Use and Abuse

But (4) perhaps the Wellington Council of the Churches contends that church lotteries should be abolished because they are liable to abuse, or have been abused? In their condemnation of the abuses of church lotteries we are with them with all our hearts. And our principles in regard to the subject are, unlike theirs, well known and clearly expounded (see pp. 3-4). Stated in the most summary terms: (1) Church lotteries are in themselves harmless; (2) they are perfectly permissible provided certain conditions are fulfilled: (a) the object must be good, or at least (as our theologians say) indifferent; (b) the money risked must belong to him who risks it, he must have the free disposal of it, and the amount staked must not exceed what he may in justice to himself or others spend; (c) the lottery must be free, from fraud and deceit; and (d) there must be a fair equality of chance for all. The moment any one of these guiding principles is violated, the lottery—in so far as the violation extends—becomes at once immoral. 'And we abhor it to the full extent of the abuse. If our Wellington accusers assert any abuse, it becomes their duty to prove and not assume it. Even the civil courts decline to condemn the forger or the footpad unheard, or on hearsay report, or on ex-parte evidence. So do we. And least of all shall we condemn any individual, or any body of people on such evidence when tendered by men so abounding in theological bitterness and so rec' 1 ss in assertion as are some of the members of the Wellington Council of the Churches. The Rev. Dr. Blair (already quoted) said:

'He should be heartily sorry to countenance anything that would tend to lead anyone astray; but he could hardly conceive of such a trifling matter as a bazaar raffle doing so. Excess in everything led to disaster, and the most legitimate pursuit might be abused by excess. But to reason against the legitimate use because of the excess of some, would lead in many things to extraordinary consequences.'

Does the Council of the Churches stand for the principle of the abolition, as a 'vicious practice,' of every- page 14 thing that has been, or is liable to be, abused? Well, what gift of God has been more grossly abused by many ill-conditioned persons (the Disciples of Free Love, for instance) than the Bible? Is the Bible, then, to be abolished? And what about the bran-tub—and the Stock Exchange? All manner of sport has been abused. Does the the Council propose to abolish football and golf and cycling; and the rest? And look at the senseless extravagance of many in the matter of dress. Do the 'councillors' therefore propose to march habitually about—as the Canadian Dukhoubors sometimes do—'mit nodings on'? Or do they propose to eat no more because so many 'dig their graves with their teeth'? It is a bad principle that will not bear being pushed to its logical conclusion.