The Use of the Lot.

AN ARTICLE

BY REV. THOMAS SMYTH, D. D., Pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church, Charleston, S. C.

Extracted from the Southern Presbyterian.

43-VOL. VI.

THE ART UNIONS AND THE USE OF

THE LOT.

Mr. Editor: I concur with you in believing that the Art Unions are accomplishing a great and good work for the refinement and moral improvement of our country, and that there is nothing in their nature, object, or rules, which can be regarded with disapprobation.

The æsthetic principles of our nature by which we are made susceptible of the emotions of beauty and sublimity, and the exercise of taste, are among the most important inlets of knowledge, civilization and refinement, in youth, in manhood, and in old age. Music, painting, statuary, and architecture, are therefore mainsprings in the machinery of human society, and come to be of paramount necessity in an active and mechanical age like ours, and in a country where the happiness of all depends upon the elevation and refinement of every individual. The Art Unions which have sprung up among us within a few years, I regard as supplying an important service towards the perpetuity and efficiency of our institutions and the social and moral elevation of society. By fostering the taste for the beautiful and the good; by purifying that taste and preserving it from impure and corrupting influences; by bringing the means of cultivating and indulging this high principle within the reach of all; by associating in this self-elevating progress the rich and the poor, the high and the low; by increasing the ties and associations which bind together all portions of this great confederacy; by patronizing the genius and talent of American artists; and by throwing the charm of refinement around all the dwellings of our happy land; these Art Unions are entitled to the approbation, and, if possible, to the encouragement of every patriot and philanthropist.

"But, it is said they swindle many in order to enrich a few, by giving to a few splendid pictures, and to the rest only their engravings!" This is not a correct statement of the case. EVERY SUBSCRIBER receives in return a certain and full equivalent for his subscription. Nay, the plate and book of etchings given by the American Art Union to EVERY subscriber could not be purchased in kind for the amount of the subscription. And the only reason why these societies can give these pictures to all, and yet purchase and distribute valuable pictures, is, the immense number of copies supplied by the same plates, and the very large number of subscribers. With a small subscription list, the plates could not be paid for, nor the engravings

given. But with an immense number of subscribers a small profit is secured on each, which makes in the aggregate a large amount for the purchase of pictures and the patronage of art.

But in order to distribute these pictures, which amount to some hundreds, among sixteen thousand subscribers, and thus every year return to the people in every part of our country the entire proceeds of their united subscription, resort must be had to the lot; and this, it is said, is sinful, because it involves-as Dr. Mason and the Bible before him have shown-an appeal to Providence.

Now the Art Unions, I admit, do employ the lot in order to decide to whom and to what locality the pictures thus purchased shall be assigned; and the lot does, I admit, necessarily imply a direct appeal to the living God, and that His holy providence is concerned in the event. In all that the Bible teaches, and in all that Dr. Mason so ably inculcates on this subject, I fully concur. And I heartily concur also in the withering exposure made by Dr. Mason, both of the absurdity and impiety of those who would reject this conclusion because it enables men whenever they please to "compel the Almighty to be umpire between them."

A decision by the lot is therefore a decision by God's providence; and it ought to be employed in a manner suitable to its nature, and in matters which warrant such an appeal. What then are the uses of the lot? When is it proper? And how should it be conducted?

Besides bearing witness in its very use to the particular Providence of God, the lot, says Dr. Mason, is of use to determine questions among men.

"Like the oath it is a last resort. The one appeals to God for the sincerity of our declarations, the other for the direction of our choice. They are different forms of acknowledging his government, but the effect of both is the same-to put an end to controversy, by putting a limit to human research. "Thus the Scriptures represent them:

AN OATH

For confirmation is an end of all strife.-Heb. 6: 16.

THE LOT

Causeth contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty. Prov. 18: 18.

"The parallel is exact, and leads to the second question, When is the lot proper?

"In cases of importance, which cannot be decided by other means in the exercise of our reason; and for the prevention or termination of strife.

"The case must be important: for appeal to the living God with thoughtless frequency, upon mere trifles, is an impiety

which cannot be indulged with impunity, nor thought of without horror.

"The case must not only be difficult, but such as our best discretion is unable to bring to a comfortable issue.

"For if we appeal directly to the judgment of God in things which may be fairly and wisely settled without so appealing, we depreciate the value, by superseding the exercise of our rational faculties-we endeavor to disturb the order which God has established, subjecting the tribunal of human reason to the tribunal of his supremacy, inasmuch as we attempt to abolish the inferior tribunal, by withdrawing causes which are of its proper jurisdiction, and thus impeaching his wisdom, not. honoring his throne, we provoke him rather to inflict his curse than to command his blessing.

"Cases in which the lot may be lawfully used are such as these:

"The division of property; when the portions of it are adjusted with impartiality and skill, and yet the claimants cannot agree upon the distribution. The appointment of men to a service of a peculiar interest or hazard, when more than the requisite number appear, and their respective qualifications or disqualifications are pretty equally balanced.

"The selection of victims, when several, involved in the same crime, are under the same condemnation; but the government, leaning to mercy, and resolving to make an example, requires only a part to suffer, and does not name the individuals. The reader can easily add other illustrations.

"I have only to answer the third question upon this head, viz., How then should the lot be conducted?

"As it is an act of worship, the glorious majesty of Him with whom they have to do should be present to the minds of the worshippers. Passion, levity, indifference, should be laid aside. The name of God should be invoked by prayer; and the lot cast as under his eye. When the issue is declared, the parties concerned should repress every feeling of resentment or dissatisfaction, and acquiesce with promptitude and reverence, as they undoubtedly would have done, had their Almighty Umpire rendered himself visible, and given sentence in their hearing." Such are the views of this great man.

Whenever therefore the purpose for which the lot is used is moral-whenever important interests of individuals or numbers are involved-whenever our best discretion is unable to bring these interests to a comfortable issue-and whenever the lot is resorted to reverently and discreetly in order that providence may decide what cannot satisfactorily be decided otherwise then and in that case the use of the lot, just like the use of the oath, is proper and authorized by that God, by whom the