game or no, taken in that large extent of signification that Mr. B. and I understand it.
But to leaue that, in their iudgement concerning such Games, there is the more seeming difference among Diuines and others, because athey doe not generally agree about the Definition of a Lot, in regard whereof also it is ofttimes vncertaine whether they doe allow a Lot in Game or no, taken in that large extent of signification that Mr. B. and I vnderstand it.
- aSee my book of Lots. ch. 6. sect. 3. p. 126.See my booke of Lots. ch. 6. sect. 3. p. 126.
Whereas therefore the Games controverted are of two sorts, some depending wholly upon Casualty, and some but in part only; bsome hold a Lot in both, and therefore utterly condemn either; csome hold a Lot in the former, but not in the latter, and therefore allow those, but disallow these, some dhold a Lot in neither, and therefore allow either; esome hold a Lot in both, and yet allow either. Now in the general Conclusion thus laid down, it is true that Mr. B. goeth with the first, and I with the last; but in application of the Judgements of the middle sort to the Games in question, I concur