A Just Defense of Certain Passages, Part 3 · Argument 4
The fourth Argument.
I. B.
THat which there is neither precept for, nor practise of in Gods word, generall or speciall, expresse or implyed, that there is no warrant for in the Word.
But such is the vse of Lots in game: for we readeI. B. Dialogue, Ground 1. not in Scripture that Lots were vsed but in serious matters onelyonly, both by Iewes and Gentiles: bEastie hist. of Gosp. Reas. 2.neither is there any warrant in the Word for the ludicrous vse of them by precept, or practise, generall or speciall, expresse or implyed.
There is no warrant therefore for lusorie Lots in Gods word: and so consequently they are vnwarrantable.
This is like Ambroses argument against merryT. G. Answ. Of Lots, chap. 7. Sect. 16. iests; cIoca videntur dulcia & suavia, cùm tamen à Christiana regula sint aliena: non enim in divinis literis invenitur, quemadmodum ea debeant, usurpari. Ambros. offic. l. 1. c. 23.We reade nothing of them in Scripture: therefore they are not to be allowed. Which yet is no good kinde of reasoning. The consequence of his Enthymem, and the Proposition likewise of their Syllogisme is vnsound.
For first an Argument holdeth indeed from the negatiue in matter of Faith, but not in matter of Fact: as to say, dHebr. 1. 4, 5. Quod non lego, non credo. foreign, &c. Cyrill …. 4. Sine au oritate Scripturarū garrulitas nō habet fide. Hierō ad Tit. c. 1. Quod de Scripturis autoritatē non habet, eadē facilitate cōtemnitur qua probatur. Idem in Mat c. 23. Sancta Scriptura doctrinae nostrae regulam sigit. Aug. de bon. vid. c. 1. In bis quae apertè posita sunt in Scriptura, inveniuntur omnia illa quae continent fidem moresque vivendi. Idem de doctr. Christ. l. 2. c. 9. Cùm hoc (Euangelium) credimus, nihil desideramus vltra credere: hoc enim priùs credimus, non esse quod ultra credere debeamus. Tertull. in praescript.such a thing is not expressed or reuealed in the word, therefore it is no matter of Faith, nor such as a man is necessarily bound to beleeue: but not to say, eScriptura multa dissimulat, multa tacitè praeterit, &c. Aug de nat. & grat. contr. Pelag. c. 37. & 38. & de mend. ud Consent. c. 10.such a thing is not mentioned or related in Scripture, therefore it was not done, or it neuer was: as for example, fGen. 4. 17.Cain hath but one sonne mentioned by Moses, therefore he had no more sonnes or children but him. Much lesse may a man reason gA facto ad jus: à non fieri ad non licere.from matter of Fact to matter of Right, as to say, such or such a thing we neuer reade in the word to hauehave beene done, and therefore it may not be done. For how many things are there whereof there is no example in Gods word, and yet the vse of them is generally allowed as lawfull and good? Many things there are whereof no precedent of the vse of them but in some one kinde onelyonly, which yet may be vsed also vntounto others. No vse of butter recorded in the word but for food onelyonly: may it not therefore be vsed also for physicke? Yea many things there are of ordinarie vse, whereof there is no mention at all in Gods word, which yet all generally allow: as sugar for sweetning, printing of books, shooting in guns, and the like, which all by this argument are vtterly condemned; or if they be iustified, then the grounds of it faile.
Secondly, an Action may hauehave hVoluntas Dei dicitur praeceptio, prohibitio, consilium, permissio. Lomb. sent. l. 1. d. 45. G.warrant sufficient 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 acton, there what he hath not prohibited, that hath he permitted, and that is warrant sufficient for it. Where therefore circumstances are determined, the argument holdeth from the negatiue to make that vnwarrantable, that is not either expresly or by good consequence inioyned. But where they are not determined, the argument is strong enough from the negatiue to proue that warrantable that is not either expresly or by iust consequence prohibited.
For this cause in the point of Gods worship the argument holdeth iIer. 7. 31. & 19. 5. Coloss. 2. 22, 23.from the negatiue for the substance of it, because kDeut. 12. 30, 31, 32.God hath determined it. But in ciuill affaires it will not hold from the negatiue to disallow ought; because God hath not so determined them. Else what warrant is there for boules, for tennis, for foot-ball, for chesse, &c. which yet no man disalloweth? Let one example serue for all to shew the weaknesse of this kinde of arguing. There is neither precept, nor practise, (l1 Sam. 14 31, 10 35. at least allowed or allowable) of eating bloud in Scripture: therefore a man may not eat a blacke pudding. In which conclusion I assure my selfe these Authors will not accord with the Familists and new Sectaries. And yet may they say more against the one, than these can any of them against the other. For the one is found expresly forbidden both in the old and new Testament both mGen. 9. 4.before the Law, nLev. 7. 26, …7. & 17. 10, to 15. Deut. 12. 16, 23, 24, 25. & 15. 23.vnderunder the Law, and oAct. 15 20, 29.after the Law, (to omit what pforeign. Clem. constit. apost. l. 6. c. 12. foreign. Canon. Apost. 62. foreign. Greg. Naz. de pasch. In Christo omnia revocantur ad initium, &c. c…borum libertas, & sanguinis solius abstinentia, sicut ab initio fuit. Tertull. de mon…gam. Sacra Scriptura nobis praecipit, ut abstineamus à sanguine & suffocato: meritò igitur damnamus … qui cuiuscunque animalis sanguinem arte aliqua condiunt, & sic comedunt. Qui hoc secerit, Clericus deponatur, Laicus excommunicetur. Synod. 6. can. 67. Qui suffecatum aut sanguinem manducarit, biberitve, 40. dies poeniteat. Greg. 3. pa…itent. c. 29.sundry of the Ancients hauehave held of it) but the other no where in neither. And if qGalat. 5. 1.Christian liberty notwithstanding bought with the bloud of Christ, giuegive Gods children a free vse of the one, how much more then of the other. If rAct. 10. 13, 14, 15. Rom. 14. 14. Tit. 1. 15.it loose them there, where they were bound before; sure it bindeth them not there, where they were free before.
