MR. Congreve being a Person of no great Ceremony, I shan't salute him with any Introdu­ction; but fall to the Business without more Ado. This Gentleman pre­tends to turn some of my Expressions up­on me. If these Passages, says he, produced by Mr. Collier are obscene and profane, Amend. p. 5. ‘why are they raked in and disturb'd, unless it be to conjure up Vice, and revive Impu­rities, &c.’ I can't think Mr. Congreve so injudicious as to believe this Citation a jot to his purpose. But I plainly per­ceive he Presumes all along upon the weakness, or partiality of his Reader: Which by the way, is no great Compli­ment. [Page 2] However, to say something di­rectly. Had these obnoxious Passages lain hid in a Learned Language, and been lock'd up in Latin, like Iuvenal, I would no more have let them loose in a Transla­tion, than unchain'd the Tyger at Bartholo­mew Fair: But since the Mischief works in English, 't [...]s time to think of an English Remedy. B [...]des, as to the Smut, I have endeavour'd not to disoblige the Paper with any of it. But to show the Accusa­tion just, I made a general Reference to Play, and Character: And sometimes up­on a special Occasion; have mark'd the Page. Indeed to have transcrib'd it at length, would not only have been an im­proper, but a tedious Employment.

I was sensible the Poets would try to make their Advantage, of this Necessary Reserv'dness, that They would deny the Fact, because the Proof was not particu­lar, and spoken out. But since the Rea­der is directed to the Evidence, he may disappoint them in this Evasion, if he pleases. The profane Part, tho' Bolder, and more Black, will bear the Light bet­ter, and therefore when 'twas clear of Obscenity, I have set it to the Bar. Up­on the whole; I was willing to Guard the Virtue, and awaken the Caution of the Reader: And by the safest Methods [Page 3] I could think of, to give check to the Complicated Infection.

He affirms I call the Stage-Poets, Amend. p. 6. Buf­foons and Slaves; for this he Quotes 81, 63, and 175 Pages of the View, &c. Let us examine his Proof: The place in the 63 Page is a Censure of a Profane and Smutty Passage in the Old Batchelour: In which I have said that Fondlewife's making Sport with Adultery, in the manner de­scrib'd, was a Fit of Buffoonry and Pro­faneness. Now to say this of a Character in the Play, is I suppose pretty Different from calling the Poet Buffoon. In the 81 Page, after I had produced a large Roll of Blasphemy, and Scripture-Abuse against the Stage; I thought I had reason to be somewhat concern'd; to see the Christian Religion thus horribly outraged, made the Diversion of the Town, and the scorn of Buffoons: I'm mistaken if this Occasion would not justify a little severity of Lan­guage: And till Mr. Congreve can dis­prove the Charge, he had much better Repent, than Complain: However there's no necessity he should take that Word to himself, unless he thinks he deserves it▪ For it may be applied to the Actors, or some few Libertines in the Audience, and then his Objection is spoil'd. His

[Page 4]3d. Instance stands in Page 175th of the View, &c. Here upon their unpresi­dented Familiarity with the Lords; I de­sired to know whether our Stage had a particular Privilege? Was their Charter enlarg'd; and were they on the same Foot of Freedom with the Slaves in the Saturna­lia? Here Mr. Congreve is positive I call the Poets Slaves: 'Tis well when his Hand was in; He did not charge me with calling them Saturnalia: But which way do I call them Slaves? Why because I said, They were very Free. Is Liber­ty then always fasten'd to a Chain; and Familiarity a proof of Servitude? The Resemblance in the Question respects Be­haviour more than Condition, and implies nothing farther than general Inequality. Now I hope 'tis no affront to the Stage, to suppose them Inferior to the House of Lords. His remaining Instance from my Preface, is much like This; and requires no farther Answer.

Thus Mr. Congreve may perceive I have call'd him no Names hitherto; But now he may be assured I should have distin­guish'd his Character a little, and paid him some proper Acknowledgments, but that I have no Inclination for his way of Disputing: Railing is a mean, and un­christian Talent, and oftentimes a sign of [Page 5] a desperate Cause, and a desperate Con­science.

As to the bad Imputations these Stage-Advocates would throw upon me, I am not in the least disturb'd at Them. I thank God, they are not only without Truth, but without Colour. Could They have made the Slander passable, we should have heard farther from them. This is an admirable way of answering Books! All that I shall say to't is, that I pity the Men, and despite the Malice. To pro­ceed. Mr. Congreve is now making Out-works to fortify the Garison. He lays down four Rules as the Test of Criticism and Comedy.p. 7. P. 12. These He calls Postulata, as if they were Principles of Science, and car­ried the Evidence of an Axiom. And af­ter he has spent some Pages in setting down these Demonstrative Things, he frankly tells us, they seem at first Sight to comprehend a Latitude. Ibid. Do they so? Then they are not Self-evident; They are un­qualifyed for the Post he has put them in; and prove nothing but Sophistry and Le­gerdemain. Well! What tho' these Rul [...]s are false in themselves, Mr. Congreve pro­mises to make them True before he has done with them.Ibid. For they shall be so limited, and restrain'd, and used with such Discretion; that the Reader shall be per­fectly [Page 6] indemnifyed. However, I can't help suspecting these fair Words: For if He intends to deal clearly, why does he make the Touchstone faulty, and the Standard uncertain? For these reasons, I must examine for my Self; And since he owns his Propositions not evidently true, I'll try if I can't prove the greatest part of them evidently false.

To begin with him. His Latitude of Comedy upon Aristotle's Definition;P. 7. as he Explains it, wont pass without Limita­tion. For

1st. His Construction of [...] is very questionable. These Words may as properly be Translated the Com­mon, as the worst Sort of People. And thus Hesychius interprets [...] by [...].

2ly. Comedy is distinguish'd from Trage­dy by the Quality of the Persons, as well as by other Circumstances.Lib. de Poet. cap. 4. Aristotle in­forms us that the Appearance, Characters, or Persons are greater in Tragedy, than in Comedy. [...]. And to this Sense Petitus interprets the Words [...],In not. ad Lib. Arist. de Poet. cap. [...]. affirming they ought to relate to Quality, as well as Manners.

Now as the Business of Tragedy is to repre [...]ent Princes and Persons of Quality; so by the Laws of Distinction, Comedy [Page 7] ought to be confin'd to the ordinary. Rank of Mankind.Scali [...] Poet. Lib. 1. c. 6. And that Aristotle ought to be thus interpreted appears from the Form of New Comedy, set up in the Time of this Philosopher. And tho' we have none of these Comedies extant, 'tis agreed by the Criticks that they did not meddle with Government and Great Peo­ple; The Old Comedy being put down up­on this Score. And tho' Menander and the rest of that Set are lost, we may guess at their Conduct from the Plays of Plau­tus [...]nd Terence, in all which there is not so much as one Person of Quality repre­sented.

Farther, Mr. Congreve's Reason why Aristotle should be interpreted by Man­ners, and not Quality is inconclusive. His remark on [...] will serve as well the other way. Lets try it a little: Aristotle shall say then that Comedy is an imitation of the ordinary, and middle sort of People, but not [...], in eve­ry branch and aggravation of Vice;Amend. p. 8. for as Mr. Congreve observes, there are Crimes too daring and too horrid for Comedy. Now I desire to know, if this Sense is not clear and unembarrass'd, if it does not distin­guish Comedy from Tragedy, and bring down the Definition to Matter of Fact?

[Page 8]But granting Mr. Congreve his Defini­tion; all Blemishes and Instances of Scan­dal are not fit to make sport with. Co­vetousness, and Profusion; Cowardize, Spleen, and Singularity, well managed, might possibly do. But some Vices Mr. Congreve confesses are too daring for Come­dy. Yes and for Tragedy too. And among these I'll venture to say Profaneness is one. This Liberty even Aristotle durst not al­low: He knew the Government of A­thens would not endure it. And that some of the Poets had been call'd to ac­count upon this Score.Vit. Eurip. Ed. Cant.

2ly. Immodesty and lewd Talking, is another part of Vice which ought not to appear in Comedy. Aristotle blames the Old Comedians for this sort of Mismanage­ment; and adds, that intemperate Rallying ought to lie under publick Restraint.See View, &c. p. 159.160. And therefore Mr. Congreve is mistaken in his Consequence if he makes it general. For the looser sort of Livers, as to the Foul­ness of Conversation,Amend. p. 8. are no proper Sub­ject of Comedy.

But supposing Aristotle more liberal to Mr. Congreve, what service would it do him? Does not Christianity refine the Pleasures, and abridge the Liberties of Heathenism?Ephes. 5.3, 4. St. Paul bids us put away all filthyness and foolish talking, and that such [Page 9] things ought not so much as to be named amongst Christians. Colos. 3.8. And when Revelati­on says one thing, and Paganism another, how are we to determine? Is not an Apo­stle's Testimony more cogent than that of a Philosopher, and the New Testament above all the Rules of Aristotle and Ho­race?

Thus we see his first Postulatum is far from being true in the Generality stated by him.

Before I part with him on this Head, I can't but take notice of his saying,P. 8. that the Business of Comedy is to delight, as well as instruct: If he means as much, by as well, View, &c. cap. 4. he is mistaken. For Delight is but the secondary End of Comedy, as I have prov'd at large. And to satisfy him far­ther, I'll give him one Testimony more of Mr. Dryden's. 'Tis in his Preface to Fresnoy's Art of Painting. P. XX. Here he informs us that as to Delight the parallel of the (two) Arts holds true; with this difference; That the principal End of Painting is to please, and the chief design of Poetry is to in­struct.

Thus Mr. Congreve's first Rule signi­fies little; And therefore his Second being, but a consequence of it, must fall of Course. Pleasure, especially the Pleasure of Liber­tines, is not the Supreme Law of Comedy. [Page 10] Vice must be under Discipline and Dis­countenance, and Folly shown with great Caution and Reserve. Lussious Descrip­tions, and Common Places of Lewdness are unpardonable. They affront the vir­tuous, and debauch the unwary, and are a scandal to the Country where they are suffer'd. The pretence of Nature, and Imitation, is a lamentable Plea. With­out doubt there's a great deal of Nature in the most brutal Practices. The infa­mous Stews 'tis likely talk in their own way, and keep up to their Character. But what Person of probity would visit them for their Propriety, or take Poyson be­cause 'tis true in its kind? All Characters of Immodesty (if there must be any such) should only be hinted in remote Langu­age, and thrown off in Generals.

If there must be Strumpets, let Bridewell be the Scene. Let them come not to Prate, but to be Punish'd. To give Success, and Reputation to a Stage Libertine, is a sign either of Ignorance, of Lewdness, or A­theism, or altogether. Even those Instan­ces which will bear the relating ought to be punish'd. But as for Smut and Pro­faneness, 'tis every way Criminal and In­fectious, and no Discipline can atone for the Representation:Amend. p. 11. When a Poet will venture on these Liberties, his Perswasion [Page 11] must suffer, and his private Sentiments fall under Censure. For as Mr. Dryden right­ly observes, vita proba est, is no excuse: For 'twill scarcely be admitted that either a Poet or a Painter can be chast, Pref. to [...]resnoy. p. XXI. who give us the contrary Examples in their Writings, and their Pictures. I agree with Mr. Con­greve it would be very hard a Painter should be believ'd to resemble all the ugly Faces he draws. But if he suffers his Pencil to grow Licentious, if he gives us Obscenities, the Merits of Raphael won't excuse him: No, To do an ill Thing well, doubles the Fault. The Mischief rises with the Art, and the Man ought to smart in proporti­on to his Excellency:Pref. p. XX. Book. p. 56. 'Tis one of the Rules in Painting according to Mr. Dryden and Fresnoy; To avoid every Thing that's immoral and filthy, unseemly, impudent, and obscene. Ibid. p. XXI. And Mr. Dryden continues, that a Poet is bound up to the same Restraint, and ought neither to Design, or Colour an offensive Piece.

Mr. Congreve's 4th Proposition relates to the Holy Scriptures; And here he en­deavours to Fence against the Censure of Profaneness. He desires the following Di­stinction may be admitted, viz. when Words are applied to sacred Things, they ought to be understood accordingly: Amend. p. 11. But when they are otherwise applied, the Diversity of the Sub­ject [Page 12] gives a Diversity of Signification: By his favour this Distinction is loose, and nothing to the Purpose. The inspired Text is appropriated to Sacred Things, and never to be used but upon serious Oc­casions. The Weight of the Matter, and the Dignity of the Author, challenge our utmost regard. 'Tis only for the Service of the Sanctuary, and Privileged from com­mon Use. But Mr. Congreve says when they (the Words of Scripture) are other­wise applied, the Diversity of the Subject gives a Diversity of Signification. This is strange Stuff! Has Application so trans­forming a Quality, and does bare use en­ter so far into the Nature of Things? If a Man applies his Money to an ill Purpose, does this transmute the Metal, and make it none of the Kings Coin? To wrest an Author, and turn his Words into Jest, is it seems to have nothing to do with him. The meer Ridicule destroys the Quotation; and makes it belong to ano­ther Person. Thus 'tis impossible to Tra­verstie a Book, and Virgil was never bur­lesqu'd by Ausonius or Mr. Cotton! Not at all! They only made use of the 24 Letters, and happen'd to chop exactly up­on Virgil's Subject, his Words and Ver­sification. But 'tis plain they never in­tended to quote him: For Virgil is al­ways [Page 13] grave, and serious, but these Gentle­men apply, or translate the Words in the most different manner imaginable: And run always upon Buffoonry and Drolling. This is Mr. Congreve's Logick, and to abuse an Author is to have nothing to do with him. The Injury it seems destroys the Relation, and makes the Action perfect­ly foreign. And by this Reasoning one would think my Book had never been cited by Mr. Congreve.

To illustrate the Matter a little far­ther. Suppose the most solemn Acts of Government play'd the Fool with at Bartholomew Fair; The Judges Charge made up into a Farce, and the Poppets re­peating an Act of Parliament: Would it be a good excuse to alledge they meant nothing but a little Laughing. That the Bench and the Bear-Garden, Punchinello and the 2 Houses, had the same Alphabet in Common? That they ought to have the Privilege of Speech, and put their Words together as they had a mind to: Would not the Reason, and the Hardi­ness of such a Plea, be very extraordina­ry? The Case before us is much the same, only a great deal worse. For what can be more outrageously Wicked,Old Batch. p. 39.49. than to expose Religion to the Scorn of A­theism, to give up the Bible to Rakes and [Page 14] Strumpets, Love for Love. p. 59.61. Double Dealer. p. 18, &c. and to make Impudence and Inspiration speak the same Language? Thus the Wisdom of God is burlesqu'd, his Omnipotence play'd with, and Hea­ven's the Diversion of Hell. To reply, that tho' the Words are Scripture, the Sub­ject and Application are different, is to con­fess the Indictment, and give up the Cause. For pray what is it to burlesque a grave Author? Is it not to wrest his Meaning, and alter his Matter; to turn him into Jest and Levity, and put him under Circumstances of Contempt?

Thus we see his 4th Proposition is all Sophistry, and false Reasoning:

I shall now go back to his 3d, which I think would have stood as well in the last place. He desires the impartial Rea­der, not to consider any Expression or Pas­sage, cited from any Play, as it appears in my Book;P. 9.10. nor to pass any Sentence upon it out of its proper Scene, &c. For it must not be medled with when 'tis alienated from its Character. Well! Let the Rea­der compare his Plays with the View, &c. as much as he pleases. However, there's no necessity of passing through all his Forms, and Methods of prescribing. For if the Passage be truly cited, if the Sen­tence be full, and determin'd, why mayn't we understand it where'ere 'tis met with? [Page 15] Why must we read a Page for a Period? Can't a Plant be known without the History of the Garden? Besides, He may remember I have frequently hinted his Characters, touched upon their Quality and Fortune, and made them an Aggra­vation of his Fault.

But to silence this Plea, I had told him before that no pretence of Character, or Punishment, could justify Profaneness on the Stage. View. p. 96. I gave him my Reasons for't too, which he is not pleas'd to take notice of. To enlarge on them a little:

And here I desire to know what Ser­vice does Blasphemy, and Profaneness up­on the Stage? Is it to please, or to im­prove the Audience? Surely not the first: For what Pleasure can it be to see the greatest Being contemn'd, the best Friend ill treated, and the strongest Enemy pro­vok'd? The Iews used to rend their Cloaths at the hearing of Blasphemy, and is it now become the Entertainment of Christians? To see Men defy the Al­mighty, and play with Thunder, one would think should be far from Diversi­on. Are the Charms of Profaneness so strangely inviting, is there such Musick in an Oath, and are the Damn'd to be courted for their Company? The Stage is oftentimes a lively Emblem of Hell; [Page 16] There's the Language, and the Lewd­ness; There are the Devils too, and al­most every thing but the Darkness and Despair. These hideous Characters are generally Persons of Figure, often re­warded, seldom punish'd, and when they are, the Correction is strangely gentle and disproportion'd. 'Tis just as if a Man should be set in the Stocks for Murther, and shamed a little for firing a Town.

To say a Man has been Profane in ge­neral, and then to punish him is some­what Intelligible; To make him an Ex­ample without Instance, and Particulari­ty, is a safe way of Dramatick Justice: But when he is suffer'd to Act his Distra­ction, and practise before the Company, the Punishment comes too late. Such Malefactors are infectious, and kill at their very Execution. 'Tis much safer not to hear them talk, than to see them suffer. A bad Age is too apt to learn; and the Punishment in jest, brings on the Crime in earnest. Some Vices wont bear the naming: They are acted in some measure when they are spoken, and ap­prov'd when they are hearkn'd to. Thus the Play-House often spreads those Vices it represents, and the Humour of the Town is learn'd by shewing it. So that if Instruction is intended, nothing can be [Page 17] more Ignorant, if Diversion nothing more Wi [...]e [...]. To proceed. Profaneness by b [...] ­ing o [...]ten heard, is less abhorr'd. The av [...]rsion cools upon Custom, and the frightfulness of the Idea is abated. Fa­mil [...]arity reconc [...]les us to ill Sigh [...]s, and wea [...]s off the Deformity of a Monster. T [...]us by Cursing and Swearing, the Abuse of Scripture and Profane Jests, which are so frequent on the Stage, the Bold [...]ess of the Crime grows less remarkable, and the Terrors of Conscience are laid asleep: And if there happens to be Wit in the Ca [...]e, 'tis a Vehicle to the Poyson, and m [...]kes it go down with Pleasure. Thus young People are furnished with Profane Jests, and Atheism is kept in Countenance▪ The Majesty of Religion is weaken'd, and the Passions of Humane Nature misplaced: People laugh when they should tremble, and despise what they ought to adore. Had we a due regard for the Honour of God, and were Death and Judgment laid before us, that is, were we Christians in good earnest; these wretched Liberties would be all Pain, and Pennance to us: They'd wound the Sense, and chill the Blood, and make us sweat with Antipathy a [...]d Disgust: We should be seiz'd with a [...]i [...] of Horror, and almost frighten'd in­to Agony and Convulsion.

[Page 18]From what I have said 'twill follow, that provided Mr. Congreve is fairly cited for Smut, or Profaneness, Sentence may be passed without having recourse to Scene, or Character. I say it may be passed so far as to condemn him of a Fault; Tho' I confess the degrees, and aggravation of it, will in some measure depend on the Characters, and the Fortune of them.

I have done with Mr. Congreve's Pre­liminaries, and shown the unreasonable­ness of them. If he demands them as a Right, his Title is defeated, if he begs them as a Favour, he should have peti­tion'd in another Form. He should not have been so short with the Reader as to desire him to proceed no farther, Amend. [...] 7. but return to my View, &c. if he thought in his Con­science his few things too much to be granted. But why should this Gentleman put this hardship upon People, which he does not allow of himself? I suppose Mr. Congreve's Conscience may be large enough for any Reader, why then does he require any more? The Author thinks his few things, too much to be granted, and yet the Cour­teous Reader must think otherwise!P. 12. I say Mr. Congreve thinks them too much, why else does he engage to use them with such Caution, to muzzle, and bind them up to their good Behaviour?

[Page 19]Mr. Congreve proceeds to acquaint us how careful the Stage is for the Instructi­on of the Audience. P. 12, 13. That the Moral of the whole is generally summ'd in the concluding Lines of the Poem, and put into Rhyme that it may be easy and engaging to the Memory. To this I answer,

1st. That this Expedient is not always made use of. And not to trouble the Rea­der with many Instances, we have nothing of it in Love in a Nunnery, and the Re­lapse, both which Plays are in my Opini­on not a little dangerous.

2ly. Sometimes these Comprehensive Lines do more harm than good: They do so in the Souldiers Fortune: They do so likewise in the Old Batchelour; which instructs us to admirable purpose in these Words;

This Moral is uncourtly, and vitious, it encourages Lewdness, and agrees ex­treamly well with the Fable. Love for Love may have somewhat a better Fare­wel, but would do a Man little Service [Page 20] should he remember it to his dying Day. Here Angelica after a fit of Profane Va­nity in Prose, takes her Leave as follows;

This last Word is somewhat ambigu­ous, and with a little help may strike off into a light Sense. But take it at the best, 'tis not overloaden with Weight and Apothegme. A Ballad is every jot as sen­tentious.

