:;^.;:'^^f "-nm^ ^-?'-'?^ '** ^ >.^. '??'??- t ^W' im~^ '"li v.«. -u .-Mfe, ; ... ■.^wi'tiaS'S'vL^. u « # M iscell^neoMS LCA mpn I'^T" Vol . 2-1 r Ik n "^L E T T E THE SYNOD OF ALBANY, SUBJECT OF DANCING: WHEREIN IS DISCUSSED THE QUESTION, OUGHT THE SYNOD TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS SUBJECT, WHICH SHALL BIND THE CONSCIENCE OF THE CHURCH? " The man who places religion upon u false basis is the greatest enemy to religion" — Sydney Smith. BY CLERICUS. ALBANY: PRINTED BY JOEL MUNSELL. 1847. LETTER TO THE SYNOD OE ALBANY. Rev. Sirs, Report has it that you have seen fit in your ecclesiastical capacity to pass resolutions condemn- ing the practice of dancing on the part of your church members, and that you still have in contem- plation more stringent action. That report does not belie you we are assured from the fact, that you have published, within the past twelve months, re- solutions to that effect, in one or more religious papers, and that, at the same time, you appointed a committee of your number to "take into consid- eration what further action is necessary." Perhaps you are not aware that this movement has deeply aggrieved not a few of our number under your spiritual supervision, who have the misfortune to differ from you as to the propriety of the measures you are pleased to take. Prevented as we are by the circumstances in which we are placed, from meeting you on the floor of Synod, and there dis- cussing the subject with you, and having observed a manifest disposition on the part of individual presbyteries and other ecclesiastical bodies to push this matter to extremes, and apprehending disas- trous consequences to the cause of truth and the peace of our beloved church arising from this move- ment, we hope you will not deem it impertinent in us to address you through the press. AVe may bring our views before you, by proposing and answering this simple question, — Ought the Synod to take ac- tion on this subject which shall bind the conscience of the church? Or, which is the same thing, ought they to take such action as will make the conduct in question a ground of discipline ? We reply unhesitatingly in the negative. Our reasons are, I. You have no authority for such an enactment in the word of God. Not a single passage within the lids of the Bible, are we able to find which con- demns the conduct declared so reprehensible by the Synod. When the Bible uses any language what- ever on the subject, it either speaks of it approving- ly, as a religious service, or mentions it incidentally as a social custom, and that without a word of re- probation. We should deem it sufficient, simply to state this fact, and leave the onus prohcmdi, where it really belongs, i. e., with those who have been pleased to originate and support this movement in the Synod, were it not that two late writers, the Rev. Dr. Barnes, and the author of a Tract recently pub- lished by the American Tract Society, have attempt- ed to deduce from the divine word a different doc- trine, and have said all that can be said with much force on that side of the question. The positions of the two writers are not altogether the same. Dr. Barnes makes no attempt to adduce from Scripture a single passage, which, in explicit terms condemns dancing. In this he is wise. He thereby avoids a most paljDable error, into which the author of the Tract has fallen and preserves his own consistency as a Biblical interpreter. We claim this concession on the Dr's part, as an important confirmation of our position. For the learned expositor's voluminous commentaries do not bear the most complimentary testimony to his impartiality in Biblical interpretation, especially where a favorite theory is to be sustained. On the subject before us his zeal is too manifest to admit the supposition that, had there been in his estima- tion a single passage within the lids of the Bible, bearing explicit and pertinent testimony against dancing, it would, have been brought forward, and doubtless too, with an exhibition of joy, in point of intensity at least, not dissimilar to that shown by a certain one of olden time, who, when he discover- ed the solution of a difficult problem, ran through the streets exclaiming, in the excess of his transports, Eureka ! Eureka ! ! We say we claim this concession on his part as an important one, both from his ac- knowledged ability and his zeal on this subject. While, however, he yields this tacit concession by making no attempt to adduce a passage of Scrip- ture explicitly condemning dancing, yet he has cho- sen the forlorn resort of those who find themselves in like emergencies, and deduced such condemna- tion by implication. You will discover the gist of his argument, and at once comprehend its scope from a bare announcement of his text. It is that most often perverted language of the Apostle where he says that, if meat make my brother to ofiend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend. On the doctrine of ex- pediency he builds his entire argument, a beautiful structure to be sure, but one, which, like an inverted pyramid, is much too large for its base. Its weakness increases in the exact ratio of its altitude. What is the Bible doctrine of expediency ? Its application is restricted to things in themselves lawful, or indif- ferent, and it leaves each individual to exercise his own option as to what course he will pursue