Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

manner he is of about the same "grade," as the Americans would say, as a respectable Yorkshire farmer, possessing an estate of 8000l.or 12,000l.,and lives, I should imagine, somewhat in the same style, with a table perhaps more profusely spread with domestic produce, such as beef, mutton, venison, turkeys, game, and fruit,and more restricted in foreign wine and colonial luxuries. He spoke of going over to England to bring two or three hundred people with him to Ohio, where he would make them so happy" but his family attachments bind him to home. Such men as the overlooker of your mill, or others equally steady and experienced but more acute, would prosper well in Ohio under his auspices. They would be growing rich, while the poor settler on land would be only comfortable and independent; a condition, however, by no means to be despised, especially when capable of suggesting such poetical ideas as the following:

'Tis I can delve and plough, love,
And you can spin and sew ;
And we'll settle on the banks
Of the pleasant Ohio.

(To be concluded.)

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. A CORRESPONDENT, in your Number for January (p. 12), has proposed for solution the following query: "Is it consistent with the spirit of Christianity for persons in the present day to draw lots, in any case, in order to settle a doubt ful or disputed point?" The arguments which your correspondent mentions, as usually urged in favour of this mode of decision, are, First, that it rests on the authority of Scripture, both under the Old and the New Testament dispensations; and secondly, that in cases of a minute nature, such as the disposal of a slight article of property, the practice is often convenient, and is, at all events, too indif

CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 243.

ferent to be the subject of either censure or approbation. To these arguments he replies,First, that the Scripture precedents for drawing lots are not applicable to the present times; Secondly, that the practice is not of an indifferent nature, since it is either an appeal to Providence or to mere chance; and, Thirdly, that it may afford encou ragement to the injurious and immoral system of lotteries and games of hazard.

I quite concur with your correspondent in his first argument, that the precedents of drawing lots, mentioned in Scripture, are not applicable to the present times. Those who maintain that they are would confine the drawing of lots to occasions of some moment or difficulty, considering it as an act of profaneness to use this mode of decision on trifling questions. Others argue, on the contrary, that drawing lots is allowable in trifles, but not in cases of importance. The points therefore to be settled, are,-First, is the practice ever lawful? and, secondly, if lawful at all, in what cases is it so?

1. Is the practice ever lawful? Now, it certainly was lawful in the Scriptural instances alluded to by your correspondent; and we are expressly told as a general truth, that "the lot is cast into the lap, but the disposing thereof is of the Lord." In the instances in question, it was a solemn religious act, a direct appeal to the Almighty. But to make it lawful in this sense in modern times, it must be shewn that God has continued to authorize us to expect his immediate and visible interference, whenever we may think proper to appeal to it; which would amount to a standing miracle and continued revelation, and is no where countenanced by the authority of Scripture. I conclude therefore, that casting lots in the present day, as a religious act, is wholly unwarranted and presumptuous.

Still, it may possibly be lawful

X

in a lower view; it may be lawful, for instance, as a convenient mode of decision in dubious cases, without being intended as an immediate appeal to Heaven. Its having been used on certain occasions by Divine appointment for a higher purpose, does not prove that it is unlawful 'to use it for a lower. An act in different in itself may be connected with certain associations, or not, as the case may happen. Some forms and customs in our own church, for example, may be either decent and devout, or superstitious and injurious, according as they happen to be employed by a Protestant or a Papist; that is, according to the intention of using them, and the associations connected with them.

But your correspondent says, that drawing lots is not an action of this indifferent nature; for that it is either a direct appeal to God, or an appeal to the fabled deity called Chance. I agree with him, for the reasons just mentioned, that if it be a direct appeal to God, it is wholly unauthorized in modern times. But I do not admit, that the case comes strictly to this alternative. I know of no such being as "Fors Fortuna." There are certain laws of matter and motion appointed by the Almighty: in recognizing these we are never to forget his supreme agency; yet it is obvious that it would, in numerous instances, be unwise and almost profane, to speak of Him as exercising a direct interference.

I

think that, in the case of drawing lots, this remark strongly applies. We are not to resolve the issue of drawing lots into the immediate 'and visible decision of Divine Providence; nor yet are we to impute it to necessity or chance. It is the effect of certain laws and operations quite regular and consistent, and by which both the contending parties agree to be bound, neither of them having any greater foresight of the result than the other. If both are willing for mutual con

venience to abide by this test, there seems to be nothing abstractedly unlawful in their determination. Whether it is, generally speaking, a wise or prudent method of resolving doubts, is quite another question. Many things are abstractedly "lawful," which for many reasons are not "expedient."

2. Supposing it then to be admitted, that drawing lots may, in certain cases, be lawful; the question is, to what kind of cases does the permission apply?

