diff options
| author | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 19:53:36 -0700 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Roger Frank <rfrank@pglaf.org> | 2025-10-14 19:53:36 -0700 |
| commit | cec10bae52a213a9a39da1ee62792af0da53e00d (patch) | |
| tree | b83d8024421797b63a1d3eb02476210723ff86f3 /30343-h | |
Diffstat (limited to '30343-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 30343-h/30343-h.htm | 3198 |
1 files changed, 3198 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/30343-h/30343-h.htm b/30343-h/30343-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..f2a4750 --- /dev/null +++ b/30343-h/30343-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,3198 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" /> + <title> + The Project Gutenberg eBook of A Discourse Concerning Ridicule and Irony in Writing, by Anthony Collins. + </title> + <style type="text/css"> + + p { margin-top: .75em; text-align: justify; margin-bottom: .75em;} + + h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {text-align: center; clear: both;} + + hr { width: 33%; margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 2em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; clear: both;} + + table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;} + + body{margin-left: 12%; margin-right: 12%;} + + .pagenum {position: absolute; left: 92%; font-size: smaller; text-align: right;} + + .hang {margin-left: 2em; text-indent: -2em;} + + .blockquot{margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 10%;} + + .poem {margin-left:15%; margin-right:15%;} + + .ads {margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 12%;} + + p.dropcap:first-letter{float: left; padding-right: 3px; font-size: 300%; line-height: 83%; width:auto;} + .caps {text-transform:uppercase;} + + ins.correction {text-decoration:none; border-bottom: thin solid gray;} + .right {text-align: right;} + .center {text-align: center;} + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + + a:link {color:#0000ff; text-decoration:none} + a:visited {color:#6633cc; text-decoration:none} + + .spacer {padding-left: 1em; padding-right: 1em;} + + .footnotes {border: dashed 1px;} + .footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} + .footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} + .fnanchor {vertical-align: super; font-size: .8em; text-decoration: none;} + + </style> + </head> +<body> +<div>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 30343 ***</div> + +<h3><span class="smcap">The Augustan Reprint Society</span></h3> +<p> </p> +<h2>ANTHONY COLLINS</h2> +<p> </p> +<h1>A DISCOURSE</h1> +<h2>CONCERNING</h2> +<h1>Ridicule and Irony</h1> +<h1>IN WRITING</h1> +<p> </p> +<h4>(1729)</h4> +<p> </p> +<h3><i>Introduction by</i><br /> +<span class="smcap">Edward A. Bloom and Lillian D. Bloom</span></h3> +<p> </p> +<h4>PUBLICATION NUMBER 142</h4> +<h4>WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY</h4> +<h4><span class="smcap">University of California, Los Angeles</span></h4> +<h4>1970</h4> + +<p> </p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p> </p> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="editors"> +<tr> +<td align="center"><b>GENERAL EDITORS</b><br /> +William E. Conway, <i>William Andrews Clark Memorial Library</i><br /> +George Robert Guffey, <i>University of California, Los Angeles</i><br /> +Maximillian E. Novak, <i>University of California, Los Angeles</i><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<b>ASSOCIATE EDITOR</b><br /> +David S. Rodes, <i>University of California, Los Angeles</i><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<b>ADVISORY EDITORS</b><br /> +Richard C. Boys, <i>University of Michigan</i><br /> +James L. Clifford, <i>Columbia University</i><br /> +Ralph Cohen, <i>University of Virginia</i><br /> +Vinton A. Dearing, <i>University of California, Los Angeles</i><br /> +Arthur Friedman, <i>University of Chicago</i><br /> +Louis A. Landa, <i>Princeton University</i><br /> +Earl Miner, <i>University of California, Los Angeles</i><br /> +Samuel H. Monk, <i>University of Minnesota</i><br /> +Everett T. Moore, <i>University of California, Los Angeles</i><br /> +Lawrence Clark Powell, <i>William Andrews Clark Memorial Library</i><br /> +James Sutherland, <i>University College, London</i><br /> +H. T. Swedenberg, Jr., <i>University of California, Los Angeles</i><br /> +Robert Vosper, <i>William Andrews Clark Memorial Library</i><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<b>CORRESPONDING SECRETARY</b><br /> +Edna C. Davis, <i>William Andrews Clark Memorial Library</i><br /> +<br /> +<br /> +<b>EDITORIAL ASSISTANT</b><br /> +Roberta Medford, <i>William Andrews Clark Memorial