are offended at the sight of cruelty and barbarity. These things are of the utmost certainty.

All people therefore who use the stage, have as much assurance that their heart is not in a right state of religion, as they possibly can have of any thing that relates to themselves.

I hope none of my readers will think this too general or too rash an assertiou; but that they will rather observe, that it is founded on such evidence of reason, as cannot be rejected, without rejecting every thing that is plain and certain in human nature. They must not think it a sufficient answer to this, to consider either how good they are themselves, or how many excellent persons they know, who do not abstain from the stage: for this is a way of reasoning, that is not allowed in any other case.

Now, when it is affirmed, that all persons who are pleased with the stage, must have some corruptions of heart, that are gratified with the corrupt passions which are there acted; is not this as plain and evident, as if it were said, that all who are pleased with seeing barbarous actions, must have some seeds of barbarity in their nature? If you are delighted with the stroke of the whip, and love to see the blood fly; is it not past all doubt, that you have a barbarity within you? And if impure speeches, if wanton amours, if wild passiors, and immoral rant, can give you any delight; is it not equally past all doubt, that you have something of all these disorders in your nature? Is it any more charitable to affirm this, than to affirm, that all who love to see the blood fly, have something barbarous in their nature? Is there any more rashness or severity in it, than in saying, that all who love such or such strains of music, have some disposition in their nature, that is gratified by them?

It signifies nothing therefore to say, that you

know such or such excellent persons who are pleased with the stage, whom no one ought to suspect to be defective in piety; it is as absurd as to say, that you know excellent persons who are pleased with seeing barbarous actions, whom no one ought to suspect to be defective in tenderness. If you delight in barbarous sights, and are pleased with the groans and pains of the afflicted, I do not suspect you to be defective in tenderness; you have put your case out of all suspicion, you have proved that you have a barbarity in your nature. So if you delight in the stage, if you taste and relish its entertainment, I do not suspect you defective in piety; you have put your case beyond suspicion; you have proved that you have dispositions in your nature, that are gratified by the disorderly passions of the stage.

Again, consider it in another view: How is it possible that any one should delight in the stage, but through a defect in piety? For is not the stage guilty of impurity, profaneness, blasphemy, and immorality? Now though people may differ about the degree in which they will make this charge, yet all must own it in some degree. Now if the charge be but true in any degree, must there not be a want of piety in those that can partake of an entertainment chargeable with impurity, profaneness, and immorality? If people were so pious that they could not bear such an entertainment as this; if nothing could persuade them to be present at it, this would be no proof that they were saints; for to abhor an entertainment loaded with so much guilt, is but a small instance of an advanced piety. But surely, if they cannot only bear it, but be pleased with it, it is proof enough that their hearts want several degrees of piety, which become Christians. Besides, can pious persons, who use the stage, tell you of any one play for this forty or fifty years, that has been free from wild rant, immodest passions, and profane S

language? Must they not therefore be defective in piety, who partake of a diversion that is at no time free from this guilt in some degree or other? But supposing there were such a thing as an innocent play once or twice in an age, (which is like supposing innocent lust, sober rant, or harmless profaneness) could this make it at all allowable for pious persons to use the stage? Could this be any proof that persons of real piety might take pleasure in it? For could it be consistent with an enlivened piety to use a diversion, which in its common ordinary state is full of monstrous impiety and profaneness, because it sometimes happened in a number of years, that it might be innocent for a day or two? But even this does not happen. The stage never has one innocent play; not one can be produced that ever you saw acted in either house, but what abounds with thoughts, passions, and language, contrary to religion. Is there therefore any rashness or severity in saying, that persons who use a diversion, which in its ordinary state is full of monstrous wickedness -and impiety, and in its best state never free from variety of sin, to say that such persons must be defective in piety? How can we know any thing with clearness and evidence, if we do not know this to be clear and evident? For surely it is a necessary part of piety to abhor lewdness, immorality, or profaneness, wherever they are; but they who are so pious as not to be able to be pleased where any of those are, have a piety that will not permit them ever to see a play.

There is no doctrine of our blessed Saviour, that more concerns all Christians, or is more essential to their salvation than this: " Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." Now take the stage in its best state, when some admired tragedy is upon it, are the extravagant passions of distracted lovers, the impure ravings of inflamed heroes, the joys and and torments of lovers, and gross descriptions of

lust; are the indecent actions, the amorous transports, the wanton address of the actors, which' make so great a part of the most sober and modest tragedies; are these things consistent with this Christian doctrine of purity of heart? You may as well imagine, that murder and rapine are consistent with charity and meekness.

It is therefore as necessary, as reasonable, and as consistent with Christian charity, to tell Levis, that his use and delight in the stage is a certain proof of want of piety, as to tell the same thing to a malicious, intemperate, or revengeful person. Some people who are guilty of personal vices may have some violence of temptation, some natural disorder to plead in their excuse; they perhaps may be so tender as to desire to conceal them, and be afraid to encourage others in the like practices; but the use and encouragement of the stage has no excuses of this kind; it has no infirmity, surprise or violence of temptation to appeal to; it shows no tenderness of mind, or concern for others, but is a deliberate, continued, open, and public declaration in favour of lewdness, immorality, and profaneness. Let any one but collect, not all the wickedness that has appeared on the stage since he first used it, but only so much as passes there in any one season, and then he will see what a dreadful load of guilt he has brought upon himself. For surely no one can be so weak as to imagine, that he can use and encourage a wicked entertainment, without making himself a full sharer of all its wickedness.

Archbishop Tillotson treats the stage in this manner. "I shall now speak a few words concerning plays, which as they are now ordered amongst us, are a mighty reproach to the age of the nation.--As now the stage is, they are intolerable, and not fit to be permitted in a civilized, much less a Christain nation. They do most notoriously minister to infidelity and vice.---And therefore I do not see how

any person pretending to sobriety and virtue, and especially to the pure and holy religion of our blessed Saviour, can without great guilt, and open contradiction to his holy profession, be present at such lewd and immodest plays, as too many do; who yet would take it very ill to be shut out of the community of Christians, as they would most certainly have been in the first and purest ages of Christianity." Sermon upon corrupt Communication.

Here let it be observed, that this archbishop, who has generally been reckoned eminent for his moderation and gentle manner of treating every thing, says of plays, that they are a mighty reproach to the nation; that they are intolerable, and not fit to be permitted in a civilized, much less a Christian nation; that they notoriously minister to infidelity and vice.

Now this, I suppose, is as high a charge, as he would have brought against the worst articles of popery. If I have said, that people cannot use the stage without being defective in piety; I have not said it in a declaiming way, but have asserted it from variety of plain arguments; but this great man, so much admired for his tender remarks upon persons and things, goes much farther. He does not say, that people of real and advanced piety cannot use the stage; but he makes it inconsistent with so much as pretending to sobriety and virtue, much less the purity and holy religion of our blessed Saviour. He does not say, that such people cannot be excellent and exemplary Christians, or that they must be defective in piety; but he charges them with great guilt, and open contradiction to their holy religion; and assures them, that if they had lived in the first and purest ages of Christianity, they would have been excommunicated.

I have appealed to this great name, for no other end, but to prevent the charge of uncharitableness. For surely, if such an eminent instance of a cha