WE have had lately a Curious and Learned Survey of the Immorality and Profaness of the Stage; but, tho' that Author hath done excellently well, there may still be some Gleanings left for another. Mr. Collier strikes directly at the Miscarriages of the Stage, because they were most obvious and nearest to View; but this ought not supersede the Endeavours of others, nor to put a stop to their Inquiry into the Root of the Mischief.

If the Foundation be sapp'd, the Superstructures must • umble of course; and it signifies little to patch the Roof, or to tell us that it Rains in at the Sky-Lights, when an Inundation comes in at Doors and Windows.

There's none can be fit to write for the Stage, that hath not first been at School; and if we be instructed there in Plays and Romances, its but natural we should think our selves good Proficients, and that we have in a great measure answered the End of our Education, when we can oblige the World with those of our own Composure. —If the Amorous Passages of Ovid, Terence, Plautus, &c. be thought commendable Patterns, fit to be put into the hands of Youth, and by them imbib'd as proper Nourishment, why should not the Harvest answer the Seed-time▪ or why should the Scholar be blam'd to Vi • with his Masters Copy? or when time and opportunity serves, to sett up for a Master himself?

IF our Shepherds have no better Morals than to feed their Lambs with the Milk of Goats, why should they not expect that their Flocks in time should come to smell P • nk, and where's the Justice to bait and worry them when they do so?

If the Pulpits be so grosly negligent, as not to tell us with Tertullian De Spe • lac. c. 24., that Stage-Plays are the Chief of those Pomps that we abjure at Baptism; or if they will needs Canonize one as a Martyr and Saint, who by Royal Authority introduc'd the Use of Masks and Plays into his Court and Dominions on Sundays, and never testified his Repentance for it to the World; why should not they who write and frequent Plays think they are in the Path Road to Heaven as well as he? and why may not they who distinguish themselves from others by such like performances, hope some time or other to bear him company in the Calendar?

If the Head and Fathers of the Church did prosecute Mr. Prin for his Histriomastrix, and condemn those for Schismaticks who would not Comply with Laud's Book of Sports and Pastimes on Sundays, whereof Masks and Opera's at Court led the Van, why should not the Writing and Haunting of Plays be reckon'd genuine Marks of a true Son of the Church, and the contrary the Badge of one that is no true Church-man? as a certain Clergy-man thought fit to express it in relation to K. William because of his not frequenting the Play-house.

Let the Clergy, if they seriously design a Reform in this particular, strike St. Ch—s out of their Calender, or declare their opposition to St. Chrysostom Hom. 6. in Matt., Tertullian Tertul. de spectaculis, and many others that might be named, who thought the writing and frequenting of Plays to be damnable without Repentance, and much more the commanding and patron •• ing them.

It cannot be denied but Mr. Collier has writ ingeniously, and has taken a great deal of pains to hew and lop off the Branches; and considering how much the Play-house was favoured in the Reign of Charles I. by some of the highest Dignity in the Church, we have more reason to wonder that he hath said so much, than that he hath said any thing too little, because that part of the Sense of Antiquity, which he hath repeated to us in this Matter, does obliquely condemn that Prince whom so many Ecclesiasticks of great Note, have always accounted a Martyr: Besides, his writing against Plays at present, and some of the principal Authors of them, is not like to be accounted an extraordinary piece of Service to the Courts of St. Germains and Versails. If we consider that the Restoring and Incouraging of Playhouses, was one of the chief Expedients of those who were resolved to put Cardinal Mazarins Advice in Execution, which was to debauch the Nation, in order to the better Introducing of Po • ory and Slavery; and therefore those who reflect upon Mr. Collier Defence of Dramatick Poetry. p. 30, 37. for his Nonjurancy, for his Book, called, A Perswasive to Consideration: and for his Absolving Sir William Perkins and Sir Iohn Friend at Tyburn, ought not to be angry with him for writing against the Stage.

If all our Church-men had done their Duty as well as Mr. Collier has done his, in this Matter, Stage-Plays had never b • en suffered in the Nation, nor had there been the least pretence for their Usefulness: But in K. Charles I. Time, they were necessary to Ridicule the Puritans, and run down the Patrons of Liberty and Property. And in K. Char. II. Reign, they were no less wanted to lash the Dissenters and Whiggs that oppos'd Tyranny, and needful to promote the Glorious Design of Debauching the Nation, and to baffle the Evidence of the Popish Plots. And now, by the just Judgment of God, the Clergy, who did but too much Countenance the Proceedings of those Reigns, are lash'd and expos'd in the Play-houses themselves, which Mr. Collier complains of▪ This it's hop'd will cure their Itch of Adorning or rather disguising the Doctrines of the Gospel, with the Phrase of the Stage, and their fondness of Reading Plays for refining their Stile.

No Clergy-man can propose to himself any justifiable End in Reading Plays, but that which Mr. Collier has excellently perform'd, to wit, the exposing their Immorality and Profaneness, and to discover their Failure in their pretended Designs.

It is altogether unsufferable to hear a sort of young Divines, Regale our Ears from the Pulpit, with the Rhetorick of a Play, while at the same time they Treat the Phrase of the Scripture, and the Language of Antient and Learned Divines as Unintelligible Cant; and yet that this hath been, and is still too common amongst some of our Clergy-men, cannot be denied: So long as those Writings of Parkers and others, which call the New Birth a Fantastical Iargon, or those Sermons which treat the Doctrine of St. Austin, Calvin and Beza, nay, and of the Articles of the Church of England too, as Stuff and Cant, have an Existence.

Mr. Collier and others may write Volumes against the Stage as long as they please, but they will find it to little purpose, whilst the Plays are so much read and incourag'd by the Clergy, and by 'em retail'd again to the People. If the Language of the Play-house be thought fit to be made use of, as an Ornament to a Sermon, the Hearers will be apt to conclude that the Stage is not so Criminal a Thing as some Men would have it accounted. And seeing Mr. Collier has been so much approv'd for lashing the Poets and the Stage, there's no reason to think that it should be taken amiss in another, to censure the vanity of such of the Clergy as write Plays or Preach in that Dialect, and have neglected to inform their People of the Danger of the Play-house.

Had they taken due care to instruct their Auditors in this Matter at Church, the Audiences would never have been so numerous at the Stage: For why should I think there's any hurt in the Theatre, when I see that its ordinary for our Gallants on a Saturday to prepare themselves by a Play for Hea • ing a Sermon on Sunday: Nay, sometimes it may be for the Sacrament. And yet the Parson hath not the Courage or Honesty to reprove it; but perhaps chuses it as the most proper way to recommend himself to the Applause of his Hearers, to deliver his Preachment in the stile of a Comedy.

Our Wits indeed, when passing their Judgment on a Sermon, think they give the Preacher a large Encomium, when they say he has read abundance of Play-Books. Which let our Youngsters in Divinity value as they please, I should think it the most picquant Satyr that could be put upon me, were I worthy of bearing the Indelible Character.

But that those flanting Preachers may have no occasion to say that I am alone in this Matter, I shall pray them to consider the following Authorities. Prosper says to such De Vita Contemp. lib. 3. cap. 6. fol. 105., Whilst they would seem Nice and Elegant, they grow perfectly Mad with fulsom Expressions. St. Ierom writing to Nepotianus, Advises him when he is Preaching in the Church, To labour for the Groans and not for the Applause of his Hearers.—Not to behave himself like a Declaimer of feigned Orations, or a pretended Advocate, and to talk without Measure. The Sermon of a Minister ought to be seasoned with Quotations from ScriptureEpist. 22. c. 15.. Prosper Aquitanicus says, That a Preacher ought not to value himself upon the Accuracy of his Stile, except he have more mind to shew his own Learning, than to edifie the Church of God. That his Sermon ought to be so plain, that the most ignorant Persons may understand it; the business of Declaimers or Makers of Orations being one thing, and that of Preachers another: The former endeavour to set off the • omp of an Elaborate Speech, with the utmost strength of their Eloquence: The latter seek after the Glory of God, in a sober and plain DiscourseDe Vita Contemp. lib. 1. c. 23, 24, 25.. Of the same Opinion are St. • erom, Ambrose, Theodoret, Theophylact, and others; as appears by their Commentaries on 1 Cor. 2. 1. &c.

Isidorus Pelusiot a taxes some Monks of his time for their affected Stile in Preaching. Who can abstain from Satyrs against you (says he) when they hear your Sermons cram'd with Heathen Historians and Poets? Pray what is there in them preferable to our Religion?—Therefore either let your Sermons be Grave, and prefer a Modest Stile to big swelling Words and pompous Rhetorick, or give me leave to say, That you are fitter for the Stage than the PulpitEpist. l. 1. Epist. 62, 63.

The Bishop of Chemnis in his Onus EcclesiaeCap. 16., has very remarkable Sa • ings to this purpose; and amongst others those that follow. In these last days—the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures is utterly lost; the Preachers being puffed up with Knowledge, teach their own Notions. They extol the Learning of the Heathen Philosophers, and thereby darken the Sun-shine of Christian Wisdom: And now most of the Schools, where Divinity was formerly taught, are filled with Poetical • ictions, Empty Trifles and Monstrous Fables. The Preachers hunt after their own Applause, and study to gratifie the Ears of their Auditors with Ornat and Polite Discourses; But true Sermons are better than those that are Elegant. And let those Eloquent Doctors know, that our Saviour says of them, In vain do ye Worship me, teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men.

To conclude this Point with the Authority of the Apostle St. Paul 1 Cor. 2. 4.; he commends his own Sermons because his Speech and his Preaching was not with enticing Words of Mans Wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of Power; yet this great Apostle of the Gentiles was brought up at the Feet of Gamaliel, and had more humane Learning than 20 of our fluttering Doctors.

It is not my design to cry down Eloquence in a Preacher, nor to commend a rough way of Expression from the Pulpit. Eloquence is the Gift of God, and commended in the Preacher Apollos; but at the same time we are told, That he was mighty in the Scriptures and taught diligently the things of the Lord Acts 18. 24, 25..

It's reckoned highly prophane (and Mr. Collier has smartly reproved it) for Poets to apply the Phrase of the Scripture to the use of the Stage; and I see no reason why Vice Versa, it should not be liable to that same Censure, to adopt the Phrase of the Stage, for the Language of the Pulpit, not that it's absolutely Unlawful for a Preache • to quote an apposite Sentence or Verse, either from Greek, Latine or other Poets. The Apostle himself hath taught us the contrary by his own Example, when he tells the Cretians that one of their own Poets says, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Tit. 1. 12..

But it is an intolerable Affectation of Novelty, when a New Word or a Quaint Phrase is no sooner published in a Play or Gazzette, but we shall the next Sunday after hear it out of the Pulpit. This is so far from holding fast the Form of sound Words, as St. Paul enjoyned Timothy 2 Tim. 1. 13., that it is rather the prophane and vain Babbling, he commanded him to avoid; and which1 Tim. 6. 20. Calvin upon the place, says is, Inanis tinnitus & profanus —Simulat que Doctores it a inflant suas tibias ad suam Eloquentiam Venditandam: A prophane and empty Jingle which the Doctors make use of to set off their Eloquence.

It were an easie matter to quote as many Sermons, guilty of these Vanities, as Mr. Collier has quoted Plays guilty of abusing Scripture; but for obvious Reasons I forbear it. The only cause why I mention it, is to shew that it is not the Poets alone, that support the Credit of the Stage, and that what is Criminal in a Poet, is ten times worse in a Priest; and therefore they ought not to pass without a Reproof.

It's known, there are many godly Persons amongst our Clergy, who bewail those things, and oppose them as much as they can; but there is a mighty Neglect somewhere, and the World will hardly be perswaded that our Church of England is unanimous in this Matter, else it were easie for them, who shook King James out of his Throne, to overturn the Stage.

It is not to be supposed that the King and Parliament would deny the Clergy such a Request, if it were duly presented; and considering how much the Nation hath▪ suffered in its Morals and Religion, by the Licentiousness of the Stage, it's high time that some effectual Course should be taken to suppress it.

But there's reason to fear that the Faction begun by Arch-bishop Laud, has still too great an interest amongst our Clergy; for scarcely can any other reason be imagined, why, after so many Years Experience of the Mischief of the Stage, the Church should be so silent in this Matter. That there is something in this, I am very apt to think, because of the Deference many of the Clergy men pay to the Memory of that Prelate, and of his Master King Charles I. whom he help'd to mislead. In those Times, as Mr. Prin acquaints us in his Histriomastix, none were accounted Enemies to the Play-house but Puritans and Precisians, and in opposition to them it probably was that Laud and his Clergy became its Patrons; and it is not unlike that many of the Less-thinking Church-men continue still to favour it on that Account, as being unwilling to condemn that, for which King Charles I. and Arch-bishop Laud testified so much Passion; but these Gentlemen would do well to remember, That the Defence of the Stage was never so much the Characteristick of their church, as was the Doctrine of Passive Obedience; and seeing the Majority of them have relinquished that, they are infinitely the more to blame for still adhering to this.

If a Petition of the Londoners had so much Influence on Queen Elizabeth, as to get the Play-houses suppress'd, and if the Stage was expresly condemned by a Statute of King Iames I. we have no reason to despair of obtaining the same now upon the like Application. And methinks the Clergy are more concerned to stir in it than ever, seeing it would appear by Mr. Collier's third Chapter, Of the Clergy abused by the Stage, that the Theatre is now become a Nusano • to themselves.

It is apparent enough from what has been said already, that the Clergy are chargeable with the Mischief of the Stage, by the omitting of what their Character obliges them to do against it, and that many of them are also Culpable by seeming to hallow its Phrase in the Pulpit; but this is not all, as will appear by what follows.

We have heard that the Stage was condemned by Act of Parliament in King Iames I. Time, but reviv'd again in the Reign of K. Charles, contrary to Law; and that Operas were practised in his own Court, by his Royal Authority on Sundays. Now considering how much that Prince was devoted to the Interest of the Clergy, it's highly improbable that he would have atttempted any such thing, had the then Governing part of the Church given him faithful warning against it, but Laud and the other topping Church-men of that time, were so far from opposing it, that they concur'd with him, & imposed a Book of Sports and Pastimes, upon all their Clergy, to be read to the People on Sundays, which was a fair step towards converting all the Churches of the Nation into Play-houses.

