this objection to himself:-" God has made all "things, and given them to men, and consequently "they are all good, such as the CIRCUS, lions,

σε

voices, &c. What then makes the use of them "unlawful ?" To this he answers, "That it is true "all things were instituted by God, but that they "were corrupted by the evil spirit: that iron for "instance, is as much God's creature as plants and 66 angels: that notwithstanding this, God did not "make these creatures to be instruments of murder, "poison, and MAGIC, though men by their wicked"ness deprave them to those uses; and that what "renders a great many things evil, which in their 66 own nature are indifferent, is not their institution "but corruption."--From hence, if we apply this way of arguing to public shows, it follows, that considered in their own nature, they are as harmless as angels, plants, and iron; but that it is the evil spirit that has changed, perverted, and spoiled them. You see then that Tertullian has reckoned stage-plays among indifferent actions, and what he condemns in them is only the excess.

St. Cyprian, speaking of David's dancing before. the Ark, owns that there is no harm in dancing or singing, "but yet," says he, "this is no excuse for "christians who are present at those lascivious dances "and impure songs, which are in honour of idols." Whence it is easy for us to infer, that this holy doctor does not absolutely condemn dancing, singing,

K

operas and comedies, but only those shows that represented fables after the lascivious manner of the Greeks and Romans, and which were celebrated in honour of Idols. This is likewise St. Bonaventure's opinion, who says expressly, "That shows are "good and lawful, if they are attended with "necessary precautions and circumstances." His master, the great Albertus, taught him this doctrine: and the words which I met with upon this subject in St. Antonius, Archbishop of Florence, are so pertinent that I cannot forbear inserting them here. "The profession of a comedian, because it is useful

for the diversion of men, which is requisite, is "not forbidden in its own nature: from whence it "follows, that it is no less lawful to get one's "livelihood by this art, &c." And in another place he says, " Comedy is a mixture of pleasant "speeches and actions, for the diversion of a man's "self, or for that of another. If nothing is mixed ❝in it either unbecoming or an affront to God, or "prejudicial to one's neighbour, it is an effect of "that virtue which is called Eutrapelia; for the ❝ mind which is fatigued by internal cares, as the "body is by external labour, has as much need of "repose as the body has of nourishment. This "repose is procured by those kind of diverting

speeches and actions which are called plays." Can any thing, Sir, be said of greater weight in favour of comedy? Yet he who says it, is a man of undoubted sanctity. How comes it to pass that

he does not declaim against it, as the ancients did? It is because the drama grows more correct and perfect every day; AND I HAVE OBSERVED, IN READING THE HOLY FATHERS, THAT THE NEARER THEY COME TO OUR TIMES, THE MORE FAVOURABLE THEY ARE TO PLAYS, BECAUSE THE STAGE WAS NOT SO LICENTIOUS AS BEFORE*.

Thus likewise we see, that it is not prohibited by the saint of our times; the great Francis de Sales, who might, without dispute, serve as a pattern to all directors.-And Fontana de Ferrara, in his "Institutes," relates that the pious saint, Charles Borromeus, allowed stage-plays in his diocess by an order in the year 1583, yet upon condition that before they were acted they should be revised and licensed by his grand Vicar, for fear any thing which is immodest should be in them. This pious and learned cardinal did then allow of modest comedies, and condemned only the immodest and profane, as appears by the third council which he held at Milan, in the year 1572.

Independent of this multitude of testimonies, which are in my favour, I might likewise form a strong proof taken from the words and practice of

* I wish our modern correctors would be at the trouble of consulting ALL the fathers ;-but I presume they stop at the very period when the others become liberal.

R. M.

the holy Father's in general, and observe that those who have cried out so loudly against the stage, have been as violent in declaiming against playing at cards, dice, &c. They have inveighed against banquets and feasts, against luxury and gaudy dresses, lofty buildings, magnificent houses, rich furniture, rare painting, &c. &c.* St. Chrysostom has whole homilies upon this subject: we find a particular catalogue of them in the Pedagogue of St. Clement Alexandrinus. St. Augustin treats very largely of them in most of his works, and

* The plausible declamations of some of the evangelical party, against the expence of a theatrical establishment, are truly ridiculous. Some will exclaim against the money appropriated to that use, affirming that it would be better applied if grauted to a charitable institution. Others dwell upon the absurdity of gratifying imaginary pleasures, when real enjoyment could be so well purchased by furnishing Bibles and Missionaries for our MODERN CRUSADES. Yet I have known several of those liberal, considerate gentlemen, contentedly enjoying from five hundred to two thousand a year. And what is very extraordinary, not one of them seemed to think his income more than sufficient for his own immediate wants. I believe it to be a rare instance, their refusing another living, or an estate, upon the plea that the one they possessed was more than sufficient to satisfy the real demands of nature.

Let all the rich shake off the superflux of wealth, for the relief of the mendicant, and who would not be a beggar è

R. M.

particularly in his letter to Possidonius. St. Cyprian quoted both by St. Augustin, St. Gregory,-in short all the fathers have warmly declaimed against the luxury and richness of apparel; sometimes exciting us to follow the example of St. John the Baptist, who, for the austerity of his life, was so highly commended by our Saviour. And yet we find that they did not raise so many doubts of conscience in men's minds upon this score, as they did upon the account of stage-plays; and none made a scruple either of wearing habits suitable to their quality, nor of living at ease, provided they did it within the compass of modesty and moderation. Why then should we not extend this indulgence to the drama, and affirm, that the reproaches of the doctors of the church are applicable to luxury, intemperance and prodigality, but not to the innocent and moderate use of the good things of this life. So we may interpret their words of immoral and profane plays, but not of those that do not transgress the rules of prudence and morality.

"To prove," says Albertus Magnus, "that "the scripture does not condemn plays, dancing "and shows, considered singly, and without those "offensive circumstances which make them con"demnable, do not we read in Exodus, That "Miriam the Prophetess, the sister of Aaron, "took a timbrel in her hand, and all the women went.