A DEFENCE OF THE Short View OF THE Profaneness and Immorality OF THE English STAGE, etc. Being a REPLY To Mr. Congreve's Amendments, etc. And to the Vindication of the Author of the Relapse.  
By jeremy Collier, M. A.  Fortem animum praestant rebus quas turpiter audent Juven. Sat. 6. 
LONDON: Printed for S. Keble at the Turks-head in Fleetstreet, R. Sare at Grays-Inn-gate, and H. Hindmarsh against the Exchange in Cornhill, 1699.   

To the READER.  
SInce the publishing my late View, etc. I have been plentifully railed on in Print: This gives me some reason to suspect the Answerers and the Cause, are not altogether unlike. Had there been nothing but plain Argument to encounter, I think I might have ventured my Book with them: But being charged with mis-citations and unfair Dealing, 'twas requisite to say something: For Honesty is a tender point, and ought not to be neglected.  
Mr. Congreve and the Author of the Relapse, being the most eager Complainants, and Principals in the Dispute, I have made it my choice to satisfy them. As for the Volunteers, they will find themselves affected with the Fortune of their Friends; and besides, I may probably have an opportunity of speaking farther with them hereafter.  
Notwithstanding the singular Management of the Poets and Playhouse, I have had the satisfaction to perceive, the Interest of Virtue is not altogether Sunk, but that Conscience and Modesty have still some Footing among us. This consideration makes me hope a little farther Discovery of the Stage may not be unacceptable. The Reader than may please to take notice, that The Plot and no Plot swears at length, and is scandalously Smutty and Profane. The Fool in Fashion for the first four Acts is liable to the same Imputation: Something in Swearing abated, Caesar Borgia, and Love in a Nunnery, are no better Complexioned than the former. And lastly, Limberham, and the Soldier's Fortune, are mere prodigies of Lewdness and Irreligion. If this general Accusation appears too hard, I am ready to make it good. 'Twere easy to proceed to many other Plays, but possibly this Place may not be so proper to enlarge upon the Subject.  
Some of the Stage-Advocates pretend my Remarks on their Poetry are foreign to the Business. On the contrary, I conceive it very defensible to disarm an Adversary, if it may be, and disable him from doing Mischief.  
To expose that which would expose Religion, is a warrantable way of Reprizals. Those who Paint for Debauchery, should have the Fucus pulled off, and the Coarseness underneath discovered. The Poets are the Aggressors, let them lay down their Arms first. We have suffered under Silence a great while; If we are in any fault, 'tis because we began with them no sooner   

ERRATA.  
PAge 7 l. 15. after represented add, excepting Plautius' Amphitryon, which he calls a Tragicomedy, p. 19 l. 4. r. summed up, p. 25. l. 28. r. animos▪ p. 28. l. 24. after this deal the Comma, p. ●1. l. 20. after Indecencies add a Semicolon, l 21. after dealing add a Comma, p. 49. l. 21. r. in, p. 59 l. 10. r. Mr. Congreve p. 64. l. 29. r. Style, p. 106. l. 14. for between God and the Devil, r. between his Respects to God and the Devil, p. 114. l. 26. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.   