This great Example did so much incourage the Stage, that Mr. Prin tells us in his Book before-mentioned, in two Years time there were above 40000 Play-Books printed: They became more vendible than the choicest Sermons: Grew up from Quarto's to Folio's; were printed on far better Paper than most of the Octavo or Quarto Bibles, and were more saleable than they. And Shackspeers Plays in particular were printed in the best • Paper.—The two old Play-houses were rebuilt and enlarged, and a new Theatre erected; so that there were then six Play-houses in London, twice the number of those in Rome in Nero's Time, which though a much more spacious City, Seneca complains of as being too many. That Faction of the Clergy became at last so enamour'd of the Stage, that the same Author informs uspag. 935., He had heard some Preachers call their Text a Land-skip or Picture, and others a Play or Spectacle, dividing their Texts into Actors, Spectators, Scenes, &c. as if they had been Acting a Play. Upon which he complains of their using Play-house Phrases, Clinches and strong Lines, as they called them; and that it was to to frequent to have Sermons in respect of their Divisions, Language, Action, Stile and Subject Matter, fitter for the Stage from whence they were borrowed, than for the Pulpit. He tells uspag. 929. further, That one Atkinson a Minister in Bedford, did the Christtide before, Act a private Interlude in the Commissaries House there, where he made a Prayer on the Stage; chose the Words, Acts 10. 14. I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean, for his Text; preached prophanely upon it, and jested to the shame and grief of most that heard him. In that same place he complains that in private as well as in popular Stage-plays, they represented Ministers Preaching and Praying, and brought the Sacred Bible and the Stories of it on the Stage, contrary to the Statute of 3. Iac. Cap. 21.

The same Author tells us likewisepag. 241., That one Giles Widdowes in a Sermon at Carfolkes in Oxford, on Psalm 68. verse 25. did avowedly justifie the Lawfulness of mix'd Dancing at Church-ales and Maypoles upon the Lords Day, and confirm'd his Doctrine by his own Practise. And page 700. he informs us of three Doctors of Divinity, viz. Dr. Gager, Dr. Gentiles and Dr. Case, who writ in Defence of Stage-plays. And page 979. he insinuates, that diverse of the Clergy had acted and danced on publick and private Stages.

The Theatre having thus made so large a Conquest, as to get the Court and the Governing part of the Church on its side, grew Rampant, and as if it disdained to have any less Adversary than God himself, did boldly usurp on the Sabbath Afternoons. And thus in the Year 1637. Masks were set up at Court on Sundays, by His Majesties Authority, while at the same time Laud and his Faction forbad Preaching any oftner than once a day, and that the common People who could not bear the Expence, nor have the Opportunities of Stage-plays, might not want one however to prophane the Sabbath, the Book of Sports and Pastimes was enjoyned by the Bishops to be read in the Churches by their Inferior Clergy on pain of Deprivation.

Action Replys,

Here's a jerk at the Citizens whom the Court Characterized thus in those Times, and a flout at Original Sin, denying our Depravation by Nature; a practise very becoming the Head of the Church, to run down her Doctrine: But more of this Anon.

Imposture Answers,

Here again Imposture talks out of Character, when he owns his lascivious Principles, but a little Amour must be pull'd in by Head and Shoulders, the better to edifie the young Gallants after Sermon.

Action upbraids Imposture in his Reply, thus,

Here Action becomes a stout Champion for Vertue to insinuate to the Spectators, that it was lodg'd at Court, and not amongst its Opposers.

Imposture Answers, with a severe scoff upon the Clergy.

To which Action Answers.

Now Action has got his Rant out; here's whole Peals of Ordnance and Chain-shot, against those that adher'd to the Doctrine of the Church of England, against Laud's Arminianism: The charge is no less, than that they are Enemies to the Church, and accuse God of Tyranny towards Men. Whilst Birds and Beasts frisk and flutter about in their gawdy Furs and Feathers, we poor Mortals are called to Mourning, Repentance and Humiliation; a sort of Doctrine the Stage will have nothing to do with, except it be to ridicule it. But here's not one word all this while, that Man hath sinn'd, and therefore must sorrow before he can lay any solid Claim to be a sharer in Joy. That was none of the Poets business; he was to preach up Mirth and Jollity, and to perswade to it by an unanswerable Argument. The Beas • s and Birds are so, and therefore we should be so too. Then at the Conclusion, comes the old false Charge against Seriousness in Religion. It deprives us of all the Comforts of Life; and condemns us to Rags and Melancholy; enough to make the Gallants of the Audience out of Love with it for all their Days, and to ridicule Clergymen of all sorts; a proper Work for the Evening of the Sabbath.

The next Entertainment is Merlin the Prophetick Magician, brought upon the Stage by Impostures means, to conjure up from Hell the great Seducers of the Nation, and upon Merlins striking the Air with his Rod. The whole Scene, says our Poet, was transformed into an horrid Hell, from the Suburbs of which, enter the several Antimasks.

One can hardly imagine what was the design of this piece of Foolery, except it were to turn Hell into Ridicule, by such a Representation of its Inhabitants, or to be a pattern for the Sports and Pastimes that were enjoyn'd upon the Country for Sundays, by His Majesties Declaration: But let any Man judge, whether such a Paltry Opera as this, was becoming the Majesty of a Court on any day, or let King Charles I. his Admirers, give us an instance if they can, that ever any Martyr imployed themselves thus before on a Sunday.

After this, Hell (says our Poet) suddenly vanishes, and there appears a vast Forrest, in which stood part of an old Castle, kept by a Giant: Who by his Character, one of those in Guild-hall, was not big enough to be his Page. He is described thus,

Had I been worthy to have advised the Poet, he should have sav'd himself the labour of this witty Composure. The Story of Gara Gantua or Don Quixot, would have been as diverting sure as this, and equally fit for a Digestion after Sermon on Sunday.

The rest I'll venture briefly to tell in Prose, for the Verse is not (in my Opinion) very charming. —The Giant in his way home spied a Knight and a Lady under a Hedge, within his Purlieus, and laying down his Whale goes toward them in great fury spurning up Trees by the Roots as he went; asks the Knight how he and his Damsel durst com • thither? demands the Lady to be his Cook to dress his Whale, and threatens to beat out the Knights Brains with an Oaken Tree, if he refused her. The Lady made an Apology, That they came thither only to gather Sloes and Bullies—. The Knight takes him up sharply for offering such a Disgrace to his Lady; and at last by Merlin's Art, the Scuffle was turned into Fantastick Musick, and a Dance.

I pass over the rest of this impertinent Stuff, and leave Merlin to retire to his Stygian Shade a while; tho' I think he could scarcely be entertained there with greater Works of Darkness, than those that were then acted at Whitehall.

[Merlin and Imposture being gone of]

In the further part of the Scene, the Earth open'd, and there rose up a richly adorned Pallace; seeming all of Goldsmiths-work, with Portic • s Vaulted, on Pillasters of Rustick Work; their Bases and Capitels of Gold, in the midst was the principal Entrance, and a Gate; The Doors Leaves with Figures of Basse Releeve, with Jambs and Frontispiece all of Gold; Above these ran an Architrave Freese, and Coronis of the sarne; the Freese enrich'd with Jewels: This bore up a Ballestrata, in the midst of which, upon an high Tower with many Windows, stood FAME, in a Carnation-Garment trim'd with Gold, with white Wings and flaxen Hair; in one Hand a Golden Trumpet, and in the other an Olive Garland.

In the lower part, leaning on the Rail of the Ballasters were two Persons; that on the right Hand personating Arms with a Curace and plum'd Helm, and a broken Lance in his Hand.

On the left Hand a Woman in a Watchet Robe trim'd with Silver, on her Head a Bend, with little Wings like those of Mercury, and a Scroul of Parchment in her Hand, representing Science.

When this Pallace was arriv'd to the hight, the whole Scene was chang'd into a Peristilium of two Orders, Dorick and Ionick, with their several Ornaments seeming of white Marble, the Bases and Capitels of Gold. This joining with the former, having so many Returns, Openings and Windows, might well be known for the Glorious Pallace of Fame.

A Very odd Medley to assign one part of the Lord's Day to his own Worship, and another for the Representation of an Heathen Goddess! This was not the practise of the Primitive Martyrs.

But now we come to the chief Design of thi • Mask; which was to celebrate the Praises 〈◊〉 K. Charles I. Britanocles, as Bell • rophon expresses it

Was not this Religiously done to convert any part of t • e Sabbath, wherein we ought to Cele • rate the Praises of our Great Redeemer, to be • mispent in such Fulsom Praises of any Mortal Man? and was it not just from God (whatever may be said as to the Instruments) that he whose Power they so blasphemously extol over Sea and Land, should afterwards find himself too Weak for a Party of his own Subjects, that he should receive his first Discomsiture from them on the Sabbath, which he had so horribly profan'd, and be brought to his fatal Exit, in that very Pallace where he suffered God to be so much dishonoured.

Fame having ended her Song: The Masquers came forth of the Peristilium, and stood on each side, and at that instant the Gate of the Pallace opened, and Britanocles appeared.

The Habit of the Masquers was close Bodies of Carnation, embroidered with Silver, their Arming Sleeves of the same, about their Waste two rows of several fashioned Leaves, and under this their Bases of white reaching to the middle of their Thigh; on this was an under Basis, with Labels of Carnation Embroidered with Silver, and betwixt every pain were Pufts of Silver fastned in Knots to the Labels: The trimming of the Shoulders was as that of the Basis; their long Stockings set up, were Carnation, with white Shoes, and Roses; their Bands and Cuffs made of Purles of Cu • -work, upon the Heads little Carnation Caps embroidered as t •• rest, with a slit turn'd up before, out of t •• midst came several falls of white Feathers dim • nishing upwards in a Pyramidical Form. Th •• Habit they chose as beautiful, rich, and light 〈◊〉 dancing, and proper for the subject of this Mas •

The Pallace being sunk, Fame remained h • vering in the Air, rose on her Wings singing a •• was hidden in the Clouds; then the Chor •• sung another Song in Praise of Britanocles.— After which the Masquers descended into th • Room and Danced; which being ended a Ne • Chorus of Modern Poets raised by Merlin 〈◊〉 rich Habits make their Address to the Queen thus,

If Modesty would not blush at such Entertainment on any day, yet certainly Religion would have abhor'd it on a Sunday; and though the Church of Rome would admit of it, it ill became the Head of the Church of England to approve it.

After this the Scene was changed, and in the farthest part the Sea was seen terminating the sight with the Horizon; on the one side was a Haven with a Cittadel, and on the other broken Ground and Rocks, from whence the Sea Nymph Galatea came waving forth, riding on the back of a Dolphin, in a loose Snow-white Garment; above her Neck Chains of Pearl, and her Arms adorn'd with Bracelets of the same; her fair Hair disheveled and mix'd with Silver, and in some part covered with a Veil, which she with one hand graciously held up, being arriv'd to the midst of the Sea, the Dolphin staid, and she sung with a Chorus of Musick.

The Valediction or Farewell was as follows.

Thus I have brought this Mask to a Conclusion. If the Reader think I have inserted too much of it, he may be pleased to consider that it is very rare and sarcely to be had, and being extraordinary, because of its having been Acted on a Sabbath day, I thought it the more necessary to give a large Account of it; that he might see what sort of Religion or Evening Sermons, it was that the Court and Laud's Faction of the Church then aimed at.

Let any Man that has but the least impression of Religion upon his Mind, consider the Valediction, and declare his Opinion, whether it answer that Character of Piety and Chastity which some Men will have K. Charles the first to have been endowed with. There's no Man can deny but it has an amorous▪ Tendency, and must of necessity leave quite another impression upon the Minds of the Hearers, than the blessing which they heard pronounced at Church after Sermon ought to have done, and that the whole Interlude could serve for nothing else but to divert their Meditations from whatever was serious; and therefore the setting up of Masks, and Sports and Pastimes upon Sundays and Holydays, was one of the most effectual Methods that the Enemies of Piety could have invented, to hinder the effect of those Ordinances, which the Church of England looks upon as necessary to promote the Salvation of her People.

I Come next to consider what is offer'd in Defence of the Stage, by a Divine of the Church of England, from the Authority of a Divine of the Church of Rome, viz. by Father Ca •• aro, Divinity Professor at Paris, as I find it annex'd to Mr. Motteuxes Play call'd, Beauty in Distress.

Before I come directly to the Point, it may not be improper to observe, that considering the palpable Influence, which the Stage hath had upon the Corruption of Manners, so much complained of. It seems no very suitable Imployment for one Divine of the Church of England to espouse the Defence of the Stage against another. Nor is it very much for the Defendants Honour to make use of Arrows from a Popish Quiver; for we have no Reason to think that a Popish Divine will be a Cordial Enemy to the Stage; when the Worship of▪ their Church does so much resemble the Pomp of the Theatre.

The Doctors first Argument is, That the Scripture has no express and particular Precept against PLAYS, [Page 10.] Which admitted to be True, is an Argument of no Weight; for Consequences naturally deduc'd from Scripture, have the same Authority with the Text, otherwise it could never be a Rule of Faith and Manners, there being many thousands of things for which it serves as a Rule, that it doth not particularly express: So that the Doctors Argument would be equally servic • able to the Great Turk: There's no Express nor particular Precept against receiving Mohome • , as a Prophet ergo. But it is Naturally and Plainly infer'd from the Scriptures, that because we are not to receive any other Doctrine than is there taught us, therefore we are not to receive Mahomet as a Prophet.

By Consequences of like force, and every whit as plain, we shall find Stage-Plays condemned in Scripture; I mean not only those that are guilty of Immorality, Profaneness, Blasphemy, &c. which the greatest Patrons of the Stage, will not offer to defend, but even Stage-Plays in general, whose Business they will have it to be, to recommend Vertue and discountenance Vice, which I think will be very plain by the following Argument.

That which God hath appointed sufficient Means to Accomplish: It is Unlawful for Men to appoint other Means to Accomplish: But Go • hath appointed sufficient Means for Recommending Vertue, and Discountenancing Vice without the STAGE: Ergo, It is Unlawful for Men to appoint the Stage for Recommending Vertue and Discountenancing Vice.

All t • e Controversie will lie about the first Proposition; but I think there's no Man who has a serious Impression of the infinite Wisdom, Power and Goodness of God upon his Mind, that will call it in Question, seeing he must necessarily by so doing, cast a Reflection upon all those Attributes, and prefer the Wisdom, Power and Goodness of Man, to the Wisdom, Power and Goodness of GOD.

The second Proposition is clear from express Texts of Scripture. The Apostle tells us, That Magistracy is the Ordinance of God: That Rulers are ordained by him to be a Terror to evil Works, and to Praise those that do good: And that they are the Ministers of God, continually attending upon this very thing, Rom. 13. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Whence it is evident, That the Original End and Design of Magistracy, is to Encourage Vertue and to Punish Vice.

