A modest reply to certaine answeres, which Mr. Gataker B.D. in his treatise of the nature, & vse of lotts, giveth to arguments in a dialogue concerning the vnlawfulnes of games consisting in chance And aunsweres to his reasons allowing lusorious lotts, as not evill in themselves. By Iames Balmford, minister of Iesus Christ. Balmford, James, b. 1556. 1623 Approx. 130 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 72 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2007-01 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A03243 STC 1336 ESTC S100662 99836493 99836493 770 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A03243) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 770) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English Books, 1475-1640 ; 485:04) A modest reply to certaine answeres, which Mr. Gataker B.D. in his treatise of the nature, & vse of lotts, giveth to arguments in a dialogue concerning the vnlawfulnes of games consisting in chance And aunsweres to his reasons allowing lusorious lotts, as not evill in themselves. By Iames Balmford, minister of Iesus Christ. Balmford, James, b. 1556. Balmford, James, b. 1556. Short and plaine dialogue concerning the unlawfulnes of playing at cards or tables, or any other game consisting in chance. 143, [1] p. Imprinted [by William Jaggard for E. Boyle?], [London] : 1623. A reply to: Gataker, Thomas. Of the nature and use of lots. Includes a reprint of Balmford's "A short and plaine dialogue concerning the unlawfulnes of playing at cards or tables, or any other game consisting in chance", with separate title page with imprint: Imprinted at London for Richard Boile 1593. Reprinted 1623. Printer and publisher conjectured by STC. Reproduction of the original in the Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Gataker, Thomas, 1574-1654. -- Of the nature and use of lots. Gambling -- Religious aspects -- Christianity -- Early works to 1800. 2006-03 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2006-03 Apex CoVantage Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2006-04 Andrew Kuster Sampled and proofread 2006-04 Andrew Kuster Text and markup reviewed and edited 2006-09 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion A MODEST REPLY TO Certaine Answeres , which Mr. Gataker B. D. in his Treatise of the Nature , & vse of Lotts , giveth to Arguments in a Dialogue concerning the Vnlawfulnes of Games consisting in Chance . And Aunsweres to his Reasons allowing Lusorious Lotts , as not evill in themselves . By Iames Balmford , minister of Iesus Christ . 2. Cor. 13. 8. VVe can doe nothing against , but for the truth ▪ Ephes . 5. 11. Have no fellowship with the vnfruitfull workes Darkenesse , but even reproove them rather . ❧ Imprinted 1623 ▪ A SHORT AND PLAINE DIALOGVE CONCERNING THE VNLAWfulnes of playing at Cards , or Tables , or any other Game consisting in chance . OFFERED TO THE RELIGIous consideration of all such as make conscience of all their wayes . 1. Thessal . 5. 21. Trie all things , and keepe that which is good . Imprinted at London for Richard Boile 1591 ▪ Reprinted 1623. To the right Worshipfull Master Lionel Maddison , Maior , the Aldermen his Brethren ▪ and the godly Burgesses of Newcastle vpon Tine ; IAMES BALMFORD wisheth the kingdome of God & his righteousnesse that other things may be ministred vnto them . THat which heretofore I haue propounded to you ( right Worshipfull & beloued ) in teaching , I doe now publish to all men by printing , to wit , mine opinion of the vnlawfulnes of Games consisting in chance . My desire is either information , if I erre in judgment , or reformation , of so leud a practise . But whether I erre or no ( which yet I would gladly vnderstand , for I ought not to teach an vntruth , though to Gods glorie ) yet there is none , zealous indeede against sin , desirous from the heart to reclaime sinners , and who deeply considereth the greiuous abuses , which accompanie dicing and carding , ( as horrible swearing , dangerous quarelling , losse ( I say not of good houres , but ) of nights and daies , & the pitifull vndoeing of too too manny ) but will remember that all things are not expedient , which are lawfull , and therefore abstaine from such Heathenish pastimes , that ifby their example they cannot reforme , they may be sure they doe not confirme gamesters in their inordinate walking . Which respect ▪ the 7. Iniunction forbidding Ministers to vse these vnlawfull games , may besupposed to haue . Now that which authoritie exacteth of Ministers , doth Religion require of all true Professors . For as the one are to be ensamples to the flocke , so the other are to be lights in the world . And therefore as Paul saith , If meate offend my brother , I will eate no flesh while the world standeth : so euery true Christian should say , and that with more resolution ( for Play is not so necessarie as meate ) If play offend my brother , who seeing me ▪ hauing knowledge , play , is boldned to follow gaming , I will not play while the world standeth . Which care vnto edification , if all , who haue the word in their mouthes , and would not be thought to hate to be reformed , would manifest in their sincere conuersation ; and if Magistrates , who should not carrie the sword in vaine , would doe what they may by law , to banish these forbidden past-times , or rather lost-times , I doubt not , but that preaching and writing against thē would more mightily prevaile , and this good would come of it , many would applie themselues to better exercises , there would bee lesse time mispent in Alehouses , and Godlesse prouoked to displeasure against vs. But these things I referre to the consideration of the wise , and this my Dialogue to the iudgment of the godlie , chiefly to you , whose good I wish especially . Farewell : From my studie the first of Ianuarie 1593. A short and plaine Dialogue concerning the vnlawfulnes of playing at Cards or Tables , or any other game consisting of chance . Professor . SIR , howsoeuer I am perswaded by that which I reade in the common places of Peter Martyr , par . 2. pag. 525. b. that Dice ( condemned both by the Civill lawes , and by the Fathers ) are therefore vnlawfull , because they depend vpon chance : yet not satisfied with that which he writeth of Table-playing , pag. 526. b. I would crauē your opinion concerning playing at Tables and Cards . Preacher . Sauing the iudgement of so excellent a Diuine , so farre as I can learne out of Gods word , Cardes and Tables seeme to me● no more lawfull ( though lesse offensiue ) than Dice . For Table-playing is no whit the more lawfull because Plato compares the life of man thereunto , than a theefe is the more iustifiable , because Christ compareth his second comming , ●o Burglarie in the night , Mat. 24. 4● ▪ 44. Againe , if Dice be wholly ●●ill ▪ because they wholly depend vpon chance , then Tables & Cards must needes be some what euill ▪ because they somewhat depend vpon chance . Therefore consider well this reason , which condemneth the one as wel as the other : Lots are not to bee vsed in sport ; but games consisting in chance as Dice , Cardes , Tables , are Lots : therefore not to be vsed in sport . Prof. For my better instruction , proue that Lots are not to be vsed in sport . Preach . Consider with regard these three things : First , that we● reade not in the Scripture that Lots were vsed but only in serious matters both by the Iewes , Ios . 18. 10. and Gentiles , Ion. 1. 9. Secondly , that a Lot in the nature therof doth as necessarily suppose the special prouidence & determining presence of God , as an oath in the nature therof doth suppose the testifying presence of God. Yea so , that ( as in an oath , so ) in a lot prayer is expressed , or to bee vnderstood , 1. Sam. 14. 41. Thirdly , that the proper end of a Lot ( as of an oath , Heb. 6. 16. ) is to end a controversie : and therefore for your bettet instruction examine these reasons . Whatsoeuer directly , or of it sefe , or in a speciall manner , tendeth to the advancing of the name of God , is to be vsed religiously , Mal. 1. 6. 7. and not to be vsed in sport : as wee are not to pray or sweare in sport , Exod. 20. 7. Esa ▪ 29. 13. Ier. 4. 2. but the vse of Lots , directly of it selfe and in a speciall manner tendeth to the aduancing of the name of God , in attributing to his speciall prouidence in the whole and immediate disposing of the Lot , and expecting the euent , Pro. 16. 33. Act. 1. 24. 26. Therefore the vse of Lots is not to be in sport . Againe we are not to tempt the Almightie by a vaine desire of manifestation of his power and speciall prouidence , Psal . 78. 18. 19. Esa ▪ 7. 12. Matth. 4. 6. 7. But by vsing Lots in sport we tempt the almightie , vainly desiring the manifesta● of his speciall prouidence in his immediate disposing , Therfore , &c. Lastly , whatsoeuer God hath sanctified to a proper end is not to bee peruerted to a worse , Matth. 21. 12. 13. But God hath sanctified Lots to a proper end , namely to end troversies , Num. 26. 55. Pro. 18. 18. therefore man is not to peruert them to a worse : namely to play , & by playing to get away another mans money , which without controuersie is his owne . For the common saying is , Sine lucro friget lusus , No gaining , cold gaming . Profes . God hath sanctified Psalmes to the praise of his name , & bread & wine to represent the bodie & bloud of our crucified Sauiour , which be holie ends : and the children of God may sing Psalmes to make themselues merrie in the Lord , and feede vpon bread & wine not only for necessitie but to cheere themselues ; why then may not Gods children recreate themselues by lotterie notwithstanding God hath sanctified the same to end a controuersie ? Preach . Because we finde not in the Scriptures any dispensation for recreation by lotterie , as wee doe for godlie mirth by singing , Iam. 5. 13. and for religious and sober cheering our selues by eating and drinking , Deut. 8. 9. 10. And therefore ( it being withall considered that the ends you speake of , be not proper , though holy ) it followeth , that God who only disposeth the Lot touching the euent , and is therefore a principall actor , is not to bee set on worke by lotterie in any case , but when hee dispenseth with vs , or giueth vs leaue fo to doe : But dispensation for recreation by lotterie cannot be shewed , Therefore , &c. Profes . Lots may be vsed for profit in a matter of right , Num. 26. 55. why not for pleasure ? Preach . Then oathes may be vsed for pleasure , for they may fot profit , in a matter of truth , Exod. 22. 8. 11. But indeede lots ( as oathes ) are not to bee vsed either for profit or pleasure , but onely to end a coutrouersie . Profes . The wit is exercised by Tables and Cards , therefore they be no lots . Preach . Yet lotterie is vsed by casting Dice , and by shuffling and cutting the Cards before the wit is exercised . But how doth this follow ? Because Cards and Tables bee not naked Lots , consisting only in chance ( as Dice doe ) they are therefore no lots at all . Although ( being vsed without cogging , or packing ) they consist principally in chance , and thefore from thence they are to receiue their denomination . In which respect a Lot is called in Latin Sors , that is , chance or hazard , and Lyra vpon Prou. 16. saith , To vse Lots , is , by a variable euent of fome sensible thing , to determine some doubtfull or vncertaine matter , as to draw cutts , or to cast Dice . But whether you will call Cards and Tables Lots , or no , you play with chance or vse Lotterie . Then consider whether exercise of wit doth sanctifie playing with lotterie , or playing with lotterie make such excercising of wit , a sinne , Hag. 2. 13. 14. For as a calling God to witnes by vaine swearing is a sinne , 2. Cor. 1. 13. so making God an vmpire , by playing with lotterie , must needs be a sinne : yea , such a sin as maketh the offender ( in some respects ) more blame-worthy . For there be more occasions of swearing than of lotterie . Secondly , vaine oathes most commonly slip out at vnawares , whereas lots cannot be vsed but with deliberation . Thirdly , swearing is to satisfie other , wheras this kind of lotterie is altogether to fulfill our own lust . Therefore take heede , that you bee not guiltie of peruerting the ordinance of the Lord , of taking the name of God in vaine , and f tempting the Almightie , by a ●amesome putting of things to haard , and making play of lotterie , xcept you thinke that God hath o gouvernment in vaine actions , r hath dispensed with such lewd ●ames . Profes . In shooting there is a chance , ● a sudden blast , yet shooting is no loterie . Preach . It is true , for that chance ●ommeth by accident , and not of ●he nature of the game , to be ●sed . Profes . Lots are secret , and the whole disposing of them is of God , Pro 16. 33 . ●ut it is otherwise in Tables and Cards . Preach . Lots are cast into the ●ap by man , and that openly , lest conveiance should be suspected : ●ut the disposing of the chance is secret , that it may be chance indeede , and wholly of God , who directeth all things , Prou. 16. 13. 9. 33 So in Tables , man by faire casting Dice truly made , and in Cardes by shuffling and cutting , doth openly dispose the Dice and Card so , as whereby a variable euen may follow : but it is onely and immediatly of God , that the Dice be so cast , and the Cards so shuffled and cut , as that this or that gam followeth , except there be cogging and packing . So that in faire play mans wit is not exercised in disposing the chance , but in making the best of it being past . Profes . The end of our play is recreation , and not to make God an vmpire : but recreation ( no doubt ) is lawfull . Preach . It may be the souldiers had no such end when they cast lots for Christ his coate , Matth ▪ 27 ▪ 25. but this should be your end when you vse lotterie , as the end of an oath should be , to call God to witnesse . Therefore as swearing , so Lotterie , without due respect is sinne . Againe , howsoever recreation be your pretended end , yet remember that wee must not doe euill that good may come of it , Rom. 3. 8. And that therefore wee are to recreate our selues by lawfull recreations . Then see how Cardes and Tables be lawfull ▪ Profes . If they be not abufed by swearing or brawling , playing for too long time , or too much money . Preach . Though I am perswaded that it is not lawfull to play for any money , considering thankes cannot be giuen in faith for that which is so gotten , De●t . 23. 18. Esa ▪ 61. 