Maumee City express. [volume] (Maumee City, Ohio) 1838-184?, 1840-02-08
For the Maumee City cypress.
DANCING.

"a .-u-=--------
, For the Maumee City cypress.
= W. s1 DANCING.
Let them praise his name in the dancer Ps 49,
e whether, therefore, ye eat or drink or whatsoey
n yedo, do hll to the glory of God."-1 Cor TO- 81.
n MIR. EDIToR:-In reply to an artic
!. which appeared in your paper of Jan. e5tl
permit me to call the attention of your req
ders to few remarks on the subject ,
dancing" The question under discus
sion is this" Can christian consistent
engage in dancingf' To settle this ques
tion, it is indispensably necessary to kuoy
on what principles we should pursue the in
vestigation. First then, on what prlnci
pies are we to investigate this question: I
is an axiom both in sound morals and rei
gIon, that the design or intention with which
an action is performed, is that which give.
character to the act. All the uirtue or vict
of any given action or practice whatever
consists entirely in the stale Of mind with
which it is performed. To deny this is
downright absufdity. To illustrate: Sup
pose two men give aims to the poor-the
one from pure benevolence, designing to glo-
rify God in 1.-THE other from pure selfish
ness, "to be seen of men." Now both
perform the same external act, but "God,
who looketh on the heart" declareth one
virtuous and the other vicious. Two men
pray--the one is sincere, the other hypo.
criie. Now although engaged in the same
outward act, the one'is virtuous and the 9TH
er vicious. Just SO two individuals dance
the one, as David for instance, to praise
the name of the Lord;" the other, with mo-
tIves of an opposite character. Now, while
the former is virtuous, the latter is vicious,
and sinner before God, however specious
the reasons under which. he may cloak it
and for the PLAIN reason that his motives are
different from the others. Now the only
motives with which christian can iustifia-
bly, do any thing, are explicitly stated in
the text" whatsoever ye do, do all to the
glory of God" See also Col. s; II 23
There is no other rule than this, and no
broader gate. The Psalmist exhorts to
dance according to this principle only
"Let them praise his name in the dance"
We are now prepared for the application
the writer Of the article under review in
his Introductory remarks, unequivocally
states that dancing under the old dlspensa-
tion, was strictly religious exercise. And
SO it vast was an expression of high re-
Hgious JOY This was its design. Ex. Is;
90. Sam. 6; ID. The most remarkably
pious were those who engaged in it, and
David was desplsed for it by his wicked
wife. Moreover, the sexes never danced
together. There is not such an instance
on record. Indeed, this was never practis-
ed in ancient Greece and Rome. l pre-
sumo that if this feature of ancient dancing
were adopted at the present day, the busi
ness would be at an end. We should hear
no more of the plea of " invigorating the
SYSTEM" and "giving grace to the person.
Zeal for these would vanish into aIr--The
great fallacy in the piece under review is }
hat the conclusion is not contained in the
premise. 1t attempts to justify modern
lancing, the design ofwhlch, plainly, is not
to glorify Cod and express religious joy,
" showing that dancing, which had these
nds distinctly in view, was practisej by the Q
aints of Go in ancient times. Now this
ertainly very absurd. AS well justify the !
orse-laugh of the loud revel by showing d
hat ancient saints some times laughed in 4
heir holy JOY. The question is, is the de-
ign the same? And if not, can any argu. n
lent be drawn from the one to support the u
ther? That would be TO confound all pro- 4
er distinctions, and to precipitate all mo- il
atty and rellgio into the vortex of obscu- Ii
ty and absu-dity. Are those, who how
ngage in dancing. the most eminent for n
iety9 Do not comparatively few, who
ake any pretentions at all to religion, par s
cipate in it! Arc these dances in the least o
gree expressive Of religious Affection! Is u
he blessing Of the Lord at all invoked up-
, them, according to Col. S; H.? Isthere ii
~ design 10 honor God in them! Are e
ey in the least degree promo'ive of holi- d
,ss and the glory of God? The reverse
al! these is the truth, and it cannot be
med. Now | ask, if these things are 500
N q professor ofreligion, innocently parti- u
pate in any of these dances? 1t is plain s,
demonstrations self, they cannot. Take 81
avid in the state cfmiad in which he dan - y
d before the ark, or uttered the exhorta-
% in the text, and place him in one of our
odern dances, ana he would moan in an - -
lish, because the end pursued is SO h,
rfectly antagonist to all that was it
er designed in the ancient religious :"
Inces. therefore deny tina: modern dan
,g is virtue, or can possibly be proved Iy
ch. 1t is sin, because not done to glori- HI
God--it.is sin, because 1t has "the ap- N
arance of evil" from which we are COM a. a.
lndcd to "abstain.' Who can deny
is! Does not the world SO regard it, and 1,
a - /. !. 4 = r. III l