THE USEFULNESS OF THE STAGE, To the Happiness of Mankind. To Government, and To Religion. Occasioned by a late Book, written by jeremy Collier, M. A.  
By Mr. DENNIS.  
LONDON, Printed for Rich. Parker at the Unicorn under the Piazza of the Royal Exchange. 1698.   

INTRODUCTION.  
THe best things here below are liable to be corrupted, and the better things are in their own natures, the more mischievous are they if corrupted. For that which is super latively good in itself can be corrupted by nothing but extraordinary malice. Since then the Stage is acknowledged by its greatest adversaries to be in itself good, and instrumental to the instruction of mankind, nothing can be more unreasonable than to exhort people to ruin it instead of reforming it, since at that rate we must think of abolishing much more important establishments. Yet that is apparently the design of Mr Collier's Book, though his malice infinitely surpassing his ability, as it certainly does, whatever some people may think of him, his performance is some what awkward. For in the Introduction to his Book he gives you reasons why the Stage in general aught to be commended; in the first Chapters of his Book he pretends to show cause why the English Stage ought to be reformed, and in the sixth and last Chapter he pretends to prove by Authority that no Stage ought to be allowed. In the beginning of his Book he produces his own reasons why the Stage reformed aught to be encouraged, and in the end of the same Book he brings other men's opinions to ●●ew that every Stage ought to be abolished; and so endeavours to ruin his own Reasons by a long scroll of other people's Authorities, which is certainly a pleasant condescension; but such is the fantastic humility of pedantic pride. And yet Mr Collier is very right and very sincere in his Reasons, and very wrong and very corrupt in his Authorities. As if he were so great an enemy to the truth, that he would suborn the very dead to destroy the f●rce of what he himself had asserted.  
If Mr Collier had only attacked the Corruptions of the Stage, for my own part I should have been so far from blaming him, that I should have publicly returned him my thanks: For the ●ouses are so great, that there is a necessity for the reforming them; not that I think that with all its corruptions the Stage has debauched the people: I am fully convinced it has not, and I believe I have said enough in the following treatise to convince the Reader of it. But this is certain, that the corruptions of the Stage hinder its efficacy in the reformation of manners. For, besides that Vice is contrary to Virtue, it renders the Stage little and contemptible; for nothing but Virtue can make any thing awful and truly great, and nothing but what is awful and truly great can be universally respected, and by that means in a condition to influence the minds of the people. For this reason, as I said above, if Mr Collier had only attacked the licentiousness of the Stage, in so fair a manner as he ought to have done it, I had returned him my thanks, but when I found by his last Chapter, that his design was against the Stage itself I thought I could not spend a month more usefully; than in the vindication of it.  
My business therefore is a vindication of the Stage, and not of the Corruptions or the abuses of it. And therefore I have no further meddled with M● Collier's Book, than as I have had occasion to show, that he has endeavoured to make some things pass for abuses, either of the Stage in general, or of the English Stage particularly, which are so far from being abuses, that they may be accounted excellences.  
This little Treatise was conceived, disposed, transcribed and printed in a month; a●d though on that very account it may not be wholly free from error, yet this I can assure the Reader, that I have industriously endeavoured not to err, though I verily believe that Mr Collier industriously endeavoured to err, as far as he thought it might be consistent with the deceiving of others.  
The method that I have used has been this: I have endeavoured to show that the Stage in general is useful to the happiness of Mankind, to the welfare of Government, and the advancement of Religion: And under the head of Government I have endeavoured to prove, that the Stage does not encourage Revenge, as Mr Collier asserts in his last Chapter; and that by encouraging Pride, which is another thing that he charges upon it, it provides for the happiness of particular men, and the public. I have endeavoured to show too, in defence of the English Stage, that it is to be commended for its impartiality, and in exempting no degree or order of men from censure.  
I saw very well that there was no proceeding any farther in the vindication of it: For no man can make any reasonable defence, either for the immorality or the immodesty, or the unnecessary wanton profaneness, which are too justly charged upon it. But for the particular Gentlemen which Mr Collier has attacked in some particular passages, which he has industriously culled from their writings, I could make a very good defence for several of 'em, if I were not satisfied that they were abler to defend themselves.  
He has treated them indeed with the last disdain, and the last contempt, not considering, that by doing it, he has treated all at the same rate, who profess an esteem for them, that is, all the Town. He has given them some language which must be resented by all who profess Humanity.  
For, Mr Collier is so far from having shown in his Book, either the meekness of a true Christian, or the humility of an exemplary Pastor, that he has neither the reasoning of a man of sense in it, nor the style of a polite man, nor the sincerity of an honest man, nor the humanity of a Gentleman, or a man of Letters.   

THE USEFULNESS OF THE STAGE.  

CHAP. I.  
That the Stage is instrumental to the Happiness of Mankind.  
NOthing can more strongly recommend any thing to us, than the assuring us, that it will improve our happiness. For the chief end and design of man is to make himself happy. 'tis what he constantly has in his eye, and in order to which, he takes every step that he makes: In whatever he does or he does not, he designs to improve or maintain his happiness. And 'tis by this universal principle, that God maintains the harmony, and order, and quiet of the reasonable World. It had indeed been an inconsistency in providence, to have made a thinking and reasoning Creature, that had been indifferent as to misery and happiness; for God had made such a one only to disturb the rest, and consequently had acted against his own design.  
If then I can say enough to convince the Reader, that the Stage is instrumental to the happiness of Mankind, and to his own by consequence, it is evident that I need say no more to make him espouse its interest.  
I shall proceed then to the proving these two things.  
First, That the Stage is instrumental to the happiness of Mankind in general.  
Secondly, That it is more particularly instrumental to the happiness of Englishmen.  
The Stage is instrumental to the happiness of Mankind in general. And here it will be necessary to declare what is meant by happiness, and to proceed upon that.  
By happiness then, I never could understand any thing else but pleasure; for I never could have any notion of happiness, that did not agree with pleasure, or any notion of pleasure, that did not agree with happiness. I could never possibly conceive how any one can be happy without being pleased, or pleased without being happy. 'Tis universally acknowledged by Mankind, that happiness consists in pleasure, which is evident from this, that whatever a man does, whether in spiritual or temporal affairs, whether in matters of profit or diversion, pleasure is at least the chief and the final motive to it, if it is not the immediate one. And providence seems to have sufficiently declared, that pleasure was intended for our Spring and Fountain of Action, when it made it the incentive to those very acts, by which we propagate our kind and preserve ourselves. As if Self-love without pleasure were insufficient for either; for as I myself have know several, who have chosen rather to die, than to go through tedious courses of Physic; so I make no doubt, but several would have taken the same resolution, rather than have supported life by a perpetual course of eating, which had differed in nothing from a course of Physic, if eating and pleasure had not been things inseparable. Now as 'tis pleasure that obliges man to perserve himself, it is the very same that has sometimes the force to prevail upon him to his own destruction. For as Monsieur Pascal observes, the very men who hang, and who drown themselves are instigated by the secret pleasure, which they have from the thought that they shall be freed from pain.  
Since therefore man, in every thing that he does proposes pleasure to himself, it follows, that in pleasure consists his happiness. But though he always proposes it, he very often falls short of it, For pleasure is not in his own power, since if it were, it would follow from thence, that happiness were in his power. The want of which has been always the complaint of men, both sacred and secular, in all Ages in all Countries, and in all Conditions. Man that is born of woman is but of few days, and full of trouble, says job Chap. 14. Verse 1. Of the same nature are the two complaints of Horace, which are so fine, and so poetical, and so becoming of the best antiquity. 
Scandit aeratas vitiosa waves  
Curae, 
Hor. Ode Lib. 2.  nec turmas equitum & relinquit  
Ocior Cervis, & agente Nimbos  
Ocyor Euro.  And that other, in the first Ode of the third Book. 
Timor & minae  
Scandunt eodem quo Dominus, neque.  
Decedit aerata triremi, &  
Post equitem sedit atra cura.   
In short, they who have made the most reflections on it, have been the most satisfied of it, and above all Philosophers; who, by the voluminous instructions, by the laborious directions which they have left to posterity, have declared themselves sensible, that to be happy is a very difficult thing.  
And the reason why they of all men have always found it so difficult is, because they always propounded to owe their happiness to reason, though one would think, that experience might have convinced them of the folly of such a design, because they had seen that the most thinking and the most reasonable, had always most complained.  
For reason may often afflict us, and make us miserable, by setting our impotence or our guilt before us; but that which it generally does, is the maintaining us in a languishing state of indifference, which perhaps is more removed from pleasure, than that is from affliction, and which may be said to be the ordinary state of men.  
It is plain then, that reason by maintaining us in that state, is an impediment to our pleasure, which is our happiness. For to be pleased a man must come out of his ordinary state; now nothing in this life can bring him out of it but passion alone, which Reason pretends to combat.  
Nothing but passion in effect can please us, which every one may know by experience: For when any man is pleased, he may find by reflection that at the same time he is moved. The pleasure that any man meets with oftenest is the pleasure of Sense. Let any one examine himself in that, and he will find that the pleasure is owing to passion; for the pleasure vanishes with the desire, and is succeeded by loathing, which is a sort of grief.  
Since nothing but pleasure can make us happy, it follows that to be very happy, we must be much pleased; and since nothing but passion can please us, it follows that to be very much pleased we must be very much moved; this needs no proof, or if it did, experience would be a very convincing one; since any one may find when he has a great deal of pleasure that he is extremely moved.  
And that very height and fullness of pleasure which we are promised in another life, must, we are told, proceed from passion, or something which resembles passion. At lest no man has so much as pretended that it will be the result of Reason. For we shall then be delivered from these mortal Organs, and Reason shall then be no more. We shall then no more have occasion from premises to draw conclusions, and a long train of consequences; for, becoming all spirit and all knowledge, we shall see things as they are: We shall lead the glorious life of Angels, a life exalted above all Reason, a life consisting of Ecstasy and Intelligence.  
Thus is it plain that the happiness both of this life and the other is owing to passion, and not to reason. But though we can never be happy by the force of Reason, yet while we are in this life we cannot possibly be happy without it, or against it. For since man is by his nature a reasonable creature, to suppose man happy against Reason, is to suppose him happy against Nature, which is absurd and monstrous. We have shown, that a man must be pleased to be happy, and must be moved to be pleased; and that to please him to a height, you must move him in proportion: But then the passions must be raised after such a manner as to take reason along with them. If reason is quite overcome, the pleasure is neither long, nor sincere, nor safe. For how many that have been transported beyond their reason, have never more recovered it. If reason resists, a man's breast becomes the seat of Civil War, and the Combat makes him miserable. For these passions, which are in their natures so very troublesome, are only so because their motions are always contrary to the motion of the will; as grief, sorrow, shame and jealousy. And that which makes som● passions in their nature's pleasant, is because they move with the will, as love, joy, pity, hope, terror, and sometimes anger. But this is certain, that no passion can move in those a full consent with the will, unless at the same time ●t be approved of by the understanding. And no passion can be allowed of b● the understanding, that is not raised by its true springs, and augmented by its just degrees. Now in the world it is so very rare to have our passions thus raised, and so improved, that that is the reason why we are so seldom throughly and sincerely pleased. But in the Drama the passions are false and abominable, unless they are moved by their true springs, and raised by their just degrees. Thus are they moved, thus are they raised in every well writ Tragedy, till they come to as great a height as reason can very well bear. Besides, the very motion has a tendency to the subjecting them to reason, and the very raising purges and moderates them. So that the passions are seldom any where so pleasing, and no where so safe as they are in Tragedy. Thus have I shown, that to be happy is to be pleased, and that to be pleased is to be moved in such a manner as is allowed of by Reason; I have shown too that Tragedy moves us thus, and consequently pleases us, and conseqeuntly makes us happy. Which was the thing to he proved.   

CHAP. II.  
That the Stage is more particularly instrumental to the happiness of English men.  
WE have shown in the former Chapter, that all happiness consists in pleasure, and that all pleasure proceeds from passion; but that passion to produce pleasure, must be raised after such a manner, as to move in consent with the will, and consequently to be allowed of by the understanding, upon which we took an occasion to show, that thinking and reasoning people as Philosophers, and the like, have made most complaints of the misery of humane life, because they have endeavoured to deduce their happiness from reason, and not from passion. But another reason may be given, and that is, that such people, by reason of the exactness or moroseness of their judgements, are too scrupulous in the allowance of the passions, from whence it proceeds, that things very rarely happen in life, to raise their passions in such a manner, as to approve them to their understandings, and consequently to make them move in consent with their wills. From whence it proceeds, that splenatick persons are so very unhappy, and so much harder to be pleased than others, which is every day confirmed by experience. Indeed 'tis observed every day in splenatick people, that their passions move for the most part, with a contrary motion to that of their wills, and so afflict them them instead of delighting them, Now there is no Nation in Europe, as has been observed above a thousand times, that is so generally addicted to the Spleen as the English. And which is apparent to any observer, from the reigning distemper of the Clime, which is inseparable from the Spleen; from that gloomy and sullen temper, which is generally spread through the Nation: from that natural discontentedness which makes us foe uneasy to one another, because we are so uneasy to ourselves; and lastly, from our jealousies and suspicions, which makes us so uneasy to ourselves, and to one another, and have so often made us dangerous to the Government, and by consequence to ourselves. Now the English being more splenatick than other people, and consequently more thoughtful and more reflecting, and therefore more scrupulous in allowing their passions, and consequently things seldom happening in life to move their passions so agreeably to their reasons, as to entertain and please them; and there being no true and sincere pleasure unless these passions are thus moved, nor any happiness without pleasure, it follows; that the English to be happy, have more need than other people of something that will raise their passions in such a manner, as shall be agreeable to their reasons, and that by consequence they have more need of the D●ama.   

