charity; they seem to think there may be such a thing as a blameable charity; they desire to know whether the person be worthy, whether his distress is not owing to his folly and extravagancies; that they may not relieve such a one as ought to feel the punishment of his follies. But what must we say to these things, if those who are thus nice in their alms are yet unreasonable in their generosities, who are afraid of assisting a poor man till every thing can be said in his favour, and yet eager to make another rich who is only recommended by his follies? What shall we say to these things, if persons who have so many rules to govern and restrain their pity to poor men have yet no rules to govern their liberalities and kindness to libertines? If they shall have a benefit-night upon their hands, not to relieve their poverty, but to reward the merit of a player, that he may have the subsistence of a gentleman from Christians, for a way of life that would be a reproach to a sober heathen? Shall we reckon this amongst our small offences? Is this a pardonable instance of the weaknes of human nature? Is it not rather an undeniable proof that Christianity has no hold of our reason and judgment? And that we must be born again from such a state of heart as this, before we can enter into the spirit of Christianity ?

I have now only one thing to desire of the reader, not that he would like and approve of these reflections, but that he will not suffer himself to dislike or condemn them till he has put his arguments into form, and knows how many doctrines of Scripture he can bring against those things that I have asserted. So far as he can show that I have reasoned wrong, or mistook the doctrine of Scripture, so far he has a right to censure. But general dislikes are mere tempers, as blind as passions, and are always the strongest where reasons are most wanted. If people will dislike, because they will, and condemn

doctrines only because it suits better with their tempers and practices, than to consider and understand them to be true; they act by the same spirit of popery as is most remarkable in the lowest bigots, who are resolute in a general dislike of all protestant doctrines, without suffering themselves to consider and understand upon what truth they are founded.

I can easily imagine that some people will censure these doctrines, as proceeding from a rigid, uncharitable temper, because they seem to condemn so great a part of the world. Had I wrote a treatise against covetousness or intemperance, it had certainly condemned great part of the world; but surely he must have strangely forgot himself, that should make that a reason of accusing me of an uncharitable temper. Such people should consider also, that a man cannot assert the doctrines of Christian charity and meekness themselves, without condemning a very great part of the world. But would it be an instance of an uncharitable spirit to preach up the necessity of an universal charity, because it might condemn a very great part of the world? And if the holiness of Christianity cannot be asserted without condemning the pleasures and entertainments of the fashionable part of the world, is there any more uncharitabieness in this than in asserting the doctrine of universal love? Does this any more show an unchristian, rigid spirit, than when the beloved apostle saith, "All that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life is not of the Father, but is of the world?"

But I shall not now consider any more objections, but leave all that I have said to the conscience and reason of every person. Let him but make reason and religion the measure of his judgment, and then he is as favourable to me as I desire him to be.

It is very common and natural for people to

struggle hard, and be loth to own any thing to be wrong that they have long practised. Many people will see so much truth in these arguments against the stage, that they will wish in their own minds, that they had always forbore it: but then finding that they cannot assent to these arguments, without taking a great deal of blame to themselves, they will find strong inclinations to condeinn the plainest reasonings, rather than condemn themselves. Let but a person forget that he has any guilt in relation to the stage, let him but suppose that he has never been there, and that he will go or stay away, just as he finds reason, when he has examined all that can be said against it; let a man but put himself in this state of mind, and then he will see all the arguments against the stage, as plain and convincing as any that can be brought against the grossest vices.

If we could look into the minds of the several sorts of readers, we should see how differently peo ple are affected with arguments, according to the state that they are in. We should see how those who have never used the stage, consent with the whole force of their minds, and see the certainty and plainness of every argument against it. We should see others struggling and contending against all conviction, in proportion to the use that they have made of the stage. Those that have been its friends and advocates, and constant admirers, will hate the very name of a book that is wrote against it, and will condemn every argument without knowing what it is. Those who have used the stage much, though in a less degree than this, will, perhaps, vouchsafe to read a book against it; but they will read with fear; they will strive not to be convinced, and be angry at every argument, for proving so much as it does. Others that have used the stage in the most moderate degree, have yet great prejudices: they, perhaps, will own that the stage is

blameable, and that it is very well to persuade people from it; but then these people will not assent to the whole truth. They will not condemn the stage as they ought, because having been there sometimes themselves, it suits better with their own practice only to condemn it in the general, than to declare it to be sinful in such a degree as should condemn those who ever use it.

These are the several difficulties which this treatrise has to contend with: it is to oppose an evil practice, and charge it with such a degree of guilt, as few can consent to, without taking some part of that guilt to themselves.

I have mentioned these several degrees of prejudice, to put people upon suspecting themselves, and trying the state of their hearts. For the only way to be wise and reasonable is to suspect ourselves, and put questions to ourselves in private, which only our own hearts can answer. Let any one who reads this treatise ask himself, whether he reads it as he reads those things which have no relation to himself? When he reads a treatise against image-worship, or prayers to saints, he knows that he attends to the whole force of the arguments; that he desires to see them in their full strength, and to comprehend every evil that they charge upon it. Now every one can tell whether he reads this treatise with this temper; or whether he comes heavily to it, and unwilling to be convinced by it. If this is his state, he ought to charge himself with all that which he charges upon the most absurd and perverse people in life. For it is only this temper, an inclination not to be convinced, that makes people so positive and obstinate in ways and opinions, that appear so shocking to all reasonable men. It is this temper that makes the Jew, the infidel, the papist, and the fanatic, of every kind. And he that is not reasonable enough to read impartially a treatise against the stage, has no reason

to think that his mind is in better order than theirs is who cannot freely consider a book that is wrote against the worship of images, and prayers to saints.

There is but one thing for reasonable people to do in this case; either. to answer all the arguments here produced against the stage; or to yield to the truth of them, and regulate their lives according to them. Our conduct in this affair is far from being a small matter. I have produced no arguments but such as are taken from the most essential parts of religion; if therefore there is any truth in them the use of the stage is certainly to be reckoned amongst great and flagrant sins.

I have now only to advise those who are hereby made sensible of the necessity of renouncing the stage, that they will act in this case as they expect that others should act in cases of the like nature. That they will not think it sufficient to forbear the stage themselves, but be instrumental, as far as they can, in keeping others from it; and that they will think it as necessary to make this amends for their former compliance and ill example, as it is necessary to make restitution in cases of injury. The cause of religion, the honour of God, the good of their neighbour, and the peace and satisfaction of their own minds, necessarily requires this at their hands. For as no one can tell how far his example may have influenced others, and how many people may have been injured by his means; so it is absolutely necessary that he do as much good as he can, by a better example, and make his own change of life a means of reducing others to the same state of amendment.

THE END.

Printed by R. Tilling, Newport, Isle of Wight,