Mr. G. in his booke sheweth many instances of LotsI. B. Reply. vsed both by Iewes and Gentiles, and all in serious matters. Which intimateth to me, that they by the light not onelyonly of the word, but of Nature too discerned, that Lots are to be vsed onelyonly in serious matters. O let vsus take heed how we put out so great light.
True: out of the word I relate many instances of T. G. Reioind.Lots vsed in serious matters both by Iewes and Gentiles: nor doe I finde any lusorious Lots mentioned there to hauehave beene vsed by either. Gods word dealeth most with serious, not with lusorious affaires. Nor doth the Spirit of God busie it selfe to tell vsus what sports and pastimes men did vse in those daies. But doth it follow therfore that both Iewes & Gentiles did by the light both of Gods word and Nature discerne that they might not be vsed in any other affaires than such? Nothing lesse. For what an infinite number of examples are there, Of Lots, Chap. 6. Sect. 1. & 2.whereof not a few Mr. B. might hauehave found also in my Booke, of Lots vsed in sport and recreation, whereof in that regard neither Iew nor Gentile that Mr. B. can shew, euer made scruple? Which doth euidently rather infer the contrary to that that Mr. B. here affirmeth. But to quit Mr. Bs. close, If a man should say to Mr. B. We reade of many garments in Scriptures vsed both by Jewes and Gentiles: But we reade of none that euer wore band or cuffs; which intimateth to me, that it is by the light both of Gods word and Nature too, discerned that such are not to be worne: O take heed, Mr. B. how you neglect this light, and doe that that you hauehave no warrant for, in wearing such. I suppose that euen Mr. B. himselfe would deeme him to be ridiculous, that should so argue. I say nothing more, but leaue the application either to Mr. B. himselfe or any other. OnelyOnly I adde, that there is bMagno contu magnas nugas agere. Iul. Scal de subtil Et trisles meptias ut Caecilius, eoque magis ridiculas, habere, ut Sen. ep. 113.nothing more vnsauoury than to trisle so seriously.
I. B.
But let vsus consider his answer, which is onelyonly to the Proposition, though I hauehave already confuted many principall parts thereof.
T. G.
He may doe well to shew what parts and where. For I know not, for my part, what he hath as yet either confuted or confirmed.
Yet a little, by his leaue, to the Assumption; though not his, yet Mr. Easties, ioyned here with his; and by him acknowledged: It is this in effect; There is not any warrant in the word for the ludicrous vse of Lots either by precept or practise, generall or speciall, expressed or implied. Now if we beleeue Mr. B. this is a very presumptuous Assertion, and such as no man may auow, vnlesse he had a memorie able to containe eueryevery sentence of Scripture, and an vnderstanding so absolute, as to know eueryevery consequent that might be deduced and drawne from each of them. And therefore Mr. E. or Mr. B. ought to hauehave said, There is no such warrant, by precept or practise, so far as I know, or to my best remembrance. And thus might Mr. G. with a knife lent him by Mr. B. cut a sunder this cNodu… Gordius, a… Gordianus: à Gordio Midae patre, ut Curt. de gest. Alex. lib. 3. non à Gordiano nescio quo.Gordians knot, to vse Mr. Bs. words, and so let the deniall of the Proposition alone. But we will not take all aduantages that Mr. Bs. offers may afford.
I. B.
In my Dialogue, to shew that the Spirit sometime reasoneth from a matter of fact to a matter of right negatiuely, I quote these Scriptures, Ioh. 8. 39, 40. 1 Cor. 11. 16. The words of the former are these; Yee goe about to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth: This did not Abraham. The Argument is this: Abraham did not kill any that told him the truth: Therefore yee ought not to goe about to kill mee, if yee would be the sonnes of Abraham. This is Christs Logick, wherewith I dare finde no fault. Neither doth Mr. G. For he saith nothing to it, because the Printer putteth for vers. 40. the 48. vers. wherewith Mr. G. maketh pastime. But I will let passe time now to take further knowledge of it.
T. G.
Mr. Bs. Proposition in truth is this: That which there is no example of in Gods word is not warrantable by it. This to make good, he setteth against his first ground in the margent, a quotation of those two places. The Printer, it seemeth, had misprinted the one, and directed me to a wrong place, where finding nothing that caried any the least semblance of confirmation for the Point propounded, it may be, I say, that dThere needs a Delian diver. A Prouerbe vsed by either Crates or Socrates, vpō view of an obscure discourse. foreign. Laert. in Heraclit.opus est Delio natatore, to fetch ought out of those words; or that I am no eOne famous for arreading of riddles. Hinc ille apud Terent. Andr. 1. 2. Davus sum, non Oedipus.Oedipus to assoile Mr. Bs. riddle, or some such like, (for I hauehave no copie now by me of that writing, nor had Mr. B. (I will not say, the honestie, but) that care of his word, that he should hauehave had, to returne me either answer, or it againe) and that is all the pastime that Mr. B. here saith, I make with it. He should hauehave done well to hauehave set downe my words, whereby it might hauehave appeared, whether I had vsed any other termes therein, than might well stand with due reuerence and regard to him. In which kinde, whether either in that writing, or in my Booke, after it published, I hauehave beene faulty, I appeale to any that hauehave seene the one, and to all that may, if they will, take a view of the other.
