The LETTER is as follows.

I Have avoided as much as I could giving you my Opinion in writing about Plays, considering the niceness of the Subject, and my own Incapacity: But since you press me still to cure you of that scrupu­lous Fear which lies upon your Mind, I must pass over those two Dif­ficulties, chusing rather to expose my self on your account, than not to ease you of your Doubts. In truth, Sir, the more I examine the Holy Fathers, the more I read the Divines, and consult the Casuists, the less able I find my self to determin any thing in this matter. I had no sooner found something in favour of the Drama among the Schoolmen, who are almost all of them for allowing it, but I perceiv'd my self surrounded with abundance of passages out of the Councils and the Fathers, who have all of them declaim'd against publick Shows.

This Question would have been soon determin'd, if the Holy Scrip­ture had said any thing about it. But as Tertullian very well observes, We no where find that we are as expresly forbidden in Scripture to go to the Circus and Theatre, to see the fightings of Gladiators, or be assisting in any Show, as we are forbid to worship Idols, or the being guilty of Murder, Treason and Adultery. If you read the Scrip­tures over and over, you will never meet with any express and par­ticular precept against Plays. The Fathers assert that we cannot in Conscience be any ways assisting to the Drama; the Schoolmen main­tain the contrary: Let us therefore endeavour to make use of St. [Page xi] Cyprian's Rule, who says, That Reason is to be heard where Holy Writ is silent; and let us try to reconcile the conclusions of the Divines with the determination of the Fathers of the Church.

But because 'tis a very nice Point, and the question consists in re­conciling them together, I will not advance any thing of my own Sentiments, but bring St. Thomas Aquinas to speak for me; who being on one side a very Religious Father, and Holy Doctor of the Church, and on the other side, the Angel of the School, the Master and Head of all the Divines, seems to me the most proper of any to reconcile the disagreeing Opinions of both parties. In the second part of his Summs, among others, he starts this Question, What we ought to think of Sports and Diversions? And he returns in answer to himself, That provided they be moderate, he does not only not think them sinful, but in some measure good and conformable to that Virtue which Aristotle stiles Eutrapelia, whose business 'tis to set just bounds to our Pleasures. The reason which he alledges for it is this, That a man being fatigu'd by the serious actions of Life, has need of an agreeable Refreshment, which he can find no where so well as in Plays: and to back his Opinion, that great Casuist produces that of St. Augustin in his own words, ‘In short, I would have you take care of your self, for 'tis the part of a Wise man, sometimes to unbend his Mind which is too intent upon his Bussness.’

‘Now, continues St. Thomas, How can this relaxation of the Mind be effected, if not by diverting Words or Actions? 'Tis not there­fore sinful or unbecoming a wise and virtuous Man, to allow him­self some innocent Pleasures.’ This holy Doctor does even in some sort reckon it a Sin to refrain from Diversion; ‘Because (says he) whatever is contrary to Reason, is vicious; now 'tis contrary to Reason that a man should be so unsociable and hard upon others, as to oppose their innocent Pleasures, never to bear a part in their Diversions, or contribute to 'em by his Words or Actions. There­fore Seneca had a great deal of reason to say upon this occasion, Demean your selves in your Conversation with so much Prudence and Discretion, that none may charge you with being morose, or despise you as one unfit for human Converse: for 'tis a Vice to fall out with all Mankind, and thus to be imputed a morose and salvage Creature.’

'Tis easy, Sir, to determine from those words of that Father, that under the general term of Recreations he comprehends the Drama, when he says, that this unbending of the Mind, which is a Virtue, is perform'd by diverting Words and Actions. Now what is more proper and peculiar to Plays than this, since they only con­sist in jocose and witty Words and Actions, such as produce delight [Page xii] and recreate the mind? I do not think you will find in any other Di­version, Words and Actions thus united together. But hearken, I beseech you, once more to this great Scholar.

‘It seems (says he) as if those Players who spend their whole lives on the Stage, did transgress the bounds of innocent Diver­sion. If then excessive Diversion be a Sin (as certainly 'tis) the Players are in a state of Sin; and so likewise are all those who assist at Stage-representations, and they who give any thing to them are, as it were, Abetters of their Sin; which seems to be false; for we read in the Lives of the Fathers, that one day it was reveal'd to St. Paphnutius, That in the other Life he should not arrive to a higher degree of Glory than a certain Player.’

