Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
James Durham on the Third Commandment.......
"A lot or lotting is, The committing of the decision of some things in an immediate way to divine providence, without the intervening casualties, or influence of any second cause, to sway in that decision: so that when the thing falleth out, and is decided, there can be no reason given, why it is so in men's part, but that the Lord was pleased to dispose. As it was in that instance of lotting about the election of the twelfth apostle, in Judas his room, Acts 1. So from Prov. 16.33. it is clear that that is a lot whereof the whole disposal is of God: And therefore it is said, chap. 18.18. To cause contentions to cease, and to part betwixt the mighty; because none can quarrel, concerning that which man hath no hand in.
A lot may be many ways appointed, either by the throw of a dice, or the like; or by some other mean putting difference betwixt one and other, even as men shall appoint: as when it is by what beast they shall first see, by what saying, or by what book they first hear, or look on, &c. Only we think lots differ from omens, or superstitious observations, thus: (1.) Lots are to decide betwixt two; the other are collections, which one may make concerning himself. (2.) Lots follow on some appointment that is mutual and is free; the other may be other ways.
How Lots Concern the Third Commandment
That lots, in the use of them, concern this command, these things will make it out several ways.
1. That which putteth God to it, in an immediate way, concerneth this command, especially; I mean, whatever putteth him to declare his mind or reveal himself, that putteth him to it, and is a special implicit invocating of him: But lots or lotting putteth him to it in an immediate way; for, (1.) None other can dispose of them but he, Prov. 16.33. (2.) What is discovered by those lots is either God's mind or the devil's, or is by chance; but it cannot be any of the latter two, therefore it is the first. (3.) It is the putting him to it, more than he is by prayer; because, [1.] It is by an extraordinary way, and often added to prayer. [2.] It is for the manifesting of a secret decree; for by it we are to understand what God has appointed, and eternally decreed, concerning such an event. Hence it is, that in scripture, prayer is so often, if not always joined with it; and therefore it must in a special manner belong to this command: Yea, if God be slighted in it, he is wronged: If acknowledged, according to his interest, he is in a special manner concerned, where he wholly ordereth the thing.
2. It is either a mean, appointed by him to understand his mind or not; if appointed by him, then it is insofar in his ordinance, and his name is concerned in it; if not, then it is abused.
3. The meddling with God's secret, or with his will, or way of revealing it in his providence, must belong to this command; but this especially meddleth with all these: therefore, &c.
4. That which cannot be gone about, but the name of the Lord is either wronged or honoured in it, must necessarily belong to this command, for that is the scope of it: but none can lot without either depending on God, for the ordering of, and acknowledging of him in it, when it is done; and so honouring him, or neglecting him, and taking his name in vain, (1.) By miskenning his providence, and thinking to get that decided some other way. (2.) By irreverent going about it. (3.) By attributing it to some other thing. (4.) By not acknowledging God in it, nor submitting to it when done so. So, then, these three ways men fail, and take God's name in vain. (1.) Before the lot. (2.) In the time of it. (3.) After it is past."
He continues later on.....
"Unlawful Lotting
On the contrary, we may see how men fail here, (1.) In weighty things, by not keeping the right manner before the lot, in the time of it, and after it is past, when it endeth not strife. (2.) In trivial things, by making this too customary; so that folk use the lot almost in every thing, making that which is extraordinary to become ordinary, contrary to the nature thereof. It is an ultimate judge and decider, even as an oath is for ending all controversies: It is like unto Moses (as one saith) the great matters should be reserved to it; yea, it is greater than Moses, it is God himself, thus in his providence passing a decision: The lesser things should be otherwise decided.
LOTTING GAMES: DICE, CARDS, &c.
3. We may gather from what is said, what is to be thought of such games and pastimes as run on lottery (having that for the very foundation of them) and having an immediate dependence on providence for the issue of them.