But for the thing it selfe, how I should hauehave knowne what it was that was intended, vnlesse it were by fforeign. Euripid. Hippol. Non sum divinus. Martial.diuination; or how should I hauehave answered it, before I knew what was intended, vnlesse it had beene by prophecie, (as he said sometime that gMaster of Pauls Schoole in Rich. 3. his time. Tho. More story.a proclamation was penned) I know not. But Mr. B. dealeth herein as Bellarmine is wont, who when he hath produced a testimonie out of some new-found, and it may be new-coined Author, that hath not beene long abroad; and those he dealeth with, it is like, neuer so much as once heard of; hAd haec testimonia neque respondent adversarij, neque respondere aliquid possunt. Bellar. de Euchar. l. 2. c. 19. &c. 21.and to this, saith he, the Heretikes giuegive no answer at all. But now we know what it is that Mr. B. would hauehave, he shall not be long without an Answer. Where to omit that Mr. B. speaketh, as if our Sauiour CHRIST had a Logick by himselfe, or would either here or elsewhere teach vsus a new Logick, or another Logick, than I say not Aristotle the Heathen, but Ramus and other Christian Logicians hauehave taught: when as indeed he wrongeth our Sauiour in deducing from his words that which they will not beare, yea if they should beare, he that is iIohn 14. 6.Truth it selfe, should be contrary to himselfe. Our Sauiour, as it is apparent, reasoneth on this manner; They that doe such wicked works as Abraham neuer did, nor would euer hauehave done, (for euen this also Mr. B. himselfe hereafter acknowledgeth to be intimated; which if it had here beene mentioned, would hauehave marred all) shew themselues to be such as are no children of Abraham: But you doe such wicked works as Abraham neuer did, nor would euer hauehave done: for you offer to kill me for telling the truth: which Abraham would not hauehave done:
Therefore you shew your selues thereby to be none of his children. So Piscator analysing and explicating the place:
kPiscat. in Ioan. 8.The Lord thus conuinceth them from their doings: If yee were Abrahams sonnes, you would doe Abrahams works; that is, such as he did, to wit, good. But you doe not Abrahams works, that is, such as he did, to wit, good: and I instance in one, for you seeke to slay me that hauehave deserued well of you. Therefore you are not Abrahams sonnes.
And it is well obserued by Caluin, that not all things simply that Abraham did or did not, but lQuid enim praecipuè in Abraham laudatur nisi obedientia fidei? Haec igitur discriminis nota est, quoties ab extrancis discernere oportet ejus filios. Calvin. in Ioan. 8.those for which he is specially commended, are notes to distinguish the children of Abraham from others. Now obserue but, I beseech you, what absurd, if not Logick, yet deductions and consequences Mr. B. would fasten vponupon our Sauiour. For if this place helpe Mr. Bs. cause, or doe proue that a man may reason in the point now controuersed, from matter of fact to matter of right, this must be the Argument:
That which Abraham did not, no Christian man may doe: But Abraham neuer plaied at Cards, or Abraham neuer vsed a sporting Lot: Therefore no Christian man may doe either.
Or put we some other Assumption to the former Proposition:
But Abraham went not in doublet or hose: or, Abraham wore not bands and cuffs: or, Abraham neuer walkt London streets, &c. Therefore no Christian man may warrantably doe any of these.
Yea to goe a little further: if we should stretch, as Mr. B. doth, the words of our Sauiour, we might thus reason:
They that doe not as Abraham did, are none of Abrahams children: But they that denie not their wiues, doe not as *Genes. 12. 13, 18. & 20. 2, 5.Abraham did: Therefore they that deny not their wiues, are not Abrahams children.
Nor is this to controll our Sauiours Logick, but to shew, what manner of Logick Mr. B. would either teach our Sauiour, or make vsus beleeue that our Sauiour vsed. In a word, here is the proofe of Mr. Bs. Proposition:
Our Sauiour proueth the Iewes not to be the children of Abraham, because they would hauehave killed him, which Abraham did not: Therefore whatsoeuer there is no example for in Gods word, is vnwarrantable.
But let vsus see whether his next quotation stand him in any better steed.
I. B.
Of the other quotation the words be these: We hauehave no custome, nor the Churches of God.
The consequent implied is: Therefore women ought not to pray vncouered. Hereunto Mr. G. answereth indeed, but so, that he doth not deny that Paul argueth negatiuely 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 Lots in gaming. Therefore such gaming is vnlawfull.