If the Objection which St. Thomas here starts be nice, his Answer is as delicate and solid. ‘Diversion (replys this excellent Doctor) being therefore necessary for the comfort of human Life, we may appoint several Employments for this very end, which are lawful. Thus the Employment of Players being established to afford men an honest Recreation, has nothing in it, in my mind, which de­serves to be prohibited; and I do not look upon them to be in a state of Sin, provided they make use of this sort of Recreation with moderation, that is, provided they neither speak nor act any thing which is unlawful; mix nothing that is Sacred with Pro­fane, and never act in a prohibited time. And tho they may have no other employment of Life, with respect to other Men, yet with respect to themselves and to God, they have other very serious Employments, such as when they pray to God, govern their Passions, and give Alms to the Poor. From hence I con­clude, that those who in moderation pay or assist them are guilty of no Sin, but do an act of justice, since they only give them the reward of their labour. But if any one should squander away his whole Estate upon them, or countenance Players who act after a scandalous and unlawful way, I make no question but that he sins, and gives them encouragement to sin; and 'tis in this sense that St. Augustin's words are to be taken, when he says, That to give one's Estate away to Players, is rather a Vice than a Virtue.’

To prove that 'tis only the Excess which ought to be condemned in all Sports and Diversions, and that the holy Fathers had no other design in declaiming against Plays, St. Thomas explains what he means by Excess, and lays it down as an indispensible Maxim, That in every thing which may be regulated according to Reason, that which transgresses this Rule is to be reckon'd superfluous, and that which does not come up to it defective. ‘Now, continues he, diverting Words and Actions may be regulated according to Rea­son: [Page xiii] The Excess therefore in them is, when they do not agree to this Rule, or are defective by the Circumstances which ought to be applied to them.’ 'Tis upon this Maxim that we ought to re­turn answer to the Authorities of the Fathers of the Church, since according to St. Thomas, they declaim only against the Excess in Plays, and we shall offer nothing on this subject, but in imitation of this great Doctor, who, as his way was, applying to all the Fa­thers the Answer which he gives to only one, answers St. Chrysostom in this manner. That eloquent Father had said, that it was not God who was the Author of Sports, but the Devil; and the more to back what he had advanc'd, produc'd this passage out of ho­ly Writ; The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. But St. Thomas is for having those words of the great Chrysostom, to be un­derstood of excessive and immoderate Sports; and he adds, That Ex­cess in play is a foolish pleasure, stil'd by St. Gregory the Daughter of Gluttony and Sin; and that in this sense it is written, that the people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. This is the Answer which we are to make to whatever may be objected against us out of the Fathers, and the rather, because in examining them without pre­judice, 'tis easy to perceive, that if they did declaim so much against the Drama, it was only because in their times its Excess was crimi­nal and immoderate; whereas had they seen it as 'tis now-a-days in France, conformable to good Manners and right Reason, they would not have inveigh'd against it. But Plays as they were acted in the time of our Forefathers, were so abominable and infamous, that those Pious men could not but employ their greatest Zeal against a thing which was so very offensive to the Church. For is it not the excess of Plays, for instance, against which Tertullian cries out, when he says; ‘Let us not go to the Theatre, which is a particular Scene of Im­modesty and Debauchery, where nothing is lik'd but what is dis­approv'd elsewhere; and what is thought most excellent, is com­monly what is infamous and lewd. A Player, for instance, acts there with the most shameful and naked Gestures; Women for­getting the modesty of their Sex, dare do that on the Stage, and in the view of all the World, which others would blush to com­mit at home where no body could see them. There they repre­sent the Rape of Virgins, the infamous Victims of publick De­bauchery; so much the more wretched, because expos'd to the view of such Women as are suppos'd to be ignorant of such Licen­tiousness. They are there made the subject of the young mens mirth; there you are directed to the place where they prostitute themselves; there they tell you how much they get by their infa­mous Trade, and there in a word those Strumpets are commend­ed [Page xiv] in the presence of those who ought to be ignorant of all those things. I say nothing, adds this Father, of what ought to be bu­ried in eternal silence, for fear that by barely mentioning such horrid Actions, I should in some measure be guilty of them.’

But the other Fathers are not so reserv'd as he, and make no scru­ple to discover all they know about it. You must not imagine that I am ambitious of quoting all they have said: Those matters which are so freely handled in another Language, might prove offensive in ours; therefore I will only leave you to guess what Exorbitances they have mention'd, by some of those lesser Infamies of which I dare give an account out of their Writings.

Salvian was afraid to say any thing about it: ‘Who (says he) can treat of those shameful Representations, those dishonest Speeches, and of those lascivious and immodest Actions, the e­normity and offence of which are discoverable by that restraint which they in their own nature impose upon us not to rehearse them?’