CHAP. III.  
The Objections from Reason answered.  
BUt now we proceed to answer Objections, and to show that we design to use Mr Collier with all the fairness imaginable; I shall not only endeavour to answer all that may be objected from Mr. Collier's Book; against what I have said in the foregoing Chapters in the behalf of the Stage; I say, I shall not only endeavour to answer this, after I have propounded it in the most foreible manner in which it can be urged, but I shall make it my business to reply to all that has been objected by other adversaries, or that I can foresee may be hereafter objected.  
The objections then against what I have said in Defence of the Stage in the foregoing Chapters, are or may be of three sorts.  
First, Objections from Reason.  
Secondly, From Authority, and  
Thirdly, From Religion.  
First then, I shall endeavour to answer what may be objected from Reason, viz. That though it should be granted that the Theatre makes people happy for the present, yet it afterwards infallibly makes them miserable: First, by nourishing and fomenting their passions; and secondly, by indulging their vices, and making them Libertines: And that 'tis neither the part of a prudent man, nor a good Christian, to make choice of such a momentary delight, as will be followed by so much affliction.  
And first, say the Adversary's of the Stage, the Drama tends to the making of people unhappy, because it nourishes and foments those passions, that occa●●on the follies and imprudencies from whence come all their misfortunes: ●nd  
First, It indulges Terror and Pity, ●nd the rest of the passions.  
Secondly, It not only indulges Love where it is, but creates it where it is not.  
First then, say they, it indulges Terror, Pity, and the rest of the passions. For, says a certain French Gentleman, who is famous for Criticism, that purgation which Aristo●le mentions is merely chimerical; the more the passions in any one are moved, the more obnoxious they are to be moved, and the more unruly they grow.  
But, by Monsieur Evremont's favour, this is not only to contradict Aristotle, but every man's daily experience. For every man finds, and every man of sense particularly, that the longer he frequents Plays the harder he is to be pleased, that is, the harder he is to be moved; and when any man of judgement, who has a long time frequented Plays, happens to be very much touched by a Scene, we may conclude that that Scene is very well writ, both for nature and art.  
And indeed, if people who have a long time frequented Plays are so hard to be moved, to compassion, that a Poet is obliged so to contrive his incidents and his Characters, that the last shall be most deplorable, and the first most proper to move compassion; may it not be very well supposed, that such a one will not be over obnoxious to feel too much compassion upon the view of calamities, which happen every day in the world, when they and the persons to whom they happen, may not so much as once in an Age, have all the qualifications that are required extremely to touch him.  
But, Secondly, whereas it is urged, that the Drama and particularly Tragedy, manifestly indulges Love where it is, and creates it where it is not. To this I answer. That the Love which is shown in a Tragedy is lawful and regular, or it is not. If it is not, why then in a Play, which is writ as it should be (for I pretend not to defend the errors or corruptions of the Stage) it is shown unfortunate in the Catastrophe, which is sufficient to make an Audience averse from engaging in the excesses of that passion. But if the Love that is shown is lawful and regular, nothing makes a man happier than that passion. I speak even of that immediate pleasure which attends the passion itself. And as it certainly makes him happy for the present, so there is no passion which puts a man upon things that make him happier for the future. For as people have for the most part a very high opinion of the belov'd object, it makes them endeavour to become worthy of it, and to increase in knowledge and virtue; and not only frequently reclaims them from some grosser pleasures, of which they were fond before, but breeds in them an utter detestation of some unnatural vices, which have been so much in use in Eng●and, for these last thirty years.  
But now we come to the second pretended Reason, why the Drama tends to the making of men unhappy, and that is, say the Adversaries of the Stage, because it encourages and indulges their vices. To which we answer; that the Drama; and particulary Tragedy, in its purity, is so far from having that effect, that it must of necessity make men virtuous; First, because it moderates the passions, whose excesses cause their vices; Secondly, because it instructs them in their duties, both by its fable and by its sentences. But here they start an objection, which some imagine a strong one, which is, That the Nation has been more corrupted since the establishment of the Drama, upon the restoration, than ever it was before. To which I answer.  
First, That that corruption of manners, though it should be granted to proceed from the Stage, can yet only proceed from the licentious abuses of it, which no man pretends to defend. But,  
Secondly, We affirm that this corruption of manners, cannot be reasonably said to proceed, no not even from those palpable abuses of the Stage, which we will not pretend to vindicate.  
First, For if the corruption of manners proceeded from the abuses of the Stage, how comes it to pass that we never heard any complaint of the like corruption of manners before the restoration of Charles the Second, since it is plain from Mr Collier's Book, that the Drama flourished in the Reign of King james I. and flourished with the like licentiousness. But,  
Secondly, if this general corruption of manners is to be attributed to the abuses of the Stage, from hence it will follow, that there should be the greatest corruption of manners where the Theatres are most frequented, or most licentious, which is not true: for in France the Theatres are less licentious than ours, and yet the corruption of manners is there as great, if you only except our drinking, which, as I shall prove anon, can never proceed from any encouragement of the Stage. In Germany and in Italy the Theatres are less frequented: for in Italy they seldom have Plays unless in the Carnival, and in most of the little Germane Sovereignty's, they have not constant Theatres. And yet in Germany they drink more, and in Italy they are more intemperate in the use of women and unnatural vices.  
But Thirdly, The corruption of manners upon the restoration, appeared with all the fury of Libertinism, even before the Play House was reestablisht and long ●efore it could have any influence on manners, so that another cause of that corruption is to be enquired after, than the re-establishment of the Drama, and that can be nothing but that beastly reformation, which in the time of the late Civil Wars, was begun at the Tail instead of the Head and the Heart; and which oppressed and persecuted men's inclinations, instead of correcting and converting them, which afterwards broke out with the same violence, that a raging fire does upon its first getting vent. And that which gave it so licentious a vent was, not only the permission, but the example of the Court, which for the most part was just arrived from abroad with the King, where it had endeavoured by foreign corruption to sweeten, or at least to soften adversity, and having sojourned for a considerable time, both at Paris and in the Low Countries, united the spirit of the French Whoring, to the fury of the Dutch Drinking. So that the Poets who writ immediately after the restoration, were obliged to humour the depraved tastes of their Audience. For as an impenitent Sinner that should be immediately transported to Heaven, would be incapable of partaking of the happiness of the place, because his inclinations and affections would not be prepared for it, so if the Poets of these times had writ in a manner purely instructive, without any mixture of lewdness, the Appetites of the Audience were so far debauched, that they would have judged the entertainment insipid, so that the spirit of Libertinism which came in with the Court, and for which the people were so well prepared by the sham-reformation of manners, caused the lewdness of their Plays, and not the lewdness of Plays the spirit of Libertinism. For 'tis ridiculous to assign a cause of so long a standing to so new, so sudden, and so extraordinary an effect, when we may assign a cause so new, so probable, and unheard of before, as the inclinations of the people, returning with violence to their natural bent, upon the encouragement and example of a Court, that was come home with all the corruptions of a foreign Luxury; so that the sham-reformation being in a great measure the cause of that spirit of Libertinism, which with so much fury came in with King Charles the Second, and the putting down the Play House being part of that reformation, 'tis evident that the Corruption of the Nation is so far from proceeding from the Playhouse, that it partly proceeds from having no Plays at all.  
Fourthly, That the Corruption of Manners is not to be attributed to the licentiousness of the Drama, may appear from the consideration of the reigning vices, I mean those moral vices which have more immediate influence upon men's conduct, and consequently upon their happiness. And those are chiefly four.  

1. The love of Women.  
2. Drinking.  
3. Gaming.  
4. Unnatural sins.   
For drinking and gaming, their excesses cannot be reasonably charged upon the Stage, for the following Reasons.  
First, Because it cannot possibly be conceived, that so reasonable a diversion as the Drama, can encourage or incline men to so unreasonable a one as gaming, or so brutal a one as drunkenness.  
Secondly, Because these two vices have been made odious and ridiculous by our Plays, instead of being shown agreeable. As for Dunkenness, to show the sinner is sufficient to discredit the vice; for a Drunkard of necessity always appears either odious or ridiculous. And for a Gamester, I never knew any one shown in a Play, but either as a Fool or a Rascal.  
Thirdly, Because those two vices flourish in places that are too remote, and in persons that are too abject to be encouraged or influenced by the Stage. There is drinking and gaming in the furthest North and the furthest West, among Peasants, as well as among Dukes and Peers. But here perhaps some visionary Zealot will urge, that these two vices, even these remote places, and these abject persons proceed from the influence of that irreligion, which is caused by the corruptions of the Stage, and will with as much reason and as much modesty deduce the lewdness which is transacted in the Tin mines, in Cornwall, and in the Coal-pits of Newcastle, from the daily abominations of the Pits of the two Playhouses, as he would derive the brutality of the high Dutch Drinking, from the profaneness of our English Drama.  
But what will he say then to those Gentlemen, who neither are supposed to go to our Theatres, nor to converse much with those who do, nor to be liable to be corrupted by them; what will they say to these Gentlemen, if they can be proved to have a considerable share of the two forementioned vices? What can they answer? For it would be ridiculously absurd to reply, that the Clergy are corrupted by the Laity, whom it is their business to convert. But here I think myself obliged to declare, that I by no means design this as a reflection upon the Church of England, who I am satisfied may morejustly boast of its Clergy, than any other Church whatsoever; a Clergy that are equally illustrious for their Piety and for their Learning, yet may I venture to affirm, that there are some among them, who can never be supposed to have been corrupted by Playhouses, who yet turn up a Bottle oftener than they do an Hourglass, who box about a pair of Tables with more fervour than they do their Cushions, contemplate a pair of Dice more frequently than the Fathers or Counsels, and meditate and depend upon Hazard, more than they do upon Providence.  
And as for that unnatural sin, which is another growing vice of the Age, it would be monstrous to urge that it is in the least encouraged by the Stage, for it is either never mentioned there, or mentioned with the last detestation.  
And now lastly, for the Love of Women, fomented by the Corruption, and not by the genuine Art of the Stage; though the augmenting and nourishing it cannot be defended, yet it may be in some measure excused.  
1. Because it has more of Nature, and consequently more Temptation, and consequently less Malice, than the preceding three, which the Drama does not encourage.  
2. Because it has a check upòn the other Vices, and peculiarly upon that unnatural sin, in the restraining of which the happiness of mankind is in so evident a manner concerned.  
So that of the four moral reigning vices, the Stage encourages but one, which, as it has been proved to be the least of them all, so is it the least contageous, and the least universal. For in the Country, Fornication and Adultery are seldom heard of, whereas Drunkenness rages in almost every house there: From all which it appears, how very unreasonable it is, to charge the lewdness of the times upon the Stage, when it is evident, that of the four reigning moral vices, the Stage encourages but one, and that the least of the ●our, and the least universal, and a vice which has a check upon the other three, and particularly upon that amongst them, which is most opposite and most destructive to the happiness of mankind.   

