be deserving of the name of Christians at all. Such an assertion might have been made once, but we think few would venture to maintain it now. We can hardly think that the many eminent ministers of the gospel, of all denominations, who have already sig. nified their intention to take part in the demonstration, have done so without considering carefully what they were about. But be this as it may, the argument rests upon a firmer basis. As an honest man, painting man faithfully, affording us innocent amusement, immense gratification, and invaluable moral lessons, we think members of Christian churches not only can consistently take part in the demonstration to Shakspere, but that if they follow the precept of rendering to every man his due, they are bound to do so. R. S.

NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-I.

THE fact of the question which stands at the head of this article being suggested for debate, is of itself sufficient to show the low state of religion at the present time; were there much vital godliness existent in the great body of professing Christians, there would be no need to discuss the question :- "Can members of Christian churches consistently take part in the Shakspere tercentenary?" but that question would at once be met with a decided and unanimous negative. It is the low view of what constitutes a Christian, which is so prevalent in this day, that makes it possible for the question now discussed to be a debatable point. A national establishment of religion has long fostered that false notion, that all members of that establishment are Christians, while Nonconformists are fast following in the wake of the Established Church. The standard of Christianity which is set up is low enough for any one who is not notoriously wicked to come up to, though he may know no more of what constitutes true religion than does the pen with which we write. The scriptural description of a Christian is lost sight of and ignored; indeed, many who profess to be Christians are not aware of the description given in the Bible of what a Christian is, and how he ought to live and act. The consequence is, that a man is thought to be a Christian, though he be as deeply sunk in the spirit and practices of the world as those who make no profession of religion; and it is a prevalent feeling, that a Christian may lawfully indulge in worldly vanities and pleasures.

I. We propose to notice some of the characteristics of true Christians; also what they are required to be, and how they are required to act. In doing this, we must use the only unerring standard-the word of God. That book of books tells us that Christ's end in giving Himself for men was to purify unto Himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works (Titus ii. 14). It tells us that pure religion is for a man to keep himself unspotted from the world (James i. 27). It likewise shows us that the friendship of the world is enmity with God, and that a friend of the world is the enemy of

God; also, that if a man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him (James iv. 4.; 1 John ii. 15). The precepts given in Scripture to Christians are as follows:-"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." "Be not conformed to this world." 66 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing." "Abstain from all appearance of evil." 'Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world." Other precepts of a similar nature may be found, but those given above are amply sufficient for our present purpose.

66

II. We notice some of the features of the works of Shakspere. Here we confess to having read none of them, and never to have seen any of his plays performed. This may be thought to incapacitate us for judging of his works; but to obviate this objection, we wish to state that we should not consider the greatest excellences that his works may, unknown to us, contain, to be any compensation for their known evils. Though we have never read Shakspere's works, yet we can adduce trustworthy evidence as to their nature and tendencies. The affirmative writers will not dispute the existence, in Shakspere's works, of what we consider to be great evils, though as respects the evil character of those things we possibly may differ.

In noticing some of the evils contained in the works of Shakspere, we observe that "Much Ado about Nothing," "Love's Labour's Lost," "Merchant of Venice," ""All's well that Ends well," "Taming of the Shrew," and others, contain irreverent mention of the name of God, thus violating the command, 'Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain." Many of the scenes in Shakspere's plays contain gross impurities of speech, which can only have an immoral tendency. "Measure for Measure," "Antony and Cleopatra,' "Venus and Adonis," with others, may be adduced as instances. The tendency of the "Merry Wives of Windsor " is most evil. In it lustful desires are familiarly alluded to and jocosely treated. Its tendency is to teach that adultery is a trifle, and that morality and virtue are things of small consequence. Dr. Johnson writes of Shakspere thus:-" Shakspere, with his excellences, has likewise faults, and faults sufficient to obscure and overwhelm any other merit. He sacrifices virtue to convenience, and is so much more careful to please than to instruct, that he seems to write without any moral purpose." But it will be said that we are dwelling on the worst features of Shakspere, while we omit to notice such as are commendable. In his favour it may be alleged that his writings contain many great and noble ideas, which deserve to be read by all. To this we reply, that a dish of the most solid and excellent food is entirely vitiated by its containing a few grains of arsenic; and it is with the works of Shakspere as with some publications of the present day, which contain many things worthy of being read and noted, yet, being pervaded by matter of a licen

tious tendency, their effects are positively unwholesome and injurious, in spite of all that they contain which is good.

III. Having seen what is the scriptural description of Christians, and how they are enjoined by the word of God to live and act, and having also shown the nature and tendencies of the productions of Shakspere, our task is now easy to show the inconsistency and unjustifiableness of members of Christian churches taking part in the Shakspere tercentenary movement.

1. The descriptions given us in the Scriptures of Christians would not lead us to suppose them to be persons taking part in the Shakspere tercentenary movement, nor is their doing so consistent with the descriptions of character which are given of them in the word of God. We have seen that Christ gave Himself for them, to make them a peculiar people, zealous of good works; but where is their peculiarity in uniting with the multitude to celebrate the Shakspere tercentenary? It is a prominent feature of the times that there exists a strong and wide-spread desire to do away with all peculiarity on the part of Christians, and to bring them to assimilate themselves to those who make no profession of religion, and to amalgamate with them, thus being guilty of manifest inconsistency with the description given of a Christian in the Bible. We find the statement of Scripture to be that it is pure religion for a man to keep himself unspotted from the world; that the friendship of the world is enmity with God; that a friend of the world is the enemy of God; and that if a man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. Now, as taking part in the Shakspere tercentenary movement is not keeping unspotted from the world, as taking part in that movement is manifestly and glaringly an act of friendship with the world, and therefore of enmity with God, it cannot possibly be consistent for members of Christian churches to take part therein.

