Reply to Answers of Mr Gataker, Answers

Reply to Answers of Mr Gataker · Answers

p. 44An 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 wō derfull 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 onelyonly as not evill in themſelves, whereas he affirmeth them to be lawfull in themſelves, pag. 266. So that if theis games be vſed with p. 45due obſervation of all his cautions, why is he fearefull to allow them as good in themſelves? How then may a ſcrupulous man, who remembrethEzek. 36 31.Ezek 36:31 not onelyonly his wicked wicked wayes, but his deedes alſo that are not good, build vponupon ſuch quagmiry grounds? Againe; Allowing theis games onelyonly 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,Math. …. 16. 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 doingIohn. 5. 21.John 5:21 truth, to hauehave 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 p. 46not 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▪ Math. 3. 10.Matt 3:10[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.

M. G. 1.That which may be ordinarily vſed in other Civill affaires, be they p. 47more 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.

I. B. 1.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 p. 48in 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.

M. G. 2.That which beſt ſorteth with the nature of a Lott, may a Lott moſt lawfully be vſed vntounto: 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 p. 49weighty affaire.

I. B. 2▪A Lott is ſometimes taken for the inſtrument of purpoſe diſpoſed vntounto caſualty, as [The Lott is cast Prou. 16 3…. 1. Sam. 14. 41▪Prov 16:31 Sam 14:41into 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 onelyonly 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. p. 50Diſcovering 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.

M. G.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 p. 51a 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.

I. B▪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 onelyonly, 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 p. 42the 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 onelyonly 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, p. 53that 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, onelyonly 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▪ p. 54If 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.

M. G. 3.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 p. 55in no caſe be made matter of ſport.

I. B. 3.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, 1.That an Oath is hallowed to mak… an holy vſe of the teſtifying preſence p. 56of 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 of2. 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 aRom. 14 23.Rom 14:23 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 p. 57ſo [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.

M. G. 4.By vertue of Chriſtian liberty, every Chriſtian man hath a free vſe of all Gods good creatures, to imploy them vntounto ſuch purpoſes, as by any naturall power, they are inabled vntounto: But in luſorious Lottes the Creature is vſed to no other ende or vſe, but what it hath a naturall power vntounto, 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 p. 58power to delight.

I. B. 4.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 any1. Pet. 2. 16.1 Pet 2:16 much leſſe too too many, to make Liberty a cloake of Naughtineſſe▪ But Mr. Gataker ſpeaketh of Chriſtian liberty, not of Licentiouſneſſe▪ Then let vsus 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 vsus 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 p. 59it: 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 vntounto 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.

p. 60M. G. S.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.

I. B. S.Mr. Fennor's booke, from whence theis allegations be drawne, and from whence I learned that p. 61Lottes 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, onelyonly 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 p. 62which 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 p. 63remember 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 p. 64doctrine will make. For now Lotmongers 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.

M. G. 6.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 p. 65make 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 ſubiectmatter, 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 shewing1. 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 prooving2. 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 p. 66offerings 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 determined3. 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… Rom. 14. 23.Rom 14:23Word, becauſe, Whatſoever is not o Faith is ſinne. Which Word is give… vsus in morall matters to ſupply th… defect of it cauſed by our firſt parents their fall. Neither doth th… Word abridge vsus 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, p. 67or 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. B. ….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. Pro. 10. 19.Prov 10:19First, I obſerve fearefull shifting,1. and then vnſound arguing. The former thus appeareth, He ſuppoſeth p. 68the thing muſt be lawfull in it ſelfe, and diſputeth onelyonly 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 vsus 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 p. 69aſſertion 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, [LoueLove 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, p. 70or 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 vntounto everyPſal. 19. …. 2. Tim. 3. 15. 16. 17.Ps 192 Tim 3:152 Tim 3:162 Tim 3:17 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!Iohn. 3. 21.John 3:21 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 p. 71to God. On the contrary; If he bring not diſciples to the Law, and Iſ a. 8. 20.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 Num. 25 39.Num 25:39they goe a whoring. Well, let vsus examine his confirmations. Firſt, Mr. Calvins 1.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 p. 72concludeth, 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 vsus 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 p. 73Chriſt ſpake thoſe wordes vponupon 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.3. Here I remember an olde ſaying [A curſed gloſſe corrupt's the Text.] Now lett vsus 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, p. 74that 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 vsus; 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 fearethDeut. 10 12.Deut 10:12 God to walke in his wayes. Is then this gloſſing ſound arguing? Hath4. 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▪ p. 75here 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 onelyonly. Is not this fainting? Let vsus 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! p. 76What 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 vsus with feare, and trembling, conſider Mr. Gataker his moſt ſtraunge poſition p. 77to 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 vsus conſider it (I ſay) together with his reaſon. For (ſaith he) the Word is given vsus 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 Rom. 14 23.Rom 14:23to witt, [What is not of Faith is ſinne] p. 78intimate. That whatſoever is done by ſufficient direction from naturall reaſon, is of Faith? Became naturall reaſon onelyonly defective, and not corrupted alſo by ourRom. 8. 7.Rom 8:7 firſt Parents their fall? O God have mercy vponupon vsus! 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 vsus of the helpe, and vſe of naturall reaſon for direction in ſuch actions. Here is ſome more authority (to witt, Of not abridging vsus of the helpe, &c.) given to the Word. For it doth imply, that the Word might abridge vsus, &c. Therefore ou… moſt warrantable way is to be well p. 79informed, when, and how farre, the Word doth give vsus 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. ButActs. 15 24.Acts 15:24 by that which he writeth, pag. 230. I p. 80vnderſtand 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 vsus try the force of the Aſſumption's confirmation. It p. 81is 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 p. 82ſo 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, vponupon preſumption, that another remembreth, and knoweth no p. 83more than he. At laſt let vsus 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 vsus conſider theis rules yet ſomewhat more nearely to the point. Touching the first. The wordes of the Apoſtle, 1. Cor. 14. 40. be theis. p. 84[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.2. 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 p. 85him 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 3▪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 p. 86Lotts 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 onelyonly 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 vponupon M. G. anſwers to mine arguments againſt playing with Lots, conteined in my Dialogue.