But the stage, in the time of Charles the second, when the Quakers first appeared in the world, was in a worse state than even in the Grecian or Roman times.  If there was ever a period in any country, when it was noted as the school of profligate and corrupt morals, it was in this reign.  George Fox therefore, as a christian reformer, could not be supposed to be behind the heathen philosophers, in a case where morality was concerned.  Accordingly we find him protesting publicly against all such spectacles.  In this protest, he was joined by Robert Barclay and William Penn, two of the greatest men of those times, who in their respective publications attacked them with great spirit.  These publications shewed the sentiments of the Quakers, as a religious body, upon this subject.  It was understood that no Quaker could be present at amusements of this sort.  And this idea was confirmed by the sentiments and advices of several of the most religious members, which were delivered on public occasions.  By means of these publications and advices the subject was kept alive, till it became at length incorporated into the religious discipline of the Quakers.  The theatre was then specifically forbidden; and an inquiry was annually to be made from thenceforward, whether any of the members of the society had been found violating the prohibition.

Since the time of Charles the second, when George Fox entered his protest against exhibitions of this sort, it must certainly be confessed, that an alteration has taken place for the better in the constitution of our plays, and that poison is not diffused into morals, by means of them, to an equal extent, as at that period.  The mischief has been considerably circumscribed by legal inspection, and, it is to be hoped, by the improved civilization 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 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