Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 3a

How Anti-Gamblers 'Gamble'

How Anti-Gamblers 'Gamble'

The chairman of the Council (Rev. Dr. Gibb—Presbyterian) thanked the Lord that in this matter of church lotteries, the creeds there represented had not even a mote in their eye. And vet in one way or another—directly or indirectly—they are to this hour, and long have been, sadly implicated in such-like 'vicious practices.' In his famous work, 'Traite de Jeu,' the French Calvinist, Barbeyrac, allows a wide freedom in lotteries and games of chance; and many of his quotations and arguments are taken from old Scottish Puritan writers ('Book of Days,' vol. i, p. 374). The Presbyterian 'Larger Catechism' (Q. 142) demands reverence for the Biblical use of lots. And it forbids, not lotteries generally, but only, as we do, 'sinful' ones (Q. 113), and 'wasteful gaming' (Q. 142). We look up our Sydney Smith (new ed. 1850, p. 241), and there we find Fearon's eye-witnessing record of the Presbyterian church which was built with lottery money in the United States. And did not the Rev. Dr. Gibb's brethren of the Kirk for a long period—up to 1826—draw stipends that were paid out of funds derived in part from State lotteries? Moreover we are not aware that admonition, suspension, or excommunication was visited upon the prominent members of their congregations that were associated with the notorious Glasgow lotteries. Here is a table of lottery permits that ought to wring the withers of the over-confident Dr. Gibb. It is compiled from the 'New Zealand Year-Book' for 1900 (p. 412) and for 1902 (p. 487):—
Year. Total. Church of England. Presbyterian. Roman Catholic.
1894-5 46 9 10 23
1895-6 48 8 1 18
1896-7 62 30 3 29
1897-8 70 35 2 32
1898-9 40 14 ... 26
1899-1900 42 13 ... 29
1900-01 55 21 ... 33
page 11

'The Presbyterians used to sin in this matter,' said the Rev. Mr. North. 'Oh, no!' exclaimed Dr. Gibb. 'But not more than once or twice,' explained the Rev. Mr. North. Yet here we have a record of sixteen Presbyterian church lotteries in four years ! But this is not all. You can fairly credit men who bear witness against themselves. One straightforward speaker at the Council's meeting testified that, 'not more than two years ago' he 'was asked to take a ticket' in an illegal lottery—one for which no permit had been obtained—at 'a Wesleyan bazaar.' Is this an isolated 'instance, or the outcropping of a practice? 'I am a Wesleyan myself,' the speaker added, 'and we are not too clean, and we ought to shun the appearance of evil in ourselves before we begin to pick holes in other people's coats' ('Evening Post,' May 1, 1906). And then there is the great Nonconformist bran-tub lottery, in which you buy a chance for sixpence, dip, and perhaps draw out of a tangle of mummy-wrappings—a ha'porth of pins ! 'The element of chance,' said another fair-minded speaker, 'was as wrong in the case of the bran-tub as in an art union conducted by the Roman Catholic Church' ('Post' report). But' (said the Rev. J. J. North) the Presbyterians 'had since repented in sackcloth and ashes.' Not a bit, Brother North ! Bran-tub, 'dredge,' and 'fishpond' lotteries are carried on under the eyes of reverend Nonconformist moralists of every hue. And to this day numbers of our Nonconformist friends, instead of wearing sackcloth and ashes, kneel en benches, and teach in Sunday-schools, and worship in churches, and live in manses that were in part paid for by what (according to the Wellington rigorists) are the proceeds of sin and; 'vice.' This is emphatically a case in which (on their theory) the receivers, users, and beneficiaries are as bad as the original thieves. Let the Council of the Churches insist that (bonfires or smithereens be made of those parts of church and school and manse for which (according to their notion) the contractors were the devil and his angels. When they have done this with sufficient frequency and fervor, we shall believe in the sincerity of their convictions. But not before. In the meantime, their indecent public exhibitions of Pharisaical cant only move us to scorn and ridicule. One of the precious privileges left to us Catholics is a cap- page 12 acity for diaphragm-shaking laughter at the smug inconsistency that puts on airs—whether they be the airs of a Pecksniff, or of a Stiggins, or of a Chadband, or of a Bumble in gown and bands.