And hence it is equally clear, That seeing Commending is a Species of Reward, and Lashing and Exposing a sort of Punishment, the pretended Service of the Stage, for those Ends is wholly needless; God having sufficiently provided for that, by appointing Magistrates.

This being so, the Patrons of the Stage have no other Pretences left them, but such as Mr. Collier enumerates briefly in his Introduction, viz. That the Stage is useful to shew the uncertainty of Humane Greatness; The sudden turns of Fate, and the unhappy Conclusions of Violence and Injustice; To expose the Singularities of Pride and Fancy; To make Folly and Falshhood Contemptible; And to bring every thing that is Ill, under Infamy and Neglect.

But we are infinitely better provided for those Ends, by the Word of GOD, and the Ordinance of the Ministry. We are taught, That the former is able to make us wise unto Salvation: I • given us by Inspiration of God, for Doctrine, Reproof, Correction and Instruction in Righteousness; that we may be perfect, and throughly furnished unto all good Works, 2 Timoth. 2. So that we have no need of the Instruction of the Stage, for any of the Ends above • mentioned.

Are any of our Authors for the Theatre, able to give such a Description of the Uncertainty of Humane Greatness and the Vanity of all Sublunary Things, as Solomon hath given in his Ecclesiastes?

Can any of them give us more surprizing Instances of the sudden Turns of Fate and Revolutions of Providence, than the Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, of Pharaoh and his Host, Sennacherib and his Army, and many others related in the Scriptures, with reference not only to the Publick, but to particular Persons? Nay, are we not i • finitely better accommodated with real Instance • of that Nature, ev'n from profane History, than we possibly can be from their forged ones on the Stage?

Can our Poets shew us more unhappy Conclusions of Violence and Injustice, than those that attended Pharaoh and the other Tyrants that persecuted the People of God?

Are they able to give us Instances of the Singularity of Pride and Tyranny, equal to those of that same Pharaoh, who said, Who is the Lord that I should obey Him? Of Nebuchad • nezzer, who • or his Pride was turn'd a grazing with the Beasts of the Field? Or of Herod, who for his Fantastical Apparel and Pride was eat up of Worms?

Are they able to expose Folly and Falshhood to more Contempt, than the Sacred Scripture does, which tells us, That a Poor and a Wise Child, is better than an Old and a Foolish King, Eccl. 4. 13. And that tho' the Bread of Deceit and Falshood be sweet to a Man, yet afterward his Mouth shall be fill'd with Gravel, Prov. 20. 17.

Hath not God appointed the Ministry, To teach all Nations to observe whatsoever he hath command • d, Matth. 28. 19. To distinguish betwixt the Precious and the Vile, Jer. 15. 19. To use sharpness according to the Power that God hath given them, 2 Corinth. 13. 8, 9, 10. To be instant in Season and out of Season; To Reprove, Reb • ke, Exhort; To Teach us to deny Ungodliness and worldly Lusts; and to live Soberly, Righteously and Godly in this present Evil World, Tit. 2. 12.

Thus the second Proposition is plainly proved, That God hath provided sufficient Means for Recommending Vertue and Discountenancing Vice without the STAGE: Ergo it is Unlawful to Appoint the Stage for Recommending Vertue and Discountenancing Vice.

It may perhaps be objected, That by this Argument the Exhortations and Reproofs of Parents, Masters and Neighbours, are also prov'd to be needless: To which the Answer is ready, That those Duties are enjoyn'd by the Scriptures on Parents, Masters and Neighbours; therefore 'tis the Ministers Duty to urge them, and the Magistrates Duty to see them perform'd; but no such thing can be said of the Stage.

It may perhaps be further objected, That the Magistrate being left at Liberty, as to the Means of Recommending Virtue and Discountenancing Vice, he may appoint the Stage for that End. To which I Answer; The Magistrate is infinitely better provided of Means already: He hath the Ministers to preach the Gospel from the Pulpit; and Judges to explain his Laws from the Bench▪ and is provided with a Sword to protect Vertue and punish Vice.

And therefore to spend Time and Money in that which is needless, would be not only contrary to Scripture Rule, but to Common-sense. Nor can the Patrons of the Stage, give us an Instance, that ever any Magistrate appointed the Stage for those Ends they mention.

We are told in the Introduction to Britania Triumphens, Acted on a Sunday at Whitehall in 1637. as before • mentioned, That Princes of Sweet and Humane Natures have ever, both amo • gst the Antients and Moderns in the best times presented Spectacles and Personal Representation to recreate their Spirits, wasted in Grave Affairs of State, and for the Entertainment of their Nobility, Ladies and Courts. That was the only End, according to the then Poets▪ that the Stage pretended to; but now it seems that they would usurp, both upon the Bench and the Pulpit.

I Come next to consider the Arguments of that Book, call'd, A Defence of Dramatick Poetry: Or, Review of Mr. Collier; and must in the Threshold declare my Agreement with the Ingenious Author, in his PREFACE, That if the Sufferance of the Theatre, be so fatally destructive to Morality, Vertue and Religion as Mr. Collier has endeavoured to render it, he has more Satyriz'd the Pulpit than the Stage; and that this Universal Silence of the whole Clergy must conclude their neglect of their Christian Duty: But I 〈◊〉 beg leave to inform him, that he is mistaken 〈◊〉 he says, Mr. Collier is the first Pulpit or 〈◊〉 Sermon upon that Text: For tho' it be true, 〈◊〉 the Church of England Clergy in general, 〈◊〉 been guilty of a Culpable Silence, as to 〈◊〉 Head, since the Restoration of King Charl •• yet others have not. Nor is Mr. Collier the 〈◊〉 Church of England Divine, who since that 〈◊〉 hath attack'd the Stage from the Pulpit. 〈◊〉 Wesley in a Reformation-Sermon, preached in 〈◊〉 Iames's Church Westminster, Feb. 13. and 〈◊〉 wards at St. Brides, must be allowed to have 〈◊〉 the start of him. Wherein he expresses himsel •• [page 20, &c.] thus:

Thus Mr. Wesley, who our Author knows is none of the most Contemptible of our Poets himself, and is no Enemy to the Stage, but only aims at its Reformation. Yet its plain, his Charge is as heavy against the English Stage, as that of Mr. Collier; though he is for making use of the Pruning-Hook and not of the Ax.

OUR Author [Page 13.] upbraids Mr. Collier, For not quoting a more Modern National Opinion against the Stage, when it lay under a more Universal Abdication, viz. in the Reign of those later Powers at the Helm; who with no little Activity leaped over the Block, and the whole Whitehall-Stage it stood upon, and yet stumbled at the Straw, &c. A prosane Comedy and Tragedy, were all Heathen and Antichristian; but pious Regicide and Rebellion were Religion and Sanctity with them. The Camel would go down, but the Gnat stuck in their Throats.—He ought by all means to have quoted this National Opinion of the Stage in pure Gratitude to the Patrons of his Book, the Gentlemen of the Calves-Head-Feast, who have made it their particular bosom Favorite, &c.

Here's a great deal more of ill Nature than Wit, whether we take it with respect to the Nation, to Mr. Collier, or to the particular Party he reflects upon. It's a Malicious, False and Unmannerly Reflection upon the Nation, to insinuate that King Charles I. was cut off by their Authority, when the World knows, that it was the Act of a prevailing Head-strong Faction, contrary to the Sense of the Nation, and of that very Parliamen • , who began the Opposition to King Charles for his Tyranny and Oppression: if Levying of Money without Consent of Parliament, and forcing the Citizens of London, and others, that would not lend him the Summs he demanded, to serve as Soldiers in his Fleet and Army, and a hundred other such things may be call'd by that Name. It is Malicious upon Mr. Collier to the highest degree, who is known to the World to be for Passive Obedience, the opposite Extreme: It is as full of Spite, against those who are Enemies to the Stage, many of whom abhor the Memory of that Fact, and are zealous Sons of the Church of England; though at the same time they detest Tyranny be it in Prince or Prelate.

But to repay our Author in his own Coin, we have had a later instance of Friends to the Stage, as Goodman and others engaged in a Design of as black a Nature; if the Assassination of the bravest Prince in the Universe may be so accounted. But lest they object, That this is but one instance we shall bring Antiquity in for further Evidence; and in the first Place St. Chrysostom, whoHom. 38. in Mat. Tom. 2. tells us, That the Players and Play haunte • s of his time were most notorious Adulterers, the Authors of many Tumults and Seditions, setting People together by the Ears with idle Rumors, filling Cities with Commotions, and were more savage than the most cruel Beasts.

Tertullian De Spect. • 17, 18., Cyprian De Spect. l. 2. Ep. 2., and Clemens Alexanandrinus Paedagogi. l. 3. c. 11., declaim against Tragedies and Comedies, As Bloody, Impious and Prodigal Pastimes, which occasion Tumults and Seditions.

Gregory Nazianzen informes us, That Plays and Interludes disturbed Cities, raised Sedition among the People, taught Men how to Quarrel, sharpned ill Tongues, destroyed the mutual Love of Citizens, and set Families at VarianceDe rect • Educatione ad Seleucum p. 1063.

Cornelius Tacitus acquaints us in his Annals, That the Stage-players in Rome grew so Seditious that after many renew'd Complaints against them by the Pretors, Tiberius and the Senate ba • ished them out of Italy Annal. Lib. 4. c. 3..

Marcus Aurelius testifies, That because of the Adulteries, Rapes, Murthers, Tumults, and other Outrages, occasion'd and committed by Stage-players, he was forc'd to banish them out of Italy into Hellespont, where he commanded Lambert his Deputy to keep them hard at WorkMarcus Aurelius. Lib. 1. Cap. 14. and lib 2. • p. 12 • d Lamber • .

Suetonius tells usSueton in vit. Nero. Sect. 16, 26. That in Nero's Time there were so many Seditions, Quarrels, Com. motions and Misdemeanours in the Roman Theatre, That Nero himself, though he took great delight in them, suppressed all Plays by a solenan Edict.

Caesar Bulengerus informs us, That under Hypatius and Belisarius there were at least 35000 Men slain in a Commotion and Tumult raised at a Cirque PlayDe Circo. Romano. c. 47..

In the time of Theodorick King of Italy we are im • ormed by Cassiodorus Variarum L. 1. Epist. 20, 30. L. 3. Ep. 51. and Lib. 7. Epist. 10., That there were so many Tumults, Quarrels and Commotions raised at Stage. Plays, that he was forced upon the complaint of the People to write to the Senate to punish the Mutineers and suppress their Insolencies: But there being no reforming of them, he gave Orders wholly to suppress them.

We have heard already that the Statute of the 4th of Henry 4. Cap. 27. restrained them in Wales, because of the Commotions, Murthers, and Rebellions they occasioned there.

The Statute of the 3d of Henry 8. Cap. 9. against Mummers proceeded from the like Cause. —And we are informed, That Kets Rebellion in the 3d of Edward VI. was concerted at, and partly occasioned by a Meeting at a Stage-play at Wimonham to which the Country- people resorting, were by the Instigation of one Iohn Flowerdew, first incouraged to pull down the Inclosures, and then to rebelHolinshead. p. 1028. N • . 20, &. • 0. Nevils Hist. of Ket's Stirs. .

Nay I refer our Author to his own Stow in his Survey of London Cap. 16., where he shall find an Account of diverse Tumults and Riots occasion'd by Stage-Plays.

Those Tumults, Seditions and Rebellions being by the fore-mentioned Authors charged upon the Stage, let the Defender of Dramatick Poetry wipe off the Imputation if he can, or give us as good Authorities to prove that Enmity to the Stage did ever produce such Effects.

OUR Author falls next on Mr. Collier's Quotations from the Poets, and in the first place charges him with quoting ovid's following Lines impertinently,

The Reviewer is in the right, that Ovid does not here design to reflect upon the Stage, because then it was his darling Recreation, but he must at the same time own its a fair Confession that the Play-house was the properest place for a Lecher to forage in, which fully answers Mr. Collier's design, and had our Author but turn'd his Eye to the very next page, he might have found a Quotation from Ovid for pulling down the Theatre, as a Nursery of Villany.

Such was the difference betwixt Ovid when he was carried head-long by the Impetuous 〈◊〉 of his Lust, and when he was an Exile and 〈◊〉 time to reflect upon his former lewd way of Living.

Being willing to attone for the Mischief 〈◊〉 had done by his Lascivious Poem [De 〈◊〉 Amandi] he composed another [De Remedi • Amoris] wherein as one of the chief Receipts, he prescribes Abstinence from the Stage, and from Reading the Amorous Versos writ by himself and others, thus,

Nor is Ovid the only Roman Poet that hath thus censur'd the Frequenters of the Theatre. Any Man that peruses Iuvenal and Horace, will find they had no honourable Opinion of it neither.

The former gives an Elegant Description how the prodigal Dames in his time consumed their Husbands Estates, by frequenting the Play-house, as followeth,

Nor had he any better Opinion of the Chas •• ty than of the good Huswifry of those Playhaunting Ladies, as appears by the following Lines,

Where he describes their Lewdness in such a manner as would offend chast Ears to hear it.

Horace expresses himself much at the same rate, as to the practice of the Stage, and its Frequenters.

So that both of them put the Haunters of the Theatre, and of the Bawdy-house in the same Category.

The Reviewer's Reflection, That lewd Persons do also frequent the Church Pag. 29 • , is no Apology for the Stage. We have a positive command to meet for the Worship of God, but none to frequent the Play-house: And if a Carrion-Crow may be catch'd in a Flock of Doves, as he is pleased to express it, it will not thence follow that the • geons must flock to the Rendevouze of the Crows, but the quite contrary, and I must take leave to tell him, that so long as our Stage is kept up, it will be impossible to keep our publick Assemblies pure. They learn such lewd Practices, and wanton Behaviour at the Play-house, that they smell strong of the Infection, when they come to Church. This was the Complaint of Eloquent Chrysostom, against those that frequented the Play-house in his time74. Hom. on Mat.. And we find Ovid of the same Mind, that there's no reforming the Uncleanness of the Town, so long as the Theatres are suffered to stand:

If our Author object, that this Satyr is not directed against the Stage, but level'd at the Pits, the Boxes and Galleries. I reply, that the Company discovers the Entertainment, the Carrio • Crows will scarcely resort to a Banquet of Sweetmeats, but the scent of a dead Carcase will tempt them hugely. The Poets already quoted, say nothing in Vindication of the Theatre, and Ovid in express terms enjoyns the pulling it down.

