I Have been told by some, That they should think me very idle, if I threw away any time in taking notice ev'n of so much of Mr. Collier's late Treatise of the Im­morality, &c. of the English Stage, as related to my self, in respect of some Plays written by me: For that his malicious and strain'd Interpreta­tions of my Words were so gross and palpable, that any indifferent and unprejudic'd Reader would im­mediately condemn him upon his own Evidence, and acquit me before I could make my Defence.

[Page 2]On the other hand, I have been tax'd of Laziness, and too much Se­curity in neglecting thus long to do my self a necessary Right, which might be effected with so very little Pains; since very little more is requi­site in my Vindication, than to re­present truly and at length, those Passages which Mr. Collier has shewn imperfectly, and for the most part by halves. I would rather be thought Idle than Lazy; and so the last Ad­vice prevail'd with me.

I have no Intention to examine all the Absurdities and Falshoods in Mr. Collier's Book; to use the Gentle­man's own Metaphor in his Preface, An Inventory of such a Ware-house would be a large Work. My Detection of his Malice and Ignorance, of his So­phistry and vast Assurance, will lie within a narrow Compass, and only bear a Proportion to so much of his Book as concerns my self.

[Page 3]Least of all, would I undertake to defend the Corruptions of the Stage; indeed if I were so inclin'd, Mr. Collier has given me no occasion; for the greater part of those Exam­ples which he has produc'd, are only Demonstrations of his own Impurity, they only savour of his Utterance, and were sweet enough till tainted by his Breath.

I will not justifie any of my own Errors; I am sensible of many; and if Mr. Collier has by any Accident stumbled on one or two, I will free­ly give them up to him, Nullum un­quam ingenium placuit sine venia. But I hope I have done nothing that can deprive me of the Benefit of my Clergy; and tho' Mr. Collier himself were the Ordinary, I may hope to be acquitted.

My Intention therefore, is to do little else, but to restore those Passa­ges to their primitive Station, which [Page 4] have suffer'd so much in being trans­planted by him: I will remove 'em from his Dunghil, and replant 'em in the Field of Nature; and when I have wash'd 'em of that Filth which they have contracted in passing thro' his very dirty hands, let their own Innocence protect them.

Mr. Collier, in the high Vigour of his Obscenity, first commits a Rape upon my Words, and then arraigns 'em of Immodesty; he has Barbarity enough to accuse the very Virgins that he has deflowr'd, and to make sure of their Condemnation, he has himself made 'em guilty: But he forgets that while he publishes their shame he di­vulges his own.

His Artifice to make Words guilty of Profaness, is of the same nature; for where the Expression is unblame­able in its own clear and genuine Sig­nification, he enters into it himself like the evil Spirit; he possesses the in­nocent [Page 5] Phrase, and makes it bellow forth his own Blasphemies; so that one Coll. p. 81. would think the Muse was Legion.

To reprimand him a little in his own Words, if these Passages produc'd p. 70, 71. by Mr. Collier are obscene and profane, Why were they rak'd in and disturb'd un­less it were to conjure up Vice, and revive Impurities? Indeed Mr. Collier has a very untoward way with him; his Pen has such a Libertine Stroke, that 'tis a que­stion whether the Practice or the Reproof be the more licentious.

He teaches those Vices he would correct, and writes more like a Pimp than a P—. Since the business must be undertaken, why was not the Thought blanch'd, the Expres­sion made remote, and the ill Features cast into Shadows? So far from this, which is his own Instruction in his own words, is Mr. Collier's way of Proceeding, that he has blackned the Thoughts with his own Smut; the Expression that was remote, he has brought near­er; [Page 6] and lest by being brought near its native Innocence might be more visible, he has frequently varied it, he has new-molded it, and stamp'd his own Image on it; so that it at length is become Current Deformity, and fit to be paid into the Devil's Exchequer.

I will therefore take the Liberty to exorcise this evil Spirit, and whip him out of my Plays, where-ever I can meet with him. Mr. Collier has re­vers'd the Story which he relates from Tertullian; and after his Visitation of p. 257. the Play-house returns, having left the Devil behind him.

If I do not return his Civilities in calling him Names, it is because I am not very well vers'd in his Nomen­clatures; therefore for his Foot pads, which he calls us in his Preface, and for his Buffoons and Slaves in the Sa­turnalia, which he frequently bestows p. 81, 63, 175. on us in the rest of his Book, I will onely call him Mr. Collier, and that I [Page 7] will call him as often as I think he shall deserve it.

Before I proceed, for methods sake, I must premise some few things to the Reader, which if he thinks in his Conscience are too much to be grant­ed me, I desire he would proceed no further in his Perusal of these Ani­madversions, but return to Mr. Col­lier's Short View, &c.

First, I desire that I may lay down Aristotle's Definition of Comedy; which has been the Compass by which all the Comick Poets, since his time, have steer'd their Course. I mean them whom Mr. Collier so very fre­quently calls Comedians; for the Di­stinction between Comicus and Comaedus, and Tragicus and Tragaedus is what he has not met with in the long Pro­gress of his Reading.

Comedy (says Aristotle) is an Imita­tion of the worst sort of People. [...], imitatio pejorum. He [Page 8] does not mean the worse sort of Peo­ple in respect to their Quality, but in respect to their Manners. This is plain, from his telling you immedi­ately after, that he does not mean [...], relating to all kinds of Vice: there are Crimes too daring and too horrid for Comedy. But the Vices most frequent, and which are the common Practice of the looser sort of Livers, are the subject Matter of Comedy. He tells us farther, that they must be exposed after a ri­diculous manner: For Men are to be laugh'd out of their Vices in Comedy; the Business of Comedy is to delight, as well as to instruct: And as vicious People are made asham'd of their Follies or Faults, by seeing them ex­pos'd in a ridiculous manner, so are good People at once both warn'd and diverted at their Expence.

Thus much I thought necessary to premise, that by shewing the Nature [Page 9] and End of Comedy, we may be pre­pared to expect Characters agreeable to it.

Secondly, Since Comick Poets are oblig'd by the Laws of Comedy, and to the intent that Comedy may an­swer its true end and purpose above­mentioned, to represent vicious and foolish Characters: In Consideration of this, I desire that it may not be imputed to the Perswasion or private Sentiments of the Author, if at any time one of these vicious Characters in any of his Plays shall behave him­self foolishly, or immorally in Word or Deed. I hope I am not yet un­reasonable; it were very hard that a Painter should be believ'd to resem­ble all the ugly Faces that he draws.

Thirdly, I must desire the impartial Reader, not to consider any Expres­sion or Passage cited from any Play, as it appears in Mr. Collier's Book; nor to pass any Sentence or Censure [Page 10] upon it, out of its proper Scene, or alienated from the Character by which it is spoken; for in that place alone, and in his Mouth alone, can it have its proper and true Significa­tion.

I cannot think it reasonable, be­cause Mr. Collier is pleas'd to write one Chapter of Immodesty, and ano­ther of Profaneness, that therefore e­very Expression traduc'd by him un­der those Heads, shall be condemn'd as obscene and profane immediately, and without any further Enquiry. Perhaps Mr. Collier is acquainted with the deceptio visus, and presents Ob­jects to the View through a stain'd Glass; things may appear seemingly profane, when in reality they are on­ly seen through a profane Medium, and the true Colour is dissembled by the help of a Sophistical Varnish: Therefore, I demand the Privilege of the habeas Corpus Act, that the Pri­soners [Page 11] may have Liberty to remove, and to appear before a just Judge in an open and an uncounterfeit light.

Fourthly, Because Mr. Collier in his Chapter of the Profaneness of the Stage, has founded great part of his Accusation upon the Liberty which Poets take of using some Words in their Plays, which have been some­times employed by the Translators of the Holy Scriptures: I desire that the following Distinction may be admit­ted, viz. That when Words are ap­ply'd to sacred things, and with a pur­pose to treat of sacred things; they ought to be understood accordingly: But when they are otherwise apply'd, the Diversity of the Subject gives a Diversity of Signification. And in truth, he might as well except against the common use of the Alphabet in Poetry, because the same Letters are necessary to the spelling of Words which are mention'd in sacred Writ.

[Page 12]Tho' I have thought it requisite, and but reasonable to premise these few things, to which, as to so many postulata, I may when occasion offers, refer my self; yet if the Reader should have any Objection to the Latitude which at first sight they may seem to comprehend, I dare venture to assure him that it shall be remov'd by the Caution which I shall use, and those Limits by which I shall restrain my self, when I shall judge it proper for me to refer to them.

It may not be impertinent in this place, to remind the Reader of a ve­ry common Expedient, which is made use of to recommend the Instruction of our Plays; which is this. After the Action of the Play is over, and the Delight of the Representation at an end; there is generally Care ta­ken, that the Moral of the whole shall be summ'd up, and deliver'd to the Audience, in the very last and [Page 13] concluding Lines of the Poem. The Intention of this is, that the Delight of the Representation may not so strongly possess the Minds of the Au­dience, as to make them forget or oversee the Instruction: It is the last thing said, that it may make the last Impression; and it is always compre­hended in a few Lines, and put into Rhyme, that it may be easy and en­gaging to the Memory.

Mr. Collier divides his Charge a­gainst the Stage into these four heads, Immodesty, Profaneness, Abuse of the Clergy, and Encouragement of Im­morality.

I have yet written but four poor Plays; and this Author, out of his very particular Favour to me, has found the means to accuse 'em every one of one or more of these four Crimes. I will examine each in its turn, by his Citations; and begin with the Plays in the order that they were written.

[Page 14]In his Chapter of the Immodesty of the Stage, he has not made any Quotation from my Comedies: But in general, finds fault with the lightness of some Characters. He mentions slightly, and I think with­out p. 10, 12. any Accusation, Belinda in the Old Batchelor, and Miss Prue in Love for Love. Miss Prue, he says, is re­presented silly to screen her Impudence, which amounts to this Confession, that Women when they have their Under­standings about them, ought to Converse p. 11. otherwise. I grant it; this is in truth the Moral of the Character. If Mr. Collier would examine still at this rate, we should agree very well. Belinda he produces as a Character under Disorders of Liberty; this last p. 12. is what I do not understand, and therefore desire to be excused, if I can make no Answer to it. I only refer those two Characters to the Judgment of any impartial Reader, [Page 15] to determine whether they are re­presented so as to engage any Spe­ctator to imitate the Impudence of one, or the Affectation of the other; and whether they are not both ridi­culed rather than recommended.

But he proceeds, the Double-dealer p. 12. is particularly remarkable. There are but four Ladies in this Play, and three of the biggest of them are Whores. These are very big Words; very much too big for the Sense, for to say three of the biggest, when there are but four in Number, is stark Nonsense: Whatever the Matter may be in this Gentleman's Book, I per­ceive his Stile at least is admirable.

