Certaine treatises of the late reverend and learned divine, Mr Iohn Downe, rector of the church of Instow in Devonshire, Bachelour of Divinity, and sometimes fellow of Emanuell Colledge in Cambridge. Published at the instance of his friends

A DEFENCE OF THE LAWFVLNESSE OF LOTS IN GAMING.

NOT that I hope to purchase any great re∣putation to my selfe by confuting so slight a Pamphlet, nor yet that I desire to afford the least countenance to those irregular Gamesters, who loue not to keepe due com∣passe in their play: but for sundry other important and weighty reasons, haue I vndertaken this Defence of Lot∣games. Among the rest, first to cleare the truth, & right∣ly to informe the vnderstanding, that what wee doe, or leaue vndone in this case bee not sinne vnto vs. For pra∣ctice without knowledge is little better then Presumpti∣on: and abstinence vpon errour is little lesse then Supersti∣tion. Secondly to arme and settle weake and tender Con∣sciences, least happily some honest and religiously affect∣ed hearts, who haue at times without scruple vsed these Games, receiue some wound from these Arguments, and be brought into a needlesse labyrinth and perplexity, vn∣lesse

they be provided of some buckler against them, or threed to disintangle them. Thirdly & lastly to reforme the affection, and to worke those that are contrary min∣ded to a little more Charity: that seeing vpon how slen∣der and sandy a ground they haue wronged the people of God in their Christian liberty, tying them farre shorter and straiter then God himselfe doth, they may be moued hereafter, not to censure their brethren with so much su∣perciliousnesse, & to hold a better correspondence with them. These are the cheefest ends I aime at, & for which I haue chosen rather to adventure my selfe into these lists, then out of I know not what imaginary feare of en∣couraging, idle and immoderate Gamesters, to forbeare. True it is, debausht and lewd companions are not to bee humoured in their vanities: howbeit it is a very prepo∣sterous course because of the abuse to condemne the lawfull vse, and to labour the redressing of a misdemea∣nure in life, either by breeding or fomenting an errour in judgement. An errour in judgement will you say? That is not yet demonstrated: neither will it bee accounted so, vntill the contrary Arguments bee sufficiently answered. Let vs therefore in Gods name trie & examine the force and strength of them.

N. N.

Meere Lots vnlawfull in light matters, as at play with Cards and Dice, and the like exercises.

DEFENCE.

A Lot is nothing else but a casualty or casuall event pur∣posely applied to the determination of some doubtfull thing. Of Lots some are Meere, some are Mixt. Meere Lots

are those wherein there is nothing else but a Lot, or, wherein there is nothing applied to determine the doubt but only meere casualty. Mixt Lots are those wherein something else besides casualtie is applied to determine the doubt, as namely wit, skill, industrie, & the like. These termes being thus cleared, I answer, first that by the tenor of your words you seeme to allow Mixt Lots in Gaming, and only disallow Meere Lots. Whereas notwithstanding you dispute anon against the vse of all Lots in light mat∣ters. So that you haue not exprest your selfe distinctly enough, and thereby giue iust occasion to suspect that you apprehend of this matter but confusedly. Secondly, I deny this Proposition, affirming the Lots both Mixt and Meer are lawfull even in the lightest matters: and conse∣quently that cards and dice, and tables, and all other Games of the like nature, are lawfull, and may be vsed for recreation.

N. N.

I propose two things to be decided, first, whether it bee a Meer lot to game or play at Cards or Dice. Secondly, whe∣ther Lots may be vsed in such light matters or not.

DEFENCE.

Both these Questions you resolue, the former affirma∣tiuely, the latter negatiuely: and out of both you would inferre the vnlawfulnesse of Cards and Dice and the like exercises, on this manner. To vse meere Lots in light mat∣ters is vnlawfull: But to play at cards or dice or the like is to vse meer lots in light matters: Ergo, to play at cards or dice or the like is vnlawfull. Of this Syllogisme I deny both the Propositions: the Major absolutely, as in the

former Section, and the Minor in part. In part I say: for first, I confesse that there is a Lot in all these Games. Se∣condly I grant that in dice, and some Games vpon the cards and tables there is a meer Lot. But thirdly, I deny all Games at cards and tables to be meer Lots, forasmuch as in many of them besides the chance there is wit & skill, and both of them concurre to the determining of the vi∣ctory. Neuerthelesse you will proue both major and mi∣nor, and hysteron proteron, the minor first by a double te∣stimonie, one of Men, the other of God▪ the major next by seuen, as you suppose, irrefragable demonstrations. Al which we will by Gods helpe encounter in the same or∣der as you haue marshald them.

N. N.

And first that this is a Meer Lot, M^r Perkins in his Ca∣ses of Conscience testifieth it.

DEFENCE.

To proue cards and dice and the like Games to be meer Lots, you vouch the authority of M^r Perkins & M^r Yates. Which Argument drawne from Humane testimonie, how infirme and weake it is you cannot bee ignorant: for in the closing vp of it your selfe confesse that mens testimo∣nies may erre. And certainely as long as that saying of Scripture standeth vncanceld, All men are lyers, the wit∣nesse of man will neuer proue Demonstratiue and infalli∣ble. Yet this I say not any way to empeach the credit ei∣ther of these or any other reuerend authors, but onely to discover the weaknesse of your Argument. Let vs there∣fore examine both the testimonies, and first that of Ma∣ster Perkins.

M^r Perkins, say you, testifieth in his Cases of conscience, that dice and cards are meer Lots. Who? M^r Perkins? & that in his Cases of conscience? Pardon me, good sir, I can hardly beleeue it. For in that very place intended by you, dividing Games into three sorts, Games of wit, or indu∣stry, Games of hazard, and a mixture of both: howsoe••er he affirme dicing, and some Games at cards and tables to be meer hazard, and therefore in his opinion vnlawfull, yet he holdeth withall that some Games at cards & tables are mixt, standing partly of hazard, and partly of wit, ha∣zard beginning the Game, and skill getting the victory. And these as he commendeth not, so neither doth hee condemne: and so farre is he from affirming them to bee meer Lots, that because of the art and skill vsed in them he vtterly denies them to be Lots. Wherein although for good reasons, as shall appeare hereafter, I cannot yeeld vnto him: yet can I not but wonder at the boldnesse of your forehead, in fathering that vpon so reverend a man, which himselfe so publikely before all the world dis∣claimes. But perhaps you see farther into M^r Perkins his meaning then I doe: or at vnawares he hath let slip some words which may make for your advantage. Let vs therefore see what you alleage out of him.

N. N.

Who saith that a Lot is a casuall act applied to the deter∣mination of some particular evens, wherein we confesse God to be the only determiner. Now such is the Lot of Cards & Dice. It is casuall, or else it is couzning. For such as can cogge or shift in shufling are base and vile in the eyes of all men. It is applied to a particular event, namely who shall haue these Cards or that Monie. Againe in this act we must

confesse God to be the only determiner or disposer.

DEFENCE.

Here is much adoe to make M. Perkins contradict himselfe: but in vaine, and to little purpose. Dice I con∣fesse, and some Games both at cards & tables he acknow∣ledgeth to be meer Lots: but that all Games at cards and tables are so also in his judgement. I marvell much out of what words you can shew it. Is it because there is in them a casualtie? So in there is many things besides, which yet are not Lots. For as for that you say, it is casuall, or else it is couzning, it is idle, and shall bee answered in the next Section. Is it because in them the chance is applied to the determining of some thing in doubt? This indeed argu∣eth them to be Lots, but not to be meer Lots. What then? Is it because in them we confesse God to be the onely de∣terminer? Nor so neither: for in M. Perkins no such words are to be found. He saith indeed that in a Lot God is confessed to be a soueraigne judge to end and determine things that can no other way be determined. But withall he denies many of these Games to be Lots, and therefore denies it, because in mixed games the determination of the vncertaine victory is not from the chance, but from the wit and skill, at least from the will of the players. Wherevpon it followeth necessarily, that in such Games he holdeth not God to be the only determiner. Yea but whatsoeuer Master Perkins holds or not holds, in this act we must confesse God to be the only determiner and disposer. Must? Vpon what necessitie I pray? you will tell vs: for thus you reason.

N. N.

For it is God, or wee, or Fortune that disposeth it. Now to say it were Fortune, it were so heathenish that I hope none will dare say it. To say it is we that dispose of it, is flat couz∣ning if it be true, & would lose all credit with Gamesters. It is God therefore that disposeth of it.

DEFENCE.

It is God, or We, or Fortune? And why not rather God, and We, and Fortune? For in these mixed games all three concurre together. What Fortune? Fie, that were hea∣thenish, and who dares say so? Verily no sound Christi∣an, if by Fortune you vnderstand that blinde Idol which the Gentiles worshipped as a Goddesse, and to whose in∣constant wheele they ascribed that which was due to di∣vine Providence. But if therby nothing be meant but on∣ly chance or the casuall event of things: I see not why it should bee counted heathenish to say Fortune or chance hath a hand in the disposing of such things. S. Augustine indeed in his Retractions repenteth him that in other of his writings he had so often vsed the word Fortune:* 1.1 not that he denies the chanceablenesse of things, but because the word had beene so ordinarily abused. For otherwise he plainely affirmeth that no religion forbiddeth to say, Fortè, forsan, forsitan, fortuitò, that is, perhaps, perchance, peraduenture. Why should it, seeing the holy Ghost him selfe is not afraid to vse it?* 1.2 Time and chance, saith the wise man,* 1.3 happeneth vnto all. And our Saviour Christ, By chance there came downe a certaine Priest that way,* 1.4 And the A∣postle Paul three times in the same Epistle vseth a word so neere a kin to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Fortune, that it is both deriued from

the same root, and vsually opposed to Fore-cast and Pro∣vidence. For want whereof in man seeing there is vnto man a Fortune or chance: I hope it is not heathenish to say that in regard of vs, Fortune or chance hath a finger in some things. In regard of vs I say, for vnto God who foreseeth and ordereth all things, nothing can bee casuall.