Lactantius is not so reserv'd, his most favourable Thoughts about it are these. ‘To what end do those impudent Actions of the Players tend, but to debauch the Youth of the Age? Their effe­minate Bodies in Womens dresses, represent the most lascivious Gestures of the most dissolute. And a little lower, he says, From the licentiousness of Speech, they proceed to that of Acti­on: they, at the instance of the people, strip, debauch'd Women stark naked on the publick Theatre, &c.’ Pray be you Judge, whe­ther what this Father adds, can be acceptable to modesty.

St. Cyprian, who ex professo composed a Book of publick Shows, describes at large all the infamous Practices there. We may also read something of that abominable Custom of their appearing naked on the Theatres, in St. Chrysostom, St. Jerom, and St. Augustin. The first of these does not scruple comparing those of his time who went to Plays to David, who took pleasure in seeing Bathsheba naked in her Bath; and saying that the Theatre is the Rendevouz of all manner of Debaucheries, that 'tis full of Impudence, Abomination, and Impiety. A more modern Writer (viz. Alexander ab Alexandro) describing the Shows of the Antients, and especially their Bacchanalia, gives us such horrible Pictures of their publick Infamies and Prostitu­tions, that I should tremble to repeat them. You may imagin, Sir, there could be nothing of good in them, since the infamous Heliogabalus was the Author of some of them. But lest you should suppose that Plays were much the same as they are now; and that 'twas only to disswade the faithful from frequenting the Stage, that the Fathers represented it in such frightful Colours; [Page xv] let us consult profane Authors. Valerius Maximus, speaking of the detestable Custom which the Romans had, of exposing upon the Theatre the naked Bodies of debauch'd Women, and the naked Bo­dies of young Boys, relates of M. P. Cato, that he being one day at those sights, and understanding by his Favourite Favonius, that out of the Respect which they bore to him, the People were asham'd to de­sire the Players should appear naked on the Theatre; this great man withdrew, that he might not by his presence hinder that which was so customary. Seneca gives us the same Account of Cato, and com­mends him for his being unwilling to see those debauch'd Women na­ked. I dare not repeat to you the words of Lampridius, because they are too fulsom, when he says, that the Emperor Heliogabalus, who in a Play represented Venus, showed himself all naked upon the Stage with the utmost signs of Impudence. We also find that the public Shows of the Antients were as dreadfully impious, as they were im­moral. ‘There (says St. Chrysostom) they blaspheme the Name of God, and no sooner have the Players vented a blasphemous Ex­pression, but a loud Applause follows. This is what oblig'd the third Council of Carthage by a Canon to condemn Players as Blasphemers: Let not the Laicks themselves be present at the Shows, for it has been always unlawful for any Christian to go in­to the Company of Blasphemers.’

Now who would not cry down the Stage, if it were so full of Im­morality and Profaneness? There is no need of being one of the Fa­thers, the Light of Nature is sufficient to condemn so great an Ex­cess. Thus we read in St. Chrysostom, ‘That certain Barbarians having heard of those Theatral Plays, express'd themselves in those terms worthy of the greatest Philosophers, viz. 'Tis fit that the Romans, when they invented this kind of Pleasures, should be look'd upon as Persons who had neither Wives nor Children.’ And Alcibiades among other things is commended for having cast a certain Comedian, nam'd Eupolis, into the Sea, for being so impudent as to repeat some infamous Verses in his presence, adding at his Punish­ment this Expression, Thou hast plung'd me often in the debauche­ries of the Stage, and for once I will plunge thee into the depths of the Sea.

You may easily perceive, Sir, that all those passages out of the Fa­thers, and a thousand others which I could produce out of them a­gainst Stage-Plays, prove nothing against the Drama as it now stands in France. It would be superfluous to stand making a Comparison between the one and the other; I desire that you would only take notice, that far from weakning the Doctrine of St. Thomas, all that has been hitherto alledg'd serves only to strengthen it: For 'tis only [Page xvi] against the Excess of the Stage that the Fathers appear'd so zealous, whereas if they had found it divested of those unhappy Circumstan­ces which then attended it, they would have been of St. Thomas's Opinion, and at least have look'd upon it as indifferent.

I thought it proper to relate all this to you before I ventur'd to dis­cover my own Thoughts on this Subject; and upon those indisputable Principles which I have laid down, I affirm, that in my Judgment, Plays in their own Nature, and taken in themselves, independent from any other Circumstance whether good or bad, ought to be reckon'd among the number of things purely indifferent. Upon due exami­nation you will find it to be the Opinion even of Tertullian and St. Cyprian, the two who seem to declaim most against the Drama.