CHAP. IU.  
The Objections from Authority answered.  
IN the next place we come to answer the objections which Mr Collier has brought from Authority. The Authorities which he has produced are indeed very numerous, yet only four of them can be reduced under this head, without running into confusion, two Poets and two Philosophers.  
The Poets are Ovid and Mr. Wycherley; the Philosophers, Plutarch and Seneca.  
The first of them is Ovid, in his Book De Arte Amandi, and in his Book De Remedio Amoris. We have already answered the last in the preceding Chapter, and shall now say something to the first. The passage is this: 
Sed Tu praecipue Curvis Venare Theatris  
Haec loca sunt votis Fertiliora tuis.  
Illic invenies quod ames, quod Ludere possis  
Quodque semel Tangas quodque Tenere velis.  From whence Mr Collier makes this shrewd Remark, that the Theatre is the properest place in the world to meet, or to find a Mistress, and that several people go thither on purpose. In answer to this, I desire the Reader to peruse the Verses which precede. 
Nec Fuge niliginae Memphitica Templa Iuvenc●  
Multas illa facit quod fuit illa jovi.  And have we not here a merry person? who brings an Authority against going to Theatres, which is as direct against going to Church? Nay, and upon the very same account too. But the Poet speaks here of a Heathen Temple, says Mr Collier. Well, and so he does of a Heathen Theatre. But what he says of the Roman Theatre is exactly applicable to ours. And what Reply can be made to that, says Mr Collier? What? Why I wish to God that no Reply could be made to it. But besides, if several people go to our Theatres purposely to meet, or to find out a Mistress, I think it is plain that if there were no Theatres, they would go to other places: Especially since, as we hinted above, when the Theatres are shut, they frequent other Assemblies upon the same designs. But though some people go to the Theatre to meet their Mistresses, yet it is evident that most go to see the Play, who, if they could not have that diversion, would not improbably go to other places with far worse intentions.  
The next who i● produced against the Stage is Mr Wycherley, much, I dare say, against the assent either of his will or his understanding. But only for a jest in that admirable Epistle, which is prefixed to the Plain Dealer. However; even that jest, let it be never so much o●re-strain'd, can never be brought to convince us of any thing but the abuses of the Theatre, which I do not pretend to defend; and I thought Mr Wycherley had more than made amends for it, by exposing Adultery, and making it the immediate cause of Olivia's misfortune, in that excellent Play, which is a most instructive and a most noble satire, upon the hypocrisy and villainy of Mankind.  
Mr Wycherley being indeed almost the only man alive, who has made Comedy instructive in its Fable; almost all the rest being contented to instruct by their characters. But what Mr Collier has said of Mr Wycherley is sufficient to show us what Candour, nay, and what Justice we are to expect from this censurer of the Stage. For in giving Mr. Wycherley's Character, he has shown himself invidious and detracting even in his commendation. For the best thing that he can afford to say of the greatest of our Comic Wits, is, that he is a man of good sense. Which puts me in mind of a Father in France overhearing his Son saying of the Marshal de Turenne Ma foy, je trouve Monsieur de T●renne an jolly Homme: Et vous mo●●its, replies the Father, je vous trouve un jolly sot de parler ainsi, Du plus grand Homme que la France a port. How unworthy was it to commend Mr Wycherley for a thing, which, though certainly he has in a very great degree, yet is common to him with a thousand more; and to take no notice of those extraordinary qualities which are peculiar to him alone, his Wit, his Penetration, his satire, his Art, his Characters, and above all, that incomparable Vivacity, by which he has happily equalled the Ancients, and surpassed the Moderns?  
But now let us pass to the Philosophers, I mean the Philosophers who were not Poets; for no man can be a good Poet who is not a Philosopher. He has cited Plutarch in four several places in his Symposiaecum; his Book De Audiendis Poetis; his Treatise De glori● Atheniensium; and his Laconic Institutions: For the two last we shall say nothing to them, till we come to speak of government. In the two first Mr Collier makes Plutarch say, that Plays are dangerous to corrupt young people, and therefore stage-poetry, when it grows too hardy, and licentious, aught to be checked. But I make no doubt but to make it appear, that Mr collier has been guilty of three things in this very action, which are unworthy the Candour of a Gentleman, or of a man of Letters. First, he has brought an Authority, which can only convince us that this Philosopher did not approve of the licentiousness of the Stage, which licentiousness we by no means design to defend: such an Authority, I say, he has brought in a Chapter, designed to show that the Ancients disapproved of Plays, and the Stage in general. Secondly, he has made use of the Authority of Plutarch against the Stage, whereas that Philosopher has said infinitely more in its behalf, than he has against it. Thirdly, he has from two tracts of Plutarch slurred one citation upon us, in the way of an argument, which is very unlike the reasoning of that Philosopher. For in the first part of the Enthyme, he makes Plutarch damn the Stage, and the Drama in general; and in the second conclude against them in particular. For Plays, says he, that is, all Plays, are dangerous to corrupt young people, and therefore some Plays ought to be checked. And why does Mr Collier make the Philosopher argue after this Jesuitical manner, when it is plain to any Reader, that has but common apprehension, that since in the second part of the Euthymene, Plutarch condemned only some particular Plays; he only said in the first part of it, that some particular Play were dangerous. But let us proceed to Seneca. And since it highly concerns us to give a full and satisfactory account of what is objected from him, let us cite him at length, a● Mr Collier translates him. Seneca complains heartily of the extravagance and debauchery of the Age: And how forward people were to improve in that which was naught. That scarce any body would apply themselves to the study of Nature and Morality, unless when the Playhouse was shut, or the weather foul. That there was no body to teach Philosophy, because there was no body to learn it. But that the Stage had nurseries, and company enough. This misapplication of Time and Fancy, made knowledge in so ill a condition. This was the cause the Hints of Antiquity were no better pursued; that some inventions were sunk, and that some inventions grew downwards, rather than otherwise. To which I answer, First, that it is not likely that Seneca should condemn the Drama and the Stage in general, since it is so notoriously known that he writ Plays himself. Secondly, that by what he says it is evident that he declaims only against the abuses of the Theatre; and those such abuses as have no relation to ours; as for example, the passing whole days together in the Theatre, which the Romans oftentimes did. Thirdly, that if Mr Collier would infer from hence, that our Theatres are hindrances to the advancement of Learning, we have nothing to do but affirm what all the world must consent to, that Learning is now at a greater height than ever it was known in England.  
What we have said is sufficient to confound Mr Collier, but we will not be contented with that; for here we triumph, here we insult, here we have a just occasion to show the admirable advantage of the Stage to Letters, and the incomparable excellency of the Drama, and in a more peculiar manner of Tragedy, which seems purposely formed and designed for raising the mind, and firing it to that noble emulation, which is so absolutely necessary for the improvement of Arts. This is a truth which is confirmed by the experience of all Nations, of all Ages. For whether we look upon the Ancients or Moderns, whether we consider the Athenians or Romans, or the French or ourselves, we shall find that Arts and Sciences have for the most part begun, but all of them at least begun to prosper with the Stage, and that as they have flourished, they have at last declined with it. And this we may affirm, not only of the the more human Arts, Poetry, History, Eloquence, of which the Theatre is certainly the best School in the world; the School that formed in a great measure those prodigious Disciples, Cicero and Demosthenos, but we may truly assert it of all other sorts of Learning.  
For before Thespis appeared in Attica, and reduced the Drama to some sort of form, which had nothing but confusion before him, they had neither Author nor Knowledge amongst them, that could be esteemed by posterity: That little knowledge which they had of Nature is to us ridiculous. For Moral Philosophy, they had no such thing, nor Orator nor Historian▪ But as soon as after Thespis their Theatre began to flourish, all their extraordinary men, in all these sorts, appeared almost together. Not only those who adorned the Stage, as Aeschylus, Euripides, and the divine Sophocles; but those Orators, Philosophers and Historians, who have since been the wonders of all posterity, Socrates, Plato, Xenophon, Aristotle, Pericles, Thucydides, Demosthenes, Aeschines; and of all their famous Authors who have descended to us, there was not one that I can think of, but who was alive between the first appearing of Thespis, and the death of Sophocles. And be it said in a more particular manner for the honour of the Stage, that they had no such thing as Moral Philosophy before the Drama flourished. Socrates was the first, who out of their Theatre began to form their manners. And be it said, to the immortal honour of Tragedy, that the first and greatest of all the Moral Philosophers, not only frequented their Theatres, but was employed in writing Tragedies.  
And as among the Athenians, Eloquence, History, and Philosophy, I speak of the moral, which is the only solid certain Philosophy, appeared and flourished upon the flourishing of the Stage, so with the Stage they at last declined, for not one of their famous writers has descended to us, who lived after the Drama was come to perfection, that is, after the full establishment of the new Comedy.  
As Dramatic Poetry was the first kind of writing that appeared among the Athenians, so I defy the most skilful man in antiquity, to name so much as one Author among the Romans till Dramatic Poetry appeared at Rome, introduced by Livius Andronicus, above five hundred years after the building of the City. But when their Stage began to be cultivated, immediately a hundred writers arose, in Poetry, Eloquence, History, and Philosophy, whose Fame took an equal flight with that of the Roman Eagles, and who, transmitting their immortal works to posterity, continue the living glories of that Republic, and the only solid remains of the Roman greatness. As with the Roman Stage the rest of their Arts were cultivated, and improved▪ proportionably; as with that in the Age of Augustus Caesar, about two hundred years from the time of Livius Andronicus, they reached their utmost height, so with that they declined in the Reigns of succeeding Emperors.  
For the French, 'tis yet scarce a hundred years since Hardy first appeared among them: And Hardy was the first who began to reform their Stage, and to recover it from the confusion in which it lay before him. And though I cannot say, that before that time the French had no good writers, yet I may safely affirm, that they had but one, who was generally esteemed throughout the rest of Europe: But to reckon all who have since been excellent in Poetry, Eloquence, History and Philosophy, would certainly make a v●ry long and a very illustrious Roll.  
'Tis time to come at last to ourselves: It was first in the Reign of King Henry the Eighth that the Drama grew into form with us: It was established in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, and flourished in that of King james the First. And though I will not presume to affirm, that before the Reign of King Henry the Eighth we had no good Writers, yet I will confidently assert, that, excepting Chaucer, no not in any sort of Writing whatever, we had not a first rate Writer. But immediately upon the establishment of the Drama, three prodigies of Wit appeared all at once, as it were so many Suns to amaze the learned world. The Reader will immediately comprehend that I speak of Spencer, Bacon and Raleigh; three mighty geniuses, so extraordinary in their different ways, that not only England had never seen the like before, but they almost continue to this very day, in spite of emulation, in spite of time, the greatest of our Poets, Philosophers and Historians.  
From the time of King james the First the Drama flourished, and the Arts were cultivated, till the beginning of our intestine broils, in the Reign of King Charles the ●irst; when the Dramatic Muse was banished, and all the Arts degraded. For what other sort of Poets flourished in those days? who were the inspired, the celebrated men? Why Withers, Pryn, vicars, Fellows whose verses were laborious Libels upon the Art and themselves. These were the first rate Poets, and under them flourished a herd of Scribblers of obscurer infamy: Wretches, who had not desert enough to merit even contempt; whose works, like abortions, never beheld the light, stifled in the dark by their own friends, as so many scandals upon humane nature, and lamentable effects of that universal conspiracy of Fools against Right Reason. And if any one pretends that Sir john Denham, Sir William Davenant, Mr. Waller and Mr. Cowley writ many of their Verses in the time of the late Civil Wars; to him I answer, that what Mr. Waller writ was but very little, and the other three are notoriously known to have writ in a Country, where the Stage and Learning flourished. So that nothing among us that was considerable was produced in Poetry in the times of the late Civil Wars, if you except but the first part of that admirable satire against the Muse's mortal foe Hypocrisy, which yet neither did nor durst appear till the restoration of the Drama.  
We have seen what the Poets were that flourished in those dismal times, let us now see what were the Orators? who were the cried up Preachers? why Calamy, Case, Hugh peter's, Manton, Sibbs. But what was produced in the other Sciences, that was worthy of Posterity? what in Philosophy? what in History? what in Mathematics? what could be expected when only hypocritical fools were encouraged, whose abominable canting was christened Gift, and their dulness Grace.  
But what sort of persons have flourished among us since the restoration of the Drama? Who have been they who have signalised themselves in the other kinds of Poetry? So great is the number of those who have writ politely, that it is comprehensive of all conditions of men. How many have been justly Renowned for Eloquence. So many extraordinary men have distinguished themselves by preaching, that to ennumerate them would be an endless thing. I shall content myself with mentioning the late Archbishop and the present Bishop of Rochester, so illustrious for their different Talents, the one for his extreme politeness, for his grace and his delicacy, the other for his nervous force, and both for their masculine purity. Who among us are famed for History? not only the last of those great Prelates, but the present Bishop of Salisbury, whose History of the Reformation is so deservedly celebrated by the learned world, wherever English or French is known. What proficients have we in Philosophy? what in Mathematics? Let all Europe reply, who has read, and reading admired them. I shall content myself with mentioning two of the living Glories of England, Mr Newton and Mr Lock, the one of which has not his equal in Europe, and neither of them has his superior.  
Thus have I shown you, how Poetry, Eloquence, History, and Philosophy, have appeared, advanced, declined, and vanished with the Drama, not only in Greece and ancient Italy, but in modern France and England. So true it is, what was formerly so well said, that all those Arts which respect humanity, have a certain alliance, and a mutual dependence, and are defended and supported by their common confederacy.  
Thus while I am pleading in defence of the Stage, I am defending and supporting Poetry, the best and the noblest kind of writing. For all other Writers are 〈◊〉 made by Precept, and are formed by Art; but a Poet prevails by the force of Nature, is excited by all that's powerful in Humanity, and is sometimes by a Spirit not his own exalted to Divinity.  
For if Poetry in other Countries has flourished with the Stage, and been with that neglected, what must become of it here in England if the Stage is ruined; for foreign Poets have found their public and their private Patrons. They who excelled in Greece were encouraged by the Athenian Stage, nay and, by all Greece assembled at their Olympian, Istmean, Nemean, Pythian Games. Rome had its Scipios, its Caesars, and its Maecenas, France had its magnanimous Richlieu, and its greater Lewis, but the protection that Poetry has found in England, has been from the Stage alone. Some few indeed of our private men have had Souls that have been large enough, and wanted only power. But of our Princes, how few have had any taste of Arts; nay, and of them who had some, have had their Heads too full, and some their Souls too narrow.  
As then in maintaining the cause of the Stage, I am defending Poetry in general; so in defending that I am pleading for Eloquence, for History and Philosophy. I am pleading for the reasonable pleasures of mankind, the only harmless, the only cheap, the only universal pleasures; the nourishments of Youth, and the delights of Age, the ornaments of Prosperity, and the surest Sanctuaries of Adversity, now insolently attempted by furious zeal too wretchedly blind to see their beauties, or discern their innocence. For unless the Stage be encouraged in England, Poetry cannot subsist; for never was any man a great Poet, who did not make it his business as well as pleasure and solely abandon himself to that. And as Poetry wou●d be crushed by the ruins of the Stage; so Eloquence would be miserably maimed by them; for which, if action be confessed the life of it, the Theatre is certainly the best of Schools, and if action be not the life of it, Demosthenes was much mistaken.  
In Eloquence I humbly conceive that the Pulpit is something concerned, and by consequence in the Stage; and need not be ashamed to learn from that place which instructed Cicero, and which formed Demosthenes. For I cannot forbear declaring, notwithstanding the extreme veneration which I have for the Church of England, that if in some of our Pulpits, we had but persons that had half the excellence of Demosthenes, that had but half the force of his words, and the resistless strength of his Reasoning, and but half his vehement action, we should see quite another effect of their Sermons. Those divine Orators fulminating with their sacred Thunder, would infix terrible plagues in the souls of sinners, and rouse and awake to a new life even those who are dead in sin.  
I now come to answer what is objected from Religion; and that is, that though it should be granted that some little happiness may be derived from the Stage, yet that there is a much better and surer way to be happy: For the only way to be solidly and lastingly happy even in this life, is to be truly Religious, the best Christian being always the happiest man. To which I answer, That as the Christian Religion contains the best, nay, the only means to bring men to eternal happiness, so for the making men happy even in this life, it surpasses all Philosophy; but yet I confidently assert, that if the Stage were arrived to that degree of purity, to which in the space of some little time it may easily be brought, the frequenting our Theatres would advance Religion, and consequently the happiness of mankind, and so become a part of the Christian duty, which I shall demonstrate when I come to speak of Religion.   
The end of the First Part.   

THE USEFULNESS OF THE STAGE.  
PART II.  

CHAP. I.  
That the Stage is useful to Government.  
SInce in the first part of this Treatise, we have plainly demonstrated that the Stage is instrumental to the happiness of Mankind, and of Englishmen more particularly; and since it is self-evident, that the happiness of those who are governed, is the very end and design of all regular Government, it evidently follows, that the Stage which contributes to the happiness of particular men, is conducive to the good of the State. However, I shall descend to show more particularly, that the Stage is instrumental to the welfare,  
First, Of Government in general.  
Secondly, of the English Government more particularly.  
Thirdly, Especially of the present Government.  
First, The Stage is instrumental to the welfare of Government in general; which I shall prove, 