3dly. Supposing the Moral grave, and unexceptionable, it amounts to little in the present Case. Alas! The Doctor comes too late for the Disease, and the Antidote is much too weak for the Poyson. When a Poet has flourished on an ill Subject for some Hours: When he has Larded his Scenes with Smut, and play'd his Jests on Religion; and exhausted himself upon Vice; what can a dry Line or two of good Counsel signify? The Tincture is taken, the Fancy is preingaged, and the Man is gone off into another Interest. Profane Wit, Luscious Expressions, and the handsome Appearance of a Libertine ▪ solicit strongly for Debauchery. These Things are mighty Recruits to Folly, and make the Will too hard for the Under­standing. [Page 21] A taste of Philosophy has a ve­ry flat relish, after so full an Entertain­ment. An agreeable Impression is not easily defaced by a single Stroak, especi­ally when 'tis worn deep by Force, and Repetition. And as the Aud [...]ence are not secur'd, so neither are the Poets this way. A Moral Sentence at the Close of a Lewd Play, is much like a pious Expression in the Mouth of a dying Man, who has been Wicked all his Life time. This some ignorant People call making a good End, as if one wise Word would attone for an Age of Folly. To return to the Stage. I suppose other parts of a Discourse be­sides the Conclusion, ought to be free from Infection. If a Man was Sound on­ly at his Fingers Ends, he would have little comfort in his Constitution. Bonum fi [...] ex integra causa; A good Action must have nothing bad. The Quality must be uniform, and reach to every Circumstance. In short. This Expedient of Mr. Con­grev [...]'s as 'tis insignificant to the purpose 'tis brought, so it looks very like a piece of formal Hypocricy: And seems to be made use of to conceal the Immorality of the Play, and cover the Poet from Cen­sure.

Mr. Congreve in the Double Dealer makes three of his Ladies Strumpets; This, I [Page 22] thought an odd Compliment to Quality. But my Reflection it seems is over severe. However, by his favour, the Characters in a Play ought to be drawn by Nature: To write otherwise is to make a Farce. The Stage therefore must be suppos'd an Image of the World, and Quality in Fi­ction resemble Quality in Life. This Resemblance should likewise hold in Number, as well as in other Respects, tho' not to a Mathematical Strictness. Thus in Plautus and Terence, the Slaves are generally represented false, and the Old Men easy and over credulous. Now if the Majority in these Divisions should not answer to the World; If the Drama should cross upon Conversation, the Poets would be to blame, as I believe they are in the later Instance. Thus when the greatest part of Quality are debauched on the Stage, 'tis a broad Innuendo they are no better in the Boxes.

This Argument he pretends proves too much, and would make us believe that by this way of reasoning, if four Women were shewn upon the Stage, and three of them were Vitious, it is as much as to say that three parts in four of the whole Sex are stark naught. I answer,P. 16. the Case is not parallel. The Representation in his Play turns more up­on Condition than Sex. 'Tis the Quali­ty [Page 23] which makes the Appearance, marks the Character, and points out to the Com­parison Abroad.

His Precedents from Virgil are unser­viceable upon two Accounts.

1st. The Fact is misreported. The Ca­talogue of ill Women in that Poem, is not so numerous as is pretended. Mr. Con­greve exempts four of them from this Charge, and I'll help him to four more. For Creusa and Lavinia are perfectly pas­sive; and over-ruled. Then as for Ca­milla, why is she Thrown into the black List, and ranged with Alecto and the Harpyes? What Decrees of the Gods does she despise? She stood by Latinus 'tis true, neither does the Poet oblige her to quit his Interest. So that for any thing that ap­pears, the Lady was a good Woman in her way. To these if we add Anna, Di­do's Sister, a very innocent Princess, I be­leive we may venture to Poll with Iuno, and all her Party.

2ly. His Matter of Fact as stated by himself, makes against him. For if Vir­gil did well in making most of his Female Characters faulty and exceptionable,Congr. p. 17 be­cause as Aristotle has ventur'd to affirm, there are more bad than good Women in the World, then there ought to be a propor­tion between Life and poetick Imitation; [Page 24] A Proportion even to Computation▪ tho' not just to equality and telling of Nos [...]. And thus his Illustration destroys his Ar­gument, even by the Authority of Ari­stotle and Bossu; and which is worst of all, by his own, who cites them with Appro­bation.

There's one unlucky thing behind: And that is his concurring with Aristotle in a very unceremonious Paradox.Ibid. This Phi­losopher has ventur'd to affirm that there are more bad▪ than good Women in the World. Very likely? If he had said there are more bad Men than good ones, the Discovery might have been altogether as considera­ble. But we are not yet at the end of the Indictment.Ibid. For as he goes on, The Wo­men (take them altogether) do more harm than good. Well. Aristotle was a bold Man: However, this is to be said for him; he was no Stage Poet. Had his concerns been with the Pit or Boxes, 'tis likely you had seen him better polish'd. But that Mr. Congreve should Countenance an Author in his Misbehaviour, and make his Court thus awkardly to the Ladies, is somewhat surprizing. Is this the way to oblige the Women, to tell them they do more harm than good in the World; that their Sex is a Publick Nusance, and an Errour in Cre­ation?

[Page 25]I had charg'd our Modern Dramatists, and particularly Mr. Congreve with being too free in exposing the Nobility under Characters of Lewdness and Contempt.View. p. 12, 175 This I observ'd was no Custom of the Roman Stage; And that Plautus and Te­rence, were much more courtly and re­serv'd. This Remark he endeavours to disprove from Persius and Iuvenal. Amend. p. 19. As how? Did these Authors write either Comedy or Tragedy, or have their Citations any Reference to the Drama? Not at all: Why then are they alledg'd? To what End is a foreign Character and Business haled in to determine upon the Stage? Well. But these Poets were Satyrists, and play'd their Invectives upon Quality, and is not this somewhat to the purpose? But very little. For,

1st. The Satyr of a Comedian and an other Poet, have a different Effect upon Reputation. A Character of Disadvan­tage upon the Stage, makes a stronger Im­pression than elsewhere. Reading is but Hearing at the second Hand: Now Hear­ing at the best, is a more languid Con­veyance than Sight. For as Horace ob­serves,

[Page 26] The Eye is much more affecting, and strikes deeper into the Memory than the Ear. Besides, Upon the Stage both the Senses are in Conjunction. The Life of the Action fortifies the Object, and awak­ens the Mind to take hold of it. Thus a dramatick Abuse is rivetted in the Audi­ence, a Jest is improv'd into an Argument, and rallying grows up into Reason: Thus a Character of Scandal becomes almost indelible, a Man goes for a Blockhead up­on Content; and he that's made a Fool in a Play, is often made one for his Life­time. 'Tis true he passes for such only amongst the prejudiced and unthinking; but these are no inconsiderable Division of Mankind. For these Reasons, I hum­bly conceive the Stage stands in need of a great deal of Discipline and Restraint: To give them an unlimited Range, is in effect to make them Masters of all Moral Distinctions, and to lay Honour and Re­ligion at their Mercy. To shew Great­ness ridiculous, is the way to lose the use, and abate the value of the Quality. Things made little in jest, will soon be so in earnest: For Laughing and Esteem, are seldom bestow'd on the same Object.

2ly. The Censures of Iuvenal and Per­sius, are very moderate, and remote in Mr. Congreve's Citations. [...]. [...]. Iuvenal comes [Page 27] somewhat the closest. He Rallies the Flattery and Partiality of the Times; and tells us that Gaming & Debauchery were Scandalous to little People; But when these Vices dwelt in great Houses, they chang'd Complexion, and grew Modish and Gentile. Thus we see the Poet keeps within the Terms of Respect, slides over the Quality, and points rather upon the Fortune of the Libertine. Now had Iu­venal written a Comedy, Double Dealer. laid the Scene in his own Country, Created a Lord a Coxcomb, and shewn him such for three hours together, his case had been some­what hard. But this branch of Satyr was left for Mr. Congreve's refining; who to do him right, has treated the Character with much Delicacy of fine Raillery,Amend. p. 27.and Ex­cellency of Good Manners, as he Phra [...]es it.

His Testimony from Rapin does not come up to his Point.View, & [...]. p. 175. For as I observ'd, Moliere Ridicules no Quality higher than a Marquis: Now, notwithstanding Mr. Dennis's Exclamation, a Marquis in France is much less than a Marquis in England, or a Baron either. This I take it is pret­ty plain from Moliere himself, for in his Play called, L'Impromtu de Versailles, Bre­court one of the Minor Nobless,P. 22.29. treats a Marquis with great Familiarity. He calls him Mon puavre Marquis, and Ie te promet [Page 28] Marquis; now this way of speaking is not Manners, unless to Equals, or Inferi­ors.

And in another Play, the Chevalier D [...] ­rante Converses with a Marquis upon Terms of Equality,Critique de Escole des Femmes. p. 286, 287. and Climene a Lady, salutes him only by the Title of Mon­sieur, whereas Monseigneur belongs to the Quality of an English Lord. The Ord [...]rs of the Bishop of Arras run in this Stile; And so likewise does the Address of two French Letters to the present Ld. Bishop of London, View, &c. p. 245. printed at the end of a Book called the Vnreason [...]bleness of Separation. Farther, Rapin seems to Cite L' Impromp­tu above-mentioned. Here M [...]li [...]r [...] in­forms us, that whereas Comedy former­ly plaid the Fool with none but Slaves and [...]erving-men, now the Case was al­ter'd, and there was no sport without a ridiculous Marquis. But as for making bold with People of Quality and the Court, this is all added by Rapin. However, granting this, the meaning and practice of Moliere, 'tis easily reconciled with the Sense I am contending for. For a Person of Quality does not sound so high in French as in English; the lower Nobless being often comprehended in this Distinction. Thus Moliere's Brecourt is called a Man of Quality in the List of the Characters, L'Improm­ptu. &c. [Page 29] but in the Play he is only Chevalier, or a Knight, at the best. And in his Play, called,p. 15.31. & alib. L' Bourgeois Gentil-Homme, a Per­son of Quality often means no more than a Gentleman. And to proceed, thus we may fairly understand the remainder of Rapin in Mr. Congreve's Citation. He tells us the other Po [...]ts Play'd only upon Common and Country Conversation, in their Comedies, Et Moliere a joue tout Paris et la Cour. La Cour, yes; but not toute la Cour. Here Rapin opposes, La vie Bourgeoise, Country Conversation, to the Court. Now un Bourgeoise signifies a Person of the Third Est [...]te, Furetiere. as distinguished from the Nobless, or Gentry. So that the meaning of the Passage seems to be no more, than that Moliere took some of his Fools from the Gentry, which was more than the Stage had done before. But after all, if Rapin has mis-reported Moliere, and given him more Liberty than he took, it makes no­thing to Mr. Congreve's purpose; for the force of the Testimony does not lye in what Rapin has said, but in what Moliere has written.

Mr. Congreve is so hardy as to affirm that I am in plain terms for having Com­plements pass'd on Persons of Quality, and nei­ther will allow their Follies, nor their Vi­ces to be exposed. This I confess is to be [Page 30] over-Ceremonious. But the best on't is, there's nothing like it in the whole Book. The very place quoted by Mr. Con­grieve is a proof of the Calumny: The Passage stands in the Form of a question thus.View, &c. p. 175. And can't they lash the Vice, with­out pointing upon the Quality? Which way of speaking, supposes it a very practi­cable business; unless this Gentleman will affirm that Folly, and Peerage, are Inse­parable. I would gladly know what over-straining of Ceremony, What Fla­tery is there in all this? I confess, I am of Opinion that all Satyr ought to have regard to Quality and Condition, and that Decency and Reproof should go together. I can't think it any Excellence of good Manners, to expose the Nobility in their Robes, to put Contempt among their Ti­tles, and to represent them in such a Man­ner, as if the Lord and the Fool, like Horse and Man, in a Centaur, grew naturally together.

Double Dealer p. 79. Amend. p. 22.Mr. Congreve proceeds in his Defence, and endeavors to wipe off the Imputati­on of Smut and Pedantry from Ld. Touch­wood; But here he Cites more than is ne­cessary: I had nothing to do with his Verses, as the Reader may easily Imagine. 'Twas the Prose part of Ld. Touchwood to which I Objected. And that I say still is [Page 31] foul in the Image, Embarrass'd with tri­fling Epithites, and ill suited to the Cha­racter. But thus by producing the In­nocent with the Guilty, he hoped to make the Charge appear unreasonable.

We are now come to the Mourning-Bride, and Mr. Congreve seems so well as­sur'd of the Decency of this Play, that he casts the whole Cause upon it.Amend. p. 23. If there be Immodesty in this Tragedy (says he) I must confess my self incapa [...]le of ever writing any thing with Modesty. It may be so: An ill Custom is very hard to Conquer, with some People. But setting this matter aside; I still charge Mr. Congreve with Immodesty;M. Bride, p. 36. 'tis in Osmin's last Speech in the Page above-mentioned. Indeed I did not Cite the words because I am not wil­ling to furnish the Reader with a Col­lection of Indecencies, to shew I design nothing but fair dealing: I always refer to the Play, and generally to the Chara­cter, and Page, where such Entertain­ment is to be met with. This is pressing the Charge as far as the Case will bear; But because the Passages are unfit to be shown, Mr. Congreve and his Brethren deny the Fact: A great Instance of their Modesty in another Sense. Is it Inno­cence then to be guilty of things too bad to be nam'd? What sort of Faults must [Page 32] those be, which won't endure the Light, tho only to punish them.

This Gentleman quarrels with me be­cause I would have had Almeria and Os­min parted Civilly;Amend. p. 24. as if it was not pro­per for Lovers to do so:Ibid. But Civility, [...]nd Incivility have nothing to do with Passion ▪ I deny that, Incivility and Passion, ar [...] often concern'd together; And I suppose his Amendments may make an Instance▪

By Civilly, I mean [...] only decently, as any one might easily imagine. And as for Tenderness, when it grows Rank, and Nauseous, 'tis Rudeness, I take it.

Mr. Congreve would excuse Osm [...]n's Rant, by saying, That most of the Inci­dents of the Poem of this Scene and the for­mer, were laid to prepare for the Violence of these Expressions. If it be so, I think the Play was not worth the Candle. 'Tis much as Wife as it would be for a Man to make a long Preparation to get out of his Wits, and quali [...]ie himself for Bedl [...]. For nothing can be more distracted than Osmin. He is for riving his clotted Hair, Smearing the Walls with his Blood, and dash­ing his disfigured Face against something.M. Bride p. 36. And a great deal more such stuff, as a Man may go to all the Mad-Houses in Town, and scarcely hear of. Was it worth Osmin's while to be thus Crazy, [Page 33] and are all Lovers to take a Pattern from this Hero? I am sorry Mr. Congreve was at all this trouble for a Prophane Allusion; but he is positive there's nothing either of Prophaneness or Immodesty in the Expression. Amend. P. 25. With Immodesty I did not Charge it: But is there nothing of Profaneness in bringing the most solemn Things in Religion upon the Stage; In making a Mad-man Rave about Heaven, and in comparing the dis­appointments of Love, with Damnation? The Lines shall appear once again.

Mr. Congreve does not know how these Verses are a Similitude drawn from the Creed ▪ P. 26. I can't help it. I thought the Eternal Punishment of the Damned had been part of of the Creed. Athan [...]s. Creed. I shan't untie such knots as these are for the future. He tells me I had but an ill hold of Profaneness in his Play, and was reduced to catch at the Poetry; And then makes a miserable jest about Corruption and Generation. Ibid. I had but ill hold of Pro­faneness! As ill as 'twas, he has not yet wrested it from me. 'Twas in my Pow­er besides to have taken better, and since he complains of gentle usage, I shall do it.

[Page 34] M. Bride p. 8, 9, 29, 41, 48.In the first place, here's frequent Swear­ing by Heaven; I suppose the Poets think this nothing, their Plays are so much land­ed with it. But our Saviour has given us an other Notion of this Liberty; He charges us not to Swear at all. And tells us expressly,St. Mat. 5.34. xxiii. 22. that He that swears by Hea­ven, swears by the Throne of God, and by him that sits thereon.

To go on to another Branch of his Irreligion. The Scene of this Play lies in Christendom, as is evident from the Hi­story, or Fable;P. 36. and to mention nothing more from Osmin's Rant: Let us see then how Osmin accosts Almeria, when he found her safe on Shore: Truly I think their Meeting is as extravagant, as their Part­ing, tho Mr. Congreve won't allow it should be so.Amend. P. 24. The Ceremony runs thus.

Thus the little successes of a pair of Lo­vers, are equall'd with the Glories of Heaven; And a Paultry Passion strain'd up to the Beatisick Vision. I say Pal­try, for so 'tis upon the Comparison. To go on. Almeria having somewhat of the Play-House Breeding, is resolved not to be wanting in the return of these [Page 35] Civilities. She therefore makes him a Glorified Saint for the first piece of Gra­titude, and then gives him a sort of Pow­er Paramount to Omnipotence, and tells him that God Almighty could not make her happy without him.

Almeria has another Flight, and shews the Rankness of her Wing every jot as much as in the former.

This is Mrs. Brides Complement, which both for the Religion and Decency is somewhat Extraordinary.

Manuel, a Christian Prince, upon the news of a Rival, Swaggers at a most Im­pious rate, Paganism was never bolder with Idols, nor Iupiter more brav'd by the Gyants. It runs thus.

And to make the matter worse, Mr. Congreve does not seem to think this A­theistical Sally a fault in Manuel. Amend. P. 30. He lets us know he has punish'd him for his Tyranny, but not a word of his Profane­ness.

Once more and I have done. Osmin's Caresses of Almeria are an Original in their kind.

Here's Ceremony to Adoration; He makes her his Supreme Happiness, and gives her Sovereign Worship: In short, This Respect is the Prerogative of Hea­ven. 'Tis flaming Wickedness to speak it to any thing less than God Almighty: And to set the Profaneness in the better Light, it runs all in devout Language, and Christian Transport.

I come now to the Vindication of his Poetry: Where in the first place, he Complains extreamly;Amend. P. 27. because I Mis­quoted Wasting Air, for Wasting Air. [Page 37] Now to my Mind, the restoring of the Text is a very poor relief. For this later Epithete is perfectly expletive and foreign to the matter in hand; there's neither Antithesis nor Perspicuity in't. It neither clears the Sense, nor gives Spirit to the Expression: Besides, the word is almost worn out of use, and were it otherwise, 'twould rather belong to the Water; For to waft a Fleet of Merchants is to Convoy them, but not, I suppose, through the Air: So that the Poet at best, seems to have mistaken his Element. However, I ask his Pardon for Transcribing an s, for and f, and expect he should ask mine; for putting Superstition upon me, and commenting upon his own Blunder,Amend. P. 44. when 'twas Printed Supposition in all the three Editions of my Book.

Mr. Congreve is now Cruizing for Re­prisals, and bears down boldly upon a whole Period. View, & p. 34. Amend. 29. This litter of Epithets, &c. He says this Comparison of mine is handsome. Why, so it may be for all his Disproof: Unless the standing of it in his Book is e­nough to make it ridiculous. I confess there may be something in that, for bad Company is often a disadvantage; besides, I was Illustrating his fine Sentences, and showing his Buckram to the Reader: Up­on this occasion a little singularity in the [Page 38] Expression was not unseasonable: How­ever I was sensible of it, and introduced it with Qualifying, and Caution.

Mr. Congreve in defence of some Lines of his Cited by me,View, &c. P. 33, 34. Amend. P. 30, 31. Answers, that the Diction of Poetry consists of Figures, and the frequent use of Epithets. I agree with him, but then the Figures should be unforc'd, drawn with Proportion,Aristotle's Rhet. L. 3. C. 2. and allyed to the matter in hand. The Epithets likewise must be Smooth, Natural and Significant. But when they are lean, and remote from the business, when they look hard and stiff, when they clog and incumber the Sense, they are no great Ornaments. Whe­ther Mr. Congreve's are of this later kind, or not, I shall leave it to the Reader to de­termine!

After a hideous Collection of Profane­ness, I expressed my self with somewhat more than ordinary Concern, as was both very natural and proper; Amongst other Expressions, I said, Nature made the Fir­ment and rising of the Blood for such Occasions. By Nature I grant him, I meant nothing less than God Almighty. That our Me­chanism was contrived so as to make our Passions serviceable; Our Constitution adjusted to our Mind, and our Blood so disposed as to reinforce the operations of our Reason. And pray what is there ex­ceptionable [Page 39] in all this? And where lies the Mistake, in Religion, or natural Phi­losophy? I can hardly forgive my self the taking notice of such Objections as these. But Mr. Congreve was resolved to make his Logick and Drollery of a peice, and I must be produced in Ferment and Figure, as he calls it. But this Expression I shall leave with the Reader, and give him some time to make Sense on't.Amend. P. 34. He wonders after all, why I should use so much Vehemence? Ve­hemence against what? Against Profane­ness and Blasphemy. Are these then such harmle [...]s Practices, that they must be gently treated? Is the Honour of God, the Interest of Religion, and the Welfare of Humane Society so very insignificant? Are these things beneath our Passions, and not worth the contending for? And won't they justifie a little warmth and expostu­lation in their behalf? Christianity is Mild, 'tis true, but not in such cases as this. [...] 1. Pet. 2.2. Ibid. The Cretians did not Droll upon their Bible like the Modern Poets, and yet St. Paul bids Titus Rebuke them sharply. St. Peter likewise and St. Iude Lash the Lewdness of the Gnosticks with great Severity of Language. But he asks me why all this Vehemence in a written Argument? as if Pa­per would bear Sense, no more than 'twill Ink sometimes, or that People were ob­liged [Page 40] to write with greater Negligence than they talk. This was a shrewd que­stion! But questions are easily started.