The Reviewer it seems, has a great Mind to fasten all the Guilt upon the Audience; and therefore it must be allowed as a just Reprisal, to charge the Poets and Actors with their sha • e of the Crimes. We have already heard the Opinion of the Fathers and Councils, of the Grecian, Roman and English States, and of the chief of the Heathen Philosophers and Poets, by which it is evident. that they charge the Guilt upon the Theatre it self, as well as on the Actors and Spectators; and I have likewise brought in the Evidence of Foreign and Domestick Historians, to prove that those concerned in the Stage, have frequently broke the Peace, by Tumults, Seditions, and other Villanous Disorders; by all which it appears, that the Play-house ever since its first Institution, has been a common Nusance, and shall now take the Liberty, to give a brief Character of their Writers and Actors, from Authors of unquestionable Credit, and the two repenting Poets, that have already oblig'd us with an Anatomy of the Stage.

HE falls next upon Mr. Collier's Quotations from the Fathers, the Defects of which I shall not now offer to supply, having quoted the Fathers, whose meaning the Advocates of the Stage would pervert, at large already; I shall only therefore take notice of the Reviewers Assertion; That Tertullians Arguments are chiefly upon these two Heads, viz, That Pleasure was a bewitching thing, and that the Magistrates discountenanced the Players, and crampt their Freedoms.

The Falshood of this Assertion will be obvious to every one, that reads what I have quoted from Tertullian, under the Head, of the Fathers against the Stage; but as a further answer, I shall give him Dr. Hornecks excellent Abridgment of Tertullians Arguments,pag. 227. in his Book of Delight and Judgment, as follows.

The Reviewer comes nextPag. 36. to play all the Artillery of his Wit and Banter against • ertullian's instance of the Devil's having given it as a Reason of his possessing a Christian Woman, that he found her on his own Ground, [viz. the Play-house] —Such a Discovery, he thinks the Devil would be the last that would make. But had he considered those several Passages of the Gospel, where the Devil was forc'd to own our Saviour to be the Son of God; tho' he came into the World to destroy his Kingdom, and to Subvert his Tyrannical Empire over the Children of Men, this Confession of Satan would have been no such matter of Wonder to him.

I hope our Author is not a Manichee, to believe that the Devil has an infinite Power, or derives his Existence from himself. If Scripture Authority have any Weight with him, there he may find it reveal'd, That the Devil can neither do all the Mischief he would, nor yet resist the Commission of the Almighty, tho' Rebellion be the very Essence of the Diabolical Nature. He could not so much as destroy one of Iob's Cows or Sheep without a Permission, tho' he would willingly have ruined that Holy Person, and all that belong'd to himIob c. 1. 2.. Nor could he forbear to destroy Ahab by his Lies when the Almighty commanded it1 K. 22., tho' it had been more his Interest to have had that Monster of Wickedness continued on the Throne, and therefore I must take the liberty t • acquaint the Reviewer, that his Banter is propnane, and occa • ioned meerly by want of thought, when he says, That if the Sworn Enemy of Man, have any such generous Principle in him; Dives had no occasion to supplicate Abraham to send a Messenger to caution his Friends on Earth, but might e'ne have beg'd the civil favour of that kind Errant, from one of his own Tormentorspage 37.. The Almighty never Commissioned the Devil, nor yet his Chaplains of the Stage to Preach, Repentance unto the World, that work he reserved for more hallowed Instruments. —I shall hasten to absolve this point, when I have told our Author, that it ill becomes any Man who calls himself a Christian, to question Tertullian's Veracity in a Matter of Fact like this, that the Enemies of our Holy Religion could 〈◊〉 have disprov'd, had it been false, and that the Credit of that Learned Father, for the great Service he did to the Christian Cause, has set him above the Snarls and Banter of the Play-house, or its Advocates: As for his Scost that this is the only instance of Seizure of that kind, amongst all the Millions of Christians, who since that day have frequented the Play-house; Its of a piece with the rest. I have prov'd that the Devil, though he be the God of this World, is far from being absolute, his Reign is consm'd to the Children of Disobedience, and those he leads Captive a • his own Will; so that his Seizures of this kind, consists of infinite numbers, though his Seizures of the other sort be restrain'd to a few: And by the concurring Testimonies of the Fathers, Councils, and best of Christians in all Ages, as has been already made out: He triumphs no where more visibly, than upon the Stage; This I have prov'd by the Confession of the two Penitent Play-Poets above mentioned, but that in the Mouth of two or three Witnesses every thing may be establish'd: I shall add that of an Actor, who dying at the Bath about 1630. sent for his Son, whom he had bred up to that same way of Living. and abjured him with his last Breath, and floods of Tears, that as he tendred the eternal Happiness of his Soul, he should abjure and for sake 〈◊〉 ungodly Profession, which would enthral him to the Devils Vassalage for the present, and plunge hi • for ever into Hell at last Hi •• r. Mastix 910.

If our Author consider it, he will soon be convinced, that the Seizure of the Soul is incomparably more dreadful, than that of the Body; and of this, I shall put him in Mind of one Instance that was frightful enough, as it is recorded by Mr. Braithwait, who was present and saw itHis Eng. Gentlewoman Printed in 1631 p. 53, &c. .

An English Gentlewoman of good Note, who daily spent the best of her time upon the Stage, falling into a dangerous Sickness, her Friends sent for a Minister to prepare her for her End; but whilst he exhorted her to Repent, and to call upon God for Mercy, instead of listning to his wholsome Instructions, she redoubled her Cries, to let her see Hieronimo acted, and as she had liv'd so she died.

Now I would refer it to our Authors own Conscience, whether he would be willing to make such an Exit. And if this was not a more dreadful Possession, than those mentioned in the Gospel, when the Devil threw the Bodies of those he had made a Scizure of, into the Fire or Water. But to conclude this point, I must crave leave to inform him, that the Devil hath renewed his claim to the Stage, oftner than once since the days of Tertullian, and particularly in Queen Elizabeths Reign; when he visibly appeared on it, in the Bell-Savage Play-house, as they were prophanely acting, the Story of Faustus, to the Terror and Amazement of all the Spectators, and the seizing of some of them with a Distractionpag. 38..

The Reviewer's ArgumentHistr. Mastix pag. 556., That 'twas the general Opinion of Christians that Plays were a lawful Diversion, because St. Cyprian, Tertullian, St. Augustine, &c. made it their business to refute that Opinion, is just as consequential as if he should say, that 'tis the general Opinion of the People of England, that Immorality and Profanness is lawful, because their Preachers Labour to prove the contrary, as to every individual Species of it in all their Sermons and Books on that Subject:—and no less false is his Assertion, That the Appearance of that general Innocence in those Entertainments, gave them that Reception among Christians that they could not believe them Criminal without some express Divine Precept against them; for nothing could be more odious than those Practices, and Postures, &c. which the Fathers every where Charge upon the Stage, as I have already prov'd; and herein also the Reviewer contradicts M. Motteux, and his Parisian and Church of England Divine, who tell us the Father; were against the Stage, because of the Idolatry, Blasphemy, and other Infamous Practices therePreface to Beauty in Distress p. 14, 15, &c. , which were very far from Innocence. —Thus these Champions of a bad Cause, like Troops in disorder, fall foul upon one another.

I Come next to the mighty Counter-B ••• , which the Reviewer has rais'd for the Defence of the Stage, and that is his more •• rious Speculations (as he calls them) upon the Scriptural Silence in that Case, than any that the Fathers have been pleased to make pag. 39..

If any Man should say, that when our Saviour was born, the Devil and the World kept Holy Day for Joy, he would be foully mistaken, and yet according to this Author, it would seem they did so; For at our Saviours Birth (says he) Play-houses were open'd throughout the whole Empire. But what if I should tell him, that the Devil, finding himself disarm'd by our Saviours Birth, and bereft of the Sword which he had influenced Men to sheath in one anothers Bowels for a long time, betook himself to another Weapon, and that was the Lusts of the Flesh, to make War upon their Souls.

This Speculation may not perhaps be so curlous as that of our Author; but I am of Opinion it may be every whit as solid; seeing not only the Antient Fathers, but even the Heathen Roman Historians, charge the Play-houses with all Manner of Lewdness, and Augustus himself (as I have already said) banished the Stage-Players out of Rome because of the Mischiefs they occasioned.

The Reviewor must not pretend that the opening of the Theatre was an Effect of our Saviour's Birth, or a suitable way of Rojoycing for it; his Foretur • ner Iohn the Baptist, taught a contrary Doctrine, and prepared the Jews to receive him by Repentance and Mortification.

When our Saviour came himself at the fulness of time the way of his Entrance into the World, was the severest Reproof that ever was giv'n to the P • mps and Vanities of it. His Childhood and Youth, were wholly estrang'd from all those •• othy Diversions, and when he entred on the Ministry, he taught a subli • e and refined Purity, that was absolutely inconsistent with the Practice of the Stage. He instructed his Followers in the full Extent of the Law, that it did not so much as allow a Wanton Glance or a Lewd Thought, than which there cannot be a more effectual Condemnation of the Theatre, which by the Testimony of all Historians and Ages, has ever been a Nursery of Impurity, and chiefly supported by Persons of a dissolute Life.

But to return to our Author.

To Answer the Reviever in his own way of Argument.

Had the Stage been so useful to the Happiness of Mankind, to Government and to Religion, as Mr. Dennis pretends to prove it in his late Book, or had it been such an Excellent Mean for Recommending Vertue and Discountenancing Vice, as others of its Advocates would •• ve it to be, then certainly it may raise a little wonder, that those kind Evangelical Guardians should not have somewhere or other dropp'd one Expression at least in its favour, as well as they 〈◊〉 made use of the pertinent Expressions of • me of the Poets; and therefore their profound Evangelical Silence upon this Head, gives us just cause to suspect that they had a far other Opinion of the Design and Nature of the Theatre.

But to come closer to our Author; had he but seriously reflected upon his own Matter of serious Reflection, it would soon have abated the height of his Wonder; for if the Apostles Preached Re •• ntance, censur'd Vice and Impiety from the highest to the lowest, read Divinity Lectures upon the Ward-Robe and Dressing-Box, corrected the Indecencies of the Hair and Apparel, and each uncomly Gesture, they must by necessary consequence have Preached against the Stage, which is charg'd with the height of Impiety and Vice, • uperfluous prodigality of Apparel, unlawful disguising of the Sex, and obscene and uncomly postures, not only by the Fathers of the Church, but even by Ovid, Iuvenal, Horace, and other Heathen Poets and Historians of those times, as I have proved before; so that our Reviewers Battery is fairly dismounted, and his Cannon pointed against himself: for by a Conclusion lawfully deduced from his own Premises, it infallibly appears that the Apostles did not only give one, but many Reprimands to the Theatre, tho' they did not express it by name.

And I will make bold to tell him further, that the Apostles in those very Injunctions by which they set Bars to the Eye, the Ear, and the Tongue, did as infallibly shut up all the Avenues of the Theatre, as they barricado'd those that might let in the Tempter, if beholding Vanity, hearing Blasphemy, and speaking Lies in hypocrisie come within the reach of their Inspir'd Prohibitions. And therefore well might St. Cyprian say, that the Divine Wisdom would have had a low Opinion of Christians, had it descended to be more particular in this Case; when the Stage was known to abound with Idolatry, Profanity, Cruelty, Blasphemy, Sodomy, and such other Impur • ties, as were not so much as once to be named amongst Christians.

I pass over his Remarks on the Inconsistency betwixt Mr. Colliers Defence of the Modesty and Chastity of the Antient Heathen Poets and Stage, and his quotations of the Fathers that imply the contrary. Mr. Collier is able to defend himself, and an Over-match for him on this Subject. There's no doubt, but the Stage at its first Institution, was chaster than ours, and if we may give credit to Livy; The Plays at first, were plain Country-Dances, where the Youth jok'd upon one another in Artless Verse, and their Gestures were as plain and simple as the rest of the performance. The Poets that Mr. Collier quoted are modester than ours, and yet it will not follow that the horrid Impieties charg'd upon the Stage by the Christian Fathers and Roman Historians, is all slander; or that the Innocence of the Primitive Stage was the cause of the Scriptural silence against Plays.

The Theatre was opposed by the Jews before the Coming of Christ; tho' no where condemned by name in the Old Testament: Yet that People to whom the Oracles of God were committed, understood it to be contrary to the Law of Moses, and the Discipline of their Nation; and therefore they conspir'd to cut off Herod the Great in the Theatre which he had built at Ierusalem, whilst he was beholding his Stage-PlaysIosephus Antiq. Iud lib. 15. c. 11., which they had certainly effected, had not the Plot been discovered, whereof Herod taking the advantage he brought in his Theatrical Enterludes, which at first were pleasing to none but the Heathens that sojourned there, and were at last attended with an Apostacy from the Laws of their Ancesto • s, a corruption of Discipline, and dissolution of Manners. And a remarkable Judgment followed on Herod Agrippa, who appearing on the Stage in a Silver Robe of admirable workmanship, and being receiv'd by the Acclamations of the People as a God, because of the beams which darted from his Apparel by the Reflexion of the Sun, was immediately smitten with a grievous Disease by something that appeared in the shape of an Owl hovering over his head; and being tormented for five days with an intollerable pain in his Bowels, was at last miserably devoured by Worms. From this opposition of the jews to the Stage, we may reasonably infer, that 〈◊〉 such method of pastime or diversion, or of recommending Virtue, and discouraging Vice, was allowed by the Church of God under the Old Testament, and that therefore there's much less reason to think that any such thing was allowed or approved by the Christian Church under the New Testament, whose Worship has less of External Pomp, but much more of the Spirit and Truth than that of the Jews had.

From hence likewise we gain another Argument, that if the Jews thought the Stage discharg'd under the General Prohibition, To take the Names of the Heathen Gods in their mouths, and the Article of their Law which forbad Men and Women the promiscuous use of one anothers Apparel, the Primitive Church had much greater Reason to conclude that the Theatre was forbid to them under the General Terms of Idolatry, Sacrifices of Idols, Vanities of the Gentiles, Rudiments and Customs of the World, corrupt Communication, Bitterness and Evil Speaking, keeping company with Fornicators, fellowship with the unfruitful Works of Darkness, Filthiness, Foolish Talking and Iesting which was not convenient, being partakers with the Children of Disobedience, Rioting, Chambering and Wantonness, &c. all which the Stage was infected with, as hath been prov'd already. So that the Advocates of the Play-house may with as much reason infer, that Apostacy, Atheism, Incest and other Crimes are not forbidden by the Scriptures, because not expresly nam'd there, as argue that the Play-house is not discharg'd because it is not particularly mention'd in Sacred Writ.