To begin with Tertullian, at the same time that he abominates the infamy of publick Shows, he starts this Objection to himself: ‘God (says he) has made all things, and given them to men, and conse­quently they are all good, such as the Circus, Lions, Voices, &c. What then makes the use of them unlawful?’ To this he answers, That 'tis true, all things were instituted by God, but that they were corrupted by the evil Spirit: That Iron, for instance, is as much God's Creature as Plants and Angels; that notwithstanding this, God did not make these Creatures to be instruments of Murder, Poi­son, and Magick, tho men by their Wickedness deprave them to those Uses; and that what renders a great many things evil, which in their own nature are indifferent, is not their Institution but Cor­ruption. From hence, if we apply this way of arguing to publick Shows, it follows, that consider'd in their own nature, they are as harmless as Angels, Plants, and Iron; but that 'tis the evil Spirit that has chang'd, perverted, and spoil'd 'em. You see then that Tertullian has reckon'd Stage-Plays among indifferent Actions, and that what he condemns in them is only the Excess.

St. Cyprian, speaking of David's dancing before the Ark, owns that there is no harm in dancing or singing; but yet, says he, this is no excuse for Christians, who are present at those lascivious Dances and impure Songs, which are in honour of Idols. Whence 'tis easy for you to infer, that this holy Doctor does not absolutely condemn Dancing, Singing, Operas, and Comedies, but only those Shows that represented Fables after the lascivious manner of the Greeks and Romans, and which were celebrated in honour of Idols. This is likewise St. Bonaventure's Opinion, who says expresly, ‘That shows are good and lawful if they are attended with necessary Precauti­ons and Circumstances.’The great Albertus his Master taught him this Doctrine: and the words which I met with upon this Subject in St. Antoninus, Archbishop of Florence, are so pertinent that I cannot for­bear [Page xvii] inserting them here. ‘The profession of a Comedian (says he) because it is useful for the Diversion of men which is requi­site, is not forbidden in its own nature: from whence it follows, that it is no less lawful to get one's Livelihood by this Art, &c.’ And in another place, ‘Comedy is a mixture of pleasant Speeches and Actions, for the Diversion of a mans self, or for that of a­ther. If nothing is mix'd in it either unbecoming, or an Affront to God, or prejudicial to one's Neighbour, 'tis an effect of that Virtue which is call'd Eutrapelia; for the Mind which is fatigu'd by internal Cares, as the Body is by external Labour, has as much need of Repose as the Body has of Nourishment. This Repose is procur'd by those kind of diverting Speeches and Actions which are call'd Plays.’ Can any thing, Sir, be said of greater weight in favour of Comedy? Yet he who says it, is a Man of undoubted sanctity: How comes it to pass that he does not declaim as loudly a­gainst it, as the Antients did? 'Tis because the Drama grows more correct and perfect every day; and I have observ'd in reading the Holy Fathers, that the nearer they come to our times, the more fa­vourable they are to Plays, because the Stage was not so licentious as before. Thus likewise we see, that it is not prohibited by the Saint of our times, the great Francis de Sales, who might without dispute serve as a pattern to all Directors. And Fontana de Ferrara in his Institutes relates, That the famous Saint, Charles Borromeus, allow'd Stage-Plays in his Diocess, by an Order in the year 1583. yet upon condition, that before they were acted they should be revis'd and licens'd by his grand Vicar, for fear any thing which is immodest should be in them. This pious and learned Cardinal did then allow of modest Comedies, and condemn'd only the Immodest and Profane, as ap­pears by the third Council which he held at Milan in the year 1572.

Beside this multitude of Testimonies which are in my favour, I might likewise form a strong Proof taken from the Words and Practice of the Holy Fathers in general, and observe that those who have cry'd out so mightily against the Stage, have been as violent in declaiming against playing at Cards, Dice, &c. They have inveigh'd against Banquets and Feasts, against Luxury and gaudy Dresses, against lofty Buildings, magnificent Houses, rich Furniture, rare Painting, &c. St. Chrysostom has whole Homilies up­on this Subject: we find a particular Catalogue of them in the Pedagogue of St. Clement Alexandrinus: St. Augustin treats very largely of them in most of his Works, and particularly in his Letter to Possidonius. St. Cyprian quoted by the same St. Au­gustin, St. Gregory, in a word, all the Fathers have warmly de­claim'd [Page xviii] claim'd against the luxury and richness of Apparel; some­times exciting us to follow the Example of St. John Baptist, who for the Austerity of his Life was so highly commended by our Sa­viour. And yet we find that they did not raise so many doubts of Conscience in mens Minds upon this score, as they did upon the account of Stage-Plays; and none made a scruple either of wear­ing Habits sutable to their Quality, nor of living at ease, pro­vided they did it within the compass of Modesty and Moderati­on. Why then should we not extend this Indulgence to Shows, and affirm, that as the Reproaches of the Doctors of the Church are applicable to Luxury, Intemperance, and Prodigality, but not to the innocent and moderate use of the good things of this Life, so we may interpret their words of immoral and profane Plays, but not of those that do not transgress the Rules of Prudence and Morality?

