A01540:418
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.
T. G. ⟨p. 185⟩And with Mr. Bs. good favour, I believe any judicious Reader will smile to hear Mr. B. here affirm it. But I would gladly know of Mr. B. why he skippeth thus from place to place in his Answer, and doth not go through with my discourse and Argument about this very particular, but balk or stride over all that lieth between that he last dealt with, and this that cometh in the very end of it. But especially I would have him tell what he can answer to that instance of a Lot propounded next immediately before this, wherein two appeal to the Cards as they lie left by those that last used them without further shuffling, who (suppose it) left the Cards (though unknown to the appellants) in some certain manner sorted as to themselves then best seemed; whether the event fall out by an immediate providence therein or no. Or, which I now add, when two shall determine to shape their course by the track of a beast gone before them, which being driven to the market by its owner, taketh this rather than that way, because the market that way lieth, whether this be also by an immediate providence or no.
T. G. ⟨p. 185⟩And with Mr. Bs. good fauour, I beleeue any iudicious Reader will smile to heare Mr. B. here affirme it. But I would gladly know of Mr. B. why he skippeth thus from place to place in his Answer, and doth not goe thorow with my discourse and Argument about this very particular, but balke or stride ouer all that lieth betweene that he last dealt with, and this that commeth in the very end of it. But especially I would haue him tell what hee can answer to that instance of a Lot propounded next immediatly before this, wherein two appeale to the Cards as they lie left by those that last vsed them without further shuffling, who (suppose it) left the Cards (though vnknowne to the appealants) in some certaine manner sorted as to themselues then best seemed; whether the euent fall out by an immediate prouidence therein or no. Or, which I now adde, when two shall determine to shape their course by the tracke of a beast gone before them, which being driuen to the market by its owner, taketh this rather than that way, because the market that way lieth, whether this be also by an immediate prouidence or no.