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

For the argument that ^sa reverend Writer of ours bringeth to prove the contrary, because in a Lot there are two things required; first a casual act, and secondly an applying of that casual act to the determination of some particular and uncertain event; whereas the dealing of the Cards is a casual act indeed, but the determination of the uncertain victory is not in mixed games merely from it, but much or most from the wit and skill or the will of the player: and therefore the dealing of the cards is no more a Lot then the dealing of alms is, when the Princes Almoner putteth his hand into his pocket, and giveth one man six pence, another 12. pence, another two pence, what cometh forth without further advice. This argument, I say, is not sound, because it reasoneth from a particular to a general; The dealing of the Cards is not applied to the determining of this uncertain event, to wit, the main issue of the game or the victory: therefore it is not applied to the determining of any uncertain event at all. Which consequence is unsound; as also the consequent is untrue. For it is manifest that the dealing of the cards is applied to the determining of this uncertain event, what cards or casts each one shall have to exercise his skill with: and is therefore even by his own description a Lot: as is also the dealing of alms in that sort, if it be done for that end, to try what will casually fall to each ones share by such a course, as well as if it were done by drawing of rushes or cuts, which go commonly for Lots.

For the argument that ^sa reuerend Writer of ours bringeth to proue the contrary, because in a Lot there are two •hings required; first a casuall act, and secondly an applying of that casuall act to the determination of some particular and vncertaine euent; whereas the dealing of the Cards is a casuall act indeed, but the determination of the vncertaine victory is not in mixt games meerely from it, but much or most from the wit and skill or the will of the player: and therefore the dealing of the cards is no more a Lot then the dealing of almes is, when the Princes Almoner putteth his hand into his pocket, and giueth one man six pence, another 12. pence, another two pence, what commeth foorth without further aduice. This argument, I say, is not sound, because it reasoneth from a particular to a generall; The dealing of the Cards is not applied to the determining of this vncertaine euent, to wit, the maine issue of the game or the victory: therefore it is not applied to the determining of any vncertaine euent at all. Which consequence is vnsound; as also the consequent is vntrue. For it is manifest that the dealing of the cards is applied to the determining of this vncertaine euent, what cards or casts each one shall haue to exercise his skill with: and is therefore euen by his owne description a Lot: as is also the dealing of almes in that sort, if it be done for that end, to trie what will casually fall to each ones share by such a course, as well as if it were done by drawing of rushes or cuts, which go commonly for Lots.