T. G.
Mr. B•. would make his Reader beleeue here that Mr. B. had laid this for a ground in his Booke, that from matter of fact a man might reason in some case to matter of right; (which yet would doe him as much good for the proofe of his Proposition, if it were granted him, as a little water would in his shooe) and that for proofe thereof Mr. B. hauing produced this place, Mr. G. in his writing had granted the same; (for so he would seeme to imply, when he saith, Mr. G. doth not deny it) whereas indeed all this is but mFictio juris, or giuing of Colours to hauehave matter to worke vponupon. A course vsuall in legall proceedings. See Doctor & Student, lib. 2. c. 53.a fiction, and a meere made matter. For howsoeuer in mine answer to the entire Argument, peeced vp partly out of Mr. B. and partly out of Mr. Eastie, I speake of such arguing, yet in Mr. Bs. Dialogue there is no mention at all of it. But Mr. Bs. Proposition is, or must be, to make vp his Conclusion, That which there is no example of in Gods word, is vnlawfull. Now how doe the Apostles words proue this? Or what other Argument to further Mr. Bs. cause could be framed out of them, but such as is aboue by him mentioned, and I supposed he would hauehave made? But since he waiueth that, let vsus see how it will proue that that it should. n1 Cor. 11. 16.It is not the custome, saith the Apostle, of Christians, to be contentious; as oChrysostom. Morton.some expound it; or as pTertullian. Theodoret. Hervaeus qui Anselmi nomine prostat. Lyran. Hugo Cardin. Heming.others, It is not a custome among Christians, for women to be vnueiled. Therefore none ought to be such, to wit, contentious: or none ought to doe so, that is, bring in such new fashions, as are both vndecent, and vnusuall. Will it now follow hence, that because the Apostle either condemneth contentiousnesse, because qUtrum que conjungunt Theophylact. Oecumen. Piscator. Aretius.it is not the manner of Christians to be contentious: or womens appearing in the publike congregation vnueiled, because it was contrary to the custome of the Christian Churches; and rforeign. Greg. Naz. foreign. Faciat quisque, quod in ea Ecclesia, in quam venit, invenerit: duminodo nihil contra fidem aut mores fiat. Ipsa quippe mutatio consuetudinis etiam quae adjuvat utilitate, novitate perturbat. Quapropter quae utilis non est, perturbatione infructu…sa consequenter …oxia est. Aug. epist. 118. …. 6.to breake setled order in such things is not allowable: Will i…, I say, follow hence therefore, that nothing is warrantable, whereof no example is in the word? If it doe not, either let Mr. B. put it out of his Booke, or else forbeare at least to vrge it.
I. B.
So that I need not herein reply vponupon Mr. G.
T. G.
No: but he hath need to proue his Proposition, vnlesse he will hauehave vsus to take it vponupon his word.
I. B.
I onelyonly wonder that he saith: The vse of Lots in games hath beene common in the Churches of God. What? In the publike assemblies? as was the fault of women their heads vncouered in the Church at Corinth?
T. G.
To put Mr. B. out of his wonderment; (you see how faine he would be quarrelling) I meane by the Churches of God, the whole multitude of men professing the faith of Christ, distinguished into particular Churches or Congregations, consisting of diuers housholds and persons: among whom these lusorious Lots hath beene frequent and ordinary in all ages, nor hath there beene scruple made of them till of very late times. And by Mr. Bs. leaue, the Apostle vnderstandeth no other Churches, when he saith, sTum nos Christi Apostoli, tum Christiani Deum Patrē in Christo colentes. Morton.The Churches of God hauehave no such custome. But this is but tforeign. Greg. Naz. monod.shooting beside the marke.
I. B.
But Mr. G. in this answer speaketh of things meerely naturall or ciuill, as sweetning with sugar, &c.
T. G.
Name all, good Mr. B. There is besides, printing of Bookes, and shooting in guns, playing at boules, tennis, chesse, foot-ball, &c. against which the Argument will hold as well as against either Cards or Tables.
And must not warrant be had as well for ciuill actions as for others? Or is not recreation, whereof we now dispute, a ciuill thing? Or must warrant be had by some example out of the word for Cards and Dice, more than for Chesse, or else they are in that regard vnlawfull?
I might here exclaime, as Mr. B. vseth to doe, yea and that with better ground than Mr. B. so oft doth; Oh what a wide gap doth Mr. B. open here to licentiousnesse, when he implieth that for actions meerely naturall or ciuill, there needs no warrant at all be had out of Gods word! It grieueth my soule to see what will ensue hereupon. For now will vngodly men, when they are reproued for ought amisse in the course of their life and conuersation, and required to shew what warrant they hauehave for it, be ready to say, These are but things meerely either naturall or ciuill: and therefore we need not care whether we hauehave any warrant out of Gods word for them or no. And either Mr. B. must imply no lesse, or else his exception is idle, and of no vse.
I. B.
I will not endeuour to proue, 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.
T. G.
Here Mr. B. telleth vsus, that he will not endeuour to proue that which he need not, because it is not in question: and withall *Hoc ipsum evertit quod est confirmandum; confirmat idipsum quod est diluendum. Quintil. instit. l. 9. c. 2.in stead of prouing what he should proue, he doth vtterly himselfe ouerthrow it.
That that he saith he will not endeuour to proue, is not at all questioned. For the entire Proposition made vp out of Mr. Eastie and him doth not say, that whatsoeuer thing hath no allowance from Gods word is vnlawfull: but, whatsoeuer hath not allowance either by precept or practise in Gods word is vnlawfull. In neither kinde whereof, I suppose, Mr. B. can finde ought touching diuers of the particulars before mentioned, which yet he denieth not to be lawfull.
That hee ouerthroweth directly that that hee should proue, is apparent. For his Proposition is this; Whatsoeuer there is no example of in Gods word, is vnwarrantable: And yet here he saith, that some things may be lawfull, though they be not mentioned in Gods word. What is this but a direct contradiction of that?