Mr. Congreve is now come forward to the Vindication of his Comedys. He com­plains that in my Chapter of Profaneness, I have represented him falsly, Amend. p. 36. or by halves.

That I have quoted him falsly I deny; neither has he been able to prove it in the least Instance: That he is sometimes re­presented imperfectly I grant. His Im­modesty forced me upon this Method. He is often too offensive to appear. To have shewn him to the Reader in this Condition, had neither been Civil, nor Safe. Why then does he find fault with this Reservedness? Is he sorry his Inde­cencies are conceal'd, and grown proud of his Misbehaviour?

We are now with the Old Batchelour, and Mr. Congreve pretends I'm unfair in not citing Bellmour more at length. He says I conclude with a dash, as if both the Sense and the Words of the whole Sentence were at an end. Just the contrary. I made a dash — to shew there was something more spoken: But though the Sentence was not at an end, the Sense was; as appears from the Words, the Pointing, and the Capital Letter which follows. Let's see a little farther, if this Gentleman [Page 41] has received any harm. Bellmour is now talking to Vainlove.

Couldst thou be content to Marry Araminta?

Vainlove replies in a very pious questi­on:

Could you be content to go to Heaven?

Hum, not immediately in my Con­science, not heartily:—I'd do a little more good in my generation first in order to deserve it.

He would do a little more good first, i. e. He would gladly be a Libertine some­what longer, and merit Heaven by a more finish'd course of Debauchery. Thus we are taught to interpret Bellmour by the Old Batchelour and the Amendments, &c. He is very lewd in the progress of the Play, Amend. p. 38. and Mr. Congreve grants, he re­presents the Character of a wild Debauchee of the Town; and that the expression is light, and suited accordingly.

This is a good hearty Confession, and a sufficient proof, that if I had quoted more Words, I had quoted more Pro­faneness; and therefore Mr. Congreve has reason to thank me for being Brief.

[Page 42]Mr. Congreve drops the Defence of Fon­dlewife, and makes Merry with the En­tertainment.Ibid. p. 39. His excuse is, he was very much a Boy when this Comedy was written. Not unlikely. He and his Muse might probably be Minors; but the Libertines there are full grown. But why should the Man laugh at the Mischief of the Boy, why should he publish the Disorders of his Nonage? and make them his own by an after Approbation? He wrote it, it seems, to amuse himself in a slow Recovery from a Fit of Sickness. Ibid. What his Disease was I am not to enquire; but it must be a very ill one, to be worse than the Re­medy. The Writing of that Play is a very dangerous Amusement either for Sickness, or Health, or I'm much mistaken.

He pleads Guilty to the next Article of Impeachment;p. 40. but then he is some­what profane in his very Acknowledg­ment, and can't find in his heart to give up an old fault, without making a new one.

His next Attempt is to bring off Bell­mour, who Kisses the Strumpet Laetitia, and tells her, Eternity was in that Moment. Mr. Congreve's Answer is very surprising He tells us, To say Eternity is in a Mo­ment, is neither good nor bad, for 'tis stark Nonsense. P. 40, 41.

[Page 43]By his favour, the matter is quite other­wise. If Mr. Congreve will have patience, he shall speak Nonsense by and by; and to make it the less a fault, he shall do it unwillingly.

Whether this Gentleman borrow'd this Sentence, or made it, I can't tell; but there's just such another in Love Trium­phant; where upon such an occasion,p. 34. Al­phonso tells Victoria:

Now if Mr. Congreve has not a mind to speak Sense, I hope Mr. Dryden may have leave to do so. However, we'll prove our Right, and not stand to his Courtesie. Now to say of an Advan­tage that Eternity was in that Moment, is by common Interpretation meant, the Pleasure of Eternity. The Satisfaction is suppos'd to be so great, that what is lost in the Duration, is made up in the Quali­ty. This in the present Application is hideously Profane; but the sense and spi­rit of the Fxpression is intelligible enough.

Mr. Congreve in the close of this Para­gragh is somewhat extraordinary. He pronounces the Citation stark Nonsense, and frankly declares, he had not cared though I had discover'd it. p. 41. I think I have discover'd it somewhat worse. However, I won­der [Page 44] at his being so Resign'd. What not care to have stark Nonsense found upon him; Not in a Printed Play, and in the Mouth of the fine Gentleman! This is strange indeed, and I could hardly believe it at first Sight: But the more I read of his Amendments, &c. the better I am as­sur'd of the Sincerity of his Confession.

Laetitia has another lewd and very pro­fane Sentence given her,O. Batch. p. 39. View, &c. p. 63. which I had ta­ken notice of. To this Mr. Congreve answers, 'Tis the expression of a wanton and vicious Character, and that she is discover'd in her Lewdness. Amend. p. 41. I reply in the first place, That my disproof of his second Postulate, or Proposition, cuts off his retreat to this excuse.

Secondly. She is not discover'd in her Lewdness, nor makes a dishonourable Exit; and Mr. Congreve contradicts his own Play by affirming the contrary. For there's a Colour found out which passes upon the Credulity of Fondlewife, who declares himself satisfied with her Inno­cence. Upon which Bellmour concludes the Fourth Act thus:O. Batch. p. 39, 40.

Sharper says to Vainlove, [Page 45] I have been a kind of Godfather to you yonder, I have promis'd and vow'd some things in your Name, which I think you are bound to per­form. Mr. Congreve's answer is.Old Batch. p. 49. That he meant no ill by this Allegory, nor perceives any in't now. Amend. p. 42. No ill in't, that's Strange! Not in applying the solemn Engagements of Baptism to a ridiculous Subject, not in Burlesquing the Church Catechism? If these are no ill Things, there's no harm in Pro­faneness; and then I confess he has justi­fied himself to purpose.

Before we part with the Old Batchelour, O. Batch. p. 48. I'll give Mr. Congreve another Citation unmention'd before.

Heartwell speaking of Marriage, cries out, O cursed State!

It seems then Nature was as much mista­ken in the provision, as Men are in the Experiment. Yes, for as the Poet goes on:

This is an admirable Comment on the [Page 46] Old and New Testament, and the Office of Matrimony in the Common Prayer. The Thought looks like an Improvem [...]nt of a Line in Absalom and Achitophel: where the subject of the Poem is dated from the times of Polygamy,

The Provoked Wife has a Sentence not much short of this.

p. 27. Sure (says Sir Iohn Brute) If Woman had been ready Created, the Devil instead of being kicked down into Hell, had been Mar­ried.

We are now with the Double Dealer; where,View, &c. p. 64. as I remark'd, Lady Plyant cries out Iesu, and talks Smut in the same Sen­tence. Here again he pleads Guilty: He had condemn'd it long since, and resolved to strike it out in the next Impression. Amend. p. 42. Well! Repentance is a very commendable thing, and I heartily wish Mr. Congreve may go Through with it. But I'm afraid this good Resolution of his went off in a little time: My reason is, because the Double Dealer was publish'd in 1694. and stands still in the First Edition; But the Old Batch­elour has been Reprinted long since, the Sixth Impression of this Play bearing date [Page 47] 1697. And yet here in this last Edition we have the exclamation Iesu, used in a jesting way,Old Batch. p. 48. by the fulsome Belinda. If Mr. Congreve was displeas'd with the Profane­ness in his Double Dealer, why did he not expunge it in his Old Batchelour? He can't deny but that Opportunity presented fair a great while together. But here instead of asking Pardon of God and the World, and shewing himself concern'd for so scan­dalous an Expression, He tells you a plea­sant Story (as he fancies) of a Letter of Advice from an Old Gentlewoman, and a Widow, who as she said, was very well to pass. I suppose she subscrib'd her self Old Gen­tlewoman, as Widows generally do, other­wise, as far as appears, he had been at a loss for her Age. But to return. Either this Story is pretended or real. If 'tis a feigned case, 'tis nothing to his point. If 'tis matter of Fact, it makes against him▪ For then he makes a Jest of his own Re­formation, Drolls upon good Counsel, and returns the Gentlewoman an Affront in Publick, for her Charitable Admonitions in Private. As for the Smut, he tells me, if there is any,Amend. p. 43. I may e'en take it for my pains. Very generously argued! Since he is thus Noble, I'le omit the Scrutiny, and only refer to the Page.Double D. p. 34

[Page 48]And here the Reader may please to take notice, that the word Iesu is thrice made bold with, in despight of Religion and the Statute 3 Iac. 1. cap. 21.D. Dealer. p. 7, 16, 78.

Sir Paul Plyant among the rest of his Follies, is mighty fond of the word Pro­vidence, and repeats it on several occasions. From hence I drew this natural, or rather necessary Inference; That the meaning was to shew, that Sense and Religion agreed ill together, and that none but Fools were fit to talk piously. Mr. Con­greve instead of defending himself, endea­vours to make me speak Nonsense, but that lies all in his own misquotation; as I have shewn already.

He pretends there's no profane Allusion in his little Drollery about Iehu's being a Hackney Coachman; And seems confident no other Text can be burlesqu'd excepting Lady Froth's Poem. Amend. p. 44, 45. He says Lady Froth calls the Coachman our Jehu, and why might he not have that as well as any Iewish or Chri­stian Name? I'le tell him for once. 'Twas never the Custom of Jews or Christians to take any Scripture Names from excep­tionable Persons. Neither Ieroboam nor Iehu, nor many others, were Religious enough for this purpose. No Man I be­lieve ever heard of more than two Iehu's, one in the Kings, 2 Kings 9.20. and the other in the [Page 49] Double Dealer. That Prince in the Kings is said to drive his Chariot furiously. From hence the Coachman's Character was E­quip'd. Both the Name and the Office, have a plain reference to the Holy Text. Farther, Lady Froth does not call her Coachman by any Name in her Poem; by consequence the Asterism for directi­on, can never lead us to the meaning of her Verses. For if Iehu is unmention'd in the Poetick Text, how can the Lady be explain'd by his Standing in the Mar­gin? In short, the worthy Mystery can't be clear'd up without recourse to the Scriptures; And therefore without doubt we are much obliged to the Poet for this necessity. Thus 'tis plain the Bible is made Bold with, and the Turn of his ex­pression seems to reach the Commentators too. However, if his meaning is over­strain'd on this later particular, it will do him very little Service; and I ask his ex­cuse. I'm sorry to spend so many words about such Stuff as this is; but Mr. Con­greve must have Justice done him.

Sir Paul Plyant will afford us something worse than the former; This Wittoll of the Poet's making, tells his Lady he finds Passion coming upon him by Inspiration. This I had reason to Charge upon Mr. Congreve as a very profane Expression: [Page 50] In answer to this, He first Rails a Sen­tence or two in his little way, and then very Magisterially tells us,Amend. P. 45. That the word Inspiration, when it has Divine prefix'd to it, bears a particular and known significati­on: But otherwise to inspire is no more than to Breath into; and a Trumpet, &c. may be said without profaneness to deliver a Mu­sical Sound by the help of Inspiration. By his favour, All People that talk English know, that Inspiration, when it stands without Epithets and Addition, is always taken in a Religious signification. In­spiration, and to be Inspired, have a so­lemn and august meaning in Christianity. These words imply Divine Impulse, and supernatural Assistance, and are oppos'd to suggestion of Fancy, and humane Reasoning. To speak by Inspiration is to speak by the Holy Ghost, as every Body can tell him: To be saved and Salvation, signified at first no more than Safety, and Escape: But if a Man should say, As he hop'd to saved, and explain himself, that he intended no more, then that he hoped to get Cover before a Shower reach'd him; would he not be look'd upon as impertinently profane? If he call'd a lucky Leap of a Ditch Salvation, and pretended to justifie himself, that the word originally imports no more than Common [Page 51] Deliverance, what Place would he be thought fit for? Thus when Words are made Inclosure, when they are restrain'd by Common Usage, and tyed up to a particular Sense: In this Case, to run up to Etymology, and Construe them by Dictionary and Praeposition, is wretchedly Ridiculous and Pedantick.De Art. Poet. Horace can tell him, That Custom over-rules Syllables, and gives Law to Language. ‘Quem penes arbitrium est, & jus & norma loquendi.’

Mr. Congreve perceiving himself press'd retires with all Speed to his Fourth Pro­position. But that I have disabled already. If he is poison'd with his Profaneness, and finds himself Sick, he must take what follows; for his Antidote is gone. To return to Sir Paul.

You see what an admirable reason he urges in Defence of his Folly, from the extraordinary Circumstances of it! No Prophet could have justified his Resent­ments from a higher pretence.

[Page 52]The fine Lady Cynthia out of her pi­ous Education acquaints us, That though Marriage makes Man and Wife one Flesh, it leaves them still two Fools. But the little word STILL is left out in the Quotation; which like the Fly on the Coach-Wheel, raises a mighty Dust. I grant I have by Chance omitted the word STILL; and if he had done so too, the Sense had been perfectly the same, only better expressed. For Still is plainly useless, and compre­hended in the Verb Leaves. For if Mar­riage leaves 'em two Fools, they are Fools after Marriage, and then they are Fools Still, I think; Nothing can be clearer than this. But besides, Cynthia her self won't allow of Mr. Congreve's excuse. For after she has deliver'd that remark­able Sentence of leaving 'em two Fools, &c. Mellifont answers, That's only when two Fools meet, which is exactly Mr. Congreve in his Amendments. P. 47. This Cynthia denies to be her meaning. Cynth. Nay (says she) I have known two Wits meet, and by the opposition of their Wits render themselves as ridiculous as Fools. And therefore after she has given Matrimony an odd Name, she advises him to Court no farther,D. Dealer. p. 18. to draw Stakes, and give over in time. So that besides Burlesquing the Bible, the Satyr is pointed against Marriage. And the [Page 53] Folly is made to lye in the State, as well as in the Persons. Upon the whole, we see the Double Dealer, and the Amendments can't agree; and thus two Blemishes, as well as two Beauties, are sometimes un­like to each other. Mr. Congreve says, Ben. Iohnson is much bolder in the first Scene of his Bartholomew Fair. Suppose all that. Is it an excuse to follow an ill Example, and continue an Atheistical practice? I thought Mr. Congreve in his penetration might have seen through this Question. Ben. Iohnson (as he goes on) makes Lit­tlewit say, Amend. P. 47. Man and Wife make one Fool. I h [...]ve said nothing comparable to that. No­thing comparable! Truly in the usual sense of that Phrase, Mr. Congreve, 'tis possible, has said nothing comparable to Ben. Iohnson, nor it may be never will: But in his new Propriety he has said some­thing more than comparable, that is a great deal worse. For though Littlewit's Allusion is profane, the words of the Bi­ble are spared. He does not Droll directly upon Genesis, or St. Matthew; Upon God the Son, or God the Holy Ghost: Where­as Mr. Congreve has done that which amounts to both. And since he endea­vours to excuse himself upon the Autho­rity of Ben. Iohnson, I shall just mention what Thoughts this Poet had of his pro­fane [Page 54] Liberties, at a time when we have reason to believe him most in earnest. Now Mr. Wood reports from the Testi­mony of a great Prelate then present. ‘That when Ben. Iohnson was in his last Sickness,Athen Oxoniens. Vol. 1. p. 519. he was often heard to repent of his profaning the Scriptures in his Plays, and that with Horrour.’

Now as far as I can perceive, the Smut and Profaneness of Mr. Congreve's Four Plays out-swell the Bulk of Ben. Iohnson's Folio. I heartily wish this Relation may be serviceable to Mr. Congreve, and that as his Faults are greater, his Repen­tance may come sooner.

The Double Dealer is now done with, and Mr. Congreve concludes his Vindica­tion in his usual Strain of Triumph and Assurance.

Love for Love comes at last upon the Board. In this Play I blamed him for making a Martyr of a Whoremaster: Upon this, he flies immediately for Suc­cour to Scapula, and the Greek Grammar. He very learnedly tells us, that Martyr is a Greek word, and signifies in plain En­glish no more than a Witness. Right! these two words are the same; and when a [Page 55] Cause comes on in Westminster-Hall, the Martyrs are call'd immediately! But Martyr is but bare Witness in the Greek. Not al­ways: Christian Writers often use it in a sense appropriated. And were it other­wise, there's no arguing from one Lan­guage to another. Tyrant was once an Honourable Name in Greek, but al­ways a Reproach in English. But to di­late upon these Cavils, is throwing away time. If the Reader desires more, he may please to look back on my Answer to his Objection about Inspiration.

This Poet's way of understanding En­glish, puts me in mind of a late Misfor­tune which happen'd to a Country Apo­thecary. The Dr. had prescrib'd a Lady Physick to be taken in something Liquid, which the Bill according to Custom call'd a Vehicle. The Apothecary being at a Stand about the word, applies, as Mr. Congreve might have done, to Littleton's Dictionary. And there he finds Vehicu­lum signified several considerable Things. He makes up the Bill, and away he goes to the Lady, where upon the Question, how the Physick was to be taken? He answers very innocently; Madam, says he, You may take it in a Cart, or a Wag­gon, but not to give your Ladyship too much trouble, I think a Wheelbarrow may [Page 56] do; for the word Vehicle in the Bill, will carry that sense. In short, This Directi­on was comply'd with, and the Footman drove the Wheelbarrow about the Chamber. To return to Mr. Congreve. I had said that this Libertine Application of his, was dignifying Adultery with the Stile of Martyrdom;Ibid. As if (says Mr. Congreve) any word could dignifie Vice. And pray why not? Does not the Varnish hide the Coarseness underneath, and the Pill go down the better for the Guilding? Whe­ther he knows it or not, there's a great deal of Charm and Imposture in Words; and an ill practice is often comply'd with upon the Strength of a Fashionable Name.

P. 49. He asks, who told me Ieremy Fetch was bred at the Vniversity? Why Ieremy says so himself pretty plainly, and Tattle says so, and I suppose Mr. Congreve says as much as that comes to in his Reflection immedi­ately following.Love for L. p. 75. Amend. p. 50. But this notable questi­on was put to introduce another Business of greater Consequence. For upon this occasion, out of his excellence of good Man­ners, he is pleased to observe, That I should not have been suspected of an Vniver­sity Education any more than his Ieremy in the Play, if I had not Printed M. A. on the Title Page. Here the Poor Man has shewn his Will, and his Weakness sufficiently! [Page 57] I'm almost sorry 'tis so low with him. When a Poet is so extreamly well inclin'd to be Witty, 'tis pity he has no more in his power. Mr. Congreve goes on Man­fully in his Defence and says,Amend. p. 50. For the word Whoreson, I had it from Shakespear and Johnson. Not unlikely. People are apt to learn what they should not. Mr. Con­greve's Memory, or his Invention, is very considerable this way. Indeed one would almost think by his Writings, that he had digested ill Language into a Common Place. But it was not only Whoreson, but Ieremy's saying He was Born with Whoreson Appetites, which I complain'd of; and which I take to be Blaspheming the Creation.

He pretends I have vvrong'd him strangely in a Rant of Sir Sampson's: And would make the Reader believe I charge him literally with Paraphrasing the 139th Psalm.Amend. p. 51. I'm sorry I'm forced to explain my self in so clear a case.

We may observe then, that the Psal­mist in Contemplation of the astonishing Beauty and Serviceableness of Humane Bodies, breaks out in a Rapture of Gra­titude, I will give thanks unto thee, Psal. 139. v. 13. for I am fearfully and wonderfully made, marvel­lous are thy works, and that my Soul knows right well. Let us now hear Sir Sampson. [Page 58] This Gentleman after having railed a Le­cture over Ieremy's Body, for being born with Necessities too big for his Condition; he crys, These things are unacountable, and unreasonable;Love for L. P. 25. Why was not I a Bear?—Na­ture has been provident only to Bears and Spiders: Thus we see what a Harmony of Thought there is between David and our Author. The one Adores while the other Reproaches. The one Admires, the other Burlesques the wonders of Pro­vidence. And this was all the Paraphra­sing I meant, as any one might easily Ima­gine.

The Dialogue of Scandal and Foresight lies next in our way,P. 44. I shall once more Transcribe it from Love for Love.

Alas Mr. Scandal, Humanum est errare.

