Selected quad for the lemma: act_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
act_n	circumstance_n	command_v	lawful_a	3,295	5	9.7889	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A03243	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.	1623 (1623)	STC 1336; ESTC S100662	39,722	144

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

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.

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