AN ANSWER TO Mr. CONGREVE's Amendments, etc.  
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 disturbed, unless it be to conjure up Vice, and revive Impurities, etc. 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. However, to say something directly. Had these obnoxious Passages lain hid in a Learned Language, and been locked up in Latin, like juvenal, I would no more have let them lose in a Translation, than unchained the Tiger at Bartholomew Fair: But since the Mischief works in English, 'tis time to think of an English Remedy. B●●●des, as to the Smut, I have endeavoured 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 marked the Page. Indeed to have transcribed 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 Reservedness, 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 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, etc. Let us examine his Proof: The place in the 63 Page is a Censure of a Profane and Smutty Passage in the Old Bachelor: In which I have said that Fondlewife's making Sport with Adultery, in the manner described, was a Fit of Buffonery 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 concerned; 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 spoiled. His  
3 d. Instance stands in Page 175 th' of the View, etc. Here upon their unpresidented Familiarity with the Lords; I desired to know whether our Stage had a particular Privilege? Was their Charter enlarged; and were they on the same Foot of Freedom with the Slaves in the Saturnalia? Here Mr. Congreve is positive I call the Poet's 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 Freevill Is Liberty then always fastened 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 called him no Names hitherto; But now he may be assured I should have distinguished his Character a little, and paid him some proper Acknowledgements, but that I have no Inclination for his way of Disputing: Railing is a mean, and unchristian Talon, and oftentimes a sign of 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 disturbed 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 Outworks to fortify the Garrison. 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 Rules 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 restrained, and used with such Discretion; that the Reader shall be perfectly 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 myself; 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  
1 st. 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 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
2 lie. Comedy is distinguished 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 represent Princes and Persons of Quality; so by the Laws of Distinction, Comedy ought to be confined 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 Critics 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 guests 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. Le's 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 unembarrassed, if it does not distinguish Comedy from Tragedy, and bring down the Definition to Matter of Fact?  
But granting Mr. Congreve his Definition; all Blemishes and Instances of Scandal are not fit to make sport with. Covetousness, and Profusion; Cowardice, 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 called to account upon this Score. 
Vit. Eurip. Ed. Cant.   
2 lie. 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 aught to lie under public Restraint. 
See View, etc. p. 159.160.  And therefore Mr. Congreve is mistaken in his Consequence if he makes it general. For the loser 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 filthiness and foolish talking, and that such 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, etc. cap. 4.  he is mistaken. For Delight is but the secondary End of Comedy, as I have proved 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. Vice must be under Discipline and Discountenance, and Folly shown with great Caution and Reserve. Luscious 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 suffered. 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 Poison 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 Punished. 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 aught to be punished. 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 Persuasion 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 chaste, 
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 believed 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 aught neither to Design, or Colour an offensive Piece.  
Mr. Congreve's 4 th' 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 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 King's Coin? To wrest an Author, and turn his Words into Jest, is it seems to have nothing to do with him. The mere Ridicule destroys the Quotation; and makes it belong to another Person. Thus 'tis impossible to Traverstie a Book, and Virgil was never burlesqued by Ausonius or Mr. Cotton! Not at all! They only made use of the 24 Letters, and happened to chop exactly upon Virgil's Subject, his Words and Versification. But 'tis plain they never intended to quote him: For Virgil is always grave, and serious, but these Gentlemen apply, or translate the Words in the most different manner imaginable: And run always upon Buffonery and Drolling. This is Mr. Congreve's Logic, 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 played 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 allege 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 Strumpets, 
Love for Love. p. 59.61. Double Dealer. p. 18, etc.  and to make Impudence and Inspiration speak the same Language? Thus the Wisdom of God is burlesqued, his Omnipotence played 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 4 th' Proposition is all Sophistry, and false Reasoning:  
I shall now go back to his 3 d, 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, etc. For it must not be meddled with when 'tis alienated from its Character. Well! Let the Reader compare his Plays with the View, etc. 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 determined, why mayn't we understand it wherever 'tis met with? 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 pleased 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 contemned, the best Friend ill treated, and the strongest Enemy provoked? The jews used to rend their clothes 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 Music in an Oath, and are the Damned to be courted for their Company? The Stage is oftentimes a lively Emblem of Hell; 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 punished, and when they are, the Correction is strangely gentle and disproportioned. 'Tis just as if a Man should be set in the Stocks for Murder, 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 Dramatic Justice: But when he is suffered 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 want bear the naming: They are acted in some measure when they are spoken, and approved when they are harkened to. Thus the Playhouse often spreads those Vices it represents, and the Humour of the Town is learned by showing it. So that if Instruction is intended, nothing can be more Ignorant, if Diversion nothing more Wi●●e●●. To proceed. Profaneness by b●ing o●ten heard, is less abhorred. The aversion cools upon Custom, and the frightfulness of the Idea is abated. Familiarity reconc●les us to ill Sights, 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 Boldness 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 Poison, 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 weakened, 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 Judgement laid before us, that is, were we Christians in good earnest; these wretched Liberties would be all Pain, and Penance to us: They'd wound the Sense, and chill the Blood, and make us sweat with Antipathy a●d Disgust: We should be seized with a ●i● of Horror, and almost frightened into Agony and Convulsion.  
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 petitioned 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, etc. 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?  
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 summed 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.  
2 lie. Sometimes these Comprehensive Lines do more harm than good: They do so in the Soldier's Fortune: They do so likewise in the Old Bachelor; which instructs us to admirable purpose in these Words; 
But oh—  
What rugged ways attend the Noon of Life?  
(Our sun declines) and with what anxious strife,  
What pain we tug that galling Load a Wife?   
This Moral is uncourtly, and vicious, it encourages Lewdness, and agrees extremely well with the Fable. Love for Love may have somewhat a better Farewell, but would do a Man little Service should he remember it to his dying Day. Here Angelica after a fit of Profane Vanity in Prose, takes her Leave as follows; 
The Miracle to Day is that we find  
A Lover true: Not that a Woman's kind.   
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 Poison. When a Poet has flourished on an ill Subject for some Hours: When he has Larded his Scenes with Smut, and played 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. 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 Audience are not secured, 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 atone for an Age of Folly. To return to the Stage. I suppose other parts of a Discourse besides the Conclusion, aught to be free from Infection. If a Man was Sound only at his Finger's 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 hypocrisy: 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 Lady's Strumpets; This, I 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 supposed 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 shown upon the Stage, and three of them were Vicious, 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 which makes the Appearance, marks the Character, and points out to the Comparison Abroad.  
His Precedents from Virgil are unserviceable upon two Accounts.  
1 st. 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 overruled. Then as for Camilla, why is she Thrown into the black List, and ranged with Allecto and the Harpies? 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 believe we may venture to Poll with juno, and all her Party.  
2 lie. 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 ventured to affirm, there are more bad than good Women in the World, than there ought to be a proportion between Life and poetic Imitation; 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 citys 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 ventured 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 polished. But that Mr. Congreve should Countenance an Author in his Misbehaviour, and make his Court thus awkardly to the Ladies, is somewhat surprising. 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 Public Nuisance, and an Error in Creation?  
I had charged 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 observed was no Custom of the Roman Stage; And that Plautus and Terence, were much more courtly and reserved. This Remark he endeavours to disprove from Persius and juvenal. 
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 alleged? To what End is a foreign Character and Business haled in to determine upon the Stage? Well. But these Poets were Satirists, and played their Invectives upon Quality, and is not this somewhat to the purpose? But very little. For,  
1st. The satire 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, 
Segnius irritant animios demissa per aurem, 
De. Art. Poet.   
Quam quae sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus.—  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 dramatic Abuse is riveted in the Audience, a Jest is improved 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 Life-time. '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 show 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 bestowed on the same Object.  
2 lie. The Censures of juvenal and Persius, are very moderate, and remote in Mr. Congreve's Citations. 
●. ●●.  juvenal comes 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 dwelled in great Houses, they changed 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 juvenal written a Comedy, 
Double Dealer.  laid the Scene in his own Country, Created a Lord a Coxcomb, and shown him such for three hours together, his case had been somewhat hard. But this branch of satire 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 Phrases it.  
His Testimony from Rapine does not come up to his Point. 
View, & ●. p. 175.  For as I observed, Moliere Ridicules no Quality higher than a Marquis: Now, notwithstanding Mr. Dennis' 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 puaure Marquis, and je te promet 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, 
Critic 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 Order of the Bishop of Arras run in this Style; And so likewise does the Address of two French Letters to the present Ld. Bishop of London, 
View, etc. p. 245.  printed at the end of a Book called the Vnreason●bleness of Separation. Farther, Rapine seems to Cite L' Impromptu abovementioned. Here Miliary informs us, that whereas Comedy formerly played the Fool with none but Slaves and serving-men, now the Case was altered, 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. etc.  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 Rapine in Mr. Congreve's Citation. He tells us the other Po●ts Played only upon Common and Country Conversation, in their Comedies, Et Moliere a jove tout Paris et la Cour. La Cour, yes; but not toute la Cour. Here Rapine opposes, La vie Bourgeoise, Country Conversation, to the Court. Now un Bourgeoise signifies a Person of the Third Estate, 
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 Rapine has misreported 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 lie in what Rapine has said, but in what Moliere has written.  
Mr. Congreve is so hardy as to affirm that I am in plain terms for having Compliments passed on Persons of Quality, and neither will allow their Follies, nor their Vices to be exposed. This I confess is to be 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, etc. 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 flattery is there in all this? I confess, I am of Opinion that all satire 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 endeavours 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 foul in the Image, Embarrassed with trifling Epithets, 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 assured 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 myself incapable 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 abovementioned. Indeed I did not Cite the words because I am not willing to furnish the Reader with a Collection of Indecencies, to show 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 named? What sort of Faults must those be, which won't endure the Light, though 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 concerned 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 Bedlam. 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, and are all Lovers to take a Pattern from this Hero? I am sorry Mr. Congreve was at all this trouble for a Profane Allusion; but he is positive there's nothing either of Profaneness 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 Madman Rave about Heaven, and in comparing the disappointments of Love, with Damnation? The Lines shall appear once again.  
O my Almeria;  
What do the Damned endure but to despair;  
But knowing Heaven to know it lost for ever!  
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.  