Well, suppose he had said—and the three Biggest, &c. for I am sure he cannot part with biggest, he has occasion to use it so often in the rest of his Book. But mark, he gives us an instance of his big good Breeding. A great Complement to Qua­lity, [Page 16] to tell them, there is not above a quarter of them honest! This Computation I suppose he makes by the help of political Arithmetick. As thus; the Stage is the Image of the World; by the Men and Women represent­ed there, are signified all the Men and Women in the World; so that if four Women are shewn upon the Stage, and three of them are vi­cious, it is as much as to say, that three parts in four of the whole Sex are stark naught. He who dares be so hardy as to gain-say this Argument, let him do it; for my part, I love to meddle with my Match. It was a mercy that all the four Women were not naught; for that had been maintaining that there was not one Woman of Qua­lity honest. What has Virgil to an­swer for at this rate, in his Aeneis? Where, for two of the Fair Sex that do good, viz. Venus and the [Page 17] Sybill, (for Cybelle and Andromache are but Well-wishers) he has the follow­ing Catalogue, who are always en­gag'd in Mischief, viz. Iuno, Iuturna, Dido, her Sister, her Nurse, an old Witch, Alecto the Fury, all the Har­pies; to these you are reminded of Helen the First Incendiary, Sylvia is produc'd as a Second, next Camilla, then Amata, who despised the De­crees of the Gods; nay, poor Creusa and Lavinia are made subservient to unfortunate Events. This is Bossus's Traite du poem. Epi (que) L. 4. Cap. 2. Remark, and he says that Virgil in the Characters of the Sex, has closely observed the Rule of Aristotle, who in his Treatise of Poetry has ventur'd to affirm, That there are more bad than good Women in the World; and that they do more harm than good.

In an Epick Poem Ladies of Qua­lity may be used as Aristotle pleases; [Page 18] but Comedy was meant to com­plement, and tickle, and flatter, and all that.

Here I take the first Liberty to re­fer the Reader to my first Proposition. Mr. Collier, who talks with great Inti­macy of Ancient and Modern Cri­ticks, Vid. Coll. p. 175. and amongst others, makes fa­miliar mention of Rapin, has un­luckily overseen a particular Remark that is made by that learned Critick, on the Improvement of Modern Co­medy by Moliere, in his raising his ri­culous Characters. If he does not know where to find it, I can help him to it.

Les anciens Poetes Comiques n'ont que Rap. Re­flex. sur la Poet. 26. des Valets pour les plaisans de leur Theatre, et les plaisans du Theatre de Moliere, sont les Marquis et les gens de qualité, les autres n'ont Ioüé dans la Comedie, que la vie bourgeoise et commun, et Moliere a Ioüé tout Paris et la Cour.

[Page 19]Well, this may be the French, and it may be the English Breeding; but Mr. Collier assures us— This was not the Roman Breeding. They used to p. 12. complement Vice in Quality, the gentle Persius gives us an Instance of it.

But Persius was a Man of Quality, and perhaps might be a little familiar with his Equals. As for Iuvenal, he kept his distance, and made it as plain as the Sun.

[Page 20]I am finely employed, to furnish my Adversary with two such Authorities against my self: But reflecting that Mr. Collier has no great Esteem for Iuvenal, who he says, writes more like a Pimp than a Poet. 'Tis likely that he p. 71. will return me his Authority, to make the best Use that I can of it for my self; therefore I will take the Liberty to state a short Question.

Iuvenal by the help of an Irony, has in these three Lines, lash'd the Vices of great Persons with more Severity, than he could have done by the means of a direct and point-blank Invective, Mr. Collier is in plain terms, for having p. 12, 173, 175. Complements pass'd on Persons of Quality, and neither will allow their Follies nor their Vices to be expos'd. Now the Question that I would ask, is onely, which agrees best with the Character of a Pimp, the Satire of Iuvenal, or the Complaisance of [Page 21] Mr. Collier? In the Conclusion of his Preface he is quite of another Opinion; there he confesses he has no Ceremony for Debauchery, for to com­plement Vice, is but one remove from worshipping the Devil; now that Mr. Collier complements Vice is plain. Ergo, &c.

This is his own Confession, and so I leave him to lick himself whole with one of his own Absolutions.

When Vice shall be allowed as an Indication of Quality and good Breeding, then it may also pass for a piece of good Breeding to comple­ment Vice in Quality: But till then, I humbly conceive, that to expose and ridicule it, will altogether do as well.

The Double dealer (he says) runs p. 27. riot upon some occasion or other, and gives Lord Touchwood a Mix­ture of Smut and Pedantry to conclude [Page 22] with: For Proof of this, he directs the Reader in his Margin to the 79th Page, which is the last of the Play. He has made no Quotation, therefore I will do it for him, and transcribe what Lord Touchwood says in that place, being the concluding Lines and Moral of the whole Co­medy. Mellefont and Cynthia are to be married, the Villainies of Maskwell having been detected; Lord Touchwood gives 'em Joy, and then concludes the Play as follows.

Lord Touch.—be each others Com­fort;—let me join your hands.—unwearied nights, and wishing Days at­tend you both; mutual Love, lasting Health, and circling Ioys tread round each happy Year of your long lives.

This in Mr. Collier's polite Phrase, is running riot upon Smut and Pedantry. I hope this is some reason for my ha­ving laid down my third Proposition; where the Reader is desired not to rely upon Mr. Collier's bare word, but to consult the Original, before he passes his Censure on the Au­thor.

Before he finishes his Chapter of Immodesty, he taxes the Mourning-Bride with Smut and Profaness; if he can prove it, I must of necessity give up the Cause. If there be Im­modesty in that Tragedy, I must confess my self incapable of ever writing any thing with Modesty or Decency.

[Page 24] Had Osmin (says he) parted with Almeria civilly, it had been much better, that rant of Smut and Profaness might have been spared. What he means by p. 32, 33, 34. civilly I know not, unless he means dully and insensibly; neither Civility nor Incivility have any thing to do with Passion; where a Scene is wrought to an Excess of Tenderness and Grief, there is no room for either Rudeness or Complaisance. Mr. Collier is pleas'd to condemn the parting of Osmin and Almeria, by comparing it with the meet­ing of Menelaus and Helen; but I must take the Liberty to tell him, that meeting and parting are two things, and especially between two Lovers. Now for the rant of Smut and Profaness.

[Page 25]I will not here so much as refer my self to my third Proposition, nor desire the Reader to trouble himself so far, as to look on these Lines in their proper Scene and Place, tho' most of the foregoing Incidents in the Poem were contrived so as to pre­pare the Violence of this Scene; and all the foregoing part of this Scene was laid as a Gradation of Passion, to prepare the violence of these Expressi­ons, the last and most extream of the whole, in Osmin's Part.

For once I will let these Lines re­main as they are set by Mr. Collier, with his own filthy Foil beneath, hem'd in and sullied over with his own Smut. And still what is there either of Profaness or Immodesty in the Expres­sion? Is not the Reflection rather mo­ral and religious than otherwise? Does not the Allusion set forth the terrors of Damnation? I dare affirm that Mr. Col­lier [Page 26] himself, cannot so transpose those words as to make 'em signifie any thing either smutty or profane: What he may be able to do with the Letters if they were disjointed, I know not; I will not dispute his Skill in Anagram; and if the truth were known, I believe there lies the Stress of his Proof. Well, Mr. Say­grace, in the Double-dealer, is beholding to him for his new Amusement, for the future he shall renounce Acrosticks and pursue Anagrams.

As to what he says after, that these Verses are a similitude drawn from the Creed; I no more understand it, than he himself would believe it, tho' he should affirm it.

In the rest of his Remarks upon this Scene, his Zeal gives way to his Criti­cism; he had but an ill hold of Profa­ness, and was reduc'd to catch at the Poetry. The corruption of a rotten Di­vine is the Generation of a sowr Critick.

[Page 27]He is very merry, and as he supposes with me; in laughing at wasting Air. Wasting he thinks is a senseless Epithet for Air, truly I think so too. I will not lose this occasion of consenting with him, because he will not afford me many more: But where does he meet with wasting Air? not in the Mourning-bride; for in that Play it is printed wafting Air, so that all his awkard Railery about this word, reflects alone upon himself: To say nothing of his Honesty in ma­king a false Quotation, or of his be­coming assurance in charging me with his own Nonsense.

He proceeds in his unlucky and sa­tirical Strain, and ridicules half a do­zen Epithets, and about as many Fi­gures, which follow in the same Scene, with much Delicacy of fine Railery, Excellence of good Manners, and Ele­gancy of Expression.

[Page 28] Almeria, in the Play, oppress'd and sinking beneath her Grief, adapts her words to her Posture, and says to Osmin—

One would think (says Mr. Collier) she was learning a Spaniel to set.

Learning a Spaniel to set! Delectus verborum est Origo eloquentiae, is an Apho­rism of Iulius Caesar, and Mr. Collier makes it plain. This poor Man does not so much as understand even his own Dog-language, when he says lear­ning, I suppose he means teaching a Spaniel to set, a dainty Critick, in­deed!

A little before, Almeria is cold, faint and trembling in her Agony, and says,

By the way (says Mr. Collier, for now he is Mr. Collier emphatically) 'tis a mighty wonder to hear a Woman chatter! but there is no Iesting, &c.

Jesting quotha! What, does he take the letting a Pun to be the breaking of a Jest? a Whip and a Bell, and away with him to Kennel again immedi­ately.

Ay, now he's in his Element, as you shall hear.

This litter of Epithets makes the Poem look like a Bitch over-stock'd with Pup­pies, and sucks the Sence almost to skin and bone. The Comparison is hand­some, I must needs say; but I desire the Reader to consider that it is Mr. Collier the Critick, that talks at this odd rate; not Mr. Collier the Di­vine: I would not, by any means, [Page 30] that he should mistake one for the other.

If it is necessary for me to give any reason in this place, why I have used Epithets and Figures in this Scene, I will do it in few words. First I desire the Reader to remove my Verses from amongst Mr. Collier's Interlineations of sad Drollery; and reinstate 'em in the Scene of the Play from whence they were torn. If there is found Passion in those parts of the Scene where those Epithets and Figures are used, they will stand in need of no Vindication; for every body knows that Discourses of men in Passion, naturally abound in Epithets and Figures, in Agravati­ons and Hyperboles. To this I add, That the Diction of Poetry consists of Figures; by the frequent use of bold and daring Figures, it is distinguish'd from Prose and Oratory. Epithets are beautiful in Poetry, but make Prose [Page 31] languishing and cold; and the frequent Arist. Rhet. L. 3. C. 3. use of them in Prose, makes it pretend too much and approach too near to Po­etry. If Figures and Epithets are na­tural to Passion, and if they compose the Diction of Poetry, certainly Tra­gedy, which is of the sublime and first­rate Poetry, and which ought every where to abound in Passion, may very well be allow'd to use Epithets and Figures, more especially in a Scene consisting entirely of Passion, and still more particularly in the most violent part of that Scene. Thus much, to ju­stifie the use and frequency of Epithets and Figures in the Scene abovementi­on'd. Ay, but Mr. Collier says some of the Figures there are Stiff: He says so, I confess; but what then? Why in answer, I say they are not, and so leave it to be determin'd by better Judges.

