law's ground of amusements," and govern it. I question whether it is a legitimate or desirable function of churches to erect bowling-alleys, billiard-rooms, and private theatres, independent of any theory of the nature of these recreations. On the contrary, such work seems to be neither an object nor an incident of the church organization, but something which lies beyond its pale.
The answer may be anticipated. "You, then, Mr. Quilibet, are one of those who believe that religion is an affair of Sunday, but not of Monday, and Wednesday, and Saturday; you think that religion is well enough in church, but is not to be introduced into business and amusement." I believe, on the contrary, that religion should be an affair of all days, and of all days equally—the guiding principle of every aspect of every-day life, of worship, of business, of amusement. But I do not believe that the ecclesiastical organization is to be introduced into all the affairs of every-day life. And this is precisely the distinction which should govern the present discussion. What may have been done in the communist days of early Christianity, with its society of a few hundred souls at Antioch and elsewhere, is a different matter: it is a manifest impossibility for churches now to enter into the details of early life for the purpose of controlling them. Whether, also, the Church should stand above government, above society, above the family, is a different matter; but it cannot, in our time, attempt to discharge the specific duties which belong to all these.
To be "diligent in business" is a duty as cardinal as to be scrupulous in recreation. The same argument that would induce churches to provide amusements for us, should induce them to provide the right kind of business—to establish, for instance, a good Board of Brokers, as well as billiards, and bowling, and theatres: surely it will be admitted that the former has usually as perilous and objectionable surroundings as the latter.
I would not appear to be treating lightly an essay which is all so admirable, except in its unaccountable effort to make churches responsible for the present condition of public amusements, which the writer considers to be bad. But daily food and raiment are as important as amusement; shall the churches maintain bakeries where you can get rolls without alum? The surroundings of business are perilous to the moral sense of any youth who learns a bad business, or transacts a good business in a wrong way; for that reason, shall the churches do the business of the world? "If the Church," we are told, "would set herself to amuse her young folks, instead of discussing doctrines and metaphysical hair-splitting, she would prove herself a true mother, and not a hard-visaged step-dame." But perhaps this is an exaggerated view, both of the work appointed to the Church and of the light in which she is actually regarded.
The creation of private bowling-alleys and billiard tables is, I conceive, rather within the province of individuals than of the churches, and the same is true of private theatricals, dancing parties and dining parties, which are now commonly and successfully conducted by individuals. Societies, clubs, and families having hitherto proved themselves competent to such undertakings, and being in the habit of providing very good entertainments, entirely free from the vicious surroundings of the lower public resorts (which, by the way, most people do not patronize), the question is, why should this care be transferred to the Church?
