Year: 1867

ciety. To teach young people that such


sports are sinful is dangerous. They


know better. Their eonsciences revolt


at such teaching, and they will listen nc


more to anything you have to say on the


subject. To teach them that the sports,


though innocent, are so fascinating that


they eaAnot be INDUCED in without ex-


cess and abuse is also dangerous. This
increases their craving for them and, if


they break over your prohibitions (and


the statistics of Christian families will


show that more than half the children do


break over such prohibitions then they


have your word for it that the fasei-


nations of these amusements are ire


sistible, and they launch themselves into


reckless dissipation. To teach them


that they ought to abstain because of the


good they can do by abstaining has no


effect, since by the supposition they are


not under the sway of Christian love,


and such motive has very little weight


with them.


We might, therefore, conclude before


hand that there would be greater danger


in prohibiting those games than in al
lowing them and guarding them against


excess and abuse. A careful study of


human nature would teach that this was


likely to be the case. And my observa-


ton of facts confirms this Judgment
For many years, some Christian families,


protesting against the current teaching


on this subject, have allowed and eneour-
aged these pastimes in their own houses.
They have carefully taught their child
ren that the amusements we're right and
and that the abuses we're wrong, and they
have given the children the amusements
fat home, under their own supervision,
eorbidding them to seek them amid evil
companions, and to indulge in them ex-
eessiVely. And, after careful study of
the results Of this method, 1 am led to
believe that the children of such house
holds fall into evil ways much less fire.
quently than the children of households
where the other method has been adopt
ed. IF a household is only aominalIv
Christian, ifthe parents are utterly world
ly and frivolous, then the evil conse-
quenoes will follow, whether they permit
or prohibit these amusements. Even in
these cases, however, 1 believe it is safer
to permit than to prohibit them.


But, leaving such families out of the
account, I believe that careful study of
the subject will show that in those fam
lilies where a genuine and vital piety pre-
walls this policy of allowing such sports
has been far more successful than the !
other. An excellent deacon, speaking to |
me other day of the dangerous fascina-
tion of dancing, mentioned the fact that, !
though he had carefully instructed his
children on the subject, and had forbid
den to engage in the pastime, yet they |
had repeatedly stolen away from home to
attend public dances. EBut how is it |
with the children of your neighbor ?" 1
asked. (This neighbor is a man who
for his piety aud his wisdom is known all
over the land) 'eThey dance at home,
with their fathers free consent" "Have
they ever been known to run away to
balls p He was compelled to admit that
they never had


A letter from a lady in a Western
State brings me this evidence II have
seen the children of a worthy deacon
dance everywhere away from home,
among very undesirable associates, at
very late hours, and with an exaggerated
fascination for the amusement that no
one could doubt was greatly enhanced
by the prohibition at home. In another
family, at whose head was just as holy
and a wiser man, were gathered large
numbers of young people, who were re-
gularly provided with athletic sports for
daylight, and social dancingfor occasion
al recreation in the early evening; and
the influence upon all Wa8 good, and
good only." Such testimonies come to
me, almost daily, from all parts of the
country.


If any one is in doubt in regard to
the practical workings of the two diff
ferent methods, let him study the his
tory of the Christian families he has
known, and see if the proportion of the
children who fall into vice is not small
er among those who have the amuse-
ments at home than of those who are
denied them at home. Questions of ex-
pediency like this must be submitted to
The test of experience. And this is Just
what I desire in regard to this question.


The fact is that the policy of prohi- =
lion has not been effectual, and it never
can be. A majority of the children of
Christian parents disregard these re-
straints, and this will always be the +
ease. When good people forbid these
Dastimes in their houses, they do not ,
prevent their children from indulging
in them, they simply consign amuse-
nents themselves to corruption, and !
make it morraly certain that those of :
their children who are attracted by them :
will be ruined by them. These are at
5raetive pastimes. But Christian peo-
pie have forbidden that they should ,
seem to attach their children to their !:
homes, and have ordained that they
should be employed only as allurements !
10 vice. That they have been actuated +
in this matter by the best motives, I {
have no doubt. That they have been
many wise men earnestly be-
ieve.