read a list of the liberal donations, legacies, and subscriptions which had been made for the support of the "British and Foreign Bible Society," by all ranks and religious denominations in different parts amounting to 70,000l. sterling 55,000l. of which, much to their hoaor, had actually been furnished by the Auxiliary Societies throughout the United Kingdom.

His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent apologized for the absence of his Royal Brother, York, engaged in urgent military duties; and, after moving that the Report be printed and published, said, he was glad that the fundamental ground of the Society was, that the Sacred Volume was to be distributed without any annotations or comments and every individual left to put his own construction upon it. And it now fell to his share to perform the pleasing duty of proposing a vote of thanks to his Lordship, who so ably filled the chair, and always acted with a modesty inseparable from himself; "and (said his Royal Highness) had I been appointed to that situation I should certainly have apoligized for intrusion. His Lordship's exertions have deserved praise far beyond any that this meeting can confer, and I have been only an humble imitator of his Lordship as a fellow laborer in the vineyard." His Royal Highness then sat down amidst shouts of applause. The Bishop of Salisbury seconded the motion and paid a proper compliment to his Royal Highness.

His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex then rose, amidst acclamations, and said, he was proud to add his applause and join in the vote of thanks that he entered warmly into the opinions expressed by his dear Relative, and might weaken the cause he had so ably advocated, if he added many words. What he had heard read from the Report [which was done by Lord Teignmouth, in honest simplicity] confirmed the opinion he had entertained of this Society, to which he had not given his name without the most mature deliberation. The Society, his Royal Highness said, felt as grateful for the smallest subscription as for the greatest donation, for Christian charity ought to be in the breast of every man.-All now assembled contributed by their presence to that great cause going forth, which was of such incalculable benefit, not only to the world at large, but to this country in particular; and the eye of God must look down and bless the work!" I never have felt," added his Royal Highness, "such an impulse of national pride and gratitude to the Society as I do at this moment; and, in becoming linked to such a Society, I consider my exertions only as a brotherly act."--His Royal Highness then moved thanks to the Vice President, &c. amidst shouts of applause.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer addressed the Meeting: as did also Mr. Wilberforce, who remarked in his speech, that although the Chancellor had changed his place, he had not changed his opinion of the Society. Others addressed the Meeting at great length, amidst thunders of applause from an immense assemblage.

It is impossible to do justice to the humility and urbanity which was exemplified in the conduct of the Royal Dukes, and to the general upanimity and co-operation displayed on this interesting occasion by all ranks and persuasions. To every similar institution we have only to say "Go thou and do likewise!"

THE

UTICA

CHRISTIAN MAGAZINE.

VOL. I.]

NOVEMBER, 1813.

[No. 5,

ON CASTING LOTS.

WHATEVER opinion or practice has been handed down from one nation to another, or from one generation to another, possesses the sanction of antiquity, which creates veneration and respect. It is extremely difficult to convince men of any errors, which they have derived from those whom they highly esteemed, and implicitly believed. They feel a strong reluctance to hearing any thing said against a practice or an opinion, in which their fathers, and their fathers' fathers have lived and died. It is probably owing to this, more than to any other cause, that the practice of casting lots has not, long before now, been universally condemned and discarded by Christians. But since men in all ages have been liable to err, we ought to govern every instance of our conduct by a more infallible rule, than that of long and immemorial tradition. Let us, therefore, examine this subject with candor and impartiality, in the light of divine truth.

The first thing to be considered, is the nature and design of casting lots. This implies more than is generally supposed. For, in the first place, the primary design of casting lots is, to take a case out of the hand of man, and refer it wholly to the divine disposal. "The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord." Though there are many modes of drawing lots, yet every mode is designed to elude all human skill and sagacity in drawing. A lottery is never supposed to be fairly conducted, unless it take the case to be decided entirely out of the hand of man, and put it entirely into the hand of God. If the managers should fail to do this, their conduct would be universally disapproved and condemned. It is the very nature and design of casting lots in all cases, to refer a matter solely to the divine decision. Nor is this all that is implied in a lottery.

For, in the second place, it carries in it a solemn appeal to God as a righteous and infallible Judge. The lot causeth

W

contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty." Why ? Because both parties having submitted their cause to a supreme and impartial Judge, and he having judged infallibly right, they ought to be entirely satisfied with his judgment, and sacredly abide by it. When Saul and Jonathan cast lots in a very serious and important case, they made an explicit appeal to God in the character of a righteous Judge. Saul said unto the Lord God of Israel, Give a perfect lot." Accordingly God was pleased to give a just and decisive judgment upon the solemn cause referred to him, by an act of devotion. And the apostles considered a lottery in the same light, and conducted it in the same solemn manner. They desired God to determine, whether Joseph, or Matthias, should be the successor of Judas in the apostleship: and the manner in which they committed this weighty matter to the divine decision was perfeetly proper. They prayed, and said, Thou Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen. Then they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias." Both these instances show, that casting lots is an immediate appeal to God in the character of a righteous Judge. It is an implicit or explicit calling upon God, to go out of the course of his common providence, and, by some special interposition, determine the cause referred to his decision.

