A Just Defense of Certain Passages, Part 2 · Argument 3
The third Argument.
THirdly, if the vse of Lots in game be of it selfeT. G. of Lots, Chap. 4. Sect. 6. Argum. 3. euill, then must it needs be a sinne either against Piety in the first Table, or against Charitie in the second. For eueryevery morall euill must needs be a eforeign. 1 Ioan. 3. 4. foreign. Rom. 4. 15.breach of Gods Law, the whole summe and substance whereof being comprised in those fDeut. 10. … decem verba: siue decem edicta. Sic enim Est. 3. 15 & 4. 3. & 8. 14. &c. foreignten Edicts of those gExod. 31. 18. Deut. 9. 10 & 10. 1.two Tables, eueryevery breach thereof must of necessitie be brought within compasse of the one of those twaine, and so consequently conuinced to be a branch either of Impiety against the one, or of Iniquitie against the other.
But the Vse of Lots in game is not in it selfe, or of it selfe a sinne either against Piety, or against Charitie.
To spend time and words in prouing that the vse of a Lot in game as it is a Lot, is not against charitie, as that it is no breach of charitie for men to draw Cuts or cast Arrowes, who shall bowle or shoot first, were both superfluous and ridiculous; superfluous, because it were to proue what no man denieth; ridiculous, because it were to confute what no wise man will anow. And yet to charge a lusorious Lot with Impietie, hath as little ground as the other.
For the manifesting hereof let thus much be considered, that all Impietie may be referred to these hEzek. 22. 4. 26.two heads, either the prophaning of hallowed things, or the hallowing of things prophane: since it cannot be imagined how any Impiety should be cō mitted but either by denying holy things their due respect, or by giuing the same where it is not due. But lusorious Lots are not of themselues guilty in either of these kindes. In the latter kinde euen their greatest aduersaries will cleare them, there being no colour to charge them with the hallowing of ought that is not otherwise holy. And in the former kinde they may be cleared also by the grounds of Gods Law, to wit, from the prophaning of ought that is holy. For the thing vsed in them is a Lot: and nothing can be prophaned by them but what is vsed in them: (by Lots, I meane simply as they are Lots, for to make Lots of holy things, as of parcels of Scripture, or of the Elements consecrate in the Sacrament, &c. is not any thing concerning the nature of a Lot, but an abuse cleauing to it in some particular mens practise of it, and such as is to be seuered therefore in this our discourse from it.) But a Lot is no holy thing, either of it selfe and in it owne nature, or by vertue of any diuine institution. For of these two sorts are all holy things whatsoeuer, either they are holy of themselues and in their owne nature, as iIosh. 24. 19. Esai. 6. 3. Psal. 99. 5. 9.God himselfe, and kPsal. 111. 9. & 99. 3.his titles and attributes are, or else they come to be such, whereas in their owne nature they are not, by meanes of some speciall diuine institution sanctifying and seuering them to some holy vse, as lNum. 4. 5. 15. & 7. 89. Levit. 16. 2.the Arke, mExod. 29. 42, 43, 44. & 30. 25, 26, 29.the Tabernacle, nPsal. 5. 7. & 11. 4. & 65. 4. & 68. 5.the Temple, oGen. 2. 3. Exod. 20. 8, 11. & 31. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.the seuenth day of the world before Christ, and pApoc. 1. 10. Act. 20. 7. 1 Cor. 16. 2.the first day of the weeke since Christ. Now in neither of these respects can a Lot be said to be holy, not of it selfe, or in it owne nature, for it is nothing else but any casuall euent applied to the determining or deciding of some doubt: Where the matter of it, a meere casualtie, as it is a casualtie hauing no holinesse at all in it of it selfe (for qQuod convenit tali, quatenus tale, convenit omni tali.then should all casualties in like manner be such) can much lesse gaine or procure any holinesse to it selfe by any mans application of it to any end whatsoeuer, much lesse by the applying of it to a prophane or common end, be it more or lesse weighty.