If it be objected, That all those Arguments are against the Corruption of the Stage, but not against the Original innocent Constitution of PlaysDefence of Dramatick Poetry. p. 54.. I answer, that there never was a time, when the Stage was free from all or part of those Corruptions, that it was of an Heathenish and Diabolical Institution, as has been already proved—That at the very first, if we may credit Livy in the place before quoted, the Diversion of the Stage consisted in Revelling, Dancing and Foolish Jesting, and gradually grew worse and worse, and tho' the Romans had Censors to restrain its Abuses, and the Greeks admired and promoted it at first, yet both those Wise Nations found themselves under a necessity of overturning it at last: And I have already shew'd that the Ends for which the best of its Patrons pretend it was Erected, are better provided for by the Almighty; and therefore we cannot pretend any necessity for it, except we reflect on his Wisdom and Power.

The Reviewer comes next to argue, that the Dram • was not censur'd by the Gospel, because St. Paul quotes a Saying of the Comick Poet Menander, viz. Evil Communication Corrupts good Manners, and likewise those of other Poets, in the Acts of the Apostle, and Epistle to Titus, viz. In him we live, and move, and have our Being, as certain of your own Poets have said, for we are also his Off-spring.—and ev'n a Prophet of their own, said the Cretians, are always Liars, Evil Beasts, slow Bellies, &c.Pag. 55, 56.

But I must beg leave to tell him, that the Premises will not bear his Conclusion, and that he might with as much strength of Reason argue, that the Apostle did not censure the Idolatry of the Ephesians, because he quoted the Inscription on one of their Altars TO THE UNKNOWN GOD, and thence took occasion to instruct them in the Knowledge of the true God, who alone was Incomprehensible. Can any Man, tho' but of a 5t • rate sense, allow this to be a good Argument, the Apostle from their own Poets convicts them of their Epidemical Wickedness, the mischief of bad Company, and that they owe their Being and Preservation to the Almighty:— Therefore he did not censure the S • age. Certainly such a Logician would be hissed out of the Schools. Our Author by the same sort of Argument may prove, that I approve his Book, because I have quoted his Arguments, and turn'd them against himself, as the Apostle turn'd the Conces • ions of the Heathen Poets, against those that follow'd and admir'd them.

Of the same Nature is his Inference, That because the Holy Ghost himself has spoke in the Words of a Menander and Epimenides: It's surely a little Vindication of the Innocence of the Pro • ession Pag. 57.. If he mean the Art of Poesie, there's no Man of Sense disputes its being Innocent and Useful; but if he means a Stage-Poet, it's just such another Argument as this, Maro pick'd Gold out of Ennius's Dunghill, therefore Ennius's Dunghill was an excellent Gold • mine.—Does not our Author know, That it is the Light of the Holy Ghost, which enlighteneth every Man that cometh into the World Iohn 1. • 9., and that Gifts as well as Graces proceed from him? must the Holy Ghost therefore, because he again makes use of some of those Divine Beams, which he had graciously darted into the Minds of the Heathen Philosophers and Poets, give his Imprimatur to their Pagan Fancies and lewd Theology? Out Author's Argument will conclude as strongly for this, as for the Defence of the Stage.

He comes next to Enquire into the Reason of this over-violent Zeal of the primitive Fathers against the Stage, which he finds to be the unseasonableness of it, because it was then a time of persecution, and that by frequenting the Stage, they herded with their Persecutors and Murderers p. 57, 58..

The Falshood of this will appear from the Quotations of the Fathers themselves under that Head: These are some of their Reasons, but not all, they laid the Stage under a perpetual Interdict by Arguments naturally deduc'd from the Scriptures. The Christian Councils condemn'd them for the same Cause, and the first Christian Emperors condemn'd them by their Imperial Laws, upon that same Account, as has been already said; so that our Author discovers his want of Reading or something that's better, when he asserts the contraryFrom page 59, to 67..

I shall conclude this Head with the Opinion of the Reverend, Learned and Pious Mr. Richard Baxter, as to the Stage and Reading of Plays and Romances, as I find it in his Christian Directory: Thus,

I Come next to consider Mr. Dennis's Arguments in his Book Entituled, The Usefulness of the Stage to the Happiness of Mankind, to Government and to Religion.

The Title is sufficient to discover, that I am to combate a Man of Assurance, who like another Goliah bids Defiance to the Armies of Fathers, Councils, Scriptures, &c. & all that have bra • ndished their Swords against the Theatre.

His first Argument is, That the Stage is Instrumental to the Happiness of Mankind in general, because it pleases them, and Happiness consists in Pleasure Pag. 1, 2..

The Gentleman not having oblig'd us so far, as to draw his Argument into Form, he must pardon my Presumption if I do it for him, and then I think it will stand thus,

The Falshood of the first Proposition is so manifest from the Experience of all Men, that I cannot but wonder at our Author's Confidence to advance it. The Libertine is pleased with his Paramour, and yet is so far from being happy in his Pleasure that it wastes his Conscience, consumes his Body and ruines his Estate. The Drunkard is pleased with his Bottle, yet is so far from being happy in it, that it has the same dismal effects upon him, as Uncleaness has upon the Wanton.—The Glutton is pleased with his costly Cates and riotous Banquets, but is so far from being happy in his Pleasure, that he Entails Diseases upon himself and diggs his Grave with his own Teeth.—The Miser is pleased with his Baggs, yet is so far from being happy in them, that he is eat up with carking cares how to preserve them, or to lay them out to the best advantage.

To prove this Argument Mr. Dennis says, That by Happiness he could never understand any thing but Pleasure, and that he could never possibly conceive how any one can be happy without being pleased, or pleased without being happy.

Let him but take a turn to Bedlam, and there he may have convincing Instances of poor Wretches being extreamly pleased with their foolish Conceits, that are far from being happy; or let him visit some of his Friends in a raging Feaver, and perhaps he may hear them express a great deal of Pleasure and Delight in many things, and yet poor Creatures fall much short of being hapy.

His own Assertion [p. 8.] That a Man cannot be happy without or against Reason, perfectly destroys his Proposition, for in all the Cases above-mentioned, those Persons are pleased both without and against Reason, which plainly proves that it is not pleasure, but a Rational Pleasure or none at all that makes a Man happy, otherwise the Brutebeasts, are more happy than the happiest of Men.

So that if this be granted, which no reasonable Man or good Christian can deny, that our Pleasures ought to be ruled by Reason, his Argument will prove but a feeble Support to the Stage it being highly unreasonable to take pleasure in that which is not only needless, to the ends for which it is pretended, there being other meansap pointed for that, as I have prov'd already, but comes so far short of them, that by the concurring Testimony of all Ages, it is condemned for producing the contrary Effects.

To set this matter in a Clearer Light, let us take a View of those Pleasures which are to b • reap'd from the Stage; Spiritual Pleasures they are not, for Divinity and Religion are seldom or never mentioned there, but in order to be ridicul'd: Rational Pleasures they cannot be, seeing it is contrary to Reason for Mankind to please themselves with the Representations of Rapes, Murders, and all manner of Villanies, which is the principal part of the Entertainment; the Punishments allotted them take up the least part of the time, for most of that is spent in representing the Intrigues that the Personal Dramatis carry on for obtaining their lwed Ends, and the pleasure they take in the Enjoyment of their desires, and the Impression of the Tragical Catastrophe is generally defac'd by some Comical Conclusion at last. So that upon the whole the Pleasures that are reap'd from the Stage must needs be sensual; and if wallowing in them conduce any thing to the happiness of Mankind, then Reason and Religion too have put a horrid Cheat upon us, ought to be banished out of the World, and the only Deity we are to invoke is some Circe or other to transform us into Dogs and Swine, that we may be compleatly happy. For Mr. Dennis says (page 6 and 7.) The Philosophers were Fools to ascribe their Happiness to Reason, for that may often afflict us, & make us miserable, is an impediment to our pleasure, and nothing but Passion can please us. The natural consequence of which must be that none but Beasts, Fools and Mad-men are happy in this World.

He tell us, page 8. That it's plain that the Happiness both of this Life and the other, is owing to Passion, and not to Reason; so that he must be the only happy man here that wallows in his pleasures, and indulges his passions. And in the other World he informs us, we shall be delivered from those Mortal Organs, and Reason shall then be no more: We shall lead the Glorious Life of Angels, a Life exalted above all Reason, a Life consisting of Extasie and Intelligence. If this be not a Rhapsody of downright contradictions, there can be no such thing as a contradictions, there can be no such thing as a contradiction in nature; a Rational Soul without Reason; Understanding without Reason; and Reason dying with Mortal Organs. Nay, there's another Position in the bottom of the 7th page as extraordinary as any of those, and that is, That the very height and fulness of pleasure which we are promised in another Life, must, we are told, proceed from Passion, or somthing that resembles Passion; at least no man 〈◊〉 so much as pretended that it will be the result of Reason. Who it is that has told our Author thus, he would do well to inform us; for I believe this Revelation is peculiar to himself. The Scriptures do indeed say, That in the presence of the Lord there is fulness of Ioy, and at his Right hand there are Pleasures for evermore Psa. 16. 1 • .; but are so far from hinting at any thing like Joy without Reason, that the Works of Creation, Redemption and Providence and the Beatifical Vision of God in his perfections, seem to be plainly reveal'd, to be the Reason of all the Hallelujahs and Raptures of Praise and Joy which the Saints shall Eccho forth in Heaven to all Eternity. Abr •• ham is represented to us in Heaven with the use of his Reason, and arguing with Dives. We are told that there is Joy in Heaven, by reason of the Conversion of Sinners; there's no doubt that those Extasies of Joy are above what our Reason is now able to comprehend, but that Reason and Reflexion should there cease, there's not the least ground to imagine. Our Author owns, that we shall lead the Glorious Life of Angels, as to whom it is plain from the Scriptures, that they are reasonable Beings, they make use of their Reason to pry into the Mystery of Redemption, and sung Songs of Praise at our Saviour's Birth; for this very Reason, that God had manifested Peace upon the Earth and Good-will towards Men; from all which it's plain, that our Happiness in Heaven will not proceed from Passion, but from our uninterrupted Enjoyment of God, the Reflection upon which with our Reason will occasion eternal and unspeakable joy.

This I conceive will appear yet more plain from the following Consideration, viz. That a Man cannot be happy except he know himself to be so, and if we have not the use of our Reason and Reflection, we can never know that we are happy, nor be sensible of the Dangers we have escaped; so that for Mr. Dennis's Heaven we had as good be reduced to our first nothing as to enjoy it, seeing, according to his Notion, we must there be depriv'd of the Faculty of reflecting upon our past Dangers and present Enjoyments, which cannot afford a Rational Soul so much Delight, as it may have in a pleasant Dream.

I shall only add, That to conceive a humane Soul without Reason after death, is to suppose the very Essence of it annihilated, which is a fair step towards denying the Resurrection and the Eternity of Punishment and Reward; a Doctrine fitted to the Pallate of the Libertines of the Age, the principal Rule of whose Faith and Manners is,

Or as the Scripture expresses it,

Let us eat and drink, for to Morrow we must die 1 Cor. 15. 32..

If we have not the Exercise of Reason in Heaven we cannot Act Faith upon the promise of God for the Eternity of our Happiness there, which our Reason will tell us we may •• st assur'd of, because he is the God of truth that cannot lie, and with whom there is no variableness nor shaddow of turning. Nor can our service, which is Songs of Praise and Everlasting Delight in the Enjoyment of his Presence be reasonable there, which will make i • less perfect than the Service that we are called to here on Earth, which the Apostle tells us is a reasonable Service Rom. 12. 1., nor without it can we contemplate God the Author and Fountain of our Happiness with Delight; for according to Mr. Dennis's Notion, there can be no dif • erence betwixt those unconceiveable Transports of Joy which the Blessed have in Heaven, and the Raptures of a Mad-man, who can give no reason for what he does or what he says; and how this can be acceptable Service to God, let any Man, that has but the least Impression of Religion judge.— Our Saviour tells us, That Mary lov'd much because much was forgiven her; Is it then consistent with reason, that we shall be fill'd with Raptures of Love and Joy in Heaven, and not know the reason of it there, as well as we know the reason of our Love to the Almighty here on Earth; which is his Pardoning Grace, thro' our blessed Redeemer,

But to return to Mr. D's Argument, That 'tis Pleasure only that makes a man happy: He is guilty of a great omission in not explaining his terms, and telling us what sort of Pleasure he means; tho' to do him Justice there seems to be no great need of it, when we consider that the Stage is the Subject he treats of, whence those Pleasures are to be reap'd; so that we cannot expect to reap any other Pleasures but those of Sin from such an unhallowed Soil.

But allowing him, That a Moderate Pleasure in our Lawful Enjoyments here is a happiness, and a gracious Gift of God, as without doubt it is, that will not prove that we ought to create our selves feigned Objects of Pleasure, as all those Theatrical Representations are, seeing God allows us those that are real. Much less will it prove that we ought to hunt after Pleasure, by having our Passions rai'd; when there's no occasion o • proper Object for them, for that in plain terms is a perverting the use of 'em, and forcing them beyond the Intent of Nature. God has endowed us with Love, and Hatred, and inspired Reasonable Creatures with a desire to propagate their own kind in pursuance of that primitive Command, that they should increase and multiply; but at the same time he has confin'd that desire to certain Limits, That every Man should have his own Wife, and every Woman her own Husband; whence 'tis evident, that it's unlawful for us to frequent the Stage to have that Passion rais'd toward we know not who, or to endanger its being diverted from the Right Object. And as for Young Persons who are unmarried, the Theatre is the most improper place in the World to seek a suitable Match in, and I believe seldom frequented on that account. I am afraid Iuvenal's Observation holds too true of the Modern Theatre.

And if they frequent them upon any other a • count, the raising of their Passions endangers their Chastity.