If Fortune, why not We much more? For in these mixt games betwixt the hazard and the victory, comes our skil and industrie directing the hazard vnto victory. And al∣though it be true that God by his Providence disposeth therein, yet it is as true that man also by his counsell dis∣poseth vnder God. This notwithstanding you tell vs plainly, that to say it is we that dispose it is flat couzning if it be true, and will loose all credit with gamesters. I see you are a merry Gentleman, and would faine be reputed igno∣rant in the course of these games. Otherwise you would not but knowe, that to cast the die or to shuffle the Cards is one thing, and to order them after they bee so cast or shufled is another. To vse cunning in the former is in∣deed couzning and foule play: but after the Lot is cast to order the same cunningly for our best aduantage was ne∣ver esteemed a matter of discredit amongst gamesters. The summe of all is, seeing that from these mixt games neither We nor Fortune are excluded: it followeth that both We and Fortune are determiners vnder God, and so God is not the sole determiner.

N. N.

I conclude therefore that the vse of Cards and Dice as it is vsed by Gamesters is meer Lottery.

DEFENCE.

And I conclude the contrary, that forasmuch as Ma∣ster Perkins in expresse tearmes denieth mixt games to be Lots, and it cannot any way be inferred out of his words that they are meere Lots: therefore in M. Perkins iudge∣ment they are not meere Lots. What mystery there may lye in that Parenthesis, as it is vsed by gamesters, neither knowe I nor care I, seeing it nothing belongs vnto the question. And so leauing it vnkith vnkist, I passe vnto the second testimonie.

N. N.

Againe M. Yates in his Modell of Divinity pag. 165. doth thus define a Lot, It is a Divine testimonie giuen by God in the resolution of some doubt.

DEFENCE.

This booke of M. Yates neither haue I lying by mee, neither is it much materiall what hee holds in this point. For certainely if this bee his Definition it is a very vn∣sound one. For according to the rules of Logicke, every good Definition must be reciprocall with the Definite: as in this for example, Every man is a reasonable creature, &, Every reasonable creature is a man. But in this it is not so: for although euery Lot may be such a Divine testimonie, yet euery such testimonie is not by and by a Lot. Were it so, then Vrim and Thummim, and Prophecies, and Mira∣cles, and Scripture, and such like should all bee Lots: for they are Divine testimonies, and giuen to resolue doubts.

Howbeit I grant that Lots are Divine testimonies, though not all after the same sort. To cleare which I thus

distinguish. Lots are either Ordinary, or Extraordinary. Extraordinary are those wherein God by his immediate and speciall Providence inevitably conducteth the Lot to that end wherevnto it was intended. Ordinarie are those wherein God by his generall influence and prouidence supporting the naturall abilities of the Creature, suffereth it to worke according to that power wherewith it is ena∣bled. Of these Lots, the former are testimonies of what God himselfe doth and approueth being done: the latter not so, but only of what he permitteth or suffereth to bee done. The reason, because in those God himselfe extra∣ordinarily worketh vnto the end: but in these giueth the Creature leaue to worke at pleasure. This point being thus cleared, let vs see how you argue from hence.

N. N.

Such a thing is practised by gamesters. First it is a Di∣vine testimonie: for it is all one for God to speake from hea∣ven, and to dispose of it who shall haue these Cards or that Monie, as it is for him by his immediate hand of Providence to turne the Dice thus, or dispose the Cards so. For every one will confesse that this is his hand, as well as hee would confesse that that were his tongue. And what difference is there betweene the tongue speaking and the hand writing in regard of testimonie? Sauing that the hand is the more bet∣ter and the more excellent, at least amongst men. Vox audi∣ta perit, littera scripta manet.

DEFENCE.

Thus you argue, Where there is a divine testimonie to re∣solue doubts there is a meere Lottery: But in Cards & Dice there is a divine testimonie to resolue a doubt, namely who

shall haue these cards or that mony: Ergo in Cards and Dice there is a meere Lottery. The Maior or former Proposition of this Syllogisme is not true: for as is shewed in the for∣mer section, every Divine testimony resoluing a doubt is not by and by a lot, much lesse a meere lot. Witnesse your own example of Gods immediat speaking from Heauen, which yet I presume you will not say is a lot. I denie it therefore putting you to proue it: which as here you en∣deavour not to doe, leauing it naked to the mercy of the world, so you will not in hast effect.

The Minor or second Proposition I grant: for as in all Ordinary lots, so in Cards and Dice, when the Chance hath disposed, it is a plaine testimony that God so per∣mitted. Neither needed you to spend words in proofe of that which is not denied, or you should haue brought stronger proofe. For whereas you reason thus, God by his immediate hand of Providence turnes the Dice thus & dis∣poseth the Cards so: Ergo it is a Divine testimony: though the consequence be good, yet the Antecedent is manifestly false. For although in Extraordinary lots God worke by his immediate and speciall Providence: yet in Ordinary lots, and consequently in Cards & Dice it is not so, God in them not restraining the power of the creature, but giuing it leaue to worke at liberty. And verily if in eve∣ry lot there were, as here you seeme to hold, an immedi∣ate hand of Providence, then is it in mans power to set God a working and that immediatly when hee listeth, which is absurd to imagine. Then also may all trialls of right, of fact, of fitnesse to an office, and what not, be re∣ferred to a lot, as which cannot erre, if Gods immediate hand which cannot doe vniustly direct it. Whereas not∣withstanding nothing is more vncertaine then a lot, and

wise men refuse to commit matters of such consequence vnto the hazard thereof.

As for that you adde, What difference betweene the toungue speaking and the hand writing in regard of testimo∣ny, saving that hand-writing is the better and more excel∣lent? I con you hearty thankes for it. For if Divine te∣stimony be the ground and reason of Faith, and the word written be Divine testimony as well, nay better, as you say, and more excellent then the word spoken by mouth: it followeth that the word written may beget Faith and convert a soule as well as the word by mouth preached. Whether you would willingly be of this opinion or no I cannot say: sure I am you must of force, if you will hold to your owne Premisses. This by the way.

N. N.

If it were in doubt or a thing in controversie, who should haue the mony that I possesse, If I should heare a voice in the aire commanding me to dispose of it to such a person, I should still doubt, and iustly might, whose voyce it were, whether Gods or Sathans. But if it were once put to a Lot, and disposed of to such a person, I could never doubt after∣wards but that it was done by Gods immediat appointment.

DEFENCE.

No could? Why I pray you? For may not Satan as well haue a hand in a Lot, as in a voice in the aire? What? is not sorcery or divination by Lots a Satanicall inventi∣on? and may not Satan be a worker in his owne art? If he may, how am I certaine that the Casuall event is ra∣ther of Gods appointment, then of Satans▪ The maine error is, a conceit you haue, that in all Casualties God

worketh by his immediate & speciall Providence, which is vtterly vntrue, as wee haue already shewed. And I am strongly perswaded, that this very opinion was the prin∣cipall roote out of which sorcery & sundry other heath∣nish soothsayings first grew: and by which among simple and superstitious Christians they are yet still maintained and continued.

But to put you from this conceit, let mee intreat you seriously to consider the Lot that Haman cast from day to day,* 1.5 and from month to month, to know what month or day were fittest for the generall massacring of the Iewes. The Lot must needs fall on one day or other, & it fell as it seemes on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month which is Adar.* 1.6 What? Must wee now needs say that the hand of God, yea the immediat hand of God had appointed that day to that end I trow no: for the very same day Haman his whole family with many thousands of the enimies of God were destroyed by the Iewes,* 1.7 & the Iewes themselues were deliuered. Doth not Solomon also speake of theeues who share their pillages,* 1.8 and robbers a∣mongst themselues by Lot? And did not the Romane soul∣diers agree to cast Lots who should haue our Saviours seamlesse coat?* 1.9 Yet by your opinion when the Lot hath disposed to every one his portion: neither the theeues nor the souldiers needed afterwards to doubt but that God by his immediat hand assigned it vnto them, and te∣stified by his speciall Providence that hee would haue it so. A strange and fearfull assertion, directly reversing that law of justice which requireth restitution of whatso∣ever is wrongfully gotten. But to what end all this? For∣sooth to perswade that a Lot declares will of God as well, if not better then his owne voice from heaven.

Wherevnto I answere no more, and I can answere no lesse,* 1.10 then the Angell did vnto Satan, Increpet te Domi∣nus, the Lord rebuke thee, for what you say is no lesse then flat blasphemy.

N. N.

Againe it is for the resolution of a doubt, namely who shall haue these Cards or that Mony. Hence I conclude a∣gaine that the vse of Cards and Dice, as it is now vsed by our Gamesters is a meere Lottery.