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, though Mr. Congreve won't allow it should be so. 
Amend. P. 24.  The Ceremony runs thus.  

Mourn. B. P 19  Thou Excellence, thou joy, thou Heaven of Love.  
Thus the little successes of a pair of Lovers, are equalled with the Glories of Heaven; And a Paltry Passion strained up to the Beatisick Vision. I say Paltry, for so 'tis upon the Comparison. To go on. Almeria having somewhat of the Playhouse Breeding, is resolved not to be wanting in the return of these 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.  
I prayed to thee as to a Saint.  
And thou hast heard my Prayer, for thou art come 
P. 20.   
To my Distress, to my Despair; which Heaven  
Without thee could not Cure.  
Almeria has another Flight, and shows the Rankness of her Wing every jot as much as in the former.  
'Tis more than Recompense to see thy Face,  
If Heaven is greater joy, it is no Happiness.  
This is Mrs. Bride's Compliment, 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 jupiter more braved by the Giants. It runs thus.  
Better for him to tempt the Rage of Heaven, 
Mourn. B. P. 26.   
And wrench the Bolt red hissing from the Hand  
Of him that Thunders, than but think such Insolence,  
'Tis daring for a God.  
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 punished 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.  

P. 35.  My all of Bliss, my everlasting Life,  
Soul of my Soul, and End of all my Wishes.  
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 extremely; 
Amend. P. 27.  because I Misquoted Wasting Air, for Wasting Air. Now to my Mind, the restoring of the Text is a very poor relief. For this later Epithet 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, etc. 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 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, etc. 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 unforced, drawn with Proportion, 
Aristotle's Rhet. L. 3. C. 2.  and allied 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 encumber 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 myself 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 in all this? And where lies the Mistake, in Religion, or natural Philosophy? I can hardly forgive myself the taking notice of such Objections as these. But Mr. Congreve was resolved to make his Logic and Drollery of a piece, 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 harmless 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 justify 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. jude Lash the Lewdness of the Gnostics 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 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 falsely, 
Amend. p. 36.  or by halves.  
That I have quoted him falsely 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 shown 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 concealed, and grown proud of his Misbehaviour?  
We are now with the Old Bachelor, 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 show 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 has received any harm. Bellmour is now talking to Vainlove.  Bell. 
Couldst thou be content to Marry Araminta?  
Vainlove replies in a very pious question:  Vain. 
Could you be content to go to Heaven?  Bell. 
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 finished course of Debauchery. Thus we are taught to interpret Bellmour by the Old Bachelor and the Amendments, etc. 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.  
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 inquire; 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 Acknowledgement, 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.   
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 borrowed 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: 
That Moment were Eternity in little.  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 Courtesy. Now to say of an Advantage that Eternity was in that Moment, is by common Interpretation meant, the Pleasure of Eternity. The Satisfaction is supposed 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 discovered it. 
p. 41.  I think I have discovered it somewhat worse. However, I wonder at his being so Resigned. 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, etc. the better I am assured of the Sincerity of his Confession.  
Laetitia has another lewd and very profane Sentence given her, 
O. Batch. p. 39 View, etc. 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 discovered 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 discovered 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.  
No Husband by his Wife can be deceived,  
She still is Virtuous, if she's so believed.   
Sharper says to Vainlove, I have been a kind of Godfather to you yonder, I have promised and vowed 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 Bachelor, 
O. Batch. p. 48.  I'll give Mr. Congreve another Citation unmentioned before.  
Heartwell speaking of Marriage, cries out, O cursed State! 
How wide we err  
When apprehensive of the Load of Life  
— We hope to find  
That help which Nature meant in Womankind  It seems then Nature was as much mistaken in the provision, as Men are in the Experiment. Yes, for as the Poet goes on: 
And Adam sure would with more ease abide  
The Bone when broken, 
Ib. p. 48.  than when made a Bride.  This is an admirable Comment on the Old and New Testament, and the Office of Matrimony in the Common Prayer. The Thought looks like an Improvement of a Line in Absalon and Achitophel: where the subject of the Poem is dated from the times of Polygamy, 

Absal. & Achit. p. 1.  ere one to one was cursedly Confined.   
The Provoked Wife has a Sentence not much short of this.  

p. 27.  Sure (says Sir john 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, etc. p. 64.  as I remarked, Lady Pliant cries out jesus, and talks Smut in the same Sentence. Here again he pleads Guilty: He had condemned 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 published in 1694. and stands still in the First Edition; But the Old Bachelor has been Reprinted long since, the Sixth Impression of this Play bearing date 1697. And yet here in this last Edition we have the exclamation jesus, used in a jesting way, 
Old Batch. p. 48.  by the fulsome Belinda. If Mr. Congreve was displeased with the Profaneness in his Double Dealer, why did he not expunge it in his Old Bachelor? He can't deny but that Opportunity presented fair a great while together. But here instead of ask Pardon of God and the World, and showing himself concerned 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 subscribed herself 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 than he makes a Jest of his own Reformation, Drolls upon good Counsel, and returns the Gentlewoman an Affront in Public, for her Charitable Admonitions in Private. As for the Smut, he tells me, if there is any, 
Amend. p. 43.  I may even take it for my pains. Very generously argued! Since he is thus Noble, I'll omit the Scrutiny, and only refer to the Page. 
Double D. p. 34   
And here the Reader may please to take notice, that the word jesus is thrice made bold with, in despite of Religion and the Statute 3 jac. 1. cap. 21. 
D. Dealer. p. 7, 16, 78.   
Sir Paul Pliant 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 show, 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 shown 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 burlesqued 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 jewish or Christian Name? I'll tell him for once. 'Twas never the Custom of Jews or Christians to take any Scripture Names from exceptionable Persons. Neither jeroboam nor jehu, 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 Double Dealer. That Prince in the Kings is said to drive his Chariot furiously. From hence the Coachman's Character was Equipped. 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 jehu is unmentioned in the Poetic Text, how can the Lady be explained by his Standing in the Margin? In short, the worthy Mystery can't be cleared 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 overstrained 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 Pliant will afford us something worse than the former; This Wittol 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: 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 prefixed to it, bears a particular and known signification: But otherwise to inspire is no more than to Breath into; and a Trumpet, etc. 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 opposed 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 hoped to saved, and explain himself, that he intended no more, then that he hoped to get Cover before a Shower reached him; would he not be looked upon as impertinently profane? If he called a lucky Leap of a Ditch Salvation, and pretended to justify himself, that the word originally imports no more than Common Deliverance, what Place would he be thought fit for? Thus when Words are made Enclosure, when they are restrained by Common Usage, and tied up to a particular Sense: In this Case, to run up to Etymology, and Construe them by Dictionary and Preposition, is wretchedly Ridiculous and Pedantic. 
De Art. Poet.  Horace can tell him, That Custom overrules Syllables, and gives Law to Language. Quem penes arbitrium est, & jus & norma loquendi.  
Mr. Congreve perceiving himself pressed retires with all Speed to his Fourth Proposition. But that I have disabled already. If he is poisoned with his Profaneness, and finds himself Sick, he must take what follows; for his Antidote is gone. To return to Sir Paul.  
I find Passion (says he) coming upon me by Inspiration, 
D. Dealer p. 19  and I cannot submit as formerly.  
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.  
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 herself won't allow of Mr. Congreve's excuse. For after she has delivered that remarkable Sentence of leaving 'em two Fools, etc. 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 satire is pointed against Marriage. And the Folly is made to lie 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. johnson 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. johnson (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. johnson, 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. johnson, I shall just mention what Thoughts this Poet had of his profane 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. johnson 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 Horror.  
Now as far as I can perceive, the Smut and Profaneness of Mr. Congreve's Four Plays outswell the Bulk of Ben. Johnson'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.  