[Page 32]Having shewn that men in Passion, naturally make use of violent Figures and Epithets; I will produce no less a Man than Mr. Collier himself for an Example: If you would behold the Gentleman beginning to swell, see him in Page 80. there he puffs and blows, and deals mightily in short periods: At first he is scarce able to Breath, but at length he O­pens; and anon finds vent for a very odd Expression. He is angry with some Play or other, and says— Na­ture made the ferment and rising of the Blood, for such occasions. I hope he speaks Figuratively, or else I am sure he speaks at least Prophanely; for we know who is meant by Nature in the Language of Christianity, and v. p. 72. especially under the Notion of a Maker.

He discovers in this Expression, that his Religion and his Natu­ral Philosophy are both of a size. [Page 33] He has declared the very Source of Living, and the Spring of Motion in the Mechanical Part of Man, to be no more than the Fountain-Head of Fol­lies and Passions; and intimates very strongly, That Nature made it only for that purpose.

But I think nothing that he says, should be consider'd seriously; there­fore I will proceed, and produce Mr. Collier as he stands advanc'd both in ferment and figure. In (p. 84.) he has drawn Quotations from Comedies, that look Reeking as it were from Pande­monium, and almost smell of Fire and Brimstone; Eruptions of Hell with a wit­ness! He almost wonders the Smoak of them has not darkned the Sun, and turn'd the Air to Plague and Poison. Provoca­tions enough to Arm all Nature in Re­venge; to exhaust the Iudgments of Hea­ven, &c. He goes on with such ter­rible Stuff for a considerable while to­gether. I give this only as a Sample [Page 34] of some of this Gentleman's Figures.

Methinks I hear him pronounce 'em every time I behold 'em, they are almost Noisy and Turbulent, even in the Print. In short, they are Con­tagious; and I find he that will speak of them, is in great danger to speak like them. But why does Mr. Collier use all this Vehemence in a Written Argument? If he were to Preach, I grant it might be necessary for him to make a Noise, that he might be sure to be heard: But why all this Passi­on upon Paper? Judgment is never Outrageous; and Christianity is ever Meek and Mild.

I have read it somewhere as the Remark of St. Chrysostom, That the Prophets of God were as much distin­guish'd from the Prophets of the De­vil by their Behaviour, as by the Di­vine Truths which they utter'd. The former gave Oracles with all Mildness and Temper; the other were ever [Page 35] Bellowing with Fury and Madness; no wonder (says he) for the first were inspir'd with the Holy Ghost; and the last were possess'd with the Devil. So the reason is plain.

But I have employ'd too much time in digressing from my purpose, which is chiefly to Vindicate my self; and only from Casual Observation, to take Notice of Mr. Colliers Errors, as they shall appear Blazing up and down in those Pages where I am concern'd, or others into which I may dip acciden­tally, in searching for Expressions cited from my own Plays.

I have done with him in his Chap­ter of Immodesty. The Reader has seen his Charge against the Mourning Bride, and is a Judge of the Justness and Strength of it. I confess I have not much to say in Commendation of any thing that I have Written: But if a fair-dealing-man, or a candid Cri­tick had examin'd that Tragedy, I fan­cy [Page 36] that neither the general Moral con­tain'd in the two last Lines; nor the several particular Morals interwoven with the success of every principal Character, would have been over­seen by him.

The Reward of Matrimonial Con­stancy in Almeria, of the same Vir­tue, together with filial Piety and Love to his Country in Osmin; the Punishment of Tyranny in Manuel, of Ambition in Gonzalez, of violent Passions, and unlawful Love in Zara: These it may be were Parts of the Poem as worthy to be observed, as one or two erroneous Expressions; and admit they were such, might in some measure have aton'd for them.

Mr. Collier in his second Chapter, Charges the Stage with Profaness. Almost all the Quotations which he has made from my Plays in this Chap­ter are represented falsly, or by halves; [Page 37] so that I have very little to do in their Vindication, but to represent 'em as they are in the Original, fairly and at length; and to fill up the Blanks which this worthy honest Gentleman has left.

In the Old Batchelour (says he) Vain­love asks Bellmour, Could you be con­tent Coll. P. 62. to go to Heav'n?

Bell. Hum, not immediately, in my Conscience not Heartily—

Here Mr. Collier concludes this Quotation with a dash, as if both the Sense and the Words of the whole Sentence, were at an end. But the remainder of it in the Play Act. 3. Scene 2. is in these words— I would do a little more good in my generation first, in order to deserve it.

I think the meaning of the whole is very different from the meaning of the first half of this Expression. 'Tis one thing for a Man to say positively, he will not go to Heaven; and another [Page 38] to say, that he does not think himself worthy, till he is better prepared. But Mr. Collier undoubtedly was in the right, to take just as much as would serve his own turn. The Stile of this Expression is Light, and suitable to Comedy, and the Character of a wild Debauchee of the Town; but there is a Moral meaning contain'd in it, when it is not represented by halves.

From Scene 3. of the 4th Act of the same Comedy, he makes the fol­lowing Quotation. Fondlewife a Jea­lous Puritan is obliged for some time to be absent from his Wife:

Fond. Have you throughly consider'd how detestable, how heinous, and how Crying a Sin the sin of Adultery is? Have you weigh'd it, I say? for it is a very weighty sin: and although it may lie—yet thy Husband must also bear his part; for thy Iuiquity will fall upon his Head. Here is another Dash in this Quota­tion, I refer the Reader to the Play [Page 39] to see what words Mr. Collier has Omitted; and from thence he may guess at the Strength of his Imagi­nation.

For this Quotation, the Reader sees it in the same Condition that Mr. Collier thinks fit to shew it: His Notes upon it are as follow.

Indeed I cannot hold Laughing, when I compare his dreadful Com­ment with such poor silly words as are in the Text: especially when I re­flect how young a beginner, and how very much a Boy I was when that Comedy was Written; which several know was some years before it was Acted: When I wrote it I had little thoughts of the Stage; but did it to a­muse my self in a slow Recovery from a Fit of Sickness. Afterwards through [Page 40] my Indiscretion it was seen; and in some little time more it was Acted: And I through the remainder of my Indiscretion, suffer'd my self to be drawn in, to the prosecution of a dif­ficult and thankless Study; and to be involved in a perpetual War with Knaves and Fools. Which reflection makes me return to the Subject in hand.

Bellmour desires Laetitia to give him leave to Swear by her Eyes and her Lips. Well, I am very glad Mr. Collier has so much Devotion for the Lips and Eyes of a Pretty Woman, that he thinks it Profanation to Swear by 'em. I'll give him up this, if he pleases. To the next.

To say Eternity is in a Moment, is nei­ther Profane nor Sacred, nor good nor bad. With Reverence of my Friend the Author be it spoken, I take it to [Page 41] be stark Nonsense; and I had not ca­red if Mr. Collier had discover'd it.

Something or other he saw amiss in it, and Writing a Chapter of Pro­faneness at that time, like little Bays, he popt it down for his own.

Laetitia when her Intrigue was like to be discover'd, says of her Lover,

This Mr. Collier calls the Play-house Grace. It is the expression of a wanton and a vicious Character, in the Distress and Confusion of her Guilt. She is discover'd in her Lewdness, and suf­fer'd to come no more upon the Stage.

In the end of the last Act Sharper says to Vain-love:

[Page 42]I meant no ill by this Allegory, nor do I perceive any in it now. Mr. Collier says it was meant for Drollery on the Catechism; but he has a way of dis­covering Drollery where it never was intended; and of intending Drollery where it can never be discovered. So much for the Old Batchelour.

In the Double-Dealer (he says) Lady Plyant cries out Iesu, and talks Smut in the same Sentence. That Exclamation I give him up freely. I had my self long since condemn'd it, and resolv'd to strike it out in the next Impression. I will not urge the folly, viciousness, or affectation of the Character to ex­cuse it. Here I think my self oblig'd to make my Acknowledgments for a Let­ter which I receiv'd after the Publica­tion of this Play, relating to this very Passage. It came from an Old Gentle­woman and a Widow, as she said, and very well to pass: It contain'd very [Page 43] good Advice, and requir'd an Answer, but the Direction for the Superscrip­tion was forgot. If the good Gen­tlewoman is yet in being, I desire her to receive my Thanks for her good Counsel, and for her Approbation of all the Comedy, that Word alone ex­cepted.

That Lady Plyant talks Smut in the same Sentence, lies yet upon Mr. Col­lier to prove. His bare Assertion with­out an Instance, is not sufficient. If he can prove that there is downright Smut in it, why e'en let him take it for his pains: I am willing to part with it.

His next Objection is, that Sir Paul, who he observes bears the Character of a Fool, makes mention too often of the word Providence; for says Mr. Collier, p. 62▪ the meaning must be (by the way, that must is a little hard upon me) that Pro­vidence [Page 44] is a ridiculous Supposition; and that none but Blockheads pretend to Reli­gion. What will it avail me in this place to signifie my own meaning, when this modest Gentleman says, I must mean quite contrary?

Lady Froth is pleased to call Jehu a Hackney Coachman. (Ibid.)

Lady Froth's words are as follow— Our Iehu was a Hackney Coachman when my Lord took him. Which is as much as to say, that the Coachman's Name is Iehu: And why might it not be Iehu as well as Ieremy, or Abraham, or Ioseph, or any other Jewish or Chri­stian Name? Brisk desires that this may be put into a Marginal Note in Lady Froth's Poem.

This Mr. Collier says, is meant to burlesque the Text, and Comment under one. What Text, or what Comment, [Page 45] or what other earthly Thing he can mean, I cannot possibly imagine. These Remarks are very Wise; therefore I shall not Fool away any time about them.

Sir Paul tells his Wife, he finds Passion coming upon him by Inspiration. P. 64.

The poor Man is troubled with the Flatus, his Spleen is pufft up with Wind; and he is likely to grow very angry and peevish on the suddain; and desires the privilege to Scold and give it Vent. The word Inspiration when it has Divine prefix'd to it, bears a particular and known signifi­cation: But otherwise, to inspire is no more than to Breath into; and a Man without profaneness may truly say, that a Trumpet, a Fife, or a Flute, deliver a Musical Sound, by the help of Inspiration. I refer the Reader to my fourth Proposition, in this Case. For a Dispute about this word, would be very like the Con­troversie [Page 46] in Ben. Iohnson's Barthol. Fair, between the Rabbi and the Puppet; it is profane, and it is not profane, is all the Argument the thing will admit of on either side.

