







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

