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 Tillitson, 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 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 religions 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.


SECT. II.

_Theatre forbidden by the Quakers on account of the manner of the
drama--first, as it personates the character of others--secondly, as it
professes to reform vice_.