Library</i></td></tr></table> + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_i" id="Page_i">[Pg i]</a></span></p> +<h3>INTRODUCTION</h3> + +<p>Between 1710 and 1729 Anthony Collins was lampooned, satirized, and +gravely denounced from pulpit and press as England’s most insidious +defiler of church and state. Yet within a year of his death he became the +model of a proper country gentleman,</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>... he had an opulent Fortune, descended to him from his Ancestors, +which he left behind him unimpair’d: He lived on his own Estate in +the Country, where his Tenants paid him moderate Rents, which he +never enhanced on their making any Improvements; he always oblig’d +his Family to a constant attendance on Publick Worship; as he was +himself a Man of the strictest Morality, for he never suffer’d any +Body about him who was deficient in that Point; he exercised a +universal Charity to all Sorts of People, without any Regard either +to Sect or Party; being in the Commission of the Peace, he +<ins class="correction" title="original reads 'administred'">administered</ins> Justice with such Impartiality and Incorruptness, that +the most distant Part of the County flock’d to his Decisions; but the +chief Use he made of his Authority was in accommodating +Differences;...<small><a name="f1.1" id="f1.1" href="#f1">[1]</a></small></p></div> + +<p>In a comparison which likens him to Sir Roger de Coverley, there is less +truth than fiction. What they did share was a love of the countryside and +a “universal Charity” towards its inhabitants. For the most part, however, +we can approximate Collins’s personality by reversing many of Sir Roger’s +traits. Often at war with his world, as the spectatorial character was +not, he managed to maintain an intellectual rapport with it and even with +those who sought his humiliation. He never—as an instance—disguised his +philosophical distrust of Samuel Clarke; yet during any debate he planned +“most certainly [to] outdo him in civility and good manners.”<small><a name="f2.1" id="f2.1" href="#f2">[2]</a></small> This +decorum in no way compromised his pursuit of what he considered objective +truth or his denunciation of all<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_ii" id="Page_ii">[Pg ii]</a></span> “methods” or impositions of spiritual +tyranny. Thus, during the virulent, uneven battle which followed upon the +publication of the <i>Discourse of Free-Thinking</i>, he ignored his own wounds +in order to applaud a critic’s</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><i>suspicions that there is a sophism</i> in what he calls my +<i>hypothesis</i>. That is a temper that ought to go thro’ all our +Inquirys, and especially before we have an opportunity of examining +things to the bottom. It is safest at all times, and we are least +likely to be mistaken, if we constantly suspect our selves to be +under mistakes.... I have no system to defend or that I would seem to +defend, and am unconcerned for the consequence that may be drawn from +my opinion; and therefore stand clear of all difficultys w<sup>ch</sup> others +either by their opinion or caution are involved in.<small><a name="f3.1" id="f3.1" href="#f3">[3]</a></small></p></div> + +<p> </p> +<p>This is the statement of a man whose intellectual and religious commitment +makes him see that his own fallibility is symptomatic of a human tendency +to error. For himself, hence, he tries to avoid all manner of hard-voiced +enthusiasm. Paradoxically, however, Collins searched with a zealot’s +avidity for any controversy which would either assert his faith or test +his disbelief. When once he found his engagement, he revelled in it, +whether as the aggressor or the harassed defendant. For example, in the +“Preface” to the <i>Scheme of Literal Prophecy Considered</i> he boastfully +enumerated all the works—some twenty-nine—which had repudiated his +earlier <i>Discourse on the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion</i>. +And in malicious fact he held up the publication of the <i>Scheme</i> for +almost a year that he might add a “Postscript to the Preface” in which he +identified six more pieces hostile to the <i>Grounds and Reasons</i>.