ety
and at proper hours, if I want to go to my friend's billiard table and
play a quiet game, if I want to make merry over a few hits of backgammon,
or give my energy full vent in rolling ten-pins for an hour, I am a
heathen and a publican and unfit for the society of Christians.

As already observed, these views are doubtless greatly exaggerated by the
young. Yet does not the state of the case warrant us in asking carefully
and prayerfully if there is no connection between the stringent dogmas of
the church on the subject of recreation, and the general suspicion of
religion which characterizes the mass of unconverted youth?

Be this as it may, the case is narrowed down to this. Of all the subjects
naturally under the church's supervision, there is not one in which her
influence is less than in this. She neither represses nor regulates. One
of two courses she must pursue if she would escape the stigma of
impotency. Either she must reassert her old dogmas, and back them by the
severest discipline, or she must modify them, and openly commit herself to
a larger liberty. Is she prepared for the first of these courses? Is she
prepared, first of all, to defend it from God's Word. Every other defense
is worthless here. Is she ready to cut off remorselessly the man or the
woman, the youth or the maid who dances, however properly and modestly? Is
she ready to expel or suspend every minister who shall roll a ten-pin
ball, or while away an hour with chess or backgammon? Is she ready to lay
violent hands upon every member who fingers a card or handles a cue, or
strikes a croquet ball? If so, I tremble for the results of the
experiment. She will pause before she undertakes this course. Or will she
openly confess to undue stringency in the past, and write a new motto upon
her banners--"More abundant life?" Here what seems a formidable objection
is often preferred with great confidence. Grant that these more liberal
views are correct, still public sentiment is not yet such as to make it
safe to promulgate them. The argument, both in its character and result,
very strongly resembles that which used to be such a favorite with the
advocates of slavery. The negro is not fit for freedom. It recoiled on
those who advanced it. Who made the negro unfit for freedom but those who
held him in bondage until his imbruted nature ceased to prize or to desire
liberty? Similarly I say, if there is such a state of public sentiment,
_why is it so?_ How