8. Gamesters worke not with their hands the thing that good , to be free frō stealing , Eph. 4. 18. & the looser hath not answerable benefit for his money so lost , Gen ▪ 29. 15. contrarie to that equitie which Aristotle by the light of nature hath taught long since , Eth. ● . ● . 4. yet I grant that Cards and Tables so vsed as you speake are , lesse sinfull , but how they bee lawfull I see not yet . Profes . Good men and well learned vse them . Preach . Wee must liue by precepts , not by examples , except they be vndoubtedly good . Therefore examine whether they be good , and well learned in so doing or no. For euery man may erre , Rom. 3. 4. Profes . It is not good to be too just , or too wise , Eccl. 7. 18. Preach . It is not good to be too wicked or too foolish , Eccl. 7. 19. in despising the word of God , Prou. 1. 22. and not regarding the weaknesse of others , Rom. 14. 21. Let vs therefore beware that we loue not pleasure more than godlinesse , 2. Tim. 3. 4. FINIS . CHristian Reader ; it is no new thing that men ▪ learned , wise , and judicious , holding the same orthodox , and sound truth of God , in respect of maine , and fundamentall points of Christian Religion , doe sometimes differ in their opinions , and be of different judgments touching some things of lesse importance ▪ It pleaseth God ( who ordereth all things most wisely for the spirituall good of his owne ) by his wise disposing hand to order differences in opinion , and judgment in the smallest matters for the further good of his Church . Though the iarring of Paul , and Barnabas ( Act. 15. 37. ) caused a separation of the one from the other , yet ( God so disposing ) the Church gott much good by it and things questioned , and controverted ( though of lesser weight are commonly more narrowly searched into , and vpon diligen● search into them , they come to b● better cleared , and the gifts o● worthy men to be better knowne It were no hard matter to instanc● in many particulars clearing thi● from many ages fore-going ; but ● list not to enter into that large field . The ensuing Reply considered with the occasion of it , may , in part , evidence , the truth herein ▪ Some yeares since , the Authour o● this Reply , published a Dialogu● touching Lottery , and Lotts , disprooving , ( by diverse arguments , ) the vsing of Lotts in sport , and in play ; and now some few yeares past finding his arguments opposed , and helde as weake , and insufficient , by a worthy , reverend , and judicious Divine , in a treatise of his printed touching the Nature , and vse of Lotts , he held himselfe bound , vpon further , and more serious consideration of the point called into question , either to alter his judgment , or to endeavour , to strengthen his former arguments : He hath sett vpon the buisinesse , and now offered to thy view ( Christian Reader ) his Reply tending to the further strengthning ▪ and confirmation of those arguments . My poore judgment touching this Reply being desired by the Authour , I could not but yeeld it vnto him , he being my reverend , and loving freind , to whom I am obliged by many bondes of love . I have perused it , & so farre as I , ( in my weaknesse ) can judge , the Authour hath herein carried himselfe wisely , and ●udiciously , and so as , I thinke , may satisfie any indifferent reader , and with all ( as I take it ) modestly , and temperately , and without the least breach of charity towards the worthy Opponent . Happily I may be thought vnfitt thus to giue mine opinion , because ( as I freely confesse , & have openly made knowne ) I iumpe with this Authour in iudgment in the point controverted , but I professe before him , who knowes the hearts of all men , that , which here I putt downe , is ( as I conceive ) according to the truth , without any inclining , or partiall affection to the one one side , or to the other , and I desire not to entertaine the least thought , that may praeiudice the worth of the reverend , learned , and godly Opponent , being alsoo my deare , and loving freind , and one whom I am bound , in many respects , both to love , and reverence . Looke vpon this Reply ( whosoever thou art ) with an vnpartialleye , and consider it seriously , and fin ding that good by it , which is intended , blesse God for it , who guideth , and blesseth all things to his owne glory , and to the good of his owne . Thine in the Lord Iesu● Edw : Elton . B. in D. and Pastor of S. Mary Magda len's Bermondsey neare London . To the Christian Reader being none of those men ▪ who , ( according to S. Paul's prophecy , ) love pleasures more than God. SOme yeares are past since Mr. Gataker tooke occasion , from casting of Lotts to finde out for whose sake a daungerous storme was , to justisie playing with Dice , Cards , &c. and to confute me by name in open pulpit . I hearing thereof by many , sent him this message . If it would please him to send the substance of the Confutation ( for I dare not rely vpon report ) I would either reply , or chaunge mine opinion with thankes to God for him ; though for the present , I thought he failed in Indgment , Discretion , and Charity . In Iudgment . Because that Doctrine was not drawne from his Text ; Except this be a judicious deduction . Gentiles cast Lotts in a most serious matter , therefore Christians may vse Lottery in dicing , carding , &c. In Discretion . Because that Doctrine ( though occasioned by his text , yet ) so insisted vpon , incourageth gamesters in their sinfull course and buildeth vp those abuses , which the Lawes of our Land , would pull downe . In Charity ; Because he confuteth me by name , ( as I was certified ) not having had any conference with me either by speech , or by writing , though I be his neighbour Minister . Well ; Mr. Gataker , sent me his answere to my dialogue . I acknowledge it with hearty thankes . But why have I not replyed in so many yeares ? I answere , Sa●●itò , si sat benè . To speake freely I thinke , I should never have replied , in hope that the question would have died , had not Mr. Gataker confuted my Dialogue in print ▪ But now , the rather , being provoked ▪ by many learned Ministers & other , who tell me , that , seeing of all those whom Mr. Gataker confuteth , viz : Peter Martyr , Zuinglius , Cartwright , Danoeus , Perkins , Fenner , &c. I onely live , I ought to reply , least my silence should give way to impiousiniquity , I am ready to performe my promise in replying . Which ( indeed ) I could not have done so conveniently before , because the answer , which Mr. Gataker sent me , had not the positiue groundes of his opinion , which the printed booke hath . Before I proceed ▪ I protest before God , that I esteeme Mr. Ga●aker as a learned , painfull , and faithfull Minister , and a right honest man , and therefore pray thee ( Christian Reader ) that whatsoever I write may be considered as concerning the question betweene vs , and not in any wise applied to the least praejudice of so reverend a brother , or to any of his excellent parts ; So excellent , that I wonder what mooved him to publish his opinion in print , and the more , because of many passages in his booke . First , He taketh knowledge of many enormous crimes , which accompany Dice , Cardes , &c. pa. 193. & in the quotations . Secondly ; He giveth this rule , That , that , which is no necessary duety , but a thing indifferēt onely , otherwise , may not be done , where is strōg presumptiō vpō good ground yet it shall spiritually endanger a mans selfe , or others , by giving occasion of sinne vnto the one , or the other . pag. 107. 108. 109. If many and greivous sinnes attend dice , cardes , &c. If those games be too too commonly abused , as he confesseth . pa : 194. and if an indifferent thing may not be done which giveth occasion of sinne , I wonder why Mr. Gataker writeth in defence of dice , &c. and the more , because he graunteth , that , where the vse , and abuse of a thing are so inwrapped , and intangled togither , that they cannot easily be severed the one from the other , then the vse of the thing it selfe , ( if it be vnnecessary otherwise ) would be wholely abandoned , pag. 262. 263. Thirdly ; He sheweth in many pages ▪ how severely tables , but especially dice , be condemned by Lawes , Civill , Canonicall , and Municipall , that is , our English statutes , as ●e sheweth at large , Lib. 8. § 5. 8. He wisheth the Lawes were yet ●ore severe , & putt in better exe●ution , pà . 206. He saith , yet our ●ommon dicers may be marshalled ●mong ye flock , of ye Devill 's fol●owers , pa. 217. He affirmeth most ●ifelings , and Lotteries to be little ●etter than vnlawfull games , pag. ● 20. And he teacheth , that , by ●heis games , we must not give of●ence to the Lawes vnder which ●ee live , pa. 251. Now I wonder , ●hat so good a man is not affraid to offend our Law by allowing for●idden games , even Dice , as well ●s Cardes , &c. which consist not onely of Lottery . Here I have occasion to thinke , that I may have ●ome more comfort in mine opinion , than Mr. Gataker can have in ●is ; For he nameth famous , learned , and godly men concurring with me in opinion : But in t● multitude o● his quotations , I find none approoving Dice in play , an whereas some learned Divines , i some sort , allow games consistin of Lott , and ●itt , but altogethe condemne D●●e , Mr. Gataker defe●deth mine opinion , disapproovin● a mixt ▪ as well as a mere Lott , b●cause ( as he saith ) a true Lott is i● either , pa. 126. and , He deemet● them to be amisse , who allow Lott in game , and yet adde for a cautio● that Religionsnesse be vsed in th● action , in regard that Holy thing● must be done in an holy manne● pa. 133. Fourthly , He graunteth tha● Prayer specially applied to th● Lott may be conceived , where th● matter is more weighty , and th● event of some consequence , pa. ●1● And yet he holdeth , that the less● weighty the matter is , wherein ● Lott is vsed , the lawfuller the Lott is , pag. 111. The reason , why I wonder at this passage , shall be given in my Reply . The last passage now to be observed as matter of my wondering , is this ; Notwithstanding , he confidently affirmeth that we may not doe ought without warrant , pag. 301. Sufficiently confirmeth the same , because such an Act is not done of Faith , and therefore not free from sinne , Rom. 14. 23. but is a mere presumption , and tempting of God , pag. 313. and quot . A ▪ and B. and Earnestly reprooveth one kinde of Lottery ( why not all , against which the same reason is of like validity ? ) because not found revealed in any word of God , but brought in either by Sathan , or by some of his instruments who are addicted to Vanity , pag. 315. and 316. and , yet he avoucheth , That it is a sufficient warrant for the vse of Lottes , In that the oppugners , being learned , can say nothing against them ▪ but what hath beene , or may be sufficiently answered , pag. 235. May I not wonder that so judicious a scholler doth not observe this discrepance ? Lottery is vnlawfull , if not warranted by the word which positiō supposeth the Wor● to be perfect , as is the Authou● thereof , and 2. Lottery is lawful● if Learned men can say nothing ou of the Word against it . Which position supposeth two things , viz That the Word is like the Lawes o men , that is , Imperfect , as be the Authours therof ; and , That Learne● men cannot so faile in Diligence o reading , Clearenesse of vnderstanding , and Firmenesse of Memory but that ▪ if there were in the Wor● anything against Lottery , the● could nor but see it . Well ; It ma● be seene shortly , how Mr. Gataker Diligence , Vnderstanding , and Memory have served him in defenoing Lusorious Lotts . In the meane while , Sufficiency of his answering is but vpon the Triall , and not yet adjudged . All theis passages well reveiwed by Mr. Gataker I should thinke he cannot wonder that a man of 64. yeares compleate , ( and therefore his wittes may faile ) doth wonder that so godly , wise , and learned a man , the faculties of whose minde are at the best , did not say to himselfe , before he preached , much more before he penned this lusorious doctrine , Let Baal plead for himselfe ; and , Theis gamesters shall , without any encouragment from me , draw on their iniquity ●ith theis cordes of vanity ; and the rather , because he acknowledgeth that accoumpt is to be given vnto God of gaming pa. 261. If of the act much more of justifying it . Fro m which account good Lord deliver me . For I feare , that in iustifying lusorious Lottes , I should put false spectacles on a gamester's nose , whereby the bridge seemeth broader , than it is , and so he falleth in without feare , to vse Mr. Gataker similitude , pag. 264. But Mr. Gataker beleveth , that he hath written the truth , ( Preface to the Reader ) and is confident that truth is to be knowne , especially concerning matters of common practise , pag. 263. and giveth foure reasons , by which he was mooved to defend lusorious Lottes , pag. 264. The first is , To draw men from Superstition in restraining themselves , when God doth not restraine them . This beggeth the question , ( as I hope ) will appeare in the Reply . A 2. motive is , Because arguments against lusorious Lottes have made many stagger in the necessary vse of serious civill Lottes . It may be so some failing in their judgment : But it may be also , that many moe will be made to stagger by reading Mr. Gatakers exceptions against arguments for , and cautions , in those serious Civill Lottes , Cap. 5. and by his Maxime , [ The lesse weighty the matter is , wherein a Lott is vsed , the lawfuller the Lott is , pag. 111. ] A 3. motive is , To take away much heart-burning ; Nay , rather this justifying Lusorious Lottes will not onely cause more heart-burning ; but incourage also gamesters to overcrow such , as are scrupulous . For , if many well affected have beene constrained , in regard of scruple , in this kinde , to straine themselves to some inconveniences by refusall of those games , when by those , whom they had dependance vpon , vpon or familiarity withall , they have beene vrged occasionally therevnto ( which to prevent hereafter , is a 4. cause of his writing ) How will those supporters , and familiars insult vpon the scrupulous ▪ now they have so learned a Patrone of their gaming ? Some have strained themselves , to some inconveniences for not pledging drunken Healths , being drinke offerings to Bacchus . To prevent which hereafter , should Mr. Gataker doe well , vnto aedification , to preach , and write in Iustification of these Healths ? The summe of his causes ( as he expresseth himselfe in his preface