Neither is a Lot holy by any diuine institution; since eueryevery such institution must hauehave warrant from some word; and there cannot be produced any word of institution, whereby Lots are specially sanctified and set apart to such vses as may bring them within the compasse of things holy and sacred. If any particular Lots hauehave at some time beene so vsed, that can no more impart holinesse to all Lots in generall, than the religious vse of rIohn 2. 26, 31. Ephes. 5. 26.water in Baptisme, yea in the sMatth. 3. 16. Luk. 3. 21.Baptisme of our Sauiour, and the sacred vse of tMatth. 26. 26, 27, 28, 29. 1 Cor. 11. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27.bread and wine in the Lords Supper can uVise Casaub. ad Baren. annal. ann. 31. num. 19. contra Chrysost. homil. de bapt. Chr. & Iacob. de Vitriac. c. 54.make all water, or all bread and wine in generall to be holy, and so consequently debarre men of the ordinarie and common vse of those creatures either for the necessitie of nature or for lawfull delight.
Those therefore are amisse that allow Lots in game, and yet adde for a Caution, that great reuerence and religiousnesse be vsed in the action; in regard that Sancta sanctè.Holy things must be done in holy manner. For if Lots in generall, euen ciuill as well as sacred, be holy things, they may in no case with no Caution be made matter of sport and pastime, or of gamesome recreation; nor can the light vse of them be so corrected and qualified, but that it will-hauehave deadly poyson euen in the heart and pith of it, not adhering or cleauing vntounto the barke or outside of it only. But ciuill Lots are not such; and therefore the lusorious vse of them is not the prophaning of any holy thing. And if neither the vnhallowing of any thing hallowed, nor the hallowing of any thing vnhallowed, then can it not be brought within compasse of impiety or sinne against the first Table▪ And if it be cleared from all sinne against the first Table, and be not charged by any with any sinne against the second Table; it must needs rest discharged of all sinne in generall, and consequently be iustified as agreeable to Gods word.
I proceed to his third Reason, p. 131. Which is this:I. B. Answer.
If the vse of Lots in game be of it selfe euill, then must it needs be a sinne either against Piety in the first Table, or against Charitie in the second.
But the vse of Lots in game is not of it selfe a sinne against either Piety or Charitie.
Therefore it must be iustified as agreeable to Gods word.
The Assumption is proued thus:
No man auoweth the vse of a Lot in Game (as it is a Lot) to be against Charitie: and a lusorious Lot is not the prophaning of any thing hallowed by any diuine Institution, from the word, to any holy vse. Therefore not against Piety. Indeed if Lots be holy, they may in no case be made matter of sport.
I could wish that Mr. B. had dealt in this businesseT. G. Reply. as fairely with me, as I hauehave done with him: that he would hauehave giuen me leaue at least *Vt meis verbis sensum meum loquatur. Hieron. advers. error. Ioan. Hieros.to tell my tale in mine owne words. The best is, mine owne Text before related will helpe both to shew what mine Arguments are, and how maimedly by Mr. B. they are euer propounded. But to the point.
I. B.
Here I obserue one of the faults which I found in the latter shape of the second Reason, to wit, The Conclusion containeth more than the premises. 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 euill of it selfe. For that is good of it selfe, for doing whereof there is either precept or permission in Gods word, p. 137.
T. G.
And, good Reader, be pleased to looke backe to what was before answered to this friuolous exception. For I am euen weary of these cole-worts serued in so oft. And take along with thee, I pray thee, also Mr. Bs. sawce that he setteth on with them, (if thou findest any more sauour than I can in it) to giuegive them the better rellish.
I. B.
But to the Assumption and proofe thereof I answer; That the vse of a Lot in Game is of it selfe a sinne against Piety. For it profaneth a Lot hallowed by diuine institution from the word: as shall be manifested hereafter.
T. G.
Well, till that hereafter come then, mine Argument standeth good.
I. B.
Yet here I thinke fit briefly to shew two things. One is, That an Oath is hallowed to make 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. G. denie a Lot to be holy, except it hauehave a more remote holy vse: I say, He may as well denie an Oath to be holy for that cause. More of this point in my second Reply.
