CHAPTER V.
THE MORALITY OF CARD-PLAYING.

The controversy respecting the sinfulness of games of hazard, on scriptural grounds, seems to have commenced in England about the latter end of the sixteenth century, with a small tract written by a Puritanical clergyman of the name of Balmford, who appears, at the time of its first publication, to have exercised his ministerial functions at Newcastle-on-Tyne. [314] The title of Balmford's tract is 'A Short and Plain Dialogue concerning the Unlawfulness of playing at Cards or Tables, or any other Game consisting in chance.' The only copy that I have seen occurs in a collection of tracts by the same author, with the general title, 'Carpenters Chippes: or Simple Tokens of unfeined good will, to the Christian friends of James Balmford, the unworthy Servant of Jesus Christ, a poor Carpenters sonne.' 16mo. Printed at London, for Richard Boyle, 1607. The following dedication of the tract on gaming is dated 1st of January, 1593: "To the right worshipfull Master Lionel Maddison, Maior, the Aldermen his brethern, and the godly Burgesses of Newcastle-upon-Tine, James Balmford wisheth the kingdom of God and his righteousnesse, that other things may be ministered unto them.—That which heretofore I have propounded to you (right worshipfull and beloved) in teaching, I doe now publish to all men by printing, to wit mine opinion of the unlawfulness of games consisting in chance."

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.

"For if I am at liberty to promise and give my property, absolutely and unconditionally, to whomever I please, why may I not promise and give a certain sum, in the event of a person proving more fortunate, or more skillful than I with respect to the result of certain movements and combinations, upon which we had previously agreed? And why may not this person fairly avail himself of the result either of his skill or of a favorable concurrence of fortuitous circumstances, on the issue of which I had voluntarily contracted an obligation? Even though but one of the parties obtains an advantage, yet there would be nothing contrary to equity in the transaction, providing that the terms had been previously agreed on by both. Every person is at liberty to determine the conditions on which he will cede a right to another, and may even make it dependent on the most fortuitous circumstances. A fortiori, a person may fairly avail himself of his winning, when he has risked on the event as much as he was likely to gain. In fact, play [le jeu] is a kind of contract; and in every contract the mutual consent of the parties is the supreme law: this is an incontestable maxim of natural equity. [321]

"In the Scriptures we do not find games of hazard forbid. The ancient Jews appear to have been entirely ignorant of this kind of recreation, and even the name for it is not to be found in the Old Testament. On the dispersion of the Jews, however, after the Babylonian captivity, they learnt to play from the Greeks and Romans, as may be inferred from the cases of conscience on this subject discussed by the Rabbis. Notwithstanding this, games of hazard are nowhere forbidden in the New Testament, though no tolerance is there shown to any kind of vice. There is, indeed, only one passage that contains the least allusion to play; and even in this, the term—which is metaphorically derived from a game of hazard,—when taken in the worst sense, would only amount to a condemnation of the abuse of play. [322] If in some versions a word,—ραιζειν—used by St. Paul, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, chap. x, v. 7, has been translated 'jouer,' it is merely in consequence of the equivocal signification of this word, or perhaps from the original term not being fully understood, which in this place signifies 'to dance,' as is apparent from the passage in the Old Testament to which it alludes, Exodus, xxii, 6. From the profound silence of the sacred writers, and from other reasons already advanced, it may, in my judgment, be safely concluded that play considered in itself, and apart from its abuse, is a matter of perfect indifference. [323] —"Carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men."—Ephesians, iv, 14.—Dr. Rennell, quoting the passage in the notes to his sermon against Gaming, observes, that "The connexion between the artifices of gamesters, and the shifting depravity of heretical subterfuge, is strongly marked by the Apostle."]

"Few persons are so rigid as to condemn absolutely games of every kind; an exception being usually made in favour of those which are determined by skill alone. Most theologians and casuists, however, have pronounced strongly against all games into which hazard enters, as if such were at all times unlawful. The Rabbis, who are of the same opinion, and who even consider them as means of fraud between Jew and Jew, assert that 'a man, during the whole course of his life, should do nothing but devote himself to the study of the law and of wisdom, to the practice of charity, or to some employment or business which may be serviceable to the community.' [324] If this decision be taken literally, it is manifestly absurd, and requires no further notice. Even in putting a reasonable interpretation upon these words, and considering them as condemnatory of such persons as employ themselves in play alone, they still do not apply to play, considered in itself, but merely restrain it to its legitimate use. The Jewish doctors themselves acknowledge that the prohibitions of play in force amongst them, are founded on the regulations of their ancestors; that is, that they are not derived either from the law of Nature, or the positive ordinances of God; but that they depend entirely on the civil law established by those who had the power of making new regulations whenever such might appear to be necessary for the welfare of the state. This is so true, that they in a manner permitted Jews to play at games of hazard with Gentiles: at any rate, their prohibition was extremely feeble, since they declared that, in such a case, a Jew was only culpable of having spent his time about a frivolous thing.