to the Reader ) is , To sett at Liberty the intangled consciences of Godly disposed persons . Indeed ; If any conscience , simply for playing with Lottes , should seeke his his satisfaction in private , then if Mr. Gataker quieted him by his grounds ( supposed true ) it were not amisse . But is every doctrine , though true , to be insisted vpon both by preaching , and printing , and that affirming matter in question , and of no necessary vse ? I say , Affirming , remembring the holy wisedome of the Apostles , and Elders , who decreed touching offensive things ( yet some of them lawfull , if conveniently vsed ) onely negatively , and deemeth it not necessary to decree affirmatively things that were then , and might be in vse for a time . Many ( I feare too many ) learned Divines approove Vsury in their Iudgment , thouh condemned by Law. Yet none , that I know , ever insisted vpon the Iustification thereof by preaching and printing . Againe ; Was there ever any so troubled with playing with Lotts ? I doubt it ; But without doubt thousandes will now more boldly vse lusorious Lotts without regard of the cautions , in theis licentious times . As Vsurers regard not the cautions which Divines sett downe . For it is enough to them , that some godly Divines affirme Vsury to be lawfull . O that Mr. Gataker had considered what he writeth , pag. 107. before cited , and what he writeth , pag. 103. and 104. viz : Where inconveniences , that shall necessarily , or in good probability , appeare to accompany the thing questioned , or ensu● vpon the doing thereof , shall be such , and so great as the Conveniences , which stand on the other side , shall not be able to countervaile , there that action is worthily disallowed as Inconvenient , and ● Lott consequently vnlawfull , wha● he writeth in his spirituall Watch pag. 27. viz : The rifer any evill i● in those places , or ages we live i● the more carefull should we be to shunne , and avoide such a sinne . No doubt he would have taken heede how by writing he make way to the sinne of , or by , Lusorious Lotts . Many Divines and intelligent men , though of opinion that Lusorious mixed Lotts may be vsed lawfully , yet wish that Mr. Gataker had never published his booke . For a running horse ( say they ) needeth no spurring . For my part I wish , that Mr. Gataker had beene affected in writing , as he professeth himselfe to be in the vse of lusorious Lottes , pag. 266. Wel ; Whatsoever he writeth dogmatically , he wisheth thee ( good Reader ) to imitate him in ▪ his practise , to witt , That , albeit in judgment thou art rightly informed of the truth concerning the lawfulnesse of theis games in themselves ; yet in godly discretion , thou wouldst rather abandō them , considering the too too common , and ordinary abuse of them , and that many ( it may be ) among whom thou livest may remaine vnresolved , and vnsatisfied , touching the lawfulnes of them , pag. 267. I desire the same , and therewith a suspending thy judgment vntill thou hast well considered my Dialogue , Mr. Gatakers answeres , and my Reply , together with mine answere to his positive groundes . Here I promise ( with Mr. Gataker , pag. 128. ) to raze what I have reared , if my Reply and aunsweres be prooved insufficient , and so commend thee to God , and to the Word of his Grace , which is able to build further . Onely , consider what I say , and the Lord give thee vnderstanding in all things . 14. Septemb. 1620. To the Reader . THat I may doe Mr. Gataker no wrong I am to lett thee know that the 14. of March. 1622. Stil : Ang. Mr. Gataker denied naming me when he confuted mine arguments in Pulpit , yet confessing that he named me in Pulpit , with others , diversely dissenting from him in judgment touching Lusorious Lotts when he entred into the question of playing with Lotts . An Answere to Reasons inducing M. Gataker to allow lusorious Lottes , as not evill in themselves , Lib. 6. § 4. THIS Tenent seemeth to me more fearefull ▪ then beseemeth a learned man , who , after the turning over a wōderfull n umber of bookes to compile his Historicall , and Theologicall Treatise of the Nature , and Vse of Lotres , setteth downe his judgment . Allowing lusorious Lottes onely as not evill in themselves , whereas he affirmeth them to be lawfull in themselves , pag. 266. So that if theis games be vsed with due observation of all his cautions , why is he fearefull to allow them as good in themselves ? How then may a scrupulous man , who remembreth not onely his wicked wicked wayes , but his deedes also that are not good , build vpon such quagmiry grounds ? Againe ; Allowing theis games onely as not evill in themselves doth not manifest that Love of God , which ( I doubt not ) is in Mr. Gatakers heart . For whereas God is glorified by good workes , and theis games be too too common , and accompanied with many crying sinnes , whereby God is every where , and dayly much dishonoured , the Love of God would have constrained him , if doing truth , to haue brought theis games to the light , that thereby it might be made manifest , that they are wrought according to God. Lastly ; By this Tenent he sheweth not due Charity to his neighbour . For now it is enoug for Gamesters to pleade ; A very learned man holdeth our Gaming to be not evill in it selfe . Therefore they will not seeke , further to know , whither it be good in it selfe , forgetting that it is writen ▪ [ The axe is putt to the roote of the trees , therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruite ▪ is hewen downe , and cast into the fire . ] Is not then hereby his neighbour's spirituall daunger occasioned ? But here ( perhappes ) it may be said , The first Reason , prooving that a Lott may be matter of Recreation , doth give me a checke : It is a checke ? Then I will try if I cannot avoide the Mate . The Argument , collected with all faithfulnes , ( as the rest , and his aunsweres be , ) is this . That which may be ordinarily vsed in other Civill affaires , be they more or lesse weighty , may also be vsed for matter of recreation , and delight : But a Lott may be ordinarily vsed in other Civill affaires . Therefore I see not what should banish it out of our disportes , more than out of other ( though serious yet ) Civill affaires . Is not this a fearefull conclusion like the Tenent ? Why doth not Mr. Gataker conclude positively thus . Therefore a Lott may be vsed for matter of recreation , and delighte . He ( forsooth ) see 's not . Can a blinde man goe stoutly on his way ? But ( blessed be God ) Mr. Gataker seeth well , though not in this point . Bernardus non vidit omnia . For , if God had opened his eyes in this point , he might have seene plainely what should banish a Lott out of disportes , more than out of other Civill affaires . To witt , Because God alloweth a Lott to be vsed in them , but not in theis ; and It is praesumption , of sett purpose , to imploy God but as it may stand with his pleasure . Hereof more hereafter . In meane while , in further aunswer to this argument I deny the Proposition thereof . For an Oath may be ordinarily vsed in other Civill matters , yet not for matter of Recreation : Whereof also more hereafter . Now I proceed to the 2. reason , which is sett downe in twoo shapes ; The former is this . That which best sorteth with the nature of a Lott , may a Lott most lawfully be vsed vnto : But the lightest matters best sort with the nature of a Lott : Therefore about things of that nature may a Lott most lawfully be vsed . The Proposition he prooveth thus . Great is the vncertainty of a Lott . Therefore not fitt to be vsed in any weighty affaire . A Lott is sometimes taken for the instrument of purpose disposed vnto casualty , as [ The Lott is cast into the lappe : ] and sometime for the event , as , [ Give a perfect Lott ] Which , howsoever it be casuall in relation to the former , yet , falleth out certainely this , or that , by God's whole disposing the former , Prov. 16. 33. I therefore deny both the Proposition , and Assumption perswaded that Mr. Gataker would never have sett downe this supposed reason , if a Lott , in the former acception , had not drawne his religious eye from God as the onely disposer thereof to be a Lott in the latter acception . So that I mervaile much , that he findeth a Lott to be not fitt to be vsed in any weighty affaire . For why ? Dividing the Land of promise , Numb . 26. 55. by Lott . Discovering Achan . Iohs . 14. Chusing of a king . 1. Sam. 10. 20. 81. and of an Apostle Acts : 1. 26. were they not weighty affaires ? Nay rather the premises considered , a Lott may more lawfully be vsed about weighty affaires . But indeed ▪ whether the subiect matter be more or lesse weighty , a Lott may be vsed about it , provided it be with Gods allowance . For want whereof both Divinatory , and Lusorious Lotts be equally vnlawfull . The other shape of his reason , more particularly ( as he saith ) for the present buisinesse is this . A matter of mere indifferency , that is , such as a man may lawfully doe , or not doe , and it is not materiall whether he doe , or omitt , such may a man lawfully putt to the hazard of the vncertaine motion of the Creature , whether he shall doe it , or not doe it ▪ But the vsing of a Lott in game is but the putting of a matter of mere indifferency to the hazard of an vncertaine event . Therefore the putting of such matters to the hazard of a Lott , is not evill simply in it selfe . What a trembling argument is this ? In the Proposition he speaketh of a Lott in the former acception . In the Assumption , of a Lott in the latter acception . Indeed a man may be bolder with the Creature , so it be without relation to God , than with the Creatour himselfe . In the Proposition he affirmeth lawfullnes but concludeth onely , as not evill simply in themselves . Indeed , the conclusion is to follow the worse part : But in this Argument the Assumption is particular , and the Conclusion is generall ▪ What ? Is Mr. Gataker affraid to put ( The vsing of a Lott in game ) into the conclusion ? is not the Minor to be the Subiect , and the Maior to be the Praedicate of the Conclusion ? I will not quaestion the Figure of this praetended argument if Sub : prae : prima : will serve the turne ; and though I finde it in no Moode , yet will I answer the two fore-pieces thereof . The former is not true , except Mr. Gataker vnderstand a matter of mere indifferency controverted . For though such a matter may be the subiect matter of a Controversy , yet a matter controverted is the onely subiect matter of a Lott , otherwise it is no Lott , as Mr. Gataker truely writeth even in this case , pag. 167. If Mr. Gataker so vnderstand , then there is some necessity of ending the controyersy putt to the determination of a Lott , and consequently it is not then merely in the wiil of a man whether he shall doe it , or no doe it . In the other piece I observe , that Mr. Gataker speaking of a Lot in the second acception , supposeth it to be vncertaine . Which is begging the question , for the reason given in mine aunswere to his former shaped argument . Neither it is true that if in game , a controversy ( truly so termed ) be decided by a Lot , a matter then of mere indifferency is put to hazard . But more hereof in my 3. reply . In meane while , consider whether this 2. shape be more particularly for the present businesse , so as to conclude the question , than the former ; and Note , that in both theis shapes , onely Lightnes , and indifferency of matters putt to Lottery are pressed as causes most iustifying a Lot , yea so , as that in the confirmation of his former shaped arguments proposition , he positively affirmeth that we shall finde a Lott not fitt to be vsed in a weighty affaire ▪ If so , then Weightnesse , and Necessity of matters controverted make Lottery lesse lawfull , if not altogether vnlawfull . But thereof also more in that reply . I therefore proceed to his 3. reason pag. 131. Which is this . If the vse of Lotts in game be of it selfe evill , then must it needs be a sinne either against Piety in the first table , or ag : Charity in the 2. But the vse of Lottes in game , is not of it selfe , a sinne against either Piety , or Charity . Therefore it must be iustified as agreeable to Gods Word . The Assumption is prooved thus ▪ No man avoweth the vse of a Lot in game , ( as it is a Lott ) to be against Charity : and A Lusorious Lot is not the prophaning of any thing hallowed , by any divine institution from the Word , to an holy Vse . Therefore not against Piety . Indeed , if Lottes be holy , they may in no case be made matter of sport . Here I observe one of the faults which I found in the latter shape of the 2. reason to witt ▪ The conclusion conteineth more than the premisses . For the Conclusion saith A Lot in game is agreeable to Gods Word , and then it must be [ Good of it selfe , ] which is more , than [ Not evill of it selfe . ] For that is good of it selfe , for doing whereof there is either praecept , or permission in Gods word , pag. 137. But to the Assumption , an d proofe thereof I answere , That the vse of a Lott in game is , ( of it selfe ) , a sinne against Piety . For it profaneth a Lot hallowed by divine institution from the Word , as shall be manifested hereafter . Yet here I thinke fitt breifely to shew 2. things . One is , That an Oath is hallowed to mak● an holy vse of the testifying presence of God , So a Lot is hallowed to make an holy vse of the determining presence of God. If Mr. Gataker deny a Lott to be holy , except it have a more remote holy vse , I say He may as well deny an Oath to be holy for that cause . More of this point in my 2. reply . The other is , That vse of a Lott is against Piety , which is ( I say not , [ Not forbidden ] but ) [ Not warranted ] by the Word . For it is without faith , therefore a sinne , yea Impiety . So disputeth Mr. Gataker against a Divinatory Lott , pag. 313. and so doe I against a Lusorions Lot. If then a lawfull Lott be holy , it is ( saith Mr. Gataker ) in no case to be made matter of sport . Nay , I may make yet more advantage . For I may say ; That maintaining the vse thereof in gaming , as it is a Lott , by practise , much more by writing , is against Charity , as well as against Piety . For so [ a weake brother is offended , and con●equently Christ sinned against ] that brother being occasioned , by errour of iudgment , to stumble . I have this reasoning from Mr. Gataker himselfe , pag. 255. Now then with some comfort I proceed to the 4. argument , as Mr. Gataker calleth it , pag. 134. By vertue of