That is, Mr. Collier is not yet ex­hausted; for to give double Interpre­tations to single Expressions, with a design only to lay hold of the worst, is double dealing in a great degree.

Cynthia the top Lady grows thoughtful. Cynthia it seems is the Top Lady now; not long since, the other Three were the three biggest. Perhaps the Gen­tleman P. 12. speaks as to personal pro­portion, Cynthia is the Tallest, and the other Three are the Fattest of the Four.

Well. Cynthia is thoughtful, and upon the question relates her Contemplation.

[Page 47]Here he has filch'd out a little word so slily, 'tis hardly to be miss'd; and yet without it, the words bear a very different signification. The Sen­tence in the Play is Printed thus— Though Marriage makes Man and Wife one Flesh, it leaves 'em STILL two Fools. Which by means of that lit­tle word still, signifies no more, than that if two People were Fools, be­fore or when they were married, they would continue in all probability to be Fools still, and after they were married. Ben. Iohnson is much bold­er in the first Scene of his Bartholomew Fair. There he makes Littlewit say to his Wife— Man and Wife make one Fool; and yet I don't think he de­sign'd even that, for a Jest either up­on Genesis 2. or St. Matthew 19. I have said nothing comparable to that, and yet Mr. Collier in his penetration has thought fit to accuse me of no­thing less.

[Page 48]Thus I have summ'd up his Evi­dence against the Double-dealer. I have not thought it worth while to Cross­examine his Witnesses very much, be­cause they are generally silly enough to detect themselves.

In Love for Love, Scandal tells Mrs. Foresight, he will die a Martyr P. 74. rather than disclaim his Passion. The word Martyr is here used Metapho­rically to imply Perseverance. Martyr is a Greek word, and signifies in plain English, no more then a Witness. A holy Martyr, or a Martyr for Religion is one thing; a wicked Martyr, or Mar­tyr for the Devil is another: A Man may be a Martyr that is a Witness to Folly, to Error, or Impiety. Mr. Collier is a Martyr to Scandal and Falshood quite through his Book. This Expression he says, is dignifying Adultery with the Stile of Martyrdom; as if any word could dignifie Vice. [Page 49] These are very trifling Cavils, and I think all of this kind may reasonably be referr'd to my Fourth Proposi­tion.

Ieremy bred at the University! Who told him so? What Ieremy does he mean, Ieremy Collier, or Iere­my Fetch? The last does not any where pretend to have been bred there. And if the t'other would but keep his own Counsel, and not Print M. A. on the Title Page of his Book, he would be no more suspected of such an Education than his Name-sake. Ieremy in the Play, banters the Cox­comb Tattle, and tells him he has been at Cambridge: Whereupon Tattle re­plies—

[Page 50]Which is said to expose the impu­dence of illiterate Fops, who speak with Contempt of Learning and Uni­versities. For the word Whoreson, I had it from Shakespear and Iohnson, who have it very often in their Low Comedies; and sometimes their Cha­racters of some Rank use it. I have put it into the Mouth of a Footman. 'Tis not worth speaking of. But Mr. Collier makes a terrible thing of it, and compares it to the Language of Mani­cheans, who made the Creation to be the Work of the Devil. After which he ci­villy solves all by saying, the Poet was Jeremy's Tutor, and so the Mystery is at an end. This by a Periphrasis is cal­ling me Manichean; well let him call me what he pleases, he cannot call me Ieremy Collier.

His next Quotation is of one line taken out of the middle of eight more in a Speech of Sir Sampson in the second Act of this Comedy: he repre­sents [Page 51] it as an Aphorism by it self, and without any regard to what either pre­ceeds or follows it. I desire to be ex­cused from transcribing the whole Scene or Speech. I refer to my third Proposition, and desire the Reader to view it in its place. Mr. Collier's Cita­on is— Nature has been provident only to Bears and Spiders. I beg the Reader to peruse that Scene, and than to look into the 139 Psalm, because Mr. Col­lier says it is paraphrased by me in this Place. I wonder how such remote Wickedness can enter into a Man's Head. I dare affirm the Scene has no more resemblance of the Psalm, than Mr. Collier has of the Character of a Christian Priest, which he gives us in page 127, 128. of his own Book. Towards the end of the third Act, Scandal has occasion to flatter Old Foresight. He talks to him, and hu­mours him in the Cant of his own Character, recites Quotations in fa­vour [Page 52] of Astrology, and tells him the wisest Men have been beholding to that Science— P. 75.

Solomon (says he) was Wise, but how? By his Iudgment in Astrology. So says Pineda in his third Book and eight Chap. But the Quotation of the Au­thority is omitted by Mr. Collier, ei­ther because he would represent it as my own Observation to ridicule the Wisdom of Solomon, or else because he was indeed Ignorant that it belong'd to any Body else.

The Words which gave me the Hint are as above cited.

Do's Mr. Collier believe in Progno­stications from Judicial Astrology? Do's he think that Solomon had his Wisdom only from thence? If he does not, why will he not permit the Superstitions growing from that Sci­ence [Page 53] to be expos'd? Why will he not understand that the exposing them in this Place and Manner, does not ridi­cule the Wisdom of Solomon, but the Folly of Foresight?

Scandal he says, continues his Ban­ter, and says, The Wise Men of the East ow'd their Instruction to a Star, which is rightly observ'd by Gregory the Great, in favour of Astrology.

Scandal indeed Banters Foresight, but he does not banter the Audience, in mentioning Gregory the Great: Take his own Words.

The rest of the Banter is what Scandal relates from Albertus Magnus, who makes it the most valuable Sci­ence, because it teaches us to consider the Causation of Causes in the Causes of things.

[Page 54]I am but a bare Translator in this place; for example:

Is not all this stuff, and fit to be exposed; yet these and some other like Sayings, have I sometimes met with as Authorities in Vindication of Judicial Astrology.

In Page 76. Mr. Collier is very angry that Sir Sampson has not another Name; because Sampson is a Name in the Old Testament.

He says it is Burlesquing the Sa­cred History, for Sir Sampson to boast of his Strength; because Sampson in the Testament is said to be very strong. The rest that he quarrels at is a meta­phorical expression or two, of less Consideration if possible, than any of his former Cavils.

[Page 55]I refer the Reader to the Scene, which is the last in the Play: And for an Answer, to what has before been said on the word Martyr. When I read in this page these words of Mr. Collier—to draw towards an end of this Play, I thought he had no more to say to it; but his method is so ad­mirable, that he never knows where to begin, nor when to make an end. Five or six pages farther I find another of his Remarks. Coll. p. 83.

In Love for Love, Valentine says, I am Truth.

If the Reader pleases to consult the Fourth Act of that Comedy, he will there find a Scene, wherein Valentine counterfeits madness.

One reason of his Counterfeiting in that manner, is, that it conduces somewhat to the design and end of the Play. Another reason is, that it makes a Variation of the Character; and has the same effect in the Dia­logue [Page 56] of the Play, as if a new Chara­cter were introduc'd. A third use of this pretended madness is, that it gives a Liberty to Satire; and authorises a Bluntness, which would otherwise have been a Breach in the Manners of the Character. Mad-men have gene­rally some one Expression which they use more frequently than any other. Valentine to prepare his Satire, fixes on one which may give us to under­stand, that he will speak nothing but Truth; and so before and after most of his Observations says— I am Truth. For example. Foresight asks him

I had at first made him say, I am Tom-tell-troth; but the sound and mean­ness of the Expression displeas'd me: and I alter'd it for one shorter, that might signifie the same thing. What a Charitable and Christian-like Con­struction [Page 57] my dear Friend Mr. Collier has given to this Expression, is fit only to be seen in his own Book; and thither I refer the Reader: I will only repeat his Remark as it personal­ly aims at me— Now a Poet that had not been smitten with the pleasure of Blas­phemy, would not have furnish'd Frenzy with Inspiration, &c. Now I say, a Priest who was not himself furnish'd with Frenzy instead of Inspiration, would never have mistaken one for the other.

In his next Chapter he Charges the Stage with the Abuse of the Clergy. He quotes me so little in this Chap­ter, and has so little reason even for that little, that it is hardly worth ex­amining.

The Old Batchelour has a Throw p. 101. (as he calls is) at the dissenting Mi­nisters.

Now this Throw, in his own Words, amounts to no more than that a Pimp [Page 58] provides the Habit of a dissenting Minister, as the safest Disguise to co conceal a Whoremaster: Which is rather a Complement than an Af­front to the Habit.

Barnaby calls another of that Chara­cter Mr. Prig. Calls him Mr. Prig? Why what if his Name were Mr. Prig? Or what if it were not? This is furiously simple! Fondlewife to hook in the Church of England into the Abuse, tacks a Chaplain to the End of the Description.

How this pretty little Reasoner has (as he calls it) hook't in the Church of England? Can't a Man be a Chap­lain unless he is of the Church of Eng­land?

Father Dominick the 2d. he's for bringing in Heav'n and the Church by hook or crook into his Quarrel. If a Mufti had been tack'd to the Descrip­tion, he would have been equally offended; for Mufti in the Language [Page 59] of the Theater, he says, signifies Bishop. P. 103.

Maskwell in the Double Dealer, has P. 102. a Plot, and is for engaging Saygrace in it. He is for instructing the Levite, and says, without one of them have a Finger in't, no Plot, publick or private, can expect to prosper.

Perhaps that is a Mistake; many damnable Plots have miscarried, wherein Priests have been concern'd.

After this, he has transcrib'd a broken Piece of a Dialogue between Maskwell and Saygrace, which I leave to shift for it self; having nothing in it worth an Accusation, or needing a Defence.

Mr. Collier is very florid in this Chapter; but it is very hard to know what he would be at. He seems to be be apprehensive of being brought up­on the Stage, and in some Places endea­vours to prove, that as he is a Priest, he should be exempted from the Corre­ction P. 124, 127. of the Drama.

[Page 60]In other Places he does not seem to be averse to treading the Stage; but he would do it in Buskins: He would be all Gold, Purple, Scarlet, and Embroi­dery; and as rich as Nature, Art, and Rhetorick, can make him. p. 118.

We will first enquire whether he may be brought on the Stage or not; and then shew both how he would, and how he should be represented; granting the Representation of his Character to be lawful.

Here he lays down something with p. 127. the appearing face of an Argument, un­der 3. Heads, to shew that the Clergy have a Right to Regard and fair Usage. I'm sure I will never dispute that with him in the general Terms. But I suppose he is particular here; and means that they have a Right to be exempted from the Theater. Whether they have or not I will not pretend to determin; This I know, that the Custom of the Theater in all Ages and Countries is against [Page 61] this Opinion; which in this Chapter is sufficiently prov'd by the Examples which himself has produc'd.