1. By Reason: And,  
2. By Experience.    
And first I shall prove by Reason, that the Stage is instrumental to the welfare of Government, and that whether you consider those who govern, or secondly, those who are governed.  
First, If you consider those who govern.  
And here it is self-evident, that no man who governs, can govern amiss, as long as he follows the dictates of common Reason. That requires that all who govern, should consult the interest of those who are governed, which is inclusive of their own. And those Rulers have always been upon a wrong foundation, who have had an interest distinct from that of their people. Maladministration has always its source from the passions or vices of those who govern.  
The passions which cause it, are for the most part Ambition, or the immoderate love of pleasure. Now as Tragedy checks the first, by showing the great ones or the Earth humbled, so it corrects the last by firing the mind and raising it to something nobler.  
The vices which cause the Maladministration of Governors, are either vices of weakness or of malice, the first of which cause Governors to neglect, and the last, to oppress their people. The vices of weakness are inconsiderateness, and effeminacy, inconstancy, and irresolution.  
Now nothing can be a better Remedy than Tragedy for inconsiderateness, which reminds men of their duty, and perpetually instructs them, either by its fable or by its sentences, and shows them the ill and the fatal consequences of irregular administration; and nothing is more capable of raising the Soul, and giving it that greatness, that courage, that force, and that constancy which are the qualifications that make men deserve to command others; which is evident from experience. For they who in all Countries and in all Ages have appeared most to feel the power of Tragedy, have been the most deserving and the greatest of men Aeschylus among the Athenians was a great Captain, as well as a Tragic Poet; and Sophocles was both an able Statesman and a Victorious General. If we look among ●he Romans, the very greatest among them, were particularly they who appeared so far touched by the Drama, as either to write their Plays themselves, or to build their Theatre. Witness Scipio, and Lelius, and Lucullus, and the Great Pompey, and Maecenas, and julius and Augustus Caesar.  
No man among the French has shown so much capacity or so much greatness of mind as Richlieu; and no man among them has expressed so much passion for the Drama, which was so great, that he writ several Plays himself, with that very hand, which at the same time was laying the Plan of the French universal Monarchy  
Among us the Drama began to flourish in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth, and I have been told, that that great Princess appeared to be so far charmed with it, as to translate with her own hand a Tragedy from Euripide●.  
That vice of malice which for the most part causes the maladministration of Governors is cruelty, which nothing is more capable of correcting than Tragedy, which by diving into the hidden Springs of Nature, and making use▪ of all that is powerful in her, in order to the moving compassion, 〈◊〉 been always found sufficient to soften the most obdurate heart.  
Numerous examples might be brought of this, but I shall content myself with that of Alexander the Thessalian Tyrant, as the story is related by Dacier, in the Preface to his Admirable Comment on the Poetic of Aristotle. This barbarous man, says Dacier, cau●●ng the Hecuba of Euripides to be played before him, found himself so touched that he went out before the end of the first Act, seeing it would be a shame for him to be seen to shed tears for the miseries of Hecuba, or the calamities of Polyxena, for him who every day embrued this hands in the innocent blood of his Subjects. The truth of it was, that he had some apprehension, lest he should be so far melted, that he-should be forsaken by that spirit of Tyranny, which had so long possessed him, and should go a private person out of that Theatre, into the which he had entered a Sovereign. Nay, he had like to have caused the Actor who had moved him thus, to be executed; but the Criminal was secured by the very remains of that compassion, which was his only crime.  
That which follows is remarkable, and which Dacier cites from an ancient Historian. A very grave Writer, says Dacier, makes a reflection which is very much to my purpose, and which seems of importance to Government. Speaking of the inhabitants of Arcadia, he says, that their humanity, and the sweetness of their tempers, and the respect which they had for the Gods; and in a word, the purity of their manners, and all their virtues proceeded principally from the love which they had for Music, which by its sweetness corrected those ill impressions, which a raw and unwholesome air, together with the hardship which they endured by their laborious way of life, made on their bodies and on their minds. And he says on the contrary, that those of Cynethus were carried to all sorts of profligate crimes, because that they, renouncing the wise institutions of their ancestors, ●ad neglected an art which was therefore the more necessary for them, because they inhabited tha● part of Arcadia, which was the coldest, and where the Climate was most unequal. Indeed, there was no Town in all Greece, says Dacier, that had given such frequent examples of enormous crimes. And if Polybius, says he, speaks this in the behalf of Music, and accuses Ephorus for having advanced a thing that was very unworthy of him, in asserting that Music was invented on purpose for the deceiving of Mankind, what may we not justly affirm of Tragedy, of which Music is but a little ornament; and which as far transcends it, as the reasoning Speech of a man excels the Brutes inarticulate voice, which never has any meaning.  
But now we come in the second place, to show that the Stage is useful to Government, with respect to those who are governed, and that whether you consider them in relation to those who govern them, or to one another, or to the common Enemy.  
If you consider them in relation to those who govern them, you will find that Tragedy is very proper to check the motions, that they may at any time feel to rebellion or disobedience, by stopping the very sources of them; for Tragedy naturally checks their Ambition, by showing them the great ones of the Earth humbled, by setting before their Eyes, to make use of Mr Collier's words, the uncertainty of human greatness, the sudden turns of State, and the unhappy conclusion of violence and injustice. Tragedy too, diverts their apprehension of grievances, by the delight which it gives them, discovers the designs of their factious guides, by opening their eyes, and instructing them in their duty by the like examples; and lastly, it dispels their unreasonable jealousies, for people who are melted or terrified with the sufferings of the great, which are set before thei● eyes, are rather apt to feel a secret pleasure, from the sense that they have, that they are free from the like calamities, than to torment themselves with the vain and uncertain apprehensions of futurity. But the Stage is useful to Government in those who are governed, if they are considered with relation to one another▪ For Tragedy diverts them from th●●● unjust designs, by the pleasure which it gives them; since no man as long 〈◊〉 he is easy himself, is in a humour to disturb others, and by purging th●se passions, whose excesses cause their injustice, by instructing them in their duty by its fable and by its sentences● by raising their minds, and setting them above injustice, by touching them with compassion, and making them good upon a principle of self-love; and lastly, by terrifying them with setting before their eyes, the unhappy conclusion, to use Mt Collier's words, of violence and injustice.  
Thirdly, The Stage is useful to Government, by having an influence over those who are governed, in relation to the common enemy. For nothing more raises and exalts their minds, and fires them with a noble emulation, who shall best perform their duty: which brings me to the second Head, the showing the usefulness of the Stage to Government in general, from  
II. Experience, and that of 

1. The Athenian.  
2. The Roman.  
3. The French, and  
4. The English Government.    
1. For the Athenians, their Drama first appeared in form with Thespis, was cultivated by Aeschylus, and perfected by Sophocles. Now this is extremely remarkable, that that people, which from Theseus to Thespis, that is, for the space of about seven hundred years, continued a poor and ignorant, and comparatively a contemptible people; in the space of a hundred years more, in which time their Tragedy was formed by Thespis, cultivated by Aeschylus, and perfected by Sophocles; I say, it is extremely remarkable, that in that space of time, this people, which before were so inconsiderable, became illustrious for Arts and Arms, renowned for Eloquence, for Philosophy famous, and for Empire formidable, the masters of Greece, the scourges of Asia, and the Terror of the great King.  
In that space of time flourished most of their mighty Conquerors, Cimon, Aristides, Pericles, Themistocles and Miltiades. Their Tragic Poets were the persons who animated their Armies, and fired the souls of those brave men, who conquered at once and died for their Country, in the Bay of Salamis, and in the Plains of Marathon; at which place a handful of men, as it were, of the disciples of Thespis and the succeeding Poets, vanquished the numberless forces of the East, laid the foundation of the Grecian Empire, and of the fortune of the great Alexander.  
The Athenians were highly sensible of the advantage which the State received from the Theatre, which they maintained at a public prodigious expense, and a Revenue appropriated to that peculiar use; and established a Law, which made the least attempt to alienate the Fund capital. So that when the common Exchequer was exhausted, Demosthenes was obliged to use the utmost address to induce them to touch and divert this separate Fund.  
But 'tis time to come to the Romans. Livius Andronicus, who was their first Dramatic Poet, appeared in the five hundred and fourteenth year after the building of the City. And till his time they had been struggling as it were for life with their neighbours, and had been torn by perpetual convulsions within themselves; whereas after the first representation of the Plays which were written by him, they were not only quiet within themselves for above a hundred years' af●er, but in a hundred more become the Masters of the Universe. And who were the persons among them that advanced their Conquests, and extended their Empire? Why the very men who buil● their Theatres and who writ their Plays. Scipio, conquered Spain and Africa, Pompey and Lucullus Asia, and Caesar England, Flanders, France, and Germany.  
'Tis not above a hundred years ago, since Dramatic Poetry begun to flourish in France, since which time the French have not only been remarkably united, but have advanced their Conquests so fast, that they have almost doubled their Empire.  
Cardinal Richelieu was the person who at the same time laid the foundation of the greatness of their Theatre and their Empire: And 'tis a surprising thing to consider, that the spirit of Dramatic Poetry leaving them just before the beginning of the last War, by Moliere and Corneille's Death, and by Racine's Age, they have since that time lost almost half their Conquests.  
To come home to ourselves, Dramatic Poetry began to be brought into form with us, in the time of Henry the Eighth, and tho since that time we cannot boast of such glorious successes, as we had in the times of our Fifth Henry and of our Third Edward, when the Conquering Genius of England in triumph seemed to bestride the Ocean, and to fix an Imperial foot on the Continent; yet this may be said to the advantage of the Drama, that since it first began to be cultivated, we have had our eyes more open, have found that our constitution is but ill designed for conquest; that by being very fortunate we should run the risk of becoming very unhappy, and endanger our Liberties, by extending our Empire.   

CHAP. II.  
That the Stage is particularly useful to the English, and especially the present Government.  
WE have shown in the foregoing Chapter, that the Drama, and particularly Tragedy, is among other reasons useful to Government, because it is proper to restrain a people from rebellion and disobedience, and to keep them in good correspondence among themselves: For this reason the Drama may be said to be instrumental in a peculiar manner to the welfare of the English Government; because there is no people on the face of the Earth so prone to rebellion as the English, or so apt to quarrel among themselves. And this seems very remarkable, that since the Drama began first to flourish among us, we have been longer at quiet than ever we were before since the Conquest; and the only Civil War which has been amongst us since that time, is notoriously known to have been begun and carried on by those who had an utter aversion to the Stage; as on the other side, he who now discovers so great an aversion to the Stage, has notoriously done all that lay in his little power to plunge us in another Civil War.  
But the Stage is more particularly instrumental to the welfare of our present English Government, as the Government is depending upon two things, 1. The Reformation, and 2. The Revolution. I shall speak of the Reformation when I come to treat of Religion. I shall show at present that the Stage is advantageous to the Government, as it stands since the Revolution; and that will appear, if we consider what people they are who frequent our Theatres. And they are either friends to the Government, or enemies, or indifferent persons. They who are friends to it▪ are for the most part so, because it defends and maintains the liberties of the people. But liberty is a jest i● you take away reasonable pleasure; for what would signify liberty, if it did not make me happier than him who is not free?  
Machiavelli says, in the 19th Chapter of his Prince, that nothing renders a Prince so odious, as the ta●ing possession of the Wives and Estates of his people, that is, nothing renders him so odious as the depriving his Subjects of their lawful and reasonable pleasures; for no man's Wife or Estate is dear to him any further than as they contribute to his pleasure and to his happiness. Now that the Drama is of the number of lawful and reasonable pleasures, has been, and shall be proved; and has been all along implied, not by the connivance, but by the authority and the command of so many of our Monarches, the protection of so many illustrious Princes, and the support and encouragement of so many extraordinary men, who have composed for so long together the great Council▪ of the Nation, whose united judgement's oughta certainly to be preferred before the pretended opinions of two or three unknown Bigots, who, under the austerity of their affected grimaces, are carrying forward their dark designs, and could never do a thing upon which they would esteem themselves more, than upon depriving the Government of any of its faithful Friends. And it is more than probable, that some of its friends would prove averse to it, if the Stage were either suppressed or very much discouraged. But in the next place, the Stage is of use to the Government, if you consider its Enemies; for it gives the Enemies of the State a considerable diversion. People will not so furiously desire a change, as long as they live agreeably. Men must be uneasy some way or other in their manner of living, before they come to private cabals and plotting. They who are happy appear averse to them, and to frequenting Jacobite Conventicles, and to contributing to our non●swearing Parsons. Hinc illae Lachrymae; from hence comes the impotent rage of our foes, from hence their dissembled zeal; for as long as the enemies of the State are diverted by public spectacles, their seditious Preachers must be in a wretched condition.  
But farther, the Stage is beneficial to the present Government, if you consider a third sort of people who daily frequent it, and they are such who are always indifferent what Government they live under, so they can live but agreeably. Now these are of all others the most addicted to their pleasures, and would take it most heinously to be deprived of them.  
Thus is the Stage beneficial to the present Government, if you consider those who are friends to it, or enemies, or indifferent. And the same may appear, from considering them all together. For nothing tends to the uniting men more, than the bringing them frequently together, and the pleasing them when they are assembled.  
Thus have we shown, that the Stage is beneficial to the English Government, and more particularly to the present Government; and that from the nature of the people, and the consideration of those who frequent our Theatres; we come now to answer what has been, or what may be objected from Reason, from Authority, and from Religion.   