‘To prove (says Albertus Magnus) that the Scripture does not con­demn Plays, Dancing, and Shows, consider'd singly, and without those offensive Circumstances which make them condemnable; do not we read in Exodus, That Miriam the Prophetess, the Sister of Aaron, took a Timbrel in her hand, and all the Women went out af­ter her with Timbrels and with Dances, Exod. 15. 20? Does not the Royal Prophet say (Psal. 68. 25, 27.) That Benjamin was among the Damsels who played with Timbrels? Nay, does not God himself, by the Mouth of Jeremiah, Chap. 31. 4. promise the Jews, that upon their return from Chaldee, they should play up­on Timbrels, and go forth in the Dances of them that make merry? Therefore (concludes Albertus Magnus) Dances and Pleasures are not in themselves sinful or unlawful, but made so by the criminal Circumstances added to them: and I would not enjoin a Penitent to abstain from them, since God himself not only permits, but promises them.’ And indeed take away the Excess which may possibly creep into Dramatick Represen­tations, and I know no harm in them: For 'tis a kind of speak­ing Picture, wherein are represented Histories or Fables for the Diversion, and very often for the Instruction of men.

Hitherto we find nothing amiss in the Design of the Stage; but perhaps its enemies will object, that it must needs be bad however, because 'tis prohibited. I protest, Sir, I never yet thought the Prohibition of any thing made it sinful, but on the contrary, that the Viciousness of it made it to be prohibited. But let us consult those places of Scripture which seem to forbid Plays, and such like Shows, and try to explain them, not as we please, but by the words of the greatest Doctors. Albertus Magnus, who has col­lected [Page xix] all those Passages, shall give us the Explanation of them. The first which he mentions is that of St. Paul, who seems to re­duce all those Sports to immodesty; for the Apostle exhorting men to avoid that Sin, expresses himself thus, 1 Cor. 10. As some of them fell into Impurity, of whom it is written, The People sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. The second is taken out of Exodus, Chap. 32. where we find that Dances were first invented before Idols; and by this they prove that 'tis an idolatrous Institu­tion, to excite men to impurity. The third is that of Isaiah, Chap. 3. who in the Name of God denounces great Threatnings against those kind of Sports; Because the Daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth Necks, and wanton Eyes, walking and tripping as they go, and making a tinkling with their Feet: Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the Head of the Daughters of Zion, &c. And lastly, 'tis pretended that St. Paul includes all publick Sights in those famous words, 1 Thess. 5. 22. Abstain from all appearance of Evil. But Albertus Magnus returns this Reply to all those Passages, ‘That Dancing, &c. which are not in their own nature evil, may become so by being attended with those unhappy Circum­stances which St. Paul is to be understood to speak of: That 'tis false to assert that they never danc'd but before Idols; and that it has been done upon other occasions, witness Miriam the Sister of Moses and Aaron, whom we formerly mention'd: That God by the Mouth of his Prophet, reproves only those impudent Ge­stures, with which the dancing of the Jews was attended. And lastly, That St. Paul forbids even the appearance of real Evil, and not of that which may become so by Accident and bad Circum­stances.’

But you will say, If Plays are good in themselves, why are the Actors of them noted with Infamy in Justinian's Institutes? But pray let me ask you a Question or two; Does that Soldier sin who runs away in Battel for fear of being kill'd? Or does a young Wi­dow, who cannot live single, commit a mortal Sin by marrying a second Husband before her year is up? and yet the same Book brands both of them with a note of Infamy, and a thousand other Persons whose Actions are not criminal. 'Tis therefore a very weak Consequence to prove the sinfulness of an Action, because 'tis noted as infamous: Suppose it true, that Players were infamous by acting on the Stage, I would fain know why the Youth of the Universities, and other Persons very prudent, and sometimes of the best Quality, who for their own Diversion, and without scandal act Parts in Play, are not as infamous as the common Players. I hope none will say, 'tis because the latter act to get by it, whereas the [Page xx] others do it for their Diversion, for that is a very wretched Argu­ment. Suppose any Action be evil in it self, what signifies it whe­ther a Man gets by it or no? It will still be evil, and no Circum­stance can alter its nature: So that as a perjur'd Man, or a Calum­niator, branded with Infamy by the Law you cited, will be always infamous, let them be in what circumstances soever; so Plays cannot be represented upon any occasion or motive whatever, without in­curring the stain of Infamy, which you say is cast upon it. But to understand the meaning of the Laws, 'tis requisite to have recourse to those Doctors who have expounded them. Pray see what the fa­mous Baldus says on this Subject; ‘The Players who act in a modest way, either to divert themselves or please others, and who com­mit nothing against good Manners, are not to be reputed infamous.’ You perceive then according to this Commentator, that the Infamy falls only on those who act infamous Plays.

