A01540:89
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.
These words are not mine. Neither are they1 found in the place quoted; nor would I have spoken in that manner. Yet that I there imply a superstitious conceit in the contrary Opinion, it is true. Neither is it to be taxed as a begging of the Question, being not produced there as any proof of the point in controversy, but as my Judgement of them, whereupon I was induced the rather to deal with them. As for the thing it self, let it appear in the Reply; and it will come yet time enough.
These words are not mine. Neither are they1 found in the place quoted; nor would I haue spoken in that manner. Yet that I there imply a superstitious conceit in the contrary Opinion, it is true. Neither is it to be taxed as a begging of the Question, being not produced there as any proofe of the point in controuersie, but as my Iudgement of them, whereupon I was induced the rather to deale with them. As for the thing it selfe, let it appeare in the Reply; and it will come yet time enough.
- 1T. G.
A second Motive is, because Arguments against1 lusorious Lots have made many stagger in the necessary Use of serious Civill Lots. It may be so, some failing in their Judgement. But it may be also, that many moe will be made to stagger by reading Mr. Gs. exceptions against Arguments for, & Cautions in those serious Civill Lots, cap. 5. and by his Maxim, The less weighty the matter is, wherein a Lot is used, the lawfuller the Lot is, p. 111.