-11 Chapter 11. Of a Lot.

2-11 Chapter 11. Of a Lot.

1. A Lot is a requesting Divine testimony to decide some controversy, by determining that an event will be manifested in a mere contingency. Proverbs 16:33, The Lot is cast into the lap: but the whole disposition of it is from the Lord. And Proverbs 18:8, A Lot makes contentions cease, and decides among the mighty.
2. We call a Lot a request because it has such a nature, that it expects that the use which it serves is from God alone; and in that respect it immediately regards his providence.
3. We define it by contingency to avoid the error of those who commonly consider a Lot in the manner of an efficient cause, whereby it is said to work by fortune.
4. For there are many fortuitous causes which altogether differ from the consideration of a Lot: as when someone who was digging in search of coal, finds gold; also there are many Lots in which fortune is not an acting cause, as when the Lot depends on whether birds will fly, or some other such effects, produced by a cause that works of its own power.
5. Nor can it be logically defended that the very toss of a Die, or some other such effect on which the consideration of a Lot depends, is always beside the intention or scope of the agent,949 which is necessarily required for such a fortuitous chance.
6. But we do not place a Lot simply in contingency, but in mere contingency: because there are three degrees of contingent things: some happen often, some seldom, and some (so far as we can understand) equally on either part. For in other Contingents, someplace is left to conjecture by some form of art;950 but in mere contingency, there is none.
7. Therefore it is not a fortuitous manner of the efficient cause which is said to rule in Lots, but either that blind fortune, which was made a goddess by profane men and placed in Heaven; or it is the special providence of God, working in a way that is hidden to us.
8. But seeing that in every Lot, the determination of some question or controversy is sought; and it is sought by mere contingency, in itself and in respect to us, altogether undetermined; it must be that the very determination itself (whatever the actual intention of men may be) is from the nature of the thing that is always sought from a higher power that has power to direct such contingencies by certain counsel. And so indeed, the use of a Lot is an appeal that is always made either to the true God, or to some feigned power, which is usually set forth by many under the name of fortune.
9. When therefore our Divines teach that there is a certain extraordinary providence of God set over all Lots, they are not to be taken as saying that either those who used Lots always directly and distinctly respected such a providence; or that God always exercised such a providence — but that the Lot itself, of its own nature, has a certain respect to the singular and extraordinary providence of God in directing an event that is merely contingent; and in this sense, their sentence is most true.
10. For seeing that in a Lot, by the common consent of all, some judgment is expected — and there is no power to give judgment in contingent events, nor is there any other fortune judging it than the certain providence of God — it must be that this judgment, in a singular manner, is expected from God’s providence.
11. Nor can mere contingency itself be a principal cause in deciding any question; nor can man, to whom the event itself is merely contingent, direct it to attain such an end. Therefore it must be that such direction is expected from some superior director.
12. Add to this, that such is the order of proceeding in man’s inquiry, that when men desire some question to be determined, and do not have certain means in their power for this determination, they seek it from some superior power. The consideration of a Lot altogether agrees with this manner of proceeding.
13. Nor can it stand that someone who works by counsel, intending a certain end and scope by certain reason, can subject his action either to fortune or to mere contingency as such: for then such counsel would be without knowledge; and undetermined indifference would be a means of determining a cause.
14. Such an expectation and regard for the singular providence of God, is manifestly taught in Proverbs 16:33,951 where the action of every man surrounding a Lot, is affirmed to be bounded in mere contingency. The Lot is cast into the lap, and being accurately discerned, the whole judgment is referred to God. But its entire disposition is from the Lord.
15. For although all things are otherwise referred to God’s providence in the Scriptures, nothing is usually referred to it with such discerning, unless it has a certain singular respect to it.
16. Nor does it hinder anything that the Hebrew word Mischphath952 is sometimes used to signify something besides Judgment; because it must always be taken according to the subject matter; and there is a certain judgment that is given to Lots by all who describe their nature.
17. Hence, a Lot should not be used rashly, for sport or lighter matters, or in those controversies which are either vain, or can be appropriately decided by other ordinary means.