1. That they are lottery cannot be denied, for they have all that is in lotting; there is in them a putting of things to a doubtful event as to us; and that event is either guided by God, or by some other, and which ever of the two, we say, it will be a breach of this command, so trivially for our pleasure to take the name of God in vain, as many formally do; for none can tell how such a thing will come to pass by any reason.
2. That to do so, or to use a lot in this case is a sin, may also be made out clearly, (1.) Because it is against the end of lots which is to divide or decide where there is a controversy, and so it interverteth their end, and becometh sinful; even as swearing, where no controversy is, is a sin. (2.) There is either no necessity at all to take that away, or there is but a made necessity of our own; it must therefore be a tempting of God: as suppose this to be the end of lotting to know in the upshot whether so much money should belong to you, or to me; no doubt that point of right to whom the money belongeth, may be decided as well at the entry; therefore this way of decision is in vain.
3. That lotting which hath in it no reverence to God, but baffleth his name, nor is consistent with the right manner of lotting, cannot be lawful; but this is such, for it is not only, de facto, contrary to the former rules, but in its own nature is inconsistent with them; this is clear, (1.) From the great frequency of lotting in these games. (2.) In the little dependence on God for the event that is in them; and indeed a spiritual frame of dependence on him, cannot well, if at all, consist with them. (3.) From its consistency with serious prayer: What! can or dare men pray in earnest for God's guiding in these things, in every throw of dice, or shuffling of the cards? or in faith expect still the revealing of his decree that way? or when it is done and past, can they suitably acknowledge him in it? Men dare not look so seriously on these things, yea, they know they dare not.
4. That way of lotting, which cannot but occasion the wronging of the name of the Lord, and his providence, cannot be right; but this is such: for we must say, that either God's hand is not at all in such things, and so we deny his providence; or we must say that he may be put to it by this common and course way, and that in our sport, and for our pleasure, in his immediate providence to declare his mind; which is a notable baffling (to say so) and profanation of his name; hence it is, that men so often swear, curse, fret, and exclaim in these games at cards, dice, &c. (wherein chance, luck, fortune, &c. are so much looked to, and in a manner deified) and altogether overlook and disregard the majesty of God, as if he had no providence at all in such things.
5. What is done without warrant of either scripture, precept, or practice, cannot be done in faith. Now, there can be no such warrant drawn from scripture for such plays or games, the very foundation whereof is lottery, and not only accidentally and rarely incident to them, as may be on the matter to other lawful recreations, if that can be called lottery at all, which is rather an undesigned, unexpected surprising incident of providence; whereas, in the other, the decision by a lot is designed, waited for, and all along the game referred unto, and hung upon: yea, it is unsuitable and inconsistent with the scripture-way of using lots, which is always in most grave and important things; but this way of using them is manifestly to abuse them.
6. That which hath a native tendency to make any ordinance of God vile and contemptible cannot be warrantable: Now, that lotting in these games hath such a tendency to make the ordinance of a lot, and of prayer, which should at least be joined with it, contemptible, is obvious to any serious and impartial considerer of it; neither can it in reason be thought, that that which is in so sacred a manner, and with prayer to God, to be gone about in one thing, and is by him appointed such an end as an oath is, can warrantably be used in a manner, and for ends so vastly different from the former in another thing.
7. If lots belong at all to this command, then these lotting-games are unlawful; for they cannot, with any religions reason, be supposed to be commanded in it, and therefore they must be forbidden. And if in trivial things lots may be unlawful, much more in such games which end not strife and contentions, but often and ordinarily begin them, and bring them to a height: and therefore do the ancients declaim against this as a sacrificing to devils, and invented by idolaters.
Objections Answered
If it be said here, That these things are thought but very little of by men:
Answer. It is true, and no great wonder; for most men use but to think little of the breach of this command, yet are their breaches sinful notwithstanding; as many take God's name in their mouth lightly, and think but little of it, and yet that maketh not their doing so cease to be a sin. God hath added this certification here the more peremptorily for that very end, that men may not think little or lightly of the very least breach of this command, to let pass more gross breaches of it.
