sume to go to council immediately from his cups, or the ablest preacher think himself fitted to preach only by stepping up to the pulpit; notwithstanding the policy of one, and the eloquence of the other, they may chance to get the just character of bold fools for venturing, whatsoever good fortune may bring them off."* If we could possess the faculty of invisibility, which the novelist has ascribed to his imaginary Asmodeus,† and could penetrate unseen into the private card party, the chosen boudoir, or the select circle avowedly met for religious purposes, and could listen to their conversation; it is not unlikely we might be shocked by remarks, containing less of Christian charity, and more of actual vice, in those pious coteries, than in the less secluded boxes of the Theatre. Gaming, detraction, and hypocrisy are greater enemies to religion and morals, than a hearty laugh at the inimitable humour of Power, or an involuntary tear at the pathos of Kean. When we are asked if we can contemplate with complacency, the possibility of dying during the performance of a play, we answer readily, no; we are shocked at such a supposition: but there are many other situations, in which death would be equally undesirable.-No one would wish to be summoned to his last account, when sitting at table in the * South's Sermons, vol. ii. pp. 399, 400. Ed. 1694. familiar exercise of hospitality, when walking in the streets, or when employed in his usual occupations, or even in the unconscious hour of slumber. We wish to "call our scattered spirits home,”* and to have time for the awful preparation; and for this reason we supplicate for deliverance from sudden death. Those who write so vehemently against the Stage, cannot of their own knowledge be aware of the vast improvement which is rapidly progressing in all its minor abuses. Plays which, even within the last twenty years, were received with warm applause, are now scarcely tolerated, and so far are modern audiences from encouraging either a manager or an actor in any disposition to license, or breach of decorum, that such tendencies would be marked by their severest castigation.† When Garrick said, "if the public desired it, he would dramatise the Pilgrim's Progress," the speech was silly enough, and probably much more than he ever intended to do; but had he carried into effect such a purpose, the public would soon have brought him to his senses, if the Lord Chamberlain, as is most likely, had not previously interfered to prevent the unbecoming experiment. Profane swearing, double entendre, or common-place puns * Rowe. I speak more particularly of the feeling of the audience with which I am immediately aquainted, but I have no reason to think it is otherwise elsewhere. are poor substitutes for wit or humour, and whenever they occur, should be, as they generally are, carefully expunged.* Of all the objections raised against the Stage, these are the easiest removed, and therefore the least excusable: they are mere unnecessary and offensive expletives, and form no essential accessory of theatrical composition. Sometimes a coarse mind will fancy an indelicate allusion where none exists, and will raise a senseless laugh, to which two or three kindred spirits may respond. But it is not just to charge this as a characteristic of the Drama, or as a specimen of the taste of the audience. Neither author, actor, nor spectators can be held collectively responsible * The express duty of the licenser of plays is to expunge all oaths or objectionable passages. The late Mr. Colman, the celebrated dramatist, carried this to such an extreme fastidiousness, that it subjected him to some ridicule from those who remembered the many similar offences in his own comedies. But it is never too late to amend an error. I agree, to the fullest extent, with Dr. Bennett, as to the impropriety, to say nothing of the vulgarity, of introducing oaths on the stage. In all well regulated Theatres, there is a fine attached to this offence, over which a much more rigid censorship should be exercised than has hitherto taken place. It is sometimes difficult to restrain your clowns from "saying more than is set down for them." But fas est ab hoste doceri. I sincerely hope, every member of the theatrical profession will profit by Dr. Bennett's admonition, and "reform this practice altogether." Let us not leave it in the power of our enemies to taunt us with an offence we can so easily remove. for an ebullition of individual vulgarity. A person not in the habit of attending the Theatre will form a very revolting idea of its tendencies, on being told by Dr. Bennett, that on the Stage "religion is sneered at, and its professors held up as objects of ridicule." That the "sacred name of the Creator is repeated with flippant and profane irreverence, and that prayers are introduced into plays in impious mockery." Our answer to these accusations is, that they not only cannot be supported by evidence, but that the offences are altogether impossible. It is not necessary here to discuss the point as to whether the present age is in reality more moral or religious than any former one, but it will readily be admitted, that there is an increased attention to external propriety, which of itself would prevent such occurrences as are here enumerated. If an approach to blasphemy, or any sentence calculated to ridicule religion were introduced into a play, the loud indignation of the audience would condemn the attempt at once, and vindicate their own sense of propriety. On the other hand, a moral or pious sentiment is invariably responded to by warm applause. There is no occasion to go back to the reign of James I. for an Act to restrain impiety. The conditions of the existing patents are sufficiently explicit and peremptory on that point. There is no instance, in the modern Stage, of a clerical character being introduced for the purpose of throwing a slur on religion. Dr. Cantwell, in the celebrated comedy of the Hypocrite, is not a clergyman but an impostor, who assumes the sacred function for the basest purposes, and as we know such detestable hypocrisy has often been practised on weak minds, it would be difficult to represent a more salutary or important warning; for never can that hateful vice be so thoroughly odious as when assuming the garb and attributes of pure religion. Christians, of every sect or denomination, who worship in sincerity, according to the mode of faith they believe to be right, are equally entitled to respect. Which of these is the nearest to the truth the wisest cannot determine; but on one point all are agreed-a detestation of the religious hypocrite, who disgraces every creed he alternately abuses, to the scandal of true piety and the injury of mankind. A prayer on the Stage, or an appeal to the Deity by name, should be very sparingly introduced, and never unless when consistent with the solemnity of the occasion, or when the illustration of moral and religious truth is thereby enhanced. That instances of this kind occur, it will be easy to show, but that such can be construed into mockery or irreverence, is an assertion of which we may fearlessly demand the proof. When Dr. Bennett says, "The sacred name can be used innocently only when it is uttered with a solemn |