in any given circumstances. It never says that the pecu- liar notions of any one individual, or any number of individuals shall be the rule by which others must regulate their conduct. Indeed it is essential to the very nature of Bible expediency to leave each individual free to follow his own judgment and con- science so long as he applies the doctrine to things in themselves lawful or indifferent. Where does it confer authority upon any man, or any set of men to make their views of expediency the rule by which others sliall walk ? AVhy did not the Apostle enjoin upon the church at Corinth, and other churches, to prohibit their members henceforward from eating meat ? The reason is obvious. Such an application of the doctrine would, like the doctrine of expedi- ency, nullify itself For, then, the eating of meat would come within the range of a prohibitory sta- tute. Thus it would turn out that expediency pro- nounces that unlawful which God had pronounced lawful. Law and expediency Avould consequently become diametrically antagonistic. Or, rather, ex- pediency thus carried out would be resolved into the nature of law, and hence would, ipso facto, cease, and would leave another law on the revealed statute-book directly contravening one already in existence — the one declaring the eating of meat lawful, the other pronouncing the same unlawful. This is the inevitable result of such an application of the doctrine. Apply it to the case in hand, and you have virtually the same result. Grant it true, then, if you please, that dancing is inexpedient. Yet that fact does not clothe you with authority to say to your brother, "you shall not dance." You are not, therefore, gifted of heaven with the extra- ordinary prerogative, laying your brother under the bans of a compulsory mandate. So did not Paul. He tells the Corinthians how he would act in the case concerning which they consulted him, but does not take upon himself to say " you shall conform to my views." On the contrary, he tells them, " all this is lawful." You have an undoubted right to eat if you choose. But my advice is that you make personal sacrifices out of regard to the conscience of your weak brother. And here, by the by, let us carry out the Dr's argument and complete the analogy he has seen fit to commence. How stands the case ? Certain weak brethren at Corinth, as the Apostle styles them, complain of other brethren for purchas- ing and eating- meat sold in the shambles after it had been dedicated to idols. He advises the stronger brethren to yield to the weaker and abstain. In the nineteenth century a large majority of the Christian church (for Dr. Barnes and others claim the great body of the Christian church as with them on this subject,) are of a sudden deeply aggrieved because certain others occasionally dance for amuse- ment. Their grand argument is built upon the Apostle's advice to the Corinthians in regard to eat- ing meat offered to idols. They say the two cases are precisely analogous. What is the consequence ? Why that the great majority of the Christian church are in this case the " weaker brethren," and de- mand of the few dancing ones, who, of course, if the analogy holds, must be the stronger, to yield to them and not wound their weak conscience. Will Dr. Barnes and the author of the Tract, and the STOod brethren who have been so active on this sub- ject in the Synod — Avill they carry out the analogy and take this consequence? Will they acknow- ledge themselves and the great body of the enlight- ened Christian church of the nineteenth century the weaker brethren? We can not doubt. For surely it is more charitable in us to suppose that the attempt to make their own peculiar views of a mere question of expediency, a standard to regulate the conduct of others, especially of their " stronger brethren," results more from weakness than from pride. We esteem them too highly even to insinu- ate the latter imputation. Perhaps, however, if heads were counted, it would turn out that the majority so positively claimed might not so greatly preponderate on their side. Certain it is there are many good men and men too not greatly celebrated for their ignorance, who not only regard dancing as harmless but highly beneficial. Thomas Dick, L. L. D., who has written many useful works and con- tributed much to the intellectual and spiritual edi- fication of the church, alludes to dancing as an important item of physical education, and quotes an eminent physician as saying that " He made his children dance instead of giving them physic." A remark in our judgment far more philosophical than impious. The celebrated Locke, whose learning and piety are not to be despised, as his commenta- ries on Scripture fully evince, argues at length in favor of dancing in his work on education, because of its happy tendency in polishing and dignifying the manners. He shows how much men of all professions who succeed in life are indebted to a graceful address, and powerfully depicts the incon- veniences of boorishness of manners both to indi- viduals and to society. It would not be difficult to multiply names. Suffice it to say they are neither few nor mean. Now again let us recur to the argu- ment from expediency. Why have not these breth- ren who regard dancing so beneficial just as good a right to insist on the ground of expediency that others should conform to their views as you have 