S. Ambro.  Quem secutus es peccantem, sequere poenitentem.  
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 Cause comes on in Westminster-Hall, the Martyrs are called 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 happened to a Country Apothecary. The Dr. had prescribed a Lady Physic to be taken in something Liquid, which the Bill according to Custom called 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 Physic was to be taken? He answers very innocently; Madam, says he, You may take it in a Cart, or a Wagon, but not to give your Ladyship too much trouble, I think a Wheelbarrow may do; for the word Vehicle in the Bill, will carry that sense. In short, This Direction was complied 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 Style of Martyrdom; 
Ibid.  As if (says Mr. Congreve) any word could dignify 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 complied with upon the Strength of a Fashionable Name.  

P. 49.  He asks, who told me jeremy Fetch was bred at the University? Why jeremy 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 University Education any more than his jeremy in the Play, if I had not Printed M. A. on the Title Page. Here the Poor Man has shown his Will, and his Weakness sufficiently! I'm almost sorry 'tis so low with him. When a Poet is so extremely well inclined 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 Shakespeare 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 complained of; and which I take to be Blaspheming the Creation.  
He pretends I have wronged him strangely in a Rant of Sir Sampson's: And would make the Reader believe I charge him literally with Paraphrasing the 139 th' Psalm. 
Amend. p. 51.  I'm sorry I'm forced to explain myself 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 Samson. This Gentleman after having railed a Lecture over Ieremy's Body, for being born with Necessities too big for his Condition; he cries, 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.  Fore. 
Alas Mr. Scandal, Humanum est errare.  Scanned. 
You say true, Man will err; mere 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 judgement 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 was indeed Ignorant that it belonged 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 brightened, and the extent of his Knowledge strangely enlarged. 'Tis true, Pineda believed that Solomon understood Astronomy in Perfection, 
Lib. 3. C. 18.  and that he had skill in Prognostics which he calls Astronomia judiciaria. He continueth, 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 Prognostics was that which made him wise. No: This Talent 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 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 judgement 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 Chaldeans, or Egyptians, or from some such Book as Lilies Almanac. This is Scandal's Solution of the Mystery; and the best that I can make on it. For 'tis 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.  
2 lie. Supposing Pineda had been fairly reported by Mr. Congreve, the Poet had been much to blame; For then the Case 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 want bring in Solomon to divert the Playhouse, nor compare him with Fools and Fortune-tellers.  
Scandal's telling Foresight he was more than mere 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 says the Wise Men of the East owed their Instruction to a Star, 
Lov for L. P 44.  which is rightly observed by Gregory the Great in favour of Astrology.  
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 Samson has not another Name, 
Amend. 54.  because Samson is a Name in the Old Testament. This is false in every syllable, as the Reader may see by consulting my Book. 
Judges 16.30. Love for Love, p. 74. Ed. 3 d.  But this I say, that Mr. Congreve has burlesqued the History of Samson, and wrested the Scripture into Smut.  
There are two other profane Passages Censured 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 answered 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 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 tied up to Sense, 
Amend. p. 56.  and confined to his Understanding. His third reason for taking away Reason, is because Madness gives a liberty to satire, and authorises a Bluntness, etc. 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 persuade the Reader that I interpret him with too much Rigour, for making Valentine in his Lunacy say, I am Truth, etc. 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. 
joh. 4.6, 17, viij. 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, 'tis as it were appropriated to the greatest Persons, and Things, marked as the Prerogative of God; and used in a sense of Emphasis and Distinction. Let us compare St. john, 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.  jesus saith unto him, I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. Sir Samson is at a loss, Swears, and cries out, I know not which way to go. 
Love for L p. 57 Ed. 3  Valentine inquires, 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 show you things to come.  
The execrable Valentine says, Interrupt me not— I'll whisper Prediction to thee, and thou shalt Prophesy. 
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?  
Mr. Congreve is advanced to my 3 d 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, etc. 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 etc. p. 102.  etc. has remarked, 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 Parson of the Church of England. That's somewhat strange. The Roman Catholic Lords have no Chaplains; the Law does not allow it. And as for the Dissenters, there are very few Lords of their Persuasion. 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 ache.  
There is a pretty long Instance produced from the Double Dealer, to show 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 show the Unreasonableness of the Stage in representing the Clergy under Characters of Disadvantage and Contempt, I endeavoured to vindicate the Reputation of that Order from three Topics. 