The like may be said of the other Passions, to have our Anger and Indignation excited against we know not who in a Tragedy, is far from the Divine Precept, of being angry and sin not. It was never the End for which God endowed us with that Passion, to be angry at Wickedness in shew, but at Wickedness in reality. The same Rule serves for Pity and Compassion; we are to extend that towards Men in real distress, and not to have our Compassion excited towards a Chimerical object in a Theatre that needs it not. It will hold the same as to Mirth and Delight; we are not to make sport, or to take pleasure either in the sin or misery of others; from all which it is apparent, that we ought not to frequent the Stage for •• citing our Passions: But admitting that the raising of the Passions makes a man happy; by Mr. Dennis's own concession, P. 16. the frequenting of the Stage is a very improper mean for it, for there he owns, that the longer any man frequents Plays, the harder he is to be mov'd; and therefore we may very well conclude from his own Premises, that the seeing of so many unchast and bloody Representations, is the ready way to take off and dull that Horror which all men ought to • ntertain against the real practice of Uncleanness, Cruelty, and the other Vices there represeated. This may be likewise prov'd by a very familiar Instance: Butchers, tho' but accustomed to the killing of Beasts, have less horror generally for Murder than other men; and Soldiers, who are accustomed to behold Slaughter and Blood-shed, are not generally so compassionate and tenderhearted as those who never were in a Field.

I must observe one thing by the way before I go any further, viz. that Mr. Dennis and the Author of the Review contradict one another in this matter. The Reviewer maintains against Mr. Collier, that the Representations of the Stage, don't impress the same Passions upon the Audiencep. 19. 67, &c., whereas Mr. Dennis asserts it, and thinks it the Glory of the Theatre that it does so, seeing raising the Passions is the only way to make a man happy. I must declare my Agreement with Mr. Dennis as to the influence of those Representations upon the Spectators, but at the same time must tell him, that the Iniquites there represented, especially irregular Amours, have so strong a party in every man's corrupt Nature, that those Lascivious Representations, Intrigues of Courtship, and Amorous Speeches, have ten to one odds against our Virtue, which taking in Religion to its assistance, is often found too weak, and many times foil'd by corrupt Nature, as appears by the Instances of David and Solomon, the holiest and wisest of men, and therefore it is that the reproofs and punishments allotted to Vice by the Stage, have never been able to obtain those Ends which its Patrons pretend to, viz. the Incouragement of Virtue, and discountenancing of Vice, but hath always produc'd the contrary Effect.

But to take a further View of Mr. Dennis's Notion, that we are made happy by Pleasures, let's examine it a little by Sacred Writ. There we find Solomon, who had made the largest Experiment of it, declaring, that all the Pleasures this World can afford (even those refined ones of Wisdom and Knowledge not excepted) to be nothing but Vanity and Vexation of Spirit Ecclesiastes • hroughout.

If we take in the Suffrage of the New Testament, there we find our Saviour and his Apostles, condemning this Passion for worldly Pleasures, as the Lust of the Eye, the Lust of the Flesh and the Pride of LifeJoh. 2. 16., they expresly forbid us to make any Provision for the Flesh to fulfil the Lusts thereofRo. 13. 14., command us to set our Assections on things above, and not on things below, and to mortifi • inordinate AffectionsCol. 3. 2, • , tells us, that those that are Christs crucifie the Flesh with its Lusts and AffectionsGal. 5. 24., condemn those that are Lovers of Pleasure • , more than Lovers of God2 Tim. 3. 4, number those who serve their Lusts and Pleasures among Fools and Rebels to HeavenTit. 3. 3., tell us, that our Prayers are denied because we ask things to consume upon our Lusts, or Pleasures, as it's read in the Margin▪ Jam. 4. 3., and inform us, that the Word of God is choa • ed by the Pleasures of the WorldLuk. 8. 14..

So much as to Pleasure in general; and then if we come to Particulars,—Inordinate Pleasure in Riches or Covetousness, is condem • . as Iaolatry Col. 3. • ., a Lustful Look after a Woman is censur'd as Adultery Mat. 5. 28.. If we consider our Apparel, there we are commanded to be modest1 Tim. 2. 9.. If we look to our Dyet, the Scripture informs us, that a Glatton shall come to Poverty Pro. 23. 1., and strictly forbids us, Rioting and Drunkenness Ro. 13. 13.. If we consider our Discourse, there's no corrupt Communication to proo •• d out of our Mouth Col. 3. 8., but our Speech ought always to be with Grace, and s • asoned with Salt Col. 4. 6., foolish Iesting and filthy Talking is also discharged Eph. 5. 4.. And in the whole, the Apostle tells us expresly, That those who live in Pleas • res, are dead while they live 1 Tim. 5. 6.: (which tho' spoken particularly of Widows, does by parity of Reason extend to all Christians.) We are commanded to rejoyce, as if we rejoyced not, to use this World, as not abusing it 1 Cor. 7. 30, 31., to behave our selves as Strangers and Pilgrims in the World Heb. 11. verse 13., and to avoid all Bitterness, Malice and Evil-speaking. Eph. 4. 31.*

Then seeing it is so, how can any Christian indulge themselves in Passion, or Transports of Pleasure in any sublunary Thing? How can they allow themselves in those foolish Jests, filthy Discourses, and immoderate Laughters that are occasioned by Comedies; or in that Wrath, Clamour, Malice and Revenge which breath forth every where in Tragedies? How can they that are call' • to Mourn over their own Sins, and those of others, laugh at the Follies and Lewdness of Whoremongers represented on the Stage, or how can they in Conscience take pleasure in the Representations of those things to the Eye in Publick, that they ought to be ashamed to hear spoken of, as committed in Secret? How dare they that are commanded to work out their Salvation with fear and Trembling, delight in such Wantonness, Jollity and Revelling? With what Conscience can they that are commanded to redeem their time, mispend it so unconscionably in the lew'd Theatre, or with what Peace of Conscience can they lavish out Money in such needless Pleasures, when so many of the poor Saints and Servants of God are starving for want of Necessaries.

Mr. Dennis in the latter part of his first Chapter seems to recant his Epicurean Lecture in the rest of it, and tells usPage 8., the Passions must be rais'd in such manner as to take reason along with them, which how he will reconcile to his former Positions, that Reason often afflicts and makes us miserable, hinders our Pleasures, and Combates our PassionsPage 6., and that nothing but Passion in effect can please us, and nothing but Pleasure can make us happyPage 7.. Let him see to it. Perhaps he was exalted to his own Heaven, and wrote those Contradictions when he was deliver'd from his Mortal Organs, and his Reason had left himPage 8.. And if it was so, he had as good have conceal'd his Ex • atical Raptures, for any great Feats, they are like to do in the World, they may perhaps make Quakers; but sure I am they can never make Christians: Aud thus I leave it to the Judicious Reader to consider, whether he hath prov'd that the Stage is Useful to the Happiness of Mankind.

In his Second Chapter he attempts to prove, That the Stage is more particularly Instrumental to the Happiness of Englishmen,—and the Argument he makes use of is, That the English are the most Splenetick People in Europe, of a gloomy sullen Temper, uneasie to themselves and dangerous to the Government. This is enough in all Conscience to give them a fit of the Spleen, were they never so good Natur'd; but to alleviate our Anger, he tells us, it's the fault of Heaven, the reigning Distemper of our Clime; and to oblige us further, he directs us to the Drama, as our Remedy.

I am afraid our Author is neither a Traveller, Historian nor Polititian, else he would scarcely have v • ntur'd on such a Reflection: Let him but waft himself over for a Month into Spain, and take a • urn through France into the Empire of Germany, don't let him forget to take Holland in his way Home; and then let him spend some Weeks in turning over the Histories of those several Countries, and I am much mistaken if he don't find himself convinc'd by Experience and Authority, that our Neighbours are as sullen and morose as we, have been as uneasie to one another, and endanger'd their Governments as oft •• , and yet all of them have had the Enjoyment of the Drama.

I must likewise beg leave to tell him, That the good Nature of Englishmen has been for a long time taken notice of, and that I have read it as an Observation from as good an Author as himself, that there's no other Language has a word to express it.

I must likewise desire him to give a Reason, Why the Splenetick Temper of the Nation should not make the Government as dangerous to the People, as it renders the People dangerous to the Government, seeing the Administration must always be in the Hands of Englishmen; and I would pray him if he can to give me an Instance where he has read of a better Understanding betwixt Prince and People than there was betwixt Queen Elizabeth and her English Subjects; or if he can parallel the Instance of the present Government, that any Monarch did ever venture to leave his Dominions so frequently, and with • o much Confidence and Security, as his present Majesty has done, notwithstanding the Faction of a dethron'd Prince in the midst of us, and a powerful Enemy at War with us abroad, at all times ready to Encourage them to rebel: And then • shall yield him the Point, That the English are more Splenetick than their Neighbours.

But now as to his Remedy [the Drama.]

He tells us, That the Passions are seldom any where so pleasing, and no where so safe as in Tragedy Page 10.. But seeing the Representations there are generally contriv'd to represent the sudden t • rns of Fate, the unhappy result of Violence & Injustice, and 〈◊〉 Intrigues carried on for the suppressing of Tyrants, I am afraid it will scarce be proper for a Splenetick People: And thus we see how well he has prov'd, That the Stage is more particularly Instrumental to the Happiness of English-men.

In his third Chapter he pretends to answer the Objections from Reason, and denies that the more the Passions in any Man are mov'd, the more obnoxious they are to be mov'd, and the more unruly they grow p. 16.. This he says is contrary to common Experience, because-the more any person frequents Plays, the harder he is to be pleas'd and mov'd. But by Mr. Dennis's favour, his Answer is nothing to the purpose, or just no more than this, that the longer a man eats Beef, the less he cares for it: He knows the old saying, Iucundissima Voluptas quam rarior usus commendat, a man may be cloy'd with the greatest Dainties. But can he deny that the more a Cholerick Man's Passion is mov'd, the more peevish and outragious he grows; and the more the Letcher's Passion is mov'd, the more lustful and brutish he grows, so long as Nature will keep pace; or the more the Miser's Avarice is mov'd, the more covetous he grows, till his mouth is fill'd with dust. If he can deny this, he is fit for his own Heaven, where his Reason shall be no more p. 8..

In the next place he denies that Corruption of Manners proceeded from the establishment of the Drama upon the Restoration of K. Charles the 2d. • st. Says he, Because we never heard any Complaint of the like Corruption of Manners before the Restoration of K. Charles the II. tho' the Drama flourish'd in the Reign of K. James I. as Mr. Collier tells us, with the like LicentiousnessPage 19.. By Mr. Dennis's leave here's a contradiction in Terms, a Stage as licentious as ours at present, whose Abuses he owns in the same page to be palpable, and yet no Complaint of Corruption of Manners. But because I will give him a better Authority than his own, let him read Mr. Prin's Histriomastix, and there he will find Complaint enough before the Restoration of K. Charles II. and sufficient cause for it too.

The • d Argument, That the Corruption of Manners is greater in France, tho' their Theatres are less licentious than ours, will stand him in little stead; for supposing it true that the Manners of the French are more corrupted than ours, which I am afraid will scarcely be granted: tho' their Theatres be less licentious, their Religion is more, which allows them to be as wicked as the Devil can make them, provided they have but Money enough to pay for a Pardon, or fury enough to persecute the Protestants. That the Germans are greater Drinkers, and the Italians more inclinable to Unnatural Lust, tho' they have less of the Drama than we: Perhaps they will charge the Cause upon Heaven as he does, and impute it to their Clime; but can he say that if they had more of the Drama, they would not be more addicted to those Crimes than at present they are. If he will give himself the trouble of reading the Authorities I have formerly quoted, he will find both those Crimes, and particularly the latter charg'd upon the Stage: Nor can Mr. Dennis assign any Reason why going from the Theatre to the Tavern with a Miss, or other lewd company, as is but too too common, should not occasion Drunkenness and Sodomy both.

His 3d Argument isp. 20., That the Corruption of Manners upon the Restoration appeared with all the fury of Libertinism before the Play-house was re-established. And that the Cause of that Corruption could be nothing but that beastly Reformation, which in the time of the Late Civil Wars, begun at the Tail instead of the Head and Heart, and which oppressed and persecuted Men's Inclinations, instead of correcting and converting them, which afterwards broke out with the same Violence that a Raging Fire does upon its first getting Vent: And that which gave it so liscentious a Vent, was not only the Permission but the Example of the Court. Which having sojourn'd for a considerable time both at Paris and in the Low-Countries, united the Spirit of the French Whoring to the fury of the Dutch Drinking.

Here's Civil Treatment to the Parliament of England, a parcel of beastly reforming fellows, aad a reforming Tail too. But by Mr. Dennis's leave, whoever's the Head, the Parliament is the Brains; they have all the trouble of Contriving, and one half, nay some say two thirds of the Authority of Enacting Laws, and no small share in putting them in Execution; so that for them to attempt a Reformation when the Court would not, proves them to have been the Men, and some body else the Beast. But to pass that, I must intreat Mr. Dennis to be merciful to his own Arguments, and not always to cut their Throats with his own Hands. For first, he tells us, That the Cause of that Libertinism, was nothing but that beastly Reformation. And then he informs us, that it was permitted & encouraged by the example of the Court, who had united the Spirit of the French Whoring to the fury of the Dutch Drinking; so that he is resolv'd the Court and Parliament shall have it betwixt them, and not a Farthing matter which, so the Stage be but clear on't. And he hath also oblig'd the World with a very important Discovery, that persecuting and oppressing of Libertinism, was the Cause of Corruption of Manners.

But alas! the poor man in one of his heavenly Extasies, when he was delivered from the Mortal Organs of his Reason, turns Cat in Pan, plays Sir Martin Marr-all, and falls foul upon his Friends of the Stage; for in the very next words he tells us, That the Poets who writ imm • diately after the Restoration, were obliged to humour the deprav'd tastes of their Audience. For if the Poets of those times had writ without any mixture of Lewdness, the Appeties of the Audience were so debauch'd, that they would have judged the Entertainment insipid. So that here's a fair Confession, that the Stage promoted and encourag'd the Corruption of Manners. But then being sorry that he has done his Friends this diskindness, he makes them amends, and concludes this Paragraph thus, That 'tis evident that the Corruption of the Nation is so far from proceeding from the Play-house, that it partly proceeds from having no Plays at all.

His fourth Argument is, • That the Stage cannot possibly encourage or encline Men to Drunkenness, Gaming and Unnatural Sins, and that the Love of Women is fomented by the Corruption, and not by the Genuine Art of the Stage P. 25, 26..

To prove this Argument, he alledges, That Drunkards are always rendred Odious and Ridiculous by the Stage, Gamsters are never shewn there, but either as Fools or Rascals, and that of those four Reigning Vices, the Stage only Encourages Love to Women, which is the least, th • least Contagious, and least Universal, and is a Check upon the other three; and particularly upon Unnatural Lust, which is the most destructive to the Happiness of MankindPage 25, 26, 27..

