Several continental divines, of the reformed party, had previously expressed similar opinions,[315] but without exciting much remark; and the question seems to have been regarded as one of mere scholastic theology, until the differences between the Puritans and the High-church party, in the reign of James I, caused it to be treated as a question of practical religion. The question appears to have occasioned great heats in the University of Cambridge; for Mr. William Ames, being then Fellow of Christ's College, having preached at St. Mary's, in 1610, against playing at cards and dice, as being forbidden by Scripture, his discourse gave so much offence to persons in authority that he withdrew from the University in order to avoid expulsion. Ames subsequently was appointed Professor of Theology at the University of Franeker, in Friesland; and was one of the principal opponents of Gataker in the controversy on Lots. The question respecting the lawfulness of games of chance has been thoroughly investigated, both morally and theologically, by Barbeyrac, in his 'Traité du Jeu;'[316] and his determination is, that such games are not in themselves immoral, whether the stakes be small or great; and that they are not forbidden, either directly or indirectly, by the Scriptures. In the Preface he thus speaks of the probable effect of the absolute condemnation of all games of hazard, on the assumed ground of their being both immoral in themselves, and forbidden by the Scriptures. "I am not surprised that Gataker should have found so much opposition on the points which he maintained, considering the times in which he wrote. It, however, appears strange to me that, in an age when so many prejudices, both philosophical and theological, have been shook off, there should still be found people, who, looking only at the abuses which may arise in the use of things indifferent in themselves, condemn such things as absolutely evil, on grounds either frivolous or extremely doubtful. Such condemnation, so far from correcting those who are addicted to such abuses, is more likely to confirm them in their course. Nothing but the evidence of truth can enlighten the mind, and thus make an impression on the heart. False lights and subtleties, however specious, will never dissipate the illusions produced by favorite passions. Such passions, indeed, acquire new force as soon as a plausible pretext for their indulgence is discovered in the weakness of the arguments with which they are assailed; while, by attacking them in a proper manner, he who has been deluded by them may be induced to open his eyes to the truth, and to perceive his errors. If, by such means, a reformation is not effected, it is in consequence of the same obstacles which render unavailing whatever may be alleged against things which are, from their very nature, unquestionably evil. I doubt much if a gamester were ever deterred from play by the reasons brought