"Among the works of St. Cyprian we find a treatise, or kind of homily, on gaming,—De Aleatoribus,—which though of high antiquity, and evidently written by a Bishop, is probably not the composition of the saint to whom it has usually been ascribed. The author, whoever he may have been, calls games of hazard the nets of the devil; and affirms that they were invented by a certain learned man at the prompting of the evil spirit, and that he placed his portrait and name on the instruments of the game in order that he might be worshipped by those who used them. [325] He, consequently, maintains that whoever plays at such games offers sacrifice to their author, and thus commits an act of idolatry. Such chimerical arguments, when divested of all figure, only show that games of hazard are frequently the cause of disorder. A Flemish clergyman, in a historical treatise on this subject, published about the middle of the seventeenth century, gravely maintains that all games of hazard are contrary to every one of the ten commandments. [326] It may be easily imagined that he is obliged to employ many devices in order to give a colour of plausibility to this paradox; and that whenever he advances anything really pertinent, it applies only to the abuses, which, more or less, may insinuate themselves into every kind of game. A prelate of distinguished merit, Sidonius Apollinaris, Bishop of Clermont, in Auvergne, who flourished in the fifth century, was of a different way of thinking; for he was accustomed to amuse himself at Trictrac, as he relates in his letters without testifying any compunction, and without even saying that he had abandoned the amusement on his being advanced to the office of Bishop, though he mentions that he had then given up poetry.

"Others have imagined that they have discovered in the very nature of games of hazard something which renders them essentially sinful; supporting their views by an argument which, though extremely specious, is yet easily refuted. For instance, they say that God presides over what we call chance, and directs it in a special manner; and that, as chance enters into all games of hazard, such games are manifestly sinful as requiring the intervention of Divine Providence in affairs which are not only trivial, but also subject to many incommodities.

"This conclusion would be demonstrative if the principle from which it is drawn were true; but how is it known that the results of chance are always determined by the special will of the Deity? Is his intervention directly perceptible, or can it be known by any apparent indication? From the knowledge that we have of his goodness and wisdom, can it reasonably be supposed that he does so intervene? On the contrary, is it not derogatory to the Supreme Being to suppose that he should immediately interfere in affairs of such small consequence as most of those are which are determined amongst men by means of lots or chance? The very supposition contains within itself the best reasons for concluding it to be untenable.

"If the Deity indeed were to act by a special will in all matters which are determined by lot or chance, and more especially in games of hazard, it would hence follow: 1. That men have the power to compel, and in a manner, force the Deity to exercise an especial Providence whenever they may think good; for it is certain that they can determine some matters by lot whenever they please. 2. It will also follow that the Deity 'performs miracles every day in favour of persons who are most assuredly undeserving of them, and in places where no one could suspect that his presence would be displayed in a manner so extraordinary.' [327] Besides, what likelihood is there that, when a couple of lacqueys or porters sit down to play at dice or lansquenet, Providence should more especially interfere in their game than in events which affect the destiny of nations, such as battles, revolutions, and other important actions of a similar kind? There is even something ridiculous in supposing that when two men are playing at draughts, or billiards, their game is only the object of common and ordinary Providence, but that when they sit down to play at dice or cards, a special Providence then intervenes, and determines the chances of the game [328]....

"I am, however, willing to allow that even at play there may sometimes be an extraordinary manifestation of Providence, either directly, or by means of some invisible intelligence determining the lot or chance. I can conceive that the Deity should dispose of events in such a manner that a worthy man, for instance, who might be in danger of giving himself entirely up to play, should be cured of his passion by a great and sudden loss. But, even admitting this, there is no reason to conclude that the Deity interferes on all occasions, and in favour of all sorts of people; and, after all, without a direct revelation, it never can be positively known that he really does interfere in such matters. I could just as readily believe what the eloquent Jesuit Maffei relates of Ignatius Loyola, in his life of that saint; namely, that, playing one day at billiards with a gentleman, who had urged him to try the game, he, by a miracle, proved the winner, as he was utterly unacquainted with the game." [329]