Since time changes every thing, Men of Equity ought to consider things in the time wherein they are. Were not the Physicians them­selves turn'd out of Rome as infamous Persons? And in the esteem wherein now they are, is there the least sign of their Infamy re­maining? Why then should any Reflection stick on so ingenious a Profession, which in France (and perhaps elsewhere) is become ra­ther the School of Virtue than that of Vice? The reason why for­merly Players were declar'd infamous, was the Infamy so predominant in the Plays which they acted, and the Infamy which they themselves added to it by their shameful way of acting. But now since that Reason is out of doors, without doubt its Consequences are abolish'd; and if any Consequences are to be drawn from it, 'tis that Plays be­ing altogether unblameable, those who act them, provided they live honestly, ought not to be reckon'd among the number of dis­honourable Persons. This is so far true, that the being a Player does not degrade any Man's Quality. Floridor, who is said to have been the greatest Player France ever had, being a Gentleman by Birth, was not judg'd unworthy of that Title upon the account of his Profession: And when enquiry was made about the false Nobless, he was admit­ted by the King and Council to make out the truth of his, which by right of Inheritance descended to his Posterity. Those of the Opera, if born Gentlemen, by the establishment of that Academy of Mu­sick, are not to lose their Quality: Now are there Prerogatives for the one which are not to be allow'd the other? And if there be any distinction between them, have not all Ages determin'd it in favor of Comedy, since by the consent of all Nations, Poetry is the elder Sister of Musick?

Several Doctors (you say) or at least such as pretend to be so, [Page xxi] have shown you certain Rituals, which forbid the Confessors to ad­minister the Sacraments to Players, which they confirm by the Au­thority of several Councils. To this I answer, That those Rituals, and the Canons of those Councils, only mean it of such Players who act scandalous pieces, or who act them immodestly. But let those People tell you what difference they make between Stage-plays and other kinds of Sports; for as to the Rituals, the Canons, the Coun­cils, &c. they make none, but equally prohibit them all. Yet your Doctors who talk so loudly of the Fathers and Councils, do not so scrupulously follow their Decisions against Gaming and other Sports. We find that the Abbots, Priests, Bishops and Ecclesiasticks make no difficulty of playing, and pretend that all the Censures of the Fathers ought to be understood of the excess in Sports, and not of those which are moderate, and us'd without much application to pass away a little time. Why then should not the same thing be urg'd, and the same Indulgence allow'd in behalf of Plays, since we find such a Dispensation with respect to other Sports? Besides, should you ask the Bishops and Prelates what they think of Plays, they would de­clare, that when they are modest, and have nothing in them which wounds Morality and Christianity, they do not pretend to censure them. And even if they were silent in the case, one may guess at their Opinion by their Conduct, since in those very Diocesses where those severe Rituals are us'd, Plays are acted, tolerated, and perhaps approv'd. If they are bad, why are they tolerated? As they are acted at Paris, I see no fault in them. 'Tis true, I cannot pass a de­finitive Judgment upon them, since I never go to see them: But there are three very easy ways of knowing what is done at the Theatres, and I acknowledg that I have made use of all three. The first is to in­form one self of it by Men of Parts and Probity, who out of that hor­ror they have to Sin, would not allow themselves to be present at those sort of Shows, if sinful. The next is, to judg by the Confessions of those who go thither of the evil Effects which Plays produce upon their Minds. The third is the reading of the Plays: and I protest that by these ways I have not been able to discover the least appea­rance of the excess which the Fathers with so much Justice condemn'd in Plays. A world of People of eminent Virtue, and of a very nice, not to say scrupulous Conscience, have been forced to own to me that the Plays on the French Theatre are at present so pure, that there is nothing in them which can offend the chastest Ear: Every day at Court the Bishops, Cardinals, and Nuncio's of the Pope make no scruple to be present at them; and it would be no less Impudence than Folly, to conclude that all those great Prelates are profane Li­bertines, since they authorize the Crime by their presence. 'Tis ra­ther [Page xxii] a sign that the Plays are so pure and regular, that none need be asham'd or afraid to see them. I have likewise sometimes made a Reflection (which to me seems of some weight.) Upon casting my Eyes on the Bills pasted up at the corners of Streets, wherein all manner of Persons are invited to come to the Plays which are acted by the King's Authority, and by his Majesty's Servants: I thought to my self, if they invited People to some bad Action, to be in in­famous places, &c. 'tis certain that the Magistrates would be so far from allowing the publication of those Bills, that they would severe­ly punish the Authors of them, who abus'd the King's Authority, by inviting his good Subjects to the commission of such Enormities. Therefore concluded I, 'tis plain that Plays are not so bad, since the Magistrates do not put them down, nor the Prelates make any oppo­sition to them, and since they act by the privilege of a religious Prince, who would not by his presence authorize a Crime, of which he would be more guilty than others.