1 st. From their Relation to the Deity.  
2 lie. From the Importance of their Office.  
3 lie. 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▪ etc. p. 127.  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 lie 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 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 justice, 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 Inferiors, have nothing to do to punish. 
Amend. p. 62.  Mr. Congreve adds, that if a Servant is punished 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?  
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 answered his question as civilly as he asked it.  
But if a Clergyman 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 exposed. 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 show the Church for a Monster, is, one would think, an odd diversion in Christendom. The Heathens treated the Primitive Christians much at this rate: They wrapped 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 knocked on the Head, the Priest is not a jot the worse for't. This is much like the old Distinction of Politic, and Personal Capacity, applied to another Case. To give this Gentleman an Answer more at large, he may please to take notice:  
1 st. Though the Function and the Person are separable in Notion, they are joined 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, aught to be privileged 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 practise accordingly.  
2 lie. If the Poet's 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 satire 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?  
3 lie. Employments are oftentimes a shelter to Persons; and Characters a Protection from Insult: Public Reason will not endure Authority to be exposed, 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 viewed 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 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 Ambassador, 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 accused, and being found guilty, by just judgement deposed. 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 far 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.   
Now to say this, is to misreport St. Cyprian. 'Tis true, this worthy Prelate believed that a Priest's 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 Apostasy: 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-governors.  
Mr. Congreve seems displeased with that little Justice I endeavoured to do the Clergy; And calls the Testimonies of the best Poets, 
P. 71.  Orators, Historians, etc. 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 them. 
See View, etc. Ch. 3.  The Heathen Poets, as I proved at large, never served their Priests so.  
Mr. Congreve urges, that Kings have been in all Ages Exposed and Punished on the Stage, 
Amend. p. 71.72.  yet never any King complained of the Theatre 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 Playhouse 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 Public. Why should she be haled in, against her Inclination, and gazed on like a Malefactor?  
2 lie. Stage Princes are used agreeably to their Station: The Honour of their Function shines out in their Appearance. Their very Misfortunes are Majestic, and their Ruin Glorious. They are never represented Insignificant, treated with Contempt, and Played the Fool with in Comedy. If they were thus used, I question not but that the Poets and Players would quickly hear on't.  
3 lie. If Princes were used as Ill as Priests upon the Stage, they would not suffer so much by it. Princes are well guarded against Dramatic Outrage. 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 though 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 Lie out of Countenance. To be taken notice of, Things must shine as well as be solid; a Coarse outside keeps the Richness within from being regarded. Spiritual Privilege, and invisible Advantage signify 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 itself. 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.  4 lie His pretence of Matter of Fact is not True. Princes have complained of the Theatre. The great Scipio pulled it down; Trajan & Antoninus Philosophus discouraged Plays, and Tiberius Banished the Stage. To come nearer Home, Lewis the Godly would not endure a Playhouse, and Queen Elizabeth often checked 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 Logic, 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 Gentleman the Direction of Affairs, 'tis likely the World would be well mended, the Church Reform 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 Governors, and these by the same Necessity, must in that respect be superior to the Governed. For this reason, the Apostle, speaking to private Christians, enjoins them in these words, Obey them that have the Rule over you, 
Heb. 13.17.  and and submit yourselves; for they watch for your Souls, etc. This Text we see plainly contains a branch of Duty to Ecclesiastical Governors. 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 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' 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 john of Leyden and Knipperdolling: jack 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▪ etc. 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 his exclamation, 
P. 75.  and wonder at his own Ignorance or Insincerity.  
I observed, that Monsieur Racine, contrary to the practice of foreign Countries, represented Priests in his Athalia. I observed farther, That this Play was a very Religious Poem. 
View, etc. P. 124.  And if it were not designed for the Theatre, I have nothing to object. My meaning is, if it were designed for the Theatre, I thought the Form and Argument too solemn for the Place. But that it was designed for the Theatre, 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, etc. takes notice that Shakespeare, though to blame, was a Genteeler Enemy than the Relapser; 
P. 125.  Why so? Because he gives Sir john, Parson of Wrotham, some Advantage in his Character, he represents him Lewd, but not Little. Here Mr. Congreve is extremely 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 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, etc. P. 122.  And yet as I observed, 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, etc.   
Mr. Congreve is so kind as to inform me, that I talk in the Pedantical Cant of Fable, Intrigue, 
P▪ 82.  Discovery, of Unities of Time, etc. He means the Pedantical Cant of Aristotle and Horace, of Bossu and Corneille, of Rapine, and Mr. Dryden; that is of the best Critics, both Ancient and Modern, upon the Subject. 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 4 th'. 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 Bachelor and Double Dealer concerned under this Head, 
View, etc. 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 Blanche 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 than not pay his Debts. Thus Mr. Congreve. But if we will take Valentine's word fort, we shall find the matter otherwise. 'Twas his Necessity, his disrelish of Confinement, his Passion for Angelica, which put him upon this Compliance. Let him speak for himself.  Val. 
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 Debauched, 
View, etc. 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 justify Bellmour and Sharper, in the Old Bachelor, against my exceptions. But here according to his usual fair dealing he misreports the Case. 
P. 92.  He tells the Reader I produced 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, etc. P. 1●5, 170, 171, 172.  That their fine Characters were unceremonious, and failed in the Decencies, of a Cavalier.  

Amend. P. 91.  He is glad I can prevail with myself 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 declined to transcribe it.  
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 choice 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 levelled at the Cruelty of the Gladiators, and the Obscenity of the Pantomimes. If some of them, continueth he, have confounded the Drama with such Spectacles, it was an oversight of Zeal very allowable 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 Father's Censure of the Stage, of which I gave many Instances, was an oversight of Zeal! Their Heat ran away with their Judgement, and to make them s●fe, we must read 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 Declaimed against the Lewdness and Immorality of those Diversions. This I have shown sufficiently in the Testimonies Cited from them: 
View, etc. P. 276. d●inc.  And likewise proved the Censure of the Father's applicable to the English Theatre.  

Amend. p. 105.  Mr. Congreve would gladly throw his own Talon 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 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 mentioned: 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 Herald I shall give him counter-Evidence from them. This Father informs us, 
St. Aug. de Civ. Dei. lib. 1. cap. 31.  that Scaevola who was Pontifex Maximus, and one of the Senate, dissuaded that Noble Assembly from going on with the Building of a Theatre. 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 governed the Senate, and stopped the Progress of the Stage for that time. This Testimony St. Augustin mentions with Approbation. And in the next Chapter but one, 
cap▪ 33.  He calls these Theatral Performances, animorum labem & pestem, probitatis & honestatis eversionem, i. e. The Blemishes of Humane Nature, the Plague of Reason, and the Ruin of Virtue: And adds, That Scipio foreseeing these mortal consequences, hindered the building of Playhouses. 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 Subjoin that of Horace, who in his Book de Arte Poetica, Mentioning the Roman Theatre before his own Time, has these words.  
Quo sane populus numerabilis ut pote parvus. Et frugi, castusque verecundusque coibat.  
'Tis very remarkable says Monsieur Dacier, that Horace should commend the old Romans for not frequenting the Theatre. 
Dacier Remarq. sur L' Art Poetic Vol. 10. P. 238.  He gives four Reasons for the little Inclination they had for these Diversions. They were not very Numerous; They were Wise; They were Religious; And they were Modest.  
The three last Reasons are strongly to our point, and the stronger for coming from a Poet. This was so plain, and so Considerable an acknowledgement, that Mr. Dacier makes the following Marginal Note upon it. 
Ibid. Vo●. ●0. P. 37.  The Theatre Condemned as inconsistent with Prudence and Religion.  
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 expense 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 theatres to drive away Fancies, it is as good Physic, 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 venomous Arrows to the Mind. When Comedy comes upon the Stage, Cupid sets up a Spring for Woodcocks, which are entangled ere 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 killed, 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. I doubt this Expedient of a Playhouse won't make the Latitude one jot the better. 'Twill ne'er 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 Melancholic 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. 100L.  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 Panegyric upon his Country: Are there not more Self-Murtherers, and Melancholic Lunatics 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 Playhouse 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 a great part of Europe besides: I believe I may say, than in all Europe besides. When Passions are raised, and Principles destroyed, 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. Love and Pride are observed to stock Bedlam. Now these two Passions are worked up to the highest Excess in Plays. A Spark is scarce thought Civil to his Mistress, 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 Playhouse 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 oftener 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 People's 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 extremely; but still I must crave leave to believe, That a mistaken Conscience is more serviceable, than no Conscience at all.  