Christian liberty , every Christian man hath a free vse of all Gods good creatures , to imploy them vnto such purposes , as by any naturall power , they are inabled vnto : But in lusorious Lottes the Creature is vsed to no other ende or vse , but what it hath a naturall power vnto , and such as by the mutuall consent , and agreement of those that vse it , it may be enabled to effect . Therefore it 's no more to be exiled from a Christian man's recratiō , than any other creature whatsoever , that hath any power to delight . So generall & eager is the pursuite after Liberty in this licentious age , that a godly , and charitable Christian , ( much more being a minister ) , ought to take great heede , that he occasion not any much lesse too too many , to make Liberty a cloake of Naughtinesse ▪ But Mr. Gataker speaketh of Christian liberty , not of Licentiousnesse ▪ Then let vs consider what he saith ▪ For both the premisses of this argument are flatly to be denied ▪ For sundry good Creatures have a naturall power to impoison ; But Christian Liberty giveth vs not free vse thereof to impoison a● pleasure . Neither is it true that any creature hath a naturall power to be a Lott , no more than a stone hath a naturall power to be carried vpward . For as a stone is carried vpward by a power ; that is without it : so all creatures are mooved , & applied to be Lotts by a power without them . God keepe me from teaching that Christian Liberty warranteth the vnlawfull vse of any Creature , what naturall power soever it hath to that vse . If any creature have any power to be a Lot , yet that power is not to be vsed vnto Lottery , but in cases ( whereof gameing is none ) wherein God alloweth such vse thereof . To the inforcing of the conclusion by a supposed confirmation of the Assumption , I say , It is a begging of the question . For though a dog having a naturall power to hunt , be not exiled from recreatiō yet ought a Lot-creature to be , for reasons given , and to be given , or rather defended hereafter . Now then to a 5. argument A concessis , ( as Mr. Gataker tearmeth it , ) pag. 135. Any thing in different is lawfull matter of recreation : But Lottery is a thing indiffertnt ; Lottery therefore may be made lawfull matter of disport . The Proposition is confirmed by the wordes of M. Fennor . Christian ( saith he ) recreation is the exercise of some thing indifferent for the necessary refreshing of body , or minde . The Assumption is also proved by Mr. Fennor . Indifferent in nature is that , which is left free , so as we are not simply commaunded , or forbidden to vse it : But such is Lottery ( saith Mr. Gataker ) Not simply commaunded . For Prov. 18. 18. is rather a permission than a praecept , or , Not so much a Commaundement as an advise commending that as a prudent course ; Nor any where forbidden as evill in it selfe . Mr. Fennor's booke , from whence theis allegations be drawne , and from whence I learned that Lottes may not be vsed in sport , doth proove that lusorious Lottes are forbidden , and therefore not indifferent . What helpe then hath Mr. Gataker from Mr. Fenners grauntes ? and his owne proofes helpe him as little . For it is graunted , that if Lottery be either commaunded , or forbidden , it is not indifferent , to passe by the former , onely observing that Mr , Gataker doth not absolutely deny it to be commaunded , Prov. 18. 18. I come to the other . I might here referre the Reader to my Dialogue , and to my Reply , by which it will appeare evidently , that a Lusorious Lott is forbidden , and therefore not indifferent . But to speake a little more ( generally ) of things not indifferent , because forbidden , I say , That is forbidden as well which is forbidd●̄ by iust cōsequence , as that which is expresly forbidden : As that is permitted as well which is permitted by iust consequence as that which is expressely permitted . Mr. Gataker affirmeth , the latter , pa ▪ 137. and will not ( I dare fay ) deny the former . Againe , The Word of God is so perfect , that whatsoever it neither commaundeth , nor permitteth expressely , or by iust consequence , that is verily forbidden . For all things especially such as have relation to God , ought to have some warrant from the word . If Mr. Gataker putt me to proove this , I dare vndertake to proove it demonstratively . But I presume he will not . For , in the last mentioned page , he describeth that to be indifferent , which is ( at least ) permitted by the Word . If a thing be not so much as permitted , it cannot be lawfull , and therefore not in̄different . Here I wish he would remember what he writeth pag. 95. Speaking of this word [ Indifferent , ] ●s it is opposed to good , or evill , & ●he wing how some say , that to be ●ndifferent which is neither good , ●or evill , he determineth the point ●hus . Neverthelesse most true it is , That ●o particular morall action , or No action ●f the reasonable Creature proceeding ●rom reason , can possibly be so indifferent , ●ut it must of necessity be either confor●able to the rules of Gods holy Word , or ●isconformable therevnto . So that I ●onder , why Mr. G. should say ●ere , Lottery in game is not any ●here forbidden as evill in it selfe . ●s it not evill , if forbidden , except ● be otherwise evill of it selfe ? ●hat is good of it selfe which is ●ither commaunded , or permitted , ●ag , 137. Therefore that is evill of ● selfe which is forbidden . It grei●eth my soule to see what a wide ●ore to lusorious Lottery this doctrine will make . For now Lot-mongers will choppe Logicke , and say , What if a lusorious Lotte be forbidden by iust consequence , ye● they are not forbidden as evill in themselves , and therefore they are indifferent . Now to come to Mr. Gatakers last reason , which , like an Oratour , he amplifieth to leave a deepe impression behinde . Bu● let it be well considered , as in i● selfe , so whether it proove that th● vse of Lottes in game is not agaia●● Gods worde , but hath sufficient warrant from it , as he pretendeth in his introduction , pag. 136. It is this . Where the Wisdome of God , hath not determined the subiect matter , the manner , and other Circumstances of a thing lawfull in it selfe , there all such are lawfull , a● the Word doth not forbid , and a● no Circumstance that a man shall make choice of , shall be against the generall rules of the word concerning the same : But a Lott is a thing lawfull in it selfe , and the subiect-matter , manner , & other Circumstances thereof are not determined by Gods Word , nor against the generall rules . Therefore a Lott in game is not prohibited , nor is against the generall rules of Gods Word otherwise . The Proposition he confirmeth . First , touching a thing lawfull in it selfe , by shewing that act to be lawfull in it selfe , which in Gods word , is either commaunded , or permitted expressely , or by iust consequence . Secondly , touching the manner &c. by prooving the rest of the Proposition ; which he indeavoureth to performe . ( 1. ) By the Authority of Calvin . ( 2. ) By Luke : 9. 50. ( 3. ) By a glosse ( 4. ) By shewing that the circumstance of time for free will offerings being not determined , they might have beene offered at at any time , and Sacrifices might have beene in any place before a certaine place was determined Thirdly , touching both the doing o● every act , & the doing of it in this or that manner , by shewing that i● naturall reason will not , of it selfe affoard sufficient direction , the● must warrant be had out of God● Word , because , Whatsoever is not o Faith is sinne . Which Word is give● vs in morall matters to supply th● defect of it caused by our first parents their fall . Neither doth th● Word abridge vs of the helpe , an● vse of naturall reason for directio● in such actions . The Assumptio● is thus prooved . Recreation , i● generall , is warranted from th● Word as permitted , and inioined ▪ if not expressely , yet by iust consequence . For the matter or manner , or the thinges wherewith we may recreate our selves , there is nothing determined . Therefore any meanes that are not against the generall rules Of comelines , and decency , Rom. 13. 13. 1. Cor. 14. 40. Of conveniency , and expediency , 1. Cor. 6. 12. and 10. 23. Rom. 14. 21. Of Religion , and Piety , 1. Cor. 10. 31. Colos . 3. 17. and the like , are by the Word of God allowed . I might , as did Alexander , loose Gordian's knott with one choppe , and say , The vse of Lottes in game is forbidden in the Word , referring my selfe to what I have , and shall write . But for better satisfaction , I will answere more particularly , not doubting , but that the Proverbe may ( now ) proove true , viz : In many wordes there cannot want iniquity . First , I observe fearefull shifting , and then vnsound arguing . The former thus appeareth , He supposeth the thing must be lawfull in it selfe , and disputeth onely about the subiect-matter , &c. Againe , In the introduction he saith . Th' vse of Lottes in game is not against God's Word , but hath sufficient warrant from it , which may imply this position . [ That is against the Word , which hath not sufficient warrant from it . ] But in the Proposition of the maine argument his ground is ; [ Such things are lawfull , which the Word doth not forbid . ] Fower of his confirmations , and his Assumption are to that effect , or rather defect , and his conclusion is answereable : Is not this a fearefull shifting course of reasoning ? Now let vs consider his vnsound arguing . Touching the Proposition of his maine argument , I mervaile why Mr. Gataker avouching such subiect-matter &c. to be lawfull as are not forbidden , limiteth this assertion with theis wordes ( Of a thing lawfull in it selfe ) As if such a thing may warrant our retchlesnesse in , and about the subiect-matter &c. As if God doth not , according to the olde saying , [ Loue Adverbes ] An Oath is a thing lawfull in it selfe ; Are not we therefore to make conscience , that the subiect-matter , &c. be agreable to the Word of God ? But I mervaile much more at this gronnd . [ Such things are lawfull , as the Word doth not forbid . ] I set it downe thus , because the confirmations tend to make this good , and so conclude . All things not prohibited are permitted , and therefore the subiect-matter , &c. of a thing lawfull in it selfe . I mervaile ( I say ) the more because Mr. Gataker confirmeth a thing or act it selfe to be lawfull in it selfe , if it be in the Word , either commaunded , or permitted expressely , or by iust consequence . Which I acknowledge to be so cleare a truth , that ( me think's ) Mr. Gataker cannot , but , in proportion of reason , if he beleive the Word to be perfect vnto every good worke , holde All thinges to be vnlawfull , which are not lawfull one of theis two wayes , and the rather because he peremptorily affirmeth , pag. 95. All particular morall actions , be they never so iūdifferent , to be either conformable , or disconformable to Gods Word , and , by particular actions , he meaneth actions clothed with circumstances , pag. 94. O that Mr. Gataker would holde to this doctrine ! Then should he thereby provoke all , who make consciences of their wayes , and doe truth ( that is ▪ doe good workes sincerily ) to come to the light , that their deedes might be made manifest , that they are wrought according to God. On the contrary ; If he bring not disciples to the Law , and Testimony , by doctrine according to the Word , but writhe from it , by teaching that to be lawfull which is not forbidden , as therein his light faileth , so there by he shall make men carelesse to seeke for their warrant , and wilfull to seeke after their owne heart , and eyes after which they goe a whoring . Well , let vs examine his confirmations . First , Mr. Calvins testimony in English is this . [ When the Scripture delivereth generall rules of a lawfull vse , the vse is to be limited according to them . ] From hence Mr. Gataker concludeth that a man hath a sufficient warrant for any circumstance he shall make choise of , that is not against those rules . Mr. Calvin speaketh of an Vse , and of an Vse doe we dispute , Mr. Gataker concludeth a Circumstance : Mr. Calvin saith , According , Mr. Gataker concludeth , Not against . Is this sound arguing ? Is the 2. confirmation from Luke : 9. 50. much better ? The wordes set downe by Mr. Gataker be theis . [ He that is not against me , is with me . ] This place ( forsooth ) is a rule holding in the subiect-matter , &c. neither determined , nor forbidden . As theis wordes , [ He that is not with me , is against me , Math. 12. 