In concluding the first book, Barbeyrac observes: "To refute in detail all the objections of rigid moralists would require an entire volume. What I have already said, however, appears to me sufficient to remove any vain scruples which may have been excited on the subject. I am, indeed, rather apprehensive that those who are too fond of play will think that I might have spared myself the trouble of proving that which they had no doubts about; and that it was quite unnecessary to explain to them at so great length that play, considered in itself, contains nothing contrary to the law of Nature or the precepts of the Gospel. The plan of the work, however, required that I should commence with this; and the opportunity being thus afforded of showing the fallacy of the austere portrait which some writers have drawn of Christian morality, I have availed myself of it. On this subject I also feel myself justified in referring to the schools of Pagan philosophy, where we are taught that 'we should do nothing without being able to give a reason for it; in small matters as well as in great.' [330] Now, assuming that out of a hundred persons who are accustomed to play daily, there is scarcely one who has ever asked himself how, or in what manner, it may be lawful, it is not surprising that so many people should convert a thing in itself perfectly harmless into a subject of disorder, employing it as a means of gratifying their inordinate love of pleasure, their idleness, or their avarice."

In the second book, wherein he discusses the essentials of play—le Jeu—he distinguishes three kinds of games: 1, Games of pure skill; 2, Games of pure chance; and, 3, Games which depend partly on skill and partly on chance. Games of skill are those which depend on manual dexterity, bodily agility, or mental acuteness: Billiards, Racket, Quoits, Cricket, Draughts, and Chess are of this kind. Games of pure chance are those in which the event, though brought about by the instrumentality of the players, is yet absolutely beyond their direction or control: of this kind are Dice, and certain games at cards, such as Basset, Brelan, Lansquenet, Rouge-et-Noir, and Faro. In the third kind, such as Backgammon and most of the usual games at cards, [331] the effects of chance may in some degree be counteracted by a skilful application of principles derived from a knowledge of the various combinations which result from the conventional rules of the game. In all games for any considerable stake, that is, with regard to the means of the parties, it is necessary that the players should be as nearly as possible equal in point of skill; for, in this case, the game becomes a kind of traffic, and is subject to all the conditions of an equitable contract.

Most persons who play for high stakes, either at games of pure chance or of chance and skill combined, make more or less a traffic of their amusement; and risk their own money from a desire of winning that of another. In all such cases, gaming is a positive evil to society, and is utterly inexcusable, much less justifiable, on any grounds whatever; and all who thus venture large sums may be justly required to show by what right they possess them. When a fool or a knave is thus stripped of a large property, his loss is a matter of small import to society; the true evil is, that so large a portion of national wealth, created by the industry of others, should be at the disposal of such a character, and should be allowed to pass, on such a contract, to another even more worthless than himself. This objection has not been urged in any of the numerous sermons and essays that have been published against gaming; the authors of which, generally, instead of showing that society has both the power and the right to correct such abuses by depriving the offending parties of the means of continuing them, have contented themselves with declamations on the wickedness of the pursuit, and with vain appeals to the conscience of inveterate gamesters: while they whistle to the deaf adder, they never seem to suspect that it may be easily dispatched with a stick.—But such abuses in society are never remedied till the Heraclidæ acquire a knowledge of their rights, as well as a consciousness of their power.

The appeal to the vanity of men of "rank and education" [332] in order to shame them out of their love of play is as futile in its effects as it is wrong in principle; for it tends only to nourish in them feelings of self-conceit, and to induce them to think rather of the deficiencies of the low-born men, whose money they are eager to win, than to consider their own dereliction of duty, in playing for large sums, with any one. At the gaming-table, a community of feeling levels all the artificial distinctions of rank; and the rude plebeian who covers the high-born noble's stake is just as good, for all intents and purposes of play, as that noble himself. The condescension of the noble to play with a costermonger for the sake of winning his money, is fully compensated by the other's willingness to afford him a chance. The annals of gaming sufficiently show that rank is no guarantee of a gamester's honesty; and in the case of Lord De Ros versus Cumming, tried before Lord Denman, 10th of February, 1837, it would appear that the rank of the fraudulent gamester screened him for several years, with one party at least, from being denounced. Sir William Ingilby, in his examination, stated that he had seen Lord De Ros perform the trick of reversing the cut, and thus secure himself an ace or a king for the turn-up card, at least fifty times; and that he first observed his lordship do it "about four, five, or six years ago." When asked why he did not denounce Lord De Ros after he had become aware of his fraudulent tricks, he gives the following answer: "I did not mention the matter publicly for this reason:—I considered that if an obscure and humble individual like myself, not possessed of his rank, were to attempt to go up to a peer of the realm, who held a high station in society, and who at the same time was regarded by all his associates, and by the world in general, as a man of unimpeachable character, and say, 'My lord, you are cheating;' if, I say, I, that humble individual, had addressed Lord De Ros in these terms,—if I had denounced a peer of the realm, and a man of such general popularity, I should instantly have gathered around me a host of persons; and I take it, as a matter of course, I should have had no choice between the door and the window." Notwithstanding that the honorable baronet was aware of the fraudulent practice of the right honorable peer, it seems that he still continued to play with him; but it does not appear that he was particularly attentive to his lordship's trick of reversing the cut,—sauter la coupe,—when he had him for a partner. [333] If Sir William Ingilby's fears were well founded, it seems reasonable to conclude that those who would have "pitched him out of the window," for exposing the fraudulent tricks of a peer, must have been persons of similar character to the party denounced; and that their conduct in such a case would not have been influenced by a regard for the honour of a peer of the realm, but would rather have been the result of the vexation which they felt at the public exposure of one of their own stamp. On this trial, one of the witnesses admitted that he had won £35,000 at cards in the course of fifteen years. This is certainly a large sum, but nothing to be compared to the winnings of some men by their gambling in railway shares within the last ten years. Lord De Ros failed in his action; the fact of cheating which had been alleged against him having been clearly proved. He did not long survive the disgraceful exposure; and Theodore Hook is said to have embalmed his memory in the following epitaph: "Here lies England's Premier Baron patiently awaiting the last TRUMP." [334]