DEFENCE.

That in Cards and Dice there is intended the resoluti∣on of a doubt is already granted, neither is it denied that they are Lots, but that they are all Meere Lots. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to driue out one naile with another, I conclude a∣gainst your Conclusion, that you haue not yet, not ne∣ver will be able to proue, that all Games at Cards and Tables and the like are Meere Lottery.

N. N.

But I leaue mens testimony which may erre, and will try it by Scriptures that never erre. Prov. 16.33. The lot is cast into lap, but the whole disposition thereof is of the Lord. Prov. 10.18. The Lot causeth contentions to cease. Such a thing is practized by Gamesters. There is a Lot cast: what else meaneth the shufling of the Cards, and the shakeing of the Dice, which I heare Gamesters call for so earnestly? The whole disposition therefore is of God. If I packe the Cards, or cogge the Dice, & not shufle the Cards or shake the Dice like honest dishonest Gamesters, thou wouldst refuse my company at play.

DEFENCE.

To let passe that both vnsavoury and vncharitable jest of honest dishonest gamesters, yet doing you to wit, that there are diverse in this land of farre greater learning then your selfe, and of singular both piety and gravity, who refuse not at times to recreate themselues at Cards after their more serious studies: to let passe I say this pure vn∣pure iest, thus I thinke out of these two passages you would conclude. That Lot the whole disposition whereof is of God is a meere Lot: But Cards and Dice are such Lots the whole disposition whereof is of God: Ergo Cards & Dice are meere Lots. The Maior you take for granted, for you goe not about to proue it. The Minor you confirme by two sentences of Solomon, and the former part that cards and dice are Lots by the latter, because they stint controversies: the latter that the whole disposition of them is of God, by the former because in euery Lot the whole disposition is of the Lord. This as I take it is or should be the right frame of your argument. Which I now come to answere.

The knot of all lies in the right vnderstanding of the former passage: wherein some are of opinion that Extra∣ordinary Lots only, or to vse their owne words Singular, Miraculous, Divine, not Civill Lots are meant. And then the Assumption is false: for all Lots, and among the rest cards and dice are not such Lots. Others stand precisely vpon these words in the Originall 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 But every iudgement of it is of Cod:* 1.11 and comparing it with the like places, affirme that it importeth no more but this, that in all things, yea even the most vnlikely, such as are Casuall Euents and Lots, there is a Divine Provi∣dence,

and hand of God. Which exposition no way con∣firmeth your Maior: For every Lot wherein God hath a hand, is not presently a Meere lot. But to answere yet more plainely and fully, it is to be obserued that the wise man saith not, God disposeth all immediatly, but only thus, All the disposition is of God, by which words the vse of meanes is no way excluded. For whether it please God to worke by meanes or without meanes, his Providence ever ordereth and disposeth all.* 1.12 The selling of Ioseph, the spoiling of Iob,* 1.13 the rayling of Semei, the incest of Abso∣lon, the crucifying of Christ,* 1.14 and the like sins, though they were committed by men,* 1.15 and through the temptati∣on of Satan:* 1.16 yet God chalengeth the doing of all to him∣selfe. Not that he wrought all by an immediate hand of Providence, for this were to make him the author, yea the only author of Sinne, then which there cannot bee a greater blasphemy: but because of the concourse of his Providence with the meanes, permitting, directing, and determining all. So that to come to an issue, although it be granted that in all lots the whole disposition is of God: yet it followeth not but in some lots, as namely some Games at Cards and Tables, wit, skill, industry, may be vsed vnder God for obtaining the victory. Whence also it followeth necessarily that all lots so disposed of by God are not therefore meere lots. But you will not let this passe so.

N. N.

Its of Gods disposing, or of thine, or of Fortunes dispo∣sing: chuse which thou wilt I care not. If it be of Gods dis∣posing, 'tis that I would haue, its that the Scripture will haue. If it be of thy disposing, I know thy dishonesty. If it be

of Fortunes disposing, then there were fortune: Which if thou wilt doubt of, I leaue God to confute thee.

DEFENCE.

These are now the second seething of these cole-worts, and you doe not well to cloy our stomakes so soone a∣gaine with them. To avoide tautologie therefore I referre you for answere to what is already said: where I haue shewed that in sundry Games both at Cards and Tables, not only God, but man also disposeth, and that without Dishonesty, yea and Fortune too, if you will not quarrell with the word, but vnderstand thereby a Casuall accident or Chance not ordered by mans forecast or providence.

Where you say you will leaue them, who doubt if there be fortune, to Gods confu••ing, it may please you to remem∣ber that God ordinarily reformes mens errours, not by his owne immediat Magistry, but by the Ministry which he hath ordained. And therefore you much for∣get your selfe to neglect the performance of your Mini∣steriall duty, and to leaue vs poore soules vnto Gods ex∣traordinary instruction.

N. N.

It doth cause contentions to cease, for it disposeth the thing in controversy whether it be mony or victory whose it shall bee. Let no profane Iester vent his wit here or blas∣pheame the word of God by saying that there Gaming doth rather cause contentions, such as are braulings, oaths, cur∣ses, blasphemies, and the like, and therefore doth not cease contentions, but cause contentions: it is not the Lot, but their vnlawful, vnholy vse of it that causeth this.

DEFENCE.

That a Lot stinteth contentions or controversies, is not denied: for the applying of a casuall event, for the determi∣ning of a doubt is the very forme of a lot. Neverthelesse, in diverse Games, as is already said, both at Cards & Tables, it is not the Lot only, but it and art also that disposeth whose the mony or the victory shall be.

As for the obiection, if it bee not a Chimera of your owne braine, some merry Gentleman I thinke made it, to dally with you, and to sport himselfe withall. Where∣vnto your answere is no lesse pleasant, that not the lot, but the vnlawfull vnholy vse causeth Contention, meaning thereby as I conceaue it, the vsing of it in Games, which is a meere begging of the thing in question, that it is vn∣lawfull to vse lots in gaming. Besides, you are to know the lots in gaming are not in themselues causes either of Peace or of Contention. Not of Peace, for this proceedeth from a farther compact made betweene those who re∣ferre themselues to a lot. Otherwise, howsoever the lots fall, if such mutuall obligation be wanting the quarrell is not stinted. Not of contention, for those outrages you speake of rise only from the corruption of them that play as either their ambition that they cannot endure to bee beaten, or their covetousnesse that vexeth them when they loose their wealth or the like. Take these corrupti∣ons away, and let moderate and temperate men only play, and you shall haue neither Braulings, nor Oths, nor Curses, nor Blasphemies, nor the like furious behaviour a∣mongst them. And thus much in answere to those reasons whereby you would proue Cards and Dice to bee meere lots.

N. N.

I come now to proue that it is vnlawfull to vse Lots in Gaming, or light matters. My reasons for it are these. First Gods servants haue neuer vsed it but it vrgent, great, and weighty matters. As for example in the choice of Kings & Priests. 1. Sam. 10. in the division of lands. Iosh. 14. To knowe who was in fault that Israel fell before their eni∣mies Ios. 17. to knowe whether Ioses or Mathias were to suc∣ceed Iudas. Act, 1.

DEFENCE.

Vnto this assertion I oppose the contrary, affirming that it is lawfull to vse Lots in gaming or light matters: nay farther that the most serious businesses are lest fit for lots, & the lightest most fit. For what thing is there in the world more vncertaine then a meer Chance? What that lesse re∣gardeth right or wrong, true or false, good or bad, fit or vnfit? What matter soeuer be to be decided, the Lot is in∣different to either side, and cares not which way it fall. And hence it is that by lot neither doth the Church trye the fitnesse of her Ministers, nor the Lawyer the right of his Clients cause, nor the Physitian the state of his patient. Neither is it the manner of wise men to referre any thing vnto a lot, vntill by their wisdome and providence they haue so disposed of all things as it is not much materiall which way the lot fall. Were the question referred to a lot of any great consequence, of great consequence also must the fall of the lot be, and if it fall amisse great incon∣veniences must needs ensue thereof. But if wise men so order and cast their businesses as it is indifferent vnto thē howsoeuer the lot fall, that cannot bee of any great mo∣ment

which they referre vnto a lot. But I forget that I stand rather in the place of an Answerer then Replier, and therefore I come directly to your Arguments.

Your Argument standeth thus. That which the Ser∣vants of God never vsed but in vrgent great and weightie matters is not to bee vsed in gaming or light matters: But the Seruants of God neuer vsed Lots but in vrgent great & weighty matters: Ergo Lots are not to be vsed in gaming or light matters. The Major it seemes you take for gran∣ted: for you goe not about to proue it. The Minor you endeauour to confirme by certaine examples out of holy writ, which we will by and by examine. In the meane season I answer by distinguishing of that tearme, the Ser∣vants of God. For by it you may vnderstand either all those holy men of God who haue beene since the creati∣on downe vnto this present instant, or onely those few Saints of God whom the Scripture maketh mention of. If you take it in the former sense, the Assumption is manifestly false, that none of the Servants of God vsed lots in gaming at any time, but only in weightie matters. For I thinke there is no man so vncharitable as to say that all those who haue or doe sometime play at Cards & Tables are vnregenerate and no seruants of God. If you take it in the latter sense, then is the Major false, that what those few mentioned in scripture never did, we may not doe. For as their actions without a precept binde vs not to imitati∣on: so their omissions without a prohibition lay not vp∣on vs an obligation of forbearance. If they did, then might we not play at Chesse, or the Philosophers game, or bowles, or the like, because those Servants of God for ought we knowe neuer vsed any of them. But let vs see how you proue that Gods Seruants neuer vsed lots but in serious matters.

