connected with it, that they must invariably go together, which is supposed to be the case where it is introduced into the ball-room, he will have no difficulty in pronouncing that, in this case, it is objectionable as a christian recreation.  For it cannot be doubted that it has an immediate tendency, in this case, to produce a frivolous levity, to generate vanity and pride, and to call up passions of the malevolent kind.  Now in this point of view it is, that the Quakers generally consider dancing.  They never view it, as I observed before, abstractedly, or solely by itself.  They have therefore forbidden it to their society, believing it to be the duty of a Christian to be serious in his conversation and deportment; to afford an example of humility; and to be watchful and diligent in the subjugation of his evil passions.

CHAP.  VI.

Novels—­novels forbidden—­their fictitious nature no argument against them—­arguments of the Quakers are, that they produce an affectation knowledge—­a romantic spirit—­and a perverted morality—­and that by creating an indisposition towards other kinds of reading, they prevent moral improvement and real delight of mind—­hence novel-reading more pernicious than many other amusements.

Among the prohibitions, which the Quakers have adopted in their moral education, as barriers against vice, or as preservatives of virtue, I shall consider that next, which relates to the perusal of improper books.  George Fox seems to have forgotten nothing, that was connected with the morals of the society.  He was anxious for the purity of its character, he seemed afraid of every wind that blew, lest it should bring some noxious vapour to defile it.  And as those things which were spoken or represented, might corrupt the mind, so those which were written and printed, might equally corrupt it also.  He recommended therefore, that the youth of his newly formed society should abstain from the reading of romances.  William Penn and others, expressed the same sentiments on this subject.  And the same opinion has been held by the Quakers, as a body of christians, down to the present day.  Hence novels, as a particular species of romance, and as that which is considered as of the worst tendency, have been particularly marked for prohibition.

Some Quakers have been inclined to think, that novels ought to be rejected on account of the fictitious nature of their contents.  But this consideration is, by no means, generally adopted by the society, as an argument against them.  Nor would it be a sound argument, if it were.  If novels contain no evil within themselves, or have no evil tendency, the mere circumstance of the subject, names or characters being feigned, will not stamp them as censurable.  Such fiction will not be like the fiction of the drama, where men act and personate characters that are not their own.  Different men, in different ages of