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

p. 84.  The Lady's 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 Enemy's 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, etc. 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 giveth Lord Touchwood a mixture of Smut, etc. The upper End of the Government, is a defensible Expression; And his exception to the Litter of Epithets, etc. I have answered already. His Objections at Big-Allyances, is somewhat unfairly transcribed, and the Page mismarked. 
View, etc. p. 130.  The Passage is this: jehoida was thought an Alliance big enough for the Royal Family. He Cavils at two other little words, which I think may pass: But I shall say nothing 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 Utterance, etc. And in the Mourning Bride, 
p. 3.79.  we have all the Delicacies of Language and Rhetoric, and the very Spring itself 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, feared, 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 Manuel 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. 
The swarming Populace spread every Wall, 
p. 7.   
And cling as if with Claws they did enforce  
Their Hold through clifted Stones stretching and staring.   
Here he Struts to purpose in Sophocles' Buskins! Cling and Claws are extremely 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 remembering. 

Ibid.  As they were all of Eyes, and every Limb,  
Would feed his Faculty of Admiration.  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 discovered it. We must not forget Osmin's Talon in Arithmetic, who let us understand that 

p. 21.  Heaven can continue to bestow,  
When scanty Numbers shall be spent in telling.  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, 

p. 23, 24.  Pale and expiring, drenched in briny Waves,   
That he was 
Godlike even then.   
Death and Paleness are strong Resemblances of a Deity! But I perceive, to some People, a Seraphim, and a drowned Rat, are just alike. King Manuel is giving Sentence upon the Rebels: Let us see how he supports his Character: 
Bear to the Dungeon those Rebellious Slaves, 
p. 4●.   
The ignoble Curs that Yelp to fill the Cry,  
And spend their Mouths in barking Tyranny.  And a little after, he calls the Noble Osmin, that foreign Dog. Here's Majestic 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 crossed, was resolved, out of stark Love and Kindness, to Poison him: 'Tis true, she intended to be so just, as to dispose of herself 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 so? Was it because she was prevented, and had not the satisfaction of dispatching her Spark herself? Or was it because she had a mind to convince Osmin of the strength of her Affection by murdering him? That's somewhat odd. Was it then to show how willing she was to die 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. 

P. 63.  His Soul still sees, and knows each purpose,  
And fixed event of my persisting Faith.   
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. 
Ha! 
P. 62.  prostrate! bloody! headless! O,— start Eyes▪  
Split heart, burst every Vein at this dire object;  
At once dissolve and flow; meet Blood with Blood,  
Dash your encountering Streams with mutual Violence,  
Till Surges roll, and foaming Billows rise,  
And curl their Crimson Heads to kiss the Clouds!  One would think by this Rant, that Zara had Blood enough in her Veins to fill the Bay of Biscay, or the Gulf of Lions. At this rate a Man may let the Thames out of his little Finger! This is monstrous Impropriety of Thought! Never were Things and Words, joined 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. 
Rain, 
P. 62.  rain, ye Stars spout from your burning Orbs,  
Precipitated Fires, and pour in Sheets,  
The blazing Torrent on the Tyrant's Head.   
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 Scholarlike piece of Distraction. If Mr. Congreve replies, the Occasion was extraordinary; and that the sight of Osmin's Murder 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 looked 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.  
I charged Mr. Congreve with two very Lewd and Scandalous Songs; but these he passes over unmentioned. 
View, etc. 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.   

A REPLY TO THE Short Vindication OF THE Relapse and the Provok'd-Wife.  
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, etc. 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 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 extremely to blame in his Senses! The Vindicator imposes on the Reader by affirming himself concerned only in one Quotation more in my Chapter of Immodesty. 
Ibid.  For  

View, etc. 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.  though not in the same Chapter. There are likewise more lewd Passages in his two Plaeys heightened with Irreligion; but these shall be Postponed 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 doubt some Reformer or other beat the Poet for Smuttiness?  L. Brute, 
Because he is not so sure of our Private Approbation; as of our Public Thanks. Well; sure there is not upon Earth, so Impertinent a thing as women's Modesty.  Belind. 
Yes, men's 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 Hypocrisy. 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 Compliment upon the Women. They are brought in guilty by both Sexes, They can't be Sincere it seems without appearing Vicious, nor deal clearly without Impudence, nor be Honest without playing the Whore! But over and above the Poet's 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 easy, nor looks natural: 'Tis foolish to themselves, 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 Modesty 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 observed 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 Bullies and Hackney-Co●eh-men, and by the Gaiety of his Humour, you would think him extremely Innocent. But after all this unconcernedness, 〈◊〉 his Crime should not be little, I am afraid his Conscience will appear so. However he complains he is mightily overcharged; and that all the stretch of the Profaneness 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 justify a Fault? Is Sin Improved into Privilege? 
View, etc. P. 96. An. Cong. vid. 3d. Post.  and can a Man Swear by Common-Law? Besides all the Instances mentioned excepting Par Die, are less Criminal than his own. And were it otherwise, no sort of Profaneness is fit for Representation; as I have proved sufficiently already. 
P. 10.  This Author complains, my Accusations against him almost always run in general Terms, etc. 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, though 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.  

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 Rhetoric is spoken by Ld. Foppington, Young Fashion, Seringe, Coupler, and Miss Hoyden. To these we must add justice Tunbelly, who to make himself the better Magistrate, Swears like a Bully with open Mouth. The Provok'd-Wife is little better. Sir john and the Colonel Swear with a great deal of Relish and Noise; and Constant is not over staunch. 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, though Oaths are not, Curses may be Blasphemy, Fashion 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 myself surprised at the Courage of the Vindicator. That a Man thus Ill prepared, 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 proved, 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, etc. Ch. 2.  and proved it by plain Implication. To argue the 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.  
2 lie. To believe the Scripture God's Word, and to play with it, heightens the Presumption. 'Tis a horrid Reflection on the Divine Wisdom; It supposes the Concerns of the other World over flourished, that a Pompous outside 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.  
3 lie. 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  Le's hear her. 
What slippery Stuff are Men Composed of?  