<small><a name="f4.1" id="f4.1" href="#f4">[4]</a></small></p> + +<p>By May of 1727 and with no visible sign of fatigue he took on a new +contender; this time it was John Rogers, canon in ordinary to the Prince +of Wales. At the height of their debate, in late summer, Collins made +practical enquiries about methods to prolong and intensify its +give-and-take. Thus, in a note to his friend Pierre Des Maizeaux, he said: +“But I would be particularly informed of the success and sale of the +Letter to D<sup>r</sup> Rogers;<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_iii" id="Page_iii">[Pg iii]</a></span> because, if it could be, I would add to a new +edition thereof two or three as sheets; which also might be sold +separately to those who have already that Letter.” For all his militant +polemic, he asked only that his “Adversaries” observe with him a single +rule of fair play; namely, that they refrain from name-calling and petty +sniping. “Personal matters,” he asserted, “tho they may some times afford +useful remarks, are little regarded by Readers, who are very seldom +mistaken in judging that the most impertinent subject a man can talk of is +himself,” particularly when he inveighs against another.<small><a name="f5.1" id="f5.1" href="#f5">[5]</a></small></p> + +<p>If Collins had been made to look back over the years 1676-1729, he +probably would have summarized the last twenty with a paraphrase of the +Popean line, “This long controversy, my life.” For several years and in +such works as <i>Priestcraft in Perfection</i> (1710) and <i>A Discourse of +Free-Thinking</i> (1713), he was a flailing polemicist against the entire +Anglican hierarchy. Not until 1724 did he become a polished debater, when +he initiated a controversy which for the next five years made a “very +great noise” and which ended only with his death. The loudest shot in the +persistent barrage was sounded by the <i>Grounds and Reasons</i>, and its last +fusillade by the <i>Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony in Writing</i>.<small><a name="f6.1" id="f6.1" href="#f6">[6]</a></small></p> + +<p>During those five years Collins concentrated upon a single opponent in +each work and made it a rhetorical practice to change his “Adversary” in +successive essays. He created in this way a composite victim whose +strength was lessened by deindividualization; in this way too he ran no +risk of being labelled a hobbyhorse rider or, more seriously, a +persecutor. Throughout the <i>Grounds and Reasons</i> he laughed at, reasoned +against, and satirized William Whiston’s assumption that messianic +prophecies in the Old Testament were literally fulfilled in the figure and +mission of Jesus. Within two years and in a new work, he substituted +Edward Chandler, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, for the mathematician. +It need not have been the Bishop; any one of thirty-four others could have +qualified for the role of opponent, among them people like Clarke, and +Sykes, and Sherwood, and even the ubiquitous Whiston. Collins rejected +them, however, to debate in the <i>Scheme</i> with Bishop Chandler, the author +of <i>A Defence of Christianity from the Prophecies of the old Testament</i>,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_iv" id="Page_iv">[Pg iv]</a></span> +with one who was, in short, the least controversial and yet the most +orthodox of his many assailants.</p> + +<p>Early in 1727 the Anglican establishment came to the abrupt realization +that the subject of the continuing debate—the reliability of the argument +from prophecy—was inconclusive, that it could lead only to pedantic +wrangling and hair-splitting with each side vainly clutching victory. +Certainly the devotion of many clergymen to biblical criticism was +secondary to their interest in orthodoxy as a functional adjunct of +government, both civil and canonical. It was against this interest, as it +was enunciated in Rogers’s <i>Eight Sermons concerning the Necessity of +Revelation</i> (1727) and particularly in its vindictive preface, that +Collins chose to fight.<small><a name="f7.1" id="f7.1" href="#f7">[7]</a></small> The debate had now taken a happy turn for him. +As he saw it, the central issue devolved upon man’s natural right to +religious liberty. At least he made this the theme of his <i>Letter to Dr. +Rogers</i>. In writing to Des Maizeaux about the success of this work, he +obviously enjoyed his own profane irony:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>I have had particular compliments made me by the B<sup>P</sup> of Salisbury, +and by D<sup>r</sup> Clark, who among other things sayd, that the Archbp of +Canterbury might have writ all that related to Toleration in it: to +say nothing of what I hear from others. D<sup>r</sup> Rogers himself has +acknowledg[ed] to his Bookseller who sent it to him into the Country, +that he has receivd it; but says that he is so engaged in other +affairs, that he has no thought at present of answering it; tho he +may perhaps in time do so.<small><a name="f8.1" id="f8.1" href="#f8">[8]</a></small></p></div> + +<p> </p> +<p>In time Rogers did. He counterattacked on 2 February 1728 with a +<i>Vindication of the Civil Establishment of Religion</i>.