same liberty with his men. For I suspect he will lay a bold claim to Milton, Addison, Johnson, &c. whom we shall find, when considered with due interpretation, to be substantially, though not entirely, on our side of the question.

Milton speaks, indeed, of the moral properties of tragedy; but he expressly confines his panegyric to the tragedy of the ancients. Addison lamented the immorality of the stage; and Dr. Johnson is well known to have expressed, though inconsistently, his abhorrence of the green-room, and his contempt for the players. These great authors were persons of the finest literary taste, which no doubt decoyed them into sentiments of undue attachment to the drama. It is true, they were moralists; but, whether from their printed works, and more especially from their private lives, we may boldly infer, that they possessed a scriptural, profound, and uniform piety, without which every man, be his learning what it may, is so far unqualified to become an authority in favour of the stage, I leave the public to judge. I say "in favour;" because, in opposition, a wicked man may be allowed to judge impartially. It must be a bad thing, indeed, that could offend the moral taste of a Julian, "who," Caussin observes, "hated comedies."* Besides, let the dramatic publications of Johnson, &c. be considered, and I ask, Had all other plays been equally pure in point of morals, what would have been the probable condition of the theatre ? What support would it have found? Would it now have had an existence ? The "Cato" of Addison, the "Elfrida" of Mason, and, above all, the beautiful fragment, "Ignatius," by Gambold, would soon put a common theatrical audience to flight. We presume the season will never come when either of these pieces shall be rapturously applauded, and their public exhibition demanded for fifty or an hundred nights in succession. I am aware, that, apart from their moral and religious cast, they are not exactly formed for stage-effect. But is it to be imagined, that, in the present state of society, such materials, even in the hands of a Shakspeare, would at all excite a genuine interest in a popular assembly?

It is said that St. Chrysostom used to sleep with the works of Aristophanes under his pillow. But does this neutralize his eloquent opposition to the public acting of such plays?

* See his "Maxims," No. VII.

Must all who read Horace approve of hearing his improprieties pronounced upon a stage before a promiscuous multitude? Nor is the authority of Plato destroyed by his opposition to poetry; for he did not object to it as such, but on moral grounds connected with it. He expressly allows of hymns to the Deity.*

As to the authority of certain persons of eminence in the church of England, who have patronized the stage, I have only to request, that it be fairly balanced with that of others in the same church. If we keep within the limits of eminence in writing, we might confidently boast as to numbers. But when we come to that particular kind of weight which the case requires, I am satisfied the theatrical scale will be found greatly wanting. For instance: Bishops Hurd and Warburton appear, from the general character of their writings, to have made letters their profession; and studies practically religious (I speak merely as to authorship) occupied a very subordinate place in their consideration. On the contrary, Archbishop Tillotson, Bishops Babington, Andrews, and Hall, demonstrate by their works, that to impress religion immediately on the hearts and consciences of men was their profession; and literature, as such, was evidently, with them, an inferior subject. of pursuit and of enjoyment. Now, which of these two classes should we choose to be umpire on a point of moral casuistry?

It will again be replied, that the Fathers protested only against the scandalous pantomimes of the Pagans. There was, indeed, a distinction between them and the regular drama; and St. Augustine mentions in one place, that the best and most tolerable of stage-plays were tragedy and comedy, which he calls "poetic fables;" but even to such, under the express names of "poetic fables" and "comedies," he frequently and decidedly objects. Sir Walter Scott allows, that they were subject to the same sweeping condemnation with the public shows, because acted in the same place, and by the same performers. He thinks, however, they were unjustly so condemned. And, certainly, if the regular drama was so innocent and useful as many of the moderns suppose, it is somewhat strange, that neither the Fathers, nor the councils of the church, had the honesty to

See Vives on St. Aug. p. 69.

except them from the general censure. Their perpetual aim was not the reformation but destruction of the theatre. I am inclined to believe that the Christians conscientiously condemned the whole. That they were really condemned, is acknowledged by another great friend of the theatre, who asserts, that the Fathers re-barbarized Europe by their opposition to the stage; which must of course be meant of tragedy and comedy, and not of wicked pantomimes.* St. Cyprian abominates the theatre because of the indecent interchange of the dress of the sexes. And does not this exist on the present stage?

The question comes to this: The Fathers either did or did not condemn the regular drama, as well as the common shows. Let those who assert that they did not, prove the position by plain historic testimoy. If they did, then it only remains for the advocates of the stage to detract, if possible, from the weight of such existing authority.