CHAP. III.  
The Objections from Authority Answered.  
WE will begin with the objections which are brought from Authority; the Authorities are numerous which Mr Collier has produced in the last Chapter of his Book; which Chapter is levelled against the Stage and Dramatic Poetry in general, as any one may see by perusing the first Paragraph. Now I would fain ask Mr Collier one question, whether the business of Plays is not to recommend Virtue and discountenance Vice, and to bring every thing that is ill under infamy and neglect; whether the Poets, if they pleased, might not be serviceable to this purpose? And the Stage be very significant? What will he say to this? Will he deny it? Why then did he affirm it in these very words in his Introduction to his Book? Well, will he confess it? Then why this pedantic scroll of Authorities, to oppose the truth? or of what significancy is Human Authority against Human Reason? But yet, to show the ungenerous temper of this adversary to Dramatic Poetry, and consequently to Human Learning, I shall make it appear, that of all the Authorities which he has produced, several make in defence of the Stage, and not one of them makes against it.  
The objections are of two sorts. Those opinions of particular Statesmen, and the sentiments of States in general. We shall answer the Authorities which are brought from both, in the same order as they are cited by Mr. Collier.  
The two first which he brings are Plato and Xenophon, in the 234th Page, Plato, says Mr Collier, has banished Plays from his Commonwealth: But what can be concluded from thence? That they ought to be expelled from the English Government? When every body knows that the Commonwealth of Plato is a mere Romantic notion, with which human nature, and human life, and by consequence Dramatic Poetry, cannot possibly agree. Machiavil may give a solid answer to this in the fifteenth Chapter of his Prince. Some men, says he, have form●d sword and Sovereignty's in their own fancies, such as never were, and as never will be. But the distance is so very great between what men are, and between what they ought to be, that the Statesman who leaves that which is, to follow that which ought to be, seeks his own destruction rather than his preservation. And by consequence, he who makes profession of being perfectly good, among too many others who are not perfectly so, sooner or later must certainly perish.  
But what has thus exasperated Plato against the Drama? Why it raises the passions, says he, and is by consequence an Enemy to Morality. But Aristotle who, as Mr Collier in this very page unhappily owns, saw as far into human nature as any man; Aristotle has declared, that Tragedy, by exciting the passions purges them, and reduces them to a just mediocrity, and is by consequence a promoter of virtue.  
As Plato has laid the Plan of a notional Commonwealth, Xenophon has given an account in his Cyropedia of a Romantic Monarchy; in which he says, that the Persians would not suffer their youth to hear any thing that was Amorous or Tawdry. But what can this man mean by bringing this as an authority against the Stage, and the Drama in general: For can any one be so absurd as to imagine, that this was intended by Xenophon to condemn the gravity, and severity, and majesty of Euripides' Plays? Those Plays which are said to be in part the productions of the wisest and most virtuous of all the Philosophers, of Xenophon's honoured incomparable Master, Socrates.  
The next, whose Authority is produced, is Aristotle; produced? for what? why to overthrow the Authority of that very sort of Writing, which is established upon his own rules. Well! And what says Aristotle! Why in his Politics he lays it down for a rule, that the Law ought to forbid young people the seeing of Comedies Such permissions not being safe, till age and discipline had formed them in sobriety, fortified their virtue, and made it as it were proof against Debauchery. And what are these words of Aristotle cited to show? Why that Plays in general are the nurseries of Vice, the corruption of youth, and the grievance of the Country, where they are suffered; for that was the thing which in the first Paragraph of this sixth Chapter, Mr Collier propounded to show. Now can any thing in nature be more unreasonable than this?  
For in the first place it can never be, no, not so much as pretended, that Aristotle in this place requires the forbidding any thing but only Comedy, which is but one sort of Dramatic Poetry; nor can it be so much as pretended, that he requires, that this should be forbidden to any but Boys, Nor, secondly, is it probable that Aristotle meant this of any thing but only that sort of ancient Comedy, which has no resemblance with ours. For I have two reasons to persuade me, that Aristotle meant this of only the old and the middle Comedy. The first reason is, that in all likelihood Aristotle writ his Politics while he was Governor to Alexander, which was before the establishment of the new Comedy. For Aristotle in his Morals commends the reservedness of the new Comedy, which may appear from Mr Collier's citation in the 160th page of this very Book. The second reason is, That I can hardly believe that Aristotle would have left rules for the writing of Comedy, if he had believed that Comedy in general is a Corrupter of Youth. What then Aristotle in all probability meant only of the horrible licence of the old and middle Comedy, which yet he requires to be forbidden only▪ to Boys, is here inplied to be leveled against Dramatic Poetry in general; when this very Philosopher has declared, that nothing is more proper than Tragedy for the entertainment even of youth, pronouncing it more grave and more moral than History, and more instructive than Philosophy.  
The next who enters the Lists is Cicero, who, as Mr Collier assures us, cries out upon licentious Plays and Poems, as the bane of sobriety and wise thinking, and says, that Comedy subsists upon Lewdness. To which I Answer.  
First, That Cicero in this place speaks only against the corruptions of the Stage, which corruptions we do not pretend to defend.  
Secondly, That Cicero in his fourth Book of the Tusculan Questions, speaks only against Comedy, which is but one sort of Dramatic Poetry, whereas in the very same place he implicitly commends Tragedy.  
Thirdly, That even in condemning of Comedy he is inconsistent with himself: And that if the opinion of Cicero is of any validity, it is as valuable pro as con. Cicero in his Treatise De Amicitia and De Senectute, implicitly commends Comedy. For Lelius, whom Cicero by the mouth of Fan●ius, extols above all the celebrated Seven whom Greece renowned for Wisdom; Leliu●▪ who had the universal reputation of the greatest Statesman, of the best man, and the truest friend of his time,: this Lelius in the Treatise which bears his name, is not only found to cite a verse with approbation from Terence, but to mention his acquaintance and intimacy with that Comic Poet. Now I leave it to any one to judge, whether Cicero had not been very absurd, if he had introduced a person whom he so much extols as Lelius, a person of that Gravity, and that Capacity, and one who had so considerable a share in the Government of the Roman State: had not Cicero, I say, been very absurd, if he had introduced a person whom he so much extols as Lelius, openly acknowledging a familiarity with a professed corrupter of the people? But f●rther, C●to in that Treatise of Cicero which bears his name, that Cato whom Cicero by the mouth of this very Lelius, prefers for wisdom to Socrates himself, the awful, the grave, the severe Cato, and the austerest of the Roman Censors; this very Cato is introduced in the fore-mention●d Treatise, making honourable mention of Pla●tus and Livi●s And●oni●us.  
Livy and Valerius Maximus follow. Livy, he says, reports the original of Plays. He tells us, they were brought in upon the score of Religion, to pacify the Gods, and remove a Mortality. But then he adds, that the motives are good, when the means are stark naught: That the Remedy is worse than the Disease, and the Atonement more infectious than the Plague. In answer to which, I desire leave to observe:  
First, that Livy in this place of the original of Plays, speaks neither of Tragedy nor of Comedy, nor of the Satyri; which were the third species of the Roman Dramatic Poetry; but only of the rudeness of the Ludi Fescennini.  
Secondly, That Livy commends the innocence of Plays, in the purity of their first institution.  
Thirdly, That he attributes by manifest inference the guilt and corruptions of the Roman Stage, to things which can have no relation to our English Theatres. Which is apparent from his own words. Inter aliarum parva principia verum, ludorum quoque prima origo ponenda est, ut appareret quam ab sano initio res in hanc vix opulent is Regnis tolerabilem insani●m venerit. Among the small beginnings of other things, we are obliged to give some account of the original of Theatrical representations, that it may appear how a thing that was innocent in its institution, grew up to so much licentious fury, as to render them intolerable even to the most flourishing States. From whence it is evident, that Livy in this place condemns the corruption neither of Comedy nor Tragedy, but either the licentiousness of Liberius his Farces, or the barbarity of the fights of the Gladiators, or the lewdness of the Pantomimes motions, or all of them put together. For it is manifest to any one, who has the least tincture of the Roman Learning, that of the Comedies and Tragedies which were extant in Livy's time, those were the purest▪ which had been writ latest.  
Fourthly, I desire leave to observe here, that the latter half of wha● Mr Collier has fathered upon Livy, viz. that the motives were sometimes good, when the means were stark naught. That the Remedy in this case was worse than the Disease; and the Atonement more infectious than the Plague; has no manner of foundation in that Historian. From all which the Reader may discover the uncommon Sincerity and Intergrity of this Censurer of the Stage. Indeed, without giving myself all this trouble for the clearing of the business, I might have left it to any one to judge, whether one of Livy's extraordinary sense, who courted Reputation and the favour of the public, could have so little prudence, or so little good manners, as to use those expressions which Mr Collier puts in his mouth of the Drama itself, at the time that it was cherished by the people, supported by the Magistrates, and esteemed a considerable part of their Religious worship.  
Now it is impossible that any thing could show less judgement than the following citation from Tacitus, who blames Nero, says Mr Collier, for hiring decayed Gentlemen for the Stage; for what does Mr Collier conclude from hence? That Tacitus condemned the diversions of the Stage? All that can be reasonably concluded from it is this, that Tacitus was of opinion that Nero debased the dignity of the Roman Nobility, by enrolling some of their Rank among an order of men, which among the Romans was reputed infamous. Tacitus was too much a Statesman to say any thing against the Stage, especially in the condition in which we are at present. He approves the conduct of Augustus in the first of his Annals, who after he had got possession of the Government, honoured the Roman Theatre with his presence, not only out of his own inclination and complaisance to Maecenas; but because he believed that reason of State required, that he should sometimes partake of the pleasures of the people. Tiberius, says Tacitus, was quite of another humour. However, he had too much policy, and too much good sense, to use his new Subjects severally at first, after they had for so long together lived a gentle, voluptuous life. Thus far goes Tacitus in the first of his Annals, and Monsieur Amelot has made this Remark upon the place: A Prince in the beginning of his Reign ought not to alter any of the established Customs, because the people are very unwilling to part with them.  
To what Tacitus says of the Germane Women, that they owed their Chastity to their ignorance of these diversions, this may be answered, That first, supposing Tacitus in the right, that can have no reflection on our modern Theatres. For the Roman Ladies may very well have been corrupted by the intolerable lewdness of the Pantomimes, which lewdness has no relation to us. Secondly, It has been observed of Tacitus, that he is for referring all things to Politics, even things that ought to be referred to Nature, and is for that reason sometimes out; as it is manifest from experience he is in this case. For the Germans are now as much used to Plays as the Spaniards or the Italians. And yet their women are much chaster than the women of those two Nations. From whence it is evident, that the Germane women owe their Chastity to the rudeness of their manners, and to their want of attraction, and to the coldness of their constitution.  
In the hurry of my dispatch, I had almost forgot to return to Valerius Maximus; Who, says Mr Collier, being contemporary with Livy, gives much the same account of the rise of Theatres at Rome. 'Twas Devotion which built them. And as for the performances of those places which Mr Dryden calls the ornaments, this Author censures as the blemishes of ●eace. And which is more, he affirms, that they were the occasions of civil distractions, and that the State first blushed, and then bled for the entertainment. He concludes, the consequences of Plays intolerable, and that the Massilienses did well in clearing the Country of them. Now here in one citation, Mr Collier has made no less than four or five mistakes, whether through malice or ignorance, I must leave the Reader to judge. For in the first place, Valerius Maximus censures neither Comedies nor. Tragedies as the blemishes of Peace, and if Mr Collier by Theatre does not mean them, he means nothing that concerns us. In the next place he does not affirm, that either they or any of the public Spectacles were the occasions of civil distractions. In the third place, He does not affirm that the State either blushed or bled for the representation of Plays. In the fourth place, The refusal of the Massilienses to admit of Dramatical representations can never argue any thing, not only because the consent of Nations is against that little State, but because we cannot conclude from their refusal, that they did not approve of them.  
That all this may appear, I am obliged to transcribe what he says. Proximus militaribus institutis ad urbana castra, id est Theatra gradus faciendus est, quoniam haec quoque sepenumero animosas acies instruxerunt, excogitataque cultus Deorum & hominum delectationis causa, non sine aliquo pacis rubore voluptatem & religionem civili sanguine senicorum protentorum gratiae, macularunt From military institutions let us proceed to our City Camps, that is to Theatres. For these too have often shown mighty Armies drawn up, and being first designed for the worship of the Gods, and for the delights of men, defiled our Pleasure and our Religion with the blood of the people.  
Where we may take notice of three things. 1. That Valerius Maximus implicitly commends the original institution of Theatres. 2. That he charges that which was unblamable in them upon the combats of the Gladiators. Thirdly, The representation of Plays was so far from causing civil distractions, that upon the first representation of the Ludi Pescennini, 390 years after the building of the City, the Patr●cians and Plebians were quiet for above eight years, which was more than they had been for above a hundred years before. And after the first representation of Comedies and Tragedies, which was in the five hundred and fourteenth year of the City, there was never any civil dissension, or at least never but once, till the sedition of Tiberius Gra●chus, which was above an hundred years after. Mr Collier translates civili sanguine macularunt, caused civil distractions, as if Plays were the principal cause of the dissensions between the Commons and the Patricians; whereas those dissensions were natural to the constitution of the Roman State, mere necessary consequences of enlarging their Empire, and by that means increasing the number and force of the Commons, as Machiavelli has declared in the sixth Chapter of the first Book of his discourses.  
As for the Massilians, they will be better included under the Authorities which Mr Collier has brought in the second place from States.  
In examining the Authorities which Mr Collier has brought from States, it will be convenient to say a word to the proceeding of the Massilians, as it is cited from Valerius Maximus; who commends them for refusing to admit of Plays among them. But first, the refusal of this petty state can be of very small significancy against the consent of nations. Secondly, This refusal is no sign of their disesteem of the Drama, but only of the prudence of their conduct. For expense, and any thing which looks like magnificence, are destructive to little States, which can never subsist without extreme frugality  
But the Athenians, says Mr Collier, for which he cites Plutarch, thought Comedy so unreputable a performance, that they made a Law that no judge of the Areopagus should make one. To which we reply, that this citation of Plutarch is absolutely false; and that if it were true, it could not be so much as pretended that it concluded against any thing but Comedy, which is but one species of Dramatic Poetry; and that in reality it would be of no force against that.  
What Plutarch says, is not that the Athenians made a Law, that none of the Areopagis should make a Comedy; for one might as well suppose that it should be enacted by an English Parliament, that none of the twelve Judges should write a Farce. That which Plutarch says is this, that the Council of A●eopagus established a Law, that no man whatever should make any Comedies. From whence it is manifest, that this law was made in the time of the old Comedy, and long before that came to any perfection, For Comedy, as is apparent from Aristotle's treatise of Poetry, was very much discouraged at first: Indeed at first they were so intolerably scandalous, that they were thought to be prejudicial to the State. And it was a long time before the Magistrates could be prevailed upon to be at the expense of the Chorus. But after the Magistrates were at the expense of the Chorus, 'tis absurd to imagine that a Law should be preferred against the writing that sort of Poem which was represented at the public expense.  
So that a Citation which Mr Collier has brought against the Stage in general, is of no force we see against Tragedy, nor against the new Comedy, no, nor so much as against the old one, as it stood in the time of Eupolis and Aristophanes. Mr Collier brings the words of his Authors, but leaves us to look for their Sense, and yet he would take it very ill to have that returned upon him, which he has said of Mr Durfey, that he is at least in his Citations, vox & praeterea nihil.  
But he proceeds to the Lacedæmonians, and says, that they who were remarkable for the wisdom of their Laws, the sobriety of their manners, and their breeding of brave men, would not endure the Stage in any form, nor under any regulation. This citation too is from Plutarch, and just of as much validity against the Stage as the other. For what can Mr Collier conclude from hence, That the Spartans' disapproud of the Drama? Why then did they frequent the Theatre while they so journed at Athens? As it is plain that they did, both from the Cato Major of Cicero, and from Valerius Maximus, Chap. 5. Lib. 4. All that can be concluded, from what Plutarch says of the Lacedæmonians is, that the Drama was not so agreeable to the nature of the Spartan Government, it being incompatible with rigid poverty, and with fewness of Subjects, which as Machiavelli observes, in the Sixth Chapter of the first Book of his Discourses, were the two fundamentals of their constitution. But then Mr Collier may be pleased to observe, that no sort of Poetry flourished in that Government, nor History, nor Eloquence, nor written Philosophy. For as we observed above, the Arts never flourished in any Country where the Drama was decayed or discouraged, and in those places where they have flourished, as they have risen they have sunk with the Stage.  
But though the Drama was inconsistent with the nature of the Spartan Government, it is so remarkably agreeable to ours, that the Stage with us was never attempted till the late Civil Wars, and then too by those who had first broke in upon our constitution and as it rose again with the Hierarchy and with the Monarchy, we have seen it now attempted a second time, by those, who by their writings and by their examples, have strenuously endeavoured to ruin both Church and State.  
The next Authority is brought from the Romans. Tully informs us, says Mr Collier, that their predecessors counted all Stage-Plays uncreditable and scandalous. Insomuch that any Roman who turned Actor was not only to be degraded, but likewise as it were disincorporated, and unnatur alized, by the order of the Censors.  
This, Mr Collier tells us, that St. Austin citys from Tully in the fourth Book De Repub.; to which I could easily answer, that the same St Austin, as he is cited by Mr Collier in the 274th page of his Book, having apparently done Tully wrong in his citation of one of his Orations which is extant; the passage which he citys from the fourth Book De Republica, which is not come down to us, may be very justly suspected. This, I say, I could easily answer; and to convince the Reader that I have very good grounds for it, I think my self obliged to make it appear, that St Austin, as Mr Collier has cited him in the 274th page of his Book has done Cicero a great deal of wrong. The passage is this. Their own Tully 's commendation of the Actor Roscius is remarkable. He was so much a Master, says he, that none but himself was worthy to tread the Stage; and on the other hand, so good a man, that he was the most unfit person of the gang to come there. Now what will the Reader say, when I make it appear that Tully never said any such thing? In order to which, I am obliged to transcribe the passage. Roscius Socium fraudavit? Potest hoc homini huic haerere peccatum? Qui medius ●idius (audacter dico) plus Fidei quam artis: plus veritatis quam disciplinae possidet in se: quem Populus Romanus meliorem virum quam Histrionem esse arbitratur, qui ita dignissimus est scena● propter artificium ut dignissimus sit curia propter abstinentiam. Has Roscius defrauded his friend? Can he possibly be guilty of this? Who, by Heavens, (I boldly speak it) has more sincerity, than he has Art, more integrity than he has discipline, who, by the judgement of the Roman people, is a better Man than he is a Player, the worthiest of all men to tread the Stage, by reason of his excellent action, and the worthiest to partake of the Magistracy by reason of his singular moderation.  
Now I appeal to the Reader, if this has so much as the least affinity with Mr Collier's meaning? I have all this while done my utmost to keep my Temper. But I cannot forbear informing Mr Collier, that Nature did not make the ferment and rising of the Blood for Atheism, as he fond imagines in the 80th page of his Book. For an Atheist is a wretched unthinking Creature, who deserves compassion. No, Nature made the Ferment of the blood to rise against those, who are base enough to defame the dead by suborning them to witness what they never knew nor thought.  
From all which it plainly appears, that I may deny very justly to answer to what is cited here from Cicero, since part of it carries in itself such a Manifestation of falsehood; for how could Plays be accounted scandalous by the predecessors of Cicero, when before the end of the first Punic War, which was about two hundred years before Cicero's time, the Romans knew nothing of the true Drama; for the Plays which were represented in the 391st year of the City, were the Ludi Fescennini. Now it was not quite a hundred years after the appearance of Livius Andronicus, who writ the first Plays, that Scipio and Lelius, the two greatest men of the State, whether you consider their virtue, their courage, or their capacity, encouraged and assisted Terence in the writing of his Comedies, and were his friends by public profession, which they would certainly never have been, if at that time the Romans had looked upon Plays as scandalous. 'Tis indeed very true, that the profession of Actor was not very creditable at Rome, but it does not follow from thence, that Plays were at all scandalous. Your common Fiddlers are scandalous here, though Music is very honourable. The ancient Romans could not esteem any thing that was Religious scandalous. Their Plays were a part of their Religious worship, represented at the public expense, and by the care of the Aediles Curules, the Magistrate▪ who had the care of the public worship.  
I must confess I have a hundred times wondered, why Players that were so much esteemed at Athens, should have so little credit at Rome, when the Plays had so much, when not only both Tragedies and Comedies were a part of their Religious worship, represented at the expense of the public, and by the care of the public Magistrates, but when the very persons who writ'em were carest by their greatest Statesmen, nay, and when some of the Poems were written by their greatest Statesmen themselves.  
But Livy, whom Mr Collier citys once again, shall immediately clear my doubt, for the young Romans, says he, according to Mr Collier's citation, kept the Fabulae Atellanae to themselves. They would not suffer this diversion to be blemished by the Stage. For this reason, says Mr Collier, as the Historian observes, the Actors of the Fabulae Atellanae, were neither expelled their Tribe, nor refused to serve in Arms. Both which penalties it appears the common Players lay under.  
Here Mr Collier seems to me, to have made a very gross mistake. For he has interpreted ab Histrionibus Pollui to be blemished by the Stage, according to the noble Latitude which he gives himself in translating. Whereas it is very plain from Horace's Art of Poetry, that the Fabulae Atellanae were acted on the public Theatre immediately after the Tragedies. 
Verum ita Risores, ita Commendere dicaces  
Conveniet Satyros, ita vertere seria ludo;  
Ne quicunque Deus, quicunque adhibebitur Heros  
Regali conspectus in Auro nuper & ostro,  
Migret in obscuras humili Sermone Tabernas.  Dacier is of opinion too in his Comment on the 227th verse of Horace's Art of Poetry, that the Fabulae Atellanae were not only acted on the public Stage, but acted by the same Players that the Tragedies were, in which he is apparently mistaken; for in the first place this opinion makes him inconsistent with himself; as any one may see, who consults what he says, upon the 231st verse, where he affirms, that the Actors of the Fabulae Atellanae, had privileges beyond what the common Players had. In the second place, the passage which he brings to prove his opinion, proves nothing at all. The Passage is,  
Regali conspectus in auro nuper & ostro, etc. which Dacier takes to be spoken of the Players, whereas it is manifestly spoken of the Persona dramatis, that is, of the God or the Hero.  
From what I have said, we may observe three things.  
First, That the Fabulae Atellanae were acted on the public Theatre. Secondly, That they were not acted by the Tragedeans nor the Comedians, though they were writ by the Tragic and Comic Poets. Thirdly, That the Actors of the Fabulae Atellanae were not better treated than common Actors, because they did not Act on the public Theatre. Valerius Maximus gives us the reason why they were better treated in the Fourth Chapter of his Second Book. Atellani autem ab oscis acciti sunt: quod genus detectationis Italica severitate temperatum ideoque vacuum nota est, nam neque tribu movetur, neque a militaribus stipendis repellitur. From whence it is apparent, that it was from the severity of that sort of Poem, that the Actors of the Fabulae Atellanae were treated more kindly, than the common Actors.  
But now how came the Actors of the Fabulae Atellanae to be treated with so much humanity, on the account of the severity of those Poems, when the Tragedians incurred the Censorian note? For Tragedy has infinitely more severity than the Fabulae Atellanae could ever have. For the Fabulae Atellanae were partly satirical, and had as great a mixture of Raillery as have our Traguses Comedies; whereas Tragedy as all the world knows is grave and severe throughout. That which follows seems to me to be the reason of this, and to be the true cause why at Rome the common Actors were so hardly used, when Plays were so much esteemed by the Romans.  
The first Plays that were represented by the Romans were the Ludi Fescennini, which were licentious and scurrilous even at first, and full of particular scandalous reflections, but in a little time they grew bloody and barbarous; and that cruelty of Defamation to which they arrived, was in all probability the cause why those who acted in them were so severely treated by the State. And what inclines me to this opinion the more, is the following passage of Horace. 
Fescennina per hunc inventa Licentia morem,  
Versibus alternis approbria rustica fudit,  
Libertasque recurrentes accepta per annos  
Lusit Amabiliter: donec jam servus apertam  
In Rabiem verti caepit jocus; & per honestas  
Ire domos impune minax: Doluere cruento  
Dente lacessiti: fuit intactis quoque cura  
Conditione super communi: Quis etiam Lex  
Paenaque lata.  Not long after these appeared the Fabulae Atellanae; and because their satire was free from particular reflection, and their raillery innocent, and because there was something which was severe and noble in them; this might prevail upon the following censors to exempt the Actors of the Fabulae Atellanae from the censorian note; and might occasion a Law to be made, that these Actors should be capable of bearing Arms.  
It was a considerable time after this before Tragedies and Comedies were substituted in the room of the Ludi Fescennini. Comedy at first was cultivated most, as Dacier somewhere observes, and it was late before Tragedy arriv●d to its height, though at the last it fell infinitely short of the divine sublimity of the Sophoclean Tragedy. Now though the Romans were charmed with Tragedy when it was come to its height, and consequently with those who writ it, and though they found it to be without comparison more grave, more noble, and more instructive than the Fabulae Atellanae were, yet they might probably think it below the majesty of the Roman people to abolish an ancient custom, and an established Law of the State, in favour of the common Players. Yet this can be of no prejudice to our modern Players; because all States have had unreasonable customs, and this of the Romans may be concluded to be such; being directly opposite to that of the Grecians, and the Athenians particularly, from whom the Romans had their Laws of the twelve Tables, which were the most venerable of all their Laws. What I have already said answers the Theodosian Code, and so I come to that which he calls our own constitution, from that which breaks our constitution.  
Neither of the two Statutes, which he mentions page 242, can reach the King and the Queen's Servants, they being by no means in the rank of common Players. The Theatre flourished under the Princes in whose Reigns those Statutes were made, especially in the Reign of the latter, which may serve for a proof that the severity of that Statute extended only to Strowlers.  
All that can be concluded from the Petition to Queen Elizabeth, which is mentioned in the same page, is that the Queen thought fit to suppress the Playhouses that were set up in the City, though she allowed them in other places. And this was not without a great deal of Reason: For since the Interest of England is supported by Trade, and the chief Trade of England is carried on by the Citizens of London, it was not convenient that the young Citizens should have a temptation so near them, that might be an avocation to them from their affairs. And since it is apparent from Mr Collier's citation, that the Queen, upon the City's Remonstrance, suppressed the Playhouses which were set up in the City, but suffered them in other places; this very citation is a manifest proof of that Queen's approbation of Theatres and Dramatic Poems.  
That Reader who can expect that I should make any serious answer to the following citations from the Bishop of Arras' decree and the Dutch Gazette, deserves to be laughed at rather than satisfied. And I cannot imagine why these Gazettes should be cited in the same row with so many Philosophers, Councils and Fathers, unless Mr Collier would slily insinuate that they are of equal Authority. But 'tis high time to proceed to the objections which may be brought from Reason and Religion.   