2 that they should conform to yours? They might argue with much plausibiUty, if not with truth, that one great obstacle to the spread of Christianity arises from the uncouthness and unsocial bearing of its professors towards the irreligious — that cour- tesy of manners is expressly enjoined in Scripture — that were it cultivated more by Christians the great- er would be their success — that if instead of that ascetic repulsiveness so prevalent in the church — if instead of a disposition to wage an indiscriminate warfare on the pleasures of the irreligious, Christians were to mingle more in their society and sanctify their pleasures, then the gospel would become like leaven and exert a more wide-spread and hallowed influence. Leaven must mingle with the lump. Separation is not the true policy. As society now works, the devil has a larger share of gentility and refinement than are his due ; and that because men of taste and education are compelled by the hostile attitude of Christians to club together and associate by themselves. Being thus beyond the reach of Christian example and the powerful elements of social Christian influence, they live and die as in- accessible to the gospel as the Grand Lama himself We say these brethren might so argue, and urge that, as dancing tends so directly to soften and beautify the manners, thus adding to the Christian character the attractions of social eloquence, there- fore it is the duty of Christians to look upon it with iiivor. Now have they not just as good a right to their views and the same argument from expediency 11 to support them, should they claim conformity from you? Where does gospel expediency teach that concession is the duty of only one party ? We take this view of the case merely to elucidate the doctrine of expediency as interpreted hy Dr. Barnes. Again on the Bible doctrine of expediency. How did Paul comment on this doctrine by his own ex- ample ? On one occasion we are told that out of motives of expediency he circumcised Timothy. By this means he gained influence over the Jews. But when on another occasion certain ones required him to circumcise Titus, he stoutly refused. " To whom," he says, in his own strong language, "we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you." Why not act in the second instance as in the first ? Because in the second instance they demanded it of him as a right — as an essential of religion. To admit such a claim, the Apostle clearly foresaw, would lead to most disastrous consequences. He, therefore, not only refused to do what he had done in another instance, but resists the idea with as much resoluteness as if he were required to renounce his faith. Suppose now your Synod were to pass resolu- tions making dancing for amusement a ground of discipline? What have you done? You thereby claim of your brother conformity to your views as an absolute right. Would he not be clearly justifiable, from the example of the Apostle, in joining issue and resisting such a claim? Out of motives of ex- pediency he might conform. But when you advance a step further and hold over him the sanctions of an authoritative command, you do Avhat you have no right to do. You do what the word of God will never sustain you in doing. Nay, you force your brother to resistance. It is just as much his duty to resist you, as it was the duty of the Apostle to resist those who imposed this unwarrantable exac- tion upon him. Turn now from the Apostle's ex- ample, and read his verbal explanation of this very doctrine, in reference to the same matter, he had in his mind's eye, when he wrote the text on which Dr. Barnes founds his argument, viz: the eating of meats. " Let not him that eateth," says the Apos- tle, "despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth; for God hath received him." Now, if the passage on which Dr. Barnes founds his argument be applicable to dancing, so also is the passage just quoted. Both have reference to the same subject. They involve and are designed to elucidate the same principle. Let us, then, read the latter passage with the alter- ation of a single word. " Let not him that danceth despise him that danceth not; and let not him which danceth not judge him that danceth; for God hath received him. Who art thon that judgest another man's servant? To his own master he standcth or fallethr On this last quoted passage Dr. Hodge comments ns tbllows; "As God does not make eat- in"- or not eatiu"- certain kinds of food a condition of acceptance, Christians ought not to allow it to interfere with their communion as brethren. If 13 God has not made it a term of communion, we ought not to do so.'' See Hodge on Romans. Happily we have the comments of another author on this pas- sa'ge whose testimony will set the matter at rest — an author whose impariiaUtij in Biblical interpreta- tion is in a fair way of becoming proverbial. This author is the celebrated Dr. Barnes of Philadelphia, Pa., United States of America. We state this for fear the reader might suppose, notwithstanding the striking similarity between his commentary and his sermon, there were two persons of the same title. Lose sight then, reader, if you can, of the Dr's ser- mon, and fix your attention on the following ex- tracts from his commentary on the above passage. *' The Apostle here has happily met the luhole case in all disputes about rites, and dress, and scruples in