plicit truft is so ftrong as fully to fatisfy them, and fet their minds at eafe, the apostle's argument holds with equal force, if thereby they are unavoidably led into fin.

This will probably be looked upon as a very hard law, and it will be afked, Is a man then never to do any thing that he has reason to believe will be mifinterpreted, or abufed by others to their own hurt? The hardness of the law will wholly vanish, if we remember, that it is confined to things indifferent in their nature. In duties binding of their own nature, we are under no obligation to pay any regard to the opinions of others, or the confequences of our conduct upon them. But in things originally indifferent, which become duties, or not, precifely on account of their confequences, there we are to beware of making our brother to offend. The Scripture rule is. this, We must not commit the last fin under pretence of the most important end, though it were to fave multitudes from fins incomparably more heinous. But in matters of indiffe rence, we are not to value the most beloved enjoyment fo highly, as to endanger the falvation. of one foul by ensnaring it into fin. And can a real believer have the smallest objection, the leaft rifing thought, against this equitable law? Shall we value any prefent gratification equally, nay, fhall we once put it in the ballance with the fpi

ritual intereft of an immortal foul? Now, who will be fo fhameless as to affert, that attending a public stage is to him a necessary duty? Or what defender of the ftage will be fo fanguine as to affirm, that it is, or that he hopes to fee it regulated fo as to be fafe or profitable to every mind? and yet till this is the cafe, it evidently stands condemned by the apoftolic rule.

Since writing the above, I have met with a pamphlet just published, entitled, The Morality of Stage-plays feriously confidered. This author convinces me, that I have without fufficient ground fuppofed, that no body would affirm attending plays to be a neceffary duty; for he has either done it, or gone fo very near it, that probably the next author upon the fame fide will do it in plain terms, and affert, that all above the station of tradesmen who do not go to the play-house, are living in the habitual neglect of their duty, and finning grievously against God. If this looks ridiculous, it is none of my fault, for I fpeak it feriously; and it is a much more natural confequence from his reafoning, than any he has drawn from it himself.

He confiders the paffage of the apostle Paul, and fays (which is true) that it holds only in the cafe of indifferent actions, but that we are to "do good in the face of prejudice." The way in which he fhews it to be doing good, is

pretty

pretty fingular, but I pafs it by for a little, and observe, that probably he is not much accustomed to commenting on fuch paffages of Scripture, for even granting his unreasonable supposition, doing good indefinitely is not opposed to indiffe rent actions in this, or any fimilar cafe.

An action that is good in itself, is indifferent when it may be exchanged for another; when one as good, or better, may be put in its place. Nothing is opposed to indifferent actions here, but what is indifpenfibly necessary, and absolutely binding, both in itself, and in its circumftances. And indeed, though he is afraid at firft to say so, he feems to carry the matter that length at laft, making his conclufion a little broader than the premises, and saying in the close of the paragragh upon that fubject, "What they do to this pur"pose, either in oppofing the bad, or promoting "the good, is MATTER OF DUTY, and their "conduct in it is not to be regulated by the opi"nion of any perfon who is pleased to take of"fence *."

But how fhall we refute this new and wonderful doctrine of its being neceffary that good men fhould attend the theatre. I cannot think of a better way of doing it, than tearing off fome of the drapery of words, with which it is adorned and difguifed, and fetting his own affertions to

# Page 23.

gether

gether in the form of a fyllogifm, "The manager of every theatre muft fuit his entertain66 ments to the company, and if he is not fup"ported by the grave and fober, he must fuit "himself to the licentious and profane."

"We know that in every nation there must be "amufements and public entertainments, and "the ftage has always made one in every civi"lized and polished nation. We cannot hope to "abolish it."--Ergo, According to this au-, thor, it is the duty of good men to attend the ftage. But I leave the reader to judge, Whether, from the first of his propofitions, which is a certain truth, it is not more juft to infer, that till the majority of thofe who attend the stage are good, its entertainment cannot be fit for the Chriftian ear; and, because that will never be, no Christian ought to go there.

And what a fhameful begging of the question is his fecond propofition, That we cannot hope to abolish it." It is hard to tell what we may hope for in this age, but we infift that it ought to be abolished. Nay, we do hope to abolish it just as much as other vices; we cannot hope to fee the time when there fhall be no gaming, cheating, or lying, but we must ftill preach against all fuch vices, and will never exhort good men to go to gaming tables, to perfuade them to play fair, and lessen the wickedness of the practice. In

fhort,

fhort, it is a full refutation of the extravagant affertion of good men being obliged, as matter of duty, to go to the theatre, that no fuch thing is commanded in the word of God, and therefore it is not, and cannot be neceffary to any *. And fince it is evidently pernicious to great numbers, it can be lawful to none.

It would give Chriftians a much more juft, as well as more extenfive view of their duty, than they commonly have, if they would confider their relation to, and neceflary influence on one another. All their visible actions have an effect upon others as well as themfelves. Every thing we fee or hear makes fome impreffion on us, tho for the most part unperceived, and we contribute every moment, to form each other's character. What a melancholy view then, does it give us of the state of religion among us at prefent, that when piety towards God has been excluded from many moral fyftems, and the whole of virtue confined to the duties of focial life, the better half of these also should be cut off, and all regard to the fouls of others forgotten or derided. Nothing indeed is left but a few expreffions of compli

*It is proper here to remark, how natural it was to suppose, that the argument would be carried this length, when the ftage came to be pleaded for as ufeful in promoting the interefts of virtue. And therefore I have above taken notice, that these prophets run unfent, the propriety of which remark will now clearly appear.

ment,