Thus you proue it, They vsed lots in serious matters, Ergo, they vsed them only in serious matters. A sillie Con∣sequence, and neere a kin to that protrite Enthymeme, The sunne shines in heauen, Ergo, the staffe stands in the bench corner. But to satisfie the reader more fully I answere three things. First, where to proue your Antecedent you affirme among other things, that Priests were chosen by lot, you are fouly mistaken. For Aaron and his posterity without intervention of a lot by the immediate voice of God, were perpetually appointed to the Priesthood. Se∣condly, these lots here mentioned were all of them Ex∣traordinary: whence if your reason be good it would fol∣low that none but Extraordinary lots may be vsed, or ra∣ther that now adaies no lots at all may be vsed, conside∣ring that God hauing not promised the like Extraordina∣ry assistance, it would be but tempting of God to expect an Extraordinary working from him in a lot. Thirdly & lastly it followeth not, Wee read not in scripture that the Saints vsed lots in light matters, Ergo, they vsed them only in weightie. For it is a meere Fallacie, to dispute from au∣thority negatiuely in a case of Fact. In a question of Faith the sequele is good, We read it not in scripture, Ergo, it is not a matter of Faith: the reason, because scripture con∣taineth all matters of Faith. But in questions of Fact it is not so, because it was not the purpose of the holy Ghost to register downe in the Scripture all whatsoeuer his Ser∣vants had done, much lesse their sports and recreations. Had it beene his purpose so to doe, hee would neuer haue said so often in the booke of Kings, The rest of the acts of such or such a King, are they not written in the booke of the Chronicles of the Kings of Iudah? For to vnderstand these words of those two bookes of Chronicles written, as it is

thought,* 1.17 so long time after by Ezra, were in the iudge∣ment of learned Iunius very ridiculous.

N. N.

But it may be obiected, some matters of small moment haue beene determined by Lots, as for example who should be dore keepers of the Temple of Ierusalem. I answere that was no light matter. First it was Gods command expresly in his word which is neuer light or meane to Gods seruāts. Secondly, Dauid belike had a reverend respect of this office when he said that hee had rather bee a dore-keeper in the house of God then to dwell in the tents of wickednesse. And is it nothing to be one of the King of Englands Por∣ters? Many a man if it should be tried had rather haue that office then twenty pounds by the yeare, and that is a matter if it were of much lesse weight in which we may lawfully vse a Lot. Now much more might the dore-keepers of Gods house be warranted from reason (suppose they had no speci∣all command) to cast Lots, or to haue Lots cast vpon them to determine who should supply that worthy office.

DEFENCE.

As a pound compared to a scruple is weightie, but light compared to a talent: so the Porters office in regard of the Nethinims hewers of wood and drawers of water, might be of some reckning, but very meane in respect of the Priesthood. So that a man may safely say the Porters office was but a low place, and the lots were vsed in no very high matter. But whether high or low it is not greatly materiall, seeing the sinewes of your Argument are cut already. Yet let vs heare what you say. First, it was Gods command, and his command is neuer light. True,

yet this letteth not but God may giue command touch∣ing light things: as he did when he tooke order for every petty and small matter that the hearing and determining of them should bee referred vnto the inferiour officers.* 1.18 And if his Providence reach euen to the smallest matters, what impeachment can it be to his honour to giue com∣mandment touching them also? The Pins of the Taber∣nacle, and the beesoms of the Temple were no great mat∣ters, yet God disdained not to giue order for them. And as in a building, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. the great stones can never bee well laid without the lesse: so also in the gouernment of the world for the better ordering of the greatest things, God takes care of the smallest also.

Secondly, say you, David so honoured the Office that he had rather be a dore-keeper in the house of God then to dwel in the tents of wickednesse. But what if David in that place spake not of Dore-keepers? What then is become of your argument? The words in the Original are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I could wish rather to threshold it. Iunius translates it li∣men frequent are, often to passe ouer the threshold of Gods house and to be conversant in the Church: which may be∣long vnto any other of the people of God aswell as the Porters. But be it that he meane them, inasmuch as the Psalme is inscribed to the Korhites who were Dore-kee∣pers, yet doth it not argue such dignitie in the office. If a man should say, I had rather be a Sexten or Dog-whipper in the poorest parish in England, then the great Caliph of Egypt, or Pope of Rome: would any therevpon say hee spake reverendly of a Sextens or Dog-whippers place? Nay verily, but that he doth the more abase the Caliphat or Popedome. Even so Dauid preferring a Porters place

vnto the tents of wickednesse, doth not so much intend to honour that as to avile these. And hence is it that the Septuagint renders it by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to be laid as an abiect at the threshold: and the vulgar translation, Elegi abjectus esse in domo deimei. I haue chosen to bee an abject in the house of my God: and Calvin, Ad locum communem & ignobilem reijci, to be rejected vnto a common and base place.

Lastly, say you, it is something to bee the King of Eng∣lands Porter, for the place may be worth better then twenty pounds by the yeare: much more to bee a Porter in Gods house. Well then now I see that twenty pounds by the yeare is something: and I neuer thought till now that a Portership yearely worth so much had been such a wor∣shipfull preferment. But is it weightie enough for a lot? Yea marry is it, and so is a matter of much lesse weight too. If so, then games and recreations are not vnfit for it nei∣ther: for there are many Gentlemen of good fashion who value their play in a farre greater summe then that comes vnto. Howbeit I must doe you to wit, that it was not de∣termined by lots who should be Porters, as you say, but on∣ly who should attend at what gate, Eastward, Westward, Northward, or Southward, which could bee no great matter.

N. N.

Secondly, there is no necessity of Lots in light matters: Which being so, it may also be otherwise determined. And me thinks it is too much boldnesse to presume to trouble the King with every vaine businesse when there be so many pet∣ty Courts and Officers to censure in matters of lesse mo∣ment.

DEFENCE.

A doughtie Argument. That whereof there is no neces∣sity may not be vsed: But there is no necessity of Lots in light matters: Ergo, in light matters Lots may not be vsed. The Minor which you knew no man would deny you proue, because such matters may otherwise be determined: but the Maior which is palpably false you proue not at all, and I marvell with what forhead a man of vnderstan∣ding can affirme it. What? Nothing to be done but that is necessary? What then shall become of things indiffe∣rent? May not they be vsed neither? For necessary I am sure they are not. Why then doe you eat flesh? For you may be otherwise fed. Why weare you linnen, seeing you may bee otherwise clothed? And why play you at Chesse, at the Philosophers game, at Bowles, seeing you haue Ouranomachie, Metromachie, & the long Bow where with to recreate you?

Yea but it is Presumption to trouble the King with eve∣ry vaine businesse. What of that? Forsooth it is more so to trouble the King of Kings. But how doe wee trouble him? By solliciting his Providence. What Providence? That which is Immediate and Extraordinary? Indeed so to doe would be too presumptious. But wee doe not so, for we consult not with God, nor looke we for any Ex∣traordinary worke from him. Our businesse is not such as needs so speciall a presence and assistance of God: a ca∣sual event is sufficient to determine it. Wee inquire not what it is that God would haue to be done or not to bee done: that without speciall command or instinct were Sorcerie or Divination by Lots. But wee doe that which God vnder himselfe hath enabled vs to doe, expecting

no issue from him saue only by Ordinary meanes: which as in other our actions so in this I hope we may doe with out troubling the king, as you imagine. In a word, the maine errour is, you fancie in all lots an immediate & ex∣traordinary providence, which is euer denied, and neither is nor even can be proued by you.

N. N.

Thirdly there is no warrant from Gods word to meddle with Lots in sleight matters, neither from expresse commād nor from any approued example, nor from any reasonable cō∣sequence from any part of Gods word. And whatsoeuer is done not by vertue of one of these warrants is sinne. Rom. 14.23.

DEFENCE.

This argument is thus to be formed. That which is not warranted from Gods word may not be medled withall: Lots in sleight matters are not so warranted: Ergo, Lots in sleight matters are not to be medled withall. The Maior you confirme by that of S. Paul, Whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne: The Minor, for that it is not warranted, nor by expresse command, nor approued example, nor reasonable consequence. To all which I answer, and first to the maior, by denying it, and withall affirming that S. Pauls words proue it not. For by Faith he meanes nothing but Plero∣phorie, or certaine assurednesse that what we goe about is lawfull to be done. Now this Assurance in many things may be gotten not only by the supernaturall light of re∣velation contained in the Scriptures, but also by the natu∣rall light of reason imprinted in our hearts. For the Mo∣ral law is naturall vnto vs, and was by the finger of God

written in our minds, before it was grauen in tables of stone. And the rule of this law is a sufficient warrant of our actions, as for example, of honouring our parents, and doing the workes of iustice by giuing vnto every one his due, although wee never knew the Scriptures. Nei∣ther need wee to seeke any farther proofe hereof then from our owne Consciences, which naturally checke and controle vs, whensoever wee swarue and decline from it, and also cleare vs when wee yeeld obedience therevnto.