religious matters that are not essential. [Query, is dancing essential?] One party commonly des- pises the other as being needlessly and foolishly scrupulous ; and the other makes it a matter of con- science, too serious for ridicule and contempt; and a matter, to neglect which, is, in their view, de- serving of condemnation. The true direction to be given in such a case, [ah ! indeed ?] is, to the one party, not to treat the scruples of the other with de- rision and contempt, but with tenderness and in- dulgence. Let him have his way in it. And to the other party, it should be said they have no right to judge or condemn another. If I cannot see that the Bi- ble requires a particular cut to my coat, [See this illus- trated at length in Barnes's sermon on dancing,] or makes it my duty to obserre a particular festival, he has no right to judge me harshly, or to suppose that I am to be rejected and condemned for it. He has a right to his opinion ; and while I do not despise him he has no right to judge me. This is the foundation of true charity; [other foundation can no man lay] and if this simple rule had been followed, how much strife, and even bloodshed, would it have sared in the church. Most of the contentions among Christians have been on subjects of this na- ture. For God hath received him. It means here that God hath received him kindly; or has ac- knowledged him as his own friend. These scruples, on the one side or the other, are not inconsistent tvith true pietij'^ (See this also illustrated at length in Barnes's sermon on dancing.) He goes on: " Who art thou that judgest, ^c. This is a principle of com- mon sense and propriety. It is not ours, to sit in judgment on the servant of another man, &c. To attempt to control him is to intermeddle improperly and to become a ' busy-body in other men's matters.^ 1 Pet, iv: 15. Thus Christians are the servants of God ; they are answerable to him ; and ice have no right to usurp his place, and to act as if we were "lords over his heritage." See Barnes on Romans. Would Dr. Barnes recognise himself in his own glass? Why did he neglect to apply this passage also to dancing? According to his own showing it bears expressly on the same point — involves the same principle — and refers to the same subject referred to in his text. Qaery — How, after such 15 teaching, would the Apostle act, were he called upon to preside at a Session meeting convened for the purpose of disciplining members of the church for dancing ? Query No. 2 — How would he vote in a Synodical meeting on a proposition to declare dancing inconsistent with Christian piety, or to make it a term of communion ? What his course ought to be is plainly marked out for him. For Dr. Barnes has declared, and the New School As- sembly have ratified the Dr's decision, that, " There ought to be but one opinion among the friends of religion on this subject." In 1843 this grave Assembly of divines went so far as to declare the practice of dancing "so entirely unscriptural and eminently that of the world, &c., as to render it not only improper and injurious for pro- fessing Christians either to partake in it, or to qua- lify their children for it by teaching them the art; but, also, to call for the faithful and judicious exercise of discipline on the part of church sessions, when any of the members of their churches have been guilty." It is a source of regret that this learned Assembly did not point out some of the proof-texts by which dancing is declared " so entirely unscriptural,'' or do they intend to affirm what the Scriptures ought to teach? But they say it is so. Let that suffice. Woe to the man who has the audacity to think dif- ferently. Submission or excommunication is his only alternative. This is their decision. What re- mains but for the Synod of Albany to add their sanction ? Surely after such a stride on the high- If way of evangelical reform, the millenium could not long tarry. So much for the argument from expe- diency. We next pass to the Tract. As we have suffi- ciently considered the argument from expediency, we will not notice what this writer says under that head. He goes further than Dr. Barnes. He has discovered three passages of Scripture which expli- citly condemn dancing. Let him speak for him- self He says, " Two kinds of dancing are men- tioned in the Bible. The one was a religious act, &c. The other was a social amusement, to which a religious exercise had been perverted ; and those were deemed vile and impious, who indulged in it. Three instances are mentioned. The "vain fellows and shameless," to whom Michael alludes, 2 Sam. vi: 20. The irreligious families whose children dance. Job xxi: 7, 14. And finally that scene of impieties which commenced with the dancing of Herodias's daughter, and ended in the rash promise of Herod and the murder of John the Baptist." A little further on, the writer says, in allusion to these passa- ges: " For the only instances of social dancing are so mentioned as never to indicate approval, but usually distinct disapproval. The propriety of it is left as little in doubt, as Noah's drunkenness, or the causing a son or daughter to pass through the fire to Moloch. Instead of permitting, therefore, God's word pointedly condemns dancing as a social amuse- ment." This discovery, that " God's word pointedly condemns dancing as a social amusement" — that 17 " its propriety is left as