Balmford's tract is a very short one, consisting of only eight leaves, inclusive of the dedication and title. The speakers in the dialogue are Professor and Preacher. The Professor had read, in the Common-places of Peter Martyr, the declaration that dice-play is unlawful, because depending on chance; but not being satisfied with what is there said about table-playing, he craves the Preacher's opinion concerning playing at tables and cards. The Preacher, after propounding several objections to the games on moral grounds, thus syllogistically determines that games of chance are unlawful: "Lots are not to be used in sport; but games consisting in chance, as Dice, Cards, Tables, are Lots: therefore not to be used in sport." In support of this conclusion, he refers to Joshua, xviii, 10; I. Samuel, xiv, 41; Jonah, i, 7; Malachi, i, 6-7; and Hebrews, vi, 16. Lots, he says, were sanctified to a peculiar use, namely, to end controversies. On those grounds he absolutely condemns all games depending on chance. The plea in favour of play merely for amusement he rejects; being of opinion that, if such games were even lawful, the desire of gain would soon creep in; for, according to the common saying, "Sine lucro friget ludus,—No gaining, cold gaming."
Several continental divines, of the reformed party, had previously expressed similar opinions, [315] but without exciting much remark; and the question seems to have been regarded as one of mere scholastic theology, until the differences between the Puritans and the High-church party, in the reign of James I, caused it to be treated as a question of practical religion. The question appears to have occasioned great heats in the University of Cambridge; for Mr. William Ames, being then Fellow of Christ's College, having preached at St. Mary's, in 1610, against playing at cards and dice, as being forbidden by Scripture, his discourse gave so much offence to persons in authority that he withdrew from the University in order to avoid expulsion. Ames subsequently was appointed Professor of Theology at the University of Franeker, in Friesland; and was one of the principal opponents of Gataker in the controversy on Lots.
The question respecting the lawfulness of games of chance has been thoroughly investigated, both morally and theologically, by Barbeyrac, in his 'Traité du Jeu;' [316] and his determination is, that such games are not in themselves immoral, whether the stakes be small or great; and that they are not forbidden, either directly or indirectly, by the Scriptures. In the Preface he thus speaks of the probable effect of the absolute condemnation of all games of hazard, on the assumed ground of their being both immoral in themselves, and forbidden by the Scriptures.
"I am not surprised that Gataker should have found so much opposition on the points which he maintained, considering the times in which he wrote. It, however, appears strange to me that, in an age when so many prejudices, both philosophical and theological, have been shook off, there should still be found people, who, looking only at the abuses which may arise in the use of things indifferent in themselves, condemn such things as absolutely evil, on grounds either frivolous or extremely doubtful. Such condemnation, so far from correcting those who are addicted to such abuses, is more likely to confirm them in their course. Nothing but the evidence of truth can enlighten the mind, and thus make an impression on the heart. False lights and subtleties, however specious, will never dissipate the illusions produced by favorite passions. Such passions, indeed, acquire new force as soon as a plausible pretext for their indulgence is discovered in the weakness of the arguments with which they are assailed; while, by attacking them in a proper manner, he who has been deluded by them may be induced to open his eyes to the truth, and to perceive his errors. If, by such means, a reformation is not effected, it is in consequence of the same obstacles which render unavailing whatever may be alleged against things which are, from their very nature, unquestionably evil. I doubt much if a gamester were ever deterred from play by the reasons brought forward to persuade him that the practice was a profanation of Divine Providence. If the sermons and writings asserting such principles have produced any good effect, it is in consequence of their containing also solid reasons derived from the abuse of the thing confounded with its mere usage. The former have produced little or no impression; and it is to the latter alone that the victory is to be ascribed."
As Barbeyrac's work is not common, and has never been translated into English, it is presumed that the following extracts from it will not be uninteresting to the reader. "It is certain that Man was not sent into the world to pass his time in eating, drinking, and merry-making. On the contrary, everything shows that he is destined by his Creator to be employed in matters of utility and serious consideration. The natural use of all our faculties has this manifest tendency. We have Mind only that we may think: we have Hands and Feet only that we may move and act. Who could suppose that this industry, this address, this penetration,—all these wonderful talents, capable of producing the Sciences and Arts,—were given to us only to be concealed, or to be shamefully wasted, either in sluggish idleness, or in a perpetual round of dissipation and amusement? The necessity of providing for our wants,—an obligation common to all in a state of nature,—requires that most men should apply themselves to work of some kind or other; and even those who have the means of living without labour are yet not exempt from the duty of applying themselves to some creditable employment, which may not only secure them against the temptations of idleness, but may also render them useful members of society.
"But though the All-wise Creator has made Man for labour, he has not made him for incessant labour, without relaxation. The same constitution of our nature which displays the necessity of action, also shows that we ought occasionally to rest. Our bodies are not of iron, nor our spirits of unwearied activity; and the human machine soon gets out of order when unremittingly worked.... We are not long in perceiving that too intent an application to any work weakens the strength of the body, and lessens the activity of the mind. The way to become disgusted with anything, is to be unremittingly employed about it. Thus, the very obligation to work requires that our labour should be sometimes intermitted, in order that we may not sink under it, but be enabled to resume it with vigour. 'To take recreation, in order to make progress with our work,' was the judicious maxim of an ancient sage. [317] Rest is the seasoning of labour; [318] and we ought to combine them so that a just medium may be preserved. Consult nature, and she will tell you that she has made the day and the night to mark the hours of labour and of repose, [319] and to teach us that each is equally indispensable to life. A life undiversified with a festival is like a long journey without an inn. [320] Such is the language of pagan philosophers, and such are the ideas which pure reason suggests.
"Revelation teaches us the same. The Night was made for the repose of all living things; and the Sabbath was partly instituted for the recreation of slaves and servants, who otherwise might have had masters so harsh as to pay no regard to the weakness of human nature. This festival [Fête], as well as all the others appointed by the law, were times both of rest and enjoyment for the whole of the people of God. Thus, so far from morality or religion forbidding every kind of recreation, it may be asserted that they require us to take such as may be becoming and convenient, whenever it may be requisite to thus re-invigorate our powers when exhausted by labour. It would at least be ungrateful to haughtily reject the innocent pleasures which the kindness of the Deity allows to man; and it would be unjust to arbitrarily condemn those who discreetly avail themselves of such enjoyments.
"There are, however, people who unreasonably suppose that abuse and use cannot be separated, and who, forming to themselves I know not what mystical notions of virtue and piety, would persuade us that every kind of diversion is unworthy of a reasonable being,—'a low amusement,' 'a deceitful pleasure,' 'a consequence of man's fallen nature.' Such persons may be allowed to aspire to a state of perfection which perhaps may be beyond the reach of human nature, and which is certainly unattainable by the great mass of mankind; they ought, however, to allow those who are doubtful of their own powers of arriving at such perfection, to humbly follow the path which Nature and Providence have pointed out, and to possess their souls in peace, and their conscience without scruple.
"We maintain, then, as an irrefragable principle, that, for the sake of relaxation, we may indulge in such amusements as are in themselves free from vice. This being admitted, if a person finds pleasure in playing at Billiards, at Tennis, at Chess, at Cards, at Backgammon, and even at Dice, why may he not amuse himself with them, as well as in Promenading, with Music, in the Chase, in Fishing, in Drawing, and in a thousand other things of a similar kind? The question then is, whether the game be for nothing or for a stake of some value. In the first case, it is a mere recreation, and bears not the slightest semblance of criminality; and with regard to the second, I do not see why there should be any evil in it, looking at the matter simply, without regard to circumstances.