religion has had any effect upon you? Or that it has done you the least good? For if the same lewdness and immorality pleases you, which pleased the worshippers of Venus; if you delight in such rant and madness, as was the delight of Bacchanals and Bacchantes, is not this a proof that you have the same heart and temper that they had? And if you are like idolaters in that which constituted their idolatry, have you any reason to think that Christianity has had any effect upon you? It would even be profaneness in any one to pretend to the true spirit of Christianity, so long as he can take pleasure in such an entertainment as this. For what is there that is unlike to the Spirit of Christ, if this is not? Who that can rejoice in the lewdness and beastiality of a Silenus, and the impure rant of vile dæmons, can make any pretences to a reasonable piety? Does this company look as if we had any thing holy and divine in our tempers? Is this living in the Spirit of Christ? Is this the way to be as the angels of God when we die? Shall we go from the pleasures of Bacchus, Silenus, Bacchanals, and Bacchantes, to the choir of blessed spirits that are above? Is there any reasonableness or fitness in these things? Why should we think that such a life as this will have an end so contrary to it?

We reckon it strange grossness of mind in the Turks, to expect a paradise of carnal delights. But what a degree of grossness is it in us, to know the God of purity, and hope for a heaven which only the pure in heart shall enjoy, and yet call up all the vile fictions of lust and sensuality, that corrupted the heathen world, to entertain our hearts? That from their mouths we may hear the praises of debauchery and wantonness? Let any one but consider this, as every thing ought to be considered, by the pure light of reason and religion, and he will find that the use of the stage may be reckoned

amongst our worst sins, and that it is as great a contradiction to our religion, as any corruption or vile practice of the heathen world.

I have made these few reflections upon this entertainment, not because it exceeds the ordinary wickedness of the stage, but for the contrary reason, because it is far short of it, and is much less offensive than most of our plays. That by showing the stage to be so impious and detestable, so contradictory to all Christian piety, in an entertainment that is moderate, if compared with almost all our plays, there might be no room left for sober Christians to be at any peace with it. They who would see how much the impieties of the stage exceed what I have here observed of this entertainment, may consult Mr. Collier's Short View of the Stage, Sir Richard Blackmore's Essays, and a Serious Remonstrance, &c. by Mr. Bedford.

To return: Levis hears all these arguments against the stage; he owns they are very plain, and strictly prove all that they pretend to; he does not offer one word against them, but still Levis has an answer for them all, without answering any one of them. I have, says he, my own experience that these diversions never did me any hurt, and therefore I shall use them.

But Levis does not consider, that this very answer shows, that he is very much hurt by them; that they have so much disordered his understanding, that he will defend his use of them in the most absurd manner imaginable, rather than be driven from them by any arguments from religion. For how can a man show that he is more hurt by any practice, or that it has more blinded and perverted his mind, than by appealing to his own inward experience in defence of it, against the plain nature and reason of things? Let Levis look at this way of reasoning in other matters. If a person that prays in an unknown tongue, should disregard all the arguments that are

brought to show the absurdity of it, and rest contented with saying, that it never hurt his devotion, but that he was as much affected in that way, as he could possibly be in any other: Levis would certainly tell such a one that he had lost his understanding; and that his long use of such absurd devotions, made him talk so absurdly about them.

Again. If a worshipper of images was, in answer to the second commandment, only to say, that he had his own experience that he found no hurt by them; and that he had the same devotion of heart to God, as if he did not worship images. Or, suppose another person to keep very ill company; and when he is told, that "evil communications corrupt good manners," should content himself with saying, that he would still use the same ill company, because he was sure it did him no hurt, nor made any impression upon him. Now as Levis would be sure that a man was notoriously hurt by the worship of images, that should thus blindly defend them, and that the other is sufficiently hurt by ill company, who should so obstinately stick to it; so he ought to be as sure, that he himself is sufficiently hurt either by plays, or something else, when with an equal blindness he defends his use of them.

Farther: When Levis says, that he is sure that the use of plays does him no harm; let him consider what he means by that speech. Does he mean, that though he uses the diversion of the stage, yet he finds himself in the true state of religion; that he has all those holy tempers in that degree of perfection which Christianity requireth? Now, if he cannot say this; how can he say, he is sure that plays do him no harm? If a person was to affirm, that intemperance did him no hurt; it would be expected, that he should own that he was in a perfect state of health: for if he had any disorder, or ill habit of body, he could not say, that his intem'perance did not contribute towards it. In like

manner, if Levis will maintain, that plays do not ways disorder him, or corrupt his heart; he must affirm, that he has no disorder or corruption of of heart belonging to him; for if he has, he cannot say, that his use of plays does not contribute towards it.

When therefore Levis says, plays do me no harm at all; it is the same thing as if he had said, I have no disorder at all upon me; my heart, and all my tempers, are in that exact state of purity and perfection that they should be.

Again. Let Levis consider, that his taste and relish for the stage, is a demonstration that he is already hurt by something or other; and that his heart is not in a right state of religion. Levis thinks this is a very censorious accusation; because he is known to be a very good churchman, to live a regular life for the most part, to be charitable, and a well-wisher to all good designs. All this is true of Levis; but then it is as stricly true, that his taste for plays is a demonstration, that his heart is not in a right state of religion. For, does Levis think, that his frequenting the church is any sign of the state of his heart? Am I to believe, that he has inward dispositions, that suit with the holy strains of divine service, because he likes to be at church? I grant, I am to believe this; there is good reason for it. But then, if Levis uses the playhouse, if the disordered passions, the lewd images, the profane rant, and immodest parts that are there acted, are a pleasure to him; is not this as strong a demonstration, that he has some dispositions and tempers, that suit with these disorders? If I am to conclude any thing from a man's liking and frequenting divine service; is there not as certain a conclusion to be drawn from a man's liking and using the stage? For the stage can no more be liked, without having some inward corruptions that are suitable to the disorders that are there represented, than the divine

service can be a pleasure to any one, that has no holiness or devotion in his heart.

It is infallibly certain, that all pleasures show the state and condition of our minds; and that nothing can please us, but what suits with some dispositions and tempers that are within us; so that when we see a man's pleasures, we are sure that we see a great deal of his nature. All forms of life, all outward actions may deceive us. We cannot absolutely say, that people have such tempers, because they do such actions; but wherever people place any delight, or receive any pleasures, there we have an infallible token of something in their nature, and of what tempers they have within them.

Diversions therefore, and pleasures, which are reckoned such uncertain means of judging of the state of men's minds, are of all means the most certain; because nothing can please us, or affect us, but what is according to our nature, and finds something within us that is suitable to it. Had we not inward dispositions of tenderness and compassion, we should not find ourselves softened and moved with miserable objects. Had we not something harmonious in our nature, we should not find ourselves pleased with strains of music. In like manner, had we not in our nature lively seeds of all those disorders which are acted upon the stage, were there not some inward corruption, that finds itself gratified by all the irregular passions that are there presented, we should find no more pleasure in the stage, than blind men find in pictures, or deaf men in music.

And, on the other side, if we were full of the contrary tempers, were our hearts full of affections contrary to those on the stage, were we deeply affected with desires of purity and holiness; we should find ourselves as much offended with all that passes upon the stage, as mild and gentle natures