R§titw of Revietoa, li9/06. 



ARCHBISHOP CLARKE ON GAMBLING. 



Laja;c'tc Photo. 



Archbishop Clarke, Melbourne, 



\^Melbourtie 



WTio has taken such a magnificent stand against Gambling 

 and Brink. 



I gladly res[>ond to your request to say something 

 upon the evils of lietting and gambling in the pages 

 of your " Review." 



I feel it is needless for me to draw any of the sad 

 pictures of the sorrow and suffering which .come to 

 countless homes in Australia through this widely- 

 spread habit. The great task before the Church is 

 to convince the conscience of large number of pro 

 fessing Christians of the wrong ]irinciples underlying 

 the practice. People in every class of society prac- 

 tise the habit and justify it as adding to the plea- 

 sure and excitement of life. They are convinced that 

 in their own cases no possible harm can come to 

 them. To deprive them of the excitement attending 

 betting seems to .so many persons a sour and Puri- 

 tanical view directed against innocent enjo\ment. 

 Thev are quite willing to acknowledge that manv 

 people have suffered from the gambling habit, but 

 they never imagine for a moment that they tliem- 

 selves could possibly descend to the dejiths of covet- 

 eousness and jinssion which mark the last stage in the 



gambler's life. They are as ready as anyone to con- 

 demn the vile surroundings of the racecourse and the 

 repulsive lives of many who live by betting, but 

 their justification always is that they themselves 

 could not possibly become such degraded characters 

 On the other hand, there is the constant defence of 

 the spirit of gambling and chance which it is con- 

 tended enters in all speculations and business trans- 

 actions. Now is it possible for the Church to present 

 her case against gambling in such a form as shall 

 appeal to all that is honest and true in human hearts, 

 and to exhibit the fallacy of these arguments by 

 which the practice is justified in a thoughtless and 

 light-hearted compliance with custom ? 



In the first place, surely it is evident to all that 

 the Church's voice will command no respect unless in 

 her own organisations and work she banishes alto- 

 gether every portion of the spirit of gambling. The 

 end does not justify the means, and no matter how 

 good the object m.ay be, whether to build churches 

 and schools, or to maintain charitable and religious 

 work, when the means whereby these objects are at- 

 tained is wrong, the Church is simply abandoning 

 her own position and adopting the ways of the world. 

 The Church of England in Victoria has therefore 

 said unmistakably that no more raffles or lotteries 

 can be sanctioned in bazaars or sales of work. We 

 have done for ever, I hope, with the old plausible 

 words: " It is all for a good cause," and even if we 

 suffer for a while from taking this firm stand, I am 

 convinced that before very long our people will see 

 the justice of it, and we shall be able to raise the 

 standard of giving and to place it upon its proper 

 Christian basis. The art unions, so called, to justify 

 themselves in the eyes of the law, have been nothing 

 but gigantic gambling speculations, and no matter 

 how successful they have been, they can bring no 

 credit to any portion of the Church which adopts 

 them. Better far that our churches should be humble 

 houses of God than costly edifices erected by the 

 wages of iniquity. This, then, is the position of 

 the Church of England in Victoria henceforth. 



We are further trving, as far as possible, without 

 wholly condemning honest bazaars and sales of work 

 to teach our people that the l>est method of giving to 

 God's service is to do so directlv. and to ask for no 

 excitement or pleasure in return for the gifts they 

 dedicate as an offering to God. 



On the general subject of gambling, there is only 

 one position which can be safely maintained — name- 

 Iv, that gambling is wrong. Ixvause it is ba.sed upon 

 wrong motives — first, covetousness. and, secondly, 

 laziness. It is a deliberate attempt to get money 

 which we ha\'e not earned, for whicli we give no ser- 

 \-ice in return, and therefore to which w'e have no 

 right. Honestv must lie at the root of all just trans- 