I. B.
But suppose Mr. Gs. Axiome holdeth in them: what is that to Lots, wherein is the Name of God by his immediate prouidence, and the vse whereof is limited, to end serious controuersies? In regard whereof doubt I not, but an Argument concerning the vse of them may hold from the negatiue 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 told him the truth: so that all that feared God, and knew the nature and vse of a Lot, would not, as they did not, vse a Lot in game.
T. G.
If Mr. Gs. Axiome hold in any, your Proposition is infringed. Any one particular denied, ouerthroweth an affirmatiue generall. Let his Axiome alone therefore, and proue your Proposition. But that you will neuer be able to doe: and doe wisely therefore to let it alone.
Yea but if you will suppose and take that for granted, which was the ground of Mr. B. his first Argument, and without which neuer an one of them can subsist, then Mr. B. presumeth that Abraham would not hauehave plaied at Cards or Dice, nor no other godly man: And what then? Why? Then we should hauehave had no example either of Iew or Gentile recorded in Scripture that had done so. And consequently, (for that is the Proposition in Question) Nothing is warrantable, whereof there is no example in the word. Here is a deale of xArena fine calce. Quod de Senc… scriptis C. Caligula. Sueton. Caio c. 53.loose sand without ought to binde it together. The maine matter in Question still begged, and yet nothing inferred out of it, that is ought to Mr. Bs. Argument. No due proceeding in ought, onelyonly yforeign. Plut. adv. Stoic. foreign (an foreign) foreign. Hesych.a wheeling round about with a returne to the old principle, of an immediate prouidence in eueryevery Lot, the ground of the first Argument: For that commeth in still to helpe at a dead lift, and is as good as the Tragoedians their zforeign. Lucian. Philops. vel foreign. Idem de sect. foreign. Plato Cra…yl. Vt Tragici poetae, quum explicare argumenti exitū non potestis, confugitis ad Deum. Cic. de nat. Deor. l. 1.God in an Engine, that serued to helpe out still when they were at a stresse.
I. B.
Secondly, why may there not 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. G. reconcileth these two Axiomes, [EueryEvery Action is indifferent] and [No Action is indifferent] thus, EueryEvery naked and bare Action simply conceiued, is indifferent: But no action clad with his particular circumstances is indifferent, p. 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 necessitie be either conformable to the rules of Gods holy word, or disconformable thereunto, p. 95. These things, especially these words (rules of Gods word) considered, I may say, that howsoeuer a naked indifferent thing be by permission, yet a clothed indifferent thing, if lawfull, is by precept, or rule, as well as Mr. G. saith, Recreation in generall is both by permission and by precept, if not expresly yet by iust consequence p. 138. Doth then Mr. G. make permission a iust exception against the Proposition?
T. G.
Mr. B. hauing in stead of prouing it ouerthrowne his owne Proposition: now commeth to try, if he can yet make good Mr. Easties.
A thing may be warranted, say I, though neither by precept or practise, yet by permission.
Against this Mr. B. obiecteth, that for a thing permitted some precept may be. I answer.
1. Vnlesse he say, must be, he saith nothing; because he saith nothing to the purpose.
2. If there be a precept for ought, so farre forth it is not barely permitted: for where permission is, aLibera res relinquitur. Calvin. in 1 Cor. 7. Huc illud in Iure Canonico, Quod licet, non praecipitur. Zachar. Ferrer. addit. ad Abbat. de Cohab. Cler. & mul.the thing is left free.
Yea but Mr. G. saith, that recreation is warrantable both by permission and by precept. True by precept in some cases, by permission in other: or by precept in generall, by permission in particular, for balls or bowles, and the like.
Yea but againe Mr. G. saith, (to let the rest passe of Mr. Bs. bScopae dissolutae. Cic. de orat. perfect.Besomes here without bands) that eueryevery thing indifferent, is lawfull, if by rule, and consequently, if you giuegive Mr. B. leaue to expound it as he list, by precept. Let me minde Mr. B. what before he told vsus, it is cMaledicta glossa quae corrumpit textum.a cursed glosse that corrupteth the Text. Doth eueryevery Rule necessarily imply a precept? Then belike of things Indifferent, that is, (not, of things neither good nor bad; in which sense my former words cited by Mr. B. iumbling things heere together, nothing to the purpose, are to be vnderstood; but) of things neither inioyned nor inhibited, no Rules can be giuen. But let vsus try (though it be too palpable) the truth hereof. When the Apostle saith, d1 Cor. 7. 39.A woman is free to marry againe if her husband be deceased. Is it not a Rule? Or is it therefore a precept? when he saith, e1 Cor. 10. 27.If an infidell inuiteth you, you may goe if you will: for fIre vel non ireliberum vobis relinquo. Morton.that is also implied: and, when you are there, you may eat of all that is set before you without scruple of conscience. Are not these Rules, and yet no precepts? If they bee, by Mr. Bs. owne grant, Mr. Gs. exception against Mr. Easties proposition standeth good, and the proposition consequently is vnsound.
T. G.
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. B.
That Gods permission is a sufficient warrant, he that requireth to hauehave it proued may as well require it to be proued, that Gods word is a good warrant. Idle had the Apostle beene if in so weighty affaires being craued his aduice, he should hauehave deliuered that that would not warrant those things that he gaue way for, yea and iustified them as free from sinne. g1 Cor. 7. 28.If she marry, saith he, she sinneth not. And he that denieth it, may as well hMero meridie si dixerit illi tenebras esse, credet. Petron. satyr.deny that the Sunne is vp at high-noone.