30. ] is a rule in the subiect-matter , &c. determined . Both a like in conceipt . And why may not M. Gatakers ? conceipt be the same touching thinges , or actions ? But let vs see , whether the conceipt be not a be-misted Phantasy . In the former place Christ his wordes are occasioned ●y his Disciples their forbidding one who cast out Divels in Christ his name . Forbid him not ( said Christ ) for , He , that is not against me , is with me . In the latter place Christ spake those wordes vpon occasion of the Pharises their opposition . So that consider the two sentences with their occasions togither , this , indeed , is the summe . All men are either with , or against Christ . For there be no Neutralles . So that those two sentences are like theis . He that is not a goate , is a sheepe , and He that is not a sheepe is a goate . But Mr. Gataker's argument is this . All men who are not against Christ , are with him . Therefore Circumstances not determined , nor forbidden , are lawfull . Is this sound arguing ? The third confirmation is from a Glosse . Here I remember an olde saying [ A cursed glosse corrupt's the Text. ] Now lett vs see whether Mr. Gataker have any blessing by this glosse , the wordes whereof in English , be theis . [ All things are permitted by Law , which are not found prohibited . ] Note , that it speake's of things . Therefore it make's as well for actions , as for circumstances ▪ Is this Divinity ? But what Law ? If the Civill Law , what is that to the point ? Except Mr. Gataker can proove , the Civill Law to be a perfect rule to vs ; and whatsoever it permitteth is allowed of God. Howsoever , ( I say ) this course of fetching proofes from any other Law , than God's Law , is fitter for a Papist , who holdeth Vnwritten verities ( so called ) to be a supplement to the Scriptures , thereby to authorize traditions of men , than for one , that feareth God to walke in his wayes . Is then this glossing sound arguing ? Hath the fourth confirmation more validity in it than the rest ? The former 3. proofes speake not directly of Circmmstances according to the proposition , ( so doth Mr. Gataker dispute Adidem ) here he doth ▪ here then Iinquire , If the Circumstances of Time , and Place be at the pleasure of him that v●eth a thing lawfull in it selfe , doth it follow therevpon , that the subiect-matter , and manner be so too ? If God allow any thing to be done , of necessity there must be a time , and place , when and where it may be done , Even when , and where there is iust occasion of the Act ▪ It is to be obscrved , that , as here , so , in the Proposition it selfe Mr. Gataker slideth from the subiect-matter , and manner , to circumstances onely . Is not this fainting ? Let vs now proceed to that , which Mr. Gataker writeth , touching both the doing of every act , and the doing of it in this , and that manner . Neither of which needeth warrant from the Word if naturall reason , of it selfe , afford sufficient directiō ▪ Good Lord ! What fearefull shifting from the Word is here ? But why doth he ioyne the doing it selfe of an Act. with the manner thereof ? I 'le tell you , even to make a way to his Assumption . For , if he sticke close to that which he teacheth in imediate wordes , to witt , that an act it selse is lawfull in it selfe , if , in the Word , it be , either commaunded ; or permitted expressely , or by iust consequence , he foreseeth , that it will be answered to the fore-part of his assumption , that every Lott is not lawfull in it selfe . Therefore he would trouble the Reader 's head with a supposed direction therein of naturall reason , and that sufficient , ( I say ) Supposed ; For he sheweth no direction therein of naturall reason either sufficient , or insufficient . But let vs with feare , and trembling , consider Mr. Gataker his most straunge position to witt , [ Neither the doing of any act , nor the manner of doing needeth warrant from the Word , if naturall Reason of it selfe , affoard sufficient direction . ] Let vs consider it ( I say ) together with his reason . For ( saith he ) the Word is given vs in morall matters , to supply the defect of naturall reason caused by our first parents their fall . Is it our best way then to seeke sufficient direction , in morall matters , from naturall reason , before wc consult with God in his Word ? For the said direction is the 2. time vrged thus . I say where natnrall reason doth not , of it selfe , afford sufficient direction , and neede not a man know , that he hath warrant srom God's Word if , in his perswasion , he have sufficient direction from naturall Reason ? Doth the Max●me of Gods Spirit quoted here , by Mr. Gataker to witt , [ What is not of Faith is sinne ] intimate . That whatsoever is done by sufficient direction from naturall reason , is of Faith ? Became naturall reason onely defective , and not corrupted also by our first Parents their fall ? O God have mercy vpon vs ! For I see that the Wisedome of the Flesh is Enmity against thee ; For it is not fubiect to thy Law , neither , indeed , can be . But why doe I vexe my soule with this fearefull doctrine , seeing Mr. Gatakers heart fainteth in the prosecution thereof ? For , at last , he cometh to say . Neither doth the Word abridge vs of the helpe , and vse of naturall reason for direction in such actions . Here is some more authority ( to witt , Of not abridging vs of the helpe , &c. ) given to the Word . For it doth imply , that the Word might abridge vs , &c. Therefore ou● most warrantable way is to be well informed , when , and how farre , the Word doth give vs leave to vse the direction of naturall reason in morall matters . If this be so , then the former strange doctrine is contradicted , and I neede not make any answer to the scriptures quoted in the margent . So then I proceed to the Assumption of the maine argument . In the former part whereof , it is to be denied ( as was saide before ) that every Lot is a thing lawfull in it selfe . For as a Divinatory , by him , cap. 11. so a Lusorious Lott by me , and others , is denied to be a thing lawfull in it selfe . More clearily to answer the other part . It is to be observed , that , in this large , argument it cannot be gathered w●ath M. G. meaneth by Subiect-matter . So the minde of the Reader may be troubled with wordes , which ought not to be . But by that which he writeth , pag. 230. I vnderstand he meaneth the Matter whereabout the Lottery is imployed . If so , I affirme that the fubiect matter of a Lott is determined by God , namely , A Controversy to be ended thereby ; and therefore I also affirme lusorius buisinesse ( to vse Mr. Gataker owne word pag. 130. ) to be a subiect-matter of a Lott , no lesse against the generall rules of the Word , than was the finding out of Ionas , in Mr. Gatakers iudgment , pag. 278. If then a Lusorious Lott be not a thing lawfull in it selfe , & If Lusorious buisinesse be a subiect-matter of a Lott , that is against the generall rules , then how can the manner , and other circumstances , though neither determined , nor forbidden , be sufficient warrant for the vse of a Lusorious Lott ? Now then , Let vs try the force of the Assumption's confirmation . It is true that Recreation in generall , indefinitely vnderstood , is warranted by God's Word . But I beleive Mr. Gataker will not affirme all recreations taken vp by men , to be so warranted . Yes ( saith Mr. Gataker ) we may recreate our selves with any thing , that is not against the generales rules , because , touching things , wherewith we may recreate , there is nothing determined . Of this evasion [ Not against ] I neede not speake at this instant . But touching things not determined , so much inculcated , I aske whether things must be determined particularly , or by name ; or else , if not so forbidden , they are lawfull . If so , why doth Mr. Gataker ( speaking of divers particulars , ) as of a key , and a booke , of a paire of sheares , and a ●ive , and such like so earnestly aske , Are they any where found revealed in the Word of God ? Where he is of another minde , than here , arguing thus . Not found there commaunded , or permitted ; therefore vnlawfull . If it be said , Not so found there , to finde out a theife . I then say ; Neither are Lottes so found there for Recreation . But if by Not determined be meant , Thinges wherewith we recreare are not determined in the Word either expressly , or by iust consequence , then , whosoever saith so , if he be wise , will adde [ So farre as I doe remember , and know . ] For who can remember all the sentences of holy Scriptures , and know all iust consequences , that may be made from them ? If he thus adde then his Negation is of no validity , but he himselfe is too bolde in denying , vpon presumption , that another remembreth , and knoweth no more than he . At last let vs religiously consider the generall rules so often spoken of , and we shall finde , that Mr. Gataker should have done well not to have pleased Libertines by pleading Not against , but to have given the Word due honour by saying with Mr. Calvin . [ The vse of things is to be limited according to the generall rules . ] For theis rules require Decency , Expediency , and Piety , and therefore they are not obeyed by the vse of things not vndecent , not inexpedient , and not impious . For it is to be noted that in 1. Cor. 6. 12. and 12. 23. Paul saith not , all things are lawfull , but some things are inexpedient , but in both places thus . [ All things are lawfull , but all are not expedient . ] Let vs consider theis rules yet somewhat more nearely to the point . Touching the first . The wordes of the Apostle , 1. Cor. 14. 40. be theis . [ Let all things be done honestly , and by order ] In which is no intimation , that all things are in themselves lawfull to be done , which are done honestly , & by order , but a charge that all things , be they in themselves never so lawfull , be done honestly , & by order . Those drinke offerings to Bacchus , commonly called Healthes ( per Antiphrasin , ) are solemnized sometimes with standing , sometimes with kneeling , alwayes with putting of hatts , and some speech more or lesse , are they acceptable to God , because they are thus orderly carried ? If not , Then be Lotts , and the vsers of them in gaming never so orderly disposed , yet are they not therefore iustified . Touching the second rule . It is true , That all things must be expedient , that is , edify , 1. Cor. 10. 23. Therefore they sinne who stumble , or offend a brother , that is , occasion him to fall or be made weake , Rom. 14. 13. 21. But Lu●orious Lotts occasion thousands to fall into sinne , & to be weake in goodnesse . Therefore they doe not edifie , and therefore are not expedient . Concerning the 3. rule . Let all things to be done to Gods glory , 1. Cor. 10. 31. Is this to Gods glory , to vse his name in any other case than wherein God is well pleased his name should be vsed , & thē to take that name in vaine ? Is tempting of God any glory to God ? But playing with a Lottis to vse God's name in an other case , than wherein God is well pleased his Name should be vsed , and then also to take that Name in vaine , & it is a greivous tempting of God as shall be prooved . Therefore playing with a Lots is not to God's glory , & by consequence not agreable to Religion , and Piety . Though it be sufficiently prooved that Lusorious Lotts are directly aga in●t tw● of the generall Rules , and not warranted by the third , so that Mr. Gataker hath not bete red his cause by appealing to them , yet it is to be observed , that all the rules require , Things , and Actions to be according to them , But Mr. Gataker by onely speaking of them , would iustify circumstances , and meanes of playing with Lotts if ( forsooth ) they be not against them . Thus having evidently shewed Reasons inducing ( not drawing ) Mr. Gataker to allow Lusorious Lotts to be both fearefull , as theis evasive speeches . [ Not evill in themselves . ] [ Not prohibited . ] [ Not determined . ] & , [ Not against the generall rules , ] doe import , & otherwise vnsound , I wil now ( with God's helpe I hope ) reply vpon M. G. answers to mine arguments against playing with Lots , conteined in my Dialogue . A Reply to M. Gataker's answers to arguments conteined in a Dialogue against the vnlawfulnes of games consisting in chaunce . WHatsoever directly , or of it selfe , or in a speciall manner tendeth to the advauncing of God's Name is to be vsed religiously , & not to be vsed in sporte , as we may not pray , or sweare in sporte : But the vse of Lotts directly , or of it selfe , and in speciall manner tendeth to the advauncing of the name of God in attributing to his speciall Providence in the whole , and immediate disposing of the Lot , & expecting the event . Therefore the vse of Lotts is not to be in sport . The Assumption is not true , if it be understood vniversally . The proofe annexed I deny ; Neither doe the places produced proove it . The former of them , concerning ordinary Lotts , or Lotts in generall , was answered sufficiently before . The latter is an example of an extraordinary Lott , wherein was ( indeed ) an immediate , and speciall Providence . But extraordinary examples make no generall rules Neither is it a good course of arguing to reason from the speciall , or a singular , to the generall , and vniversall : Much lesse from one extraordinary act or event , to all ordinary courses of the same kinde . Herein is the difference betweene the one , and the other That the one could not but fall certainly , were it never so often cast , whereas the other , cast often in the same case , would not certainely fall out still the same . The assumption vnderstood vniversally is true , and the places quoted make good the proofe thereof , as shall be made manifest . First therefore let vs consider the supposed distinction betweene ordinary , and extraordinary Lottes Mr. Gataker speaketh of a distinction , but sheweth not wherein , ( touching the Lottes themselves , ) it doth consist . Indeed , touching themselves , ( as they be Lottes , ) there is no difference ; For in an ordinary , as well as in an extraordinary Lott , the things are by man , of purpose intentionally disposed vnto a variable event , & they are wholy disposed by God vnto this , or vnto that event , which the vser of a Lott expecteth . If so , then it followeth , That the vse of all Lottes , ( as they be Lottes ) whether ordinary , or extraordinary , directly , or of it selfe , & in speciall ma●ner , tendeth to the advauncing of the Name of God. How ? The vse of Lottes attributeth to Gods speciall Providence In the whole , and immediate disposing of the Lott , & In expecting the event - Doth this scarce carry good sence ? Is there then no difference betweene an ordinary , and extraordinary Lott ? The onely difference is the subiect-matter whereabout the Lott is imployed . The subiect-matter of an ordinary Lott , is , by God's allowance , A Controversy to be ended : The subiect-matter of an extraordinary Lott is any other matter , whereabout a Lott is imployed by God's speciall direction ; otherwise it is vnlawfull , as be lusorious , and Divinatory Lotts . In regard of which difference onely , Mr. Gatakers Logique holdeth good , as thus . From the vse of a Lott about an other matter than ending a Controversy and that by God's speciall direction , it followeth not , that it is lawfull to vse a Lott about any other matter , than ending a Controversy , as gaming , without God's speciall direction . But Mr. Gataker maketh an other difference to witt , An immediate , and speciall Providence in an extraordinary Lott , which is not in an ordinary Lott . He doth so ; and therefore in his Logique , he cunningly ioyneth a supposed extraordinary Event to a supposed extraordinary Act , & declineth the proofe of an extraordinary act , which rather he should have done , because mine argument standeth vpon the Vse of Lottes . Neither doth he foundly proove an immediate , and speciall Providence , or extraordinary event , to be in an extraordinary , and not in an ordinary Lott . For , as it is a tempting of God to cast an extraordinary Lott the first time without God's speciall direction , pag. 313. so it is a tempting , yea , a greater tempting of God , when he hath given his iudgmentalready by the event of the Lott , to cast the Lott againe without his speciall direction . How then can Mr. Gataker so confidently affirme , that an extraordinary Lot could not but fall certainly , were it never so oft cast ? Indeed , The certaine event of an extraordinary Lot may , in faith , be expected , because of Gods speciall direction . And why not so in an ordinary Lott ? Seeing God adviseth vs , pag. ●35 . to vse Lottes for the ending of controversies . Prov. 18. 