If Mr. Collier is in earnest of that O­pinion, he has behav'd himself either very treacherously or very weakly, in offering to assert it by a false and a so­phistical Argument. His Proof begins.

1. Because of their relation to the Deity.

Now (says he) the Credit of the Service always rises in Proportion to the Quality and Greatness of the Master. Upon this Position he builds all the argument un­der this first Head. The Position is so­phistical, & his Inferences consequently false. The trick lies here. It being grant­ed him that the Credit of the Service rises in Proportion, &c. he slily infers, that the Credit of the Servant also rises in proportion to the Credit of the Ser­vice, which is false: For every body knows that an ill Servant both discre­dits his Service, and is discredited by it. And by how much the more honoura­ble [Page 62] the Service is in which he is em­ploy'd, so much the more is he ac­counted an ill Man who behaves him­self unworthily in that Service.

If an offending Servant is punish'd by the Law, the honour of the Service is not by that means violated; so far from that, that it is rather vindicated: Neither on the Stage is the divine Ser­vice ridicul'd, only the ridiculous Ser­vant is expos'd.

2. Because of the Importance of their Office. And,

3. They have Prescription for their Privilege, their Function has been in Possession of Esteem in all Ages and Countries.

These 2. are but Branches of the first Head: for their relation to the Deity im­plies the importance of their Office; and bespeaks that Privilege and Esteem which ever ought to be paid to their Holy Function.

But here again Mr. Collier confounds [Page 63] the Function with the Person, the Ser­vice with the Servant: He is Father Dominick still.

I would ask Mr. Collier whether a Man, after he has receiv'd holy Orders, is become incapable of either playing the Knave, or the Fool?

If he is not incapable, it is possible that some time or other his Capacity may exert it self to Action.

If he is found to play the Knave, he is subject to the Penalties of the Law, equally with a Lay-man; if he plays the Fool, he is equally with a Lay-fool, the subject of Laughter and Contempt.

By this Behaviour the Man becomes alienated from the Priest; as such Acti­ons are in their own nature separate and very far remov'd from his function, and when such a one is brought on the Stage, the folly is expos'd, not the function; the Man is ridicul'd, and not the Priest.

Such a Character neither does nor can asperse the sacred Order of Priest­hood, [Page 64] neither does it at all reflect upon the persons of the pious and good Cler­gy: For as Ben. Iohnson observes on the same occasion from St. Hierome, Ubi gene­ralis est de vitiis disputatio, Ibi nullius esse personae injuriam, where the business is to expose and reprehend Folly and Vice in general, no particular person ought to take offence. And such business is pro­perly the business of Comedy.

That this may not look like a sophi­stical distinction in me, to say that the Man does, by his behaviour, as it were alienate himself from the Priest, and become liable to an ill Character, apart from his Office: I desire it may be ob­serv'd that the Church it self makes the same Distinction.

It was foreseen by the Reverend Bishops and Clergy of this Realm, in their Convocations for establishing the 39. Articles of our Religion in the Years 1562. and 1604. that evil Men (unperceiv'd to be such) might [Page 65] creep into the Ministry of the Church. That afterwards they might become openly profligate, and notoriously Scandalous in their Lives and Conver­sations; even to that Degree, that some scrupulous Christians, and of a very tender Conscience, might pro­bably take such Offence at the un­worthiness of their Minister, as dan­gerously to avoid his Administration of the Holy Word and Sacraments: To refrain from publick Worship, and to lose the real Benefit of the Communion, thro' a misconceiv'd O­pinion of the invalidity of it when Administred by unclean and wicked Hands.

They might (and not without some reasonable Grounds) doubt whe­ther the same Man who was personal­ly Impious, could be spiritually Sa­cred; whether he who by his Exam­ple would seduce 'em to the Devil, could by his Precepts be conducing to [Page 66] their Salvation. This I say, they might doubt; and not without some reason­able Grounds; and not without the Opinions of two of the Fathers, viz. St. Cyprian, and St. Origen to Autho­rize their Distrust.

But to remove this Doubt, and to invalidate the Authorities of those Fa­thers, the six and twentieth Article of Religion was thus Established by the Convocations abovementioned.

Here is a most manifest Distincti­on made between the Man and the Priest. Between the regard to his Per­son, and the respect to his Function.

I will shew anon, that Mr. Collier himself has made this very Distincti­on, when he is pleased to approve of the Characters of Ioida and Mathan in the Athalia of Racine.

If any Man has in any Play ex­pos'd a Priest, as a Priest, and with [Page 68] an intimation, that as such, his Cha­racter is ridiculous: I will agree hear­tily to condemn both the Play and the Author. I am confident no Man can defend such an Impiety; and whoever is guilty of it, my Advice to him is, that he acknowlege his Error, that he repent of it and sin no more.

I confess I do not remember any such Character, Mr. Collier, who is more conversant with bad Plays than any Man that I know, perhaps may.

Mr. Collier in this Chapter produces many Instances of the Characters of Priests in the Poems of Heathen Writers; he is extreamly delight­ed with the Distinctions of their Habits, with the Show and Splen­dour in which they appear'd. The Crown and guilt Scepter of Chryses, with the valuable Ransom which he had in his Power, are Objects that gratifie his vain Imagination extream­ly. He is indeed so rapt with his [Page 69] splendid Ideas of Chryses, Laocoon, and Chloreus, that to use his own Phrase, he runs riot upon their Description from page 112 to 118. he seems to have quite laid aside the Thoughts of the twelve poor Men who over-bore all the Op­positions of Power and Learning, in pag. 81.

He now talks of nothing but great Families, great Places, wealthy and honourable Marriages, fine Cloaths, and in short, of all the Pomps and Va­nities of this wicked World. To give him his Due, as in some Places of his Book he criticizes more like a Pedant than a Scholar; argues more like a So­phister than a right Reasoner, and ral­lies more like a Waterman than a Gen­tleman; so in this Place he talks more like a Herald-Painter than a Priest, and insists more upon Pedigrees and Coats of Arms, than on moral Vir­tues or a generous Education.

He tells us the Iewish and Egypti­an Priests, the Persian Magi, and Dru­ids [Page 70] of Gaul were all at the upper end of the Government, p. 131. What then? What is that to us, any more than if they were used to sit at the upper end of the Table? No doubt this Gentle­man's Affection for such a Seat, fur­nish'd him with this florid and meta­porical Expression.

In p. 132. He says the Priesthood was for some time confin'd to the Patrician Order. Very well: we know the Reason of that; but with Submissi­on, that is not the same thing as if the Patrician Order had been confin'd to the Priesthood. However, this Gentleman's Meaning is plain; cer­tainly if he were Pope, he would re­nounce the Title of Servus Servorum Dei.

He quotes Tully for his Approba­tion of the same Person's being set at p. 133. the Head both of Religion and Go­vernment. What does he mean by this? What Occasion is there of this [Page 71] Quotation, in our Country? Is not our King both at the Head of our Religion and Government? When Mr. Collier allows him one, perhaps he will not deny him the other.

But to come to his Meaning (if he has any) thro' all this vain Stuff. I take it, he would give us to under­stand, that in all Ages the Function of a Priest was held to be a very ho­nourable Function. Did Mr. Collier ever meet with any Body Fool enough to engage him to assert that?

He tells us that Men of the first Quality; nay, Kings and Emperors have been employ'd in the sacred Mi­nistry: And I can tell him that Kings and Emperors have been in all Ages expos'd on the Stage; their Ambition, Tyrannies and Cruelties, all the Follies and Vices which were Consequences of their arbitrary Pow­er and ungovern'd Appetites, have been laid open to the Peoples View. [Page 72] They have been punish'd, depos'd, and put to Death on the Stage; yet never any King complain'd of the Theater, or the Poets. On the con­trary, all great Princes have cherish'd and supported them so long as they themselves were great; till they have diminish'd in their own Characters, and turn'd to Bigotry and Enthusiasm; and of this a living Instance might be given.

Yet, 1. Kings have a Relation to the Deity.

They are his Deputies and Vicege­rents on Earth.

2ly. They are possess'd of a very important Office. And,

3ly. Their Function has been in Possession of Esteem in all Ages and Countries.

That Men of Quality have always been, and are now employ'd in the sa­cred Ministry, is evidently true; and I could heartily wish that more were [Page 73] still employ'd in it: So should the most honourable Office be executed by the most honourable Hands. So should we behold Men of Birth, Title, and He­raldry, despising tinsel Shew, Pagean­try, and all Mr. Collier's beloved Bells, Bawbles, and Trinkets. And pre­ferring Decency, Humility, Charity, and other Christian Virtues, to shin­ing Ornaments; or even the upper End of a Government. How ill such temporal Bride agrees with the Person and Cha­racter of a truly pious and exemplary Divine, I will not pretend to deter­mine. I will only transcribe the Words of a learn'd and honour'd Mi­nister Vid. his Tract concerning Schism. p. 224, 225. of the Church, to this purpose; and that is the reve­rend Mr. Hales of Eaton.

Here is not one Syllable of Heral­dry Regulated by Garter, and Blazon'd by Coll. p. 135. Stones. I would desire the Reader, immediately after this Paragraph from Mr. Hales, to consult Mr. Collier in p. 136. and to observe how he stickles for Place, and thrusts himself before the Gentlemen.

[Page 75] The Addition of Clerk is at least equal to that of Gentleman. How snappish and short his Clerkship is in his Peri­ods; mark him, were it otherwise, the Profession would in many Cases, be a kind of Punishment. Good Heaven! To profess the Service of God would be a Punishment, if the Title of Clerk were not at least equal to that of Gentleman. Well,— The Heraldry is every Iot as safe in the Church, as 'twas in the State. When the Laity are taken leave of, not Gentle­man but Clerk is usually Written. And a little after. The first Addition is not lost but covered. Good Reader, re­turn to Mr. Hales, that you may be reminded of the true Respect and Ve­neration that is due to his Memory; and to the rest of the Meek, the Mo­dest, and the Humble Ministers of the Church: For while Mr. Collier is be­fore you, you will be very apt to for­get it.

[Page 76]I know many Reverend Clergy­men now living, whose Names I can­not hear without Awe and Reverence: And why is that? Not from their Heraldry, but their Humility, their Humanity, their exceeding Learning, which is yet exceeded by their Mode­sty; their exemplary Behaviour in their whole Lives and Conversations; their Charitable Censures, of Youth­ful Errors and Negligences, their fa­therly and tender Admonitions, ac­companyed with all sweetness of Beha­viour; and full of mild yet forcible Perswasion.

