zation of the times. But it does not appear, by any historical testimony we have, that a change has been made, which is at all proportioned to the quantity of moral light, which has been diffused among us since that reign. Archbishop Tillotson was of opinion "that plays might be so framed, and they might be governed by such rules, as not only to be innocently diverting, but instructive and useful, to put some follies and vices out of countenance, which could not, perhaps, be so decently reproved, nor so effectually exposed or corrected any other way." And yet he confesses that "they were so full of profaneness, and that they instilled such bad principles into the mind, in his own day, that they ought not to have been tolerated in any civilized, and much less in a Christian nation." William Law, an eminent divine of the establishment, who lived after Tillotson, declared, in one of his publications on the subject of the stage, that " you could not then see a play

in either house but what abounded with thoughts, passages, and language, contrary to the Christian religion." From the time of William Law to the present about forty

7

years

years have elapsed, and we do not see, if we consult the controversial writers on the subject who live among us, that the theatre has become much less objectionable since those days. Indeed, if the names only of our modern plays were to be collected and published, they would teach us to augur very unfavourably as to the morality of their contents. The Quakers, therefore, as a religious body, have seen no reason why they should differ in opinion from their ancestors on this subject and hence the prohibition, which began in former times with respect to the theatre, is continued by them at the present day.

SECTION II.

Theatre forbidden by the Quakers on account of the manner of the drama; first as it personates the characters of others; secondly, as it professes to reform vice.

THE Quakers have many reasons to give, why, as a Society of Christians, they cannot encourage the theatre by being present at

any

of its exhibitions.

I shall not detail all

any

of them for the reader, but shall select such as I think most material to the point.

The first class of arguments comprehends such as relate to what may be called the Manner of the Drama.

They object to the manner of the drama, or to its fictitious nature, in consequence of which men personate characters that are not their own. This personification they hold to be injurious to the man, who is compelled to practise it. Not that he will partake of the bad passions which he personates, but that the trick and trade of representing, what he does not feel, must make him at all times an actor; and his looks, and words, and actions, will be all sophisticated. And this evil will be likely to continue with him in the various changes of his life.

They hold it also to be contrary to the spirit of Christianity. For For men, who personate characters in this way, express joy and grief, when in reality there may be none of these feelings in their hearts. They express noble sentiments, when their whole lives may have been remarkable for their

meanness,

meanness, and

go

often afterwards and wallow in sensual delights. They personate the virtuous character to-day, and perhaps tomorrow that of the rake. And, in the latter case, they utter his profligate sentiments, and speak his profane language. Now Christianity requires simplicity and truth. It allows no man to pretend to be what he is not. And it requires great circumspection of its followers with respect to what they may utter, because it makes every man accountable for his idle words.

The Quakers, therefore, are of opinion that they cannot, as men either professing Christian tenets or Christian love, encourage others to assume false characters, or to personate those which are not their own*.

They object also to the manner of the drama, even where it professes to be a school for morals. For where it teaches morality, it inculcates rather the loose virtue of hea

* Rousseau condemns the stage upon the same principle. "It is," says he, "the art of dissimulation; of assuming a foreign character, and of appearing differently from what a man really is; of flying into a pas sion without a cause, and of saying what he does not think as naurally as if he really did : in a word, of forgetting himself, to personate others."

thenism

thenism than the strict though mild discipline of the Gospel: and where it attempts to extirpate vice, it does it rather by making it ridiculous, than by making men shun it for the love of virtue. It no where fixes the deep Christian principle, by which men are bound to avoid it as sin, but places the propriety of the dereliction of it rather upon the loss of reputation among the world than upon any sense of religious duty.

SECTION III.

Theatre forbidden on account of the internal contents of the drama; both of those of tragedy and of comedy-These contents hold out false morals and prospects, and weaken the sinews of morality-Observations of Lord Kaimes upon the subject.

THE next class of arguments is taken from the Internal Contents of the Drama.

The Quakers mean that dramatic compositions generally contain false sentiments; that is, such as Christianity would disapprove; that of course they hold out false

prospects;