Is it probable the Fathers would have allowed the modern theatre? And was it not against the regular drama that the Fathers of our British Reformation, from Archbishop Parker downwards, have protested? When such an army of distinguished Christians, the legitimate expounders of the faith, throughout a long line of ages, have strongly opposed the stage, it will be thought good presumptive evidence at least, that Christianity herself is its firm and changeless foe: "Christianity," Sir Walter Scott observes, "from its first origin, was inimical to the institution of the theatre." And such are the men, legislators, philosophers, and Fathers, who, if they lived again to lift up their voice against a theatre, would be denounced as creatures of a weak mind, fanatics, and hypocrites! But we rest not the cause on names. Even Euclid is no infallible authority for the result of a problem, apart from the process by which its truth is worked out. We recur to the arguments which directly relate to the nature and effects of the system.

Suppose there be no Scripture-text, is there not some Scripturecase, plainly applicable to the subject? Let us make the inquiry.

The theatre has given great scandal and offence to a large proportion of the Christian world, for nearly eighteen hundred years. Suppose we allow, that, on this subject, such persons

* See Annual Review on (6 Styles on the Stage."

have been tinctured with enthusiasm; thousands of them have yet been characters of undeniable talents, and learning, and piety. The friends of the stage, who sometimes blame their opponents for contracted and uncharitable sentiments, it is hoped, will not imitate the bigotry which they themselves condemn, denying the Christian name to all who exclaim against the theatre. Observe, again, that this amusement is not pretended to be essential and indispensable to the happiness of society. Indeed, if it were so, what would become of multitudes of persons who never see a theatre ? for instance, the whole of the agricultural classes of this and other countries.

Now, suppose the learned apostle of the Gentiles lived amongst us; and, from an exquisite taste for the beauties of dramatic poetry, should approve of the stage as an innocent amusement; still, what would probably be his sentiments on the subject of offence? Would he who said, "If meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth ;"-would he insist on the propriety of continuing the theatre, although it should occasion grief and displeasure to many thousands of his Christian brethren ?

But I am told, that this is not the meaning of the case; that by causing a brother to offend, is understood to signify, the occasioning his fall into sin, by means of an example strictly good in itself, though not absolutely necessary; but which, through weakness, he perverts to his own destruction. I admit the interpretation; and will here apply it to the theatre with undemurring confidence.

Now, it is expressly declared by the advocates of the stage, that its evil consequences have arisen chiefly from the peculiar intellectual and moral weakness of individuals. To patronize the drama is to perpetuate such consequences; for persons of this character, attending on the theatre, are by no means few in number. Again: There are multitudes, as has already been observed, who, though they feel convinced that this amusement is dangerous and unlawful, yet allow themselves to be drawn into its vortex, not merely by the attraction of its pleasures, but also by the authority of eminent examples. Thus they attempt at least to lower the voice of conscience. Here, then, though innocence be allowed to the patron, so far as he is conscious that the stage is not in its own nature sinful; it is not always so with the man who fol

lows in his footsteps. But will it be imagined, that St. Paul, whose feelings were so sensitive on the subject of occasioning the ruin of his weak brethren by the lawful use of flesh, which had been offered to an idol, supposing he asserted the innocence of the theatre, would countenance the stage in person, with the knowledge, that such patronage might be destructive to the souls of thousands; and all to promote his own amusement? Would this accord with his casuistry and example in the case just referred to?

To conclude this topic: For my own part, I am satisfied, that there are several texts of Scripture directly at issue with every thing which bears the unquestioned characters of the existing stage. Of these I will only mention the commencing verses of the first Psalm,* and Ephesians v. 3, 4.†

Let these passages be examined, not as they appear in words, but as severally embodied in the living character, and as deeply imbuing the whole man; and, I doubt not, they will be found completely hostile to the theatre. And if this be denied, because the text does not specify this amusement in particular; I shall expect, in the next place, to find, that the most abandoned sinners are agreed to evade all Scripture-sketches of their own moral likeness, merely because their proper names are not legibly appended to them.

VII. FURTHER REMARKS ON THE CHARACTER AND
PRETENSIONS OF THE STAGE-CONCLUSION.

IT must be observed, that this discussion relates to the moral question of the theatre, and not to its literature simply considered. The dramatic form of writing, not of acting, may be employed with good effect, as is evident from the splendid productions of Milman. Nor can it be denied, that the ancient drama in particular, is, to some extent, a repository of fine learning and of fine taste; a vehicle of poetic genius of the highest class, and a source of intellectual refinement and pleasure to minds of a certain description. But may not all this be said of

"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the Lord, and in his law doth he meditate day and night." +"But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not once be named amongst you, as becometh saints: Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: But rather giving of thanks."