As to Confessions, I could never by their means find out this pre­tended mischief of Plays: For if it were the source of so many Crimes, it would from thence follow that the Rich who frequent the Theatres, would be the greatest Sinners; and yet we find that 'tis pretty equal, and that the Poor who never saw a Play are as guilty as the Rich of Anger, Revenge, Uncleanness, and Pride. I would therefore ra­ther conclude, and that with some reason too, that those Sins are the effects of human Weakness or Malice, which take an occasion of sinning from all manner of Objects indifferently.

As to the reading of the Plays which are now acted in France, I never could find in those I have perus'd, any thing which could any ways offend Christianity or good Manners. The greatest fault that can be found in them is, that most of the Subjects are taken out of Fables; and yet what harm is there in that? ‘They are such Fa­bles out of which may be taken very fine Instructions of Morality, capable of inspiring Men with a love of Virtue, and a detestation of Vice.’ These are the words of a very great Man (Peter Bishop of Blois) who maintains, ‘That 'tis lawful to extract Truths out of Heathen Fables, and that 'tis no more than receiving Arms from our very Enemies.’

To leave nothing unresolv'd, let me examin the Precautions which the Doctors give us in going to a Play. As to the lawfulness of the Drama, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, St. Antonine, and above all Albertus Magnus has said that in all Sports we ought to take care of three things. The first is, that we should not seek for Pleasure in immodest Words or Actions, as they did in the times of the An­tients; an unhappy Custom which Cicero laments in these words: [Page xxiii] There is a kind of jesting which is sordid, insolent, wicked, and obscene. The second thing we are to take care of, says Albertus, is, that when we would refresh our Spirits, we should not entirely lose the Gravity of the Soul, which gives St. Ambrose occasion to say: ‘Let us beware, lest in giving our Spirits some Relaxation, we lose the harmony of our Souls, where the Virtues form an agreeable Consort.’ And the third Condition required in our Sports, as well as in all the other Actions of our Lives, is, that they be sutable to the Person, Time and Place, and regulated by all the other Circumstances which may render them inoffensive. It would be easy for me to prove that none of these Qualifications are wanting to the Plays, as they are in France; from whence you ought to con­clude that they are good and allowable.

After all I have said for Plays, you cannot question but they ought to be such as are free from all immodest Speeches and Actions. You have told me your self, that the Players are very careful of this point, and that they would not so much as suffer, when they accept of any piece, that it should have any thing in it indecent, licentious, equi­vocal, or the least word under which any poison might be conceal'd.

We have very severe Laws in France against Blasphemers; they are bor'd through the Tongue, they are condemn'd even to be burn'd: and should we caress the Players, or give them any privilege if they were Blasphemers, Libertines, or Profane?

We own, say our Reformers, that they dare not openly speak any thing that is profane, nor act upon the Stage those Infamies which were formerly acted there, but there is still something remaining of its primitive Corruption disguis'd under gay Names. Is there any Play acted now, where there is not some Love-intrigue or other? where the Passions are not represented in all their light? and where mention is not made of Ambition, Jealousy, Revenge and Hatred? A dangerous School for Youth, where they are easily dis­pos'd to raise real Passions in their Hearts by seeing feign'd ones re­presented! The first Duty of a Christian is to suppress his Passions, and not to expose himself to the growth of them; and by a necessa­ry Consequence, nothing is more pernicious than that which is capa­ble of exciting them.

A fine Speech this for a rigid Declaimer, but not sound enough for an equitable Divine! Is there no difference, think ye, between an Action or a Word which may by accident raise the Passions, and those which do it in reality?