On the question of the lawfulness of playing at cards for the sake of amusement, and not from the mere desire of gain, many persons of eminent piety have held the affirmative in their writings; and a far greater number of the same class have testified, by their practice, their concurrence in the same opinion. "Many fierce declamations," says Jeremy Taylor, "from ancient sanctity have been uttered against cards and dice, by reason of the craft used in the game, and the consequent evils, as invented by the Devil. And, indeed, this is almost the whole state of the question; for there are so many evils in the use of these sports, they are made trades of fraud and livelihood, they are accompanied so with drinking and swearing, they are so scandalous by blasphemies and quarrels, so infamous by misspending precious time, and the ruin of many families, they so often make wise men fools and slaves of passion, that we may say of those who use them inordinately, they are in an ocean of mischief, and can hardly swim to shore without perishing.... He can never be suspected in any criminal sense to tempt the Divine Providence, who by contingent things recreates his labour, and having acquired his refreshment hath no other end to serve, and no desires to engage the Divine Providence to any other purpose.... A man may innocently, and to good purposes go to a tavern, but they who frequent them have no excuse, unless their innocent business does frequently engage, and their severe religion bring them off safely. And so it is in these sports; there is only one cause of using them, and that comes but seldom, the refreshment, I mean, of myself or my friend, to which I minister in justice or in charity; but when our sports come to that excess, that we long and seek for opportunities; when we tempt others, are weary of our business, and not weary of our game; when we sit up till midnight, and spend half days, and that often too; then we have spoiled the sport,—it is not a recreation, but a sin.... He that means to make his games lawful, must not play for money, but for refreshment. This, though few may believe, yet is the most considerable thing to be amended in the games of civil and sober persons. For the gaining of money can have no influence in the game to make it the more recreative, unless covetousness holds the box.... But when money is at stake, either the sum is trifling, or it is considerable. If trifling, it can be of no purpose unless to serve the ends of some little hospitable entertainment or love-feast, and then there is nothing amiss; but if considerable, a wide door is opened to temptation, and a man cannot be indifferent to win or lose a great sum of money, though he can easily pretend it. If a man be willing or indifferent to lose his own money, and not at all desirous to get another's, to what purpose is it that he plays for it? If he be not indifferent, then he is covetous or he is a fool: he covets what is not his own, or unreasonably ventures that which is. If without the money, he cannot mind his game, then the game is no divertisement, no recreation, but the money is all the sport, and therefore covetousness is all the design; but if he can be recreated by the game alone, the money does but change it from lawful to unlawful, and the man from being weary to become covetous; and from the trouble of labour or study, remove him to the worse trouble of fear, or anger, or impatient desires. Here begins the mischief, here men begin for the money to use vile arts; here cards and dice begin to be diabolical, when players are witty to defraud and undo one another; when estates are ventured, and families are made sad and poor by a luckless chance. And what sport is it to me to lose my money, if it be at all valuable? and if it be not, what is it to my game? But sure the pleasure is in winning the money; that certainly is it. But they who make pastime of a neighbour's ruin, are the worst of men, said the comedy. But concerning the loss of our money, let a man pretend what he will, that he plays for no more than he is willing to lose, it is certain that we ought not to believe him; for if that sum is so indifferent to him, why is not he easy to be tempted to give such a sum to the poor? Whenever this is the case, he sins, that games for money beyond an inconsiderable sum. Let the stake be nothing, or almost nothing, and the cards or dice are innocent, and the game as innocent as push-pin.... In plays and games, as in other entertainments, we must neither do evil, nor seem to do evil; we must not converse with evil persons, nor use our liberty to a brother's prejudice or grief. We must not do anything, which he, with probability, or with innocent weakness, thinks to be amiss, until he be rightly instructed; but where nothing of these things intervene, and nothing of the former evils is appendant, we may use our liberty with reason and sobriety: and then, if this liberty can be so used, and such recreations can be innocent, as they assuredly may, there is no further question, but those trades, which minister to these divertisements, are innocent and lawful." [335]