If it be further objected here, Why may not such plays or games be used as well as other plays, wherein sometimes chance or fortune (as they call it) will cast the balance?
Answer. (1.) Though in those other, chance may now and then occasionally occur, yet it is but accidental; these are simply, or at least mostly guided by lotting, and immediate providences, and cannot be prevented or made to be otherwise by the best art and skill of men. (2.) In these other games there is an intervention of second causes, and an use of men's parts, natural and moral, for obtaining such an end, ultimate (in some respect) and immediate; as, for example, when men strike a ball with a club, or throw a bowl to a hole, they are guided therein rationally, as they are in coming down a stair; and they act therein, as in other things, by second causes and use of means, whether of body or mind; but in these lotting games it is not so, for all is cast and hung upon extraordinary providence, even as if a man, who cannot, would betake himself to swimming in, or walking upon the water, when another betaketh himself to a bridge or a boat."
There also may be something similar in the Westminster Larger Catechism.
"Q. 113. What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God’s name as is required; and the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious or wicked mentioning or otherwise using his titles, attributes, ordinances, or works, by blasphemy, perjury; all sinful cursings, oaths, vows, and lots...."
So now the questions, for those who hold this position. (1) Are random number generators unlawful? If not, how? As far as I know, they are used pretty much everywhere. From many computer games to deciding who plays who in a tournament or who is roomed with who in college dorms to scientific simulations and modeling to internet and computer security, forced, practical (as opposed to working with something like probability theory or applying probability theory to the real world) randomness is everywhere. (Of course, large use doesn't dictate morality.)
(2) Would it be unlawful to use "lots" in learning about probablility theory? If not, how? For example, in order to show that probability theory gives reasonable results, kids in elementary schools are sometimes given probability "experiments" in which they flip a coin many times and record the results to compare with theory.
Thoughts?
"A lot or lotting is, The committing of the decision of some things in an immediate way to divine providence, without the intervening casualties, or influence of any second cause, to sway in that decision: so that when the thing falleth out, and is decided, there can be no reason given, why it is so in men's part, but that the Lord was pleased to dispose. As it was in that instance of lotting about the election of the twelfth apostle, in Judas his room, Acts 1. So from Prov. 16.33. it is clear that that is a lot whereof the whole disposal is of God: And therefore it is said, chap. 18.18. To cause contentions to cease, and to part betwixt the mighty; because none can quarrel, concerning that which man hath no hand in.
A lot may be many ways appointed, either by the throw of a dice, or the like; or by some other mean putting difference betwixt one and other, even as men shall appoint: as when it is by what beast they shall first see, by what saying, or by what book they first hear, or look on, &c. Only we think lots differ from omens, or superstitious observations, thus: (1.) Lots are to decide betwixt two; the other are collections, which one may make concerning himself. (2.) Lots follow on some appointment that is mutual and is free; the other may be other ways.
How Lots Concern the Third Commandment
That lots, in the use of them, concern this command, these things will make it out several ways.
1. That which putteth God to it, in an immediate way, concerneth this command, especially; I mean, whatever putteth him to declare his mind or reveal himself, that putteth him to it, and is a special implicit invocating of him: But lots or lotting putteth him to it in an immediate way; for, (1.) None other can dispose of them but he, Prov. 16.33. (2.) What is discovered by those lots is either God's mind or the devil's, or is by chance; but it cannot be any of the latter two, therefore it is the first. (3.) It is the putting him to it, more than he is by prayer; because, [1.] It is by an extraordinary way, and often added to prayer. [2.] It is for the manifesting of a secret decree; for by it we are to understand what God has appointed, and eternally decreed, concerning such an event. Hence it is, that in scripture, prayer is so often, if not always joined with it; and therefore it must in a special manner belong to this command: Yea, if God be slighted in it, he is wronged: If acknowledged, according to his interest, he is in a special manner concerned, where he wholly ordereth the thing.