<small><a name="f9.1" id="f9.1" href="#f9">[9]</a></small> For Collins this +work was a dogged repetition of what had gone before, and so it could be +ignored except for one of its appendices, <i>A Letter from the Rev. Dr. +Marshall jun. To the Rev. Dr. Rogers, upon Occasion of his Preface to his +Eight Sermons</i>. Its inclusion seemed an afterthought; yet it altered the +dimensions of the debate by narrowing and particularizing the areas of +grievance which separated the debaters. Collins, therefore, rebutted it +some fourteen months later in <i>A Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_v" id="Page_v">[Pg v]</a></span> +<i>in Writing</i>. He had great hopes for this pamphlet, preparing carefully for +its reception. He encouraged the republication of his three preceding +works, which find their inevitable conclusion, even their exoneration, in +this last performance, and he probably persuaded his bookseller to +undertake an elaborate promotional campaign. For the new editions were +advertised on seven different days between 10 January and 27 February 1729 +in the <i>Daily Post</i>. He wanted no one to miss the relationship between the +<i>Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony</i> and these earlier pieces or to +overlook its presence when it finally appeared in the pamphlet shops on 17 +March.</p> + +<p>Collins was animated by his many debates. Indeed, “he sought the storms.” +Otherwise he would not, could not, have participated in these many verbal +contests. Throughout them all, his basic strategy—that of +provocation—was determined by the very real fact that he had many more +enemies than allies, among them, for instance, such formidable antagonists +as Swift and Richard Bentley.<small><a name="f10.1" id="f10.1" href="#f10">[10]</a></small> To survive he had to acquire a tough +resilience, a skill in fending off attacks or turning them to his own +advantage. Nevertheless, he remained a ready target all his life. +Understandably so: his radicalism was stubborn and his opinions +predictable. Such firmness may of course indicate his aversion to +trimming. Or it may reveal a lack of intellectual growth; what he believed +as a young man, he perpetuated as a mature adult. Whether our answer is +drawn from either possibility or, more realistically, from both, the fact +remains that he never camouflaged the two principles by which he lived and +fought:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>1. That universal liberty be established in respect to opinions and +practises not prejudicial to the peace and welfare of society: by +which establishment, truth must needs have the advantages over +<i>error</i> and <i>falsehood</i>, the <i>law</i> of <i>God</i> over the <i>will</i> of <i>man</i>, +and <i>true Christianity tolerated</i>; private <i>judgment</i> would be really +exercised; and men would be allowed to have suffered to follow their +consciences, over which God only is supreme:...</p> + +<p>2. Secondly, that nothing but the <i>law of nature</i>, (the observance +whereof is absolutely necessary to society)<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_vi" id="Page_vi">[Pg vi]</a></span> and what can be built +thereon, should be enforced by the civil sanctions of the +magistrate:...<small><a name="f11.1" id="f11.1" href="#f11">[11]</a></small></p></div> + + +<h3>II</h3> + +<p>There is very little in this statement to offend modern readers. Yet the +orthodox in Collins’s own time had reason to be angry with him: his +arguments were inflammatory and his rhetoric was devious, cheeky, and +effective. Those contesting him underscored his negativism, imaging him as +a destroyer of Christianity eager “to proselyte men, from the Christian to +no religion at all.”<small><a name="f12.1" id="f12.1" href="#f12">[12]</a></small> Certainly it is true that he aimed to disprove a +Christian revelation which he judged fraudulent and conspiratorial. In +place of ecclesiastical authority he offered the rule of conscience. For +<ins class="correction" title="original reads 'othodoxy'">orthodoxy</ins> he substituted “a Religion antecedent to Revelation, which is +necessary to be known in order to <i>ascertain Revelation</i>; and by that +Religion [he meant] <i>Natural Religion</i>, which is presupposed to +Revelation, and is a Test by which Reveal’d Religion is to be tried, is a +Bottom on which it must stand, and is a Rule to understand it by.”<small><a name="f13.1" id="f13.1" href="#f13">[13]</a></small> +Categorical in tone, the statement frustrated the Anglican clergy by its +very slipperiness; its generalities left little opportunity for decisive +rebuttal. It provided no definition of natural religion beyond the +predication of a body of unnamed moral law which is rational and original, +the archetype of what is valid in the world’s religions.