his tendency revealed
itself more distinctly than in the matter of amusements. For amusement,
having the effect to make men feel kindly toward the world, and, more
readily than duty, falling in with human inclination, has been regarded as
unsafe, and therefore as a thing to be kept at arm's length by the church,
and admitted to her folds only under the strictest surveillance, and in
gyves and handcuffs.

The developments of this spirit are so familiar that I need not stop to
enumerate them. The important thing now is to discover the right
stand-point for discussion. And here let me say what, until recently, I
had supposed there was no need of saying: that amusement is a necessity of
man's nature as truly as food, or drink, or sleep. Physiology, common
sense, experience, philosophy, are all at one on this point. Man needs
something besides change of employment. He needs something pursued with a
view solely to _enjoyment_. Those who deny this are ignorant of the
simplest fundamental laws of mind and matter. Men who assert publicly that
they need no amusements, and "want to die in the harness," will have the
opportunity of dying in the harness some years earlier than would be
demanded in the ordinary course of nature. Nature will not suffer even
zealous Christian men to violate this law with impunity. She forbids man
to labor continuously, and if he persists in disregarding her prohibition,
she will revenge herself by imbecility, uselessness, or death.

This must be assumed in all discussions of the subject; and it being a
religious, no less than a physical truth, it throws into new prominence
the question, how, as Christians, we are to discharge this duty without
being led away by the temptation which adjoins it so closely.

Let it be borne in mind that we are not now dealing with individual cases
of conscience, but with general laws. While then there is obviously a
distinction between amusements--while it is granted that some develop
greater capabilities of abuse than others, the attempt to adjust this
question on the basis of _discriminating between amusements_ must result
in failure. It always has, and it always will. This basis is secure only
in a question between an innocent amusement, and one involving a palpable
violation of the law of God. The advocate of any particular amusement is,
on this ground, shut up to the necessity of proving that what he approves
and practices is _absolutely pure, and incapable of perve