You say true, Man will err; meer Man will err —but you are something more—There have been wise Men, but they were such as you—Men who consulted the Stars, and were observers of Omens—Solomon was wise, but ho [...]? By his Iudgment in Astrology,—So says Pineda in his Third Book and eighth Chap. But (says Mr. Congreve) the Quotation of the Authority is omitted by Mr. Collier, either because he would re­present it as my own Observation to ridicule the Wisdom of Solomon or else because he [Page 59] was indeed Ignorant that it belong'd to any bo­dy else. Amend. p. 52. To this I answer,

1. That Mr. Congreve yields Solomon's Wisdom ridiculed by this Observation, therefore by his own confession, if 'tis none of his Authors, he must Answer for't him­self. Now Pineda gives us a quite differ­ent account of the Cause of Solomon's Wisdom, and which is perfectly inconsi­stent with Congreve's Banter. ‘Pineda af­firms that Solomon's Wisdom was given him by God in a supernatural Dream,1. Kings 3. 5, 12. mentioned in Scripture. And that after the Dream,Pined. Lib. 3. Cap. 8. P. 142, 147. Ed. Mo­gunt. he found an unsual Light in his Understanding; his Ideas were brighten'd, and the extent of his Know­ledge strangly enlarged. 'Tis true, Pi­neda believed that Solomon understood Astronomy in Perfection,Lib. 3. C. 18. and that he had skill in Prognosticks which he calls A­stronomia judiciaria. He continues, that he could in a great measure reach the In­clinations and Reasonings of Men,Ibid. where they did not depend purely upon choice, and the turn of the Will. But then he does not say that Solomon's Skill in Prog­nosticks was that which made him wise. No: This Tallent was only a Branch, but not the Cause of his Wisdom. For as Pineda speaks elsewhere,Lib. 3 C. 10. Solomon had a Universal Knowledge of Nature, but [Page 60] then this Excellency was no result of Natural parts, or Humane Industry; 'Twas an immediate Bounty from Hea­ven; And both the Thing, and the Con­veyance, were extraordinary.’

Mr. Congreve agrees with Pineda at least in a jesting way, Solomon was wise, but how? By his Iudgment in Astrology. That is, his distinguishing Attainments were gained this way. There was nothing in the case, but that he had looked into a Star somewhat farther than other people: He Learned his Wisdom it seems from the Caldeans, or Aegyptians, or from some such Book as Lillies Almanack. This is Scandal's Solution of the Mystery; and the best that I can make on it. For t'is one thing to say that a Man is wise by Astro­logy, and another that Astrology or Astro­nomy was only a part of his Wisdom. The one Implies the Cause, and the other but a Branch of the Effect. The one excludes the Miracle, and the other affirms it. Upon the whole matter, Mr. Congreve, and Pineda, are not to be reconciled, so that by his own confession he has ridiculed the Wisdom of Solomon, and falsifyed his Author into the Bargain.

2ly. Supposing Pineda had been fairly reported by Mr. Congreve, the Poet had been much to blame; For then the Case [Page 61] had stood thus; Pineda as Mr. Congreve observes had ridiculed Solomon, and him­self had done no less, by Citing him with­out Censure, and upon a Drolling Occasi­on. For this reason I waved the consul­ting of Pineda, as well knowing that should the Testimony have been right, the Play was certainly in the wrong. Besides, 'tis somewhat to be suspected Mr. Congreve never saw Pineda; My reason is, because he falls twice into the same Mistake, he Quotes the Eighteenth Chapter for the Eighth, Lov. for L. P. 44. Amend. p. 52. and to make it appear the more gross, 'tis done in words of Length, and not in Figures. I hope for the future Mr. Congreve wont bring in Solomon to divert the Play-House, nor compare him with Fools and Fortunetellers.

Scandal's telling Foresight he was more than meer Man, and secure from Mistake upon that Score, is likewise a profane ex­pression. To affirm this of any person, is as much as to say, he is either our Savi­our, or a Prophet, or under some Miracu­lous Influence.

Scandal goes on with Foresight, ‘and sayes the Wise Men of the East ow'd their Instruction to a Star,Lov for L. P 44. which is rightly observed by Gregory the Great in favour of Astrology.’

[Page 62]Mr. Congreve vindicates this passage by saying, that Scandal Banters Foresight, but not the Audience. Not Banter the Au­dience! He Affronts the Audience I'm sure, if they have any Christianity in them, by drolling upon a Miracle at our Saviour's Birth: He banters St. Matthew too, who has recorded the Miracle, and Gregory the Great, who discourses upon it.

Mr. Congreve is pleased to say that I am very angry that Sir Sampson has not another Name, Amend. 54. because Sampson is a Name in the Old Testament. This is false in every sy­lable, as the Reader may see by consult­ing my Book.Judges 16.30. Love for Love, p. 74. Ed. 3d. But this I say, that Mr. Congreve has burlesqu'd the History of Sampson, and wrested the Scripture into Smut.

There are two other profane Passages Censur'd by me in the same Page: These he leaves as it were to shift for themselves, and has not as yet, made them worse by de­fending them: Excepting that he comes up with his old Cavil about the Word Mar­tyr, which I have answer'd already.

The next Place Mr. Congreve leads us to is Bedlam: And here he gives us three Reasons for Valentine's pretended Mad­ness. The two later are somewhat ex­traordinary. He makes him Mad it seems [Page 63] for a variation of the Character. Amend. P. 55. A shrewd Contrivance, to put a Man out of his Wits for the sake of Variety? For with­out doubt, Raving and Incoherence are wonderfully taking.Amend. P. 41. I suppose Mr. Con­greve made Bellmour talk Nonsense for this wise reason. For 'tis a dull thing for a Man to be always tyed up to Sense,Amend. p. 56. and confin'd to his Understanding. His third reason for taking away Reason, is because Madness gives a liberty to Satyr, and autho­rises a Bluntness, &c. which would otherwise have been a Breach of Manners in the Cha­racter. That is, it gives Valentine a Com­mission to talk Smut,Love for Love, p. 57, 58, 63. and abuse his Fa­ther. But Mr. Congreve needed not to have given himself this trouble about Va­lentine; For Valentine when he was in his Wits, and under the Character of a fine Gentleman,Love for L. p▪ 7.23, 24, 83. Ed. 3d. had Breeding enough to be Smutty, and Undutiful. Mr. Congreve would perswade the Reader that I inter­pret him with too much Rigour, for ma­king Valentine in his Lunacy say, I am Truth, &c. If this Point needs any farther Disputing, we may take notice that our Blessed Saviour mentions the word Truth in a solemn and peculiar manner.Ioh. 4.6, 17, viii. 32 xvii. 17, 18 xviii. 18, 31. He sometimes applies it to Himself, some­times to the Holy Ghost, and sometimes to the Revelation of the Gospel. In short, [Page 64] 'tis as it were appropriated to the greatest Persons, and Things, mark'd as the Pre­rogative of God; and used in a sense of Emphasis and Distinction. Let us com­pare St. Iohn, and Mr. Congreve a little, and then we may easily judge where the Fault lies.

St. Thomas answers our Blessed Savi­our, Lord we know now not whither thou go­est, and how can we know the way? Joh. 14.6. Iesus saith unto him, I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. Sir Sampson is at a loss, Swears, and cries out, I know not which way to go. Love for L p. 57. Ed. 3 Valentine enquires, Who's that, that's out of his Way? I am Truth, and can set him right.

Our Saviour assures his Disciples, That he will send them the Comforter. And that when he the Spirit of Truth is come, Joh. 16.13 he will guide you into all Truth, and he will shew you things to come.

The execrable Valentine says, Interrupt me not—I'll whisper Prediction to thee, and thou shalt Prophesie. P. 62.55. L. for Lo. 2d. & 3d. I am Truth, and can teach thy Tongue a new Trick: I am Truth, and come to give the World the Lie.

And is not this horrible Stuff? What can be more intolerable Boldness, than thus to usurp the Regal Sitile, to prosti­tute the Language of Heaven, and ap­ply it to Drollery and Distraction?

[Page 65]Mr. Congreve is advanced to my 3d Chap­ter, concerning the Abuse of the Clergy. As for the Dissenting Ministers, Amend. p. 57. he says I charge him with nothing more than Setter's, pro­curing their Habit for Bellmour. Under fa­vour, this is a great Mistake. The Pimp reads a Lecture of Abuse upon the Habit,View, &c. p. 102. Old Batch. p. 19, 20. exposes Spintext from Head to Foot, makes him both a Knave and a Libertine, and his Wife a Whore into the bargain. The View, View &c. p. 102. &c. has remark'd, that Barnaby calls another of that Character Mr. Prig. He does so. And Fondlewife represents him lewd in a luscious Description.Amend. P. 58. Mr. Congreve re­plies, What if his Name were Mr. Prig, or what if it were not? Now 'tis possible he'll not like it, if I don't consider these weighty Questions. I say then, If his Name was so, he has misbehaved himself by putting him in his Play. If 'twere not so, He has used the Dissenting Ministers ill, by representing one of their Order in a contemptuous Man­ner. For as he himself confesses,Amend. p. 76. a Mr. Prig, and a Mr. Smirk, are Names implying Chara­cters worthy of Aversion and Contempt. Now for a Man not to understand his own ill Lan­guage, and contradict himself in a few Pages, is, in his own decent expression, fu­riously simple.

Mr. Congreve pretends that a Reflection on a Lord's Chaplain is no Reflection on a [Page 66] Parson of the Church of England. That's somewhat strange. The Roman Catholick Lords have no Chaplains; the Law does not allow it. And as for the Dissenters, there are very few Lords of their Perswasion. I desire therefore to know upon what Party the Abuse must stick? In earnest, I'm almost tired with answering these things. To strike the Air, does but make a Man's Arm ake.

There is a pretty long Instance produced from the Double Dealer, to shew the Misbe­haviour of the Stage towards the Clergy; these Passages he leaves to take their For­tune; for they have nothing in them it seems,p▪ 59. which needs a Defence. This is a dis­creet way of answering; and I think, if he had made more use on't, it might have done as well.

To shew the Unreasonableness of the Stage in representing the Clergy under Cha­racters of Disadvantage and Contempt, I endeavour'd to vindicate the Reputation of that Order from three Topicks.

• 1st. From their Relation to the Deity.
• 2ly. From the Importance of their Office.
• 3ly. Because they had general Custom, and Prescription for their Privilege.

Under the First Head, I had said that the Credit of the Service always rises in Proportion to the Quality and Greatness of the Master. View▪ &c. p. 127. [Page 67] This Position, he says, is sophistical; and yet he is so Civil as to grant it in the next Line but one.Amend. P. 61. However, he makes a Stand at the Inference,Ibid. and asserts, That though the Credit of the Service rises in proportion to the Quality of the Master, yet the Credit of the Servant, does not rise in proportion to the Cre­dit of the Service. Not rise in proportion to the Credit of the Service; that's strange! I thought Office and Authority had been a just ground for Regard; and that Honour­able Charges had made Honourable Men. And if so, I suppose the Esteem of the Per­son must improve with the Credit of the Employment. I would gladly know in what Circumstance the Dignity of an Am­bassador consists? Does it not lye in his Commission and Credentials, in the Ad­vantage and Significancy of his Character? What makes such a Person treated with greater Regard, than a Factor, or private Agent? Is it not the Honour of the Repre­sentation, and the Weight of the Business? Now he that executes for another, or re­presents him by way of Authority, is with­out doubt in his Service: From whence it follows, That if the Credit of the Servant rises by the Quality of the Business, and Au­thority, it must by consequence rise in pro­portion to the Credit of the Service; for these are only different words to signify the [Page 68] same thing:Amend. p. 61. Mr. Congreve's saying, That an ill Servant both discredits his Service, and is discredited by it; is partly foreign, and partly false. To say he is discredited by it, is untrue. For 'tis the Misbehaviour, not the Office, which gives the Discredit. And then to say that an ill Servant discredits his Ser­vice, is nothing to his point. For the pur­pose. Suppose the Ministers of State or Iu­stice, in any Government, should fail in their Conduct: Are they presently to be insulted by the Common People, exposed in the Badges of their Character, and made the Diversion of the Town? What if a Man is an ill Servant, his Commission ought to be his protection from private Indignities. As for his Mismanaging, he must account to his Master; Equals or Inferiours, have no­thing to do to punish.Amend. p. 62. Mr. Congreve adds, that if a Servant is punish'd by the Law, the Honour of the Service is not by that means violated. As much Law as he pleases; Let Justice have its Course, and I'm contented. But what's this to the Stage? Have they a Pa­tent of Jurisdiction over the Clergy? Are they authorised to pronounce upon their Faults, and their Punishment? To give them little Behaviour, and contemptuous Usage; To make them Fools, and then treat them as such?

[Page 69]But now 'tis Mr. Congreve's turn to ask Questions:Amend. p. 63. He would know of me, Whe­ther a Man after he has received Holy Orders, is become incapable of either playing the Knave or the Fool? Why truly, considering he has the same Humane Nature with a Poet, I can't think him utterly incapable of either. And now I may have answer'd his question as civilly as he ask'd it.

But if a Clergy-man plays the Fool, Ibid. he is equally with a Lay-Fool, the subject of Laugh­ter and Contempt. Not in the same way nei­ther. Circumstances alter any Case. Diffe­rent Things require different Considerati­ons. There are Laws, Discipline, and Or­dinaries, to take care of greater Miscarriages in the Church. And as for lesser Misfor­tunes, they should rather be lamented, than expos'd. The Clergy are a sort of Spiritual Parents. St. Paul's reasoning supposes it: And the Church Catechism gives them an inference of Privilege from the Fifth Com­mandment. To banter a Relation of this kind, has neither Decency, nor Religion in't. And we know Ham got no Blessing by his Discovery. To stigmatize a solemn Character, to play the Buffoon in a Gown and Cassock, and shew the Church for a Monster, is, one would think, an odd diver­sion in Christendom. The Heathens treated the Primitive Christians much at this rate: [Page 70] They wrapt them in Bear-skins, and then set the Dogs on them.

But Mr. Congreve urges, That by impro­per Behaviour the Man becomes alienated from the Priest, Ibid. and so the Folly is exposed, not the Function. For example, if the Man be knock'd on the Head, the Priest is not a jot the worse for't. This is much like the old Distinction of Politick, and Personal Capa­city, applied to another Case. To give this Gentleman an Answer more at large, he may please to take notice:

1st. Though the Function and the Person are separable in Notion, they are joyn'd in Life and Business. 'Tis true, the Office and the Person are two Things; but yet 'tis the Person which executes the Office: This makes them share a disadvantage in Com­mon; and a Censure frequently slides from the one to the other. If you make the Man a Knave, the Priest must suffer under the Imputation: And a Fool in his Person, will never be thought discreet in his Function. Upon this account Persons in Authority, whether Spiritual or Civil, ought to be pri­vileg'd from Abuse. To make the Mini­sters of Church or State, the subject of Laugh­ter and Contempt, disables their Authority, and renders their Commission insignificant. The Heathen Dramatists seem sensible of this reasoning,See View, p. 122. and practice accordingly.

[Page 71]2ly. If the Poets design was no more than to expose and reprehend Folly and Vice in general, why are not the Failings of the Clergy re­presented in a Lay-Appearance? Why must the Satyr be pointed at the Coat, and run out into Reference and Distinction? Why must the Profession be dressed up, and the Folly keep all within the Function? Is not this plainly to confound the Order and the Miscarriage, to go off from the Man to the Priest, and render them both ridiculous?

3ly. Employments are oftentimes a shel­ter to Persons; and Characters a Protection from Insult: Publick Reason will not en­dure Authority to be expos'd, or the Ma­gistrates to be made a May-Game. To talk in Mr. Congreve's Language, a Lay-Fool is not always to be saluted by his Folly. This would be great rudeness in Conversation; and the Government might suffer by it. Condition is a Cover for Failings. And Authority must not be a Jest. In this case a Man should be view'd on the side of Ad­vantage, and treated by his best Distincti­on. Now if we consider the Author, and the Ends of Church Authority, we shall find it deserves a Guard, no less than that of the State.

The Church-Article quoted by Mr. Con­greve, does him no Service. If it has any reference to the matter in hand, it makes [Page 72] against him. The Article affirms, That Evil Ministers Act by Christ's Authority and Commission; That the Word and Sacraments are significant and effectual in their Hands; and that the Indisposition of the Agent, does not weaken the Institution. Now since even a vicious Priest represents our Saviour, since he is God's Ambassadour, and is a Con­veyance of the Blessings of Heaven: These Credentials, these Benefits, one would think, might guard him from Contempt, and make his Character inviolable. 'Tis true, the Article says, They may be accus'd, and being found guilty, by just Iudgment de­pos'd. But what of all this? Are the Poets their Judges? And is the Stage grown Do­ctors Commons, Amend. p. 67. or Westminster-Hall? Well: But the Article supposes a Distinction between the Man, and the Priest. Yes: And it sup­poses too, that the Man ought to fare the better for this double Capacity.Amend. p. 64. Mr. Con­greve in citing this Quotation, has mistaken the Chronology, and confounded the Arti­cles and Canons, but this I shall pass over.

But Mr. Congreve falls into a worse Mi­stake than the former. He makes St. Cyprian affirm that the Validity of the Sacraments depends on the Probity of the Priest, and that the Article was partly established to take off the Authority of this Father. Ib. p 66.

[Page 73]Now to say this, is to misreport St. Cypri­an. 'Tis true, this worthy Prelate believed that a Priests Authority was suspended by Heresy and Schism; but that bare Immorali­ty could recall his Commission, he does no where suppose. The Case of Basilides and Martialis, if Mr. Congreve had produced it, would not come up to the Point: For this Instance concerns Sacrificing to Idols; which is an Act of Apostacy: It implies a renoun­cing of Christianity. From whence it will follow, that those who are not so much as Members of the Church, cannot have the Power of Church-Governours.

Mr. Congreve seems displeas'd with that little Justice I endeavoured to do the Cler­gy; And calls the Testimonies of the best Poets, P. 71. Orators, Historians, &c. Vain Stuff. I take it (says Mr. Congreve) he would give us to understand, that in all Ages the Fun­ction of a Priest was held to be a very Honou­rable Function;Ibid. Did Mr. Collier ever meet with any body Fool enough to engage him to as­sert that? Many a one, I can assure you, that have been either Fool or Knave enough, I can't tell which. If the Post is Honou­rable, the Persons should be considered ac­cordingly: They should not be exposed in a wretched Appearance; And have neither Sense nor Spirit, nor fair usage allowed [Page 74] them.See View, &c. Ch. 3. The Heathen Poets, as I prov'd at large, never serv'd their Priests so.

Mr. Congreve urges, that Kings have been in all Ages Exposed and Punish'd on the Stage, Amend. p. 71.72. yet never any King complained of the Theater or the Poets. From hence he argues, that if Kings may be exposed on the Stage; Why not Priests? To this I answer,

1st. Mr. Congreve's Argument supposes that Poets have the leave of Princes for this Freedom. Kings it seems are willing to be brought, and Disciplined on the Stage. Ve­ry well. But does the Hierarchy desire to be represented? Does the Church give the Play-House this Permission? By no means. She Complains of the Practice, and would have it otherwise. Now what Consequence is there from Permission to Remonstrance, and from Pleasure to Aversion? The Church does not desire to be so Publick. Why should she be hal'd in, against her Incli­nation, and gaz'd on like a Malefactor?

2ly. Stage Princes are used agreeably to their Station: The Honour of their Functi­on shines out in their Appearance. Their very Misfortunes are Majestick, and their Ruin Glorious. They are never represent­ed Insignificant, treated with Contempt, and Play'd the Fool with in Comedy. If they were thus used, I question not but that the Poets and Players would quickly hear on't.

[Page 75]3ly. If Princes were used as Ill as Priests upon the Stage, they would not suffer so much by it. Princes are well guarded a­gainst Dramatick Out-rage. They have Power to Punish and to oblige. The Mag­nificence of their Courts, the Pomp and Parade of their Figure, brighten their Au­thority, and preserve a Regard. These Cir­cumstances glitter upon the sense, and strike an awe upon the Spirits of the People. They refresh their Character, and make them un­derstood. They prevent the spreading of Fiction into Life, and keep a Play-House-Abuse from being Acted in the Streets. In fine; Wealth and Power tho much short of Princes, breaks the force of Insolence, and is a Sovereign Remedy against Neg­lect. But the Clergy have no great share of these Advantages; I mean generally speaking, and with Us especially. Their Provision is often slender, their Censures relate to another World, and they have no­thing of Lustre to affect the Imagination. A Condition thus unfortified, thus unorna­mented, lies open to Ill usage. The grea­ter part of the Clergy are not so well pro­vided to disprove an unfair Representation. They can't so easily confute a Calumny by their Equipage, nor make their Fortune put a Lye out of Countenance. To be taken notice of, Things must shine as well as be [Page 76] solid; a Coarse out-side keeps the Richness within from being regarded. Spiritual Pri­vilege, and invisible Advantage signifie lit­tle with Ignorance, or Atheism. When a Man can scarce hold his Head above Wa­ter, there needs no great Weight to sink him. Misfortune in such an Age as this, is almost a Jest of it self. A little Buf­fooning is sufficient to make Indigence look ridiculous; for when a Man's Coat is thread­bare, 'tis an easy matter to pick a hole in't.

vid. St. Au­gust. De. Civ. Dei. Plin. pan Dio. Jul. Capi­tol. Hist. August. p. 27. Ta­cit. Annal. Vid. Serres Hist. Gos­son.4ly His pretence of Matter of Fact is not True. Princes have complained of the Theater. The great Scipio pull'd it down; Trajan & Antoninus Philosophus discouraged Plays, and Tiberius Banished the Stage. To come nearer Home, Lewis the Godly would not endure a Play-House, and Queen Elizabeth often check't this sort of Diversion. Now these were most of them Great Princes, and which is more to the purpose, most of them good ones too.