Is it lawful, in the first place, to resort to this mode of determining differences in cases of importance? Those who think that it is, argue upon the ground of its being a direct appeal to the Almighty; but if, as has been endeavoured to be proved, such an appeal is no longer warranted, the argument cannot rest upon this basis. The question then comes to this: "Are the lower grounds, on which a decision by lot may be defended, admissible in cases of great moment ?" I think unquestionably not; because God has given us better and safer guides, and more rational modes of deci. sion. In those important questions, for example, in which the determination by lot has been resorted to in some religious societies, the points in dispute would have been far more rationally and scripturally settled by vote, or ballot, or arbitration ; or, what is yet better still, by the force of patient and candid argument, and mutual concession. As a proof how much may be done towards the settlement of differences, even in cases of great difficulty, by a forbearing and liberal spirit, I might mention the very honourable fact, that the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Societycomposed as it is of a considerable number of persons of various ranks, denominations, and habits of life, and called, at every meeting, to decide upon questions capable of eliciting much opposition of sentiment-have never, in a single instance, if I am rightly informed,

found it necessary to measure their strength with each other by means of a numerical division. They have uniformly found, that mutual explanation and Christian concession have been amply sufficient to carry on the business of the Society, without the painful alternative of a ballot.

[ocr errors]

I think then I have proved, that drawing lots is not, any more than casting dice, or dissecting piacular victims, a justifiable mode of appealing directly to the decision of the Almighty; and that there is no warrant to expect that the Divine Will will be revealed by such a procedure; and that, consequently, there is no sufficient ground for the adoption of the practice in any case of importance; such as a debate in parliament, or the deliberations of a public body; or a point of faith, or morals, or duty; in all which instances our conscience and rational powers, under the guidance of Scripture, and with prayer to God, are the proper directory of conduct. But in trifling points, such as those mentioned by your correspondent, I cannot think it absolutely unlawful or sinful to use any fair and simple mode of settling a difference which may have the concurrence of both parties. If two brothers, for instance, see fit to draw lots for a family picture, which each wishes to obtain, but which cannot be the property of both; they merely adopt this method to prevent dispute or partiality, and are bound by the issue, not in consequence of any express appeal either to the Almighty or to chance, but by the faith of their mutual compact. I cannot see any thing unlawful in such a case, any more than if a child, asking his father which sweetmeat he was to take out of a dish, were directed to take the one that happened to be nearest him; and which might turn out to be the best or the worst in the Jot.

But while I think that drawing lots, in such unimportant cases, is not un

lawful or indefensible on this lower ground, I am far from considering it a desirable practice, and would strongly caution parents against encouraging, in their families, any of the little expedients of sortilege so common among children. Let it be laid down as a daily maxim, that every thing is to be settled upon principle, and nothing by caprice. The litigated picture above mentioned might very properly have been suffered to follow its legal destination; or the matter might have been referred to the arbitration of a common friend, who should be empowered to decide, after weighing the arguments in favour of each party. In a family, children should be taught to view the decision of a parent as a perfectly satisfactory mode of adjudication, from a full conviction, grounded on constant experience, that the paternal allotment is uniformly founded on wise. and equitable principles. This implicit confidence is one of the greatest sources of peace and order and contentment in a family; and woe to the parent who disturbs it by any decision of an unjust or partial character! A child should feel perfectly confident, even where his allotment happens to be the least enviable, that his parent was guided by wise reasons of right, or seniority, or qualification, or some other just principle which, on the next occasion, would probably restore the balance, and make the good of one the good of all.

I quite concur with your correspondent in his third argument, that every practice should be discouraged which appears to countenance the principle of raffles, lotteries, and games of hazard; and though I think some considerable distinctions exist between the two cases, I will not weaken the force of his precaution by any qualifying remarks. I would only observe, on a general view of the subject, that in all questions of this nature, the particulars of each individual case must determine its merits; for

may be innocent and allowable, under others may be fraught with injurious consequences. A watchful guardian of children or young persons will learn, by experience, exactly where to interpose to correct the evil tendency of any particular practice; but will be cautious of multiplying obstacles, and discovering dangers, where, but for an illjudged officiousness, no datiger might have existed. W.