The Minor also I deny, for lots in sleight matters, and consequently in Gaming are warranted not only by the law of Nature, but also by Scripture. How so, will you say? By expresse commandement? Not so, for then they should be necessary: and if nothing should bee lawfull but that which is so commanded, neither should any thing be indifferent and left vnto vs free and arbitrary. By any approved example then? Nor so, for the Scriptures were not written to record the games and playes of men, but to a more serious end. How then? By iust consequence, thus. That which in Scripture is neither commanded nor for∣bidden is indifferent, and consequently lawfull. But lots in light matters as namely in games are neither comman∣ded nor forbidden. Ergo they are indifferent and conse∣quently lawfull.

N. N.

Fourthly, wee haue no example that ever any good man vsed the Lot about any thing in which it was not lawfull to pray God to direct and dispose of it. Now no man will say or thinke that it is lawfull or convenient to pray to God so or so to direct or dispose of the Cards or Dice that such a man may haue such a Card, or such a one throw such a cast at

Dice, it being a matter at the best hand but of Recreation. For albeit there be warrant to recreate our selues, yet wee haue neither command nor warrant to pray God to direct vs in the determination of any thing about our Recreations by Lot.

DEFENCE.

Your fourth Argument standeth thus, That lot wherein it is not lawfull nor convenient to pray God to direct it is vnlawfull: but in light matters, as Cards and Dice it is vnlawfull and inconvenient to pray God to direct the Lot: Ergo a lot in such matters is vnlawfull. The Maior you proue because we read not of any good man that vsed the lot in any thing wherein hee might not pray for di∣rection of it: the Minor, because at the best hand Games are but matters of Recreation. I answere, and first to the Maior negatiuely. For although in Extraordinary lots wherein there is an expectation of Gods immediat provi∣dence for direction, it is fit by prayer to craue the same of God: yet in those Ordinary lots wherein it is not materi∣all which way they fall, and no notable inconvenience can ensue thereof, it is not necessary so to doe. The confir∣mation which you bring for your Maior, is authority ne∣gatiuely in point of Fact, which is a meere Sophisticall E∣lench, & of no validity. Wherein also you take for gran∣ted that which cannot bee yeelded without much folly, nor demanded without much impudence, namely that whatsoever the Saints did, is recorded in Scripture, which wee haue shewed to be farre otherwise.

Vnto the Minor, and the proofe thereof I say no more but this, that as all other our actions, so our Gaming also is sanctified vnto vs by Prayer. Not that at the com∣mencement

of every act a man is bound to put himselfe on his knees, and to make his particular addresses vnto God: for the morning sacrifice through the acceptation of God is sufficient to that end, and stretcheth it sel••e to all the daies actions. Although I deny not, but as at our meales, so also in the beginning and closing vp of our play, wee may with short eiaculations both craue a bles∣sing vpon our recreation, and praise him for the same. But as touching the fall of the lot in our games, because it is like hearb Iohn in a pot of broth doing neither good nor harme, I hold it as inconvenient to pray for it as it is to pray for good successe at a match of bowles. For as for those who adventure at play more then they can well spare without disabling themselues, they passe beyond their bounds, and offend against the rule of moderation in play. Yet if such a one finding his rashnesse, and sincerely resoluing not to commit such an errour againe, shall in his heart entreat God to free him from the present dan∣ger, I thinke such prayer should not be vnlawfull to him.

N. N.

Fiftly, a Lot is a thing that belongs to the art of Divi∣nity, and can be defined no where but there, nor handled by any other way. Wee may as I thinke sport our selues with a∣ny thing that belongs to any other art, or recreate our selues in iest by any rules of any other art. But thus wee must not doe with any thing or rule that belongs to Divinity, we may not meddle with Divine things in light matters, the Ma∣jesty of God and them requires more respect at the hands of Creatures. The King nor any of his Lawes may not bee dal∣lied with by the Subiect: how much more is the Creature being but sinfull dust and ashes bound to his Creator being

a consuming fire: which wicked men make light of, yea make sport with oathes, vowes, prayer, the Sabbath, the Sacraments, and the Word of God. For they will sweare, vow, pray, without serious consideration; they will for their pleasures sake breake the holy day of the Sabbath, they vse the Sacraments as a matter of custome and fashion, not of Conscience, else the Dog would not so soone turne againe to his vomit. And as for the Word of God, he is commen∣ded for the best wit that can breake the most savory iests in the repeting of some phrase of Scripture. We say it is no iest∣ing with edgtooles, and all say, non est bonum ludere cum Sanctis: yet what is wicked mens practise else with a∣ny Divine thing? To follow whose example is farre vnbe∣seeming the humility and gravity of Gods professed ser∣vants.

DEFENCE.

Your reason is to be reduced into this forme or syllo∣gisme, That which belongs to the art of Divinity, and can no otherwhere bee defined or handled, may not bee sported withall, or medled with in light matters: But a lot belongs to the art of Divinity, and can no otherwhere bee handled or defined: Ergo, it may not be sported withall, or medled with in light matters. In the proofe of the Maior you en∣large your selfe very much, discoursing of the Maiesty of God, and divine things, and what respect is due to them from the creatures. Then with many words you inveigh against all those wicked ones who make a Game of Oaths, Vowes, Prayer, Sacraments, Sabbath, Scripture, and what not? In all which I readily joyne with you, and had you prest it, much farther and with more vehemence you could never haue offended mee. The only thing that I

dislike is, that you bestow so much paines in maintaining that which no man denies, and spare it there where it greatly needed, I meane vpon the confirmation of your Minor. What? Did you thinke you should be taken for a∣nother Pythagoras? Or that your owne bare 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 would be of sufficient authority? Verily, either it was great dimnesse of sight if you foresaw not the Assumpti∣on would be denied: or if you foresaw it, extreame neg∣ligence or weaknesse that you endeavoured not to proue it.

Your Assumption therefore I deny, That a Lot belongs to the art of Divinity and is there to be defined & handled. If you aske a reason of the deniall, you may know I am not bound to render it: your place is not to aske questions, but to proue what you affirme. Neverthelesse the reason is this, because the termes of the definition belong not vnto Divinity. Not the Genus which is a Chance or Casu∣all event, for that belongs vnto the Metaphysicks, as also doth Necessity. Not the Forme, which is the applying of the chance to resolue a doubt, for that belongs vnto Pollicie or Morality. If you foist any other thing into the Defi∣nition, whatsoever it be it is superfluous and impertinent. But why should any man thinke that it pertaines to a Di∣vine to define a lot? Is it because there is in them a Di∣vine providence? So is there also in Chesse, & Bowles and all other things whether serious or lusory: yet are they not therefore Theologicall. Is it because there is in them an immediat providence? So indeede you dreame, but wee haue already clearly demonstrated the contrary. Is it then because they haue beene vsed in holy and religi∣ous businesses? So is bread, and wine, and water also v∣sed: yet I hope you will not say that the Definition of

these things is proper to Divinity, or that wee may not play with them, and vse them in light matters. Every ap∣plying of a creature vnto a holy end, is not by and by an appropriating thereof vnto that end: neither doth God by his Extraordinary vsing of a thing, barre vs ever after from the Ordinary and naturall vse thereof. And thus you see, that as good reason may be rendred to the con∣trary, so iust reason for it you can render none, why the defining of a lot should be so confined to Divinity.

Yet one word more with you ere I leaue this point. For I must entreat leaue to plucke you by the eare, and to admonish you of Contradictions, which seeme to haue slipt from you at vnawares. Tell me I beseech you how these sayings hang together, Wee may sport our selues with things that belong to any art but Divinity, & The King & his lawes may not be dallied withall? For if Kings & lawes belong vnto Policy and not Divinity, then may they bee plaid withall: but if they may not be plaid with, then is your rule false, and wee may not sport our selues with all those things that belong to other arts.

N. N.

Wicked men are bold to cast Lots with wicked or vaine minds, in wicked things, to wicked ends, without respect of Gods disposition at all. For if they did but thinke that God were so powerfull as from heauen to dispose, and so to shew his speciall presence in a Lot, or so wise as to vnderstand what they goe about, with what intents, for what ends, and after what manner, they durst not be so bold, as the wicked souldi∣ers were to cast Lots vpon Christs coat Mat. 27.5. nor as the Iewes were in as vnconsiderate dealing. Ioel. 3.3. Obad. 11. nor as our foolish and filthy Gamesters who must

haue Games with Lots to make themselues sport and recre∣ation. For mine owne part I had rather heare of downeright blasphemy, then to heare wise wicked men justify lusorious Lots.

DEFENCE.

To what end all this Deolamation against wicked men, with wicked mindes, in wicked things, to wicked ends ferueth, I see not. Nor yet whether you esteeme all those that vse and allow these Lotgames to be foolish and filthy Gamesters, and wise wicked men: for certainly your words seeme to incline that way, and I feare when you wrote this, you gaue too much way to your passion. Bee it knowne vnto you that as learned, and reverend, and re∣ligious Divines as this Church yeeldeth, and this Church yeeldeth as many as any Church in Christendome besides, both vse and approue these Games▪ whom therefore to censure as foolish and wicked men, argueth no lesse then extremity of arrogance and fury. But where are those wicked men who doubt whether God can dispose from heaven, and shew his speciall presence in a Lo••▪ For that God can doe so, not Scripture only, but the light of rea∣son also teacheth, and few I thinke are growne to that height of impudence to deny it. It may be you are angry with some, who will not beleeue vpon your bare word that God worketh immediatly in every lot, and there∣fore you lay such imputation vpon them. But it is one thing what God doth, another thing what God can doe: and mee thinkes you should bee ashamed with so much confidence to maintaine a speciall presence & hand of God in every casualty, and never to make the least shew of an argument to perswade it. He••e lies the knot of all, de∣monstrate

this, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the victory is yours.