Mr. Congreve seems now fallen into a fit of Levelling. Quality and Secular advan­tage, are grown Bells and Baubles. In his Logick, Honour and Estate, are Inconsi­stent with Humility and other Christian Vir­tues. P. 73. Such Temporal Pride he pretends agrees very ill with the Person and Character of a tru­ly Pious and Exemplary Divine. Ibid. Had this [Page 77] Gentleman the Direction of Affairs, 'tis like­ly the World would be well mended, the Church Reformed into Apostolical Poverty, And all these Antichristian Things of For­tune and Convenience, taken from the Ex­emplary Divines, and given to the Exemplary Poets.

Mr. Congreve comes on again reinforced with Mr. Hales, Amend. P. 74. who proves from Scripture that all ‘claim to superiority by Title of Christianity is most certainly cut off.’ With submission to Mr. Hales, this is not univer­sally true For the Church being a Society, must by consequence have Governours, and these by the same Necessity, must in that re­spect be superiour to the Governed. For this reason, the Apostle, speaking to private Christians, Enjoyns them in these words, Obey them that have the Rule over you, Heb. 13.17. and and submit your selves; for they watch for your Souls, &c. This Text we see plainly con­tains a branch of Duty to Ecclesiastical Go­vernours. Now those who have the Rule over others, are certainly so far their Supe­riors; And those who are to submit them­selves, are bound to acknowledge them as such. To go on with Mr. Congreve's Cita­tion. ‘Nature and Religion agree in this, that neither of them has a hand in this Heraldry of secundum sub & supra; all this comes from Composition and Agreement [Page 78] of Men among themselves.Ibid.’ Here Mr. Hales is mistaken again; For Parents have by Nature a Right of Superiority over their Children. I grant Mr. Hales's Principle holds true in the Main; but nothing can be more extravagant than Mr. Congreve's In­ference. Does this Gentleman mean that there's no such thing as Superiority amongst Christians? Is subordination destroyed by Baptism? Does Christianity confound all Degrees, and melt down all Distinction in the State; This Doctrine is calculated for the Meridian of Munster, Sleidan. Comment. for the Boars of Germany, for Iohn of Leyden and Knipper-dolling: Iack Straw and Wat Tyler, Cade and Ket would have been wonderfully obliged at such a Discovery as this. But if Civil Privileges are consistent with Christianity, I hope the Clergy may plead their Right in Common, and take the Advantage of the Constitution like other People.

I had said, The Addition of Clerk is at least equal to that of Gentleman;View▪ &c. P. 13 [...]. were it other­wise, the Profession would in many cases be a kind of punishment. I say so still. For if a Gen­tleman was made less, and degraded by go­ing into Orders, would it not be a kind of Punishment? Can any thing be plainer than this? I can't imagine how Mr. Congreve could misinterpret this Period. But since he has done it, he would do well to call in [Page 79] his exclamation,P. 75. and wonder at his own Ig­norance or Insincerity.

I observ'd, that Monsieur Racine, contrary to the practice of foreign Countries, repre­sented Priests in his Athalia. I observ'd farther, That this Play was a very Religious Poem. View, &c. P. 124. And if it were not design'd for the Theater, I have nothing to object. My mean­ing is, if it were design'd for the Theater, I thought the Form and Argument too so­lemn for the Place. But that it was design'd for the Theater, is more than I know; and I rather believe it was not. It being not uncommon in France and elsewhere, to act serious and inoffensive Plays in Religious Houses. Had Mr. Congreve understood this, or indeed the plain English of the Words, all his Cavilling and awkard Jests had been at an end. The Short View, &c. takes no­tice that Shakespear, though to blame, was a Genteeler Enemy than the Relapser;P. 125. Why so? Because he gives Sir Iohn, Parson of Wrotham, some Advantage in his Character, he represents him Lewd, but not Little. Here Mr. Congreve is extreamly diverting. The BUT (says he) is coming again. Amend. P. 74. I had a glimpse of him just now. Best of all; 'Tis more than he has of himself, sometimes. Lewd but not Little, there's a Paradox for ye! Well, I grant some People are both. However, there's room enough between these Qualities [Page 80] for a Distinction. For I suppose a Man may be Lewd in his Practice, without be­ing Little in his Figure and Behaviour. Does every Libertine wear a Livery, or is Lewd­ness a forfeiture of Condition? In a sense of Philosophy and Religion, there's nothing meaner than Vice: But then the Advan­tage of Appearance is some Cover for the Deformity, and gives it another Air to Common View.

Mr. Congreve allows, That when Men neither Sneak, nor do any thing unbecoming their Office in the World, P. 77. they ought not to be represented otherwise on the Stage. Were the Heathen Priests then so absolutely unex­ceptionable? Were there no Prevarications amongst them? and did they never Live out of their Character? Mr. Congreve can't think this:View, &c. P. 122. And yet as I observ'd, they were always well treated by the Heathen Poets. But besides, what occurs in this Answer, I have given him my reasons else­where, why the Clergy ought in no case to come upon the Stage.View, &c.

Mr. Congreve is so kind as to inform me, that I talk in the Pedantical Cant of Fable, Intreague, P▪ 82. Discovery, of Vnities of Time, &c. He means the Pedantical Cant of Aristotle and Horace, of Bossu and Corneille, of Rapin, and Mr. Dryden; that is of the best Criticks, both Antient and Modern, upon the Sub­ject. [Page 81] This is somewhat strange! But I per­ceive the Man is wildred in his Spleen: He lost himself in a mist of his own making, And when people can't see, they are apt to fall foul upon their Friends.

He finds fault with some more expressi­ons of mine,P. 84. how reasonably, I shall consi­der by and by.

Mr. Congreve having spent some Pages in Trifling and Scurrility, advances to my 4th. Chapter. This Chapter charges the Stage with Immorality for rewarding their loose Characters, and giving their Libertines such advantage in Figure, Sense and Suc­cess. Mr. Congreve knew the Old Batchelour and Double Dealer concern'd under this Head,View, &c. P. 142. but takes no notice of it. 'Tis true, he makes an attempt to disengage Valentine in Love for Love. Amend▪ p. 88. He would gladly Blanch this foul Character; But alas, 'tis to no purpose to wash and rub: The Spots are not Dirt but Complexion. He says Valentine had ho­nesty enough to close with a bad Bargain, ra­ther then not pay his Debts. Thus Mr. Con­greve. But if we will take Valentine's word for't, we shall find the matter otherwise. 'Twas his Necessity, his disrelish of Con­finement, his Passion for Angelica, which put him upon this Complyance. Let him speak for himself.

This Condition was once proposed before and I refused it, Lo. for Lo. P. 8.16. but the present impatience of my Creditors for their Money, and my own im­patience of Confinement, and absence from An­gelica, force me to consent.

So much for his Honesty. And that he is Debauch'd,View, &c. P. 142. Profane and Smutty, Unnatu­ral to his Son, and Undutiful to his Father, I still affirm and appeal for Evidence to the Pages of the Citation.

P. 41, 35. Amend. p. 90, 92.Mr. Congreve endeavours to justifie Bell­mour and Sharper, in the Old Batchelour, a­gainst my exceptions. But here according to his usual fair dealing he misreports the Case.P. 92. He tells the Reader I produc'd these Passages to prove him guilty of encouraging Immorality. But this is quite mistaking the Matter. These Passages among others were produced to show how roughly the Women were treated by the Stage:See View, &c. P. 1 [...]5, 170, 171, 172. That their fine Characters were unceremonious, and fail'd in the Decencies, of a Cavalier.

Amend. P. 91.He is glad I can prevail with my self to write the Hellish Syllable [POX] at length; I could not do so in Page 82 of my Book. Right. And I had some reason for my Scruple. For I conceive, there is some dif­ference between the naming a Blasphe­mous Curse, and the Foul Disease. The Word was used the former way when I de­clin'd to transcribe it.

[Page 83] I have assaulted the Town, P. 103. it seems, in the seat of their principal and most reasonable Plea­sure. I am sorry to hear the encouraging of Vice, the Liberties of Smut, and Profane­ness, the Exposing of Holy Things and Per­sons, are such lively satisfactions. The Palate must be strangely vitiated to relish such En­tertainment as this. I would gladly believe the Stage has not yet subdued the Under­standings of the Audience, nor debauched their Reason to this degree. I hope the Town is misreported in some measure, and that as to the choise and value of Pleasure, the Psamist's Authority may be better than Mr. Congreves, Psal. 1.1, 2. Blessed is the man that stands not in the way of Sinners, nor sits in the Seat of the Scornful. But his delight is in the Law of the Lord.

Mr. Congreve pretends the Invectives of the Fathers were levell'd at the Cruelty of the Gla­diators, and the Obscenity of the Pantomimes. If some of them, continues he, have confound­ed the Drama with such Spectacles, it was an oversight of Zeal very alowable in those Days; and in the Infancy of Christianity, when the Religion of the Heathens was Intermingled with their Poetry and Theatral Representations. P. 105. The Fathers Censure of the Stage, of which I gave many Instances, was an oversight of Zeal! Their Heat ran away with their Judg­ment, and to make them s [...]fe, we must read [Page 84] them with Mr- Congreve's Comment. And yet this oversight of Zeal is forgotten, and their Conduct justified by our Author im­mediately after. For as the case then stood, he says the best of the Heathen Plays might very well be forbidden. Ibid. But these Restraints, it seems were put upon the Infancy of Chri­stianity. Under favour, Christianity was no gradual Religion. 'Twas like Adam at its full growth at first. If weakness, if obsti­nacy, and perverseness, are signs of Infancy, we are much more in the state of the Cra­dle now. As for the Concern of the Hea­then Religion, that was not the only Objecti­on the Fathers had to the Stage. They like­wise Declaim'd against the Lewdness and Immorality of those Diversions. This I have shewn sufficiently in the Testimonies Cited from them:View, &c. P. 276. d [...]inc. And likewise prov'd the Cen­sure of the Fathers applicable to the English Theater.

Amend. p. 105.Mr. Congreve would gladly throw his own Talent of unfair Citing and Misapply­ing upon me. But has not been able to prove it in one Instance,P. 106, 1 [...]7 excepting that mistake of Wasting for Wafting mentioned before.

His Story out of Polybius will do him no kindness; for, as I have observed already, there is no Arguing from Heathenism to Chri­stianity. Ignorance when not affected, goes a great way in an excuse. Polybius was a [Page 85] wise Man, but he was a Pagan, and lived too early to know any thing of our Religi­on. In short, either the Theatral Perfor­mances of the Cynethians were innocent, or they were not. If they were not, to what purpose are they mention'd: If they were, our Stage is no parallel to them. There be­ing very few modern Plays in which there is not something exceptionable: Either Cur­sing or Swearing, vain invocation of the Name of God, Ribaldry, or Profaneness; or else some foolish and destructive Passion made Creditable and Charming. And as for the Bulk of his Author Polybius, I sup­pose Scipio Nasica, Scaevola, and St. Augustin, were all of them as great Men as He. I shall give him counter-Evidence from them. This Father informs us,St. Aug. de Civ. Dei. lib. 1. cap. 31. that Scaevola vvho vvas Pontifex Maximus, and one of the Senate, disswaded that Noble Assembly from going on with the Building of a Theater. He told them in a set Speech, That this Diversion would bring in Foreign Vice; and the Debaucheries of Greece among them. That the old Roman Virtue would be lost, and the Spirits of the Peo­ple emasculated. This Harangue govern'd the Senate, and stopt the Progress of the Stage for that time. This Testimony St. Augustin mentions vvith Approbation. And in the next Chapter but one,cap▪ 33. He calls these Theatral Performances, animorum labem & pestem, [Page 86] probitatis & honestatis eversionem, i. e. The Blemishes of Humane Nature, the Plague of Reason, and the Ruine of Virtue: And adds, That Scipio foreseeing these mortal consequences, hindred the building of Play-Houses. He did not think the Government could subsist upon the strength of Brick and Stone. But that Discipline and good Manners were to be taken care of no less than the Fortification of the City.

To the Authority of this Father I shall Subjoyn that of Horace, vvho in his Book de Arte Poetica, Mentioning the Roman Theater before his ovvn Time, has these vvords.

Quo sane populus numerabilis ut pote parvus. Et frugi, castus (que) verecundus (que) coibat.

'Tis very remarkable says Monsieur Da­cier, that Horace should commend the old Romans for not frequenting the Theater. Dacier Remarq. sur L' Art Poetique Vol. 10. P. 238. He gives four Reasons for the little Inclina­tion they had for these Diversions. ‘They vvere not very Numerous; They vvere Wise; They vvere Religious; And they vvere Modest.’

The three last Reasons are strongly to our point, and the stronger for coming from a Poet. This vvas so plain, and so Con­siderable an acknovvledgment, that Mr. Da­cier makes the follovving Marginal Note upon it.Ibid. Vo [...]. [...]0. P. 37. The Theater Condemned as inconsistent with Prudence and Religion.

[Page 87]As for innocent Diversions, I have nothing to say against them. But I think People should take care not to relieve their Spirits at the expence of their Virtue, not to Cure Melancholy with Madness, and shake off their Spleen, and their Reason together. Mr. Gosson a Stage Poet in Queen Elizabeth's time says much the same thing, only the expres­sion is somewhat stronger. In his Address to the Gentlewomen of London, he has these words:See Goss.'s School of Abuse. Being pensive at Home, if you go to the Theaters to drive away Fancies, it is as good Physick, as for the Ache of your Head, to knock out your Brains; or when you are Stung with a Wasp, to rub the Sore with a Nettle.

The same Author is so Frank as to declare, That Ease and Idleness bring Destruction; and that Pleasure and Sport are the Devil's Baits: That honest Recreation quickens the Spirits, but Plays are venemous Arrows to the Mind. When Comedy comes upon the Stage, Cupid sets up a Springe for Woodcocks, which are en­tangled e're they discern the Line, and caught before they mistrust the Snare. And a little before,Apol. of the School of Abuse, p. 88, 89. We call that a Slaughter House where brute Beasts are kill'd, and hold that a Pastime which is the very Butchery of Christian Souls.

Mr. Congreve argues at last from the dis­advantage of the Globe, p 108. and the uncertainty of our Climate. Now I'm afraid these Geo­graphical Reasons are no better than the rest. [Page 88] I doubt this Expedient of a Play-house won't make the Latitude one jot the better. 'Twill ne're fix the floating of our Humours, nor bring us to the steddiness of the Continent. To speak softly: What is there more likely to awaken our Passions than these Diversi­ons, and to fill us with Freaks and Fancies, and extravagant Amusement? Now when Passions runs high, Disappointment rises with them, and good Humour grows more pre­carious. For the more we are disappointed, the more dark, and Saturnine, and Melan­cholick we shall certainly be. The Resigna­tion of Christians, and the Pleasures of Rea­son, and the Satisfaction of living to some purpose, are by much, the best Remedies against Melancholy.p. 10 [...]. But are not we of all People the most unfit to be alone? The French Proverb shall answer this: Better be Alone, than in ill Company. Mr. Congreve goes on in his Panegyrick upon his Country: Are there not more Self-Murtherers, and Melancholick Lunaticks in England,Ibid. heard of in one year, than in a great part of Europe besides. Tho' I somewhat question the Truth, as well as the Civility of this Reflection; but if 'tis true, 'tis probable the Play-House may in some measure account for the Fact. If there are more Self-Murthers and Lunacies in En­gland than elsewhere, 'tis probably, because there are more bad Plays in England than in [Page 89] a great part of Europe besides: I believe I may say, than in all Europe besides. When Passions are rais'd, and Principles destroy'd, some People can neither keep their Wits, nor their Lives long together. They grow impatient of this World, and Foolish enough to rush blindly upon the Other. Loue and Pride are observ'd to stock Bedlam. Now these two Passions are work'd up to the highest Excess in Plays. A Spark is scarce thought Civil to his Mistriss, unless he's ready to run Mad for her. And as for Pride, 'tis no less strongly recommended under the Notion of Glory, Greatness, and Revenge. Indeed the Play-house is a sort of Nursery to a Mad House: 'Tis not long since one of them was sent thither; and I rather wonder they are not oftner transplanted. I am sorry for any Man's Misfortune; and 'tis only Mr. Congreve's Argument which draws the Instance from me. He is now come to his last Questions.p. 109. From whence are all our Sects, Schisms, and innumerable Subdivisions in Re­ligion? Let them come from whence they will, we had better have them than some Peoples Remedies. 'Tis much safer to be of different Opinions, than agree in believing nothing. Atheism is an ill Cure of Heresy and Schism: I admire Uniformity in Doctrine extreamly; but still I must crave leave to believe, That a mistaken Consci­ence [Page 90] is more serviceable, than no Consci­ence at all.

Ibid.Mr. Congreve concludes his Book with an unfair Quotation about Musick. He under­stands the Art of Misrepresenting, and leaves out a significant word, very handsomly for that purpose. But I shall pass it over; and come to his Criticisms upon some of my Expressions.

p. 84.The Ladies fancy Slip-stocking high, with which he quarrels,Echard's Reasons of the Con. of the Clergy. is an Allusion to a known Story, in a Book very well known. To deal freely, I made bold with it to prevent its falling into the Enemies hand. A whole Kennel of Beaus after a Woman, Ibid. is no Lan­guage of mine: 'Tis a Quotation from the Relapse;See View, &c p. 225. Relapse, p. 64. View, &c. p. 27. as Mr. Congreve might easily have seen. Running Riot upon Smut, is misquo­ted. My words are these:‘The Double Dealer runs Riot upon such an occasion as this, and gives Lord Touchwood a mix­ture of Smut, &c.’ The upper End of the Go­vernment, is a defensible Expression; And his exception to the Litter of Epithets, &c. I have answer'd already. His Objections at Big-Allyances, is somewhat unfairly tran­scrib'd, and the Page mismark'd.View, &c. p. 130. The Pas­sage is this: ‘Iehoida was thought an Ally­ance big enough for the Royal Family.’ He Cavils at two other little words, which I think may pass: But I shall say nothing [Page 91] in their behalf. To defend such trifles, would be almost as idle, as to object against them.

Now though I have examined Mr. Con­greve's Writings but loosely upon this Head, yet in return to his Civilities, I shall present the Reader with some Proprieties of His in Phraseology and Sense.P. 11. In his Amendments we have, To Savour of Vtterance, &c. And in the Mourning Bride, p. 3.79. we have all the Deli­cacies of Language and Rhetorick, and the very Spring it self upon Paper. Here's Respi­ring Lips, M. Bride, p. 24, 64, 61, 57, 14. P. 8. ample Roof, and ample Knowledge, the Noon of Night, fear'd, for frighted, the pageantry of Souls, Eyes rain Blood, and what not. To go on a little with the Mourning Bride, with reference to Sense and Character.

King Manuell asks his Daughter Almeria, why she wears Mourning at his Triumph. She tells him, She mourns for her deliverance from a Wreck. This was a wise Answer, and a very natural way of expressing her Gratitude for coming safe on Shore.

Gonsalez relates Manuall's Victorious En­try after his Success against the Moors. The Cavalcade is wonderfully Splendid and Pom­pous: But the Story goes off somewhat un­luckily.

[Page 92]Here he Struts to purpose in Sophocles's Buskins! Cling and Claws are extreamly mag­nificent in solemn Description, and strange­ly proper for Tragedy and Triumph. To give him his due, I think these two Lines are the best Image of a parcel of Cats running up a Wall, that I have met with. That which follows is worth the remembring.

A Limb of an Eye, I confess, is a great Cu­riosity; And one would think if the Poet had any of these Limbs in his Head, he might have discover'd it. We must not forget Osmin's Talent in Arithmetick, who let us understand that

As Scanty as they are, I fancy Telling will be spent much sooner than Numbers: But Sense in a Tragedy is cold and unaffecting. To go on. Zarah makes Osmin a high Com­pliment upon his Air and Complexion: She tells him when she first saw him,

[Page 93]That he was

Death and Paleness are strong Resem­blances of a Deity! But I perceive, to some People, a Seraphim, and a drown'd Rat, are just alike. King Manuell is giving Sentence upon the Rebels: Let us see how he sup­ports his Character:

And a little after, he calls the Noble Osmin, that foreign Dog. Here's Majestick Passion, Royal Vengeance, and magnificent Railing for ye! A Common Hunt could not have done it better!Amend. p. 28. This, as Mr. Congreve has it, is Dog-Language with a Witness; and never made for a Monarch's Mouth.