CHAP. IU.  
The Objections from Reason and Religion Answered.  
I Now come to answer what may be objected from Reason and from Religion.  
The objections against the Stage, from Reason are chiefly four. 1. That it encourages Pride. 2. That it encourages Revenge. 3. That it exposes Quality; and by doing so, brings a considerable part of the Government into Contempt.  
4. That it exposes the Clergy, and by endangering Religion endangers Government. The two first are general, and the two last particular objections. I shall speak to them all succinctly.  
First, The Stage encourages Pride; a quality that indisposes men for obedience, and for the living peaceably. To which I answer, that if Ambition is meant by Pride, the Stage is so far from encouraging that, that it is the business of Tragedy to deter men from it, by showing the great ones of the Earth humbled. On the other side, if Pride be made to signify Vanity, and Affectation, the child of Vanity, 'tis the business of Comedy to expose those; which is sufficiently acknowledged by Mr Collier in the Introduction to his Book. But if by Pride is meant Pride well regulated, which Philosophers call Greatness of mind, and which men of the world call Honour, than I must confess that the Stage above all things encourages that, and by encouraging it provides for the happiness of particular men, and for the public prosperity.  
I must confess, if all men were perfect Christians, there would be no occasion for this Philosophical Virtue. But since that neither is, nor, if we credit the Scriptures, will be, and since this very Pride is the Virtue of those who are not Virtuous, and the Religion of those who are not Religious, I appeal to any sensible Reader, if it is not to this that he owes in some measure his life, his fortune, and all his happiness. For it is this, which in a great measure makes his Servant just to him, his Friend faithful, and his Wife chaste.  
'Tis this too from whence for the most part comes the security and ornament of States. The love of Glory goads on the conquering Soldier to his duty, excites the Philosopher, animates the Historian, and inflames the Poet. So that, in short, from this very quality, the encouraging which Mr Collier's undistinguishing Pen condemns, proceed almost all the advantages that make private men happy, and States prosperous.  
But Secondly, The Stage encourages Revenge, which is so destructive to the happiness of particular men, and to the public Peace. To which I answer, First, that the Stage keeps a man from revenging little injuries, by raising his mind above them. Secondly, That if it does sometimes show its Characters revenging intolerable injuries, and consequently punishing enormous crimes, yet by doing that it deters men from committing such crimes, and consequently from giving the occasions of such Revenge: So that we may set the one against the other. Thirdly, That perhaps it equally concerns the peace of mankind, that men should decline the revenging little injuries which happen every day, and should sometimes revenge intolerable ones, which very seldom happen. Cicero affirms in his Oration for Milo, that Milo had done a service to the Commonwealth by removing of Cloudius. From whence it appears, that that great Statesman thought that sometimes private Revenges might be necessary for the public Safety. Servilius Ahala did service to the State by removing of Spurius Melius; and Scipio Nasica sav●d it from utter ruin by the Death of Tiberius Gracchus. Fourthly, That sort of Tragedy, in which the Characters are the best formed and the incidents the best contrived to move Compassion and Terror, has either no Revenge, or by no menas that sort of Revenge which can encourage the Crime in others. If Mr Collier had known any thing of a Play, he would have been sensible of this. If any Reader wants to be convinced of it, I refer him to what I have cited from Aristotle's Poetic in the last Chapter of the Remarks on Prince Arthur. But,  
Thirdly, The Stage exposes the Nobility, and so brings a part of the Government into contempt. This objection seems to Mr Collier, peculiar to the English Stage. For as for Moliere, says he, he pretends to fly his satire no higher than a Marquis. Good God As if a Marquis were not above any condition of men that have been exposed on the English Stage. This trick that our Poets have got of exposing quality, is a liberty, says Mr Collier, unpractised by the Latin Comedians: where, by Comedians, I suppose, he means Comic Poets. But it was very common with the Greeks, Aristophanes, Cratinus, Eupolis, and all Writers of the old Comedy, not only exposed the chief of the Athenian Nobility, but mentioned their very names, and produced their very persons by the resemblance of the Vizors. In imitation of these, Lucilius the Inventor of satire, as Horace tells us, spared none of the Roman Nobility, if they deserved the lash, no, not even persons of Consular dignity. And yet as Boileau observes in his discourse upon satire, Scipio, and Lelius, did not think this man unworthy of their friendship, because he had exposed some of the scandals to quality, and did not imagine that they in the least endangered their own Reputation, by abandoning all the Coxcombs of the Commonwealth to him. From whence 'tis apparent, that if the Roman Comic Poets did not bring the Nobility of Rome upon the Stage, it was for want of opportunity and not of good will. For how should they bring the Roman quality upon the Stage, when it is plain that they never laid their Scene in Rome, nor so much as in Italy. The Latin Comic Poets translated the Greeks; now the old and the middle Comedy they could not translate, because the old Comedy describing particular persons, and the middle one particular adventures, those Comedies must have lost most of their graces upon the Theatre of another Sta●e. The Latins then translated the new Comedy, in which indeed the Athenian Nobility was never exposed, because it was impracticable in that way of writing. For the Athenians had no Titles among them; because those people who were truly great knew that real greatness consisted in merit and virtue; but when that real greatness forsook the world, a titular greatness, the shadow of the other, was introduced to supply it; a mere invention to cajole people, and persuade them that they might be noble without Virtue. Now the Athenians having no Titles, I cannot conceive how the Athenian Nobility could be possibly exposed by Menander, or any of the Writers of the new Comedy. For, to set the mark of Quality on any one of their Characters, there was either a necessity of mentioning his name, or describing his person, or his particular employment in the State; the doing which would have thrown them back upon the old or middle Comedy, which were both forbid by the Law. From all which it appears, that the Romans in this case are not against us, and the French are clearly on our sides. But to come to the reason of the thing, if a Lord may not be shown a ●ool upon the Stage, I would fain ask Mr Collier what Fools a Comic Poet may lawfully show there, and at what condition of men he▪ is obliged to stop. I would fain know whether a Poet may be allowed to Dub his Dramatical Coxcombs? May he show a Fool a Knight Baronet, or a Knight Bachelor, or are they too included in Quality? Must he be obliged to go no further than Squire, and must Fool and Squire continue to be terms synonimous? If any of Mr Collier's acquaintance will give himself the diversion of ask him these questions, I dare engage that he will find him embarassed sufficiently.  
But methinks neither the Lords nor we are obliged to Mr Collier for his extraordinary civility. For if a Lord is capable of committing extravagancies as well as another man, why should Mr Collier endeavour to persuade him that he is above it? or why should he hinder him from being reclaimed? unless he would imply that a Commoner may be corrected when he grows extravagant, but that when a Lord grows fantastic he is altogether incorrigible. Nor are we obliged to Mr Collier any more than the Peers are? For since the bare advantage of their conditions makes some of them already grow almost insupportable, why should any one endeavour to add to their vanity, by exempting them from common censure?  
Besides, since follies ought to be exposed, the follies of the great are the fittest, as being most conspicuous and most contageous. The follies of the meaner sort are often the effects of ignorance, and merit compassion rather than contempt. Affected follies are the most despicable; now Affectation is the child of Vanity, and Vanity of Condition.  
But why should a Lord be free from Dramatical censure, when he can be corrected no where but upon the Stage? A Commoner may be corrected in company, but such friendly admonition to a Lord may be interpreted Scandal.  
For our Comic Poets, I dare engage that no men respect our Nobility more than they do: They know very well that their titles illustrate their merit, and adorn their virtue; but that those whom they expose, are such whose Follies and whose Vices render their Titles ridiculous. And yet that they expose them no more than the rest of the King's Subjects: For Folly as well as Vice is personal, and the satire of Comedy falls not upon the order of men, out of which the Ridiculous Characters are taken, but upon the persons of all orders who are affected with the like follies.  
For they know further what Mr Collier apparently never knew, that a Lord in effect in a Comedy signifies any man. For the Characters of Comedy are always at bottom universal and allegorical: And the making Lords of their Comic Fools, can signify no more than to admonish our men of Quality that they are concerned in the instruction as well as others.  
The fourth objection from Reason is, That the Stage exposes the Clergy, and so by endangering Religion endangers Government. But of this I shall speak in the following part of this Book, where I design to treat of Religion.  
We now come to answer what is objected from Religion, which is, That there is no need of the Stage to make people good Subjects; for that the Pulpit teaches men their duty to their Prince, better than all the Philosophy and all the Poetry in the world. 'Tis indeed undeniable. But the validity of this objection depends upon two suppositions; which are, that all the Subjects of the State go to Church, and that all attend when they are there. Whereas it is manifest that our Atheists and Deists seldom go thither; and that our doubting, cold, and lukewarm Christians seldom attend when they are there. But that the Stage, reduced to its primitive purity, would be a means to send them thither, and the best of all human preparatives for the Divine instruction which they would find there, is designed to be shown in the remaining part of this Treatise.   
The end of the second part.   

