"ficient to connect the defence of plays with the honor of fcripture itself." The fact is not denied, though he has given but a poor fpecimen of the knowledge of this age, by mistaking in the firft of thefe remarks, the expreffion quoted by the apostle; for this fentence, " in him we live, “and move, and have our being," which, he says, is a very fublime expreffion, and beautifully applied by the apoftle, was not cited from the poet, but the following, "For we are alfo his offspring." But fuppofing he had (as he easily might) have hit upon the true citation, what follows from it? Did ever any body affirm, that no poet could write, or no player could fpeak any thing that was true? And what is to hinder an infpired writer from judging them out of their own mouths? What concern has this with the ftage? If it implies any defence of the stage in general, it must imply a ftronger defence of the particular play and poem, from which the citations are taken. Now, I dare fay, neither this author, nor any other will affert, that these are in all refpects agreeable to the Chriftian character. These citations do no other way connect the defence of the stage with the honor of fcripture, than a minifter's citing, in writing or difcourfe, a paffage from Horace or Juvenal, would connect the defence of all the obfcenity that is to be found in the reft of their works, with the honor of preaching.

The only thing further in this effay not obviated in the preceding difcourfe, is what he fays on the fubject of the poor. "That the expence laid out on the stage "does not hinder the charitable fupply of the poor, and "that they fuffer no lofs by it, for it comes at last into "the hands of the poor, and is paid as the price of their "labor. Every player must be maintained, clothed "and lodged." It does not fuit with my prefent purpofe to enter into controverfial altercation, or to treat this author with that severity he deferves; and therefore I fhall only fay, that his reafoning upon this fubject is the very fame from which Doctor Mandeville draws this abfurd and hated confequence, "Private vices are public benefits."

The truth is, a serious perfon can fcarce have a ftronger evidence of the immorality of the ftage, than the perufal of these little pieces of fatire, which have been published, in fo great a variety, against the prefbytery of Endinburgh, within these few weeks, because of their public admonition against it. They offer no other defence, but deriding the preaching of the gofpel, blafphemoufly comparing the pulpit with the ftage, and recrimination upon fome who are fuppofed to live inconfiftently with their character. It is not worth while to fpend three words in determining whether drunkenness, deceit and hypocrify are worfe than the ftage or not; but if that is the ftrongeft argument that can be offered in its fupport, wo to all those who attend it. The new reformed trage. dy has indeed been very unlucky in its advocates. There is an old faying, that a man is known by his company. If this be true alfo of a play, which one would think it fhould, as it must be chiefly to the taste of congenial minds, by those who have appeared in defence of Douglass, it is a work of very little merit.

It may be expected, that, having brought this performance on the field, I fhould add some further reflections, upon the aggravated fin of Minifters writing plays, or attending the stage. But though it is a very plain point, and indeed because it is fo it would draw out this treatise to an immoderate length. If any man makes a question of this, he must be wholly ignorant of the nature and importance of the minifterial character and office. These therefore it would be neceffary to open diftinctly, and to confider the folemn charge given to minifters in Scripture, to watch over the fouls of their people, as thofe "who must "give an account unto God;" to give themselves wholly to their duty, fince fome of thofe committed to them are from day to day, entering on an unchangeable flate, whose blood, when they die unconverted, fhall be required at the hand of the unfaithful paftor. None can entertain the leaft doubt upon this fubject, who believe the teftimony of Mofes and the prophets, of Christ and his apostles, and, if they believe not their writings, neither will they believe my words.

Inftead therefore of endeavoring to prove, I will make bold to affirm, that writing plays is an employment wholly foreign to the office, and attending theatrical representations an entertainment unbecoming the character of a minifter of Chrift: And must not both, or either of them, be a facrilegious abftraction of that time and pains, which ought to have been laid out for the benefit of his people? Is it not alfo flying in the face of a clear and late act of parliament, agreeably to which the lords of council and feffion not long ago found the stage contrary to law in this country? And though the law is eluded, and the penalty evaded, by advertifing a concert, after which will be performed, gratis, a tragedy, &c. Yet furely, the world in judging of characters, or a church court in judging of the conduct of its members, will pay no regard to the poor and fhameful evafion. Can we then think of this audacious attempt at the prefent juncture, without applying to ourselves the words of Ifaiah, "And in that "day did the Lord God of hofts call to weeping, and to "mourning, and to baldness, and to girding with fack"cloth, and behold joy and gladness, flaying oxen and "killing sheep, eating flesh and drinking wine; let us eat "and drink, for to-morrow we die. And it was revealed "in mine ears by the Lord of hofts, furely this iniquity "shall not be purged from you till you die, faith the Lord "of hofts," Ifa. xxii. 12, 13, 14.

A

LETTER

RESPECTING

PLAY ACTORS.

SIR,

THE

HERE appeared in the national Gazette of the - of March laft, a paffage faid to be taken from a French publication, which no doubt the editor of the Gazette thought worthy of the public eye. It was to the following purpose:-It must appear very furprifing that even down to the expiration of the French Monarchy, there was a character of difgrace affixed to the profeffion of a player, especially when compared to the kindred profeffions of preacher or pleader. Although the talents neceffary to these occupations are as much inferior to those of a good comedian, as the talents of a drug-pounding apothecary to thofe of a regular bred physician, and that it is hoped that the recovery of the character due to theatrical merit, will contribute not a little to the improvement of future manners.

I have long expected to fee fome remarks published on this fingular fentiment, but, either nobody has thought it worthy of their attention, or the ftrictures have not fallen in my way; therefore as this fubject is not one of those that lose their importance or propriety by a fhort lapfe of time; and as, on the contrary, the prefent controversy in Philadelphia, on the application to the legiflature against the stage, seems to render it peculiarly feasonable, I beg the favor of you to publifh the following obfervations:

The author of the paragraph published by Mr. Freneau; though a warm advocate for the theatre, vouches for me as to the fact that there has been a character of disgrace for many ages, impreffed upon the theatrical profeffion. Though he had not affirmed it, the fact is undoubtedly' certain, that the theatrical profeflion has had a difgrace affixed to it from the earliest times, and in all the countries where theatres have been in use.

Public actors on the flage were counted infamous by the Roman law, they were excommunicated by the church from the time of the introduction of chriftianity into the Roman empire, even to the time mentioned by the author of the above paragraph, the expiration of the French monarchy.

If this had been, only occafional, local and temporary, It might have been confidered as owing to fome of thofe accidental, but tranfient caufes, which fometimes produce remarkable effects for a little time, and then wholly ceafe. But fo uniform and fo general an effect muft have fome adequate and permanent caufe or caufes to produce it which is to be the fubject of the prefent inquiry.

I have only to add as to the fact, that even the present living, warmeft and most zealous advocates for the flage have not been able to efface this impreffion from their own minds. There does not exift in Philadelphia, or any where else, any perfon of rank or character, who would be pleased with an alliance with the ftage, either by their fon's marriage with an actrefs, or by their daughters being married to actors.

Before entering into the principal part of the fubject, it will be neceflary that the reader fhould give particular attention to the following remark. (The infamy which has attended the profeffion of players belongs wholly to the profeffion itself, and not to the perfons, or rather circumitances by which they may be diftinguifhed. Players when they are feen on the ftage, are dreffed in the fineft habits, affume the manners, and fpeak the language of kings and queens, princes and princeffes, heroes and heroines, which is a very different fituation from those who belong to what are fometimes called the lower claffes of