2. It is either a mean, appointed by him to understand his mind or not; if appointed by him, then it is insofar in his ordinance, and his name is concerned in it; if not, then it is abused.
3. The meddling with God's secret, or with his will, or way of revealing it in his providence, must belong to this command; but this especially meddleth with all these: therefore, &c.
4. That which cannot be gone about, but the name of the Lord is either wronged or honoured in it, must necessarily belong to this command, for that is the scope of it: but none can lot without either depending on God, for the ordering of, and acknowledging of him in it, when it is done; and so honouring him, or neglecting him, and taking his name in vain, (1.) By miskenning his providence, and thinking to get that decided some other way. (2.) By irreverent going about it. (3.) By attributing it to some other thing. (4.) By not acknowledging God in it, nor submitting to it when done so. So, then, these three ways men fail, and take God's name in vain. (1.) Before the lot. (2.) In the time of it. (3.) After it is past."
He continues later on.....
"Unlawful Lotting
On the contrary, we may see how men fail here, (1.) In weighty things, by not keeping the right manner before the lot, in the time of it, and after it is past, when it endeth not strife. (2.) In trivial things, by making this too customary; so that folk use the lot almost in every thing, making that which is extraordinary to become ordinary, contrary to the nature thereof. It is an ultimate judge and decider, even as an oath is for ending all controversies: It is like unto Moses (as one saith) the great matters should be reserved to it; yea, it is greater than Moses, it is God himself, thus in his providence passing a decision: The lesser things should be otherwise decided.
LOTTING GAMES: DICE, CARDS, &c.
3. We may gather from what is said, what is to be thought of such games and pastimes as run on lottery (having that for the very foundation of them) and having an immediate dependence on providence for the issue of them.
1. That they are lottery cannot be denied, for they have all that is in lotting; there is in them a putting of things to a doubtful event as to us; and that event is either guided by God, or by some other, and which ever of the two, we say, it will be a breach of this command, so trivially for our pleasure to take the name of God in vain, as many formally do; for none can tell how such a thing will come to pass by any reason.
2. That to do so, or to use a lot in this case is a sin, may also be made out clearly, (1.) Because it is against the end of lots which is to divide or decide where there is a controversy, and so it interverteth their end, and becometh sinful; even as swearing, where no controversy is, is a sin. (2.) There is either no necessity at all to take that away, or there is but a made necessity of our own; it must therefore be a tempting of God: as suppose this to be the end of lotting to know in the upshot whether so much money should belong to you, or to me; no doubt that point of right to whom the money belongeth, may be decided as well at the entry; therefore this way of decision is in vain.
3. That lotting which hath in it no reverence to God, but baffleth his name, nor is consistent with the right manner of lotting, cannot be lawful; but this is such, for it is not only, de facto, contrary to the former rules, but in its own nature is inconsistent with them; this is clear, (1.) From the great frequency of lotting in these games. (2.) In the little dependence on God for the event that is in them; and indeed a spiritual frame of dependence on him, cannot well, if at all, consist with them. (3.) From its consistency with serious prayer: What! can or dare men pray in earnest for God's guiding in these things, in every throw of dice, or shuffling of the cards? or in faith expect still the revealing of his decree that way? or when it is done and past, can they suitably acknowledge him in it? Men dare not look so seriously on these things, yea, they know they dare not.
4. That way of lotting, which cannot but occasion the wronging of the name of the Lord, and his providence, cannot be right; but this is such: for we must say, that either God's hand is not at all in such things, and so we deny his providence; or we must say that he may be put to it by this common and course way, and that in our sport, and for our pleasure, in his immediate providence to declare his mind; which is a notable baffling (to say so) and profanation of his name; hence it is, that men so often swear, curse, fret, and exclaim in these games at cards, dice, &c. (wherein chance, luck, fortune, &c. are so much looked to, and in a manner deified) and altogether overlook and disregard the majesty of God, as if he had no providence at all in such things.