18. and assureth vs that the whole disposing of them is of him , Prov. 16. 33. But Mr. Gataker hath answered this place before . Let vs then consider what he hath answered . Before he saith , pag. 144. Good Authours expound this place of singular , extraordinary , and miraculous Lottes onely . But ( saith he ) the wordes seeme to be more generall , and are , word for word , thus in the Originall , [ The Lord is cast into the Lappe , but every iudgment , or disposing of it , is of God. ] Doth not confuting them , who holde onely extraordinary Lottes to be meant in this place , and translating the Text [ Every iudgment ] and expounding it , [ Or disposing of it , ] shew plainely that this place prooveth mine Assumption to be vniversally true ? So that I much mervaile that he denieth this place to prooue mine Assumption , because it concerneth Lottes in generall . For if it doe so , then it prooveth that ordinary , as well as extraordinary Lottes tend to the advauncing of the Name of God. Againe pag. 145. Mr. Gataker taking the wordes , as they are vsually read in the Genevatranslation , and the King's edition , to witt , [ The Lott is cast into the lappe , but the whole disposition , or disposing thereof is of the Lord , ] graunteth that the whole event is of God. A graunt though true , yet turning the reader aside from seeing the whole truth . For the Text is , [ The whole disposing of the Lott cast into the lappe . ] If then the Lot cast into the lap , that is , of purpos● disposed by man vnto a variable event , be wholy disposed by God , so , as the event be that , which pleaseth him , then God doth not mediately dispose the Lot to this , or that event , if not mediately , then immemediately , because the whole disposing is of him . Doth not then this place make good mine Assumption ? But for all this Mr. Gataker will not have it so ; For as he translateth this place , he saith It importeth thus much , [ That there is a Providence in all things , even the least , and most casuall ] and this he would confirme by theis my wordes , viz : [ The disposingꝭ of the chaunce is secret , that it might be chaunce indeed , & wholy of God , who directed all things . ] Doe theis wordes iustifie Mr. Gatakers interpretation of this place ? Yes ; For they say plainely , God directed all things , and , they say withall ; The disposing of the chaunce ( that is of the things purposedly disposed by a man vnto a variable event ) vnto a certaine event , is secret , that it may be chaunce indeed , that is , an event not by the will of man , but wholy of God. So that my wordes imply this argument . God directeth all things , Therefore much more , in our discerning , a Lot , the whole disposing whereof is of him . This is farre from saying that this place importeth onely , That there is a Providence in all things . Neither doth Mr. Gatakers translation inferre this imported interpretation . For this discretion . [ But ] doth so oppose every iudgment , or disposing of it ( as he expoundeth Iudgment ) to a Lot cast into the lappe , as that Every disposing , is all one with The whole disposing . This place so troubleth Mr. Gataker that from it he would have no more gathered , than that the whole event ( as of all things , so ) of a Lot , is of the Lord. Yet so , as working by meanes in the most of them , and not implying and immediate Providence vniversally in them . I neede not examine the meanes , or immediate Providence of all the instances quoted in the margent For here it is impliedly graunted ( for he faith not All , but the most of them ) that in some things God worketh not by meanes , and that there is an immediate Providence Particularly , for he denieth such a Providence onely , as being universally . Howsoever it be in other things , I thinke it is manifest to all , that will see , that God , without meanes , and therefore immediately , doth wholy dispose the Lot cast into the lappe vnto this , or that event , what pleaseth him , whereas man disposeth the things onely vnto a variable event . As at cardes , man shuffleth them of purpose to dispose them vnto a variable event : But , by the immediate Providence of God , they are so shuffled , as that this , or that event followeth . Therefore ( with Mr. Gataker favour ) any reasonable man may iudge it not senselesse to say ( which he doubteth of pa. 147. ) that in childrens playes , at Even , and Odde , or at Heades , & Points , there is an immediate Providence , In inclining the will of the childe , and guiding his coniecture . Thus we see this place doth confirme mine assumption , and the proofe annexed , Mr. Gatakers interpretation notwithstanding . But he giveth 2. reasons against an immediate providence in ordinary Lottes , which are also to be considered . The former is this . That which agreeth to a thing , as it is such , agreeth necessarily to ȧll things , that are such . Therefore if there be an immediate Providence in a Lot , as it is casuall , then there is an immediate providence in all thinges , that are casuall : But the latter is not true ; ergo not the former , pag. 143. Why not the latter ? if the is Positions be true . That which seemes Chaunce to us , is a certaine Word of God ( saith Bernard , But Mr. Gatak . translateth it , Is as a word of God ) acquainting vs with his Will , pag. 17. and In casuall events there is nothing guiding them , but God's Providence , pag. 22. But suppose that there is not an immediate Providence in all things , that be casuall , what is that to the purpose ? For all things casuall are not such , with a Lott , wherein things are of purpose disposed by man vnto an vncertaine event , which things , so disposed by man , are wholy disposed by God vnto a certaine event , this or that ; so it is not in all other things , that be casuall . Therefore all other casuall things , and Lotts are not such ▪ Neither is it said an immediate Providence is in a Lot , as it is casuall , but as the Lot being made casuall is wholy disposed by God to this , or that event . So that from Mr ▪ Gatakers axiome this argument may be framed . An immediate Providence , in an extraordinary Lot , is acknowledged by Mr. Gataker as it is a Lot ( say I ) wholy disposed by God ; Therefore an immediate Providence is in an ordinary Lot ( as it is a Lot ) wholy disposed by God. For there is no difference betweene theis sorts of Lotts , ( as they be Lotts ) and so disposed . For Mr. Gataker hath shewed that Prov. 16. 33. speaketh as well of one sort of Lotts , as of another . The other argument is this ▪ which is the kill-kow . If in every Lott there be necessarily an immediate worke , and Providence of God , then is it in the naturall of man to make God worke immediately at his pleasure : But to say , that it is in man's power naturally to sett God on working , immediately , at his pleasure , is absurd . There is not therefore an immediate worke , and Providence of God necessarily in every Lott . Mr. Gataker like an Oratour , seemeth desirous to draw his adversary into hatred by thei wordes [ Necessarily , Naturall power , Sett God on working , At pleasure , To say , and Absurd ] Verba dum sint , surdo canit . But hoping better , I aunswering his Logique , deny the Assumption . For it is as much in man's naturall power to set God on worke immediately , in an ordinary , as in an extraordinary Lot. For both God , and man doe respectively as much in the one Lott , as in the other . But an extraordinary Lot is by the speciall direction of God : True ; So is an ordinary Lott by God's speciall advise to ende a controversy . If then every Lot be a setting of our glorious God on worke , there ought to be prayer , if not by wordes ; yet in heart in the vse as well of ordinary , as extraordinary Lotts . If so , then Lotts are not to be vsed in sport . Here then will I proceed to the defence of my second argument , which is this , pag. 150. We are not to tempt the Almighty by a vaine desire of manifesting his power , and speciall Providence : But by vsing Lotts in sport we tempt the Almighty , vainely desiring the manifestation of his speciall Providence in his immediate disposing ; Therefore we may not vse Lotts in sport ▪ The Assumption ( saith Mr. Gataker ) they seeme to proove on this wise . To call God to sitt in iudgment , where there is no necessity so to doe , for the determining of trifles , is to tempt , nay to mocke God : But by the vse of Lotts in sport , God is called to sitt in iudgment , where is no necessity , for the determining of trifles . By the vse of Lotts in sport therefore , we doe tempt , and dishonour God. This argument Mr. Gataker hath from Dan●eus that learned man of reverend memory . To proove the Assumption whereof , he alleadgeth theis wordes out of my Dialogue . A Lot in the nature thereof doth as necessarily suppose the Providence , and determining presence of God , as an Oath , in the nature thereof , doth suppose the testifying presence of God , yea so , that , as in an Oath , so in a Lot , prayer is expressed , or to be vnderstood . The Assumption of the maine Argument is not true , but onely in extraordinary Lottes , vsed not with out speciall direction . Yea rather , if a Lot be such as is here said , it is not lawful to vse Lottes in any case whatsoever . Because thereby we require a worke of God's immediate Power , and Providence , and so tempt God. And to speake as the truth is . By this course , and force of this discourse , the onely lawfull vse of a Lot is condemned , & an vnlawfull vse of it is allowed in the roome of it . Againe : An Oath , and a Lot are not alike . The comparison therefore laide betweene them will not holde . For neither is the right of ought in an ordinary Lot , put to the speciall providence , and imediate worke of God , as the truth of the thing testified is in an Oath , put to his Testimony : Neither is there in every Lot any such solemne invocation of God , as there is in an Oath ever , either expressed , or implied . For the definition of each thing conteineth the whole nature of the thing defined . Now a Lot may be defined without mention of Prayer , as appeareth in the definition thereof in the Dialogue : But so cannot an Oath . Therefore Prayer is not of the essence of a Lot. Neither doe the places , 1. Sam. 14. 41. Acts 1. 24. ( whereof the former was a faithlesse prayer ) proove it . They proove onely , that prayer was sometimes vsed before an extraordinary Lot , for an immediate Providence to direct the event of it . Which is not lawfull in ordinary Lotts . For in setting forth tithes , Levit. 27. 32. it was not lawfull to pray God to give a right Lot. In election of offices sacred , or civill prayer ought to be vsed , yet it followeth not therefore , that Prayer is part of the choise , or that therefore the Election , in the nature thereof , doth necessarily suppose a speciall providence , and determining presence of God. Lastly , A Lott is not in it selfe an holy thing alwayes , and necessarily , as hath beene shewed , nor indeed was ever any so save extraordinarily . Therefore there is difference betweene Lotts and Oathes . Indeed , Whosoever shall contemne an extraordinary Lot , he shall abuse an holy thing , and Gods Name . To this long answer I might make a short reply . For whereas Mr. Gatakers maine ground is this . There is no immediate providence of God in an ordinary , as is in an extraordinrry Lot , and therevpon he buildeth theis answeres , Therefore there is no tempting of God by vsing Lotts in sport : Therefore no prayer expressed , or to be vnderstood is required in ordinary Lotts : and Therefore an ordinary Lot is not an holy thing in it selfe ; I might , ( referring my selfe to the defence of my former argument , ) breifely reply , and say . There is an immediate providence in an ordinary Lot. Therefore God is tempted by vsing Lotts in sporte : Therefore Prayer expressed , or to be vnderstood , is required of them who vse an ordinary Lot : and Therefore an ordinary Lot is an holy thing : But something more in replying , will have more savour in reading . Therefore I first mervaile that M. G. forgetteth himselfe in concluding . That all Lotts be vnlawfull , if there be an immediate providence in all Lotts . What ? Were extraordinary Lotts vnlawfull too ? Nay ; He vnderstandeth an exception of them because they were commaunded by God. So I say , ordinary Lotts were advised by God to end controversies . Therefore vsing them , in that case , is no tempting of God. I mervaile also , why Mr. Gataker should so confidently affirme , that , by this course , that is , by maintaining an immediate Providence in all Lotts , an vnlawfull vse of a Lott is allowed in the roome of the onely lawfull vse . But I referre the discussing thereof to the defence of my 3. argument ▪ Againe , It is to be observed , that he sett's downe a comparison betweene an Oath , and a Lott , which I sett not downe , whereby the minde of the reader may be troubled ▪ For I say not , As the Truth of a thing is , by an Oath , put to Gods Testimony : so in an ordinary Lot the R●ght of a thing is put to Gods immediate Providence . This is that I say , As an Oath , in the nature thereof , suppo●eth the testifying presence of God : so a Lot , in the nature thereof , supposeth the determining presence of God. My reason is , Ending a controversy ( I say not , Deciding a Right , for , before dividing the land of Promise by Lot , no tribe , or family could chalenge more Right to one portion , than to another ) Ending ( I say ) a Controversy is , by a Lot referred to God's determining the same by his whole , or immediate disposing the vncertaine Lot ) to a certaine event . It is also to be observed that in the 2. comparison betweene an Oath , and a Lot , touching Prayer , he saith , Neither is there in every Lot any such solemne invocation . Therefore in some Lot , that is , an extraordinary Lot , because of an immediate Providence to direct the event of it . For the same cause ( say I ) is prayer to be expressed , or vnderstood in the vse of an ordinary Lot too . But ( saith Mr. Gataker ) Prayer is of the essence of an Oath , and not of a Lott . I have said nothing to the contrary ; So that he might have spared his definition of a Lot : But because he taketh a definition ( such as it is ) out of my Dialogue , I will say somewhat thereto . The Definition ( so called ) is