lots at this day, as there would be in their neglecting to plow and sow, and leaving it to God whether they should have a crop.

But to evade the force of these arguments, some may say, that it does not appear, that good men under the legal dispensation always waited for divine direction, before they cast lots. We do not read, for instance, that God directed Saul to cast lots to discover who had disobeyed his orders. It is true, we have no account of his being divinely directed to take that mode of discovery. But there is good reason to suppose, that he was either commanded, or inspired, to cast lots in such an interesting case. God had frequently inspired him before, which is a presumptive evidence, that he caused him to act under a divine impulse on an occasion which required such a special divine influence. Besides, we can hardly suppose, that he would have presumed to pray for a perfect lot, or that God would have heard his prayer, unless the lot had been cast according to his express direction. But even supposing, that Saul neglected to seek divine permission, it only proves that he acted presumptuously, and that God treated him better than he deserved, or had any reason to expect.

It may be further said, that the mariners, who were with Jonah in the storm, cast lots without any permission from the true God; and yet he caused the lot to fall upon the proper person. To this it is easy to reply, that though the God of Israel was under no obligation to give a perfect lot, yet he had a right to do it. He acted as a Sovereign, and governed the lot as well as the winds and waves, to punish Jonah, and to preserve Nineveh. All, therefore, that can fairly be inferred from the conduct of God in this instance is, that though men have no right to cast lots without his express permission; yet he has a right to order the event so, as best to promote his own glory.

But some may still urge, that there is no force in any of the arguments which have been offered against lotteries, because they do not apply to the present practice of casting lots. We grant, say they, that good men under the Old Testament never did cast lots without the permission of God, nor without appealing to his special providence to give a perfect lot. And we further grant, that we have no right to cast lots in the same manner they did, nor to expect the same infallible decision. But we have a right to cast lots, and refer the event to the direction of the common providence of God, in which we ought always to confide.

1

Those who reason in this manner, are desired to consider seriously the following observations:

1. That God does not mean to determine what is right, or what is wrong, in the course of his common providence.— This, Solomon saw, and represented in a striking light. “I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to the men of skill; but time and chance happen to them all." And he also observed, that in the common dispensations of his providence, God paid no more regard to the moral characters, than to the natural abilities and outward circumstances of mankind. "All things come alike to all: there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked; to the good, and to the clean, and to the unclean; to him that sacrificeth, and to him that sacrificeth not; as is the good, so is the sinand he that sweareth, as he that feareth an oath." It is too plain from these passages to need any further proof, that God does not mean, in the course of his common providence, to distinguish the righteous from the wicked, nor to determine the justice or injustice of their conduct, in any of their concerns, or disputes with each other. And if this be true, they certainly have no right to put any case out of their own hands, and refer it to his common providence. To cast lots, therefore, in order to refer any matter to the decision of common providence, is both folly and presumption.

ner;

2. It is to be considered, that God requires men to determine their duty, in all cases, by the exercise of those rational and moral powers, which he has given them for that very purpose. Since God has made us wiser than the beasts of the field, he forbids us to be like the horse or the mule without understanding. Since the inspiration of the Almighty has endowed us with natural and moral discernment, he commands us to show ourselves men, and judge righteous judgment. Upon this ground our Saviour requires us, even of ourselves, to judge what is right. And wherefore, says the apostle, be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is. These prohibitions and injunctions are clothed with divine authority, and lay all men under the highest obligation to judge for themselves what is right, and to act accordingly. But whenever they cast lots, they neglect to use their intellectual faculties, and voluntarily put it out of their power to judge righteous judgment. For there is no case that can be decided by lot, but what might be decided by reason. So that there is no supposable case in which men can cast lots, without violating the plain dictates of both reason and scripture.

3. It is still further to be considered, that men have no right to trust Providence, without doing their duty. So long as they do their duty, it becomes them to leave the event to God, and cheerfully submit to his disposing providence.This sentiment Joab inculcated upon the minds of his soldiers, with great propriety, just as they were going into battle against their enemies. "Be of good courage, and let us play the man for our people; and for the cities of our God: and the Lord do that which seemeth him: good." It was in their power to fight courageously, but not to command success.— In the discharge of their duty, they had a right to trust providence for the event, and they were succeeded in their bold and benevolent exertions. While men exert their best abilities to discover their duty, or to decide their disputes, or to promote the public good, they may safely leave all consequences to God. But when they cast lots, they bury their talents, neglect their duty, and refer that to God, which belongs to them to do. This is not trusting but tempting providence. Supposing the Treasurer of the State should be suspected of embezzling the public money, and the General Court should appoint two of their number, who were expert in figures, and well furnished with proper documents, to look into the matter and determine whether there were any just ground of complaint. Would that committee have a right, without exhibiting their documents, or examining the Treasurer's books, to cast lots, and refer it to the decision of providence, whether the Treasurer had been delinquent or not? Common sense says, that casting lots in such a case, would not be trusting providence but tempting God. And since this holds true in every species of lottery, it is always both unwise and criminal to cast lots.