Nelson, the pious author of the 'Fasts and Festivals of the Church of England,' and of the 'Practice of True Devotion,' had no objection to cards. "Sober persons," says he, in the last-mentioned work, "do not make a business of what they should only use as a diversion." The Rev. Augustus Toplady, so well known for his high Calvinistic principles, used to occasionally amuse himself with a game at cards; and in a letter dated "Broad Hembury, Nov. 19th, 1773," he thus expresses himself on the subject of recreations in which clergymen may innocently indulge. [336]

"I do not think that honest Martin Luther committed sin by playing at Backgammon for an hour or two after dinner in order, by unbending his mind, to promote digestion.

"I cannot blame the holy martyr Bishop Ridley for frequently playing at Tennis before he became a prelate, nor for playing at the more serious game of Chess twice a day after he was made a bishop.

"As little do I find fault with another of our most exemplary martyrs, the learned and devout Mr. Archdeacon Philpot; who has left it on record as a brand on Pelagians of that age, that 'they looked on honeste pastyme as a sinne;' and had the impudence to call him an Antinomian and a loose moralist, because he now and then relaxed his bow with 'huntinge, shootynge, bowlynge, and such like.'

"Nor can I set down pious Bishop Latimer for such an enemy to holiness of life on account of his saying that hunting is a good exercise for men of rank, and that shooting is as lawful an amusement for persons of inferior class.

"I have not a whit the worse opinion of the eminent and profound Mr. Thomas Gataker for the treatise which he professedly wrote to prove the lawfulness of card-playing, under due restrictions and limitations.

"I cannot condemn the Vicar of Broad Hembury [Mr. Toplady himself] for relaxing himself now and then among a few select friends with a rubber of sixpenny Whist, a pool of penny Quadrille, or a few rounds of twopenny Pope Joan. To my certain knowledge, the said vicar has been cured of headache by one or other of those games, after spending eight, ten, or twelve, and sometimes sixteen hours in his study. Nor will he ask any man's leave for so unbending himself—because another person's conscience is no rule to his, any more than another person's stature or complexion."

John Wesley, when a young man at college, and before his thorough conversion, appears to have been fond of a game at cards. Tate Wilkinson, writing in 1790, says: "Mr. Wesley, about four years ago, in the fields at Leeds, for want of room for his congregation in his tabernacle, gave an account of himself, by informing us, that when he was at college, he was particularly fond of the devil's pops (or cards); and said, that every Saturday he was one of a constant party at Whist, not only for the afternoon, but also for the evening; he then mentioned the names of several respectable gentlemen who were with him at college.—'But,' continued he, 'the latter part of my time there I became acquainted with the Lord; I used to hold communication with him. On my first acquaintance, 'I used to talk with the Lord once a week, then every day, from that to twice a day, till at last the intimacy so increased, that He appointed a meeting once in every four hours.... He recollected, he said, the last Saturday he ever played at cards, that the rubber at Whist was longer than he expected; and on observing the tediousness of the game, he pulled out his watch, when, to his shame, he found it was some minutes past eight, which was beyond the time he had appointed to meet the Lord.—He thought the devil had certainly tempted him to stay beyond his hour; he therefore suddenly gave his cards to a gentleman near him to finish the game, and went to the place appointed, beseeching forgiveness for his crime, and resolved never to play with the devil's pops again. That resolution he had never broken; and what was more extraordinary, that his brother and sister, though distant from Cambridge, experienced signs of grace on that same day, on that same hour, in the month of October." [337]

On the subject of card-playing, even for the sake of amusement, two distinguished laymen, John Locke and Dr. Johnson, appear to have entertained different opinions. The former, in his Treatise on Education, says, "As to cards and dice, I think the safest and best way is never to learn any play upon them, and so to be incapacitated for those dangerous temptations and incroaching wasters of useful time." Dr. Johnson, on the contrary, regretted that he had not learnt to play at cards, giving, at the same time, as his reason: "It is very useful in life; it generates kindness, and consolidates society." [338] The opinion of a living Professor of Moral Philosophy, on the subject of card-playing, may be gathered from the following dialogue between Christopher North and the Ettrick Shepherd. [339]

"NORTH.