It now remains to enquire, whether this practice be right at the present day. It is readily granted, that God did allow men to cast lots under the Old Testament; but the question is, whether he still allows us to adopt this mode of decision under the gospel. In order to determine this case of conscience, the following things ought to be duly considered.

1. We enjoy sufficient means of knowing our duty, without any special interposition of Providence to discover it. The Mosaic dispensation was attended with great obscurity; and those who lived in the time of it were destitute of many advantages of knowing their duty, which we enjoy. For this reason, God vouchsafed to instruct them in a more immediate manner, by dreams, visions, Urim and Thummim, and the casting of lots. But all these methods of instruction, except the last, every one knows have long since ceased; and why not the last? We have no more need of discovering our duty at this day, by lot, than by Urim and Thummim, or by dreams and visions. The apostle expressly tells us, that the bible is a complete rule of faith and practice. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness : that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished

unto all good works." If the bible then points out the whole of our duty, we have no need in any case to cast lots, in order to determine our conduct. And if we have no occasion of appealing to God, for his special direction, what reason have we to imagine, that our appeals will meet his approbation?

:

2. We have no right to cast lots at this day, because we have no divine direction nor permission to do it. Under the legal dispensation, God frequently directed particular persons to decide certain cases by lot. He ordered the land of Canaan to be divided by lot among the twelve tribes of Israel. "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, the land shall be divided by lot: according to the lot, skall the possession thereof be divided, between many and few." It was also by lot, that the daily courses of the priests were determined, and many other matters respecting the temple worship. But in these, and all other cases, in which good men cast lots, they acted by divine direction, which they received either by a divine command, or a divine impulse. There is not the least ground to suppose, that any true Israelites ever cast lots, unless they were divinely commanded, or divinely inspired, to take that method to discover the divine will:For, if they might have lawfully cast lots whenever they pleased, there is no doubt but they would have done it much oftener, than we have any account of in their history. It was a short, easy, and infallible way of deciding the most important and the most difficult cases; and such they would have been very desirous of referring to God, if they had been left to their own choice. But this was not the case. They had no right to appeal to God for the decision of any cause whatever, without his express and particular direction. And nothing short of the same authority can justify us in casting lots at the present day. But who will pretend, that God has commanded or inspired any to cast lots, since the cannon of scripture was completed? The days of inspiration are past, and God has ceased to govern his people by a special providence. We have no right even to ask God for permission to cast lots, and much less to do it, without his permission.

3. To cast lots is really tempting God, and practically saying, that he shall determine such and such cases as we refer to him, by a special providence, which we know he does not mean to exercise under the gospel dispensation. This is acting in the same presumptuous manner, in which Satan would have had Christ acted. He urged our Saviour to cast himself down from the pinnacle of the temple, and to confide in God for his special and immediate protection; but Christ

told him this would be an act of presumption er tempting God, because he had given him no ground to expect his immediate interposition in his favor in such a case. There is precisely the same presumption in easting lots at this day; because it is calling upon God to go out of the course of his common providence, and act as a Judge, which we have no more right to expect, than any other miracle. This may be illustrated by the practice of the Christian church in the ninth century. They made use of various modes of appealing to God, to discover the innocence or guilt of accused persons. One way was, to tie the right foot and left hand of the accused person together, and in that posture cast him into the water. If he sunk, he was acquitted as innocent; but if he floated upon the surface, he was condemned as guilty. Another mode of trial was the fire ordeal. They placed a number of red hot plough-shares in a row, at a certain distance from each other, and ordered the accused person to walk upon them bare-foot. If he did this, without receiving any harm, he was acquitted as innocent; otherwise he was condemned as guilty. These modes of deciding criminal causes have long since been discarded as absurd and impious. But it is easy to see, that they were exactly of the same nature as of casting lots, or appealing to God in the character of Judge; which ought to be equally exploded, as a vain and fruitless, as well as criminal practice. Since God will not be tempted to go out of the course of his common providence to determine cases of equity, there is no safety in deciding any matter by lot, at the present day. Of this, there appears to be an universal conviction. Where can a man be found who believes, that it is safe for a people to choose either their teachers, or rulers, by lot? Who, that has a just and important cause pending in a court of justice, would be willing to have it taken out of the hands of wise and upright judges, and decided by lot? But if it be not safe to determine such weighty and interesting cases by lot, as were thus determined under the Old Testament; how shall we know what cases we may safely determine in this way, at this day? If we may not safely appeal to God in cases of life and death, and in cases where the interest and prosperity of a whole nation lie at stake; how does it appear that we may safely appeal to God in smaller matters? Supposing A and B should claim the whole of a certain piece of land lying between them, and they should cast lots to determine to whom it belongs, and the lot should fall in favor of A. Would this afford any certain evidence to the parties, or to the world, that B had no right to the land? There is the same folly and presumption in men's casting