it would be a loft caufe. If fome late writers on the fubject of morals be permitted to determine what are the ingredients that must enter into the compofition of a good man, that good man, it is agreed, may much more probably be found in the play-house than in any other place. But what belongs to the character of a Christian must be taken from the holy Scriptures, the word of the living God. Notwithstanding therefore, that through the great degeneracy of the age, and very culpable relaxation of difcipline, not a few continue to be called Chriftians, who are a reproach to the name, and fupport and countenance one another in many practices contrary to the purity of the Chriftian profeffion, I fhall beg leave ftill to recur to the unerring standard, and to confider, not what many nominal Chriftians are, but what every real Chriftian ought to be.

In fo doing I think I shall reason justly; and at the fame time it is my refolution, not only to fpeak the fenfe, but, as often as poffible, the very language and phrafes of the Scripture, and of our pious fathers. Thefe are either become venerable to me for their antiquity, or they are much fitter for expreffing the truths of the gofpel and delineating the character and duty of a difciple of Chrift, than any that have been invented in latter times. As the growth or decay

6

of

of vegetable nature is often fo gradual as to be infenfible; fo in the moral world, verbal alterations, which are counted as nothing, do often introduce real changes, which are firmly eftablished before their approach is fo much as fufpected. Were the ftyle, not only of fome modern effays, but of some modern fermons to be introduced upon this fubject, it would greatly weaken the argument, though no other alteration fhould be made. Should we every where put virtue for holiness, honour, or even moral fenfe for confcience, improvement of the heart for fanctification, the oppofition between fuch things and theatrical entertainments would not appear half fo fenfible.

By taking up the argument in the light now propofed, I am saved, in a great measure, from the repetition of what has been written by other authors on the subject. But let it be remem bered, that they have clearly and copiously shewn the corruption and impurity of the stage, and its adherents, fince its first institution, and that both in the heathen and Christian world. They have made it undeniably appear, that it was oppofed and condemned by the best and wifeft men, both heathens and Chriftians in every age*. Its very defenders

Particularly at Athens, where it firft had its birth, both tragedy and comedy were foɔn abolished by public authority; and among the Romans, though this and other public fhews

were

defenders do all pretend to blame the abufe of it. They do indeed alledge that this abuse is not effential to it, but may be feparated from it; however all of them fo far as I have feen, reprefent this feparation as only poffible or future; they never attempt to affign any æra in which it could be defended as it then was, or could be affirmed to be more profitable than hurtful. Some writers do mention a few particular plays of which they give their approbation. But these have never yet, in any age or place, amounted

were permitted in a certain degree, yet fo cautious were that wife people of fuffering them to be frequent, that they did not permit any public theatre, when occafionally erected, to continue above a certain number of days. Even that erected by M. Scaurus, which is faid to have coft fo immenfe a fum as a million fterling, was fpeedily taken down. Pompey the Great was the first who had power and credit enough to get a theatre continued.

The opinion of Seneca may be feen in the following paffage, Nihil eft tam damnofum bonis moribus, quam in aliquo fpetaculo defidere. Tunc enim per voluptatem facilius vitia furrepunt."

As to the primitive Chriftians, fee Conftit. Apoft. lib. 8. cap. 32. where actors and ftage-players are enumerated among those who are not to be admitted to baptifm. Many different councils appoint that they fhall renounce their arts before they be admuted, and if they return to them shall be excommunicated. Te tullian de Spectaculis, cap. 22. obferves, That the heathens themselves marked them with infamy, and excluded them from all honours and dignity. To the fame purpofe fee Aug. de Civ. Dei, lib. 2. cap. 14. "Actores poeticarum fabularum remo"vent a focietate civitatis-ab honoribus omnibus repellunt homines fcenicos.'

The opinion of moderns is well known, few Chriftian writers of any eminence having failed to pronounce sentence against the ftage.

7

to

to fuch a number, as to keep one fociety of players in constant employment, without a mixture of many more that are confeffedly pernicious. The only reason of bringing this in view at prefent when it is not to be infifted on, is, that it ought to procure a fair and candid hearing to this attempt to prove, That the ftage, after the greateft improvement of which it is capable, is ftill inconfiftent with the purity of the Chriftian profeffion. It is a strong prefumptive evidence in favour of this affertion, that, after fo many years trial, fuch improvement has never actually taken place.

It is perhaps also proper here to obviate a pretence in which the advocates of the ftage greatly glory, that there is no express prohibition of it to be found in Scripture. I think a countryman of our own has given good reasons to believe, that the apostle Paul, in his epiftle to the Ephefians, chap. v. ver. 4. by filthinefs, foolish

talking, and jefting," intended to prohibit the plays that were then in ufe. He also thinks it probable that the word Kapo, ufed in more places than one, and tranflated revelling," points at the fame thing. Whether his conjectures are juft or not, it is very certain that thefe, and many other paffages, forbid the abufes of the ftage; and if these abuses be infeparable from it, The late Mr. Anderson,

as there is reason to believe, there needed no other prohibition of them to every Chriftian. Nay, if they never had been feparated from it till that time it was fufficient, and it would be idle to expect that the Scripture fhould determine this problematical point, Whether they would ever be fo in any after age. To afk that there fhould be produced a prohibition of the stage, as a stage,. univerfally, is to prefcribe to the Holy Ghoft, and to require that the Scripture fhould not only forbid fin, but every form in which the reftleis and changeable difpofitions of men fhall think fit to be guilty of it, and every name by which they fhall think proper to call it. I do not find in Scripture any exprefs prohibition of masquerades, routs and drums, and yet I have not the leaft doubt, that the affemblies called by thefe names are contrary to the will of God, and as bad, if not worse, than the common and ordinary entertainments of the stage.

In order to make this enquiry as exact and accurate as poffible, and that the ftrength or weaknefs of the arguments on either fide may be

clearly perceived, it will be proper to ftate diftinctly, what we understand by the stage or stageplays, when it is affirmed, that in their moft improved and best regulated state they are unlawful to Chriftians. This is the more neceflary, that there is a great indiftinctnefs and ambiguity in

the