Now, if the foregoing observations have fully established the point, that there is an intrinsic evil in casting lots, then we may fairly conclude, that no good ends proposed can ever justify the practice. There are many modes of conduct, which are in their own nature indifferent, and which become either right or wrong according to existing circumstances; but whatever has an intrinsic evil in it can never become right. It is always wrong to do evil, that good may come. Could it be demonstrated, that lotteries in all cases have a natural tendency to promote both public and private good, this would not take away their intrinsic evil, and render them innocent and laudable. But it can hardly be doubted, whether it is not their natural and general tendency, to corrupt the morals, disturb the peace, and injure the interests of every human society. A late writer, who has spent much time

and pains in investigating the sources of moral corruption in the city of London, assures us, that lotteries have been one of the principal causes of spreading vice and misery in that great metropolis. And this representation is confirmed by general observation and experience. But notwithstanding all this, we find that politicians, moralists, and divines, will maintain, that lotteries may sometimes serve very useful and important purposes, and in such cases, they may be permitted by civil authority, and countenanced by all classes of people. A few years ago, the associate Presbytery of Pennsylvania publicly condemned lotteries, and agreed to debar from their Christian communion such as should be concerned in them; yet they allowed, that casting lots is a divine ordinance, and may be practised in a serious manner, for the sake of answering serious and important purposes. But, if casting lots be not a divine ordinance under the gospel, and cannot be practised without tempting Divine Providence, then it ought to be totally condemned and discarded, both by private individuals and public bodies. No considerations can make it right to tempt God, and commit a moral evil. Allowing that lotteries may, in some instances, repair the losses of the unfortunate, supply the wants of the poor, and promote the great interests of learning and religion; yet these benevolent ends will not sanctify unlawful means. A legislature would as really tempt providence, by granting a lottery for the purpose of building a house for the public worship of God, as by granting a lottery for the purpose of building a theatre for the purpose of public amusement. As it would be wrong for a people to cast lots, in order to determine whether they should build a meeting-house or not, or in order to determine the place upon which to erect it; so it would be equally wrong to make a lottery for the purpose of raising money to finish it. In a word, since there is an inherent moral evil in lotteries, it is certain to a demonstration, that it never can be right to employ them to promote either the temporal or eternal good of mankind.

Secondly, It may be fairly inferred from the principle which has been established, that no considerations can justify the practice of Duelling. This mode of settling controversies partakes of the nature of a lottery, and derives its origin from, it. The practice was approved in the same dark ages, in which other methods were employed to refer important criminal causes to the immediate decision of God. Mosheim says, "The trial by Duel, or single combat, was introduced by a king of the Burgundians; that the successful combatant was supposed to be in the right; and that this barbarous test of

truth and justice was, in spite of humanity and common sense, adopted by the Lombards, French and Germans, and derived from them to other nations." Though the modes and forms of duelling may have varied, from time to time, yet the explicit or implicit design of it has always been the same.Each combatant professes to rely more upon the justice of his cause, than upon his own strength and dexterity, for success; which is a practical appeal to God, in the character of a just and impartial judge. But this is an awful act of presumption; and while the combatants are contending with each other, they are, at the very same time, contending with their Maker, and must sooner or later answer it to him, who will not be mocked.

Thirdly, In the light of this subject we may clearly discover the criminal nature of all Games of Chance. These are essentially different from those amusements, which are mere trials of skill, and which may, at proper times and for proper purposes, be innocently and even usefully practised. But all Games of Chance partake of the nature of a lottery, and carry in them an implicit appeal to God, which is a profane trifling with the Supreme Disposer of all events. In cards and dice, and in every Game of Chance, there is always a lottery, which gives an advantage to one, and takes an advantage from another, so that success does not entirely depend upon any human art or sagacity. Those, therefore, who join in games of this kind, whether they realize it or not, do actually tempt God, and provoke him to send them a curse instead of a blessing. There are seasons and circumstances, in which good men may find it necessary to relax their minds by innocent diversions; but no one, who means to do every thing heartily as unto the Lord, and not unto men, can consistently countenance cards, or dice, or any Games of Chance, either as a party, or a willing spectator. These are sinful amusements, which ought to be universally condemned and laid aside.

On the whole, it is devoutly to be wished, that all characters and descriptions of men would seriously attend to the criminal nature and destructive tendency of casting Lots, and unite their voices and exertions in putting a final stop to this dreadful source of impiety, immorality, poverty and destruction. Thousands and thousands have been ruined in their personal peace, domestic comfort, temporal interest and eternal happiness, by this fashionable mode of tempting God. Let all, to whom it belongs. use every proper method to suppress lotteries of every kind. It nearly concerns parents and guardians, public and private teachers, informing and exe

X