Zara has another Flight very remarkable, and with that I shall conclude. This Prin­cess, we must know, was strangely smitten with Osmin, and finding her Amour cross'd, was resolv'd, out of stark Love and Kind­ness, to Poison him: 'Tis true, she intended to be so just, as to dispose of her self the same way. Now coming to the Prison she spies a Body without a Head, and imagining it Os­min's, grows distracted upon't. And why [Page 94] so? Was it because she was prevented, and had not the satisfaction of dispatching her Spark her self? Or was it because she had a mind to convince Osmin of the strength of her Affection by murthering him? That's somewhat odd. Was it then to shew how willing she was to dye with him? She says so; but presently rejects this reason as frivo­lous and unnecessary. For if you'll believe her, Osmin was capable of knowing her Passion, without so barbarous an Expedient.

Well, Let the reason of her Disorder be what it will, for we can't agree about it, she falls into a most terrible Fit of Fustian, upon the sight of the Body.

One would think by this Rant, that Zara had Bloud enough in her Veins to fill the Bay of Biscay, or the Gulph of Lions. At [Page 95] this rate a Man may let the Thames out of his little Finger! This is monstrous Impro­priety of Thought! Never were Things and Words, joyn'd more unluckily. Call you this Poetry! The Figures and Flights of Poetry are Bold; but then the Fancy should be Natural, the Figures Just, and the Effects holds some proportion with the Ca [...]se. Zara rises in her Rumbling, if 'tis possible, rails bit­terly on the King, in Astronomy; And, as far as I can discover, she goes somewhat upon the System of Copernicus.

Well. Tho this Lady has not much Wit in her Anger, she has a great deal of Learning: I must own, this is a very Scholar-like piece of Distraction. If Mr. Congreve replies, the Occasion was extraordinary; and that the sight of Osmin's Murther must mightily af­fect her. Granting all this, the old Saying will hold good against him: Curae leves lo­quntur, ingentes stupent: Here Almeria's Fit of Fainting,p. 37. and a good Swoon at the end on't, would have look'd like Business, and been very Natural upon the occasion. I could have been somewhat larger upon the Mourn­ing Bride, but this may suffice at present.

[Page 96]I charged Mr. Congreve with two very Lewd and Scandalous Songs; but these he passes over unmention'd.View, &c. P. 24, 25. L. for L. Lov. Tri­umph. p. 73. This is somewhat unfortunate: One would have thought, if he had neither Modesty to make them, nor Reason to defend them, he might, at least, have had a little Conscience to have given them up.

THIS Author pretends I had little to charge him with upon the Sub­ject of Immodesty, that I come to no particulars, Vindic. P. 7. but only mention Miss Hoyden with others for an Im­modest Character. By his favour, I am par­ticular in the matter objected,View, &c. P. 221. Relapse p. 60, 62, 63▪ and since he calls for it, I shall direct the Reader to some more Decencies of this young Lady. To de­ny Matter of Fact in the beginning of a Vin­dication is a little unlucky!

This Gentleman is at a loss what I mean by Immodesty, he knows of no smut talked by Miss Hoyden; And makes the Fault mine to under­stand him in that sense. Here's a flight of In­nocence [Page 98] for ye! One would think his Capaci­ty was bound up to Virtue in an extraordi­nary manner; And that the bare Notion of Ill could not get into his Head. By the way, I am sorry to find him thus Undistinguishing. This Ignorance in a Stage-Poet does not look well. Customary Swearing takes away the sense of doing it, and I am afraid it may be ap­plicable to other matters. The Vindicator and his Brethren have an admirable way of defend­ing themselves from Indecencies. If you de­tect them, they tell you 'tis your own Con­struction, and you may take it for your pains. As if the Knowledge of Good and Evil, was Criminal; and to show one Fault, was to make another. It seems then the Deformity of Mat­ters lies in the Organ, not in the Object, in the Idea not in the Thing. A Man had much better go into a Puddle than discover it. He that sees an Ulcer, or perceives an offensive Smell, is extreamly to blame in his Senses! The Vindicator imposes on the Reader by affir­ming himself concern'd only in one Quotation more in my Chapter of Immodesty. Ibid. For

View, &c. P. 219, 220.1. The general Reference may imply more. And besides, if it did not, I have given more Instances in Loveless and Berinthia, on the same Head,Relapse, p. 47, 51, 73, 74. tho not in the same Chapter. There are likewise more lewd Passages in his two Plaeys heighten'd with Irreligion; but these shall be Postpon'd a little.

I shall now examine his Defence of a quo­tation from the Provok'd-Wife. P. 41. The Dialogue lies between Lady Brute and Belinda. Belinda says, Why dont some Reformer or other beat the Poet for Smuttiness?

Because he is not so sure of our Private Approbation; as of our Publick Thanks. Well; sure there is not upon Earth, so Impertinent a thing as Womens Modesty.

Yes, Mens Fantasque that obliges us to it. If we quit our Modesty, they say we lose our Charms. (There's his Defence.) And yet they know that very Modesty is Affectation, and rail at our Hypocrisy. Here's admirable encouragement for Virtue! The Ladies make a Grievance of Modesty, and declare it the most impertinent thing in Nature. Ay, but what do the Men say? Why they say 'tis all Affectation and Hypocrisie. And are not these Charming Qualities upon the Discove­ry? A pretence seen through is wonderful­ly engaging! The Vindicator confesses as much. He says the Men rail at the Women for their Modesty. I can't see how they should do otherwise, if they believe it nothing but Gri­mace. Here's a handsome Complement upon the Women. They are brought in guilty by both Sexes, They can't be Sincere it seems without appearing Vitious, nor deal clearly without Impudence, nor be Honest without playing the Whore! But over and above the Poets Courtship; these are Powerful Mo­tives to Modesty! What Woman would not be in Love with it upon this Description? The Credit of Affectation is strangely trans­porting, who would not take pains to be counted a Hypocrite? There's nothing of Complexion in Modesty: 'Tis only a little Paint laid on with a Trowel. It neither sits easie, nor looks natural: 'Tis foolish to them­selves, [Page 100] and formal to other People: And now what Woman would not strive hard for such an Accomplishment as this? But on the other side, this is a comfortable Scheme for the Town Sparks ▪ To speak in our Author's Mi­litary way. What Libertine would not press the Siege, and be at the trouble of a little Storming, when he has Intelligence of a Par­ty within; when he believes the Bloody-Colours false, and that there's Friendship in the very Defiance? Now had I not upon this Occa­sion some reason to observe that M [...]desty was out of Fashion with our Stage, and the B [...]nk much sunk since the time of Euripides, I say since the time of Euripides; For his Ladies always converse with all the Decency and Re­servedness imaginable. They declare against intemperate Talk, and love Virtue both in the Thing and in the Appearance.

I had ranged the Profaneness of the Stage un­der two Heads.

• 1. Their Cursing and Swearing.
• 2. Their Abuse of Religion and Holy Scrip­tures.

Upon the Head of Swearing, I observ'd the Relapse and the Provok'd-Wife, were particular­ly Rampant and Scandalous. Vind. P. 11 This, the Vindi­cator says, was done with a great deal of Honesty and Charity. So 'twas. To report fairly, and tell People of their Faults, is ve­ry consistent with both those Qualities. He goes on, and jests a little about Bullys and Hackney-Co [...]eh-men, and by the Gayety of his Humour, you would think him extreamly Innocent. But after all this unconcernedness, [Page 101] [...] his Crime should not be little, I am afraid his Conscience will appear so. However he complains he is mightily overcharg'd; and that all the stretch of the Prophaneness lies in Ld. Foppington's Gad, Vind. p. 11 and Miss Hoyden's I-Cod. Now Hoyden's Expression I take to be rank Swearing, neither does he deny it. And as for Ld. Foppington, he adds By, to Gad; which in his particular way of Pronouncing o, like a, is broad and downright. This Gen­tleman would excuse himself by the Liber­ties of Conversation, and gives several Instan­ces of disguised Oaths. What means he by insisting so much upon Precedent? Does Cu­stom justifie a Fault? Is Sin Improv'd into Privelege?View, &c. P. 96. An. Cong. vid. 3d. Post. and can a Man Swear by Common-Law? Besides all the Instances mention'd ex­cepting Par Die, are less Criminal than his own. And were it otherwise, no sort of Pro­faneness is fit for Representation; as I have prov'd sufficiently already.P. 10. This Author com­plains, my Accusations against him almost al­ways run in general Terms, &c. Well. If a List of Particulars will oblige him, he shall have it. I did not take this Method for want of Evidence, I can assure him. The petty Oaths and Curses (as I suppose the Poets think them) together with the vain Invocation of the Name of God, I shall omit; To transcribe or point to them, would be tedious. But as for those of a blacker Complexion, tho they must not be produced, the Reader may see them if he pleases: And then he may judge if I have done the Vindicator any wrong by pronouncing them Rampant and Scandalous.

[Page 102] Relapse P. 7, 9, 11, 13, 28, 32, 33, 43, 44, 55, 61, 62, 65, 66, 74, 75, 77, 78, 81, 87, 101, 102, 103, 105. Pro. Wife. P. 20, 27, 36, 37, 39, 76. In the Relapse this Horrible Rhetorick is spoken by Ld. Foppington, Young Fashion, Seringe, Coupler, and Miss Hoyden. To these we must add Iustice Tunbelly, who to make himself the better Magistrate, Swears like a Bully with open Mouth. The Provok'd-Wife is little bet­ter. Sir Iohn and the Colonel Swear with a great deal of Relish and Noise; and Constant is not over stanch. Some of these Pages have double Charges, and so have some in the Re­lapse. Cursing and Fiends Language, is like­wise very frequent in the Provok'd-Wife. Now, tho Oaths are not, Curses may be Blasphemy, Fashion's is so in a horrible manner. This fine Gentleman does not stick to Curse the Author of his Being,Relapse p. 44. for making him youn­ger than his Brother. But this is not all the Blasphemy the Relapser has to account for. And now at the close of the Article I must own my self surpriz'd at the Courage of the Vin­dicator. That a Man thus Ill prepar'd, should cast the Cause upon so bold an Issue, press for a second Hearing, and call for a Charge in Particulars!

The second Branch of the Stage's Profane­ness, is the Abuse of Religion and Holy Scrip­ture. How does the Vindicator excuse him­self here? He says, Before he fell upon me for an Abuser of Holy Scripture, he should first clear­ly have prov'd, That no Story, Phrase or Ex­pression whatsoever in the Scripture, should be either repeated, or so much as alluded to upon the Stage. P. 13. In return to this, I must say, I have hinted this pretty strongly already,View, &c. Ch. 2. and pro­ved it by plain Implication. To argue the [Page 103] point more at length, I did not then think ne­cessary. For what can be more evidently Im­pious than to throw the most Solemn and the most Trifling things into the same Compo­sition; to make Religion part of our Sport, and the Bible furnish out the Stage? I thought no Person professing Christianity, could have wanted Information in this Case. But since I find the Poets disposed to Cavil,See 4th. Postul. I have satisfied this Objection more at large in my Reply to Mr. Congreve. The Vindicator's next attempt is very remarkable.

The Scripture, says he, is made up of History, Prophecy, and Precept; which are things in their own Nature capable of no other Burlesque than what calls in question either their Reality,P. 14.or their Sense. To this I Answer,

1st. That the Vindicator is out in his Noti­on of Burlesque. To Burlesque a Book, is to turn it into Ridicule. Now this may be done without questioning the History, or mistak­ing the Text. To apply the Case: To doubt the Meaning of some part of the Bible may be done without a Fault. I confess, to que­stion any Facts in Scripture would be to re­nounce Christianity. But then to make Di­version with them is still worse; And adds Contempt, to Infidelity. Indeed, to take these Freedoms with Religion is a sign of a slender Belief. We don't see Comedy Garnished with Parliament-House-Speeches. No. Where peo­ple are sure to be punished, they are careful not to provoke.

2ly. To believe the Scripture God's Word, and to play with it, heightens the Presumpti­on. [Page 104] 'Tis a horrid Reflection on the Divine Wisdom; It supposes the Concerns of the other World over flourish'd, that a Pompo [...]s out-side is given to Things Insignificant, and that the weight of the Cause holds no pro­portion with the Solemnity of the Court. Now that this Gentleman has several times brought the Bible to jest for him, is clear beyond all Contradiction.

3ly. The Vindicator is cast upon his own state of the Case. For his Play not only que­stions the Truth of the Scripture, but denies it; and gives an Instance to prove the As­sertion; and to give the more Credit to't, it comes from the best Character in the Poem. 'Tis done in a Soliloquy too, where accord­ing to our Author, the person who speaks is al­ways supposed to deliver his real thoughts to the Au­dience. Amanda is the person;Vind. p. 76 Lets hear her.

This Lady it seems spoke this for the good of the Publick; Her business, like Worthy's, was to Instruct the Audience. Yes, the de­sign of a Soliloquy, is to prevent misconstru­ction, to direct the Understanding, and secure the Interest of Virtue. 'Tis possible the Ac­count of Man's Creation might have been thought true, and the meaning of the Relapse misunder­stood, if Amanda had not been drawn out single for this Service. Well. But the Gentle­man who writ this Speech is gone to Muscovy.P. 21. I hope not to tell them the History of the Cre­ation [Page 105] is false; well let him go, I think this Town may spare him. But tho the Man is gone to Muscovy, the Play is here, and so is the Au­thor too, who took the pious Muse into his Protection and made her Free of his Poem. Suppose this new Lawre [...] should write a Treasonable Copy of Verses upon the Czar, and sheer off from Mosco when he had done. Suppose a Brother Poet of the Place should borrow them for his proper use, and Act and Publish them for his own. Would it be a suffici­ent excuse for the Latter to alledge that they were only borrowed, that his Friend was gone into a remote Country; but That to his Know­ledge he had too much Veneration for the Go­vernment to question its Authority, or sink its Credit? I am afraid such a Speech as this, would do but little Service at Mosco. It may not be amiss for the Vindicator to consi­der the Application, and the next time he has any Exercise made for him, to look a little better into the Contents.

We are now drawing towards Particulars. The History of Adam's Fall is wretchedly made use of in the Provok'd-Wife. P. 77. View, &c. P. 77. How the Scripture is affronted by this, the Vindicator can't tell;P. 14, 15 here's nothing that reflects upon the Truth of the Story. No. Is the Ridiculous R [...]sor no disadvantage to the Story? Does it not suffer by being mix'd up with Smut and [...]anter, and applied to a scandalous purpose. If these Liberties don't reflect upon the Truth of the Story, I am sure they reflect upon the Significancy on't, and by consequence upon the Honour of the Author. But by the Vin­dicator's [Page 106] Favour, I doubt it does Reflect upon the Truth of the Story. For who that look'd on this Account as deliver'd by the Holy Ghost would treat it thus disrespectfully? Who that believed himself akin to Adam would use his Memory thus Coursely,Vind. P. 15 Ridicule his Folly up­on the Stage, and make a jest of his Misfor­tunes? The Vindicator concludes the Page with a Memorable Sentence, and gives us to understand, That he shall always make a very great Distinction between his Respects to God and the Devil. Ibid. His Respects to God, is some­what Familiar. But he mends the Matter. He makes a very great Distinction between God and the Devil! Then it seems he has some Regard for both of them, some Respects for the Devil. Truly one would almost think so, by his way of Writing, and if we may ar­gue from the Interest he promotes, I am afraid the Bulk of the Distinction will lie the wrong way.

The Vindicator takes it Ill of me for Cen­suring the Liberties given to Ld. Foppington. And here (he says) I'm as angry with him for being for Religion, P. 16. as before for being against it. Not altogether. However here's a frank Con­fession, that he was against Religion before. Now by his managing, one would guess he had not changed his side. For whatever his Meaning might be, his Method is somewhat untoward. For does not Ld. Foppington Droll upon the Prayers, upon Sundays, and Sermons? Does he not do it in Earnest? The Vindica­tor grants all this. Is he check't then by the Ladies, or expos'd upon the Account? Very [Page 107] slenderly, if at all. Berinthia rather prompts him, and Amanda only asks him if there was good Preaching at St. James's;Relapse. P. 32, 33. And that she was the worst Company in the world at Church, being apt to mind the Prayers and Sermon. This is a poor Rebuke for such Rampant Pro­faneness. And as the World goes,View, &c. P. 78. may easi­ly be interpreted to Singularity, and Female Superstition. Ay, But Foppington's manner of speaking; together with the Character he repre­sents plainly instructs the Audience, P. 16, 17. that what he says of his Church Behaviour is design'd for their Contempt and not for their Imitation. 'Tis de­signed for their Diversion, if he pleases, which I'm mistaken if the Subject will allow of. Let Ld. Foppington speak.

Ld. Fop. Madam, Sunday is a vile day, I must confess; I intend to move for leave to bring in a Bill that the Players may work upon it.—A Man must have little to do there, that can give an account of the Sermon.—But if I can't give an account of the Ladies, I deserve to be excommunicated.—There's my Lady Tattle, Relapse P. 32, 33. &c. are the prettiest Company in the World.—One is strangely apt at Church to mind what one should not do, meaning the Prayers and the Sermon.

Now who can miscarry under such Instru­ction as This? A Man must be of a very low Form in his Understanding, not to see the Drift of the Author. This is Seraphick Satyr, all Light and Heat. Virtue must needs be re­fresh'd, and Conscience alarm'd strongly, by such Admonitions! Instead of giving a fright­ful Idea of Profaneness, the Matter is all turn'd into a Jest; and the Audience desired to laugh [Page 108] at those Practices, which will Damn them. These are admirable Sentences to Rally Reli­gion with, to furnish a young Libertine, and keep Atheism in Countenance! So much for the Manner of Speaking. And as for Lord Fop­pington's Character, that won't excuse him. As the Poet has manag'd the business, this Lord is not so contemptible. For some of the best Raillery in the Play falls to his Share,View, &c. P. 223. as I have shewn already. And were it other­wise, no pretence of Character can justifi [...] such profane Sallies.View p. 96 Answ. to Congoeve. But these Poets, if they can get a Fool, a Bully, or a Libertine, to fly out into Smut, or Irreligion, they are safe enough. Thus they can Please and Fence, at the same time; and the Character, as they fancy, is a Cover for the Trick. But there is much more of Art than Fair-dealing, in this Expe­dient. I wish they would consider, 'tis the Poet that speaks in the Persons of the Stage; And that he who makes a Man Mad, must an­swer for his Distraction.

P. 17.The Vindicator can find no reason for my Quar­r [...]l to Young Fashion, unless 'twas because I took him for his Friend. Then I was much to blame. But the worst is, this Gentleman contradicts himself in the next Sentence; and says, I ac­cus'd his younger Brother, for kicking his Conscience down Stairs. Well. That's something; but not all the Quarrel.View, &c. p. 210, 211. I complain'd of him likewise for a finish'd Debauchee; and exhibited a long Bill against him. This the Vindicator is pleas'd to slide over: And instead of defending his Libertine,P. 18. finds fault with my calling him his Favourite. And why so? Has he not provided [Page 109] him a Plot, a Fortune, and a creditable Figure? And are not all these signs of good Will and Inclination?Ibid. Well; but his Wife is likely to make his Heart ake. Indeed so says the Vindi­cator. But Young Fashion tells another Story. He is in no Fright about the matter. Upon observing some Signs of Extravagance in Hoy­den, he says to himself, (and then you may be sure he delivers his real Thoughts to the Audi­ence) 'Tis no matter. Relapse, p. 64. She brings an Estate will aefford me a separate Maintenance. We see here's no danger of Mortification. This Soliloquy is extreamly Moral! It teaches the Art of Marrying the Estate without the Woman, and makes a Noble Settlement upon Lewdness.

The Vindicator complains because I wont take his word in the business of Pimping. p. 18, 19. Under fa­vour, he does me wrong; I never questioned his Experience in these matters. Since he puts me upon't, I am willing to believe him a good Authority in the Case: And that he is well qualified to pronounce upon the Growth and Improvement of this Mystery. What if the Profession soars somewhat higher than formerly, I hope 'tis not grown creditable? If 'tis infamous in a Peasant, 'tis more so in a Person of Figure? Why then is it not Lash'd and Stigmatiz'd? Why han't we some of Plautus's and Terence's Discipline upon't? Why is the Poet's Fine Gentleman put upon this Drudgery?See Pref. Relapse. To use the Profession thus gently, and pay it so fair a Respect, is the way to make it soar still higher, and bring it more into Fashion. But the Vin­dicator's Civilities to Pimping were not the only Thing which I objected: I observ'd that Wor­thy [Page 110] and Berinthia made it an Act of Christian Charity, View, &c. p. 79, 219. and rallied profanely upon the Office. But 'tis not this Gentleman's Method, to spea [...] to the Difficulty.

He tells me 'tis a dull Thing, to expect any thing not dull from a Nurse. p. 19. And why so? As slender People are entertaining sometimes. Why mayn't the Woman be a little Witty if she was Born so, especially when she is to di­vert the Company? All Nurses are not Fools, any more than all Poets are Wits. Besides, I did not expect any great matters from her in this kind. But though she has not Wit, she ought to have Humour? So that when she is out of Character in her Profaneness, and speaks contrary to Custom and Probability, when the Race and Spirit of her Discourse, lies only in the Abuse of Two or Three solemn Ex­pressions of Scripture, Relapse, p. 96. I say when this happens, 'tis pretty plain the Poet's Design, is to treat the Audience at the Expence of Religion.