His friuolous question therefore is to no purpose in the world: For what if God hath by certaine generall Rules restrained in some kindes and cases the vse of his ordinances: doth it follow therefore that there is nothing in them left free? God hath restrained Recreation by such Rules as by way of Caution are in my Booke of Lots iOf Lots Ch. 8.deliuered. Doth it follow therefore that it is not free for men to recreate themselues either with bowles, or with coites, whether they themselues will, and to make bowles indifferently either of beech or of brasil, and coites either of tile sherds or of horse-shooes. For, I hope, none of all these may be done without warrant.
I. B.
I am sure and hauehave shewed that Gods ordinance touching a Lot hath.
T. G.
If your owne word without further proofe may be taken, you hauehave.
I. B.
Secondly, I grieue to obserue what a gap Mr. G. hath by this doctrine opened to Licentiousnesse. What! may man disposed to sinne, imploy any creature, whose vse 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] Howsoeuer I could demurre thereupon, especially if an expresse prohibition be vnderstood, yet herein I will be silent hauing enough granted me.
T. G.
These be all but k-velut aegri somnia, vanae Finguntur species. - Hor. art.idle fancies of Mr. Bs. owne braine. I open no greater gap to any licentiousnesse, than lforeign. Greg. Naz. de eutax. foreign. Eccles. 7. 16. Ibid.the word of God warranteth: which Mr. Bs. vniust charge must therefore consequently fall vponupon, and vponupon the Apostle himselfe together with me. I spare to obserue what grieuous and inextricable streits Mr. B. would cast Christian Consciences into by his contrary Assertions; such, I am sure (let him take heede mMatth. 23. 4.whom he followeth therein) as himselfe will neuer indure to be tied to: to wit, to bring some (I say not warrant, but) precept out of Gods word, for eueryevery particular Act that he doth, eueryevery sort or part of apparell he weareth, eueryevery kinde of recreation that at any time he vseth, and the like.
OnelyOnly▪ I wish that Mr. Bs. ordinary faithfulnesse may here also be obserued. He saith hee could demurre vponupon this position, that I giuegive for the circumstances of such Actions, in which they are not determined, viz. [Any vse, but that which is prohibited, is lawfull] especially, if an expresse prohibition be vnderstood. When as my words are expresly, not either expresly or by iust consequence prohibited. I would know of Mr. B. what precept, (for vnlesse precept, no warrant, saith Mr. B.) or what permission at least there is for such dealing in Gods word.
But he hath enough granted him by Mr. G. without this. Let vsus heare how.
I. B.
For the vse of Lots in game is prohibited by iust consequences, as I hauehave demonstrated.
T. G.
If Mr. G. left it indefinite, as Mr. B. in his very next words before intimated, and expressed not himselfe, whether he meant prohibited expresly only, or by iust consequence also: how hath Mr. B. enough by Mr. G. granted for the effecting of ought that here he would hauehave? If he did expresse himselfe therein, why was Mr. B. pleased to question what his meaning was?
But how Mr. B. hath not proued onelyonly, but *foreign. Ne magna nimium dixeris, mirande vir. Aristoph. Ranis. Nam, Multa fidem promissa levant, ubi plenius …quo Laudat, venales qui vult extrudere merces. Horat. ep. 2. l. 2.demonstrated, what he here saith he hath done, I know not; vnlesse nQui per metempsychosin in Homero, Ennio revixisse ferebatur, ut Tertull. de resurr. & alij.Pythagoras bee reuiued againe in him, and oNotum illud Pythagoreorum, foreign, Ipse dixit: in quo per omnia acquiescebant.his bare word be as authenticall as the best proofe that is. Such pforeign. Samijs Lacones. Plut. apoph…b.great words might hauehave beene well spared, vnlesse his proofes had beene more pregnant: least it be said of him, as he said sometime of the Athenians, that they were like old men, that qforeign. Democrates apud Stob. c. 22.blew hard, but did little.
I. B.
For the better vnderstanding of the second part of the reason (hasting to an end) I onelyonly desire an Answer to this Question. Is any vse of a Lot lawfull, where the circumstances of Time, Place, and Persons be not determined?
T. G.
Mr. B. weary, it seemeth, of arguing, commeth now to asking. The end of his Question, he saith, is for the better vnderstanding of the second part of my Reason. Why? admit my reason or some part of it were not worth a button, how doth Mr. B. make good the Proposition, which all this while he should hauehave proued? But to the Question, I answer as the Spartans sometime in a word: *Ad prolixam Philippi Maced. qua quaedam ab eis deposcebat epistolam, unica vocula an vocali respōdebant, foreign, vel (ut Scal. ad Euseb. ex Athen. itemque ad Auson ex Athen. & Gell.) Hinc Auson. epist. 25. Vna suit quondam, qua respondere Lacones Litera, & irato Regi placuere negantes. Idem & Dionysio rescripsit Philoxenus: unde Prouerbium, foreign. Suidas.No. And what then? Are there no more circumstances to be obserued but these onelyonly? Or are there not generall Rules according to which I require the vse of such things to be regulated?
I. B.
If Mr. G. except an extraordinarie Vse, I may as well except the lusorious vse of Lots.
T. G.
Can any man liuing tell what this meaneth? I answer as before; and if Mr. B. can picke ought our of mine Answer for his aduantage, he may.
I. B.
I answer to the exemplification of this reason, granting that an Argument holdeth from the negatiue for the substance of Gods worship. I yet make this Quaere, whether onelyonly because God hath determined it?