I answer in the first place, that Mr. Dennis's Argument and his Topicks to prove it, are founded meerly on his own Authority: and in the next place, that here, as elsewhere he is guilty of Contradictions. —The Stage (he says) does not incourage the Corruption of Manners; and yet owns 〈◊〉 incourages the Love of Women.—Then again, • hat the Love of Women is least Contagious; —and yet owns [pag. 26.] That it has more of Nature, and consequently more Tentation. —So that his Arguments like Cadmus's Earthborn-men [in Ovid] fall foul upon and destroy one another.

But for a further Answer, I must tell him, that those Sins have generally a Dependance, and are mutually productive of one another; and the Theatre being the Common Rendevouz of lew'd Company, the Contagion spreads, and they are frequently infected with one anothers Crimes.

Our Author hath own'd that the Theatre incourages the Love of Women; and Ovid who was a very good Judge in the Matter, tells us, that Venus inclines Men to Idleness, Gaming and Quaffing, or at least that those Vices are usually Compa • ions.

If we may believe Historians, Stage-Plays were first devised by a parcel of Drunken Grecians in Honour of Bacchus Athenaeus, Dipnosoph. Lib. 2. c. 1., to whom they were consecrated Plutarch. Roman. Quaest. Quest. 107., and hence Tertullian calls the Theatre, The Temple of BacchusDe spectae.. Salvian joyns the Roman Stage, their Epicurism and their Drunkenness together, as mutually producing one another Hon. 62. ad Pop. Antioche • um.. —The Roman Emperors, Caligula, Heliogabalus, Nero, Commodus, Galienus, and others who delighted most in the Stage, were the most Debauch'd, Luxurious and Drunken of all others, as may be seen in Suetonius.

It was usual for the Heathen Greeks and Romans to have Stage-Plays at all their Drunken Riotous Feasts, on purpose to draw Men on to more Intemperance and DrunkennessPlutarch. de Gloria • theniensium & Sympos. 〈◊〉 . 7.. Thus we see that Drunkenness was both the Parent and Off-spring of the Antient Stage; nor can our Author give us an instance, that our Modern Theatres have reformed those that frequent them, from Gaming and Drunkenness.

The Author of The Third Blast of Retreat from Plays, complains, That in his Time, the Actors and Play-haunters were the greatest Frequenters of Taverns, Ale-houses, Brandy-shops, &c. and mighty Quaffers, Health-Drinkers and Epicurers, that 'twas their usual Practice to haunt the Play-house, the Bawdy-house and Publick-houses by turns, and to go from the one to the other, and that the Play-house was the common Place where their Riotous Meetings at Taverns were appointed, and the Reason he gives of it is this, because Drunkenness, Epicurism, Luxury and Profuseness were Rhetorically applauded on the Stage, and set off with the highest Encomiums; and those who spent their Estates this way, were dignified by the Poets, with the Title of Brave, Generous, Liberal and Jovial Sparks; as Iuvenal expresses it:

As to Mr. Dennis's seeming to think uncleanness a less Sin than Gaming, and that the Love of W • men encouraged by the Stage is a good Preservative against Sodomy, it's ridiculous. To allow one sin to prevent another, is Play-house Divinity, and to advance that the inflaming of Lust is a proper way to prevent it's exerting it self upon unnatural Objects is an odd kind of Philosophy.

If the Play-house have this Effect now, its more than it had formerly, when we find that the profligate Custom of Men, and Womens putting one anothers Apparel promiscuously on the Stage, was a mighty incentive to that sort of Villany.

Sophocles the famous Greek Tragedian, whom Mr. Dennis calls Divine, is accused by Athaeneus Athaeneus Dipnos. l. 13.; Plutarch Plutarch. Amar. and many other Authors for this Impiety. St. Cyprian charges the same upon the Pantomimes and Players of his time in his 3d Epistle to Donatus, where he expresses it thus, Libidinibus insanis in viros, viri prorunt, &c. St. Chrysostom brings the same Accusation against the Stage in his time in his 12th Homily on the • st Epistle to the Corinthians, where he says, The Theatres gather together Troops of Harlots, and Boys turn'd Ganymeds, who offer Violence to Nature it self. And that our English Stage has not been free of this horrid Crime, we are inform'd by Mr. Stubbs, in his Anatomy of AbusesPag. 105., where he affirms, that Players, and those that frequented the Stage, play'd the Sodomite in their secret Conclaves.

Mr. Dennis in his 4th Chapter pretends to answer Mr. Collier's Objections from Authority. His Exceptions as to most of 'em I have already take • notice of in my Answer to the Reviewer, and therefore shall only Answer what Mr. Dennis has advanc'd that is new; and the first is, that the Stage is of admirable advantage to Learning, and that the Theatre is certainly the best School in the World for History, Poetry and EloquenceP. 35, 36..

Enough has been said already to prove that it can be of no solid advantage to Learning; for when Mens Minds are infected with Vice, they are not fit for any profitable or generous Study, as appears by Seneca's Complaint, that the Stage diverted the People from attending on his Philosophical Lectures. As to History, the falshood of the Assertion is plain; for we may learn more of that by reading the Greek, Roman, and other Historians, than by all the Plays that have ever been writ, which for a mangled scrap now and then of true History, have ten times more of Fable.

Then as to the point of Eloquence: We have Quintilian the famous Orator against him, who in his Directions, How an Orator should frame his Speech, Voice and Gesture, enjoins frequent declaiming, and the often repeating of Eloquent Orations, but expresly forbids him, to imitate Players or the Custom of the Stage, or 〈◊〉 express or act the Slaves, the Drunkards, Lovers or any such Play-house part, because they were no ways necessary for an Orator, but would rather corrupt his Mind and Manners than any way help his Elocution or Action Instit. Orat. • . 1. c. 18, 19. And I would very fain know of Mr. Dennis, which of all the Admirers of the Stage can be compar'd for Eloquence to St. Chrysostom, Tertullian, St. Ierom, and the rest of the Fathers that never frequented the Stage but wrote against it.

But granting it to be true, that the Theatre promoted Eloquence, we may very well say with St. Ierom, Melius est aliquid Nescire, quam cum periculo discere Epist. 2 • . c. 13.. Better never learn it, than run such a risk for it. Besides, an Orator ought to be Grave and Serious, whereas the Stage is Light, Wanton and Lewd. If Cicero that great Master of Eloquence had thought the Stage necessary for promoting that desirable Attainment, or had he ow'd his Formation to it, in so great a measure, as Mr. Dennis says he didPage 36., certainly he would never have been so much an Enemy to Eloq • ence or so ungrateful to the School, whence he learn'd it himself, as to advise the Romans to abandon it, lest it should render them Effeminate and Corrupt, and so overturn their Empire, as it had done that of the Greeks Tusculan Quaest. l. 4., he would rather have advis'd the Reforming of it, as Mr. Dennis does, but that he saw 'twas impracticable, and would turn to as little account as Plowing the Sand: Nor can he ever prove, that Demoshenes acquir'd his Oratry by frequenting the Stage. Plutarch tells us he repeated his Speeches before a large Looking • Glass to regulate his Gestures. But admitting once for all, that there's a great deal of Eloquence, Wit, Invention, History and other parts of Learning in Stage-Plays, there's so much Obscenity, Scurrility and Lewdness mix'd with it, that it only serves as a Tincture of Sugar or a Glass of Cordial to convey a venemous Potion, and the stronger the Wine, or the better the Conserves that are temper'd with the Poison, the more▪ effectually and indiscernibly it kills.— For (as Tertullian says on this very Subject,) no Man mixes Poison with Gall and Hellebore, but with the sweetest, most savory and best relishing Ingredients.—Therefore (says he) look upon those strong Lines, those moral Sentenc • s those pompous Expressions, and witty Sayings as Honey distilling from a poisnous Limb • ck, and don't let the Pleasure of your Palate betray you to the endangering your LivesDespectac c. 27..

I shall conclude this Point with the pertinent Expression of Salvian on the same Subject.— Stage-Poets (says he) have rather damned than illustrated their Wits and Parts.

Mr. Dennis alledges [pag. 36.] that before Thespis appeared in Attica, and reduc'd the Drama to some sort of Form, they had neither Author nor Knowledge among them that could be esteemed by Posterity, which is notoriously False; For Thales who is reckond the first of the 7 Wisemen of Greece was before him; and Solon another of them, who is justly accounted the wisest of the Antient Greek Legislators, after having seen one of his Tragedies, oppos'd him to his Face, forbad him Acting any more, upbraided him for the Lies utter'd in his Play; and told him if his Drama were approv'd, they should quickly find Lying and Cheating in their Contracts and Bargains, as has been noted already; so that her • the Stage was nipp'd in the bud, and yet I must tell our Author, that it was not then manag'd in so lew'd a manner as it is now (tho' bad enough it seems to be censur'd by Solon) for Diogenes Laertius informs us, That Tragedy was then carried on by a Set of Musicians, who sung Hymns in the Praise of Bacchus (which confirms what I have already said, That the Stage had a Drunken Original) and then betwixt those Hymns Thespis Introduc'd an Actor, who repeated some Discourse on a Tragical Subject, and afterwards brought in Satyrs in open Charets, having their Faces daub'd with the Dreggs of Wine to resemble the high colour'd Visage of the Satyrs.

Mr. Dennis had as good have forborn mentioning those Philosopers and Historians Socrates, Plato, Xe • ophon, Aristotle, &c. whom he calls the Wonders of all Posterity, for it will appear from what • as been said of them already under the Head of Philosophers against the Stage that most of them disproved it, ev'n Socrates himself who he says, first began to form their Manners out of the Theatre.

As to his Objection of some of them having writ Tragedies, its nothing to his Purpose; It's very well known, that Tragedies were then repeated for the Instruction of the Audience, but not acted with profane and villanous Gestures to corrupt the Morals of the Spectators; and thus the Comedies and Tragedies of the Antients, such as Soph •• les, Euripides, • eschylus, Menander, Seneca, and others were read by the Poets themselves, or some that they appointed, it being accounted a disgrace for the Authors to have them acted in Stage Plays, as appears plainly by that of Horac • ,

D • odorus Siculus Bib. Hist. l. 14. § 11 • ., Quintillian De Orator. Dia. 1, 6, 〈◊〉 ., and others testifie the same, which is quite another thing than Acting of Plays, there being no Body against Writing a Poem in Nature of a Tragedy or Poetical Dialogue, with several Acts and Parts to add Life and Lustre to it.—Thus Apolinaris the Elder, when he was forbid Preaching by Iulian the Apostate, or to educate Chrisitian Youth in Learning and Poetry, compos'd diverse Tragedies in Imitation of Euripides, and Comedies in Imitatio • of Menander and Pindarus, consis • ing only of Divine Arguments and Scripture Stories, by which he instructed those to whom he could not have Liberty to Preach.—Thus about the time of the Reformation here in England several good Christians, propagated the Protestant Doctrine under the Veil of Dialogues by way of Comedy and Tragedy, insomuch that the Popish Clergy got them forbidden by the 34 and 35 of Henry 8. c. I. The famous Du Plessis Mornay, writ a Tragedy of Ieptha's Daughter: The great Poet Buchanan did the like; he wrote also another call'd Baptistes, and translated into Latin the Medea and Alcestis of Euripides, but it will not therefore follow that those great Men approv'd the Stage. Buchanan in his Dedication of Alcestis to Margaret of France Sister of Henry II. recommends that Tragedy to her, because there is no mention in it of Parricid, Witchraft or other Crimes with which Tragedians, commonly abound; so that by this he rather Censures than approves the Theatre.

Our Author's Assertion, That the Stage was Established in Queen Elizabeths Time, and flourished in that of K. Iames, upon which Spencer, Bacon and Raleigh, three Prodigies of Wit, appear'd all at once, and that we had no first-rate Writer till Henry VIII. is like the rest of his Learning and Confidence. It was so far from being established in Queen Elizabeths Time, tho' it had then but too much Incouragement, that all the Play-houses in London were suppressed upon a Petition to that Queen in 1580.—The Stage was restrained by the 14th and 39th of her Reign, and Books against it, there dedicated to her Secretary Walsingham, and it was so far from flourishing in King Iames I. time, that in the 1st Year of his Reign, Stage-Players were by Act of Parliament declared Rogues and Vagabonds, &c. as has been already said under the Head of The English State against the Stage.

As to the Learning of Bacon and Raleigh, it surpasses Mr. Dennis's Skill to prove that it was any way owing to the Stage, and indeed according to his solid way of Writing, he owns as much himself, when he says, immediately upon the Establishment of the Drama, those three Prodigies of Wit appear'd.

And I must likewise observe, That Bacon and Raleigh (as he calls them) employed themselves in more generous and manly Studies, than any the Stage can boast of, as appears by the Learned Works they have left behind them.

As to the other part of his Assertion, that we had no first-rate Writer on any Subject before Henry VIII. it's an injury to the Nation, and a proof of his own Assurance and Ignorance. To name but a few.

What does he say to Rog. Bacon who liv'd in the 13th Centry, and for his skill in the Mathematicks, was esteemed a Conjurer, and summoned to appear at Rome on that account, where he cleared himself and was sent back again. To go a little higher.

What does he think of the Venerable Bede, who liv'd in the beginning of the 8th Century, from the Birth of Christ, to whose time Bale reckons but 79 British Writers? Did he never hear of Sir Thomas Littleton, the Oracle of the Law, who liv'd in the Reign of Henry VI. of Bracton or Fortescue? But because I will trouble my Reader with no more, I would advise Mr. Dennis to turn over Bale's Centuries of English Writers, and there he will find his bold Assertion to be shamefully False: For in the 8th Century; that Author reckons 18 more Writers besides Bede, 7 in the 9th, 14 in the 10th, 18 in the 11th, 87 in the 12th, amongst whom were 6 of the Decem. Angliae Scriptores; 123 in the 13th, 244 in the 14th, 137 in the 15th; and from thence to the Year 1557. but 137 more. Not that these were all First rate Writers, but it is sufficient to shew, that the State of Learning was not so low in England as Mr. Dennis would represent it to have been: And that the increase and decrease of Learning, has no dependency on the Stage; all that our Plays can pretend to teach, being only some scraps of Rheto • ick and History, which may be much better learn'd elsewhere.