little in doubt, as Noah's drunkenness, or the causing a son or daughter to pass through the fire to Moloch — a discovery which escaped the keen eye of Dr. Barnes, though he had looked into the Bible several times in the course of his life, and which, if he had known of it, would have saved much of his valuable time, spent in con- structing an argument from expediency — this dis- covery was reserved for the writer of the Tract. If it is not presumption in us, we will venture to suggest, though we do it tremblingly, that we really doubt whether these passages do, after all, so "pointedly condemn dancing." The first is the instance of the " vain fellows and shameless," to whom Michael alludes, 2 Sam., vi: 20. By what process the writer tortures this passage into a " pointed condemna- tion" of dancing, we are at a loss to know. Afler all our research, we are unable to discover that it has the slightest allusion to dancing at all. We cannot account for his quoting it, unless we suppose, that, when he opened the Bible, his mind was so full of the idea of dancing, that he imagined for a moment, the whole book was one continued trea- tise on that subject, and that he could not go amiss; and accordingly took the first passage that met his eye, and this was it. If it has any allusion to danc- ing, it must refer to these persons as having danced with David, on the occasion of the restoration of the ark; and that, according to the writer's own show- ing, was a religious service. The next passage is from Job xxi: 11. "They send forth their little 3 ones like a flock, and their children dance." Did the writer suppose when he quoted this passage that the inspired Job had in view a modern ball-room, or dancing party ? To show the fallacy of the quo- tation, we simply cite the comments of Dr. Barnes, the writer's coadjutor in the good cause, on this pas- sage. "There is no evidence here that Job meant to say that they taught their children to dance ; that they caused them to be trained in any thing that now cor- responds to dancing schools, and that he meant to say such a training was improper. The image was one of abundance, exuberance of feeling, cheerfulness. Of the impropriety of training children in a dancing school, there ought to be but one opinion among the friends of religion; but there is no evidence that Job referred to any such training here, and this pas- sage should not he adduced to prove that dancing is ivrons!"" See Barnes on Job. The other instance is the case of Herodias's daughter. As the writer con- tents himself with the bare assertion that this pas- sage " pointedly condemns dancing," we will meet it with a simple denial. Perhaps some of the mem- bers of the Synod will undertake to adduce the proof ' There is nothing more of consequence in this Tract, except the narration of a fact in relation to a young lady who had some bitter experience of the evils of dancing. It is related in the tract as fol- lows: "I was once called," says an aged pastor, "to visit a young lady who was said to be in de- spair. She had at some time previous been serious, 19 and had, it was hoped, resolutely set her face Zion- ward. In an evil hour, some of her former associ- ates called on her to accompany them to a ball. She refused to go. With characteristic levity and thoughtlessness, they employed ridicule ; and final- ly so far prevailed, that with a desperate effort to shake off her convictions, and regain her former serenity, she exclaimed, ' I will go if 1 am damned for it.' God took her at her word. The blessed Spirit immediately withdrew his influences, &c." That this is true, every word of it, we cannot doubt. It bears on its very face indisputable marks of its genuineness. Like all true stories it is very specific^ both as to times and circumstances. For example, "she was said to be in despair." Of course this was a tale of no busy-body, or meddler. Though the aged pastor knew nothing certainly of her state, yet it was ^'so said.'' No doubt this "was said" by some person of veracity. Let no one, therefore, have the presumption to call this in question. Or, if a suspicion should by some mishap, gentle reader, steal into your mind, such suspicion will at once vanish when you consider other circumstances. When she made up her mind to go to the ball, she said, we presume, aloud, (for the silent operations of the mind, you know, can not reach the ear, so that, if she had not said it aloud, we should have lost this important item in her experience, and the story would have been greatly marred), yes, she said out loud, "I will go if I am damned for it." Then too, you know, it is so very natural that one. who had just been agitated with such a tremendous struggle of seriousness, should instantly pass out of it. More still, that one who had just mastered the struggle, and especially a lady — an educated and refined lady, and that too in the presence of com- pany, should utter her decision by the use of pro- fane language. But if, after all this, the reader is still inclined to doubt, the next circumstance will, we are sure, set the matter at rest, nay, beyond all peradventure. " God took her at her word." Yes, the writer of the Tract "says" the aged pastor "said" so. Whether the writer himself heard it from the aged pastor's own lips, or whether some one "said" to him that the aged pastor "said" so to some one else, certain it is, the story came directly from him. How the aged pastor came to know the mind of God on the subject is not very definitely "said," we acknowledge, but we take it for granted he knew it somehow. He might have been inspired, or the Almighty may have spoken audibly from heaven, notwithstanding all that theologians say about the cessation of miracles. For it would be wronjr to suppose the aged pastor would make so grave an assertion without the most positive assurance. But seriously. Our patience is utterly exhausted with this sickly cant. When will men of sense cease this blasphemous usurpation of the powers of God? When will they cease consigning their fellow- creatures to perdition for acts which God has not condemned ! On the whole, we regard the Tract as the lamest of all lame arguments on this subject. 