Relapse P. 97.  Sure the Account of their Creation's false,  
And 'twas the Woman's Rib that they were formed of.   
This Lady it seems spoke this for the good of the Public; Her business, like Worthies, 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 is false; well let him go, I think this Town may spare him. But though 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 Moscow 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 allege 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 Moscow. 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, etc. 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 mixed 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 Favour, I doubt it does Reflect upon the Truth of the Story. For who that looked on this Account as delivered 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 guests 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 checked then by the Ladies, or exposed upon the Account? Very slenderly, if at all. Berinthia rather prompts him, and Amanda only asks him if there was good Preaching at St. James'; 
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, etc. 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 designed 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 intent 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.  etc. 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 Seraphic satire, all Light and Heat. Virtue must needs be refreshed, and Conscience alarmed strongly, by such Admonitions! Instead of giving a frightful Idea of Profaneness, the Matter is all turned into a Jest; and the Audience desired to laugh 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 managed the business, this Lord is not so contemptible. For some of the best Raillery in the Play falls to his Share, 
View, etc. P. 223.  as I have shown already. And were it otherwise, no pretence of Character can justify 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 Quarrel 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 accused his younger Brother, for kicking his Conscience down Stairs. Well. That's something; but not all the Quarrel. 
View, etc. p. 210, 211.  I complained of him likewise for a finished Debauchee; and exhibited a long Bill against him. This the Vindicator is pleased 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 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 ache. 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 extremely Moral! It teaches the Art of Marrying the Estate without the Woman, and makes a Noble Settlement upon Lewdness.  
The Vindicator complains because I want 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 Lashed and Stigmatised? Why han't we some of Plautus' 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 observed that Worthy and Berinthia made it an Act of Christian Charity, 
View, etc. 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 Expense of Religion.  
The Vindicator sets down some more of Nurse's 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 jest 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 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 Priest's 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.  
Worthies Address to the fine Procuress Berinthia, must now be enquired into. Upon her promise of a Lewd Assistance, his Gratitude is wonderfully raised, 
Vind. p 22 View, etc. 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 myself. 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 tother. 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 justify the Boldness, or make the Words unspoken? But by this 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 Profaneness, and continuing the Religious Banter. ●●r Character is loose throughout the Play, and she never says aught that's good, unless ●o abuse it. The Poet might easily see, that Instruction in her Mouth was most likely to be misunderstood and miscarry. There's no occasion for much quoting, the next Lines will show us how significant her Advice must needs be.  
Well, (says Worthy) my incomparable Berinthia, how shall I requite you?  Ber. 

Relapse. Ibid.  O ne'er trouble yourself about that: Virtue (alias Pimping) is its own Reward. There's a Pleasure in doing good, which sufficiently pays itself. Here's a Lecture of Philosophy well applied! 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 pleased because I did not commend him for his Care. Truly he must excuse me, I am not so full of Panegyric 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 Lady's words.  

Pro. Wife P. 3. View, etc. 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, though it does not imply Duty and Precept, it supposes general 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 liable to exception. This Confessiion is more than ordinary; Let the Lady speak.  L. Brute, 
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.  Belind. 
If there were a House of Lords you might.  L. Brute, 
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  Belind. 
Ay, 
Pro. Wife. P. 4. View, etc. P. 83.  but you know, we must return good for evil.  L. Brute, 
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● 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, etc. 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 Emperor 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.  
This Gentleman is well known to be a Master of Style, and therefore I choose 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 though 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.   Bull, 
What Providence orders, I submit to.  Nurse, 
And so do I, with all Humility.  Coupler, 
Why that now was spoke like good People.  
Thus we see from Bull's Religious Character, from Nurse's 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 Worthies 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 likened 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. Use and Application, and brings them up to the point of Debauchery. By her talking you would think there was little Difference between 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 joins the Atheist and the Procuress together. Now consider (says she) what has been said, and Heaven give you Grace to put it in Practice; 
Relapse Ibid. View, etc. P. 84.  that is to take Berinthia's 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. Judas.  and therefore I shall pass it over. His lame excuse from the Character, and Manner, I have disproven 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 satire upon the Rights and Privileges of the Clergy. I perceive the little Justice I endeavoured to do that Order, won't down with him. By his Reasoning one would think the World strangely Priest Ridden, and all Ages, Countries, and Religions, extremely to blame! If you'll take his word for't, Riches, Plenty and Power, 
p. 30.  are very Improper things for a Churchman. 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. Acknowledgement 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 showing our Religion. 'Tis somewhat hard a Man should be barred 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 done't the Christian Laity part with them, and like Crates, throw their Gold into the Sea? But does not this Plea for the Church's Temporals, reflect on the Author of Christianity; or as 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 outshines 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 Governors. 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 Expense in Solemnity and Retinue? Can't the Old Gentleman come like an Utopian Syphogranta, 
Moor's Utop.  with a wisp of Grass upon a Pole. Away, cries the Vindicator, with 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 refreshed, 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.  
The Vindicator in his 2 d. Article discourses of Sauce and Sops, 
p. 32.  etc. But he has cooked the Allegory so oddly, that I know not well what to make on't. If he reasons from the Kitchen upon these subjects, he must talk by himself. His 3 d. 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 tother will be found to do very well together. For 1 st. If Piety and Power are not to be reconciled, and a Man must either throw up his Fortune or his Creed, the Laity will be obliged to the same Resignation. The Enclosures 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 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 concerned 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 Clergy are bound to be Exemplary, I willingly grant it. But Example supposes other Persons concerned 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 pressed farther, but I rather choose 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 Nuisance. He who makes it his business to exterminate Virtue, 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 lie under this Charge, can hardly bend too low, or think themselves lesser than really they are.  

Prov. Wif. p. 45, 46, 51, 52. View, etc. 180.  The Vindicator would make us believe, that Sir john Brutus' 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 made the Scene diverting. The Oaths and Lewdness would not have made half the Music in a Lay-Character: And the Constable's Je●●s would have been but heavy upon another occasion. Besides. Sir john 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 Effigy, 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 shown ridiculous, I fancy, he has reason to complain. If the Vindicator is of another mind, let him practise the same Liberty upon a judge, or a Lord Mayor, and see how the Jest will take.  
I observed upon the Relapse, 
View, etc. 109. Relap. 74.  that Bull the Chaplain, wished 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 transcribed 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, etc. 109, 110, 232.  I charged the Relapse, Preface and Play, with a great deal more scandalous Abuse of the Clergy; but this the Vindicator is pleased 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 advanced 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 satisfied. 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 annexed, the Temptation is dangerously fortified.  