T. G.
What Mr. B. meaneth by all this I doe not well vnderstand: saue that he beggeth the Question pitifully, and applieth nothing of all this at all to mine Argument, or any part of it. Yet a word or two to it.
1. The Question is, utrum sit, and Mr. B. telleth vsus here quorsum sit. The Question is, whether Lots be hallowed or no: and Mr. B. telleth vsus to what end they be hallowed; aforeign. Aristot. metaphys. l. 2. c. 3. foreign.presupposing that, that being in question is to be proued.
2. He telleth vsus that an Oath is hallowed: bQuomodo sanctificetur quod per se sanctum est? Hieron. ad Sun. & Fret. Sanctificatùr enim quod ex non sancto sanctum fit.What needs it? It is cforeign. Cyril. Hieros. catech. mystag. Scitè itaque Aug. de spir. & lit. c. 26. Aliter dicimus, Deus sanctificat sanctos suos, &, Sanctificetur nomen tuum, nam illud ideò, quia ille sacit ips… esse sanctos, qui … erant sancti: hoc autem ideò, ut quod semper apud se sanctum est, sanctum etiam ab hominibus habeatur.holy of it owne nature and in it selfe: as the very definition of it it selfe will shew. And a man may as well say, that prayer is hallowed to make an holy vse of the inuocating of the name of God, as that an Oath is hallowed to make an holy vse of the testifying presence of God; or rather of calling in the testifying presence of God; if wee regard the true nature of an Oath. But so is not a Lot: they are nothing therefore alike.
I. B.
The other is, That vse of a Lot 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. G. against a diuinatorie Lot, pag. 313. and so doe I against a lusorious Lot.
T. G.
Here wee returne to our old cole-worts againe, which, I see, will still be thrust vponupon vsus, and we must not refuse, vnlesse we will seeme to say nothing to that that Mr. B. saith to little purpose so oft.
1. Here is the distinction reuiued againe betweene not forbidden and warranted. As if that were not warranted, that is not forbidden. Let Mr. B. remember what he set vsus on, when he serued in the same before in effect: *Contra quam Tertull. qui nulla ratione firma nixus negat, Bonum esse quicquid licet: Et licita esse asserit, quae non sant bona: exhort. ad castit. Et, Bonum, inquit, permitti non expectat. Ibid. Sed & idem ad Vxorem lib. 1. Quod permittitur, non est bonum.That is good for the doing whereof there is either precept or permission. Hence I reason, Whatsoeuer is good is warranted; whatsoeuer is permitted is good: whatsoeuer is not forbidden is permitted: whatsoeuer therefore is not forbidden, is warranted. But obserue what consequents will follow vponupon this conceit of Mr. Bs. to wit, that Some things that are not euill, (for nothing is euill, that is not forbidden) yet are not warrantable by Gods word: Some things that are against no part of Gods Law; (for if they be against any part of it, they are thereby forbidden) yet are sinnes; for whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne; and whatsoeuer is not warranted, is not of faith. Here are strange Positions, and new Diuinitie; and such it may be, as Mr. B. scarce dreamed of when he deliuered this: and yet cforeign. Aristot. l. 1. c. 2. & 3. Vno dato absurdo caetera scquuntur.follow they necessarily vponupon the same.
2. Mr. B. passing by, as his manner is, the proofe of mine Assumption before denied by him, disputeth against the Conclusion, or the Proposition denied. But let vsus heare his Argument:
That vse of a Lot is against Piety, that is not warranted by the word. But the vse of a Lot in Game is not warranted by the word: Therefore it is against piety.
The Assumption which he should proue especially, he proueth not at all.
The Proposition, which indeed is vnsound also, he proueth sorily thus:
Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne, yea impiety. Whatsoeuer▪ is not warranted by the word, is not of faith: Whatsoeuer therefore is not warranted by the word, is against Piety.
The Proposition taken in strict sense, as we dispute here of Piety and Charitie, the one comprehending the summe of the first Table distinct from the second, and the other of the second Table distinct from the first, is not true. Many things are done without faith, that is, without warrant from the word, which yet are not offences properly and directly against the first Table. But the whole Syllogisme granted nothing hurteth me.