As for the lot which the souldiers cast vpon our Savi∣ours coat, it was a Divisory lot, and that I trow you doe not disallow. It seemes as with vs, so amongst them, the garment was the executioners fee, & Christs being seam∣lesse, they would not part it with the rest, but draw cuts who should haue the whole. In regard whereof if Christ had beene a malefactour the lot had beene lawfull: but being an innocent it was no better then robbery. Those lots mentioned in Ioel and Obadiah were not, as you mistake it, cast by the Iewes, but by the enimies of God, and the Edomits vpon the Iewes: and it was vnlawfull be∣cause they were wrong doers. Had the people of God in a just warre cast the lot vpon the Edomits and other of Gods enimies, the case had beene altered, and the Lot had beene lawfull. That last clause wherein you professe you had rather heare of downeright blasphemy, then wise wicked men justifie Lusorious lots, argueth more hast then advisedn••sse, and is not the speech of a sober Protestant, but of one fraied out of his wits. For no man in his right minde will say that that which so many wor∣thies approue and allow, is no better then downeright blasphemy which all Christian hearts detest and abhorre. Dij mentem tibi dent tuam Philaeni.

N. N.

Sixtly, the Lot is one of Gods names by which hee is known. The Kings wisdome, power, and iustice, and so his name is made famous by the wise and iust determination of businesse in which others want both justice, wisdome and discretion. Hence Mr Perkins on the 3^d Commandement speaking of Gods name saith, wee ought not to vse the Lot

but with great reverence in that the disposition of them is only of the Lord, and their proper vse is to decide contro∣versies and to make partitions in great matters.

DEFENCE.

Thus you reason, To prophane Gods name is vnlawfull: To vse lots in light matters is to prophane Gods name: Er∣go, to vse lots in light matters is vnlawfull. The Maior I grant. The Minor you proue first by reason, then by au∣thority. By reason for that a lot is one of Gods names. I de∣ny it, for then might wee say, God is a casualtie applied to decide a doubt. Yea but your meaning is that in a lot Gods name is made famous. Soe is it also in every creature frō the highest Seraphin to the smallest gnat: yet some of thē I hope without prophaning of Gods name bee vsed in light matters. That insinuation of Gods iust & wise deter∣mining businesses in a lot, shall anon in due place be answe∣red: in the meane season thus I argue ab absurdo. Nothing wherein Gods name appeares may be vsed in light matters: In every creature Gods name appeares: Ergo, no creature may be vsed in light matters. But this conclusion is false: Ergo, one of the Propositions. Not the Minor, for in every creature Gods name appeares, Ergo, the Maior, that no∣thing wherein Gods name appeares may bee vsed in light matter:

The authority you presse vpon vs is of M. Perkins, who I confesse was a very reverend and worthy Divine, yet being a partie in this question, little reason haue you to vrge his authoritie, and I lesse to be swaied by it. Your selfe reject it in mixt Games at Cards and Tables: pardon me therfore if I admit not of it here. Forcti sanati{que} idem jus, you haue no better privilege for the one then I haue

for the other. Other authors of as great note are of ano∣ther minde, and what in the passage by you quoted he af∣firmeth is already confuted.

N. N.

Seventhly, wee argue against lusorious Lots from the dignitie and worth of a Lot. A Lot doth equall an Oth in any thing: a Lot excells an Oth in many things. It equalls an Oth thus. An Oth is of Gods ordaining, so is a Lot. An Oth is a meanes to decide controversies, so is a Lot. An Oth taken settles contentment amongst men, for a man will say, if such a man will sweare it, let him take it: so it is or should be in a Lot, for God doth it. An Oth calls God to witnesse, so doth a Lot. An Oth must be in truth, righteousnesse & judgement, so it is in the Lot being disposed by him that is thus qualified. Thus and many another way it equals an Oth.

DEFENCE.

The forme of your Argument is this, That which equals an Oth in any thing and excels it in many things may not be vsed in light matters: A lot equals an Oth in any thing and excels it in many things: Ergo, a lot may not be vsed in light matters. The Maior I readily yeeld vnto: but the Minor, pardon me if I speake plaine English & call a spade a spade, is little lesse then blasphemie. For in an Oth there is a solemne appeale made vnto God, both by attestation of his Omniscience, and obligation of our selues vnto the severest censure of his justice if we should sweare falsely. But in Ordinary lots no such appeale is made vnto him, but only to a Casuall event meerely considered as it is Ca∣suall▪ which being so pettie a matter in regard of so sacred

an Ordinance, I cannot but wonder how you durst so to compare them. But let vs heare your reasons, and first wherein they are equall.

An Oth, you say, is of Gods ordaining, and so is a lot. Nay so is not a lot. God indeed permitteth it, alloweth it, and if you will, adviseth it too: but commandeth it not, as he doth an Oth. All the power now it hath is only from humane institution and agreement. Againe, an Oth, say you, is a meanes to decide controversies, so is a lot. True, but not such a meanes, nor of such Controversies. Not such a meanes, for an Oth is ordained by God to this very end: but a Lot howsoeuer it may be vsed to the same end, yet is it so by mans Ordinance not Gods. And an Oth strait∣ly bindeth to pronounce rightly: whereas a Lot is care∣lesse, as being but a Casualtie. Nor of such controversies, for an Oth determines questions of right & fact, which a Lot cannot: and they that are wise neuer referre matters of so high a nature to so incompetent a iudge. Thirdly, say you, an oth taken settles contentment among men, so it is or should be in a lot, for God doth it. It doth, but an Oth by vertue of that obligation wherein man stands bound vnto God to speake nothing but truth: and a Lot only by reason of some compact formerly made between men. Neither doth God doe it as you say, but without restrai∣ning the naturall power of the Creature suffereth him to worke and doe as him listeth. Fourthly, an oth, you say, cals God to witnesse, so doth a lot. Nay so doth not a Lot: for he that casteth the Lot, respecteth not Providence but Casualtie, and to expect Gods immediate hand therein is no better then tempting of him. But what if the Lot fall amisse, as it may doe, shall God be a false witnesse? God forbid. Yet so it must needs be if in every Lot God bee

called to witnesse. Lastly, say you, an Oth must be in truth, righteousnesse, and iudgement, so it is in the Lot being dispo∣sed by him that is thus qualified. As touching an Oath I grant, but how it may be done in a Lot, I for my part vn∣derstand not. For a Lot is but a Chance, and Chance re∣gardeth nor truth nor righteousnesse nor iudgement. But he that disposeth the lot should bee thus qualified. Who is that? God? The word qualified fits not him that is no∣thing but substance: and to God nothing is casuall, and so no Lot. Man? That were to contradict your owne selfe: for you haue confidently affirmed againe and againe that God alone disposeth in a Lot, and man hath no hand therein. Sed magna est veritas & praevalet, errour hath but a bad memory, & truth at one time or other will sure∣ly breake forth. Many other waies there are, you say, wherein a lot equals an Oth: but what they are neither doe you tell vs, neither will I trouble my selfe to enquire. I come therefore to examine wherein a Lot excels an Oth

N. N.

Now it excels an Oth in these and other particulars. A Lot decides that which an Oth cannot. Its vnlawfull to vse. a Lot if witnesse or Oth can decide it. It was an order in Israel that if the vnder-officers could not decide a contro∣versie, they should bring it to the chiefe Iudge or high Priest to be determined. So fares it in this, which argues the hand of it. When all meanes vsed by vs by prayer, inquirie, wit∣nesse and oth, are not able to decide a controversie, bring it to me, saith God, the Lot shall doe it, hee will doe it by a Lot.

DEFENCE.

Indeed there are some causes, wherein by reason of their indifference either way, an Oth is not fit to deter∣mine. For example, when things are as equally parted as mans wisdome can devise, and the question is who shall haue which part, what can Oth or testimonie doe in this case? Nothing at all. But a Lot can, you will say. True, yet this advanceth not a Lot aboue an Oth, but rather a∣baseth it. For Oths may not bee taken but in weightie matters; and this is so small that an idiot or child may as easily determine it as a Lot. In matters of importance, such as concerne right and fact, deposition of witnesses is of great force. What a Lot? Of none at all. For example, a murther is committed, Titius is arraigned for it, Sejus & Sempronius testifie vpon their Oth that Titius is the man: it sufficeth to convict him. Now suppose witnesses fayle and cannot be produced: what can a Lot doe? Can it in∣fallibly find out the guilty person? If no, as indeed it can∣not, how is it that you say, bring it to a Lot, and that shall decide it?

