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

Yea take the Proposition as it is propounded, that Whatsoever is by humane Laws forbidden, cannot be done without offence; and it is not all out true neither. For how many cases are there wherein the Summists and Casuists both Civilians and Canonists with the School-men agre••, that without just offence given that may be done, which by the letter of some positive law is unlawful? Or what is more common then these and the like rules in their writings; that ^awe are rather to mark the cause that moved the Law-giver to make the Law, then the words of the Law it self: that, ^bA law ceaseth where the reason of it ceaseth, though the letter of it do not: that, ^cA law enacting something in regard of some inconveniences, bindeth not, where such inconveniences are not: that, ^dA reasonable cause ever excuseth a man, in case he break some humane Law: and that ^eThat cause is a just and sufficient cause, for which the Law-giver would ⟨p. 200⟩himself hold the party excused: that, ^fCommon equity ought to sway both in exposition of Laws, and in exaction of things enjoined by Law: that, ^gHumane constitutions are to admit favourable constructions: that, ^hHe is no Transgressor, that crosseth not the mind of the Law-maker, though he break the letter of the Law: and lastly that, ⁱCustom interpreteth Laws: yea that ^k