Gaming is not a vice, then, in the country, James?

SHEPHERD.

There's little or nae sic thing as gamblin' in the kintra, sir. You'll fin' a pack o' cairds in mony o' the houses—but no in them a'—for some gude fathers o' families think them the deevil's buiks, and sure aneuch when ower muckle read they begin to smell o' sulphur and Satan.

NORTH.

Why, James, how can old people, a little dim-eyed or so, while an occasional evening away better than at an innocent and cheerful game at cards?

SHEPHERD.

Haud your haun' a wee, Mr. North. I'm no saying onything to the reverse. But I was sayin' that there are heads o' families that abhor cairds, and would half-kill their sons and daughters were they to bring a pack into the house. Neither you nor me wull blame them for sic savin' prejudice. The austere Calvinistic spirit canna thole to think that the knave o' spades should be lying within twa three inches o' the Bible. The auld stern man wud as soon forgie the introduction into the house o' base ballads o' sinfu' love—and wishes that the precincts be pure o' his ain fire-side. Though I take a ggem o' whust now and then mysel, yet I boo to the principle, and I venerate the adherence till't in the high-souled patriarchs of the Covenant.

NORTH.

Perhaps such strict morality is scarcely practicable in our present condition.

SHEPHERD.

What, do you mainteen that cairds are absolutely necessary in a puir man's house? Tuts! As for auld dim-eyed people, few o' them, except they be blin' a'thegither, that canna read big prent wi' powerfu' specs, and they can aye get, at the warst, some bit wee idle Oe to read out aloud to its grannies, without expense o' oil or cawnel, by the heartsome ingle-light. You'll generally fin' that auld folk that plays cairds, have been raither freevolous, and no muckle addicked to thocht—unless they're greedy, and play for the pool, which is fearsome in auld age; for what need they care for twa three brass penny-pieces, for ony ither purpose than to buy nails for their coffin?

NORTH.

You push the argument rather far, James.

SHEPHERD.

Na, sir. Avarice is a failing o' auld age sure aneuch—and shouldna be fed by the Lang Ten. I'm aye somewhat sad when I see folk o' eighty haudin' up the trumps to their rheumy een, and shaking their heads, whether they wull or no, ower a gude and a bad haun alike. Then, safe on us! only think o' them cheatin'—revokin'—and marking mair than they ought wi the counters!

NORTH.

The picture is strongly coloured; but could you not paint another less revolting, nay, absolutely pleasant, nor violate the truth of nature?

SHEPHERD.

I'm no quite sure. Perhaps I micht. In anither condition o' life—in towns, and among folk o' a higher rank, I dinna deny that I hae seen auld leddies playing cards very composedly, and without appearin' to be doin' onything that's wrang. Before you judge richtly o' ony ae thing in domestic life, you maun understan' the hail constitution o' the economy. Noo, auld leddies in towns dress somewhat richly and superbly, wi' ribbons, and laces, and jewels even, and caps munted wi' flowers and feathers; and I'm no blamin' them—and then they dine out, and gang to routes, and gie dinners and routes in return, back to hunders o' their friends and acquaintance, Noo, wi' sic a style and fashion o' life as that, caird-playing seems to be somewhat accordant, if taken in moderation, and as a quiet pastime, and no made a trade o', or profession, for sake o' filthy lucre. I grant it harmless; and gin it maks the auld leddies happy, what richt hae I to mint ony objections? God bless them, man; far be it frae me to curtail the resources o' auld age. Let them play on, and all I wish is, they may never lose either their temper, their money, nor their natural rest.

NORTH.

And I say God bless you, James, for your sentiments do honour to humanity.

SHEPHERD.

As for young folks—lads and lasses, like—when the gudeman and his wife are gaen to bed, what's the harm in a ggem at cairds? It's a chearfu', noisy, sicht o' comfort and confusion. Sic luckin' into ane anither's haun's! Sic fause shufflin'! Sic unfair dealin'! Sic winkin' to tell your pairtner that ye hae the king or the ace! And when that wunna do, sic kickin' o' shins and treadin' on taes aneath the table—aften the wrang anes! Then down wi' your haun' o' cairds in a clash on the board, because you've ane ower few, and the coof maun lose his deal! Then what gigglin' amang the lasses! What amicable, nay, love-quarrels, between pairtners! Jokin', and jeestin' and tauntin', and toozlin'—the cawnel blawn out, and the soun o' a thousan' kisses! That's caird-playing in the kintra, Mr. North; and where's the man amang ye that wull daur to say that its no a pleasant pastime o' a winter's nicht, when the snaw is cumin' doon the lum, or the speat's roarin amang the mirk mountains?