He were next to a Manichean that would not hold such Men's Persons in a degree of Veneration, next to their Profession. But a Mr. Prig, a Mr. Smirk, and I'm afraid a Mr. Collier are Names implying Characters worthy of Aversion and Contempt.

Now let us take a View of Mr. Collier, as he appears upon the Stage; [Page 77] for while he is examining of Plays; I look upon him as one who has Elo­ped from his Pulpit and Strayed with­in the inclosures of the Theatre; and I do not see why the Players should not lay hold of him, and pound him till he has given them Absolution. Why does he abandon his Gown and Cassock to come Capering and Frisk­ing, in his Lay-Doublet and Drawers, between the Scenes? Is he Master of the Revels? Is the Stage under his Discipline? And is he fit to Correct the v. Coll. p. 139. Theatre who is not fit to come into it? He is not fit to come into it. First, Because his Office requires him in an­other place. And Secondly, Because he makes naughty uses of innocent Plays, and writes Baudy, and Blas­phemous Comments, on the Poets Works.

Well, he has at length discovered a Play which is an Exception to what he has observed in France, (Coll. [Page 78] 124.) the Play is the Athalia of Ra­cine. In this Play are the Characters of two Priests Ioida and Mathan; of both which Mr. Collier is pleased to admit: By enquiring into his Rea­sons for Licensing this Play, we shall see in what manner he will allow a Priest to be represented on the Stage; and from thence we may guess how he himself would be contented to ap­pear there also.

Ioida (says he) the High-Priest has a large Part, but then the Poet does him Iustice in his Station; he makes him Ho­nest and Brave, and gives him a shining Character throughout. That's well. Ma­than is another Priest in the same Tragedy, he turns Renegado, and revolts from God to Baal. That is not altogether so well. But has not the Poet done him Justice too, in giving him the Cha­racter that belong'd to him? Whe­ther he has or not, Mr. Collier thinks he has made him ample reparation [Page 79] and more than amends, as you shall see. He goes on. He is a very ill Man But—ay, now for the BUT.—He has turn'd Renegado, has revolted from God to Baal, is positively a very Ill-Man, But, what? O, BUT makes a considerable Appearance. There, now 'tis out, and all's well. If he has but a guilt Crown, and Scepter, Scarlet and Embroidery in abundance, let him rebel or revolt, he makes a good Figure, and it becomes him very well. Your Servant Mr. Racine, 'twas well for you that Ba­al gave good Benefices, and his Priests could afford to make a considerable Appearance: Or Mathan's Revolt had not been so well taken at your Hands. But hold, Mr. Collier goes on.

I'm afraid the Reparation enlarges, and the Complement rises. For the sake of Connexion let us repeat.—

— But makes a considerable Appear­ance. And,—

Ay now, what can follow this AND in the Name of Climax?

[Page 80]You shall see.— And is one of the Top of Athalia's Faction.

Nay, then there is no more to be said. If he had fine Cloaths, and was set at the Top, or rather at the upper End of a Faction too, he had his hearts Content: A reasonable Mathan would have been satisfied with any one of those Blessings. Tho' I would not answer for Mr. Collier's Continence; at this time, especially: he is so trans­ported with Mr. Racine's Bounty to Mathan, that he excuses him frankly for shewing him a Renegado.

He goes on.— As for the Ble­mishes of his Life, they stick all upon his own Honour, and reach no farther than his Person.

I think I have now kep't the Pro­mise that I made not long since, to shew that Mr. Collier himself, when he is in the Humour, will allow of the Distinction betwixt the Man and the Priest, the Person and the Function.

[Page 71]But to shew that I can be as cross as he; now when he would admit of this distinction, I should rather say when he alledges it, it shall not by any means be granted him. Here is a renegade Priest, that revolts from the true God to Baal: And this Man is only branded with a Blemish on his Person. What, is it no Affront to his Function then? I take it to be no excuse for him that he should af­terwards become a Priest of Baal. Sure Mr. Collier does not mean to make use of Mr. Dryden's Key as he calls it, and say that Priests of all Re­ligions, &c. Well, 'tis only a Blemish upon his Person; or if Mr. Collier pleases, because he delights in Phra­ses of Heraldry, 'tis only a Blot in his Scutcheon. Let Mr. Collier an­swer for this, to those who have Au­thority to examine him further. He is in every Line growing more and more gracious to Mr. Racine. And [Page 72] now he is come to the very top or up­per-end of his Civility; and says with a bon grace and belle air, that

Indeed! why then in fine we are tack'd about; then a Play in fine, may be a religious Poem it seems: Why then Sir Martin with his, in fine, here has quite unravel'd his own Plot. Ay, ay, the Play is a very religious Poem; if Faction and fine Cloaths wont make a religious Poem, it must be made of strange Stuff indeed.

O Lord! nay, now I protest Mr. Col­lier this must not be; nay now you're so infinitely obliging! fye, this is too much on t'other side: You quite for­get the Fathers indeed Sir, and the Bishop of Arras.

[Page 73]Out with it Man.—

Why that's well, now he's come to himself. O' my Word, I was half afraid he would have play'd the Ma­than, and have revolted to the The­atre. The Mischief is, this naugh­ty Theatre will be interloping; when Sermon and Anthem, become the Stage as ill, as Faction and fine Cloaths do the Pulpit: But Men sometimes travel into Foreign Pro­vinces for Vari [...]y.

I cannot forbear enquiring into one Example more, which this Gen­tleman offers us in the very next Page.

Extremely bad? Can any thing be worse? and yet (says he) Shakespear's Sir John, has some advantage in his Cha­racter. Now who can forbear en­quiring [Page 74] what advantage a Character can possibly have, consistent with such abominable Vices? First, He appears loyal and stout; he brings in Sir John, Acton, and other Rebels, Prisoners. So! as 'tis in the Spanish Fryar, a Mani­fest Member of the Church Militant! That he was Stout, was plain before, from his Padding and Tilting. But this will not do; the advantage does not yet appear. No! why then.

This Advantage appears still but coldly. Kings reward Spys and Ex­ecutioners, and necessary Instruments of Policy and Punishment. And Judges are generally Men of Years, Temper and Wisdom, and use all Gentlemen with Civility. Ay, say you so? why then— in short—ay, now for the Iliads in a Nut-shell. Here is the But coming again, I had a glimpse of him just now. ex. gr.

There is an Advantage for you now; in short, Lewd but not Little.

Concise and pretty! the Gentle­man had best take it for a Motto, and have it annex'd to his Coat-Armour, when he can get his Heraldry regulated by Garter, and blazon'd by Stones.

Well, I confess I have been in an Error; I thought a Man never ap­pear'd so very little, as when he ap­pear'd extremely lewd. If I have undervalued Lewdness, I ask Mr. Collier's Pardon.

Here again you see, he will allow this Distinction to all his Favourites. Here is the Person and the Function separated again; the Priest and the Man: In short, he answers himself so often, that I will dispute this Point no more with him.

[Page 76]But you may see what this poor Gentleman in the wretched Pride of his little Heart, thinks a sufficient Alloy to make current a most disso­lute or impious Character. Though you expose a Priest revolting from God to Baal, yet if you let him make a considerable Figure, and place him at the Head of a Faction, all is well enough; and the Poem may be a religious Poem, &c. Shew another in Comedy, let him Swear, Game, Wench, Pad, Tilt and Drink, but withal let him keep good Company; let a Judge, or some Great Man treat him with Respect, that he may not appear little, though he appear lewd, and you give some advantage to his Character; at least you will shew that he understands his Post, and con­verses with the Freedom of a Gentleman. Ibid.

In Page 122, Our Author has ob­serv'd how the Heathen Poets behav'd themselves in the Argument. Priests sel­dom [Page 77] appear in their Plays; and when they come, 'tis business of Credit that brings them. They are treated like Persons of Condition; they act up to their Relation, neither sneak, nor prevaricate, nor do any thing unbecoming their Office.

Indeed when Men neither sneak, nor prevaricate, nor do any thing unbecoming their Office in the World, they ought not to be represented o­therwise on the Stage: Nay, they ought not to be expos'd at all in Comedy; for the Characters expos'd there, should be of those only, who misbehave themselves.

Let us suppose that the Character of this Author were to be shown up­on the Stage: he who should repre­sent him behaving himself as he ought, would be to blame, and that for these Reasons.

First, To represent him behaving himself as he ought, would be to re­present him in the discharge of some [Page 78] part of his Holy Office, which is by no means fit to be shewn on the Stage; especially in Comedy, where Mens Vices and Follies are expos'd: That would be to bring Mr. Collier's Function, not his Person on the Stage, which is not to be permitted.

Secondly, He that should represent Mr. Collier behaving himself as he ought, would very much misrepre­sent Mr. Collier, in respect to the Manners of his Character.

Let us take a slight Sketch of him as he presents himself to us in his Book. Let Mr. Collier be represent­ed as he is, not as he ought to be; that by seeing what he is, Mr. Collier may be asham'd of what he is, and endeavour at what he ought to be.

And that the Instruction of the Representation may not be lost, let us borrow that Distinction which se­vers the Priest from the Man: If Mathan, and Sir Iohn of Wrotham, have [Page 79] done with it, they may lend it to us; 'tis for the use of an Humble Servant of theirs, and whenever the Humour takes 'em to Revolt, Pad, Tilt, Wench, Drink, and soforth, let 'em give us a Quarter of an Hours Notice, and they shall have it again.

Well, Our Author being thus di­vided, we will desire the better Part of him, to take his Place in the Pit, and let the other appear to him like his evil Genius on the Stage.

Suppose the Gentleman in the Scene to appear very intent upon the very Obscene Comedies of Aristo­phanes, Coll. p. 40. 44. quaer. Whether the Person in the Pit, beholding how very ill this becomes him, will not think that he might with much more Decency, be­take himself to his Septuagint?

Mr. Collier on the Stage shall ana­thematise the Poets, and tell 'em in plain Terms, they should be excom­municated, and that they are not fit to [Page 80] come into the Church. Quaer. whether Coll. 139. Mr. Collier, in the Pit, will not think it had been more becoming his Cha­racter, to have invited and exhorted them to it?

Mr. Collier on the Stage shall be­have himself with all the Arrogance, and little Pride of a spruce Pedant, p. 136. that the Gentlemen in the Pit may be induc'd to practise the Meekness and Humility of a Christi­an Divine. The former, shall pervert and misconstrue every thing that is V. most part of Mr. Col­lier's Quotati­ons. said to him, that the latter may learn to use Justice, Candor, and Sincerity, in his Interpretations.

The Player Collier shall call the Gentlemen that he converses with, Foot-pads, Buffoons, Slaves, &c. V. Pres. 81. 63, 175. that the Spectator Collier may remem­ber they are Christians, and should be catechis'd by other Names.