Page 45.  The Vindicator tells the Reader, That this honest Dr. does not understand the Nature of Comedy, though he made it his Study so long. For the business of Comedy is to show 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. Yes; for fear the Boxes and Pit should misinterpret him. 
Page 45.  But now the Tale is quite turned, and there's no need of a Philosopher to unriddle the Mystery.  
2 lie. He mistakes the Nature of Comedy. This we may learn from Ben. johnson, who acquaints the University, 
Fox Ep. Ded.  That he has imitated the Conduct of the Ancients: In whose Comedies the Bawds, etc. yea and ofttimes the Masters too, are multed, and that fitly, it being the Office of a Comic Poet to imitate justice, and instruct to Life. Is it the Office of a Comic Poet to imitate justice, etc. then certainly Rewards and Punishments ought to be rightly applied: Then a Libertine ought to have some Mark of Disfavour set upon him, and be brought under Discipline and Disgrace. 
See View, etc. 151, 153, 164.  To say the Business of Comedy is to show 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 Quicksands 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 show a Religious Person ridiculous; to give Figure and Success to an ill Character, and make Lewdness Modi●● and Entertaining, is the way to mismark 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 justify the life he leads, except, etc. What needs he? He is sufficiently justified in his Character and Usage, and in not being punished. 
Page 47.  Let's have the rest. He does not justify 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 Atheist, never speak his Mind? If a Libertine pleads in his own Defence, why must he not be supposed to be in earnest? Besides, how could Constant expect to carry the Cause, unless the Colours looked 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 phantom, 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, Hobbs 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 herself puzzled, 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 Dialogue 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 taxed his Bellinda for confessing her Inclination to a Gallant. 
View, etc. 146.  For this he calls me an unfair Adversary, 
Page 47. Vind. p. 48  as if I had misreported him, adding withal, 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 loved. His Play will soon decide this Controversy, and show on which side the Unfairness lies. Bellinda's words are these:  Bellind. 
to Lady Brute. 
Prov. Wif. q. 64.  O' my Conscience were it not for your Affair in the Balance, I should go near 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.  Lady Br. 
If you did commit Fornication Child, 
Ibid.  'twould 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 extremely instructive and civil to their Sex! Lady Brute informs her Niece, 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 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 Cowardice, they would likewise venture upon all the Masculine Vices of Fight, 
Prov. Wif. p. 65.  Swearing, Blaspheming, etc. 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 Bishopric 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 Provoked Wife. The Men of Figure in this Play, (excepting the Justice, who makes but a short Enter) are professed Libertines, and pass off without Censure or Disappointment. 
Prov. Wif. P. 76, 77.  I grant Sir John's Character has some Strokes of Discouragement, but he's made pretty easy at last, and brought to no Penance. The Women have some of the same Inclinations; and the same good Luck with them. 'Tis true Lady fanciful miscarries in her Design; has her Disguise pulled 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'er her Thoughts were, she has the Discretion to keep them in Reserve. This Squeamishness, 'tis possible, drew down the Severity of the Poet. Had she been as bad as the rest, she might have fared better. But it seems, a pretence to Virtue is an unsufferable Boldness; and she must be punished in Terrorem to her Sex.  
This sort of Management puts me in mind of Mr. Dennis' Ingenuity. He frankly Confesses Lewdness promoted by the Stage. This is clear dealing: And I suppose, the main Reason of his saying that the Playhouse 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 Pastry and a Tankard 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 Led 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' 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, etc. 
Relapse P. 2, 3.  to defend it. And yet this Pious Couple are for Mahomet's Paradise, and wish for Immortal Sensualities.  
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 Vindicator 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 inferior Consideration? Does the main Concern use to die so long before the Epilogue, and the Chief 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, but the Dramatic 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 Poetic Sense. My business here was to show the Inconsistency of Worthies Character, and the unlikelyhood of his Reformation, indeed what can be more improbable than so sudden 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 extreme 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 Madman 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 Fox's virtue when the Grapes were above his Reach. To make a Libertine talk like Plato, or Socrates, is Philosophy misplaced, 'tis good advice, but out of Character; 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 would be of great service, both to himself and the Public. 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 Dramatic Poetry, and Mr. Dennis. These Author's endeavour to justify the Theatre 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. etc.  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 Comic 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 extremely slender. Every foreign Sentence in Scripture is not commended by the bare mention. The Devil's Maxim of Skin for Skin, 
Job 2.4.  etc. is set down, but not for our Imitation. I grant this Verse of Menander is Moral, and Sententious; And without doubt St. Paul cited it to put the Christians upon their Guard, and that they might be ashamed 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 justify the Stage to purpose, and make the Lewdest Authors pass Muster. There being few Books so entirely Vicious 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, though 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 Marked in Scripture. 
P. 140, 142.  For in the Apostles time, Mr. Dennis allows Plays were Idolatrous and unlawful; and yet we see the Holy Text does not declare against the Theatre 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 Theatre 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.  

Maxims & Reflections sur la Comedy P. 71, etc.  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 fortify unlawful Desires, are condemned in Scripture, together 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 Dramatic Representations. St. john 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 summed 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 chaste) 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.  
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 jews had no Shows to entertain them but their Feasts, their Sacrifices, and their Holy Ceremonies. They were formed 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 Enchantment in jacob, nor Divination in Israel; We may likewise add, there was no Theatre among them; nothing of these dangerous Amusements to be met with. This innocent undebauched People, took their Recreations at Home, and made their Children their Diversion. Thus after their Labours in the Fields, and the Fatigues of their Domestic Affairs; they relieved their Spirits, as their Patriarches had done before them. Indeed if we consider the matter rightly, there's no need of making a Business of Pleasure: Nature is easily refreshed without this Expense and Curiosity.  
The Apostle's saying nothing expressly on this Subject may possibly be resolved into the reason abovementioned. These Holy Men being bred to the plain Gust of their Forefathers, might not think themselves concerned 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 was founded on the Jewish, and that the Church never allowed of those Diversions which were banished 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'll just give him a taste of Mr. Dennis' Skill and Modesty in answering a Testimony.  
I cited Plutarch to show the Opinion of the Athenians concerning Plays: 
Plut. de Glo. athenians. View, etc. 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 discouraged 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 furnished out by the Government.  
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 appeared 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 affirmed the Stage was manifestly comprehended under Saecularia Spectacula: 
View, etc. 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 theatres being frequented at those public 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 World, in contradistinction to the Church. Thus Typhus Saecularis in the Life of Arnobius, signifies Heathen Pride▪ 〈…〉 Council interprets itself 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.  
FINIS.   

A Short View of the Profaneness and Immorality of the English Stage, etc. Essays upon several Moral Subj●●●●●  Both by Mr. Celller.