21 We are told that the committee who awarded the premium to the writer refuse to tell his name. This is right. Give the man his $250 — if that be the premium offered, and, if you regard his reputation, by all means lay him under additional obligations of gratitude for suppressing his name. We wonder at the committee. More do we wonder at the Ame- rican Tract Society. As much as we love the insti- tution, we cannot forbear the remark, that it re- mains yet to be seen whether it will raise itself much in the esteem of Christendom by sending forth such crude and unscriptural tracts. We hope the common funds of the church will not be appropri- ated to defray the expenses of its publication. It was bad policy for the society to meddle with the matter at all. Better confine itself to preaching the weightier matters of faith and repentance. Or, if it must meddle with such subjects, let it not give its high sanction to such palpable perversions of scripture. That Divine Agent, whose office it is to make the word effectual, will not connive at pious frauds, and it is vain for man even in a good cause to dictate for Him an interpretation different from what He originally intended. It might not be amiss to pay our respects briefly to the fly-leaf of this Tract. Whatever else may be said of the Tract it is no hypocrite. So far as the matter is concerned, the outside bears a very fair cor- respondence with the inside, though, evidently from the style, written by another hand. Probably we are indebted for this consistency or coincidence more 22 to the subject than to the persons. This writer asks — "Shall Christians dance?" and then dis- courses as follows: " AVhy not Christians, if anybody? We would not advise a sinner to dance. A sinner is an enemy to God ; and shall he dance ? A sinner must repent, or perish; and shall he dance? A sinner is on the way to hell, and may be there in an hour: shall he dance ? There is something supremely shocking in the idea of a dancing sinner. What fearful decla- rations are those of Job! " They send forth their little ones like a flock, and their children dance. They spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave." Job xxi: 11, 13. Of course, in view of his eternal responsibilities, the sinner ought to be extremely careful as to his bodily attitudes. We are sorry this writer has not enlightened the sinner as to what attitudes are un- scriptural. Ignorance on a matter so momentous ouoht at once to be dispelled. Whether the sinner shall put his right or left foot first, or whether he may of a sudden raise either of his feet higher than usual — or whether, if he does, the body may rise with it, or whether in his movements he shall be permitted to turn quickly around, or describe a cir- cle, or a triangle, or a parallelogram, or a hexagon, (we do not mean one of Dr. Cox's hexagons) — as to all these important points the writer leaves the sinner wholly in the dark. But on one point the writer is plain and perspicuous — the sinner must not dance. He would not advise a sinner to dance. 23 Why? "A sinner is an enemy to God. Shall he dance?" Nor, perhaps, though, he does not say, would he advise a sinner to put on a cheerful coun- tenance. For is it not just as wrong to express pleasurable emotions by the muscles of the face as by the motions of the feet ? No, we think it is plain the sinner ought not to do even this. Particu- larly he should not go so far as to laugh outright. Shall the sinner laugh ? A sinner is an enemy to God ; and shall he laugh ? A sinner must repent or perish ; and shall he laugh ? A sinner is on the way to hell, and may be there in an hour; and shall he laugh ? There is something supremely shocking in the idea of a laughing sinner. No, sinner, you must not laugh. You must go through the world, not with a cheerful visage nor with supple steps, but with a gloomy air and a slow and measured tread, as if you were following an only friend to his funeral home. Should you chance to read an anecdote, no matter how amusing, you must not laugh. Should your eye accidentally rest on one of the monkey tribe performing some ludicrous antics in imitation of your own species, be careful, you must not laugh. Should you chance to discover a tract on important items of religious practice, which, on its very face wears rather the appearance of burlesque than of seriousness, be careful, you must not laugh. "You are an enemy to God." We have already given you the reasons why you should not express pleasurea- ble emotions either by your countenance or your feet. In addition to these reasons we will reiterate 