from Lyrd , viz. To vse Lotts is by a variable event of some sensible thing to determine some doubtfull , or vncertaine matter . How is this matter to be determined indeed ? Even by God's whole , or immediate disposing the Lot. Hath God the principall hand in the determination ? and Is not then Prayer to be expressed , or vnderstood in a Lot , that is , in the managing by the vsers thereof ? Now then let vs consider the places produced to proove it . The former ( saith Mr. Gataker ) was faithlesse , I say so too , Because that Lot was without any warrant . This ( notwithstanding Prayer in this , and the other place ) doth shew that God's people beleiving that God doth signifie his iudgment by the whole , or immediate disposing of that Lot , did therefore thinke themselves bound to pray . But both theis Lotts were extraordinary , wherein was an immediate providence of God. Therefore they might well beleive they should pray . True ; So all Christians may , yea and must beleive they ought to pray in the vsing ordinary Lotts , because of God's immediate Providence exercised therein . Nay ▪ It was vnlawfull in setting out Tithe . If so ▪ Not because it was an ordinary Lot ( If a Lot ) but because the Lord expresly said Of all that goeth vnder the rodde the tenth shall be holy . The instance of election of offices is besides the purpose - For it is not argued thus . Because Gods people prayed when they vsed a Lot , therefore there is an immediate Providence of God in a Lot : But thus . There is an immediate Providence of God in a Lot , therefore Gods people prayed when they vsed a Lot. If then there be an immediate Providence of God in a Lot , and in regard thereof , Prayer is to be expressed , or vnderstood in lawfull vse of a Lot , then Praying and Playing , ( though they rime well together , yet ) runne not well together in the lawfull vse of a Lot. Nay rather it followeth from both That a Lot is not to be vsed but in a case of necessity more , or lesse ; and Therefore stra●nge ( I will not say absurd ) is Mr. Gataker his Position , pag. 111. to witt , The lesse weighty the matter is wherein a Lot vsed , the lawfuller the Lot is . Except it be prooved , That the lesse weighty the m●tter is , the greater is the necessity of ending the controversy by a Lot. The said Position is more strange because he graunteth , pag. 95. That Prayer specially applyed to the Lot may , ( in some case , ) be conceived , where the matter is more weighty , and the event of some consequence , as in the choise of a Magistrate . But concerning this also more shall be said in my next Reply . Lastly ; It serves my turne that Mr. Gataker acknowledgeth that God's Name , and an Holy thing is abusod whensoever an extraordinary Lot it contemned , because an immediate Providence of God is therein . For the same cause an ordinary Lot is the Name of God and an Holy thing , and the●efore not to be abufed in sport . But Mr. Gataker hath shewen before that a Lot is not , in it selfe , an holy thing . Indeed ; He would have shewen in his 3 ▪ reason inducing him to allow lusorious Lotts ▪ as not evill in themselves , that a Lot is not holy either in it selfe , or by divine institution . Wherevnto I have already answered somewhat . But having learned more ( occasionally ) by his further dispute , I will now , for some more satisfaction , answere somewhat more . A Lot ( saith Mr ▪ Gataker , pag. 132. and 133. ) is not holy , either in it selfe , because a Casualty hath no holinesse in it selfe ; For then all Casualties should be holy : or By divine institution i● the Word , sanctifying it to som● holy vse . I answere breifely . Is an extraordinary Lot the Name of God , an Holy thing in it selfe , because of God's immediate Providence therein , and not an ordinary Lot in respect of the same Providence ? If it be , Then , though all casualties be not holy in themselves , yet all lawfull Lotts be holy in themselves . So that as ●he Bush that burnt , and wasted not , was holy , when God manifested himselfe to Moses in it , pag. 156 , so a Lot is holy , because of God's speciall Presence therein . Herein they differ . The Bush was holy but for a time , because God was present in it but for a time : Whereas a Lot is holy from time to time , so oft as it is lawfully vsed , because of God's speciall presence therein from ●ime to time , Therefore Hows●e●er sport might have beene made with the Bush the speciall presēce of God be●ng remooved , yet ought sport never be mad● with a Lot , because God's speciall presence is ever therein . Againe ; I neede not proove that an ordinary Lot to ende controversies is by divine institution in the word , seeing Mr. Gataker graunteth that God in Prov. 18. 18. adviseth vs to vse it to that ende . But it is not sanctified to an holy vse . I have shewed otherwise . But what then ? Is not a Lot therefore alwayes holy in it selfe , as Mr. Gataker saith in this passage ? Were all extraordinary Lotts sanctified to holy vses ? Yet Mr. Gataker deemeth them all holy in themselves , because of God's immediate Providence in them . Why may not I , for the same cause , thinke the same of all ordinary Lotts ? And the rather , because Mr. Gataker saith , pag. ●27 . ▪ Marriage , being Gods Ordinaunce , is holy in it selfe : But ( as he acknowledgeth , pag. 1. ) a Lot is Gods Ordinaunce ; Therefore , from his graunt , a Lot is holy in it selfe . If then a Lot be holy in it selfe I conclude with Mr. Gataker , pag. 133. It may in no case , with no caution , be made matter of sport . Now then I proceed to my 3. argument , which is this , pag. 166. Whatsoever God hath sanctified to a proper end is not to be perverted to a worse end : But God hath sanctified Lotts to a proper end , viz : To end Controversies ▪ Therefore man is not to pervert them to a worse , viz : To play , and by playing to get away another mans money , which , without controversy is his owne . The Assumption is amplified by the like vse of an Oath . This Argumēt is faulty . But may be mended thus . That which God hath sanctified to some proper vse is not to be applied to any other , especiala worse . But God hath sauctifyed Lotts to this propre vse , to witt , the deciding of Controversies in matters of weight ; A Lott therefore may not be applied to any other vse , much lesse to a worse . But to aunswere the argument . The Proposition is graunted , if , [ To Sanctisie ] be vnderstood in a larger sense , as meates are said to be sanctisied , by God's word , for man's food , and The vnbeleiving mate sanctified to the maried beleever , and if thereby be also vnderstood the sanctification , and approbation of the whole kinde . To the Assumption , and amplification thereof , it is answered . That place , Prov. 18. 18. doth not inioyne tho vse of a Lot ; Nor restraineth it to the ending of strife , Much lesse to the ending of great quarrells onely , For , ending strife is but one vse amongst many , Ioshua , 7. 14. Ionas 1. 7. 1. Sam. 14. 42. Levit. 16. 8 ; 9. So ●ebr . 6. 16. doth not she w that ending a Controversy is the onely lawfull vse of an Oath . For there be other vses of it , As , to give assurance of the performance of Covenants , and promises . For , what controversy was there betweene Ionathan , and David to be ended by Oath when they sware either to other ? I would thanke Mr. Gataker for mending mine argument , though there be not any great neede , if he had not put into his Assumption theis wordes [ In matters of weight ] for his owne purpose , as shall appeare , But to the matter . In mine vnderstanding , and meaning , the Proposition doth sufficiently expresse all that which mooveth Mr. Gataker to graunt it . Well , Then let vs consider his opposition made to the Assumption , and the amplification thereof . Doth Mr. Gataker imply a Lot not be sanctified , because ( as he saith now peremptorily ) it is not inioyned ? What! Is Recreation ( in generall ) inioyned by precpt , if not directly , yet ( at least ) by iust consequence , as Mr. Gataker in his allowance of lusorious Lotts , saith is graunteth by all , pag. 138 ? and is not so vsefull an Ordinance , as is a Lot , to end Controversies , inioyned by precept either directly , or by iust consequence ? Doth God more carefully provide for recreation , than for peace amongst his people ? But Mr. Gataker is not so peremptory in an other place , pag. 135. where he saith . The vse of Lotts is not simply commaunded , For. Prov. 18. 18. is Rather a permission than a precept , & Not so much a commaundement as an advise , & counsaile . I will come to an issue . If it will please M. G. to set downe his iust consequence to proove Recreation inioyned by precept , I will vndertake to sett downe as iust a consequence to proove , that a Lot to end a Controversy is likewise inioyned by precept . In meane while I cannot be perswaded that our God of peace , who commaundeth vs to seeke peace , and follow after it , and hath ordeined a Lot , wherein he is specially present by his immediate providence , to end controversies , which otherwise cannot be ended conveniently , doth leave vs at liberty in that case , to vse , or not to vse a Lot. But suppose the vse of a Lot be not ( thus ) inioyned , yet doth not Gods counsel ( which me thinkes is a cōmandemēt though it be said of mans consell that it is no commaundement ) sanctify it to be vsed to end controversies . This ( I thinke ) will not be denied : But it is denied That the vse of a Lot is restrained to end controversies , much lesse great quarrelles onely , and sundry instances are given of vsing Lotts to other endes than to end controversies . But all those Lotts were extraordinary . Therefore , whereas in the beginning of this answere where he would finde fault with mine argvment , he saith , That the vse of Lotts in play is ever to decide some question , or controversy , though a light one ( it is like ) yet a question , or controversy truely so tearmed , otherwise it were no Lot. If he meane a Lot in generall , then ( with his favour ) he forgetteth himselfe in saying Lotts , by him quoted were not to end controversies : If he speake of a Lot in play , as being an ordinary Lot , then he faileth in iudgment , In denying that the vse of ordinary Lotts ( whereof is the question ) is restrained to end controversies , and The instances which he giveth being extraordinary Lotts , are not to the point . Besides : The subiect-matter of an extraordinary Lot being by God's speciall direction , if it be lawfull , there may ( happily ) be no present controversy . Whereas , the subiect-matter of an ordinary Lot , being something questioned betweene man , & man , there may be a great controversy . I say , May be , For if it be well observed , in an ordinary Lot there is not alwayes a present controversy to be determined : But alwayes some question to be decided to prevent a controversy . As may appeare by Mr. Gatakers owne wordes , partly here , where he saith [ That there must be some question , or controversy , or else it is no Lot , ] but more evidently , where he saith : That the Lot vsed by the souldiers about Christ his garments , which he truly calleth a serious divisory Lot , was to prevent all contention , and strife , pag. 176. & 177. Such was the Lot also which was vsed about dividing , the Land of Promise , about which was no present controversy . For God , who would have no controversies , whould have also such things remooved which may cause , or iustly occasion controversies . Therefore Christ expounding the commaundement . Thou shallt not kill , forbiddeth wordes of provocation . About which ordinary Lot , God , who knoweth how ordinary or common , controversies , and the occasions thereof be , giveth direction in Prov. 18. 18. That which is said of an ordinary Lot may iustly be also said of an Oath , that the vse of it is sanctified to end controversies by present determination , or prevention . For , as it is true , that Heb. 6. 16. implieth , that Gods Oath to man is more inviolable , than an Oath from man to man , whereof onely , M. G. taketh knowledge , so it is true , that Heb. 6. 16. intimateth , That , as an Oath , for confirmation , is amongst men an end of all strife ▪ so Gods Oath for confirmation of his promise to Abraham , was to put the matter out of doubt , question ▪ or controversy ▪ Else , theis wordes ▪ An end of all strife ] were to no purpose . But that they were to the purpose by me vnderstood , appeareth in the 2 ▪ uext vers . where it is written . That God bound himselfe by Oath as to shew the stablenesse of his Counsell , so that the heires of promise might have strong cousolation . So that Gods Oath to Abraham tooke away doubting , questioning , & all strife that might be , not onely in Abrahās minde , but also in the mindes of the heires of promise . Therefore an Oath doth not onely end presēt cōtroversies , according to M. G. vnderstanding , but confirming a promise ▪ or covenant doth also ende a strife , though there be none present , when the Oath is given , to wit , by Prevention . Now let vs somewhat consider Mr. Gatakers purpose in putting into the Assumption , theis wordes ▪ [ In matters of weight . ▪ Forsooth , By denying the the same , to make way for light matters , and consequently for playing with Lottes . Because ( as he saith , pag. 130. ) they best agree with the nature of Lotts , that is , with vncertaine hazard . Surely , If Mr. Gataker had acknowledged God's speciall presence by his immediate Providence in a Lot , as being a Lot ordained by God , to end controversies , he would not have so written , but deemed weighty matters best agreeing with the nature of a Lot. It is true that a matter of lesse weight in it selfe may be the subiect-matter of a controversy , as a controversy may be among men , as well meane , as might , yin their state , as Mr. Gataker here saith pa. 137. For by mighty men ( as in Gen. 6. 4. so ) in Prov. 18. 18. are meant Men strong in their affections , so as the controverfy cannot be well ended without a Lot , whether the subiect-matter of the Controversy be of more , or lesse weight in it selfe ; so as there is a necessity that one or both parties be satisfied . For otherwise there may be a great quarrell about a matter of lesse weight . Neither doe I say , that onely great quarrells are to be ended , or prevented by a Lot , as Mr. Gataker denieth not , but some may . For ( as he saith truly , pag. 173. ) God speaketh in Prov. 18. 