Mr. Collier, on the Stage, shall rack Bawdery and Obscenity out of [Page 81] modest and innocent Expressions; and having extorted it, he shall scourge it, not out of Chastisement but Wantonness; he shall forget, that sometimes to report a Fault is to repeat P. 71. it. The Spectator in the Pit shall plainly perceive, that he loves to look on naked Obscenity; and that he only flogs it, as a sinful Paedagogue Coll. Ch. 1, 2. sometimes lashes a pretty Boy, that looks lovely in his Eyes, for Reasons best known to himself.

Mr. Collier, on the Stage, shall ridicule, rail at, and condemn all Plays whatsoever: He shall tire him­self, and his Audience, with his In­veteracy and Exclamations against them. Which done, he shall all on the sudden, and, that there may be something surprizing, and praeter ex­pectatum in his Character, from a Per­secutor, become a Promoter of the [Page 82] Drama: He shall be as furious a Cri­tick as he was a Bigot; and give the best Rules and Instructions of which he is capable, for the Composure of Comedy. He shall talk in all the Pedantical Cant of Fable, Intrigue, Discovery, of Unities of Time, Place, and Action. But lest this Behaviour V. from P. 209. to 228. and for­wards. in Mr. Collier's Character should ap­pear inconsistent, and a violation of the Precept of Horace.

His Vanity shall bear proportion with his Dissimulation; his Igno­rance shall be as great as his Malice; and he shall not be able to deviate from his inveterate Zeal against Plays; for he shall not appear to un­derstand one Syllable of the Rules of Writing, but shall mislead Poetry as much by his Instructions, as he has perverted it by his Interpretations; he shall favour his Adversaries with­out [Page 83] obliging them; the Zeal of his Character shall be preserv'd even in his own despite; and his Devotion, in this Particular, shall be the Child of his Ignorance: For he can make but

And if Plays are pernicious, Mr. Collier shall only be wicked in his Wishes, he shall be acquitted in his Performances; his Instigations to Poe­try shall prove checks upon it. He shall appear mounted upon a false Pegasus, like a Lancashire Witch upon an imaginary Horse, the Fantom P. 230. shall be unbridled, and the Broom­stick made visible.

At this Catastrophe, Mr. Collier, in the Pit, shall exclaim like Flecknoe, and with very little variation.

Now, lest the Poet who shall un­dertake this Character, should be [Page 84] gravell'd in the imitation of the Stile of this elaborate Writer, let him take these few Instances of his allusive and highly metaphorical Expressions, for Patterns; viz. running riot upon Smut: A Poem with a Litter of Epithets, like a Bitch overstock'd with Puppies: Sucking the Sense to skin and bone: A Fancy slip­stocking high: The upper-end of a Go­vernment: A whole Kennel of Beaux after a Woman, &c. For his Elegancy, these are Originals: Learning a Spaniel to set: This belike is the meaning: Three of the biggest of Four: Big Alliances, Men of the biggest Consideration for sense, &c. See p. 12. 27, 34, 92, 131, 132, 225, 233, &c. To marry up a Top-Lady: Cum multis aliis.

'Tis a strange thing that a Man should write such Stuff as this, who is capable of making the following Coll. 205. Observation.

Indeed there are few things which distinguish the manner of a Man's Breeding and Conversation, more visibly, than the Metaphors which he uses in Writing; I mean in writing from himself, and in his own Name and Character, A Metaphor is a similitude in a Word, a short Com­parison; and it is used as a similitude, to illustrate and explain the meaning. The Variety of Ideas in the Mind, furnish it with variety of Matter for Similitudes; and those Ideas are only so many Impressions made on the Memory, by the force and frequency of external Objects.

Pitiful and mean Comparisons, proceed from pitiful and mean Ideas; and such Ideas have their beginning from a familiarity with such Objects. From this Author's poor and filthy [Page 86] Metaphors and Similitudes, we may learn the Filthiness of his Imagination; and from the Uncleanness of that, we may make a reasonable guess at his rate of Education, and those Objects with which he has been most con­versant and familiar.

To conclude with him in this Cha­pter; I will only say that no Man living has a greater respect for a good Clergy-man, nor more contempt for an ill one, than my self; the for­mer I have often been proud to shew, the latter never fell in my way till now. I never yet introduced the Character of a Clergy-man in any of my Plays, excepting that little Apparition of Say-grace, in the Double-Dealer; and I am very indifferent whether ever the Gown appear upon the Stage, or not: If it does, I think it should not be worn by the Chara­cter of a good Man; for such a one ought not to be made the Compa­nion [Page 87] of foolish Characters. If ever it is shewn there, it ought to be hung loosely on the shoulders of such a one as I have lately instanced; but to no other end, than to demonstrate that even the sacred Habit is abus'd by some; but by their Characters and Manners the Audience may observe what manner of Men they are. And no question but if our Author, in the Pit, did behold his Counterpart on the Stage, thus egregiously to play the Fool in his Pontificalibus, the rebuke Coll. 111. would strike stronger upon his sense, and prove more effectual to his Reforma­tion.

I come now to his Chapter of the Immorality of the Stage.

His Objections here are rather Ob­jections against Comedy in general, than against mine, or any bodies Comedies in particular. He says the Sparks that marry up the Top-Ladies, P. 142. and are rewarded with Wives and [Page 88] Fortunes in the last Acts, are general­ly debauch'd Characters. In answer to this, I refer to my first and second Proposition. He is a little particu­lar in his Remarks upon Valentine, in Love for Love. He says,

I know who, and what he is, that always speaks too soon. Why is he to be pass'd for a Person of Vertue? Or where is it said that his Character makes extraordinary Pretensions to it! Valentine is in Debt, and in Love; he has honesty enough to close with a hard Bargain, rather than not pay his Debts, in the first Act; and he has Generosity and Sincerity enough, in the last Act, to sacrifice every thing to his Love; and when he is in dan­ger of losing his Mistress, thinks e­very thing else of little worth. This, I hope, may be allow'd a Reason for the Lady to say, He has Vertues: They [Page 89] are such in respect to her; and her once saying so, in the last Act, is all the notice that is taken of his Vertue quite thro' the Play.

Mr. Collier says, he is Prodigal. He was prodigal, and is shewn, in the first Act under hard Circumstances, which are the Effects of his Prodiga­lity. That he is unnatural and un­dutiful, I don't understand: He has indeed a very unnatural Father; and if he does not very passively submit to his Tyranny and barbarous Usage, I conceive there is a Moral to be ap­ply'd from thence to such Fathers. That he is profane and obscene, is a false Accusation, and without any Evidence. In short, the Character is a mix'd Character; his Faults are fewer than his good Qualities; and, as the World goes, he may pass well enough for the best Character in a Comedy; where even the best must be shewn to have Faults, that the [Page 90] best Spectators may be warn'd not to think too well of themselves.

He quotes the Old Batchelor twice P. 171. 172. in this Chapter. His first Quotation is made with his usual assurance and fair dealing.

Here he makes a Flourish upon ill Nature's being recommended as a Guard of Vertue and of Health, &c.

The whole Matter of Fact is no more than this.

It is his Interpretation; and it is agreeable to his Character. He is a Debauchee, and he thinks there is but one way for Women to be kind [Page 91] and tender-hearted; and, I think, his threat'ning them with such a Curse as the consequence of too much easiness, does not seem to recom­mend the Vice at all, but rather to forbid it: His very Leudness, in this place, is made moral and instructive.

I am very glad our Author is in such Circumstances, in this Chapter, that he can bear the sight of that Hel­lish Syllable, Pox; and prevail with himself to write it at its full length. Non ita pridem. In Page 82. he loves his Love with a P—but no naming: That is not like a Cavalier. What Ermin was ever an Instance of super­fine Nicety comparable to Mr. Col­lier? I will not say, what Cat? Tho' if I should, I can quote a Spanish Pro­verb to justifie the Comparison.

He makes one Quotation more, to what purpose indeed I know not; but I will repeat it, in Justice to him, [Page 92] because it is the last that he has made, and the first fair one. Old Batch. Act 4. Belinda to Sharp.

These are the Words just as the Gentleman quotes'em; but why, or wherefore, he is not pleas'd to disco­ver; for he says not one Syllable, for, nor against 'em: I suppose he thinks the Proof plain, and the Evi­dence firm without a Coroborator.

I hope the Reader will not forget, that these Instances are produc'd, to prove that I have encourag'd Immo­rality in my Plays. I thought the Ex­pression, above-mentioned, had been a gentle Reproof to the Ladies that are addicted to railing; and since Mr. Collier has not said that it must [Page 93] mean the contrary, I don't see why it may not be understood so still?

I have now gone thorough with all Mr. Collier's Quotations; I have been as short as I could possibly in their Vindication; I have avoided all Re­criminations, and have not so much as made one Citation from any of my Plays in favour of them: Whatever they contain of Morality, or Inve­ctives against Folly and Vice, is no more than what ought to be in them; therefore I do not urge it as a Merit.

My Business was not to paint, but to wash; not to shew Beauties, but to wipe off Stains.

Mr. Collier has indeed given me an opportunity of reforming many Er­rors, by obliging me to a review of my own Plays.

[Page 94]But I must affirm, that they are only Errors occasion'd by Inadverten­cy or Inexperience, and that I am con­scious of nothing that can make me liable to his Censure, or rather Slan­der. I am as ready to own the Ad­vantages I have received from his Book, as to demonstrate the Wrongs; if I resent the latter, it is because they were intended me; and if I do not thank him for the other, it is because they were not: He would have poi­son'd me, but he overdosed it, and the Excess of his Malice has been my Security.

To give him his due, he seems every where to write more from Pre­judice, than Opinion; he rails when he should reason; and for gentle Re­proofs, uses scurrilous Reproaches. He looks upon his Adversaries to be his Enemies; and to justifie his Opinion in that Particular, before he has done with them, [Page 95] he makes them so. If there is any Spirit in his Arguments, it evaporates and flies off unseen, thro' the heat of his Passion. His Passion does not on­ly make him appear in many Places to be in the wrong, but it also makes him appear to be conscious of it. That which shews the Face of Wit in his Writing, has indeed no more than the Face; for the Head is wanting. Wit is at the best but the Sign to good understanding; it is hung out to recom­mend the Entertainment which may be found within: And it is very well when the Invitation can be made good. As the outward Form of God­liness is Hypocrisie, which very often conceals Irreligion and Immorality; so is Wit also very often an Hypocri­sie, a Superficies glaz'd upon false Judgment, a good Face set on a bad Understanding.