5. What is done without warrant of either scripture, precept, or practice, cannot be done in faith. Now, there can be no such warrant drawn from scripture for such plays or games, the very foundation whereof is lottery, and not only accidentally and rarely incident to them, as may be on the matter to other lawful recreations, if that can be called lottery at all, which is rather an undesigned, unexpected surprising incident of providence; whereas, in the other, the decision by a lot is designed, waited for, and all along the game referred unto, and hung upon: yea, it is unsuitable and inconsistent with the scripture-way of using lots, which is always in most grave and important things; but this way of using them is manifestly to abuse them.
6. That which hath a native tendency to make any ordinance of God vile and contemptible cannot be warrantable: Now, that lotting in these games hath such a tendency to make the ordinance of a lot, and of prayer, which should at least be joined with it, contemptible, is obvious to any serious and impartial considerer of it; neither can it in reason be thought, that that which is in so sacred a manner, and with prayer to God, to be gone about in one thing, and is by him appointed such an end as an oath is, can warrantably be used in a manner, and for ends so vastly different from the former in another thing.
7. If lots belong at all to this command, then these lotting-games are unlawful; for they cannot, with any religions reason, be supposed to be commanded in it, and therefore they must be forbidden. And if in trivial things lots may be unlawful, much more in such games which end not strife and contentions, but often and ordinarily begin them, and bring them to a height: and therefore do the ancients declaim against this as a sacrificing to devils, and invented by idolaters.
Objections Answered
If it be said here, That these things are thought but very little of by men:
Answer. It is true, and no great wonder; for most men use but to think little of the breach of this command, yet are their breaches sinful notwithstanding; as many take God's name in their mouth lightly, and think but little of it, and yet that maketh not their doing so cease to be a sin. God hath added this certification here the more peremptorily for that very end, that men may not think little or lightly of the very least breach of this command, to let pass more gross breaches of it.
If it be further objected here, Why may not such plays or games be used as well as other plays, wherein sometimes chance or fortune (as they call it) will cast the balance?
Answer. (1.) Though in those other, chance may now and then occasionally occur, yet it is but accidental; these are simply, or at least mostly guided by lotting, and immediate providences, and cannot be prevented or made to be otherwise by the best art and skill of men. (2.) In these other games there is an intervention of second causes, and an use of men's parts, natural and moral, for obtaining such an end, ultimate (in some respect) and immediate; as, for example, when men strike a ball with a club, or throw a bowl to a hole, they are guided therein rationally, as they are in coming down a stair; and they act therein, as in other things, by second causes and use of means, whether of body or mind; but in these lotting games it is not so, for all is cast and hung upon extraordinary providence, even as if a man, who cannot, would betake himself to swimming in, or walking upon the water, when another betaketh himself to a bridge or a boat."
There also may be something similar in the Westminster Larger Catechism.
"Q. 113. What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God’s name as is required; and the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious or wicked mentioning or otherwise using his titles, attributes, ordinances, or works, by blasphemy, perjury; all sinful cursings, oaths, vows, and lots...."
So now the questions, for those who hold this position. (1) Are random number generators unlawful? If not, how? As far as I know, they are used pretty much everywhere. From many computer games to deciding who plays who in a tournament or who is roomed with who in college dorms to scientific simulations and modeling to internet and computer security, forced, practical (as opposed to working with something like probability theory or applying probability theory to the real world) randomness is everywhere. (Of course, large use doesn't dictate morality.)
(2) Would it be unlawful to use "lots" in learning about probablility theory? If not, how? For example, in order to show that probability theory gives reasonable results, kids in elementary schools are sometimes given probability "experiments" in which they flip a coin many times and record the results to compare with theory.
Thoughts?
Last edited: