nient; but rather giving of thanks. Eph. v. 3, 4. Are there no filthy expressions, no profane jesting on the stage? and if these vices are not to be named amongst Christians, ought they to be sanctioned by them? For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you, 1 Pet. iv. 3, 4. Does not the apostle, in this passage, commend those to whom it was addressed, for having renounced their former revellings and banquetings? and does he not arm them against the reproaches which their abstemious conduct would bring upon them? and can we suppose, that if that same apostle were now on earth, he would give his sanction to the practice of many modern Christians, who are to be seen, now at Church, and anon, at the theatre ?-now receiving the sacrament on bended knees, and anon, kindling into rapture by the exhibitions of the stage?-now giving utterance to the solemn words, O God, the Father of heaven, have mercy upon us miserable sinners ;—and anon, applauding expressions and sentiments, which no lips could articulate but the lips of impurity? And, Sir, lest we should, through inadvertency, expose ourselves to the hazard of being overcome by the force of temptation, are we not commanded to abstain from all appearance of evil? 1 Thess. v. 22. To have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. Eph. v. 11. Are not these injunctions violated, by those who frequent the theatre? Are we not taught to pray, Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil; but do we not offer a violence to our own belief, and an insult to our Father which is in heaven, when we pass from the attitude of prayer, into the place over which the evil spirit reigns in undisturbed sovereignty, and where temptations of the most seducing tendency abound ?”

Mr. Talbot. "But, Sir, in the application of these passages of the Scripture against an attendance on theatrical amusements, you have taken for granted that their moral tendency is injurious to the cultivation and growth of private and public virtue, which you will

permit me to say, without intending to reflect on your good sense, is a species of logical artifice, which I did not suppose you would condescend to employ. It is an attempt to carry a position by surprise, which you should have approached openly-a jesuitical manoeuvre to take the question of debate by the adroitness of a sheer cunning, rather than by irresistible argumentation. If, Sir, you had first proved that their tendency on the morals of society be, what you insinuate it is, injurious and pernicious, I grant there would have been a propriety in the application of the passages of the Bible which you have made, and the contest would have been terminated; but, Sir, as that point has not been proved, and as I now challenge you to the proof of it, you must allow me to say, that your argument has produced no effect."

Mr. Lewellin. "You are at perfect liberty to examine any argument which I may adduce against theatrical amusements with the utmost degree of severity, and to employ what terms you please when expressing your opinion of their character, or of their effect; but, Sir, you cannot expect that I shall submit to your descriptions, if I think them unjust. You accuse me of taking for granted, what remains to be proved; which you say is not only unfair, but useless. But, Sir, I appeal to your candour, if I took more for granted than what was tacitly admitted in proof, if not actually recorded. Has it not been admitted, that expressions are sometimes uttered on the stage which the lips of virgin modesty could not utter? If so, will you presume to say, that the quotation which I made does not condemn them? But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. Has it not been admitted, that some actions are performed in the presence of the audience, which have a tendency to corrupt the minds of the actors and actresses who are engaged in conducting the farce? and if so, will you presume to say, that the injunction which commands us to abstain from even the appearance of evil, does not prohibit an attendance? If this be not proof against theatrical amusements, what will you call proof? If this argument does not apply, and fairly apply, it is not

because it has not strength to strike, but because you are endeavouring to raise the dust, that you may bear off your colours to prevent them being taken. But that you may not shout victory on your retreat, nor taunt me with unfair dealing when you are going down, I will consent to clear the space, and meet you on the question of their obvious, and direct, and necessary tendency, on the morals of society."

6

expose

Mr. Talbot. "I grant, Sir, that the Scriptures censure all indecent, and profane expressions, and that they point the severity of their rebuke against every action which has a demoralizing tendency either on the mind of the performer, or the spectator; but, Sir, I presume you will not take upon yourself to say, that our best and most popular Comedies, come under their sentence of condemnation? There are two questions, I apprehend which have an immediate claim on our attention; first, what is the design of Comedy, and, secondly, are the means which are employed, calculated to effect it! In reply to the first question I will beg permission to quote the language of the celebrated Dr. Blair. Comedy proposes for its object, neither the great sufferings, nor the great crimes of men but their follies and slighter vices, those parts of their character, which raise in beholders a sense of impropriety, which them to be censured and laughed at by others, or which render them troublesome in civil society.' And I doubt not, Sir, but with all your deadly hate against the amusements of the theatre, you will agree with him in the following opinion which he pronounces on the tendency of such a mode of attack. This general idea of Comedy, as a satirical exhibition of the improprieties and follies of mankind is an idea very moral and useful. There is nothing in the nature, or general plan of this kind of composition that renders it liable to censure. To polish the manners of men, to promote attention to the proper decorum of social behaviour, and above all, to render vice ridiculous, is doing a real service to mankind.' This is the design, which the Comic writer proposes to accomplish; and now, Sir, we will, if you please, pass on to the consideration of the second question, are the means which are employed calculated to effect it! The means are the

6

exhibition of these follies, and improprieties, and vices, in the persons of the actors and actresses, who are held up to ridicule, to censure, and to reprobation, while in the very act of committing them. They are accused, and detected, and convicted, and condemned in the presence of the audience, who retire from such a scene, where the absurdities of the human character have been exhibited to their view, infinitely more disgusted by them, than they ever felt, when listening to the grave lecture of censure or condemnation which has been delivered from the pulpit. And I think, Sir, you will confess that the worthy doctor has given us a proof of the correctness of his judgment, when he said, that, Many vices might be more successfully exploded by employing ridicule against them, than by serious attacks and arguments." And though, Sir, I have too much reverence for the pulpit to treat it with contempt; and form too high an estimate of its moral utility in correcting the disorders of society, to run it down; yet I doubt whether it can wield such a keen and powerful weapon against the follies and vices of the age, as the well regulated and well conducted stage."

66

66

Mr. Lewellin. Your last remark, Sir, savours so much of the tincture of infidelity, that it is no less offensive to my taste, than it is repugnant to the dictates of my understanding: and though it does not affect the question at issue, yet I cannot let it pass without replying to it. The pulpit, Sir, when it is the oracle of truth, is denominated the power of God that moral instrument which he uses to renew and sanctify our corrupt nature; and on which he has conferred the singular honour of employing it as the means of subverting the idolatry of ancient and modern times, and of reclaiming many thousands of the children of disobedience, to the wisdom of the just; but has he ever identified himself with the stage? has he ever employed the stage to turn men from darkness to light, from the power of Satan to himself? Oh no. Did the stage ever recover Greece, or Rome from their licenti ous, and barbarous, and cruel rites, and ceremonies? It found them corrupt, and corrupt it left them. And what has it done for modern Paris, where it exists in

the plenitude of its glory? What! go and see, and you will have a proof of the weakness of its strength to moralize a people, and of the magic charm of its power to corrupt them. Indeed, Sir, it requires a high degree of moral corruption as the platform of its exhibitions, for it will be found that its performers, and its admirers, are alike strangers to that elevated moral purity, which brings the human spirit to some degree of resemblance to the immaculate sanctity of the Divine nature. Hence while many who profess and call themselves Christians, rank amongst its advocates and its friends, it is a fact too notorious to be concealed, that they who are a peculiar people, and whose moral peculiarities are those which the Sacred Scriptures hold out as the distinctive evidences of the Christian character, shun it, as the sanctuary of evil, from whence they are excluded no less by the force of principle, than by the voice of authority. A real Christian in a theatre, animated and delighted with the scenes which he must behold, and the sentiments and expressions which must fall upon his ear, would be as great a phenomenon, as a stage player weeping at church over a confession of his sins, or overpowered with gratitude when receiving, on his knees, the sacramental memorials of the Saviour's death."

Mr. Talbot. "I was not aware, Sir, that the accidental expression of an opinion, which has no bearing on the question at issue, would have called forth such a spontaneous burst of disapprobation; and though it would not be very difficult to turn back some of your pointed interrogations to your own annoyance, yet as that would probably consume too much of our time, we will, if you please, confine our remarks in future within the record of the subject under discussion. To my questions, Sir, if you please!"

Mr. Lewellin. "Well, Sir, then to the first question. You have given such a very flattering description of the design of Comedy, that you remind me of a certain painter who engaged to draw the likeness of a whole fraternity, but when he produced it, it was found to resemble no one,-it having been sketched from fancy rather than real life. That a comic writer, of rare and extraordinary powers, could get up a piece that should