NORTH.

Wilkie himself, James, is no more than your equal.

SHEPHERD.

O man, Mr. North, sir, my heart is wae—my soul's sick—and my spirit's wrathfu' to think o' thae places in great cities which they ca'—Hells!

NORTH.

Thank Heaven, my dear James, that I never was a gambler—nor, except once, to see the thing, ever in a Hell. But it was a stupid and passionless night—a place of mean misery—altogether unworthy of its name.

SHEPHERD.

I'm glad you never went back, and that the deevil was in the dumps; for they say that some nichts in thae Hells, when Satan and Sin sit thegither on ae chair, he wi' his arm roun' the neck o' that Destruction his Daughter, a horrible temptation invades men's hearts and souls, drivin' and draggin' them on to the doom o' everlasting death.

NORTH.

Strong language, James—many good and great men have shook the elbow.

SHEPHERD.

Come, come now, Mr. North, and dinna allow paradox to darken or obscure the bright licht o' your great natural and acquired understandin'. 'Good and great' are lofty epithets to bestow on ony man that is born o' a woman—and if ony such there have been who delivered themselves up to sin, and shame, and sorrow, at the ggeming-table; let their biographers justify them—it will gie me pleasure to see them do't—but such examples shall never confound my judgment o' right or wrang. 'Shake the elbow indeed!' What mair does a parricide do but 'shake his elbow,' when he cuts his father's throat? The gamester shakes his elbow, and down go the glorious oak trees planted two hundred years ago, by some ancestor who loved the fresh smell o' the woods—away go—if entail does no forbid—thousands o' bonny braid acres, ance a' ae princely estate, but now shivered down into beggarly parshels, while the Auld House seems broken-hearted, and hangs down its head, when the infatuated laird dies or shoots himself. Oh, man! is nae it a sad thocht to think that my leddy, aye sae gracious to the puir, should hae to lay down her carriage in her auld age, and disappear frae the Ha' into some far-aff town or village, perhaps no in Scotland ava'; while he, that should hae been the heir, is apprenticed to a writer to the signet, and becomes a money-scrivener i' his soul, and aiblins a Whig routin' at a public meetin' about Queens, and Slavery, and Borough Reform, and Cautholic Emancipation."

St. Francis Xavier, though disapproving of all games of chance, yet did not absolutely condemn them as forbidden by the word of God; but endeavoured to reclaim, by gentle means, those who were addicted to play. "That he might banish Games of Chance," says his biographer, "which almost always occasion quarrels and swearing, he proposed some little innocent diversions, capable of entertaining the mind, without stirring up the passions. But seeing that in spight of his endeavours they were bent on Cards and Dice, he thought it not convenient to absent himself, but became a looker-on, that he might somewhat awe them by his presence; and when they were breaking out into any extravagance, he reclaimed them by gentle and soft reproofs. He showed concernment in their gains, or in their losses, and offered sometimes to hold their cards.

"While the ship that carried Xavier was crossing the Gulph of Ceylon, [in 1545] an occasion of charity was offered to the Saint, which he would not suffer to escape. The mariners and souldiers pass'd their time, according to their custome, in playing at cards. Two souldiers set themselves to it more out of avarice than pleasure, and one of them plaid with such ill fortune, that he lost not only all his own money, but the stock which others had put into his hands to traffick for them. Having nothing more to lose, he withdrew, cursing his luck, and blaspheming God. His despair prevail'd so far over him, that he had thrown himself into the Sea, or run upon the point of his sword, if he had not been prevented. Xavier had notice of these his mad intentions, and execrable behaviour, and immediately came to his relief. He embrac'd him tenderly, and said all he cou'd to comfort him: But the souldier in the transports of his fury, thrust him away, and forbore not even ill language to him. Xavier stood recollected for some time, imploring God's assistance and counsel; then went and borrow'd fifty Royals of a passenger, brought them to the souldier, and advis'd him once more to try his fortune. At this the souldier took heart, and play'd so luckily, that he recover'd all his losses with great advantage. The Saint, who look'd on, took out of the overplus of the winnings, what he had borrow'd for him; and seeing the gamester, now return'd to a calm temper, he who before refus'd to hear him, was now overpower'd by his discourse, never after handled cards, and became exemplary in his life.

