HE reader will probably conjecture, and therefore, I do readily acknowledge, that what gave occafion both to the writing, and publifhing

the enfuing treatife, was the new tragedy of Douglas lately acted in the theatre at Edinburgh. This, univerfal uncontradicted fame fays, is the work of a minister of the church of Scotland. One of that character and office employing his time in writing for the stage, every one will allow, is a very new and extraordinary event. In one refpect neither author nor actors have fuffered any thing from this circumB 2 stance:

ftance for doubtlefs, it contributed its fhare in procuring that run upon the representation, which continued for feveral days. Natural curiofity prompted many to make trial, whether there was any difference between a play wrote by a clergyman, and one of another author. And a concern for the fate of fuch a perfon excited the zeal and diligence of friends, to do all in their power to procure a full houfe, that the bold adventurer might be treated with respect and honour.

Some refolutions of the prefbytery of Edinburgh feem to threaten, that public notice will be taken of this author and his affociates, by their fuperiors in the church. Whether this will be carried on, and, if it be, whether they will be approved or cenfured; and, if the last, to what degree, I pretend not to foretel. But one thing is certain, that it hath been, and will be, the fubject of much thought and converfation among the laity of all ranks, and that it must have a very great influence upon the ftate of religion among us, in this part of the nation. That this influence will be for the better, though I refolve to examine the fubject with all impartiality, I confefs, I fee little ground to hope. There is no doubt that it will be condemned by the great plurality of those who go by the appellation of the stricter fort. With them, it will bring a great

great reproach upon the church of Scotland, as containing one minifter who writes for the ftage, and many who think it no crime to attend the reprefentation. It is true, no other confequences are to be apprehended from their displeasure, than the weakest of them being provoked to unchriftian refentment, or tempted to draw rafh and general conclufions from the conduct of a few to the character of the whole, or perhaps fome of them feparating from the eftablished church, none of which effects of late have been much either feared or fhunned. However, even on this account, it were to be wifhed, either that it had never happened, or that it could be fhewn, to the conviction of unprejudiced minds, that it was a juft and commendable action.

But, to be fure, the chief danger is, that in cafe it be really a bad thing, it must give very great offence, in the Scripture fenfe of that word, to those who are moft apt to take it, viz. fuch as have leaft religion, or none at all. An offence is a ftumbling-block over which the weak and unftedfaft are in danger of falling; that is to fay, It emboldens them to commit, and hadens them in the practice of, fin. Now, if the ftage is unlawful or dangerous to a Chriftian, those who are by inclination fo addicted to it that it is already difficult to convince them of their error, must be

greatly confirmed in this error, by the example and countenance of fuch as call themselves minifters of Chrift. It has accordingly already occafioned more difcourfe among the gay part of the world, in defence or commendation of the ftage, than paft perhaps for fome years preceding

this event..

Nothing therefore can be more feasonable at this time, or neceffary for the public good, than a careful and accurate difcuffion of this question, Whether fupporting and encouraging stage plays, by writing, acting, or attending them, is confiltent, or inconfiftent, with the character of a Chriftian? It is to no purpose to confine the enquiry to this, Whether a minifter is not appearing in an improper light, and mifapplying his time and talents when he dedicates them to the fervice of the ftage? That point would probably be given up by moft, and thofe who would deny it do not merit a confutation. But if the matter is refled here, it will be confidered only as a smaller mifdemeanour, and though treated, or even condemned as fuch, it will ftill have the bad effect (upon fuppofition of theatrical amufements being wrong and finful) of greatly promoting them, though we feem to be already as much given to them as even worldly confiderations will allow.

The