The Vindicator sets down some more of Nurses fine Speech which I had omitted. She calls Bull Priest of Baal, and tells him, her Con­science flies in her Face for taking his Advice;P. 20. and that his Ahsolution is not worth an old Cassock. Now all these fine Sentences are only for Diversion. 'Tis nothing but Cracking a Iest upon a Chaplain; And he should be very sorry to see the Day when such a Liberty where it has no Allusion to Religion) should be brought within the Verge of Profaneness. Ibid. And how does he prove a Jest on a Chaplain such a warrantable piece of Raillery? Has not a Chaplain the same Commission and Business with another Clergyman? And if so, why [Page 111] should his Treatment be more Course? If there's no Distinction in the Office, why should there be any in the Usage? But it may be the Vindicator may think his Authority sunk upon the Score of Obligation: And that Eating and Drinking, are better than Prayers and Sacra­ments. But this passage of Nurses has no Allu­sion to Religion. Ibid. That's strange! Is Sporting in Scripture-phrase, so foreign to that Sub­ject? Has the Drolling on the Priests Blessing, upon the Power of the Keys, and the Instituti­on of our Saviour, no Allusion to Religion? If this Gentleman had the Stating of Profane­ness, 'twould shrink into a narrow Compass. It would be no easy matter to talk amiss; and the Laity would have as little Sin left them, as the Clergy would have fair Quarter.

Worthy's Address to the fine Procuress Berin­thia, must now be enquir'd into. Upon her promise of a Lewd Assistance, his Gratitude is wonderfully rais'd,Vind. p 22 View, &c. P. 80. and Devout. Thou Angel of Light, let me fall down and adore thee. He says, if I had quoted her Answer, I had given a better Character of him;p. 23. and he thinks, of my self. Truly, I would gladly oblige both of us, but I'm afraid 'twon't do this time: However, let's hear Berinthia's Answer.Relapse, p. 91. Ber. Thou Mi­nister of Darkness get up again; for I hate to see the Devil at his Devotions. This is to make amends for t'other. I can't perceive how. One Man in­jures his Neighbour, and another blames him for't; does this cancel the guilt, & make the Fact nothing. One Man speaks Blasphemy, & another reproves him; does this justifie the Boldness, or make the Words unspoken? But by this [Page 112] Answer the Audience are put in mind, Vind. p. 23 she is [...]ot supposed to deserve that Compliment. I can't [...] that neither. Berinthia's Answer looks [...] like a design of carrying on the Profan [...]ne [...]s, and continuing the Religious Banter. [...]r Character is loose throughout the Play, and she never says ought that's good, unless [...]o abuse it. The Poet might easily see, that I [...] ­struction in her Mouth was most likely to be misunderstood and miscarry. There's no oc­casion for much quoting, the next Lines will shew us how significant her Advice must needs be.

Well, (says Worthy) my inc [...]mparable Be­rinthia, how shall I requite you?

Relapse. Ibid. O ne'er trouble your self about that: Vir­tue (alias Pimping) is its own Reward. There's a Pleasure in doing good, which sufficiently pays it self. Here's a Lecture of Philosophy well ap­ply'd! This is an Admirable Lady to cor­rect ill Sentences, and give Aim to the Audi­ence! And yet the jest on't is, the Man's not pleas'd because I did not commend him for his Care. Truly he must excuse me, I am not so full of Panegyrick as this comes to.

I cited L. Brute for saying the Part of a down­right Wife is to Cuckold her Husband. The ad­dition of setting it down as a Precept, is all his own, and so consequently is the Foul Play too, as will appear by the Ladies words.

Pro.-Wife P. 3. View, &c. P. 83. Belinda—I could almost resolve to play the downright Wife, and Cuckold him. Is not to play the Knave, and to play the part of a Knave the same thing? This, tho it does not imply Duty and Precept, it supposes ge­neral [Page 113] Practice, Truth in Notion, and proprie­ty of Character: And as a Man cannot be said to be a Knave, without playing Knavish Tricks; so by the Poets Reasoning, a Woman can't be said to play the downright Wife, unless she Injures her Husband. This is a great Com­pliment to the Ladies! And whether the Vindicator has reason to ask their Pardons for Lying, Vind. p. 23 in jest or in earnest, the Reader must judge.

He owns Lady Brute in her next Reply, says,p. 24. that which at first View seems much more lyable to exception. This Confessiion is more than ordinary; Let the Lady speak.

Why, after all there's more to be said for't (for Adultery) than you'd imagine Child. I know according to the strict Statute Law of Re­ligion, I should do wrong; but if there were a Court of Chancery in Heaven, I should be sure to cast him.

If there were a House of Lords you might.

In either I should Infallibly carry my Cause. Why he is the first Aggressor. (It had been worse if he had been the second.) Not I.

Ay,Pro. Wife. P. 4. View, &c. P. 83.but you know, we must return good for evil.

That may be a mistake in the Tran­slation.

Thus the Justice of God, the Court of Hea­ven, and the Precepts of our Saviour are Ri­diculed!S. Mat. 5. And what can make satisfaction for these horrible outrages? Not all the Blood in a Man's Veins. The Mercy that Pardons such Boldness, had need be infinite! But th [...] [Page 114] Vindicator has taken care that her Raillery should not be mistaken for her serious Opinion. Ibid. She tells Belinda, Pro. Wife. p. 4. I shall play the fool, and je [...] [...] till I make you begin to think, I am in earnest. This is an admirable defence! The Woman Blasphemes in jest, and diverts the Company with the Bible, Ibid. and therefore all's well; and the Poet must be commended for his Caution! I perceive God and Religion are very Signifi­cant Things with some People!

Relapse P. 1 [...]. View, &c. P. 84.To disengage Young Fashion from his very Profane Application of Providence. He says, every body knows the word Providence in common Discourse goes for Fortune. A Man that's sink­ing will catch at a Weed. I am sorry I must spend my time about words, especial­ly in so plain a Signification. But since the business must be undertaken, I shall endea­vour at a brief satisfaction.Cic. De. Nat. Deor. Lib. 1. P. 4670, 4671 Lib. 2. P. 4732, 4764. Ed. Du. Pays. We may observe then that Tully in his Philosophical Tracts di­stinguishes Providence from the Epicurean Sy­stem of Chance and Fortune. Providence and Divine Administration, are with him the same Thing. The Emperour Marcus Antonius Phi­losophus has this Religious Expostolation. [...] Who would live in a World uninhabited by the Gods, and Providence? Now for a little English Au­thority' Sir Roger L' Estrange in his Aesop's Fables, P. 68, 78. & alib. uses the Word Providence frequently for the Government of the World by the Dei­ty; but no otherwise that I Remember. And more particularly in the 187, and 211. Pages, he makes the Notion of Fortune and Providence distinct, and opposes the one to the other.

[Page 115]This Gentleman is well known to be a Ma­ster of Stile, and therefore I chuse to instance in him. Mr. Dryden another good Judge in Language,Don Seba. P. 51. Mock Ast. P. 36. uses, Providence in the same Sense tho not upon so good an Occasion. To Con­clude. The Relapser himself shall come in Evidence, and Attack the Vindicator for once. Enter Bull. Relapse P. 97.

What Providence orders, I submit to.

And so do I, with all Humility.

Why that now was spoke like good People.

Thus we see from Bull's Religious Chara­cter, from Nurses solemn acquiescence, and from Coupler's Reflection, the Relapser takes Providence for Divine Appointment, and the Pleasure of the first Being.

Berinthia comes again; and here the Relap­ser has shown us what speed we may expect from him when he strikes out. This Lady was Worthy's Procuress. To succeed in her busi­ness she tells Amanda, He (Mr. Worthy) used you like a Text, he took you all to pieces, but spoke so Learnedly—One might see the spirit of the Church was in him. Now why does the Vindicator deny his own Words, and affirm the Woman is not liken'd to a Text in general;Vind. P. 26 or any other way? He had much better drop the Cause, than plead it thus untowardly. To return to the Relapse. Berinthia goes on in Pulpit-phrase, and pursues her Employment very intelligibly.Relapse P. 69. At last she mentions. Vse and Application, and brings them up to the point of Debauchery. By her talking you would think there was little Difference be­tween [Page 116] Lewdness and Religion. And that Whoring and Preaching, a Church and a Baw­dy-House might be treated alike. This fine Discourse the Vindicator, out of his great Mo­desty, calls an inoffensive Simile, Vind. P. 26 and says it abu­ses no body.

Berinthia concludes in Blasphemy, and joyns the Atheist and the Procuress together. Now consider (says she) what has been said, and Hea­ven give you Grace to put it in Practise;Relapse Ibid. View, &c. P. 84. that is to take Berinthias lewd Counsel, to prostitute her Virtue, and turn Whore. These words would be always Profane upon the Stage, but the Application of them here, is flamingly Blasphemous. The Vindicator's Defence is re­markable. He grants these words are often u­sed at the close of a Sermon, P. 27. and therefore perhaps might as well have been let alone. It seems the Case is somewhat doubtful, he is not sure but that a Man may as well Blaspheme as let it a­lone! One had need of Patience to read this▪ But St. Michael did not rail upon the Devil,St. Jude. and therefore I shall pass it over. His lame excuse from the Character, and Manner, I have disprov'd already.Relapse P. 49. This Berinthia has a very Scandalous Soliloquy; She thanks heaven for her Impudence, and is nauseously Bold, and Profane: which, besides the Irreligion, is an odd way of treating her Sex, and Figure.

We are now come to the Abuse of the Cler­gy. And here the Vind [...]cato [...]'s method of purg­ing himself is extraordinary. He runs a great length of Satyr upon the Rights and Privileges of the Clergy. I perceive the little Justice I endeavoured to do that Order, won't down [Page 117] with him. By his Reasoning one would think the World strangely Priest Ridden, and all Ages, Countrys, and Religions, extreamly to blame! If you'll take his word for't, Riches, Plenty and Power, p. 30. are very Improper things for a Church-man. And yet this Gentleman owns the Institution of the Clergy to be the most Effectual means of promoting our Happiness in thi [...] World, Ibid. and the other. Say you so? Then sure they ought to have a share in the Common Advantages. Acknowledgment should always bear some Proportion to Obligation. Where's the Gratitude, or even the Justice of acting otherwise? If Riches and Power are things de­sirable, why should not the Clergy come in with the rest; If they are not, why are they grudged them? To put the Priesthood under a Disadvantage in the State, only for having God's Commission, is an odd way of shewing our Religion. 'Tis somewhat hard a Man should be barr'd the Conveniencies of this Life, for helping his Neighbours to a better. To proceed. Are not the Clergy of the same Humane Nature with other People? Have they not the same Necessities for this World, and the same Conscience and Discretion to use it? Generally speaking, Poverty does as ill with a Priest, as with a Poet. Tis apt to Sink the Spirits, to make the Mind grow Anxious, and Feeble in the discharge of Function. If Riches are so invincibly dangerous, why don't the Christian Laity part with them, and like Crates, throw their Gold into the Sea? But does not this Plea for the Churches Temporals, reflect on the Author of Christianity; or as [Page 118] the Vindicator too lightly expresses it,Vind. P. 30, 31. do [...]s it not suppose that Christ and his Apostles▪ took the thing by the wrong handle? By no means▪ The case is not the same. The Apostles had a Power of working Miracles,Acts 3.8. & 5.5, 10. & 28.8. 1 Cor. 5▪ 5. to hold up their Character, and make way for their Doctrine. They could Cure Diseases, and Inflict them▪ Kill and make Alive, Punish and Oblige in the highest manner. They had Nature at their beck, and Omnipotence about them. Such Creden­tials needed no other Recommendation. Such Illustrious Poverty out-shines Imperial Gran­deur, and makes a Cottage look Nobler than a Court. But this Glorious Assistance was le [...] but for a few Ages. When Christianity was once Established, and Princes Converted to the Faith, the end of Miracles went off, and the Power was recalled. From this time the Church was left in some measure to Humane Prudence, and Civil Policy. When the Heavens were thus shut in; and the other World withdrew, there was more occasion of recourse to This. Now, Temporal Advantage, and Secular Sup­port, grew much more seasonable, and the Church was obliged to preserve her Autho­rity by some of the methods of Civil Gover­nours. But the Vindicator says,P 39. Religion is not a Cheat, and therefore has no need of Trappings. A Judge is no Cheat neither. 'Tis well known he has a good Commission. To what pur­pose then are all these Formalities of the Cour [...]; All this Expence in Solemnity and Retinue? Can't the Old Gentleman come like an V­topian Syphogranta, Moor's Utop. with a wisp of Grass up­on a Pole. Away, crys the Vindicator, with [Page 119] all this unnecessary State. Why must the Charge be given in Furs and Scarlet, when the Law will operate every jot as well in Lea­t [...]? However, this Gentleman will have it that an Ambassador who comes with advantageous Proposals, Ibid. stands in no need of Equipage to procure him Respect. This Project would save a great deal of Money? But there are few Prin­ces of his mind. What does the Vindicator mean by all this good Husbandry? would he have an Ambassador Travel like a Carrier with a Port-Mant [...]au behind him? Such Equipage would Represent strongly, and give a noble Idea of his business. In short, as things stand, Government of all kinds, requires somewhat of Figure. Appearance goes a great way in the Expediting of Affairs. Naked Reason won't always do. The generality must have their Senses struck, and their Ima­gination affected. Thus Authority is best re­fresh'd, and the Ends of the Institution secur­ed. For this purpose Miracles were wrought; and when they cease, 'tis proper to apply to the usual Expedients.

And now I shall venture to confront the first A [...]rticle of his Heresy, Vind. P. 31 as he calls it, with this Truth, viz. That the Shepherd who has least Meat at home in his House, has most Bu­siness: For Indigence has a very working Head; and a Man is always most full of Care, when he does not know how to live: And for the same Reason, he that has the best Fortune, may be most at leisure, because he has others to manage his Affairs.

[Page 120]The Vindicator in his 2d. Article discourses of Sauce and Sops, p. 32. &c. But he has cook'd the Al­legory so oddly, that I know not well what to make on't. If he reasons from the Kitchin up­on these subjects, he must talk by himself. His 3d. Article I have spoken to already, and am now to consider it farther. For

P. 38, 39.The Vindicator pretends, That Piety, Learn­ing, Charity and Humility, would secure the Cler­gy from Neglect, much better than Power, and Revenue. Upon a View of the whole, one and t'other will be found to do very well together. For 1st. If Piety and Power are not to be re­concil'd, and a Man must either throw up his Fortune or his Creed, the Laity will be ob­lig'd to the same Resignation. The Inclosures of Property and Privilege must be broken down, and all Things laid in Common. But if 'tis possible for a Man to be Pious with a Penny in his Pocket, the Clergy I suppose may be so, with as little difficulty as their Neigh­bours. Then as for Learning, Poverty, and this Advantage are inconsistent. As the World goes, there's little Knowledge to be had with­out Money. A Man may get Honesty for no­thing; but if he will have any Sense to't more than ordinary, he must pay for't. There are some few Exceptions to this Rule, but gene­rally speaking, it holds true. To go on. Cha­rity is much better exercised with Revenue, than without it. 'Tis true, a Beggar may have as large a Soul as a Prince. But Will without Power, is neither so clear nor so serviceable. He that can go no farther than a good Wish, is oftentimes only kind in his Conscience, and [Page 121] a Benefactor to himself. For where the Heart is invisible, the Obligation must be so too. But Power brings secret Goodness into Light, and makes it appear unquestionable. And to come closer to the subject, I believe if the Preacher could Dine all the Poor of the Parish every Sunday, his Sermon would be more sig­nificant. His Table would assist his Pulpit, and his Charity reinforce his Reasoning. They'd first come to him for the Loaves, and then for the Doctrine. And lastly, as for Hu­mility, I agree with the Vindicator; I think it most necessary; and that no Man can be a Christian without it. But whether I have the same Notion of this Virtue with our Author or not, I can't tell. To be humble, a Man is bound not to be full of himself, or grow stiff upon any Advantage, but give all the Glory to God. He must be fair in Conversation, not despise the least Mortal, but rather stoop to oblige those upon lower Ground. Thus far without doubt all Clergymen, and all Christians are concern'd to be Humble. But to be servile and sheepish to humour Pride, and blow up Conceit, this is quite another thing. There's neither Humility, Discretion, nor so much as Honesty, in such Management. 'Tis little Knavery, and para­sitical Meanness; and Church Men, of all People, should stand clear of so uncreditable an Imputation.Congr. Amend. Now 'tis this sort of Humility the Stage would put upon them. The Vindi­cator and Mr. Congreve, are wonderfully for an humble Clergy: And so are some of the proudest Men I ever met with. If 'tis said the [Page 122] Clergy are bound to be Exemplary, I willingly grant it. But Example supposes other Persons concern'd besides those who Set it. If the Clergy are to be Examples, 'tis because the [...]i­ty are bound to follow them: And in Humili­ty too, as well as in other Duties. For if the Teachers are bound to be Humble, the He [...]er [...] without question are under the same Obliga­tion. The Argument might be press'd far­ther, but I rather chuse to leave it with the Reader. And since we are on the subject of Humility, the Vindicator and Mr. Congreve would do well to think on't. If as this Gen­tleman observes, He who teaches Piety and Mo­rality to the World, is a great Benefactor to Man­kind: Then by the rule of Contraries, he who teaches Immorality, must be as great a Nu­sance. He who makes it his business to exter­minate Vertue, and Conscience, and debauch both Practice and Principle, must needs be a Misfortune to the Age. Unless they can clear themselves of this Imputation, they ought to be wonderfully modest and unpretending. To be the Author of irreparable Mischief▪ to destroy the Innocence of Life, the Securities of Government, and the Expectations of the World to come, are powerful Reasons for Humility. Those who in any measure lye un­der this Charge, can hardly bend too low, or think themselves lesser than really they are.

Prov. Wif. p. 45, 46, 51, 52. View, &c. 180.The Vindicator would make us believe, that Sir Iohn Brute's debauching in a Gown, was no Abuse of the Clergy. That's Strange! I take it the Company were merry with the Disguise. 'Twas the Habit and Function which [Page 123] made the Scene diverting. The Oaths and Lewdness would not have made half the Mu­sick in a Lay-Character: And the Constable's Je [...]s would have been but heavy upon ano­ther occasion. Besides. Sir Iohn is made to abuse his pretended Brethren, and the Justice falls in general upon the Order. Pro. Wife, 45, 51. And is it no Disservice to be thus executed in Effigie, and made a Mad man by Representation? If a Lewd Person could steal his Neighbour's Shape, and then play all his Pranks in't, I suppose he would have no Thanks for his pains. When the Badge of a Man's Office which should give him Credit, is shewn ridiculous, I fancy, he has reason to complain. If the Vindicator is of another mind, let him practise the same Liberty upon a Iudge, or a Lord Mayor, and see how the Jest will take.

I observ'd upon the Relapse, View, &c. 109. Relap. 74. that Bull the Chaplain, wish'd the married Couple Joy, in Language horribly Smutty and Profane. I con­fess, I could not go on with it. And what says the Vindicator to this?Page 35. Why he plucks up his Spirits, and lays it all upon the Board; no body could have transcrib'd a foul passage more honestly. And now who would suspect the Man to be otherwise than Innocent? Thus some People when they are going to put a Trick upon you, strip their Arm bare, and pretend strongly to fair Dealing. But here the matter was too gross for a cleanly Con­veyance. To argue this Point any farther, would be an ill Compliment to the Reader, and therefore I shall pass it over.View, &c. 109, 110, 232. I charg'd the Relapse, Preface and Play, with a great deal [Page 124] more scandalous Abuse of the Clergy; but this the Vindicator is pleas'd to overlook. And as to the irreligious Part,Page 35. he only says, 'tis just as profane as the rest; which though it may not come up to the Merits of some passages, is Character bad enough in all Conscience.

We are now advanc'd to a new Chapter. And here the Vindicator would fain know which way I make it appear,Page 44. That Constant is his Model for a Fine Gentleman; and that he is brought upon the Stage for Imitation. This de­mand is easily satisfyed. That he stands for a fine Gentleman, is evident from his Sense, his Breeding, and his Figure? Now these Circum­stances, with the fair Treatment he meets with, make him a Model for Imitation. This conse­quence follows naturally from the Advantage of his Character. For most young People of any pretences, love to be counted fine Gentle­men. And when Vice has Credit, as well as Pleasure annext, the Temptation is dange­rously fortified.

Page 45.The Vindicator tells the Reader, That this honest Dr. does not understand the Nature of Co­medy, tho he made it his Study so long. For the bu­siness of Comedy is to shew People what they should do, by representing them doing what they should not do. Nor is there any Necessity to explain the Moral to the Audience. For all this Liveliness, I'm afraid this honest Poet, neither understands Comedy, nor himself, and that's somewhat worse. Not himself, because he contradicts what he wrote before.Vind. p. 9. For in the beginning of his V [...]n­dication he acquaints us how careful he was to explain the Moral, for fear of misconstruction. [Page 125] Yes; for fear the Boxes and Pit should misin­terpret him.Page 45. But now the Tale is quite turn'd, and there's no need of a Philosopher to unrid­dle the Mystery.