3. How I dispute against a Diuinatorie Lot, I hauehave before shewed. Let Mr. B. proue his Assumption aboue of the one, as I hauehave done of the other, and I will yeeld him the lawfulnesse of them alike.
I. B.
If then a lawfull Lot be holy, it is, saith Mr. G. in no case to be made matter of sport.
T. G.
What meaneth this then here? can any man tell? Or how is this inferred vponupon ought that went before? Or what if Mr. G. say so? What doth that auaile Mr. B. vnlesse he can proue it so to be? *Hypothesis nihil ponit in esse.A supposition, we say, giueth no being to ought. Let Mr. B. assume, and make good his Assumption; and all will soone be at an end.
I. B.
Nay, I may make yet more aduantage. For I may say; That maintaining the vse thereof in Gaming, as it is a Lot, by practise, much more by writing, is against Charitie, as well as against Piety. For so a weake brother is offended, and consequently Christ sinned against,1 Cor. 8. 11, 1…. that brother being occasioned, by error of iudgement, to stumble. I hauehave this reasoning from Mr. G. himselfe, p. 255.
T. G.
Mr. B. I see, is halfe weary of his worke, that giueth still but a short snatch at it, and then bIn via lassus quaerit diverticula. Hieron. ad Laetā.starting aside from it, cQuod canis in Aegypto, bibit, & sugit: de Antonio dictum Macrob. saturn. l. 2. c. 2. In illis siquidem regionibus constat canes raptu Crocodilorum exterritos currere & bibere. Macrob.as the Aegyptian Dogs vse to doe, drinking in Nilus, runneth out into by-matters that nothing concerne it.
The Question is, whether a Lot vsed in game, as it is a Lot, be against Charitie or no. Mr. B. proueth it is, because some weake ones are thereby scandalized, as if the vse of euerie Lot in Game, whether in priuate, or in presence of others, strong or weake, must needs of necessitie euer scandalize one or another; or as if the scandall, when such were either taken or giuen, did not arise either from the inconsiderate act of the one, or the erroneous conceit, caused it may bee by Mr. B. of the other, or from both, and not from the Nature of the Lot so vsed it selfe. By Mr. Bs. rule, to eat flesh as it is flesh (to speake as he speaketh) or to eat it vponupon such a day as it is such a day, shall be against Charitie, and of it selfe euill, because some, and not a few, are at some time scandalized thereat.
But I hauehave sinned against Charitie by writing my Booke. Mr. B. of all other should not charge mee therewith; for who seeth not, that in this Cause he will be deemed as dIn lite judex quisque corruptus sua est.a partie? He writeth against the vse of a Lot in Game, and thereby seeketh to possesse mens mindes with a superstitious conceit of it, which if another seeke to remoue and ease mens minds of, he condemneth them of breach of Charitie, sinning the meane while therein, though (I perswade my selfe) ignorantly, both against Pietie and Charitie, and ministring thereby the cause of the scandall himselfe. Yea, obserue, I pray you, Mr. Bs. dealing in this businesse. Hee seemeth in his Epistle Dedicatorie to be eWhether I erre or no; which yet I would gladly vnderstand. Epist. dedic. to Dialog.doubtful whether he erre or no, & affirmeth that he would be glad to vnderstand it, if he doe. And yet no sooner is any mans mouth open to debate the matter with him, but he crieth out by and by, that they sinne against Charitie, in offering to iustifie a lusorie Lot.
If it be indeed a breach of Charitie to discouer a grosse error, and to endeuour to remoue a scandall, by satisfying the mindes, and better informing the iudgements of those that are therefore scandalized because misinformed, I then confesse my selfe guilty herein. If not, let the blame lie on the heads of those that at first caused the scandall, and of those that will fSi de veritate scandalum sumitur, utilius scandalum nasci permittitur, quam veritas relinquatur. Aug. de lib. arb. Et Beda in decretal. de reg. Iur. c. 3.causlesly take scandall at those that seeke to remoue it.