The last are absolutely unlawful and sinful; and tho it might hap­pen that a Man might be unmov'd by them, yet we are oblig'd to avoid them, because 'tis only by chance that they produce not their [Page xxiv] effect, whereas in their own nature they are always attended with pernicious Consequences. But for those Actions and Words which may by accident raise the Passions, we cannot justly condemn them; and we must even fly to Desarts to avoid them; for we cannot walk a Step, read a Book, enter a Church, or live in the World, without meeting with a thousand things capable of exciting the Pas­sions. Must a Woman because she is handsom never go to Church, for fear of exciting the Lust of a Debauchee? Must the Great in Courts, and the Magistrates lay aside that Splendor which is becom­ing, and perhaps necessary to them, for fear of exciting Ambiti­on, and a desire of Riches in others? Must a man never wear a Sword for fear of being guilty of Murder? This would be ridiculous: and tho by misfortune a Scandal happen, and an occasion of sinning be taken, 'tis a Passive, not an Active Scandal, (pardon those School-terms) 'tis an Occasion taken, not given, which kind alone we are order'd to avoid; for as to the first, 'tis impossible to avoid it, and sometimes, to foresee it.

All Histories (not excepting the Bible) make use of such words as express the Passions, and relate great Actions of which they have been the Cause. And will it be a Crime to read History, because we may there meet with something which may be an occasion of our falling? By no means, unless it be a scandalous, profane and loose History, such a one as does infallibly stir up dangerous Passions, and then 'tis no longer an occasion taken, but given. But this is not the Character of our Plays; for tho they speak of Love, Hatred, Am­bition, Revenge, and the like, 'tis not done with an Intention of exciting those kinds of Passions in the Audience; nor are there any such scandalous Circumstances in them, as will infallibly produce such mischievous Effects in their Minds. Besides, as the wise Lycurgus said, Shall we destroy all the Vines, because some men get drunk with the juice of the Grape? An ill use has and may be made of the most Sacred things, such as are the Holy Scriptures, and consequent­ly of the most indifferent and least serious: yet neither the one nor the other ought to be forbidden, unless we would forbid every thing that may be put to an ill Use.

As to the second Qualification which our Casuists require in Sports, which is to avoid breaking the Harmony of the Soul by the excess and length of our Pleasures; it may be said, that neither those who go to Plays, nor those who compose them, nor those who act them, so far unbend their Minds, as to destroy that just disposition of Soul. As for the first, they have their Liberty to go or stay away; and af­ter a days Labour, two Hours of Refreshment may be allow'd. As for the Authors and Players, whose Profession seems to be one conti­ed [Page xxv] Diversion, they do not certainly look upon their Lives to be a Play, since they have other serious Business in their Families, besides the common Duties of Christians to perform.

As for the circumstance of Time, of which our Casuists would have us take care, it is observed in France, where they never act but at proper Hours. One of the things against which the Fathers de­claim'd the most was, the time of acting the Plays; they lasted the whole day, and People had scarce any time to go to Church. Thus St. Chrysostom complains; ‘That the Christians in his time, and in his Diocess, did not only go to Plays, but were so intent up­on them that they staid whole days at those infamous Sights, without going one moment to Church.’ St. John of Damascus condemn'd the same Excess, in these words, ‘There are several Towns where the Inhabitants are from morning to night Feast­ing their Eyes with all manner of Sights, and in hearing always immodest Songs, which cannot chuse but raise in their Minds wicked Desires.’ Is there any thing to be found like this in our Plays? They begin at five or six a Clock, when Divine Service is over, the Prayers and Sermon ended; when the Church Doors are shut, and People have had time enough to bestow on Business and Devotion; and they end about eight or nine.

As for the Circumstance of Places, 'tis observ'd in France; for, whereas formerly they acted in Churches, now they have publick Theatres for the purpose.

The Circumstance of the Persons is also observ'd, for those who Act are civil People, who have undertaken the Employ, and gene­rally behave themselves in it with Decency; at least there are as few ill Men among them, as in other Professions: their Vice arises from their own corrupt Nature, and not from the State or Calling they are in, since all are not like them. I have convers'd, and am particularly acquainted with some of them, who out of the Theatre, and in their own Families, live the most exemplary Life in the World: and you have told me your self, that all of them in general, out of their common Stock, contribute a considerable Sum to pious and charitable Uses; of which the Magistrates and Superiors of the Convents could give sufficient Testimony. I que­stion whether we can say as much of those zealous Persons who in­veigh so loudly against them.

I am conscious, Sir, that some People will blame me for having fol­low'd the most favourable Opinion concerning Plays; for 'tis now the Fashion to teach an Austere Doctrine, and not to practise it: but I assure you I have wholly been govern'd by Truth, wishing still [Page xxvi] to observe that Father's Rule who directs us to form our Actions by the most severe Opinions, and our Doctrine by the most indul­gent. I am,