2ly. He mistakes the Nature of Comedy. This we may learn from Ben. Iohnson, who acquaints the Vniversity, Fox Ep. Ded. That he has imitated the Conduct of the Antients: In whose Comedies the Bawds, &c. yea and oft-times the Masters too, are multed, and that fitly, it being the Office of a Comick Poet to imitate Iustice, and instruct to Life. Is it the Of­fice of a Comick Poet to imitate Iustice, &c. then certainly Rewards and Punishments ought to be rightly apply'd: Then a Libertine ought to have some Mark of Disfavour set upon him, and be brought under Discipline and Disgrace.See View, &c. 151, 153, 164. To say the Business of Comedy is to shew People what they should do, by representing them doing what they should not, is a pleasant way of argu­ing! What is the Stage to be read Backwards, and construed by Contradiction? When they talk Smut must we understand them in a Sense of Modesty; and take all their Profaneness for Pious Expression? Then by the same Rule, when they say any thing that's good, we must conclude they have a Lewd Meaning. This is an admirable Compass to Sail by; such Pilot­ing must needs discover all the Rocks and Quick-sands in the Voyage! This undistin­guishing Method at the best, would be like pulling up the Buoys, quitting the Helm, and leaving the Passengers to Steer at their Discre­tion. But as the Poets manage the matter, 'tis still more dangerous. For to shew a Religious Person ridiculous; to give Figure and Success [Page 126] to an ill Character, and make Lewdness Modi [...] and Entertaining, is the way to mi [...]mark the Nature of Good and Evil, and con­found the Understandings of the Audience▪ 'Tis the way to hide the Flaws in Behaviour,Vind. p. 46 to Varnish the Deformity, and make the Blemishes look Shining. The Vindicator insists, That Constant says nothing to justifie the life he leads, except, &c. What needs he? He is sufficiently justified in his Character and Usage, and in not being punish'd.Page 47. Let's have the rest. He does not justifie the Life he leads, except where he's plead­ing with Lady Brute to debauch her, and s [...]re no body will suppose him there to be speaking much of his mind. Why not? Does a Man who argues against Conscience, and talks like an Athe [...]st, never speak his Mind? If a Libertine pleads in his own Defence, why must he not be sup­pos'd to be in earnest? Besides, how could Con­stant expect to carry the Cause, unless the Co­lours look'd fair, and the Reasoning probable? To give this Spark his due, he makes the most of his Matters. He endeavours to inform the Lady,Pro. Wife, Page 34. That Virtue consists in Goodness and P [...]y, not in snarling straitlaced Chastity. That Honour is a phantome, and that the Importance of [...]t lies in the Custom of the Country, not in the Nat [...]e of the Thing; and pretends precedents for a contrary Practice. In short, Hobs and Spinos [...] could scarcely have said more for him. This is ad­mirable instruction!Ibid. And Lady Brut [...] for all the shrewdness of her Answers, confesses her self puzzl'd, and suffers the Intrigue to go on. In a word,Pro. Wife, 35. if the Young Ladies (the Vindicator takes such care of) have nothing but this D [...] ­logue [Page 127] for their Security, I should think them in a dangerous Condition.Vind. p. 47 And here I can't but take notice how the Vindicator contradicts himself again.Vind. p. 45 47. He makes the Lady turn P [...]i­losopher, and gives an Interpreter to the Poppet-Show.

I tax'd his Bellinda for confessing her Inclina­tion to a Gallant.View, &c. 146. For this he calls me an un­fair Adversary, Page 47. Vind. p. 48 as if I had misreported him, adding withall, that Bellinda only says, If her Pride should make her Marry a Man she hated, her Virtue would be in danger from the Man she lov'd. His Play will soon decide this Controversy, and shew on which side the Unfairness lies. Bellinda's words are these:

to Lady Brute.Prov. Wif. q. 64. O' my Conscience were it not for your Affair in the Ballance, I should go n [...]ar to pick up some odious Man of Quality yet, and only take poor Heartfree for a Gallant. This very Bellinda a little before advises Lady Brute to surrender her Virtue to Constant. Prov. Wif. p. 45. The Lady requites her in a suitable encouragement.

If you did commit Fornication Child, Ibid. 'twou'd be but a good friendly part, if 'twere only to keep me in Countenance whilst I commit — So it seems, she must turn Whore out of good Breed­ing. These two Ladies, in a private Dialogue, where we must suppose their Hearts are open, are extreamly instructive and civil to their Sex! Lady Brute informs her Neece, that the Men are most of them Atheists, and believe the Women to be no better; that by a Woman of Reputation, is meant no more than a Woman of Discretion. To this Accusation the Lady pleads Guilty, and confesses, That want o [...] In­clination [Page 128] seldom protects any of her Sex. And as for Fear, 'tis too weak a Restraint to hold them long. And were it not for their Cowardise, they would likewise venture upon all the Mas­culine Vices of Fighting, Prov. Wif. p. 65. Swearing, Blaspheming, &c. Here you have the Secrets of the Cabinet, and Truth and Ceremony in abundance. This Author in his Vindication Courts the Sex in his own Person.Vind. p. 44 45. With all due Respects (says he) to the Ladies, a Bishoprick may prove as Weighty a Reward, as a Wife, or a Mistress either. It seems then in the Scale of this Civil Gradation, a Mistress, that is a Strumpet, is a weightier Reward than a Wife. Truly I think the Vin­dicator pays his Respects to the Ladies in this place, almost as untowardly as he did to the Devil before.

To conclude with the Provok'd Wife. The Men of Figure in this Play, (excepting the Justice, who makes but a short Enter) are profess'd Libertines, and pass off without Cen­sure or Disappointment.Prov. Wif. P. 76, 77. I grant Sir Iohn's Character has some Strokes of Discourage­ment, but he's made pretty easy at last, and brought to no Pennance. The Women have some of the same Inclinations; and the same good Luck with them. 'Tis true Lady Fanci­full miscarries in her Design; has her Disguise pull'd off, and falls under some Confusion. But then we are to take notice, that this Lady was the most Modest of the Company. What e're her Thoughts were, she has the Discretion to keep them in Reserve. This Squeamishn [...]ss, 'tis possible, drew down the Severity of the Poet. Had she been as bad as the rest, she [Page 129] might have fared better. But it seems, a pre­tence to Virtue is an unsufferable Boldness; and she must be punish'd in Terrorem to her Sex.

This sort of Management puts me in mind of Mr. Dennis's Ingenuity. He frankly Confesses Lewdness promoted by the Stage. This is clear dealing: And I suppose, the main Reason of his saying that the Play-House Contributes so much to the Happiness of the Nation.

We are now come forward to the Remarks up­on the Relapse. And here the Vindicator does as good as confess he has made many foolish Mistakes in his Play. Vind. P. 56 57. And by a peculiar happiness in his Understanding, seems both sensible, and sa­tisfied with it.

The Vindicator pretends much to Morals and Instruction about Loveless and Amanda; but can't forbear running upon the old Haunt. For after having made himself Merry with a Venison Pasty and a Tankerd of Ale;P. 61. he falls a quoting the Lords-Prayer about his Play, and in different Chara­cters, to make us sensible of his Devotion.

He goes on in the Relation of his Fable, quotes Lead us not into Temptation once again; and says, Loveless had no farther occasion for that Petition. P. 65. I wish the Poet is not of Loveless's Opinion. His making bold with so Solemn a Sentence upon so light a Subject, is somewhat to be suspected.

He informs us that Loveless and Amanda's Virtue was built upon a Rock, P. 65, 69. and raised upon the utmost strength of Foundation, and had Religion, &c.Rel [...]pse P. 2, 3. to defend it. And yet this Pious Couple are for Mahomets Paradise, and wish for Immortal Sensualities.

[Page 130]He would make Loveless and Amanda the chief Characters by the Importance of the Design. P. 71. The Importance of his Play is Diversion; And to gain This he has broke through the Rules of the Dra­ma. Vind. P. 60 But let his Private Design be what it will, I still say, Young Fashion, Lord Foppington, and their Party, make the principal Figure in the Play: The Plot, the Fortune, and the Conclu­sion, the greatest part of the Play, and of the Persons too is on their side. As for poor Love­less he sinks in the middle of the Fourth Act, and you may go look him. Here the Vindicat [...]r could not find in his heart to quote fair; how­ever, he makes a shift to say that if the Play had sunk in the Fourth Act too, p. 72. it had been bet­ter than 'tis by just Twenty per Cent. If he does not mean Pounds, I agree with him, so far as to own that if it had sunk in the Third Act it had been more Valuable. For some Entertainments like Dirty way, are always the better for being short. However, does not this Confession prove the Truth of my Remarks, and that Loveless was a Character of inferiour Consideration? Does the main Concern use to die so long before the Epilogue, and the Cheif Person go off when about a Third of the Play is remaining?

The Vindicator gives a Home Thrust at Parting, but his Weapon like Scaramouchy's is made of a Rush. He complains mightily of un­fair Dealing, and pretends I have Ridiculed the Morality of the Scene between Worthy and A­manda. P. 73, 74. Thus he endeavours to cast a Mist be­fore the Reader, but a Man must have bad Eyes not to see through it: For in this Reflection upon Worthy, I was not examining the Moral, [Page 131] but the Dramatick Virtues of his Play. View &c P. 2 [...]8, 226, 2 [...]7. This was so plain that 'twas impossible for the Vindicator to overlook it. I say my Remarks in this place were only upon the Manners in a Poetick Sense. My business here was to shew the Inconsistency of Worthy's Character, and the unlikelyhood of his Reformation, indeed what can be more im­probable than so suddain a change in behaviour? This Spark immediately before his Lecture of Philosophy had told Amanda that Sin no more was a Task too hard for Mortals. Relapse p. 100. Joh. 8.11. This by the way, is a bold Contradiction of our Saviour, 'tis Im­pious in the Assertion, and Lewd in the Appli­plication; So few words can hardly be charg­ed with more Profaneness. Here the Relapser calls the Sense of the Scripture in question,Vind. P. 14 char­ges the Text with Untruth, and does that which by his own Confession amounts to Burlesque.

To return to Worthy, what can be more im­probable than that so Profane and finished a De­bauchee, so weak in Principle, and so violent in Passion, should run from one extream to ano­ther? Should break through Custom, and me­tamorphose Desire at so short a warning? To Solicit to Rudeness, and talk Sentences and Mo­rality, to be Pious and Profane in the same Breath must be very extraordinary. To be all Pleasure and Mortification so just together, a Mad-man one Minute and a Hermit the next, is one would think somewhat forced, and un­natural: It looks at best but like the Grimace of a Disappointment, the Foxes virtue when the Grapes were above his Reach. To make a Li­bertine talk like Plato, or Socrates, is Philoso­phy misplac'd, 'tis good advice, but out of Cha­racter; [Page 132] The Soil and the Plant, the Man and the Morals won't agree.

P. 73, 74.Thus it appears the Blot he makes so much a noise with, lies in his own Tables; whether I have hit it, or not, the Reader must judge. I am glad to hear him talk of his Grave: P. 78. 'Twas a seasonable Thought, and I heartily wish it its due improvement; Such a Consequence wou'd be of great service, both to himself and the Pub­lick. For then, I am well assured, he would neither Write Plays, nor Defend them, at the rate he has done.

I have nothing farther with the Vindicator; but before I Conclude, I shall speak to one Ob­jection proposed by the Defender of Dramatick Po­etry, and Mr. Dennis. These Authors endeavour to justifie the Theater from the Silence of the Scriptures. ‘The Word of God (say they) has no where condemned Plays, Defence of Dramat. Poetry P. 40, 43, 55, 56. The Usefulness of the Stage, P. 138, 139. &c. the Apostles who were particular in other Cases, have given the Stage no Reprimand, nor Christians any warning against it: And which is more, St. Paul makes no Difficulty in citing Menan­der a Comick Poet, which he would not have done unless he had approved both the Au­thor and his business too.’ This is the sum of what they offer. Now the Plea of St. Paul's citing Menander, is extreamly slender. Every foreign Sentence in Scripture is not commended by the bare mention. The Devil's Maxim of Skin for Skin, Job 2.4. &c. is set down, but not for our Imitation. I grant this Verse of Menander is Moral, and Sententious; And without doubt [Page 133] St. Paul cited it to put the Christians upon their Guard, and that they might be asham'd to fall short of the Instructions of the Heathens. But to infer that St. Paul approved all that Me­nander had written, and that the Apostle re­commended Plays to the Corinthians: To con­clude all this from one single Line of Quotati­on, is Prodigious consequence. This Latitude would justifie the Stage to purpose, and make the Lewdest Authors pass Muster. There being few Books so entirely Vitious as not to afford an inoffensive and significant period. I don't speak this with application to Menander, for as Plu­trarch observes, he was with respect to Aristo­phanes, a very Modest Poet. Besides this very quotation that evil communication corrupts good Manners, disserves the purpose 'twas brought for. 'Tis a sharp Rebuke of the Licentiousness of our Stage, and a plain Discountenance of so scandalous a Diversion.

To proceed with the Objection. I affirm that Plays are plainly condemned in Scripture upon two accounts. I say they are clearly con­demned, tho not by express Prohibition; yet by Principle and Consequence, which is the same thing.

1. They are condemned upon the score of Idolatry; They were parts of Pagan Worship, and under that notion unlawful to Christians. But this Reason expiring in a great measure with the Heathen Religion, I shall insist on it no farther. However it proves thus much, that the Unlawfulness of every Liberty is not par­ticularly Mark'd in Scripture. P. 140, 142. For in the Apo­stles time, Mr. Dennis allows Plays were Idola­trous [Page 134] and unlawful; and yet we see the Holy Text does not declare against the Theater by Name.

2. The Stage, (particularly the English one) is condemned in Scripture upon the score of Smut and Profaneness; upon the Account of the Dan­ger and Indecency of such Liberties.St. Mat. 5. James 5. Ephes. 5. Collos. 3. Heb. 12. 1 Pet. 1. 1 Pet. 5. 1 Thes. 5. Rom. 1.32 Eph. 5.11. We are strictly commanded in Scripture not to Swear at all, to put away all Blasphemy and filthy Communi­cation out of our Mouth; To serve God with Re­verence, to be Sober and Vigilant. To pass the time of our sojourning here in fear, and abstain from all appearance of Evil. And in a word, To have no pleasure in Scandalous Practices, no fellowship with the unfruitful works of Darkness, but rather reprove them. Here's Evidence enough in all reason, these Admonitions are full against our Stage. Not one Play in forty can stand the Test of so much as one single Text. Bring the Theater but to the Bible, 1 Sam. 5.3. and the Idol is presently discovered, and falls like Dagon before the Ark.

This Argument from the silence of our Savi­our and his Apostles is answered at large by the Bishop of Meaux in his late Book against the Stage. Which being so much to the Purpose, I shall Translate it for the Reader.

‘Maximes & Refle­ctions sur la Come­die P. 71, &c.Those (says he) who would draw any Ad­vantage from this Silence may by the same reason defend the Barbarities of the Gladiators, and other abominable Spectacles, which are all unmentioned in Scripture, no less than Plays. The Holy Fathers who have dealt with this Objection, will furnish us with Matter for a Reply, we say then, That all engaging Repre­sentations which excite, and fortifie unlawful Desires, are condemned in Scripture, together [Page 135] with the Vices they tend to. For the purpose, Lewd Pictures are censured by all those Pas­sages which declare in general against Im­modesty; And the same may be said of Dra­matick Representations. St. Iohn has compre­hended the whole of this Subject in the fol­lowing Injunction.1 Jo. 2.15.’ Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world: If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, is the Lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of Life, which Lust or Concupiscence, is not of the Father, but of the World. ‘Now if these Things, and Inclina­tions, are not of God, the moving Representa­tions, and Charming Images of them▪ are not of Him neither, but of the World; and by consequence Christians have nothing to do with them.’

‘St. Paul likewise has summ'd up the Argu­ment in these words.’ Finally my Brethren, what­soever things are true, Phil. 4.8. whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, (or according to the Greek whatsoever things are chast) whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, or if there be any praise, think on these things. ‘As if he had said, whatever hinders you from think­ing on these things, and possesses you with contrary Amusements, ought not to be en­tertained as a Pleasure, but suspected as dan­gerous. In this beautiful collection of Thoughts which St. Paul recommends to a Christian, there's no finding a Place for the Modern Thea­ater, how much soever it may be in the favour of some Secular People.’

[Page 136] ‘Farther, The Silence of our Saviour upon the Argument of Plays, puts me in mind that he had no occasion to mention them to the House of Israel, to which he was sent, these Di­versions being never admitted in that Nation. The Iews had no Shews to entertain them but their Feasts, their Sacrifices, and their Holy Ceremonies. They were form'd by their Con­stitution to a plain and natural way of Living; They knew nothing of these Fancies and Inven­tions of Greece: So that to the praises which Balaam gives them,Numb. xxiii. 23. that there is no Ench [...]ntment in Iacob, nor Divination in Israel; We may like­wise add, there was no Theater among them; nothing of these dangerous Amusements to be met with. This innocent undeba [...]ch'd People, took their Recreations at Home, and made their Children their Diversion. Thus after their Labours in the Fields, and the Fatigues of their Domestick Affairs; they reliev'd their Spirits, as their Patriarchs had done before them. In­deed if we consider the matter rightly, there's no need of making a Business of Pleasure: Na­ture is easily refresh'd without this Expence and Curiosity.’

‘The Apostle's saying nothing expresly on this Subject may possibly be resolv'd into the reason abovemention'd. These Holy Men be­ing bred to the plain Gust of their Forefathers, might not think themselves concern'd to write directly against those practices with which their Nation was unacquainted: 'Twas suffici­ent for them to lay down Principles by which such Liberties were discountenanced: The Christians were well satisfied their Religion [Page 137] was founded on the Jewish, and that the Church never allow'd of those Diversions which were banish'd the Synagogue. But let the matter be how it will, this Precedent of the Jews reaches home to the Professors of Christianity. It be­ing a Shame that the Spiritual Israel should in­dulge their Senses in those Pleasures, which the Carnal People knew nothing of.’

Before I dismiss the Reader, I'le just give him a taste of Mr. Dennis's Skill and Modesty in an­swering a Testimony.

I cited Plutarch to shew the Opinion of the Athenians concerning Plays: Plut. de Glo. Athe­niens. View, &c. P. 240. This People (says ‘he) thought Comedy so unreputable a perfor­mance, that they made a Law that no Judge of the Areopagus should make one.’ Here Mr. Dennis replies very roundly,Dennis, p. 85. This Citation is abso­lutely false. Right! 'Tis false in the Latin, but 'tis true in the Greek. [...]. De Glor. Athen. p. 348.

Besides, the Latin makes more against him. For by that the Law says,Dennis, p. 86. That no Man whatsoever should write any Comedys; which is a higher Cen­sure than the other. I hope, for the future Mr. Dennis won't confide so much in a Translation; especially when it sits harder than the Original.

His Remark from Aristotle's Treatise of Poetry is another Mistake; and I think not at all to his Advantage: But to set him in his way, this Philosopher does not say that Comedy was very much discourag'd at first, nor very little neither. This point was not argued:Arist. lib. de Poet. cap. 5. He only affirms, That it was a great while before the Chorus was fur­nish'd out by the Government.

[Page 138]I should now go on with Mr. Dennis, and [...]ew his Attempt on my other Authorities as unsuccess­ful as this upon Plutarch; but having some Busi­ness at present, I shall wave it till a farther Op­portunity.

One word with the Vindicator of the Stage, and I have done.

This Gentleman appear'd early in the Cause, and has given me very little trouble, and there­fore 'twould hardly be Civil not to dispatch him at the first Hearing.

Vindic. P. 22, 23.He pretends I mistake in Translating Saecularia Spectacula, Stage Plays.

To this I Answer, First, That I only affirm'd the Stage was manifestly comprehended under Saecularia Spectacula: View, &c. p. 250. And that it is so, will follow from his own Assertion. For if the Ludi Saecu­lares, and Saecularia Spectacula were the same, 'tis well known that Stage Plays were part of the Ludi Saeculares;Rosin. Schott. p. 757. all the Theaters being frequented at those publick Solemnities.

Secondly, The third Council of Carthage by me cited, can't possibly mean the Secular Plays by Saecularia Spectacula: For this Council was held anno 397. fourscore years and better after the Conversion of Constantine. Now these Ludi Sae­culares were Idolatrous, both in the Practice and Institution, and never celebrated after the Em­pire became Christian: The last time we hear of them was in the Reign of the Emperor Philip, Enseb. in Chron. anno 248. which was 149 years before the con­vening of this Council.

Thirdly, Saeculum and Saecularis, in the Lan­guage of the Fathers, relates to the unconverted [Page 139] World, in contradistinction to the Church. Thus Typhus Saecularis in the Life of Arnobius, signifies Heathen Pride▪ [...] Council inter­prets it self by calling these Saec [...]laria Spectacula, View, p. 250. Pagan Entertainments. I almost wonder the Stage-Vindicator could cite the words and mistake the sense.

What this Author may have farther, requiring consideration, he may find in my Reply to Mr. Congr [...]ve, and the Relapser, and thither I refer him.