THE USEFULNESS OF THE STAGE.  
PART III.  

CHAP. I.  
That the Stage is useful to the Advancement of Religion.  
I Now come to show that the Stage is useful to the advancement of Religion. And, First, Of the Christian Religion in general. Secondly, Of the Christian Religion particularly, and more especially of the Reformed Religion.  
Religion in general, or natural Religion, may be considered as consisting of two parts; the things to be believed, and the things to be done.  
First, The things to be believed, are 1. The being of a God. 2. Providence. 3. Immortality of the Soul. 4. Future Rewards and Punishments. The Poet, and particularly the Tragic Poet, asserts all these, and these are the very foundations of his Art; for in the first place the Machine's are the very life and soul of Poetry; now the Machine's would be absurd and ridiculous without the belief of a God, and a particular Providence. In the second place, let any man show me where Terror is moved to a height, and I will show him that that place requires the belief of a God and particular Providence. In the third place, Poetic justice would be a j●st if it were not an Image of the Divine, and if it did not consequently suppose the being of a God and Providence. It supposes too the immortality of the Soul, and future rewards and punishments. For the things which in perfect Tragedy bring men into fatal calamities are involuntary faults; that is, faults occasioned by great passions. Now this upon a supposition of a future state, is very just and reasonable. For since passions in their excesses, are the causes of most of the disturbances that happen in the world, upon a supposition of a future state, nothing can be more just, than that the power which governs the world, should make sometimes very severe examples of those who indulge their passions; providence seems to require this. But then to make involuntary faults capital, and to punish them with the last punishment, would not be so consistent with the goodness of God, unless there were a compensation hereafter. For such a punishment would not only be too rigorous, but cruel and extravagant.  
The second part of natural Religion contains the things which are to be done; which include, 

1. Our duty to God.  
2. Our duty to our Neighbour.  
3. Our duty to ourselves.    
And all these it is the business of Tragedy to ●each; witness the practice of the Ancient Chorus, as it is comprehended in the following verses of Horace▪ 
Ille bonis favetque & concilietur Amicis  
Et regatirato, & amet peccare timentes:  
Ille● Dapes laudet mensae brevis ille salubrem  
justitiam, legesque & apertis otia portis:  
Ille tegat commissa Deosque precetur & oret  
Vt redeat miseris, abeat fortuna superbis.  From which it appears, that it was the business of Tragedy to exhort men to Piety and the worship of the Gods; to persuade them to Justice, to Humility, and to Fidelity, and to incline them to moderation and temperance. And 'tis for the omission of one of these duties that the persons of the modern Tragedy are shown unfortunate in their Catastrophes.  
Thus Don john is destroyed for his libertinism and his impiety; Timon for his profusion and his intemperance; Macbeth for his lawless ambition and cruelty; Castalio for his falsehood to his Brother and Friend; jaffeir for his clandestine Marriage with the Daughter of his Benefactor; and Belvidera for her disobedience.  
Thus we have shown, by reason and by matter of fact, that it is the business of the Stage to advance Religion, and it is plain from History and from Experience, that Religion ha' flourished with the Stage; and that the Athenians and Romans who most encouraged it, were the most religious people in the world. And, perhaps, if we would come down to ourselves, it would be no difficult matter to show, that they who frequent our Theatres, have a great deal more of natural Religion in them, than it's declared inveterate Enemies, who are principally fanatics and Jesuits: for the Vices which are charged upon the friends of the Stage, are for the most part the effects of frailty, and mere human Vices; whereas the faults of its inveterate Enemies, are known to be diabolical crimes, destructive of Society, of Peace, and of human Happiness; such as falsehood, slander, injustice, backbiting, perfidiousness, and irreconcilable hatred.  
I now come to show in the second place that the Stage is useful for the advancing the Christian, and particularly the Reformed Religion. The Christian Religion has two parts, the Moral and the Mysterious. The Moral consists of Human and Christian Virtues: The Human Virtues are a part of Natural Religion, which, since the Stage advances, as we have shown above, it follows that it partly advances Christianity. The Stage too in some measure may be made to recommend Humility, Patience and Meekness to us, which are true Christian Virtues: And though a Dramatic Poet neither can nor aught to teach the Mysteries of the Christian Religion, yet by recommending the Human and the Christian Virtues to the practice of our Audience, he admirably prepares men for the belief of the Mysteries. For this is undeniable, that it is not Reason, but Passion and Vice that keeps any man from being a Christian. That therefore that moderates our Passions, and instructs us in our Duty, must consequently advance our Faith. So that the Stage is not only absolutely necessary for the instructing and humanizing those who are not Christians, but the best of all human things to prepare them for the sublimer Doctrines of the Church. Now that which inclines us to the Christian Religion will incline us to the purer sort of it, and that which has the least affinity with Idolatry, which is the Reformed Religion. That which opens men's eyes as the Stage does, by purging our passions and instructing us in our duty; and that which raises their minds, will make them naturally averse from superstitious foppery, and from being slaves to Priestcraft, And that which exposes Hypocrisy, as the Stage does, must naturally make ●en averse from Fanaticism and the affected austerity of Bigots. And therefore the Jesuits on one hand, and the fanatics on the other, have always been inveterate Enemies to Plays. This is remarkable▪ that the Church and the Hierarchy, ever since the Reformation, have flourished with the Stage, were deposed with it, and restored with it. Thus have I shown that the Stage advances Religion, and more particularly the Christian Reformed Religion. I come now to answer what may be objected from Reason and from Authority.   

CHAP. II.  
The Objections from Reason Answered.  
THe objections from Reason are chiefly three. That the Stage makes its Characters sometimes talk prophanel; that it encourages Pride, that it exposes Religion in the Priesthood. These are so easily answered, that I shall dispatch them in a few words, and come to the objections from Authority.  
First, The Stage sometimes makes its Characters talk profanely. To which I answer; That if the Character which speaks is well marked and the profaneness be necessary for the Fable and for the Action, than the profaneness is not unjustifiable: for to assert the contrary, would be to affirm, that is is unlawful for a Dramatic Poet to write against profaneness, which is ridiculous. A Poet has no other way in the Drama of giving an Audience an aversion for any Vice, than by exposing or punishing it in the persons of the Drama. And here I think myself obliged to reply to something that Mr Colller has asserted, in his Remarks upon Mr Dryden's King Arthur, which is, that they who bring Devils on the Stage, can hardly believe them any whereelse. But why for Godsake? for a man of sense always reasons, but the Pedant asserts dogmatically. Did Aeschilus in bringing the Furies upon the Stage of Athens, show that he thought they were nothing but a poetical shame? Why should it be more irreligion in us to bring Devils on the Stage, that it was to bring Furies in him? Can any thing be more terrible, than the showing of Devils, if they are shown solemnly? And can any thing that moves Terror, do a disservice to Religion?  
But, Secondly, The Stage encourages Pride. Indeed, I must confess, that even the best sort of Pride, which some call honour, and others greatness of mind, is not so very consistent with some of the Christian virtues. But then I do not affirm that the Stage can be at all useful for the instruction of those who are arrived at any more perfect state of Religion; but for those who are not, that is, for the generality of Mankind, greatness of mind may be very serviceable, for the assisting them to command their passions, and the restraining them from committing enormous crimes.  
But, Thirdly, The Stage exposes Religion by exposing the Priesthood. To which I answer, That to talk of exposing Religion is Cant; for to expose Religion is to expose Truth, which is absurd; because nothing can be exposed but that which is false. If the Stage really ridiculed Religion, instead of ridiculing Hypocrisy, some people, whose Religion lies in their Muscles, would be more easily reconciled to it. For how many Books have been printed in English that have been levelled directly against Religion itself? For what reason then have none of those Zealots, who have declaimed with so much fury against the Stage, writ any thing to dissuade people from reading those Deistical and Atheistical Treatises? For what reason have they omitted this, unless because those Books only attack Religion, about which they never much trouble their heads; but the Poets attack them. The bringing a vicious or a ridiculous Priest upon the Stage than cannot be interpreted the exposing Religion, but the ridiculing Hypocrisy. However, this is very certain, that no Poet ought to show a Priest in such a manner as to show any disesteem of the Character. But I cannot for my life conceive why the bringing a foolish or a vicious Priest upon the Stage should be such an abominable thing.  
For, since persons of all degrees, from Monarch to Peasant, are daily brought upon the Stage, why should the Clergy be exempted? The Clergy have been treated by our Comic Poets with a great deal more respect than the Laity: Because they have hardly spared any condition of the Laity, but none of the superior Clergy have been ever exposed in our Comedies; which is one sign of the good intention of the Poets, and that they only show the Follies and Vices of some, while they reverence the Piety and Learning of others, and the order in general.  
And whereas Mr Collier affirms, that foreign States suffer no Priests to be exposed on the Comic Stage. To that we answer, That in Countries where the Church of Rome is established they have some reason to use this niceness: For prudence requires that the Magistrate should always take care of the established Religion, and the established Religion in those Countries being almost all Priestcraft, to expose the Priests is there to expose Religion. Besides, in those places Priestcraft and Secular Policy have a nearer alliance, and a closer dependence on each other by much, than they have here: for the Priests are considerably assistant to the Magistrates in the enslaving the people, Besides, in Italy and Spain the Inquisition rages, and Priests will be sure to take care of themselves. As for France, though they never had a Priest upon the Stage, yet they have a Poem which was writ on purpose to ridicule even the superior Clergy. And by whom was it writ? By Monsieur Boileau, the most sober and most religious of all their Poets▪ Who advised it? Who commanded it? Monsieur De Lamoignon, illustrious for his profound Capacity, renowned for his Learning, and famed for his Piety; who believed that the exposing that litigious humour that was crept into the Regular Clergy, might do important service to the Gallican Church. And why should our Magistrates make any exception against the exposing the faults of the Clergy here, where the Religion is so pure, that to touch a Priest is by no means to hurt the Religion.  
And whereas Mr Collier says, that to affront a Priest is to affront the Deity; so it is to a affront a Peasant who is a good Christian; besides, affronts are always personal, but a Priest in a Play is a general Character; and the bringing an ill or a ridiculous one upon the Stage, rather proceeds from our veneration for Religion, than from any contempt of it.  
And whereas Mr Collier takes a great deal of pains to prove that a Priest ought not to be contemned because he is a degree above a Gentleman; that defence methinks is not altogether so pertinent. For it is evident, that persons of degrees superior to Gentlemen are every day exposed on the Stage. And besides, the way for a Clergyman to secure himself from contempt, is not to boast of secular advantages which in him is truly ridiculous, but to show his Meekness and his Humility, which are true Christian virtues.  
Besides, the Characters in every Comedy are always at the bottom universal and allegorical, or else the instruction could not be universal. A ridiculous or vicious Priest in a Comedy, signifies any man who has such follies or vices, and the Cassock is produced on purpose to signify to the Clergy, that they are partly concerned in the instruction, and have sometimes their vices and follies as well as the Laity.  
The exposing upon the Stage a Priest, who is an ill, or a ridiculous person, can never make the order contemptible, for nothing can make the Priesthood contemptible but Priests. He among them who writ the Grounds of the Coutempt of the Clergy, says nothing that I remember of the Stage; but he says a great deal of their own follies, and something too of their vices; now the exposing these follies and vices, would be a way to reclaim them, and so to preseruè the esteem that they have in the world.  
This is plain from experience: For the Inferior Clergy is much more respected in England, than the Regular Clergy is either in France or Italy, where they are never exposed on the Stage. And their lives are here less scandalous than they are abroad. They who have been at Marseilles, may inform Mr Collier, that it is there a very common thing to see Priests, both Secular and Regular, who are slaves in the Galleys for the most detestable crimes  
It appears to be full as necessary, to expose a Priest, who is an ill man, as one of the Laity, because his example is more contageous, and the salvation of so many Souls depend on it: whereas a Layman influences fewer. Besides, a Layman often offends thro' want of consideration, because he does not reflect, his worldly avocations diverting his thoughts from Religion; so that such a one may have returns of Conscience. But an ill Clergyman cannot pretend inconsiderateness, for it is his daily business to reflect on his Duty; and consequently such a one must be a downright Atheist; and an Atheist sinning on this side the Law, has nothing to restrain him but the apprehension of infamy, and the fear of becoming contemptible.  
Besides, a Layman who transgresses, has his Rector or his Curate to remind him of his duty. Shall a Clergyman who is an ill liver go on without admonition. Is that for his advantage, or the benefit of his flock, or the good of the public.  
We own indeed that it is our duty to be instructed by them, yet ought they sometimes to take their turn, and be subject to our remonstrances: As the Roman Consuls, if we may have leave to make such a comparison, were accountable to the Tribunes of the people, by the policy of that constitution. Thus I have answered what may be objected from Reason against the Stage in general, and what Mr Collier has objected against the English Stage in particular, I mean as much as was fit to be answered. For there is no defending the Immodesty, or Immorality of, or unnecessary Profaneness of some of our Plays. Let us now come to the objections which Mr Collier has brought from Authority.   