18. Therefore neither is it to be used ordinarily, or without special revelation, for divining; nor to consult about a right; nor ordinarily about a deed that is past; but it may be used of a division to be made, or of an election that is lawful on both sides, which cannot otherwise be so fitly determined, so that those whom it concerns would be pleased.
19. The opinion of those who defend playing Lots is sufficiently refuted by this one reason: that (by the consent of all) a Lot has a natural fitness to ask counsel of God’s providence in a special manner. For it cannot be that one and the same action, of its own nature, should be specially apt for so sacred a use, and yet despite this, it should be applied to jests and games.
20. The reason contended that the use of a Lot is lawful in light and playful matters — because it is lawfully used in those civil controversies which are of lesser importance — has no consequence. For those civil controversies in which a Lot has its place, are not great by themselves; yet they are made very great by the consequences joined with them, or that adhere to them, which cannot be claimed of those spurting contentions.
21. The tithes of the living Creatures, Leviticus 27:32,953 and the orders of priestly and Levitical administrations, 1 Chronicles 26:13-14; Luke 1:9, 954 might bring great inconveniences with them, unless they were determined by some Divine sentence. And in that respect, they were appointed by Lot, by God’s institution.
22. It does not appear from the nature of Lots, that they most agree with the lightest things.955 For even though we may not expect God’s special determination unless we have done as much as we can beforehand to decide the question, as propounded by ordinary means, yet by our endeavour either weightiness is not removed from the question, or it is not to be committed to a Lot.
23. The very nature of a Lot is HOLY, as with the nature of an Oath. Therefore there is no need for it to receive special sanctification from any special institution. For even if that contingency which is the matter of a Lot, is not of its own nature holy — as neither Bread nor Wine should be esteemed holy of their own nature — yet in the application of a Lot to its use, it puts on a certain sanctity, as with the words of an Oath, and with the elements when used in the Sacraments.
24. It is indeed free for Christians to use created things for those ends to which they are naturally apt, or made apt: But mere contingency has no aptitude of itself to determine any question; nor does it take any aptitude by the consent of those who use it for that end. For in those Lots which are called extraordinary, and are acknowledged to depend upon God and not upon men, the same consent is had in the same manner; and yet it adds nothing to a Lot.
25. None can show that a Lot is indifferent, unless he first demonstrates that there is no special appeal to God’s providence in it.
26. Also, though the matter of sporting things is not tied to this or that kind of indifferent action, yet it has those bounds set to itself, that it can have no place in those things which singularly pertain to communion with God.
27. It is altogether futile to object that a Lot, repeated often, will have different outcomes; for neither is it likely that a Lot can be rightly iterated; nor does every appeal to God’s providence necessarily bring with it his special operation. And yet God, even out of order, is read to have sometimes answered differently to those by whom he was unseasonably tempted. Numbers 22:12, Do not go with them; Numbers 22:20, Arise, go with them.956
28. But it is much vainer to object, in place of an argument, that God cannot be drawn by us at our pleasure to exercise an extraordinary providence. For notwithstanding this, we may appeal to his extraordinary providence when it pleases us.957
29. Therefore playing at Dice is repugnant to religion, not only by the circumstances and by accident, but of its inward nature and in itself.
30. But those games are also comprehended under the name of the Die, which are grounded on mere contingency, even though afterward they are governed by wit, industry, or some skill, as in Table, and Cards.
31. But those human exercises which are grounded upon skill, and are subject in part to casualty958 in the progress, greatly differ from Dice.
32. Whereas, by playing at Dice, men tend to be stirred up to swearing, cursing, and blasphemy, more than in other exercises. This comes partly from the nature of the game itself — because the Lot being often reiterated, and often failing men’s expectation, they think that the power which they imagine governs the Lot, is against them.
33. By the same reasoning, it also comes to pass that those who use those games can scarcely put an end or limit to them — because those who are inferior in the contention, have no reason to despair of their Lot, and so they persist in a pertinacious959 expectation of their wished success.
34. Hence also, losses and inconveniences in other games tend to become extrinsically vitious;960 but in dice, they depend partly on the very nature of the game.