amusements." The fact, however, is much to be regretted, that the reasons for this peculiarity have been seldom either clearly defined, or correctly understood. Both parties have betrayed a lamentable ignorance on the question in debate, and their mutual opposition has assumed the character, rather of a party-struggle, than the laudable efforts of men anxious for the interests of virtue. Those who maintain the lawfulness of these pursuits, deem the objections advanced by their opponents destitute of reason, and to originate either in narrow-mindedness, or in the affectation of superior sanctity; while on the other hand, those on whom the harsh censure is cast, have not been duly concerned to supply the rationale of their sentiments and conduct. In many instances it is deemed a sufficient ground of objection to fashionable amusements that they are the amusements of the world. No reason more injudicious can surely be alleged. Its absurdity, to every man of sense and reflection, is as palpable as its bigotry is

disgusting.

The slightest acquaintance with the principles of Christian virtue, is sufficient for the conviction, that they do not require their professors to avoid these amusements, merely because they are those of the world. It draws for itself, indeed, a line of demarcation, not for party distinction, but for the preservation of its purity. It enjoins separation, not from the world, but from its improprieties. The beneficent Creator has scattered in our path a profusion of enjoyments, which he designs to be common to his rational creatures, and a refusal of these blessings, because others partake of them, involves both folly and sin. The important relation which subsists between innocent enjoyment and personal virtue, renders every attempt to multiply the sources of the former, not only legitimate, but laudable. If the benevolence of the Deity-a distinguishing attribute of his nature-is met in our happiness, then is it a law of virtue that every means for the increase of happiness should be sought. The sentiment has often been

abused, but it nevertheless forms a maxim both correct and weighty, that

God is paid when man receives;

To enjoy is to obey.*

But there is another point of contact between virtue and happiness. By multiplying sources of innocent gratification, the desire to partake of unlawful pleasures is weakened. It is evident, that the power which any temptation possesses, depends on the degree of supposed good which it contains. No temptation would be such did it not possess qualities apparently desirable; and in proportion as it possesses these qualities, it becomes influential. The mind is never in a state less liable to seduction, than when already in possession of virtuous pleasure. When removed from the means of gratification, and when moral principle forms the only defence, temptations well timed and well chosen, may make successful advances; but when the heart is already occupied by inno

* Pope's Universal Prayer.

cent enjoyments, it is removed from the desire of unlawful gratification, and consequently escapes the danger. Pleasure, moreover, in a well-constituted mind, is the parent of gratitude; gratitude is the mainspring of obedience, and forms the strongest stimulus to moral advances.

Not to turn human brutal, but to build
Divine on human, pleasure came from heaven.
In aid to reason was the goddess sent,
To call up all its strength by such a charm.
Pleasure first succours virtue; in return,
Virtue gives pleasure an eternal reign.*

Hence it follows, that to interdict any gratification, unless it is expressly forbidden, or is apparently dangerous, becomes not only undue severity, but positive criminality. The stoic is an enemy at once to happiness and virtue.

Another reason why many persons object to participate in fashionable amusements is, that abstinence from such pur

* Young's Night Thoughts.

suits forms, in their opinion, the distinguishing characteristic of the professors of religion. This objection possesses all the weakness and absurdity of the former. Is it possible that the differences between the religious and irreligious part of society are so few or so slight as to occasion danger of their being mistaken or unobserved? Is religion a mere profession, to designate which some arbitrary badge must be invented and appropriated, either like the symbols of office or honourable title? Surely if religion is anything, its genius is peculiar, and those who live under its influence will naturally and necessarily exhibit its characteristics; there needs therefore no arbitrary line of demarcation to separate them from the rest of the world; and if any has been drawn, it cannot be too soon erased.

Nor does the weakness and absurdity of such objections to popular amusements render them injudicious merely; but also, by exposing their advocates to ridicule