For, if I mistake not your comparison, you make pray∣er, enquirie, witnesse, oth, and other meanes to be as the vn∣der officers in Israel: but a Lot as the chiefe judge, or High Priest, to whom was referred what else could not bee de∣termined, and from whom there might be no appeale. But good sir, you knowe that comparisons proue not, & I de∣ny that a Lot is Gods highest tribunall, or that his imme∣diate Providence worketh therein. Were it so, I demand why questions of right and fact may not bee tryed there∣by? For I presume no man knowes what is to bee done better then God, and hee is not partiall to accept the per∣sons

of any. If you say they may, then I demand farther, whether the Lot will alwaies fall out right? If yea, then would the fall of the Lot be vnalterable although it were cast a thousand times. But experience telleth vs that eve∣ry severall cast varieth and altereth the Chance: and how then can we excuse God from mutabilitie and inconstan∣cie? If no, then must God pronounce an vnrighteous sen∣tence, and how then shall the judge of the whole world passe vnblameable, or not stained in his honour with foule vnjustice? To avoid all which inconveniences I would advise you to put on Christian ingenuity, & to ac∣knowledge your errour herein, that God may bee justifi∣ed in all his sayings, and cleare when he is judged.

N. N.

Againe, its possible, we wish it were not common that malice, ignorance, or bribes corrupt the Swearers some∣times so that we see it directly many times that in an Oth or by the Oth of an vngodly person great sinne and great wrong is committed. But now in the Lot mans wit & will are so curbed, the whole disposition of it being of God, it be∣ing Gods only pure act without any commixtion of any pow∣er, will, skill, or motion of any creature, I say man is so curb'd that the most wicked and the most ignorant must needs say that it is of God. The very heathen that did vilifie Gods Providence and erected Fortune insteed of it, they made a Goddesse of Fortune being forced of their owne Consci∣ence to confesse that there was a Divine thing in every Chance they met withall.

DEFENCE.

By an Oth, say you, great sin and great wrong is commit∣ted,

but never by a Lot: Ergo, a Lot excells an Oth. I deny the consequence, and affirme that the contrary Conclusi∣on would follow much better, Ergo, an Oth excels a Lot. For it is certaine that the higher degree of perfection a thing naturally holdeth, the more dangerous is the cor∣ruption thereof when it degenerateth: as for example, Wine the more generous it is, when it waxeth eager, it turneth into the sharper vineger. Were not Angels in their primitiue state more noble and excellent then man, and Man againe then the brute creature? Yet Man when hee sinned grew thereby more detestable and mischeevous then the brute creature, and Angels againe then man. Is not Divinitie Architectonicall, and soueraigne mistresse of all other Sciences? Yet being perverted and abused no other can doe the like mischiefe. In like manner the Oth of an vngodly person may worke more villanie and wic∣kednesse then a Lot can: yet is it not therefore inferiour to it in the right vse thereof, but rather superiour.

But what? is a Lot so priuiledged that there is no place for corruption therein? Whence commeth it then that the Dutch by way of Proverb vse to say, In Lotterie is Boverie, that is to say, couznage and knauerie? And that all Historians report of so much jugling and false play v∣sed in them? Those Lycian, Delian, Praenestine, Antiatine Lots, and those of ••ura in Achaia, and of Elis, and sundry others, were they not all Magicall and of Satans inven∣tion? And being so, doe you thinke that the Divell neuer plaid the Divell by them? If every Lot bee, as you say, Gods pure act, without any commixtion of any power, will, skill, or motion of any Creature, why are not these estee∣med the Oracles of God? And why doe all Divines both ancient and moderne ever in their writings call them the

Oracles of the Divell? But how proue you that Lottery is Gods pure act? Forsooth it is enough for you to say it, and then what man so wicked or ignorant that dare gain∣say it? Marry sir, many a one neither wicked nor ignorant but farre more learned & religious then your selfe. Nei∣ther will they be of other minde vntill you convince thē with stronger arguments then confident asseveration. For I assure you, you haue not yet gotten such authority a∣mong wise and vnderstanding men, that all your words should passe for Oracles. How often haue you now affir∣med that God worketh immediatly in every Lot? yet he∣therto haue you never gone about to proue it as you ought to doe, it being the maine foundation of all your building.

That the Gentiles in deifying of Fortune acknowled∣ged a Divine thing in every Chance, is but your own pri∣vate Mythologie. You might as well say they found I knowe not what divine thing in the hinges of a dore, in the every, in lechery and bawdery, and the like, when they canonized for Gods and Goddesses Carna, and Laverna, and Cotytto, and Priapus, and others of that stampe more then a good many. Assuredly whosoeuer seekes or hopes to finde divine things in all the Idolatry of the Heathen, either knowes not, or remembers not, how much God in his iust iudgement infatuated them: that when they thought themselues most wise they proued the starkest fooles, doing things cleane contrary not only to the rules of Divinity, but of right reason also. For when they abu∣sed the very light of reason to the dishonour of God, hee blew out the candle as it were, and cast vpon their vnder∣standing such a palpable darknesse, as they neither knewe or whether they went or what they did. Had they beene

wise, and acknowledge a Providence, they would never haue consecrated Fortune for a Goddesse. Even the hea∣then Poet witnesseth as much where he saith,* 1.19 Nullum numen abest si sitprudentia, sed te nos facimus Fortu∣na Deam, as if he should say, It is our ignorance and fol∣ly that maketh Fortune a Goddesse: for were wee as wise and vertuous as wee ought to be, wee would never ac∣knowledge any Deity or divine power at all to bee in her.

N. N.

Againe, it excels an Oath in this particular, God would not haue one oath, or one mans oath to put any man to death, there must be two swear. But the Lot once cast must deter∣mine it. There never was an order from God, nor a practise amongst Gods people to cast the Lot twice for the determi∣nation of the most weightiest matters, that ever were either of life, or of lands, or of office.

DEFENCE.

The life of man indeed is in all law, Divine, Naturall, Civill, of so pretious account, that it will by no meanes hazard it vpon the bare testimony of one man. Hence the proverbe, vnus testis, nullus testis, one witnesse is as good as none. For one man may easily be mistaken, not so ma∣ny: and therefore in ore duorum aut trium testium,* 1.20 in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word bee e∣stablished. But what? Can a Lot once cast determine it, and suffice to put a man to death? It cannot, if you meane an Ordinary lot, no not though it were cast ten thousand times. And where is the state I pray you in wich capitall

questions are divided by Lot? No where I thinke, vn∣lesse happily in Vtopia. For seeing God hath not promi∣sed it, neither doe men beleeue that such a Lot can disco∣ver the truth. If you vnderstand an Extraordinary Lot, I confesse it is sufficient, but you dispute not to the pur∣pose: for they are now out of vse, and to argue from Extraordinary vnto Ordinary is very ridiculous.

You adde, there never was an order from God, nor pra∣ctice amongst Gods people to cast the lot twice. What of that? Ergo the lot may not be cast twice about one thing? It is no difficult matter to alleadge many examples, where∣in the first fall of the Lot hath beene controled not by a second casting only, but by suffrages also. But you will say you finde them not in Scripture. I answere therefore that neither all the actions of Gods people are recorded in the Bible, neither Lots of Divine but humane instituti∣on: so that they may be cast againe and againe, and either be of force or frustrate as men shall agree.

N. N.

Now I appeale to thy Conscience though never so much corrupted by Satan, whether thou canst thinke that a Lot so honourable & excellent an ordinance of God, that it equalls an Oath, yea excels it divers waies, that this was ordained by God to make men sport withall, or that any man hath any sparke of grace, (I had almost said) of wit, who must haue lusory lots for his recreation. None of vs can abide a Blas∣pheamer who makes himselfe sport by swearing, why should wee not abhorre a Gamester more, especially if he bee a pro∣fessor of religion, when he will haue Cards and Dice vsed to sport withall.

DEFENCE.

And now I appeale also vnto thy Conscience whosoe∣ver art author of this Pamphlet, how confident soever thou be in thine opinion, whether thou canst thinke that a Lot being so petty and sleight a thing, not of Gods but mans ordaining, so farre inferior to an Oath that it is not fit to determine questions of right or fact or the like im∣portance, but such as a child or idiot might decide. Whe∣ther I say thou canst yet thinke that a Lot may not be v∣sed in light matters. All the arguments you haue produ∣ced to the contrary are now throughly ••ifted and answe∣red, that which you tooke for granted and never endea∣voured to proue, namely that a Lot is Gods pure act, and that his immediate hand worketh and disposeth all, plain∣ly appeares to be but a Paradoxe: wherefore vnlesse you be resolued with him in the Comedie,* 1.21 not to be perswaded although you be perswaded, I hope you will not hold it a∣ny disparagement to forgoe your conclusion, and to yeeld to the truth not discovered vnto you.

But to answere a little more particularly, where you damaund, if a Lot were ordained by God to make men sport withall? I answere, no. It is not so much as ordained by him, much lesse to such an end. How then? It is permit∣ted as a thing indifferent. Againe, hath hee any sparke of grace or of wit, who must haue lusorious lots for his recrea∣tion? I answere, that many graue and worthy Divines (to say nothing of other men) whose bookes you are not worthy to beare after them, vse at times Lu••orious lots for their recreation: whom yet if you haue any sparke ei∣ther of wit or grace, you cannot but acknowledge to bee full both of grace and wisdome. Lastly, where you say,

a Gamester when he will haue Cards and Dice vsed to sport withall, is more to be abhorred then a blaspeamer who makes himselfe sport by swearing: it is the speech of a franticke rather then sober man, and argues that you can swallow camels and straine at gnats. Had you had but the least dramme of true wisdome or discretion, you would ne∣ver haue suffered such an vnsavory and vngodly word to escape your tongue. And farther answere then this I vouchsafe it not.