"He was particularly free in his converse with souldiers who are greater libertines, and more debauch'd in the Indies, than elsewhere. For, that they might the less suspect him, he kept them company; and because sometimes when they saw him coming, they had hid their cards and dice, he told them, They were not of the clergy, neither cou'd they continue praying all the day; that cheating, quarrelling and swearing, were forbid to gamesters, but that play was not forbid to a souldier. Sometimes he play'd at chess himself out of complyance, when they whom he study'd to withdraw from vice, were lovers of that game: And a Portuguese gentleman, whose name was Don Diego Norogna, had once a very ill opinion of him for it. This cavalier, who had heard a report of Xavier, that he was a saint-like man, and desir'd much to have a sight of him, happen'd to be aboard of the same galley. Not knowing his person, he enquir'd which was he; but was much surprised to find him playing at chess with a private souldier. For he had form'd in his imagination, the idea of one who was recollected and austere, and who never appear'd in publick but to discourse of eternity, or to work miracles." [340]

St. Francis de Sales was, in his younger days, a card-player, though subsequently he condemned all games at cards as being in themselves unlawful. [341] According to the Duchess of Orleans, the old Marshal Villeroi, who had known him in his youth, could never bring himself to call him Saint. As often as the name of St. Francis de Sales was mentioned in his presence, he would observe, "I was delighted to learn that Mons. de Sales was a Saint. He was fond of saying smutty things, and used to cheat at cards; in other respects he was a perfect gentleman, though a ninny." [342] The excuse that he made for his cheating was, that whatever he won was for the poor. Cardinal Mazarine, another dignitary of the church of Rome, was much given to cheating at play as well as in politics; and it is related by an eye-witness, that when he was on his death-bed, he still continued to play at cards, one of the company holding his "hand;" and that he was thus employed when he received the Pope's plenary indulgence, together with the viaticum, as a prince of the church, from the Papal nuncio. [343]

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, many of the clergy of all degrees in France, Spain, and Italy appear to have been much addicted not only to card-playing but to gaming in general, notwithstanding the determinations of casuists and the prohibitions of councils. Masses and prayers were sometimes staked by the priest against the hard money of the layman; and even devout people, following the example set them by their pastors, used to play with each other for Aves and Pater-nosters. On the subject of the clergy staking masses at play, Barbeyrac, a Protestant, observes, "These are in truth frivolous matters, and of no effect, to say no worse; nevertheless, as those who traffic in them believe, or, at least, pretend to believe that a kind of sanctity and supernatural virtue are attached to their use, all play for such stakes is unlawful; and he who thus profanely ventures them is evidently guilty both of sacrilege and simony." With respect to playing for prayers, Thiers says that the practice is not condemned by Dr. Navarre, and that Père Raynaud bears witness of its being admitted among the devout; for his own part, however, he disapproves of it as "a heteroclite refinement of devotion;" and is of opinion that there is some degree of irreverence in playing for Psalms, Pater-nosters, and Aves. [344] The Spanish phrase, "Jugar los Kiries" shows that such a practice was not unusual among the clergy of that country: though the explanation of the phrase in some dictionaries is, that it relates to a clergyman who plays away the alms that are given him for praying, it yet properly relates to a clergyman who plays away prayers,—not the money given for them.

Among the vices generated by gaming, that of swearing is especially noted by most authors who have written on the subject. [345] The French appear to have minced and frittered their oaths, swearing "like a comfit-maker's wife;" the English and Germans to have sworn grossly; and the Spaniards and Italians to have blasphemed in a spirit of refined impiety. Pascasius Justus, in this respect, calls the gaming-table the devil's farm, and says that it always yields him a most abundant crop. In his time, gamesters do not appear to have merely sworn from vexation, but even to have delighted in pouring forth a volley of oaths. He relates that, when he once told a gambler that he himself could never utter an oath, the other replied, "Then you are ignorant of a great pleasure." A French writer, speaking of the oaths of the Spaniards, gives the following anecdote, as an instance of their impiety. On one occasion, when an order had been issued to the Spanish army against swearing, a soldier having lost all his money at cards, and not daring to violate the letter of the order, gave vent to his feelings by exclaiming, "Beso las manos, Señor Pilato," "I thank you, Mr. Pontius Pilate."—"Il devoit être brûlé," is the judgment of the relater. A similar instance of blasphemy, on the part of an Italian who had lost his money at cards, is recorded by Henry Stephens, in the introduction to his 'Traité de la Conformité des Merveilles anciennes avec les modernes.' [346]

With respect to the passions excited by gaming, the learned and pious Jeremy Collier expresses his opinion in the following manner, in his 'Essay on Gaming,' in a Dialogue: "I can't help observing that playing deep sets the spirits on float, strikes the mind strongly into the face, and discovers a man's weakness very remarkably. Cards and dice, &c. command the humour no less than the moon does the tide; you may see the passions come up with the dice, and ebb and flow with the fortune of the game; what alternate returns of hope and fear, of pleasure and regret, are frequently visible upon such occasions?