"PRESIDED in THE PUBLIC GAMES, when they "could do it with a safe conscience*."

I dare say, the ingenuity of the BIBLEMONGERS" will enable them to torture this plain paragraph to their own purpose, and they will find a saving clause in a safe conscience!I draw from it a conclusion, that our very carliest christians frequented theatres! This may be objected to, as not coming within the facts recorded in the bible itself, but only the history; still it is from an abridgment of the lives of the apostles, collected from the HOLY FATHERS and other ancient ECCLESIASTICAL WRITERS! We find, at any rate, from the scriptural text, that Paul would have entered the theatre, had not the dissuasions of his friends and the magistrates, who were apprehensive for his safety, prevented him. His intention was, indubitably, boldly to preach his doctrine to his enemies, and avail himself of the opportunity of numbers to disseminate his principles: nor would the magnificence of the structure in which his oration would have been delivered, nor the purpose for which the building was erected, have destroyed the irresistible force of his reasoning, nor injured the elegant brevity, simplicity and perspicuity of

* The same history says, Paul remained in Ephesus three years after this tumult.

his stile. Here we find the use of A THEATRE recorded in holy writ, and not a single passage of condemnation against it! In our times, places for scenic representation are burnt to the ground, and modern saints exult with joy over the ruins of the 66 profane temples." St. Paul was on the point of being (perhaps) murdered in one, but he never breathes an exclamation against the institution, or its principles! These proofs are, in my opinion, more than sufficient to overwhelm all the arguments presented by all the cavillers, opposers and objectors to a theatre that ever existed. What, I would ask, are the fables, the apologues, and the parables of the ancients? Are they not dramas? Do we not find in them the different characters speaking and acting according to their various dispositions? Are they not made up of the virtuous, the vicious, the cunning, the simple, the miser, the spendthirft, the luxurious rich, the abject poor; in short, all the degrees, conditions, vices, virtues, passions, affections, feelings, incident to human nature? They were delivered by one speaker, certainly, yet the formation, end and design are the same; by ap agreeable, innocent fiction, to arrest the attention of the careless, and by imperceptible degrees, guide his steps towards wisdom and virtue.

* But without a parable spake he not unto them,

Mark c. iv. 34..

Would the book of Job* become less valuable if the characters of the man of Uz, his wife, Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar were to be recited by different speakers capable of giving effect to the importance of their several situations aud dispositions? I feel a conviction it would not: and even if you could, by the auxiliary aid of music+ and painted canvas, induce the heedless and thoughtless to ponder on the serious moral of a pious

*Whether this extraordinary victim to misery, suffering, and punishment, was really an inhabitant of this earth, or only created out of the poet's imagination, is a point still in suspense with the various commentators on the Bible. Many of them consider the book of Job, in the light of a drama; and from the superior excellence of the moral, consistency of the characters, sublimity of thought, and simplicity of stile, it evinces strong evidence of emanating from the first order of genius. Some of the interpreters and expounders of scripture, have, with a great degree of seeming probability, attributed its composition to Moses, Shrink ye not, fanatics, at the profanation-what!—the sacred law-giver a dramatist!—Be not alarmed; could we give you many such specimens of sublimity and dignitymole-eyed and beetle-headed as ye are, the Drania must have commanded your approbation and support, and perhaps been as much an object of your idolatry as it is now of your hatred.-Ye know no medium.

+ And they began to be MERRY. Now his elder son was in the field, and as he came and drew nigh to the house,

he heard MUSIC and DANCING.

Luke c. xv. v. 24, 25.

resignation to the dispensations of providence, you would be doing society at large a singular service. If the beverage be wholesome, never hesitate tasting, because the cup is embossed.

I have not the most distant wish for the stage to intrench upon the duties of the pulpit; still further from my thoughts, be every intention of disrespect to the clergy. Nor would I presume to raise my profession at the expense of a body, whose sacred function entitles it to the reverence and esteem of all the virtuous. Men, who by the aid of the gospel, can give eyes to the blind, feet to the lame, health to the sick, wisdom to the ignorant, comfört to the afflicted, and happiness to all. The advocates at the throne of mercy, the pleaders to divine grace, for the frailties, errors, and imperfections of their wretched fellow-creatures. But let the drama second the efforts of the pulpit, and though an humble assistant, it will be found capable of being made an active and powerful ally in the great cause of virtue.

Many blend the improprieties of the stage with the thing itself, and, because there is an exuberance, the whole must be extirpated. If the objection depended merely upon the improprieties of the stage, with pleasure would I give my feeble aid to the exposure of them, loudly would I raise my voice for the extinction of them, and gladly would I

immolate at the shrine of offended decency, every line repugnant to modesty, morality and virtue.

The stage, if left to its own bias, must ever fall in with the predominant taste of its admirers, but properly GOVERNED, it will become a guide instead of a follower, and act as a firm opposer to every improper public feeling and sentiment. The drama participates strongly in the genius it emanates from, and is supported by-POESY. It therefore loves with fervour, and hates with energy. The tender husband, the affectionate wife, the rational parent, the dutiful child, the constant lover, the mild prince, the loyal subject, the pious priest; in short, the truly good, religious, moral, and virtuous, are the objects of its warmest attachment; it decks them out in their own native beauteous colours, sounds forth their praise, and cherishes them as its most darling favourites. But, woe! woe! woe! to their opposites!

The jealous husband, the inconstant wife, the cruel father, the abandoned son, the perjured lover, the tyrannical prince, the revolting subject, the hypocritical priest, all become loathsome, and it punishes them to the utmost extent of poetical vengeance.

It was with extreme regret I read Miss Baillie's objection to fashionable comedy, upon the plea of