T. G.
Whether Mr. B. grant this part of mine Answer or no, yea whether it be sound or vnsound is nothing materiall, since that the strength of mine Answer for the disproofe of the Proposition resteth wholly vponupon the other part, to wit, that from matter of fact not expressed in Scripture, it is no good arguing to matter of right or wrong; and that a thing may be lawfull without either precept or practise recorded in the word expresse or implicite: and much lesse is it materiall what become of Mr. Bs. quaeres: which I needed not therefore stand to answer; nor doth ought therefore that followeth here, at all touch our cause.
But let vsus heare Mr. Bs. quaere. He maketh it a Question; Whether the Argument therefore onelyonly holdeth from the negatiue for the substance of Gods worship, because God hath determined it? I answer: It is enough for my purpose if it doe hold therefore. Which Mr. B. it seemeth, doth not deny. And in many cases it holdeth onelyonly therefore: For why we should vse water and not sNam & vino lavare gentibus quibusdam hodieque nō est insolens. Quo & forsan allusit Iacobus Gen. 49. 11.wine in Baptisme: why bread, rather than tAs in the Passeouer, Exod. 12. 9.rosted flesh in the Lords Supper, and why bread onelyonly and not cheese too, as uHaeretici quidam Artotyritae hinc dicti. Epiphan. haeres. 49. Aug. haeres. 28. ex Isidor. Grat. decr▪ caus. 24. quaest. 3.some hauehave vsed, no reason can be rendred, but xQuia tibi sic placitum: uti Christus ad Patrem, Matth▪ 11. 26. Quanquam nolim ex hoc loco argumentum contexere: prout supra D. B. voluit ad Arg. 6.because God so pleased to determine the elements in either. It is true indeed that some sorts of Worship are in themselues yDeut. 12. 31. Talia Ethnicorum Sacra Taurica, Cabirica; sed & Floralia, Lupercalia, Saturnalia, Bacchanalia, Aphrodisia, Priapeia, &c.impious, and are therefore also disallowed. But let vsus heare the reason why this Quaere is made.
I. B.
For in those places of Ieremie, God doth blame his people onelyonly for vsing a worship [which he commanded not] without any intimation that he prescribed his owne worship.
T. G.
Is there not an euident intimation that God had prescribed his owne worship, (vnlesse it be presupposed that he would not at all be worshipped) when for this very cause he reiecteth some kinde of worship, because he had not prescribed the same.
I. B.
To the same purpose writeth Paul to the Colossians against the Traditions of men, and will-worship, not for Mr. Gs. cause, but because in so worshipping they held not the Head, vers. 19. which is Christ, King of his Church, teaching and gouerning the same in all things.
T. G.
The Apostle expresly condemneth one sort of the superstitious he there speaketh of, because they were meere aforeign. Col. 2. 22, 23.will-worships, and humane inuentions (wherein let Mr. B. take heed lest he be found faulty in denying vntounto Christians the lawfull vse of Gods creatures vponupon conceits meerely superstitious, as those false teachers then did) that is, as Piscator well, bQuum Deus istarum autor non sit. Piscat.because God was not the Author of them. Which is in effect for the very same cause that I auerre.
As for that of cCol. 2. 19.not holding the Head, it is not vrged by the Apostle for any such purpose as Mr. B. here affirmeth, confounding and blending together those things that are to be distinguished; but against those that would hauehave brought in the dforeign. Coloss. 2. 18.Adoration of Angels, who in so doing the Apostle saith eQuod Christum isti dignitate sua spolient, ut qui un▪ toti suo corporitum fovendo, tum augendo sufficiat. Piscat.relinquished Christ the Head, who is of himselfe all-sufficient to foster and propagate his Church, without such sending of his seruants to seeke assistance from any other.
I. B.
But in Deut. Mr. Gs. cause is implied. It is true, that there God forbiddeth his people to inquire how other Nations serued their Gods, and sendeth them to his word to obserue the same, without putting anything to, or taking ought from the same. Surely I should not gather from hence Mr. Gs. cause. Because I feare it would▪ incourage Papists in their superstitious rites and ceremonies called Circumstances, though indeed parts of the substance of outward worship. For they are ready to take hold thereof and say, God hath determined nothing touching these supposed Circumstances, and they are not against the word of God; therefore they are permitted and so warranted.
T. G.
Is it not implied, when God saith, they should not serue the true God as the Heathen serued their false Gods▪ but so onelyonly as he had himselfe prescribed; is it not implied, I say, that God had for the substance of it determined his owne worship?
Or is not this a senslesse consequence, Mr. G. holdeth that God hath determined the substance, but not all particular Circumstances of his seruice and worship: Therefore Mr. G. giueth incouragement to Papists to adde to Gods worship such things as they call Circumstances, but are indeed parts of the substance of it. It is as if one should say, f1 Tim. 5. 8.The Apostle chargeth all Christians to prouide for themselues and theirs: Therefore hee giueth worldly men incouragement to be greedy of the world, which they call prouiding for them and theirs.
I. B.
But I should gather from that and the other places, (I thinke, directly, and not auckwardly,) this Conclusion: Because all things in and vntounto the seruice of God ought to be precisely according to Gods will reuealed in his word; therefore whatsoeuer is not commanded ought not to be. And the rather (God being iealous) because of the meaning of the fringes vponuponExo. 20. 5. the Israelites their garments, to wit, That you may remember all the commandements of the Lord, and thatNum. 15 39. yee seeke not after your owne heart, not after your owne eies, after which you goe a whoring.
T. G.
Now we hauehave Mr. Bs. collection, not auckward, as mine, but direct, as his are wont to be.