N. N.

Any of the forenamed arguments, much more all of them must needs breed doubt in every mans Conscience, whether this kinde of the vse of Lots be lawful or not, and so by Con∣sequence it is Sin to him to vse them, sith he that doubt∣eth is condemned if he doe otherwise. Rom. 14. vlt.

DEFENCE.

I had thought these arguments had beene canon shot at least, and able to throw downe whatsoever should lift it selfe vp against you. But now I perceaue they are no better then popguns charged only with paper to stagger and affright the Conscience. Which effect if they haue wrought on any, who formerly were otherwise perswa∣ded; as I can but pitty such wauering and vnsetlednesse of judgement, so I cannot but condemne you of much vn∣charitablenesse for giuing the occasion, and thus perplex∣ing them with your doubtfull disputations. But now I hope these arguments being all of them fully satisfied & assoiled, their Conscience will no longer hang in suspence, but rest throughly resolued. Howbeit if any out of weak∣nesse

still doubt, let him in Gods name abstaine least it be sinne vnto him. In the meane season, according to the counsell of Saint Paul,* 1.22 Let not him that vseth his liberty despise him that vseth it not, neither let him that vseth it not censure him that vseth it: for God hath received him.

N. N.

I confesse that vaine men may count it vaine to bee so strict and curious in so small matters: yet the truth of God is, by how much it is lesse of moment wherein God is offen∣ded, by so much the greater is the Contempt and sinne. Let no man thinke that I esteeme this a small matter, which I haue proved to be of such speciall worth and weight.

DEFENCE.

Est modus in rebus,* 1.23 there is a golden meane to be held in all things: which if either you exceede, or fall short of, you erre and are out of the way. To stretch a mans liber∣ty even to those things which are evill and forbidd••n by God, is to fault in the excesse, and to turne the grace of God into wantonnesse. To condemne that which God hath made indifferent, and to restraine either our selues or others from the lawfull vse thereof, is to offend in the defect through too much strictnesse and austerity. Happy is the man that knoweth the right bounds of his liberty, and walketh soberly and inoffensiuely within the com∣passe thereof. Now if to vse Lots in Games or light mat∣ters were an offence though never so small, he should be I confesse a vaine man that should taxe you for over∣much strictnesse herein. And it is true which you say, the smaller the matter, the greater the contempt: which aggra∣vates

the contumacy of those precise ones, who refuse to conforme themselues vnto the orders of the Church. But in the vse of Lot-games there is no fault at all com∣mitted nor small nor great, as is now plainly demonstra∣ted: and therefore it cannot be avoided but the imputati∣on of too much strictnesse and rigorousnesse must needs light vpon you. Would to God men would at length leaue off to affect a name of religion by their nice and scrupulous forbearing of such trifles: and seeke it rather in the workes of true humility and charity, which best conforme vnto the image of the Sonne of God, & there∣fore best beseeme a true Christian.

N. N.

I say therefore to thee, as God sometimes said vnto Peter in another cause, Count not thou that common or vn∣cleane which God hath cleansed: so I say, Count not thou that sleight or vaine that God esteemes so much, & hath ordained to such honourable ends and vses.

DEFENCE.

I grant, that what God much esteemeth of and hath ordained to honourable ends & vses, is not to be sleight∣ed or counted vaine. But that God so much esteemeth of Lots, or hath ordained them to such ends and vses is not yet proved. And therefore you must giue me leaue to re∣tort the same words backe againe vpon you, that which God hath cleansed and given thee free liberty to vse or not to vse as thou shalt thinke good, count not thou that common or vncleane, that is sinfull or vnlawfull, if at any time thou vse it.* 1.24 For as the holy Apostle saith, vnto the

pure are all things pure: whereas vnto them that are defi∣led and vnbeleeuing is nothing pure, but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

N. N.

Hee that is ignorant let him be ignorant still.

DEFENCE.

This is the Epiphonema wherewith you close vp this your Pamphlet. And it is the saying of Saint Paul, con∣cerning which S^t Chrysostome hath this observation, that when he speaketh of grosse and greevous sins, then hee saith, yee are fallen from grace, Christ shall profit you no∣thing, they that doe such things shall not inherit the king∣dome of God, & for these things commeth the wrath of God vpon the children of vnbeleife: but not, saith hee, be∣cause it seemeth not to be so great a crime, if a man bee ignorant that God commandeth a woman to bee silent in the Church, therefore he rebuketh those that are other∣wise minded after a more gentle manner saying, Hee that is ignorant, let him be ignorant. Which observation of his if it be of any weight, thē haue you not well applyed this text vnto your purpose. For the vse of Lots in Gaming and light matters being in your judgement so hainous and enormious a sinne, that it is more to bee detested and abhorred then downeright blasphemy and sporting with Oaths: you should rather haue concluded with some ter∣rible sentence threatning fire and brimstone, then with this gentle memento, He that is ignorant let him bee igno∣rant still.

But Theodore Beza, as I conceaue, best expresseth the

meaning of this saying thus, as if the Apostle had said, he that is endued with vnderstanding amongst you, let him acknowledge that these things which I say proceede from the spirit of God, and so diligently obserue these our precepts. But hee that is ignorant let him be ignorant, that is, let him acknowledge this his ignorance, nor trou∣ble the Church, but rest in the judgement of those that are more skilfull; or rather, let him bee contemned as one pleasing himselfe in his ignorance. For whence are trou∣bles for the most part but from this, that ignorant men will not be ignorant, but take vp the place of those that are more skilfull. Thus he. Now if you had either the spirit or authority of Saint Paul, or had by solid and vn∣answerable arguments out of Gods word demonstrated your intended Conclusion: no man could iustly haue ex∣cepted against you, but that you might freely take vp these words of the Apostle, and oppose them against all gainsaiers, He that is ignorant let him be ignorant still. For they that affect ignorance, and will not see the truth, how clear or evident soever it be made, deserue no other but to be neglected and contemned. But by your leaue, sir, neither haue you the one, nor haue you sufficiently per∣formed the other: and therefore I must entreat you yet a while to forbeare this saying, vntill you haue added more strength vnto your arguments, and haue made them good against this Answere. For to build castles in the aire, and to despise the well grounded judgement of others, ar∣gues much arrogance and overweening of our selues.

One thing more haue I to say before I leaue you, and that by way of caution.* 1.25 For as the Poet speaketh, Dum vi∣tant stulti vitia, in contraria currunt: because I speake a∣gainst

the too much strictnesse & nicety of those who re∣fraine these Lot-games as vnlawfull, it may be some will not sticke to charge me as if I allowed the licentiousnesse of our loose Gamesters therein. But let these men know, that although I allow the Games themselues, notwith∣standing the Lot vsed in them: yet I condemne and de∣test as much as they all those foule enormities wherewith they are abused. Lavishly to wast and con∣sume that wealth wherewith our families should bee maintained, and time which is farre more pretious then wealth, to blaspheme the sacred name of God, with hor∣rible oaths, imprecations, and execrations, and vpon e∣very crosse chance to fall out of our wits as it were, and to become outragious in our passions, are fearfull sinnes, odious and abominable both before God and man. But these are the faults of the Gamesters, not of the Games: & through the profanenesse of mans heart may befall any other Game as well as these. They that are not Masters of their owne affections, and cannot temper themselues: let them in Gods name abstaine, least they entangle them∣selues in the snares of the Diuell. But they who haue the discretion to vse them moderatly, seasonably, and pea∣ceably, why should the distemper and irregularity of o∣thers preiudice them in the free vse of their liberty? In a word, I allow the right vse, and condemne the abuse, nei∣ther through too much strictnesse barring Gods people from the one, nor through too much remissenesse giuing way vnto the other. And so I conclude with that prudent saying of the wise Preacher, Eccles. 7.

16 Be not just over much, neither make thy selfe over wise: for why shouldst thou be desolate?

17 Be not overmuch wicked, neither bee thou foolish: for why shouldst thou dye not in thy time?

FINIS.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Lib. 1. c. 1.
• * 1.2

  Eccl. 9.11.
• * 1.3

  Luc. 10.31.
• * 1.4

  1. Cor. 14.10.15 37.16.6.
• * 1.5

  Hest. 3 7. & 9.24
• * 1.6

  Ca. 3.13.
• * 1.7

  Ca. 9.1 &c.
• * 1.8

  Prov. 1.14.
• * 1.9

  Mat. 27, 33.
• * 1.10

  Iud. v. 9.
• * 1.11

  Prov. 2 31. & 29.26.
• * 1.12

  Cen. 45.5. & 50.20.
• * 1.13

  Iob. 1.21.
• * 1.14

  2 Sam. 16.12.
• * 1.15

  Ib. 12.11.12.
• * 1.16

  Act. 4.27.28.
• * 1.17

  1. King. 11.41.
• * 1.18

  Exod. 18.26.
• * 1.19

  Iuven. Sat. 10.
• * 1.20

  2. Cor. 15.1.
• * 1.21

  Aristoph. Plut
• * 1.22

  Rom. 14.3.
• * 1.23

  Horat.
• * 1.24

  Tit. 1 15.
• * 1.25

  Hora••.