It is a Mask which Mr. Collier sometimes wears, but it does not fit [Page 96] the Mold of his Face; he presumes too much on the Security of his Dis­guise, and very often ventures till he is discover'd: He does not know him­self in his Foreign Dress, and from thence concludes that no body else can. His Ancestor of honour'd Me­mory, recorded in Aesop, miscarried thro' the same Self-sufficiency. Mr. Col­lier, when he cloathed himself in the Lion's Skin, should have thought of an Expedient to have conceal'd his Ears: But, it may be, he is proud of them, and thinks it proper to shew that he has them both, and at their full length.

He has put himself to some pain to shew his Reading; and his Reading is such, that it puts us to pain to be­hold it. He discovers an ill Taste in Books, and a worse Digestion. He has swallow'd so much of the Scum of Authors, that the overflowing of his own Gall was superfluous to make [Page 97] it rise upon his Stomach. But he ought in good Manners to have stept aside, and not to have been thus nau­seous and offensive to the Noses of the whole Country. But as his Reading would not stay with him, so his Wri­ting ran away with him.

Ben Iohnson, in his Discoveries, says, There be some Men are born only to suck Iohns. Disc. P. 702. the Poison of Books. Habent venenum pro victu imo pro deliciis. And such are they that only relish the obscene and foul things in Poets; which makes the Profes­sion tax'd: But by whom? Men that watch for it, &c. Something farther in the same Discoveries, He is speaking again very much to our purpose; for it is in justification of presenting vici­ous and foolish Characters on the Stage in Comedy. It seems some People were angry at it then; let us compare his Picture of them, with Iohns. Disc. P. 714. the Characters of those who quarrel at it now. It sufficeth (says he) I [Page 98] know what kind of Persons I displease, Men bred in the declining and decay of Vertue, betrothed to their own Vices; that have a­bandoned, or prostituted their good Names; hungry and ambitious of Infamy, invested in all Deformity, enthrall'd to Ignorance and Malice, of a hidden and conceal'd Ma­lignity, and that hold a concomitancy with all Evil.

'Tis strange that Mr. Collier should oversee these two Passages, when he was simpling in the same Field where they both grow. This is pretty plain; because in the 51st Page of his Book he presents you with a Quotation from the same Discoveries, as one intire Pa­ragraph, tho' severally collected from the 706 and 717th Pages of the Ori­ginal; so that he has read both be­fore, and beyond these Passages. But a Man that looks in a Glass often, walks away, and forgets his resem­blance.

Mr. Collier's Vanity in pretending [Page 99] to Criticism, has extremely betray'd his Ignorance in the Art of Poetry; this is manifest to all that understand it. And methinks his Affectation of seeming to have read every thing, sometimes betrays him to Confessions that are not much to his Advantage. I wonder he is not asham'd to own, that he is so well acquainted with the [...] of Aristophanes. The Dialogues of Aretine, or Aloïsia, are not more obscene than that Piece. The Author there, as Mr. Bays says, does egad name the thing directly, and that in above a hundred Places. But per­haps Mr. Collier meant to veil that Play under a Misnommer (to use his Coll. P. 44. own Phrase); and when he call'd it Concianotores, thought we could not discover, that in spite of his Artifice, or his Ignorance, he must mean no o­ther than the leud Concionatrices, or Parliament-Women of Aristophanes. He has indeed rak'd together a [Page 100] strange number of Authors Names: But as Gideon's Army of Two and thirty thousand was order'd to be re­duc'd to Three hundred; so his rab­ble of Citations, without any loss to him, might be reduc'd to a much less number: But his Business is not Dis­cipline, but Tumult. He appears like Captain Tom at the Head of a People that are shuffled together, neither the World, nor they, nor He, can tell why; but since they are met, Plun­der is the Word, and the Play-house is first to be demolish'd.

He has outdone Bays in his grand Dance; nay, the Heathen Philoso­phers in their Notions of the grand Chaos, never imagin'd a greater con­fusion. All Religions, all Countries, all Ages, are jumbled together, to ex­plode what all Religions, all Coun­tries, and all Ages have allow'd. He is not contented with his Battalia, com­pounded of Bramins, Brachmans, Muf­ties, [Page 101] Councils, Fathers, the Bishop of Arras, &c. But the Philosophers, nay, the very Poets themselves are press'd to the Service.

Cicero endeavour'd with all his might to get himself a Name in Poe­try; and Aristotle preferr'd Tragedy e­ven to Philosophy. But Mr. Collier has converted them both; in short, be­tween him, and the Bishop of Arras, they have been seduc'd and inviegl'd over to the other side.

He pretends to triumph in the heart of Parnassus, and has sown dissention in the bosoms of some of the chief Pro­prietors. Ovid and the Plain Dealer are revolted, and take Arms against their Brethren, while Mr. Collier sings with Lucan and Hudibras of— Civil Fury, &c.

I wish his Seeds of Sedition were [Page 102] not scatter'd elsewhere; for here I think they will hardly thrive. What effect his Doctrine in private Families will have, I know not, when the Su­periority P. 139. comes to be disputed be­tween the Country-Gentlemen, and their Chaplains; or rather, as Mr. Col­lier has establish'd it, between the Chaplains, and their Country-Gentle­man.

I am not the only one who look on this Pamphlet of his to be a Gun le­vell'd at the whole Laity, while the shot only glances on the Theatre; what he means by the Attack, or what may be its Consequences, I know not, and I suppose he cares not. Bellum inchoant inertes, fortes finiunt. But there are those who will not be dis­pleas'd at an occasion of making Re­criminations. With respect to his Parts, it is no wise thing to give any body an Example of searching into Books for negligent and foolish Ex­pressions. [Page 103] Divines have sometimes forgot themselves in Controversial Writings; Disputes begun, or pre­tended to have been begun on Points of Faith, have ended in scurrilous and personal Reflections; and from Tracts of Divinity, have degenerated into Pasquils and Lampoons. That Mr. Col­lier has laid the Foundation of such a Controversie, I think is apparent; but I hope his Credit is not sufficient to engage any body to go on with the Building.

He has assaulted the Town in the Seat of their principal, and most rea­sonable Pleasure. Down with the Theatre right or wrong. Delenda est Carthago, let the Consequence be what it will. That was a very rash Maxim; and if Cato had liv'd to have seen its Effects, he would have repen­ted it▪ To persecute an Allie (and that desires no more than to continue in our Alliance) as an Enemy, is a [Page 104] weak, and barbarous Piece of Policy.

Persecution makes Men persevere in the right; and Persecution may make 'em persist in the wrong. Men may, by ill usage, be irritated some­times to assert and maintain, even their very Errors. Perhaps there is a vicious Pride of triumphing in the worst of the Argument, which is ve­ry prevailing with the Vanity of Man­kind; I cannot help thinking that our Author is not without his share of this Vanity. I think truly he had a fair appearance of Right on his side in the Title Page of his Book; but with reason I think I may also affirm, that by his mis-management he has very much weak'ned his Title. He that goes to Law for more than his Right, makes his Pretensions, even to that which is his Right, suspected; as a true Story loses its Credit, when rela­ted from the Mouth of a known Liar.

Mr. Collier's many false Citations, [Page 105] make his true suspected; and his mis­application of his true Citations, very much arraign both his Judgment and Sincerity. His Authorities from the Fathers (with all due respect to them) are certainly no more to the purpose, than if he had cited the two Attick Laws against the Licentiousness of the Old Comedy; in Truth not so much: For the Invectives of the Fa­thers, were levell'd at the Cruelty of the Gladiators, and the Obscenity of the Partomimes. If some of them have confounded the Drama with such spe­ctacles, it was an oversight of Zeal very allowable in those days; and in the Infaney of Christianity, when the Religion of the Heathens was inter­mingled with their Poetry and Thea­tral Representations; therefore Chri­stians, then, might very well be for­bidden to frequent even the best of them. As for our Theatres, St. Austin and Lactantius knew no more of them, [Page 106] than they did of the Antipodes; and Vid. St. Aust. de Civ. Dei. l. 16. c. 9. & Lact. de fals. Sap. 23. they might with as much difficulty have been perswaded, that the former would in after-times be tolerated in a Christian State, as that the latter wou'd be receiv'd for a manifest and com­mon Truth, and made intelligible to the Capacity of every Child.

To what end has he made such a Bugbear of the Theatre? Why would he possess the Minds of weak and me­lancholick People with such frightful Ideas of a poor Play? Unless to sowre the humours of the People of most leisure, that they might be more apt to mis-employ their vacant hours. It may be there is not any where a Peo­ple, who should less be debarr'd of innocent Diversions, than the People of England. I will not argue this Point; but I will strengthen my Observation with one Parallel to it from Polybius; That excellent Author, who always moralizes in his History, and instructs [Page 107] as faithfully as he relates; in his 4th Book, attributes the the Ruin of Cy­nethia by the Aetolians, in plain Terms, to their degeneracy from their Arcadi­an Ancestors, in their neglect of Thea­tral and Musical Performances. The Cynethians (says my Author) had their Situation the farthest North in all Ar­cadia; they were subjected to an in­clement and uncertain Air, and for the most part cold and melancholick; and, for this reason, they of all Peo­ple should last have parted with the innocent and wholesome Remedies, which the Diversions of Musick admi­nistred to that sowrness of Temper, and sullenness of Disposition, which of necessity they must partake from the Disposition and Influence of their Climate; ‘For they no sooner fell to Vid. Transl. by Sir H. Sheer, Vol. 2. p. 46. neglect these wholesome Institu­tion, when they fell into Dissen­tions and Civil Discords, and grew at length into such depravity of [Page 108] Manners, that their Crimes in num­ber and measure surpass'd all Na­tions of the Greeks beside.’

He gives us to understand, that their Chorus's on the Theatres, their frequent Assemblies of young People, Men and Women, mingling in Mu­sical Performances, were not institu­ted by their Ancestors out of Wanton­ness and Luxury, but out of Wis­dom; from a deliberated and effe­ctual Policy, and for the Reasons a­bove noted. Much more might be cited from Polybius, who has made a very considerable digression on this occasion.

The Application of what I have borrow'd, is very plain. Is there in the World a Climate more uncertain than our own? And which is a natu­ral Consequence, Is there any where a People more unsteady, more apt to discontent, more saturnine, dark, and melancholick than our selves? Are we [Page 109] not of all People the most unfit to be alone, and most unsafe to be trust­ed with our selves? Are there not more Self-murderers, and melancho­lick Lunaticks in England, heard of in one Year, than in a great part of Eu­rope besides? From whence are all our Sects, Schisms, and innumerable Subdivisions in Religion? Whence our Plots, Conspiracies, and Seditions? Who are the the Authors and Con­trivers of these things? Not they who frequent the Theatres and Consorts of Musick. No, if they had, it may be Mr. Collier's Invective had not been levell'd that way; his Gun-Powder-Treason Plot upon Musick and Plays (for he says Musick is as dangerous as p. 279. Gun-Powder) had broke out in ano­ther Place, and all his False-Witnes­ses been summoned elsewhere.