24 the exclamation — ^W^hat a "fearful" declaration is that of Job ! " They send forth their little ones like a flock and their children dance," or, as Dr. Barnes would interpret it — "their children are ela- ted with joy." "Fearful!" more " fearful ! !" most " fearful ! ! !" What right had those children to be joyful ? Would they not have scampered with utter consternation for some safe refuge had their urchin ears in one of these joyful pastimes, of a sudden, heard a spirit voice barely enunciate the terrible word, d-a-n-c-e ? Would they not have been sure of the proximity of a ghost ? Older men than they ; men of gray hairs, of learning and experience — have discovered terrors connected with that word of the most " fearful" character. But we cannot, for want of room, follow out this writer through all his interesting and logical remarks. His re- maining arguments are equally as profound and de- monstrative as the specimen already given. Or, if you will pardon the vulgarity of the quotation ; in the language of the razor-strop man, " There are more left of the same sort." We have now shown, as we think, conclusively, that the Synod has no warrant in the word of God for condemning dancing. And we deem it best for ecclesiastical bodies, as well as individuals, " not to be wise above what is written." Our second objection to such legislation is, that it is contrary to the examples of Christ and his Apostles. It is a glorious feature in the gospel that it aims its main blow not at efiects, but at causes. 25 Accordinoly we find the Apostles never adopt the policy of legislating against outward forms of par- ticular vices, but in imitation of their divine Mas- ter, they lay the axe at the root of the tree. They do not content themselves with lopping off here and there a branch, as if that would destroy the tree it- self There was as much reason in their day as in ours, that they should put forth special enactments against slavery, intemperance, and other evils, and dancing too, if it be an evil. But did they proceed thus? Show us a single instance? Why did not Paul, when at Rome, his ears were repeatedly sa- luted with the frenzied shouts of the populace, revel- ling in the amphitheatre over the bloody contests of the gladiators — why did he not call an ecclesi- astical council, and send forth to the world a spe- cial enactment against those abhorrent scenes? Why did he not feel the pressure of conscience like many of our modern reformers, lest, without such an enactment, his silence would be construed into approval? Because the Apostle had discovered a more excellent way. Faith and repentance were the burthen of his preaching. His policy was to strike at the heart. If he could effect the conver- sion of men, their reformation in other matters would come of course. Whereas, if his efforts had been aimed only at the exterior act, he would not have cut off the source of these evils. There is no virtue in that kind of policy, tending to a reno- vation of the heart. But you make a man a Chris- tian and you make him a temperance man, and a 4 26 reformed man in all things, intrinsically inconsis- tent with piety. In the other case you gain nothing ; at all events, nothing on which you can rely, and of permanent utility. Indeed the whole policy of special organizations, and special enactments against special evils is, in our humble judgment, in- correct. Providence, no doubt, has wise reasons in permitting the experiments of the present age to be tried. He may thereby demonstrate to the world by our experiments and to succeeding ages that his own plan of reforming men which strikes at the heart, the source of all these evils, is the best. So thought Paul, and his colleagues. " God forbid that I should glory," says he, "save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." Nor did he. Imagine for a moment the Apostle turning aside from his grand mission and sending word to Corinth or Ephesus that on a cer- tain day he would be there and lecture on anti- slavery, or temperance, or on dancing, or on any other particular evil, after which he would organ- ize a society! What can be more ludicrous ! And is the nature of your mission, reverend sirs, difierent from his? Ought you to turn aside and concen- trate your energies on particular vices ? No, not if you would adhere to apostolic example. If the same labor and zeal, and time and money, which have been spent in the 19th century in this way, had been devoted to the direct furtherance of the gospel, there would have been at this day a far more wide-spread and substantial reformation in all these particular respects than there is now, and many 21 more souls saved — to say nothing of the church contentions and distractions these proceedings have caused. This, we take it, is God's way of reform- ing the world. Dancing too, like other evils, if it be an evil, is not so much a cause as the effect of a cause. Suppose you suppress it ? What have you done ? You have done your brother but little good so long as the disposition that led him to indulge remains. That disposition will soon break out un- der other forms equally objectionable. Will you follow him on through all these forms? Well, what have you achieved when all is done? He at length goes into eternity with his disposition un- changed, while the effects of his influence are not in the least curtailed. Adopt the better course. Follow God's plan. Aim at the heart. Remove the cause, and the effect, so far as it is an evil, will cease. Make him at heart a Christian, and secure the benefits of his influence in the great work. So did the Apostles. So do ye. Depend upon it, you will* gain nothing by passing resolutions placing your brethren, who differ from you, on a level with those who revel in the haunts of wickedness. Our third objection is, that, by so doing, you de- part from the fundamental principles of genuine Protestantism. You do this in three respects. 