Of the nature and use of lots a treatise historical and theologicalOf the nature and vse of lots a treatise historicall and theologicall

For first an Argument holdeth indeed from the negative in matter of Faith, but not in matter of Fact: as to say, ^dsuch a thing is not expressed or revealed in the word, therefore it is no matter of Faith, nor such as a man is necessarily bound to believe: but not to say, ^esuch a thing is not mentioned or related in Scripture, therefore it was not done, or it never was: as for example, ^fCain hath but one son mentioned by Moses, therefore he had no more sons or children but him. Much less may a man reason ^gfrom matter of Fact to matter of Right, as to say, such or such a thing we never read in the word to have been done, and therefore it may not be done. For how many things are there whereof there is no example in Gods word, and yet the use of them is generally allowed as lawful and good? Many things there are whereof no precedent of the use of them but in some one kind only, which yet may be used also unto others. No use of butter recorded in the word but for food only: may it not therefore be used also for physic? Yea many things there are of ordinary use, whereof there is no mention at all in Gods ⟨p. 175⟩word, which yet all generally allow: as sugar for sweetening, printing of books, shooting in guns, and the like, which all by this argument are utterly condemned; or if they be justified, then the grounds of it fail.

For first an Argument holdeth indeed from the negatiue in matter of Faith, but not in matter of Fact: as to say, ^dsuch a thing is not expressed or reuealed in the word, therefore it is no matter of Faith, nor such as a man is necessarily bound to beleeue: but not to say, ^esuch a thing is not mentioned or related in Scripture, therefore it was not done, or it neuer was: as for example, ^f