CHAP. III.  
The Objections from Authority Answered.  
THe objections from Authority are of two sorts, Councils and Fathers. But now let me ask Mr Collier this question, Were these persons inspired or no? That is, did the Spirit of God dictate whatever they writ to 'em? If he says it did, I have nothing to say to such a man, but abandon him to Ecclesiastical censure▪ If he says it did not, why then I must tell him, that we live in an age in which there are persons that are too judicious, and too generous to forego their reasons for mere Human Authority. An age in which we account it not only an absurdity, but a sin to believe in any thing under Heaven; as well knowing that Reason is the top of all human things; and though not so sacred as Revelation, is in some measure Divine. For Reason is given us by God for our guide, where we have no Revelation to contradict it. And both Human Authority and Revelation hold and depend on Reason. We always assent to Revelations divine Authority, because Reason assures us, that we always ought to assent to it: And we sometimes refuse to acknowledge human Authority, because we are convinced by Reason that we ought not to submit to it.  
For the Councils he has cited, I must tell him, that we are not obliged to acknowledge any of those Councils Infallible; but refuse to be determined by their decrees, unless they are confirmed by Reason or Revelation.  
Now I desire to know of Mr Collier whether he himself pays the last deference to those Councils or no? If he answers, that he owns their Authority, how dared he appear to have read so many Plays as he has cited thro' out this Book, when the Decrees of these Councils even in this very case appear from his own citations so much stronger against the Clergy than they do against the Laity? But if he answers, that he disowns their Authority, with what prodigious assurance can he offer to impose it on us that while he takes his own satisfaction he may laugh àt our credulity?  
But to come to the Fathers, they had their reasons for crying out against the Stage, which cannot so much as be pretended to be reason▪ to us. They had chiefly five, and those five reasons will serve to answer whatever has been cited by Mr Collier in his long Ecclesiastical scroll.  
First, Plays in their time were a part of the Pagan worship; and that in the beginning of Christianity was alone a sufficient motive to oblige the Fathers to forbid those diversions to the new Christians, several of which may be very well supposed to be not yet confirmed in the Faith.  
The Second reason why the Fathers forbade the first Christian's Plays, was because the Combats of the Gladiators were mingled with those diversions, and something which was full as barbarous. 
Media inter Carmina pof●unt  
Aut ursum aut Pugiles.  Hor ep. 1. l. 1.  
The Third was the gesticulations of the Pantomimes, which indeed were unsufferably lewd, and unfit to be seen not only by Christians, but by any civil people.  
Let any one but consult what Mr Collier has cited from the Fathers, and he will find that these were three of the main reasons which prevailed upon the Fathers to forbid the Christians the diversions of the Theatre.  
'Tis not lawful (says Theophilus, whom he citys first) for us to be present at the Prizes of your Gladiators, lest by this means we should be accessary to the Murders there committed. Neither dare we presume upon the Liberties of your other shows, lest our senses should be touched and disobliged with indecency and profaneness.  
And Tertullian, whom he citys next, says in his Apologetic, We keep off from your public shows, becáuse we can't understand the warrant of their original.  
But there are two reasons behind; the first of which was drawn from the purity of the primitive times. Which makes Tertullian, as Mr Collier has cited him, cry out, page 354. But if you can't wait for delight, if you must be put into present possession, etc. By which Tertullian seems to allow, that diversions indeed are necessary, but that Christians will find abundant entertainment in the very exercise of their Religion. This, I must confess, was very well directed by Tertullian. But if Cato was formerly laughed at, for speaking in the Senate as if he had lived in Plato's Republic, whereas he was really in the very dregs of that of Romulus, how shall this upstart Reformer escape contempt, who has applied to this profligate Age, what Tertullian directed to those fervent Christians, whose Souls were flaming with divine love in the purity of happier times.  
Thus have I examined four of the five reasons, not one of which can be a reason to us. For, neither is our Drama a part of Idolatrous worship, nor have we either Gladiators or Pantomimes; nor the people of this age be satisfied to be always entertained with the Scripture, but require other diversions.  
But the fifth reason is yet to come; by which it will appear, that these venerable Gentlemen are by no means qualified to judge of a cause, of which it appears even from Mr Collier's citations, that they have not the least knowledge.  
For, says the Bishop of Antioch, whom he citys first. The Tragical distractions of Tereus and Thyestes are nonsense to us. Now could any man possibly talk thus, who had the least knowledge of the nature of Tragedy, and particularly of that Tragedy? It was below that Prelate to consider Horace, for he would have told him, 
Irae Thyesten exitio gravi  
Stravere, & eltis urbibus ultimae  
Stetere causae, cur perirent  
Funditus, Imprimeritque muris  
Hostile aratrum exercitus Insolens.  
Compesce mentem.  Is the Moral which the Poet draws from this Fable nonsense to us? Is it impertinence in a Poet to tell us, that we ought to restrain our anger, because the indulging it has often brought men into fatal calamities? For had this Prelate understood this affair, what could he have possibly disliked here? The Moral or the Fable? The Moral? That methinks should be hardly becoming of a professor of that Religion, which is therefore extolled above all others, because it is more Moral. Was it the Fable then which offended him, or the manner of conveying the Instruction? Methinks it is something odd in a Christian Prelate to condemn that method of Teaching which was chiefly practised by his great Master, whom he professes to imitate.  
But now to come to the Author De Spectacul is: What need I mention, says he, the Levitieses and Impertinence in Comedies, or the Ranting Distractions of Tragedy? Were th●se things unconcerned with Idolatry, Christians ought not to be at them. For, w●re they not highly criminal, the foolery of them is egregious, and unbecoming the gravity of Believers.  
Now let me ask Mr Collier, whether it be lawful for Christians to read History? It would certainly be the absurdest thing in the world to deny it. Now Aristotle has declared very formally that Tragedy is more grave and more instructive than History. And though when the question is concerning Grace, I will believe the least of the Fathers before Aristotle, and all his Interpreters the Schoolmen together; yet where the dispute is concerning the nature of Writing, and the colours of Speech, I will believe Aristotle's single testimony, before all the Fathers and Councils joined in a body.  
Tho Plays are forbidden by the Fathers and Councils, yet the Fathers own, and Mr Collier owns, that they are not forbidden by Scripture: Nor are they forbidden by Reason. For who are they who frequent them? Who are they that approve of them? Who are they that have not the least scruple about them? Not a parcel of fools that are carried away by mere imagination, and are only fit for Bedlam; but the best and most reasonable part of the Nation, and particularly a thousand whom I could name that are considerable for their extraordinary qualities. Now I cannot for my life apprehend upon what account any thing that is not forbidden by God; that is neither prohibited by Reason nor Revelation, should be forbidden by men. We know what our Saviour has said in Saint Matthew of those who teach for Doctrines the Commandments of men, c. 15. v. 9 That it renders all their zeal ineffectual. But then, says Tertullian, as he is cited by Mr Collier, p. 245. The Playhouse is implicitly, though not expressly forbid by the Scripture, in the first verse of the first Psalm: Blessed is the man who walketh not in the counsel of the ingodly, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scorner. But then say we, that nothing can be forbid by this, but what the Scripture or Reason have declared to be the counsel of the ungodly, and the way of sinners. Now, as we have manifestly shown above, neither Reason nor Revelation says that of the Theatre. And as for the seat of the scorner, that part of the Text can only be applicable to Comedy, and is full as applicable to the Press, and sometimes to the Pulpit itself.  
In the next place, says the Author De Spectaculis, as he is cited by Mr Collier, p. ●62. Some have thought the Playhouse no unlawful diversion, because it was not condemned by express Scripture. Let mere modesty, says he, supply the Holy Text, and let Nature govern, where Revelation does not reach. Some things are too black to lie upon Paper, and are more strongly forbidden because unmentioned. The divine wisdom must have had a low opinion of Christians, if it had descended to particulars in this case. Silence is sometimes the best method of Authority. To forbid often puts people in mind of what they should not do. Thus, say Tertullian, says Mr Collier. But for my part, I both hope and believe that he wrongs him. For it is incredible to me, that a Father of the Church should reason, in so absurd a manner. For the chief reason why Tertullian affirms that the frequenting of Plays is not forbid by Scripture, is because the crime is too black to be particularly insisted on. As if St Paul in the first Chapter of the Romans had not descended to particular crimes of a blacker nature than this. Can we suppose that Scripture, which is a revelation of the will of God, and a supplement to the law of Nature, should descend to condemn things which Reason had before condemned as abominable, and utterly against Nature● and shall it take no notice of things which are allowed by Reason, and the Law of Nature (as we have shown that the Theatre is) and which consequently cannot be discovered to be sins but by the light of Revelations? Could St Paul in the 5th Chap. to the I Ep. to the Co● rinthians be so particular as to descend to a crime, which, when the Apostle writ the Epistle, concerned but only one, who had married his Father's Wife, and which could never be supposed to concern very many, because the crime was against the custom and consent of Nations: Could the Apostle of the Gentiles I say descend to this, and think it too particular to mention a sin which concerned the salvation of so many thousands who were then alive, and of so many millions who were to succeed them? Nay, could St Paul, in the 7th of the 1st Ep. to the Cor. descend so particularly, as to give his advice against Marriage, which was neither forbid by Revelation nor Reason, but was highly warranted by both, as absolutely necessary for the propagation of Christianity, and the accomplishment of the promises? Could the Apostle, I say, descend to this, and take no notice of a sin of so black and damnable a nature as frequenting the Theatres is by Mr Collier pretended to be? A sin too which endangered the salvation not only of the Christians to whom he writ, but those who were to succeed them in all posterity? But, says Tertullian, the Apostle had no occasion expressly to condemn what is condemned by Reason. But that which was a reason in Tertullian's time does not subsist in ours, as we have plainly shown above. But if any one at last shall urge, that the acting of Plays was condemned by express Scripture, because it was a part of the Pagan worship, and Idolatry was expressly condemned; to this I answer, That nothing can make more for my cause than this: For since the Spirit of God condemned the representation of Plays only as they were included under Idolatry, you must either show that the Spirit of God did not foresee that in process of time they would cease to be Idolatrous, which to affirm is horrible Blasphemy; or you must acknowledge, that by condemning them only under the general term of Idolatry, he approved them, and allowed of them, as soon as they should be no longer Idolatrous; or else you must be forced to acknowledge that the word of God is defective, and does not contain all things which are necessary to the salvation of his people. Besides, it may be manifestly proved from Saint Paul, that the Idolatry of them extended no farther than to the representation of them, which representation was rendered Idolatrous, only by the direction and intention of the Magistrates and Public, at whose expense they were represented; for St Paul has sufficiently warranted the writing them, and consequently the reading of them, by citing a verse of a Comic Poet in the first Epistle to the Corinthians ch. 15. v. 33. for if those writings had been in themselves Idolatrous, St Paul durst neither have read them while a Jew, nor cited them while a Christian, Idolatry both to Jew and Christian being alike abominable. But it is evident that he has cited them; for it is known to all the world, that evil communication corrupts good manners, is a verse of Menander, and the Corinthians particularly could not be ignorant of it. Since then the Spirit of God thought fit to put the verse of a Comic Poet into the mouth of his greatest Apostle, as very fit for the instruction of his people, and the reformation of mankind; and since the same Spirit has said not a Syllable to condemn either Plays or Theatres, any farther than as they are included under Idolatry, it seems to be very plain to me, that he has not only approved, but recommended Plays to his people, when they are not corrupt and idolatrous. For the Corinthians saw plainly that St Paul had read Menander, they were convinced that he had cited him for their instruction, and consequently that he approved of him: since than they were satisfied that the Apostle read him, why might not they do the like, when St Paul had not said so much as a word to discourage 'em. Now if the reading him could be allowable, why should not the seeing him be equally lawful, when the representation should cease to be corrupt and idolatrous?  
And therefore St Thomas, and the rest of the Schoolmen, who lived when Dramatical representations were no longer Idolatrous, have loudly declared them lawful; and they are at this very day encouraged in Countries, where they are mortally severe against any thing that offends Religion, and where the cruelty of the Inquisition is most outrageous. Thus have I endeavoured to show, that Plays are instrumental to human happiness, to the welfare of Government, and the advancement of Piety; that Arts and Empire have flourished with the Stage, which has been always encouraged by the best of Men, and by the bravest Nations. After which I hope the Enemies of Plays will be reconciled to our Theatres, and not by persisting in their aversion, affect to seem more wise than the Athenians, more austere than the Romans, more nice than the Schoolmen, more cruel than Inquisitors, and more zealous than the Apostle of the Gentiles.   
FINIS.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 6. for that is r. it is, p. 9 f. these passions r. the passions, Ib. f. in these a full r. in a full, p. 24. f. eve● these r. even in these, p. 32. f. action r. citation, p. 38. f. who lived r. who was born p. 44. f. Stager. State, p. 54. f. seeing r. saying, p. 65. f. not by r. not only by, p. 70. f. these opinions r. the opinions, p. 77. f. verum r. rerum, p. 78. f. them r. it, p. 80. after especially r. Treaties of a State.