The Reflections which he casts on the Parliament times when the Stage was abolish'd, are full of Malice and Ignorance. No Man can expect that Learning should flourish during an Intestine War, yet those Times were not without Eminent Scholars in all Faculties; and upon Enquiry it will be found, that most of the great Men England can boast of, laid the Foundation of their Studies, and formed their Thoughts before the Stage was restored by King Charles II. The World cannot deny, but Selden and Milton were famous for Learning, tho' they were of the Parliaments side, &ow'd nothing of their Education to the Stage. Nor can our Author pretend, that the Lord Chief Justice Halcs, or the Beginners of the Royal Society, the Doctors, Ward, Wilkins, Wallis, &c. or the famous Mr. Boyle, were any thing indebted to the Theatre for their great Learning.

The slovenly Reflection he casts on the Divines of those times, sufficiently discovers, that he's but sorrily read in Divinity.

The Doctors, Calamy, Case and Manton (whom he mentions with so much Contempt,) are approv'd by better Judges than any that writes for the Theatre, the good acceptance which the latter's Volumes of Sermons have met with from the Publick, have sufficiently proclaimed their Value; and if our Author had a little bethought himself,—the great Archbishop Usher flourished in those times, who was no Friend to the Stage; The most Learned Bishop of Worcester, whom he forgets to mention, was well advanc'd in his Studies, and had given sufficient proof of his Extraordinary Abilities, before the Revival of the Stage; and I dare boldly aver, that the Theatre afforded him none of those Learned Arguments, by which of late he hath baffled the Deist • and Socinians. The Bishop of Salisbury, whose Learning has made him famous, owes his Education to a Country where the Stage never took root.—The late Arch-bishop Tillotson ow'd nothing of his great Endowments to the Theatre: And I Question whether Mr. Lock and Mr. Newton, whose Learning he mentions wi • h deserved applause, will give it under their Hands, that they have had any Benefit by it.—This Venemous Reflection, That none were encourag'd in the Parliament times, but Hypocritical Fools, whose abominable Canting was Christned Gift, and their Dulness Grace Page 42., is no Scandal from the Pen of an Ignorant Libertine.

It's very well known, that some of them that are yet alive, such as Dr. Bates, Mr. How, Mr. Also • , &c. are in general esteem by the Learned Men of all Sides; the two former were particularly resp • cted by the late Arch-bishop Tillotson for their great Learning and Worth; and the latter is sufficiently known to the World for the Accuteness of his Pen, his admirable Talent of Preaching and Universal Learning.

It's need • ess to mention Dr. Owen, Mr. Baxter, Mr. C • arnock and Mr. Pool deceased; and I had almost forgot to mention the Poly-Glot, a Laborious and Learned Work, the Birth of which is owing to those times.

In a word: The Reflection is so malicious and ill grounded, that nothing can justifie my insisting so much upon it, but that it was necessary to Answer a Fool according to his Folly, lest he should be wise in his own Conceit.

I come now to his Second Part.

Where in the first Chapter he asserts with his usual Confidence, That the Stage is useful to the Government; which if true, the Antient Greeks and Romans, who understood Government the best of any People in the Gentile World, were very much in the wrong when they banished the Stage by the Decree of the State (as has been already mentioned) and the Government of England were mightily out in their Measures in the time of King Iames and Charles I. when by Act of Parliament Stage • Players were declared Rogues and Vagabonds.

If the Stage be such a Sovereign Remedy against Ambition and the Immoderate Love of Pleasure, as Mr. Dennis would have itPage 51., what unlucky Stars were they that marr'd its Influence, and prevented its curing of Iulius Caesar, Nero and others of old, and three of our own successive Kings of late; who encouraged and frequented it more than any of their Predecessors? How came the Jews to be so foully mistaken, as to think that the Stage would over-turn their Constitution, as I have already prov'd from Iosephus, or did old Samuel's Spirit of Prophecy forsake him when he recommended the perusal of the Law of God to the Kings of Israel, as the properest Method to keep them steady in their Administration Deu. 17. 18.: Had there been such Poets amongst them in those days, who (as Mr. Dennis has it) are sometimes by a Spirit, not their own, exalted to Divinity Pag. 44.. They would have prescribed Tragedy, as the best Remedy against their inconsiderate Ambition and immoderate love of pleasure* Pag. 52..

This is one of Mr. Dennis's raptures, when exalted to Divinity, which inspir'd his Pen with irresistible Arguments: But I am afraid his Divinity is not of the right stamp; for had he look'd into the Divine Records, he would have found that Moses, Ioshua, Iepthah, Samson, David and others have far out-done all that he has nam'd, for greatness of Courage, and qualifications for Government, and yet never one of them saw a Tragedy. Hunniades, Scanderbeg, Tamerlan, Zisca, Gustavus Adolphus, were equal for Valour to any of his great Samplars, and yet not one of 'em were inspir'd by the Stage. Then for the mighty Richlieu, he was so far over-match'd by his own Contemporary, Oliver the Stage-hater, that for all the Courage of his Tragical Pen, he could not save himself nor his Country from trembling, when the Usurper Roar'd. Nor was the Theatre able to cure his own Ambition: But notwithstanding Mr. Dennis's probatum est, with the same Hand that he wrote his Plays, he laid the foundation of the hatefullest Tyranny that Europe hath known for several Ages. I must also make bold to tell Mr. Dennis, that the countenance given to the Stage by Iulius Caesar, Pompey, and other aspiring Romans, seems rather to have been the effect of their Ambition, than propos'd as a cure for it, that by immersing the people in Debanchery and Pleasures, they should be render'd the less careful of their Expiring Liberties, which the Senate being aware of, thought fit whilst they had any power left them, to cashier the Stage; and this being the Opinion of the State, is more to be regarded than that of any particular person how great soever. It's likewise worthy of our observation, that Augustus himself, and severall other Emperours who favour'd the Stage, were sore'd to discharge it at last as a Nursery of Lewdness and Villany. Scipio Nascica a great General, who by Vote of the Senate was declar'd the best Man of the Common-wealth, because of his extraordinary Valour, Prudence and Morality, suppress'd the Stage as destructive to the Morals of the People. Trajan, who if Pliny may be credited, was one of the best Roman Emperours, did the like: And the Emperour Alexander Severus, who was none of the worlt of them, withdrew the Pensions of the Players; so that all that were great among the Romans, were far from favouring the Stage.

The Influence which Mr. Dennis ascribes to the Stage, in preventing Rebellions amongst the PeoplePage 56., is equally ridiculous with his other Propositions. It's but a few of the People at best, who have either time, opportunity or money to frequent the Theatre; so that by necessary consequence its Influence can never be universal; but besides, he is contradicted by matter of fact, the Incouragement given to the Stage here in England, could neither prevent the opposition made by the Parliament and People to Charles the Ist, nor the Plots of the Papists against Charles the IId. nor the Revolt of the Nation from the last K. Iames. The Stage in France could not prevent the Rebellion against Lewis XIV during his Minority; and it's remarkable, that the Protestants of that Kingdom, who have declar'd against the Theatre in a National Council, as before mentioned, were his firmest Friends.

It's pleasant to read how this Stage Panegyrist will in spite of History and common Sense ascribe all the Great things done by the Greeks and Romans to the Influence of the Stagep. 59, &c., when the States of both condemned them, as occasioning a dissolution of Manners, which render'd them unfit either to defend themselves, or to conquer others. And Themistocles in particular, who is one of the Generals he mentions, had so low an Opinion of the Theatre, that he made a Law against Magistrates frequenting it, lest the Common wealth should seem to play and loiter in the StagePlutarch in Vita Themist.. Pericles, another of them, who was joint Pretor with Sophocles, rebuk'd his Companion for beholding and commending a beautiful Boy, telling him that wanton looks did not become a PretorIo. Sarisb. Nug. Cunal. lib. 1. cap. 8.; what would he have said then of the Modern Stage? Our Author has forgot to mention Alexander the Great, the Discipline and Apparel, of whose Army smelt nothing at all of the gawdy and lascivious Theatre, and yet his Conquests exceeded all those of the other Greek Captains he hath nam'd.

Then as to his Roman Instances, Scipio Africanus was so far from approving the Follies of the Stage, that he pitied the Common-wealth, as drawing near its Ruine, when he saw the Children of the Nobility bred up to Dancing, and singing to the praise of Stage-Players, which their Ancestors reckon'd disgracefulSalust. Saturnal. lib. 3.; and therefore his building, or rather advising a sort of Reform as to the Seats of the Theatre, to distinguish the Senators from the People, seems rather to have proceeded from a Compliance with Custom, and a design to humour the Times, than from his approbation of Stage-Plays. Besides, there's no man acquainted with Roman History, but must needs know that their Theatres were applied to other uses, as publick Orations, and the Execution of Malefactors; so that the Erecting of a Theatre, will not always infer the approbation of the Drama.

Pompey indeed built a Theatre of Stone after the former had been destroyed by Scipio Nasica, and to prevent its being demolish'd by the Censors in time to come, Erected a Temple of Venus on the top of it, which was no great proof that it was designed for a Reformation of Manners; and this the Senate was so sensible of, that they blam'd Pompey for Building his Theatre, as I have said already.

Mr. Dennis in the same ridiculous manner ascribes the Union of the French, and their Conquests to the Influence of the Drama, and the loss of their Conquests to the ceasing of the spirit of Dramatick Poetry among 'em before the beginning of the last War p. 61..

But if he would be pleased to look back to the Time of Charlemaigne, who was a Mortal Enemy to the Stage, he will find that France extended her Conquests a great deal further then, under his Conduct, than she has done by the Influence of the Drama under Lewis XIV. and kept them longer too: And I would pray him to observe, that our own Glorious Sovereign King William, who hath oblig'd the French to resign their Conquests, is no great Admirer of the Stage; so that it's something else than the Drama that hath given him the Ascendant over France. And the World must own that his Courage and Conduct, and Qualifications for Government are equal to any of those whom Mr. Dennis has mentioned, as the great Patrons of the Theatre.

In his Second ChapterFrom p. 63 to 68., he would perswade the World, That the Stage is particularly useful to the English and especially the present Government, because the English are more prone to Rebellion than any People upon the Face of the Earth; and that we have been longer at quiet since the flourishing of the Drama, than at any time before since the Conquest; and that the Civil War was begun by those that were Enemies to the Stage.—So much for its Usefulness to the English in general.

Then he proves its Usefulness to this Government in particular, Because some of its Friends would prove averse to it, if the Stage were either suppress'd or very much discouraged, and that it diverts the Enemies of the Government, hinders their Plotting, and frequenting Iacobite Conventicles.

Here's another piece of Civility to the Nation again; They are the greatest Rebels on Earth according to him; but this I have answer'd already. That we have had more Peace since the flourishing of the Drama, than at any time since the Conquest is false. It cannot be said to have flourished but since the Restoration of Charles II. For it was restrained in Queen Elizabeths Time, by Act of Parliament, and banished the City of London, (as has been already said) yet her's was a Long and a Peaceable Reign.

Stage-Players were condemned as Rogues in that of King Iames, yet we had Peace all his time.—But the unanswerable Argument is this, Those that rebell'd against Charles I. were Enemies to the Stage: But if Mr. Dennis will be pleased to look back, he will find I have proved, That the Incendiaries and Fomenters of the Civil War, were the Friends of the Stage, who taught Rebellion against our Constitution, set the King above all Laws, and would have trod Parliaments under foot, who are two thirds of our Government, if the two States of Lords and Commons may be allowed that Name. But if this will not do, what will Mr. Dennis reply, if I tell him, that those very Men who were Enemies to the Stage, or at least their Successors in Principle and Practice, who abhor the Tyranny of 41, as much as Mr. Dennis abhors the Rebellion on't, are the firmest Friends this Government has: And here I'll venture to say once for all, That it's very dangerous to our present Establishment to have the Theatre manag'd by such kind of Persons as our Author and others, who exclaim with so much Malice and Ignora ••• against those very Maxims, which contrib ••• 〈◊〉 the Happy Revolution; for if resisting or dethroning a Prince be in no case Lawful, which is the common Theme and known Principle of most of the Libellers against 41, it will by necessary Consequence, condemn the Revolution of 1688. So very useful are some of the late Advocates and Authors for the Stage to the present Government (I will not say all that have writ Plays) for I know that Mr. Tate, and some others, whose Parts deserve a better Imployment, are Persons of Generous English Principles.

Our Authors Insinuation, that the Suppression or Discouraging of the Stage, would create an Aversion in any of the Friends of the Government to the present Constitution, is so very silly, that certainly he must be ashamed of it himself upon second Thoughts.—Does he think that a Prince of such Courage and Bravery as ours, puts any Value upon the Friendship or Enmity of a parcel of Men, who have been declared Rogues and Vagabonds by the Statute, or that the Nation would any way resent the overturning of the Stage, which never had any continued Footing nor settled Incouragement among us, but under the Reign of a Luxurious Prince, especially considering how Instrumental it has been to the debauching of our Youth? Does he think that the People, who have look'd on with Satisfaction to see several of those Non-jurant Bishops turn'd out of their Sees, though once they ador'd them, when Petitioners against King Iames's Declaration, would bestow one sigh on the lew'd Stage, though it were first pull'd down, and then built up again, to make its own Funeral Pile. The contrary would be so true that thousands of Husbands, Parents and Masters, who have had their Wives, Children and Servants debauched by it, would gladly throw up their Hatts at such a Bonfire, and lay such a curse upon those that should ever attempt to erect another Stage, as Ioshua laid upon the Re-builder of Iericho. The Nation is brought to a delicate pass indeed, when we must not talk of overturning the Stage, but a parcel of debauched Wits will threaten the Government.

If the Thing were worthy of His Majesties Notice, he might well answer in the Words of Augustus, formerly mentioned in the like case, That he had been powerful enough to make his Enemies stoop, and is he not able now to banish Iesters and Fools.

His next Insinuation, That it diverts the Iacobites, and prevents their Plots and Conventicles, is equally absur'd: Let him but cast an Eye up to Westminster-Hall, or the City Gates, and there the Heads and Limbs of Charnock, Perkins and Friend, &c. will tell him to his Face that he's mistaken.

His Answers to the Objections from Authority, in the Third Chapter, I shall pass over, as having said enough on that Head already, in Answer to others. And as for his Pretence in the rest of his Book, to shew the Usefulness of the Stage to the Advancement of Religion, it's only a further proof of his Vanity and intollerable Confidence, seeing Fathers, Councils, and the best of Divines in all Ages have demonstrated the contrary; to their Arguments that I have quoted already, I refer him, and so bid him Farewel.

If he think that I have not used him with that Smoothness that he might have expected, let him remember how he treated the whole Nation as Splenetick Rebels, the Parliament of England in 1641. as Traitors, and all the Divines of those Times as Blockheads and Hypocrites.