18. of contentions in generall . Here then we may enter into further consideration of that which Mr. Gataker writeth , pag. 135. to wit. That , by the force of our discourse against playing with a Lot , the onely lawfull vse is condemned● , and an vnlawfull vse is allowed in the roome thereof . What is that Onely lawfull vse of a Lot ? I can finde none other than The putting of that to a Lot which he calleth ( pag. 130. ) A matter of mere indifferency , that is , Such as is not materiall , whether a man doe , or omitt : Howsoever there may be a lawfull vse of a Lot about such a matter questioned to determine , or prevent a Controversy , yet I wonder that Mr. Gataker deemeth it that onely lawfull . Doth not he graunt , pag. 91. That Prayer specially applyed to a Lot may be conceived in weighty matters , as in the choise of a Magistrate , which is not a matter of mere indifferency , that is , such as is not materiall whether it be done or omitted . Did God specially appoint Lotts to be vsed about onely matters of weight ? and must man so farre swerve from Gods example as to strive onely about matters of such indifferency , and then to putt onely such , controverted , to the determination of a Lot ? So that I doubt not but that with found iudgment , and a cleare conscience not accusing me of not duely respecting the speciall Providence , of God by his immediate disposing of a Lot , I may affirme . That the more weighty the subiect-matter of a controversy is , the more iustifiable is the Controversy : and Be that matter of more or lesse weight , the greater the necessity of ending a Controversy is , the more iustifiable is the vse of a Lot. Is not then playing with a Lot an irreligious abusing of Gods Ordinance ? But ( faith Mr. Gataker glad of any thing to pleade for playing with a Lot. ) The vse of a Lot in play is ever to decide some question , or controversy truely so tearmed . If so , Then he might have called it a serious Lot , according to his doctrine , the lightnesse of the subiect-matter controverted , notwithstanding . But whereabout is that supposed Controversy ? Mr. Gataker in his written answere to my Dialogue , before mentioned , sayth . The Controversy tendeth to Victory , which till it be decided , there is a Controversy though a light one , yet a Controversy , truely so tearmed . But is that truely or worthily to be called A Victory , which falleth out by hap-hazard ( according to M. Gatakers esteeming a Lot ) without any desert ? But ( say I ) Is it not a tempting of God to put him , by his immediate Providence in disposing the Lot , to humour ( I say not , honour ) some of the vaine glorious fooles with supposed Victory , who make a pretended controversy there-about , whereas ( before they intended to play with a Lot ) there was none indeed ? Is this a Controversy truly so tearmed ? I need say no more , and therefore proceed to the last argumēt ( whereof , but part is mine ) It is this , pag. 173. That , which there is neither precept for , nor practise of , in Gods word , generall , or speciall , expressed or implied , that there is no warrant for in the word : But such is the vse of Lotts in game . For we reade in Scripture that Lotts were vsed , but in serious matters onely , both by Iewes , and Gentiles ; Neither is there any warrant in the Word for the ludicrous vse of them , by precept , or practise , generall , or speciall , expressed , or implied , There is no warrant therefore for lusorious Lotts in Gods word . The Proposition is vnsound . For an argument holdeth ( indeed ) from the Negative in matters of Faith , but not in matters of Fact. Mnch lesse may a man reason from a matter of Fact , to a matter of Right negatively . For many things are of ordinary vse , whereof there is no mention at all in Gods Word , which yet all generally allow , as sugar for sweetning , &c. Secondly ; An action may have warrant sufficiently by permission , without precept , or practise . For where God hath not limited the vse of any creature , or Ordinance , there he hath left the vse of it free : Where he hath not determined the Circumstances of any action , there , what he hath not prohibited , that he hath permitted . For this cause , in the point of Gods worship , the argument holdeth from the Negative , for the substance of it . Because God hath determined it : But in civil affaires , it will not holde from the Negative to disallow ought , because God hath not determined them . Mr. Gataker in his booke sheweth many instances of Lotts vsed both by Iewes , and Gentiles , and all in serious matters . Which intimateth to me , that they , by the light not onely of the Word , but of nature too , discerned , that Lotts are to be vsed onely in serious matters . O let vs take heed how we put out so great light . But let vs consider his answere , which is onely to the Proposition , though I have already confuted many principall parts thereof . In my Dialogue to shew that the Spirit sometime reasoneth from a matter of Fact to a matter of right , negatively , I quote theis Scriptures , Iohn 8. 39. 40. 1. Cor. 11. 16. The wordes of the former be theis , Yee goe about to kill me , a man that hath tolde you the truth ; This did not Abraham . The argument is this Abraham did not kill any that tolde him the truth , Therefore yee ought not goe about to kill me , if yee would be sonnes of Abraham . This is Christ his Logicke , wherewith I dare finde no fault : Neither doth Mr. Gataker . For he saith nothing to it , because the Printer putteth for vers . 40. the 48. vers . wherewith Mr. Gataker maketh pastime , but I will let passe time now to take further knowledge of it . Of the other quotation the wordes be theis . We have no such custome , nor the Churches of God. The consequent implied is . Therefore nomen ought not to pray vncovered . Herevnto Mr. Gataker answereth indeed , but so , that he doth not deny that Paul argueth negatively from a matter of Fact to a matter of Right . Which is all that I intended by the quotation , and not , to imagine this argument . The Churches of God , and faithfull men doe not vse Lotts in gaming ▪ Therefore such gaming is vnlawfull . So that I neede not herein reply vpon Mr. Gataker , I onely wonder that he saith . The vse of Lotts in games hath beene common in the Churches of God. What! In the publicke Assemblies ? as was the fault of women their heads vncovered in the Church at Corinth ? But Mr. Gataker in this answer speaketh of things merely naturall , or civill , as sweetning with sugar , &c. I will not now indeavour to proove that in the Word there is matter of iust consequence either generall , or implied ( which is a part of the proposition ) to allow as well sweetning with sugar , &c. as Recreation in generall , and therefore they may be lawfull though they be not mentioned in the Word . But suppose M. Gatakers axiome holdeth in them , what is that to Lotts , wherein is the Name of God by his immediate providence , and the vse whereof is limited to ende serious controversies ? In regard whereof doubt I not but an argument concerning the vse of them , may holde from the Negative in matter of Fact , as well as in matter of Faith , or of the point of Gods worship for the substance of it . For I presume that as Abraham would not , if he had had occasion , as he did not , kill a man that tolde him the truth : so that all who feared God , and knew the nature , and vse of a Lot , would not , as they did not , vse a Lot in game . Secondly . Why may not there be for a thing permitted , some precept in the Word , generall , or implied ? The permission of any thing must be in the Word , either expresse or by iust consequence , and then the thing so permitted is indifferent . But Mr. Gataker reconsileth theis two axiomes [ Every action is indifferent , ] & [ No action is indifferent , ] thus , Every naked and bare action simply conceived , is indifferent : But , No action cladde with his particular circumstances , is indifferent , pag. 94. So that , he concludeth it to be most true , That no particular morall action , or No action of the reasonable creature , proceeding from reason , can possibly be so indifferent , but it must of necessity , be either conformable to the rules of Gods holy word , or disconformable therevnto , pag. 95. Theis things , especially theis wordes ( Rules of Gods Word , considered , ) I may say , that howsoever a naked indifferent thing be by permission , yet a clothed indifferent thing , if lawfull , is by precept , or rule , as well as Mr. Gataker saith , Recreation in generall , is both by permission , and by precept , if not expresly , yet by iust consequence pag. 138. Doth then Mr. Gataker make permission a iust exception against the Proposition ? Touching his proofe that Permission is a sufficient warrant : I first would know what ordinance of God that is , which hath not some limited , or appointed vse thereof . I am sure , and have shewed , that Gods ordinance touching a Lot , hath . Secondly , I greive to observe what a gappe Mr. Gataker hath , by this doctrine , opened to Licentiousnesse . What! may man disposed to finne , imploy any creature , whose vfe God hath not limited , to what vse he will ? No ; For here is to be vnderstood that exception which is expressed in the next part of the reason touching circumstances , viz [ Any vse , but that which is prohibited ] Howsoever I could demurre the revpon , especially if an expresse prohibition be vnderstood , yet herein I will be silent having enough graunted me . For the vse of Lotts in game is prohibited by iust consequences , as I have demonstrated . For the better vnderstanding of the 2. part of the reason , ( hasting to an end ) I onely desire an answere to this question . Is any vse of a Lot lawfull where the circumstances of Time , Place , and Persons be not determined ? If Mr. Gataker except an extraordinary vse , I may as well except the lusorious vse of Lotts , In answere to the exemplification of this reason , graunting that an argument holdeth from the Negative for the substance of Gods Worshippe , I yet make this Quaere . Whether , onely because God hath determined it ? For in those places of Ieremy , God doth blame his people onely for vsing a worship [ which he commaunded not ] , without any intimation that he prescribed his owne worship . To the same purpose writeth Paul to the Colossians against traditions of men , and will-worship , not for Mr. Gatakers cause , but because in so worshipping they held not the Head , ver . 19. which is Christ , King of his Church teaching , and governing the same in all things . But in Deut. Mr. Gatakers cause is implied . It is true , that there God forbiddeth his people to inquire how other nations served their Gods , and sendeth them to his word to observe the same , without putting anything to , or taking out from the same . Surely , I should not gather from hence Mr. Gatakers cause , as being the onely cause ; Because I feare it would incourage Papists in their superstitious rites , and ceremonies called Circumstances , though , indeed , parts of the substance of Gods outward worship . For they are to ready to take holde thereof and say God hath determined nothing touching theis supposed Circumstances , & they are not against the word of God , therefore they are permitted , and so warranted . But I should gather from that , and the other places ( I thinke directly , and not auckwardly ) this conclusion . Because all things in , & vnto the service of God ought to be precisely according to Gods Will revealed in his word , therefore whatsoever is not commaunded ought not to be . And the rather ( God being jealous ) because of th● meaning of the fringes vpon the Israëlites their garments , to witt , Tha● yee may remember all the Commaunde ▪ ments of the Lord , and doe them , and that yee seeke not after your owne heart , nor , after your owne eyes , after which yee goe ● whoring . To the last I answere . That a Lot is no more a Civill affaire , than is an Oath , though it , ( as is an Oath , ) be vsed in Civill affaires . And lastly , I affirme againe , that God hath determined the vse of a Lot to determine controversies , so as , without Gods speciall appointment , ( which is not now to be expected , ) it cannot be lawfully vsed to any other purpose ; Therefore an argument from the Negative will holde by Mr. Gatakers rule , to disallow the vse of any other Lot , as well lusorious , as divinatory . Thus having answered Mr. Gatakers reasons inducing him to allow Lusorious Lotts as not evill in themselves , and remooved Mr. Gatakers answeres to mine arguments , I may more confidently holde mine opinion , which Mr. Dudley Fennor ( of reverend memory ) his godly treatise of Recreations hath taught me ▪ to witt , That Tables , and Cardes , as well as Dice , and all other games consisting in cha●nce , ( wherein there is vse of a Lot ) are vtterly vnl●wfull . ERRATA . Pag. 6. Godlesse re●d God lesse ▪ Pag. 13. fome some . Pag. 31. ye the : Pag. 34. nor not . Pag. 42. with what . Pag. 46. enoug euough . Pag. 63. with what . ●ag . 75. observed observed . ●ag . 82. recreare recreate ●●g . 86. bete red bettered . ●●g . 101 : thei these . ●ag . 103. I serves It serves . Pag. 114. it is . Pag. 127. might●y mighty , Pag. 128. condemneth condemned . Pardon the rest , both literall and punctuall ▪ Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A03243-e280 Rom. 3. 7. 1. Cor. 6. 12. 1. Cor. 8. 9. 1. Tit. 5. 3. Phil. 1. 5. 1. Cor. 8 10. 13. Psal . 50. 16. 17. Rom. 13 4. 33. H. 8. c. 9. ● . E. 6. c. 25. Notes for div A03243-e440 Ioh. 8. 40. 1. Cor. 11. 15. 1. 2. 3. 1. 2. 3. Notes for div A03243-e1840 2. Tim. 3. 4. Ionah . 1. 7. 10 1. 1 ▪ 2. 4. Iudg. 6 ▪ 31. ●2 . Esa . 5. 18 1. ● . 3 ▪ Act. 15. 28. 29. Act. 20. 32. 2. Tim ▪ 2. 7. Notes for div A03243-e3020 Ezek. 36 31. Math. ● . 16. Iohn . 5. 21. Math. 3. 10. M. G. 1. I. B. 1. M. G. 2. I. B. 2 ▪ Prou. 16 3● . 1. Sam. 14. 41 ▪ M. G. I. B ▪ M. G. 3. I. B. 3. 1. 2. Rom. 14 23. M. G. 4. I. B. 4. 1. Pet. 2. 16. M. G. S. I. B. S. M. G. 6. 1. 2. 3. Rom. 14. 23. I. B. ● . Pro. 10. 19. 1. Psal . 19. ● . 2. Tim. 3. 15. 16. 17. Iohn . 3. 21. Is a. 8. 20. Num. 25 39. 1. ● . 3. Deut. 10 12. 4. Rom. 14 23. Rom. 8. 7. Acts. 15 24. 2. 3 ▪ Notes for div A03243-e5930 Dialog . Mal. 6. 7 Exo. 20. 7. Isa . 29. 13. Ier. 4. 2. Prov. 16 33. Acts. 1. 14. 26. Aunsw . pa. 149. Reply 1. 1. 1. Sermo quidam Dialog . Psal . 78. 18. ●9 . Isa . 7. 12 Math. 4. 6. 7. Aunsw . Reply 2. Dialog . Mat. 21. 12. 13. Numb . 26. 5● . Prov. 18. 18. Heb : 6 ▪ 16. Auns● . 1. Sam. 20. 16. 17. 42. Reply ● . Psal . 34 ▪ 14. Math. 5. 21. 22. pa , 17● . Dial. 4 ▪ Aunsw . 2. Ier. 7. 31 & 19. 5. Col. 2. 22 23. Deu. 12 30. 31. 32 Reply 4. 2. 1. ● . Exo. 20. 5. Num. 15 39.