Where first I would vnderstand wherein Mr. Bs. cause differs from Mr. Gs. cause: that is, whether that, whatsoeuer it be, that is there forbidden, be not therefore, yea and therefore onelyonly there forbidden, because God had determined his owne worship. That which was Mr. Bs. exception against Mr. Gs. cause before.
2. I would be informed whether Mr. B. will affirme that all particular circumstances of Gods seruice and worship be precisely determined in the word, for if that be not his meaning here, what saith hee more than I say? If it be, let him returne answer to the instances produced to the contrary before. For the conceit it selfe is so senslesse, that hDemonstrare solummodo, destruere est. Tertull. adv. Valent.it deserueth not further to be refuted; neither doe I thinke that any man liuing will concurre with Mr. B. therein.
3. For the place out of Numbers produced by him, whereby he would proue that, (whatsoeuer it is) that he saith, it doth no more proue that all things in the seruice of God ought to be precisely according to Gods will reuealed in his word, than that all other humane actions as well ciuill as sacred ought so to be. For the place speaketh of iHinc Iudaeorum commentum, eum qui mandatum de fin brijs istis observet, tantundem facere atque si legem totam servaret. Primò enim nodi 5. sunt in unaquaque fimbria. His nodis si fila 8. adnumeraveris, 13. existent. Iam vocabulū Heb. foreign 600 facit: quibus 13. illa adjecta 613. confiunt: quot nimirum mandatis lex constat universa, &c. Purtorf. synag. Iud. cap. 4.Gods commandements in generall▪
4. How followeth it hence that no action or circumstance in Gods seruice, yea or in other affaires i… left free, because all such things ought to be precisely according to Gods will reuealed in his word? I suppose that that Christian that being inuited by a Gentile, when there was no iust cause otherwise to hinder his going, did as well in going to an Infidels table walke according to the precise rule of Gods word, as he should hauehave done in not going: and in eating indifferently of each dish, as in forbearing either this or that when he was there. And I suppose they walke precisely according to the rule of Gods written word, as well where they begin their solemne seruice of God on the Sabboth day at seuen of the clocke, as where they begin it at eight, or at nine. Which yet were not, if that circumstance of time were precisely determined, and nothing at all therein left free.
I. B.
To the last I answer, That a Lot is no more a ciuill affaire than is an Oath, though it (as is an Oath) be vsed in ciuill affaires.
T. G.
Here is no Question about it whether it be or no: but a Proposition, which Mr. B. hath all this while forgot, to be iustified. As for the rancking of a Lot and an Oath together; and the supposed sacrednesse of a Lot, enough already hath beene said. But why doth not Mr. B. answer here, the Question of Boules and Balls, (for it is very materiall) and the point concerning a blacke pudding?
I. B.
And lastly, I affirme againe, that God hath determined the vse of a Lot to determine Controuersies, 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 Negatiue will hold by Mr. Gs. rule to disallow the vse of any other Lot, as well lusorious as diuinatorie.
T. G.
I will not stand to discusse here how this helpeth Mr. Bs. arguing, That is not lawfull whereof no example is found in the word, &c.
I obserue onelyonly how Mr. B. can conclude, by helpe of my Rule, what he would, if you grant him withall, what he can not proue. But the Antecedent should in the former Argument hauehave beene made good: which yet Mr. B. there not onelyonly hath not done, but hath not so much as indeauoured to doe. And without proofe for him to kPropter nostrum affirmare aut negare nihil ponitur in esse. Beda in Axiom.affirme it againe and againe, is but lost labour both to his Reader and himselfe.
I. B.
Thus hauing answered Mr. Gs. reasons inducing him to allow Lusorious Lots as not euill in themselues: and remoued Mr. Gs. answers to mine Arguments, I may more confidently hold mine opinion, which Mr. Dudley Fennor (of reverend memory) his godly Treatise of Recreations hath taught me, to wit, That Tables and Cards, as well as Dice, and all other Games consisting in Chance (wherein there is vse of a Lot) are vtterly vnlawfull.
T. G.
Thus hauing within lesse than three weekes space since this booke of Mr. Bs. came first to mine hands, which he hath beene Partus plus quàm Elephantinꝰ. Quem etsi decem annis uterum gestare vulgꝰ existimet: (unde Plaut. Stich. 1. 3. Audivi saepe hoc vulgò dici…r, solere Elephantum gravidam perpetuas decem-esse annos:) Aristoteles tamen biennio tantùm. Plin. hist. nat. l. 8. c. 10. Verùm Aristoteles juxta alios sesquiannum, juxta alios tri…nnium. hist. animal. l. 6. c. 27. Adjicere liceat Plinij illud ex praefat. ad Vespas. Audio, inquit, quosdam, quod semper expectavi, parturire adversus libellos meos, & subinde abortus facere, jam decem annis, quum celerius etiam Elephanti pariant.about some *I handled this Argument anno 1613. and shortly after the handling thereof deliuered Mr. B. in writing at his request the Answer to his Arguments, which he vndertooke then to returne Answer vntounto.ten yeeres a breeding, runne through the same, and shewed that it containeth nothing materiall, or of iust exception to ought in my Booke, neither confuting any of mine Arguments produced in the defence of lusorious Lots, nor confirming and strengthning any of his owne against them, I may the more confidently conclude, the rather holding that, that till now of late, was scarce euer questioned of any, that Games depending vponupon casualtie are not in that regard vnlawfull, nor is a Lot excluded from being matter of disport by any ground or warrant forth of Gods word.