1st. You add unauthorized supplements to the word of God. You engraft upon it a doctrine which it does not teach. Will you after the example of Rome attempt the work of supplying the deficiences of the divine word, by putting forth resolutions and enactments which it no where authorizes ? 28 2nd. You usurp a power over your brother's con- science which you have no right to assume. You have no right to say to your brother, you shall or shall not do this or that, in regard to any thing con- cerning which the word of God gives you no au- 3rd. You thereby make unauthorized tests of church membership. If you say to your brother, you shall not dance, when the word of God says no such thing, do you not make an extraneous or illegal test of church membership ? Now we do not pre- tend that by such enactments you will immediately set your church members saying ave marias, or counting beads, or doing penance. But you virtu- ally give up to Rome principles, which, if carried out, would authorize all her extravagancies. And what can you say ? Will you accuse her of adding supplements to the word of God ? Her reply is, so do you. Look at your Synodical records. Do you tell her she usurps unauthorized power over the hu- man conscience ? She answers, so do you. Look at your Synodical records. Do you reproach her with making unscriptural tests of church membership? Her reply is still, so do you. Look at your Synodi- cal records. The truth is, such legislation as this has already given Rome the vantage-ground over Protestantism. In our late discussions, her cham- pions have used the argumentum ad hominem with tremendous effect, and we predict that even Kir- wan will yet feel its power. Our fourth objection is, that you will by so doing 29 open the door for like attempts by that class of re- ligionists commonly known as men of " one idea," and will thus lead all our ecclesiatical bodies into inextricable embarrassment. If you make dancing a test, or legislate on the subject, why not the hold- ing of slaves? Why not moderate drinking of wine or other liquors ? Why not legislate against fashiona- ble parties ? Dr. Barnes in the outset of his discus- sion of this subject, says, '' The question is not whether balls are or are not as proper as large and expensive fashionable parties." We grant that in one sense it is not the question, i. e., it is the fact, that Dr. Barnes in his sermon considers the subject of dancing. But, so far as the principle involved is concerned, it is as really the question as dancing. You are just as much bound to set your face against the one as the other. Dr. Barnes himself, says, '' For myself, I freely confess, I see no great diftir- ence ; and as a Christian man, I would as soon ac- cept of an invitation to the one as the others Now suppose some brethren whose "weak conscience" is wounded by these parties were to come up to the Synod and urge you to put forth an enactment against fashionable parties ? Could you consistent- ly refuse? They would use your own arguments in application to dancing, and with just as much force. Would you comply? Then carry out the principle and see where you will end ? Our fifth objection is, that while such legislation is powerless to reform, it will produce division and contention in the churches. Already, if report be so true, some of our churches and ministers too have suffered by this means, while no perceptible good has been accomplished. Our last reason, Rev. sirs, relates to yourselves. Your power for doing good depends not a little on the degree of confidence and respect you inspire for yourselves on the part of your lay-brethren. In pro- portion to the intensity of that respect and that af- fection will be your usefulness. In proportion as you, by your ecclesiastical or individual action les sen that respect, in the same proportion you impair your usefulness. We desire to respect your head as well as your heart. Attempt not, then, to in- trench upon our rights. Remember that while we are enjoined to be in subjection to you as our rulers, yet you also are cautioned not to " Lord it over God's heritage." We had designed to suggest other objections relating to the constitution of our church. We cannot discover that that either authorizes you as a Synod to pass such enactments. However, we will not trouble you further at present. If, after all these reasons, you see fit to push the matter, we have two things to ask. First, that when you frame the enactment you Avill give it an appropriate title. Call it by its right name. For example "an act to regulate the attitudes of the members of the church." Secondly, accompany it with a code defining what attitudes arc improper. In order to obey we wish to know the law. Yours truly, CLERICUS. i ^ \ ^ATE DIJP ^iMrai^BSI^RL y!- V ^: y.- _^yw^^w . - w;«^HHEi ■ "'^- ■ ^ J:^ ^H i ^H^ ,\ii • VK m^' ryC/." iUi.i ^yy^^.^'^M