2. The precepts given to Christians in the Bible are such as positively prohibit their joining in such a movement as that of the Shakspere tercentenary. They are commanded to let their light so shine before men, that men may see their good works, and glorify their Father who is in heaven. When the conduct of Christians is such that men are constrained to acknowledge that their profession and their practice correspond, God is glorified by that acknowledg ment, but such an acknowledgment cannot be extorted by Christians uniting in the Shakspere tercentenary movement. They are bidden to be not conformed to this world. No one can deny that taking part in the movement to which this debate refers is an act of conformity to the world. Indeed, without altering the signification of the question, its terms might be changed so as to stand thus:Can members of Christian churches consistently be conformed to the world? A statement of the question in these words would at once show an affirmative answer to be plainly contradictory of the word of God. Christians are commanded to come out from the ungodly, and be separate; yet in the face of this precept, the

question we now discuss asks whether Christians can consistently unite and mix with those from whom the Bible commands them to separate themselves.

3. The works of Shakspere are of such a character that members of Christian churches cannot consistently take part in the tercentenary movement. We have seen that they repeatedly treat the name of God with levity, and irreverence, also that they contain gross impurities, the tendency of which can only be immoral. To take part in the tercentenary movement would certainly be in practice asserting that the works of Shakspere are of such a nature that Christians can consistently celebrate the fact of such works having been produced.

But are irreverence toward God, lewdness, and immorality, things the existence of which can be consistently celebrated by Christians? Taking part in the movement referred to will be giving a public sanction to those works with all their gross evils. Here, again, we may be met with the objection that Shakspere's works contain much good. We do not doubt it; but as in some public entertainment there may be much that is unobjectionable, and even desirable, yet, the unobjectionable part of the entertainment having mingled with it that which is of an evil tendency, persons under the influence of a healthy feeling are constrained to reject the good on account of the evil with which it is mixed. A printed sermon may consist chiefly of matter which is true and excellent, yet contain error of such magnitude and awfulness as to make it fit only for the fire, and render it unsuitable for putting into the hands of any individual.

4. Christians cannot take part in the Shakspere tercentenary movement without thereby sanctioning the stage, with all its attendant evils,-evils which comprehend indecent expressions, licentious gestures, immoral suggestions, profanity, blasphemy, the congregating together of persons destitute of virtue, and a host more. We adduce the sayings of a few great minds for the purpose of showing that there has ever been a strong feeling in the breasts of the wise and virtuous against the performances of the stage. Tillotson remarks, "As the stage now is, plays are intolerable, and not fit to be permitted in any civilized, much less Christian nation. They do most notoriously minister both to infidelity and vice." Plato says, Plays raise the passions, and pervert the use of them; and of consequence are dangerous to morality." Aristotle remarks, "The seeing of comedies ought to be forbidden to young people, until age and discipline have made them proof against debauchery." Tacitus says, "The German women are guarded against danger, and preserve their purity, by having no playhouses among them." A clergyman who, though an advocate for the stage, writes as follows, may also be produced as a witness :- "It cannot be denied but that it has been long the fashion, and which has lately grown to a rank excess, to contaminate the language of the drama with a mixture of ribaldry and obscenity, and a profusion of

66

all the contemptible equivocations of indecency. For these no excuse can be pleaded; they tend directly to corrupt the heart and to vitiate the moral sentiments. They profane the sacredness of modesty, and they wither that nice sensibility to the blush of shame which, when on particular occasions it shows its delicate tints on the cheek of youth and beauty, is inexpressibly captivating." A writer in the British Controversialist once remarked of Shakspere, "I am not so puritanical as to miss the reading of his works; but neither am I so carried away with the force and splendour of his wit and genius, but that I can dare venture to say that even our great bard is a dangerous author to read, and many of his plays not fit to be exhibited as he wrote them." All the evils here alluded to will be tacitly sanctioned by those members of Christian churches who take part in the Shakspere tercentenary movement.

5. The publicity of the movement now discussed is an additional objection to its being taken part in by members of Christian churches. We would not for a moment wink at sinning in secret. We would not drop a hint implying that if the appearance of evil be but abstained from, sufficient is done. It is peculiarly nauseating to know that some maintain a decent appearance before their fellow-men, while they are in secret daily practising deceit, dishonesty, and other crimes. Yet there is something which greatly disgusts in a bold, open, shameless, flaunting display of evil in doing wrong, and saying, in the manner of doing it, "We care not who knows it;" and in the present instance it will show not only a disregard of wrong-doing, but a disregard, also, of bringing reproach on the name of Jesus, and of giving men an opportunity of saying, "These professors of religion pretend to be dead to the world, to be spiritually-minded, and to be seeking things which are above; yet, see, they like vanities as well as we do, and do not hesitate to seek them openly and unblushingly: their religion, therefore, is a mere pretence.'

6. The terms of the question discussed are not, Can Christians consistently take part in the Shakspere tercentenary movement? but, Can members of Christian churches do so? All Christians have weighty obligations attaching to them, but members of christian churches have additional obligations; for besides those connected with the unspeakable debt which they owe to God, there are those which they owe to the church of which they are members, the comfort and interest of which they are bound to seek, and the welfare of which they professed to be concerned about when they became united to it. Let it be remembered that members of churches cannot bring reproach on themselves without bringing the same on all the individuals of the church of which they form a part. We believe we have not failed to show the inconsistency of members of Christian churches taking part in the Shakspere tercentenary movement; and if those members feel rightly about their profession and position, the celebration here alluded to will be marked by their absence.

S. S.