what, under certain circumstances, occupied. Thus, wherever the use of the lot was commanded or sanctioned by Divine authority under the Old dispensation, and also as it regards the election of Matthias under the New, we are bound to consider the decision as indicative of the Divine appointment; but, in all other cases, such a belief, founded upon the result of the lot, would be totally unjusti fiable. The case of dreams referred to by your correspondent, appears perfectly analogous: whenever they have been employed to convey the mind and will of Jehovah, the direct interposition of the Almighty has been clearly and distinctly made known.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. I WILLINGLY agree with your correspondent Пless, in your Number for January, that the Scriptures furnish no sanction to those modern Christians who use the casting of lots as a religious act. I remember to have beard, not long ago, of a case of this kind which occurred among the Independent Dissenters. A friend of mine in the country was present at the meeting of a Tract Committee, where the minister presided, and, feeling it his duty to object to one of the proposed resolutions, a considerable discussion took place: the minister warmly supported the resolution, and, probably perceiving that it might be lost if put to the vote, urged the propriety of a solemn appeal to God by the lot. My friend in vain protested against the idea of expecting any direct interposition of the Supreme Being, and renewed the protest even after the decision had been made in his own favour.

According to the best judgment which I am able to form upon this subject, the use of the lot is to be regarded solely as one of those various means which the Divine Being has been pleased to employ, on different occasions, for specific and determinate objects, and which were constituted religious acts, only as connected with those objects; being otherwise left on the same footing which they had previously

No one can be farther than myself from countenancing an idea of the existence of chance. The Christian is assured that Jehovah is the Supreme Ruler of the universe: he knows that all things, even those which may appear the most trivial and contradictory, are ordered after the counsel of his will. This doctrine he cherishes as an unfailing source of joy and consolation, though he often feels that the contemplation of it is too wonderful for him. There are times when unaided reason would proudly fathom its depths; but he remembers that " man cannot by searching find out God;" he bows in submissive silence, believing that what he knows but" in part" now, shall hereafter be clearly revealed.

If the view which I take of this subject be correct, it will follow that the use of the lot in determining any point is in no higher sense un appeal to God than the casual reference of it to a byestanderas if, for example, I should be hesitating which of two walks or rides to take, and, for want of any sufficient reason to influence my decision, were to leave the selection to a friend unacquainted with either.

If the casting of the lot be considered in itself a religious act,

it in "a matter light aud. insignificant," is a virtual breach of the Third Commandment.

Much injury has, I fear, been done to the cause of religion by

why should not dancing, the setting up of a pillar, the washing of hands, the slaying of a lamb, the eating of bread, with various other circumstances recorded in Scripture, be deemed religious acts also?—the zealous attempts of her friends Surely it must be evident that the solemnity consists solely in the Divine purposes of their application; and that, if the acts themselves be connected with other objects, they must be judged of by the merits of those objects alone.

If I object to the modern use of dancing, it is not, on the one hand, that dancing is represented in the Scriptures as having formed a part of the religious worship of the Jews; nor, on the other, that there is any thing criminal in the act of dancing; but because, in the exercise of Christian judgment, I believe the practice, under its existing circumstances, greatly tends to dissipate the mind, and to destroy those pure and holy affections which it is our bounden duty to cultivate and cherish. Upon this principle, so far as the use of the lot may bear with injurious effect upon the morals or piety of mankind, it cannot be too strongly reprobated. But here, as in a multitude of other cases, I feel anxious that the question should be fairly met, and that acts which are criminal only in their abuse or misapplication, should not be confounded with such as are positively forbidden: I use this term, because, if the lot be, as your correspondent argues, lemn appeal" to God, the use of

16 a 80

[ocr errors]

to support unimportant, and perhaps untenable, positions. The exposition of their failure has often been held up by her enemies as a boasted proof of the general weakness of her cause; but "her foundations are upon the holy hills," and those bulwarks which are raised upon the basis of Prophets and Apostles, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone, shall abide for ever.

How judicious, and how forcible, are the addresses of St. Paul to the Christian converts at Corinth! how admirably adapted to silence those who obstinately refused to be convinced! And who can read the history of our Saviour's life without being charmed by the wisdom with which He ever spake? His enemies could gain no advantage over Him, and every attempt to entangle Him ended in their own confusion.

It is a subject for congratulation to the Christian world, that many writers of our own day have evinced great solicitude to tread in the same path, Their works will remain monuments of successful attempts to exhibit truth in its native energy, and will continue to advance the cause of that pure and undefiled religion which shall eventually triumph over all the opposition of its enemies.

REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS.

The Pirate, by the Author of "Waverley, Kenilworth, &c." In 3 vols. small 8vo. Edinburgh.

1822.

WHY does not the Christian Observer review the Waverley Novels? has been so often repeated, that we think it time at length to attend to

E. P. S.

the inquiry. Our protracted silence

will have shewn that we are not

very vehement admirers either of novels or novel reading; and, as Christian observers, we do not hold ourselves obliged very frequently to notice works like the present. There are, however, cogent reasons for at length adverting to the

« AnteriorContinuar »