the language used by those who, in writing, or converfation, undertake to defend it. They analyze and divide it into parts, and take fometimes one part, fometimes another, as will beft fuit their purpose. They ask, What there can be unlawful in the stage abstractedly confidered? Comedy is expofing the folly of vice, and pointing out the ridiculous part of every character. And is not this commendable? Is not ridicule a noble means of discountenancing vice? And is not the use of it warranted by the fatire and irony that is to be found in the holy Scriptures? Tragedy, they fay, is promoting the fame end in a way more grave and folemn. It is a moral lecture, or a moral picture, in which virtue appears to great advantage. What is history itself but representing the characters of men as they actu ally were, and plays represent them as they may be. In their perfection, plays are as like history and nature, as the poet's art and actor's skill can make them. Is it then the circumftance of their being written in dialogue that renders them criminal? Who will pretend that? Is it that they are publicly repeated or acted over? Will any one pretend, that it is a crime to perfonate a character in any case, even where no deceit is intended? Then farewel parables, figures of fpeech, and the whole oratorial art. Is it a fin to look upon the reprefentation? Then it must

be

be a fin to look upon the world which is the original, of which plays are the copy.

This is the way which those who appear in defence of the ftage ordinarily take, and it is little better than if one fhould fay, What is aftageplay? It is nothing elfe abftractedly confidered but a company of men and women talking together; Where is the harm in that? What hinders them from talking piously and profitably, as well as wickedly or hurtfully? But, rejecting this method of reafoning as unjuft and inconclufive, let it be obferved, that thofe who plead for the lawfulness of the ftage in any country, however well regulated, plead for what implies, not by accident, but effentially and of neceffity the following things. (1.) Such a number of plays as will furnish an habitual courfe of reprefentations, with fuch changes as the love of variety in human nature neceffarily requires. (2.) Thefe plays of fuch a kind, as to procure an audience of voluntary fpectators, who are able and willing to pay for being fo entertained. (3.) A company of hired players, who have this as their only hufinefs and occupation, that they may give themselves wholly to it, and be expert in the performance. (4.) The reprefentation must be fo frequent as the profits may defray the expence of the apparatus, and maintain those who follow this bufinefs. They must alfo be maintained in

that

that measure of luxury, or elegance, if you please, which their way of life, and the thoughts to which they are accustomed muft make them defire and require. It is a thing impracticable to maintain a player at the fame expence as you may maintain a peasant.

Now all these things do, and must enter into the idea of a well regulated ftage, and, if any defend it without fuppofing this, he hath no adverfary that I know of. Without these there may be poets, or there may be plays, but there cannot be a play-houfe. It is in vain then to go about to fhow, that there have been an instance or two, or may be, of treatises wrote in the form of plays that are unexceptionable. It were easy to fhew very great faults in fome of thofe moft univerfally applauded, but this is unneceffary. I believe it is very poffible to write a treatife in the form of a dialogue, in which the general rules of the drama are obferved, which fh: Il be as holy and ferious, as any fermon that ever was preached or p inted. Neither is there any apparent impoffibility in getting different perfons to affume the different characters, and rehearse it in fociety. But it may be fafely affirmed, that if all plays were of that kind, and human nature to continue in its prefent ftate, the doors of the playhoufe would fhut of their own accord, becaufe

no

no body would demand accefs *; unless there were an act of parliament to force attendance, and even in that cafe, as much pains would probably be taken to evade the law obliging to attend, as are now taken to evade thofe that command us to abftain. The fair and plain ftate of this question then is, Whether it is poffible or practicable, in the present state of human nature, to have the above fyftem of things under fo good a regulation, as to make the erecting and countenancing the ftage agreeable to the will of God, and confiftent with the purity of the Christian profeffion.

And here let us confider a little, what is the primary, and immediate intention of the stage, Whether it be for amufement and recreation, or for inftruction to make men wife and good. Perhaps, indeed, the greateft part will choose to compound these two purposes together, and fay it is for both for amufement immediately, and for improvement ultimately, that it inftructs by

This furnishes an eafy anfwer to what is remarked by fome in favour of plays, that feveral eminent Chriftians have endeavoured to fupplant bad plays by writing good ones; as Gregory Nazienzen a father of the church, and a perfon of great piety, and our countryman Buchanan. But did ever thefe plays come into repute? Were they formerly, or are they now acted upon the ftage? The fate of their works proves that these good men judged wrong in attempting to reform the ftage, and that the great majority of Chriftians acted more wifely who were for laying it wholly afide.

pleafing,

pleasing, and reforms by stealth. The patrons of a well regulated stage have it no doubt in their power to profefs any of thefe ends in it they pleafe, if it is equally capable of them all; and therefore, in one part or other of this discourse, it must be confidered in every one of these lights. But as it is of moment, because of fome of the arguments to be afterwards produced, let the reader be pleased to confider, how far recreation and amusement enter into the nature of the stage, and are, not only immediately and primarily, but chiefly and ultimately intended by it.

If the general nature of it, or the end propofed from it when well regulated, can be any way determined from its firft inftitution, and the fubfequent practice, it seems plainly to point at amusement. The earliest productions of that kind that are now extant are evidently incapable of any other ufe, and hardly even of that to a perfon of any taste or judgment *. They ufually accompanied the feafts of the ancients in the houses of

This is confeffed by a defender of the ftage, who fays, "Such of the comedies before his (that is Menander's) time, "as have been preferved to us, are generally very poor pieces, "not so much ludicrous as ridiculous, even a mountebank's

merry andrew would be hiffed, now a days, for fuch pueri"lities as we see abounding in Ariftophanes." Rem. on Anderfon's Pofitions concerning the unlawfulness of stageplays, page 8th.

the