</p> + +<p>His dismissal of revelation and his reduction of Christianity to what he +called its “natural” and hence incontrovertible basis carried with it a +corollary, that of man’s absolute right to religious enquiry and +profession. Here he became specific, borrowing from Lockean empiricism his +conditions of intellectual assent. “Evidence,” he said, “ought to be the +sole ground of Assent, and Examination is the way to arrive at Evidence; +and therefore rather than I wou’d have Examination, Arguing and Objecting +laid aside, I wou’d chuse to say, That no Opinions whatever can be +dangerous to a Man that impartially examines into the Truth of +Things.”<small><a name="f14.1" id="f14.1" href="#f14">[14]</a></small> The church leadership saw in this statement and others like +it not an epistemological premise but a deliberate subterfuge, an +insidious blind to vindicate his attacks upon an organized priesthood.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_vii" id="Page_vii">[Pg vii]</a></span> We +can recognize now that his opponents oversimplified his intention, that +they blackened it to make his villainy at once definitive and vulnerable. +At the same time we must admit that he often equated the ideas of +repression and clerical authority, even as he coupled those of freedom and +the guide of private conscience.</p> + +<p>The Anglican church was infuriated by these correlations, angered as much +by their manner of expression as by their substance. For the faithful were +frequently thrown off balance by a strategy of ironical indirection. +Sometimes this took the form of omission or the presentation of an +argument in so fragmentary or slanted a fashion that Collins’s “Enemies” +could debate neither his implications nor his conclusions. At other times +he used this artful circumlocution to create his favorite mask, that of +the pious Christian devoted to scripture or of the moralist perplexed by +the divisions among the orthodox clergy. Finally, his rhetoric was shaped +by deistic predecessors who used sarcasm and satire to mock the gravity of +church authority. So much was their wit a trademark that as early as 1702 +one commentator had noted, “when you expect an argument, they make a +jest.”<small><a name="f15.1" id="f15.1" href="#f15">[15]</a></small> Collins himself resorted to this practice with both instinctive +skill and deliberate contrivance.</p> + +<p>All these methods, though underhanded, he silently justified on the +assumption that he was dealing with a conspiracy of priests: hence, he +professed that he had to fight fraud and deception with their like, and +that such craftiness, suitable “to his particular genius and temper,” was +“serviceable to his cause.” For these reasons even William Warburton, who +had vainly struggled to be judicious, described him as “a Writer, whose +dexterity in the arts of Controversy was so remarkably contrasted by his +abilities in reasoning and literature, as to be ever putting one in mind +of what travellers tell us of the genius of the proper Indians, who, +although the veriest bunglers in all the fine arts of manual operation, +yet excel everybody in slight of hand and the delusive feats of +activity.”<small><a name="f16.1" id="f16.1" href="#f16">[16]</a></small> Whatever may be said of Collins and his achievement, one +fact remains constant. He was a brilliant and persistent trickster whose +cunning in the techniques of polemic often silenced an opponent with every +substantive right to win the debate.</p> + +<p>He seized any opportunity to expose the diversity of ethical and +theological opinion which set one Anglican divine against<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_viii" id="Page_viii">[Pg viii]</a></span> another, “to +observe”—as Jenkin put it—“how the gladiators in dispute murder the +cause between them, while they so fiercely cut and wound one another.” For +Collins such observation was more than oratorical artifice; it was one of +the dogmas of his near-nihilism. He commented once to Des Maizeaux upon +the flurry of critics who replied to his statement of necessitarianism in +the <i>Philosophical Inquiry concerning Human Liberty</i>:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>I was extreamly pleasd with B<sup>P</sup> Hoadley, ... as it was upon the true +and only point worth disputing with y<sup>e</sup> Preists, viz whether we the +laity are the Calves and Sheep of the Preist. And I am not less +pleasd to see them manage this controversy with y<sup>e</sup> same vile arts +against one another, as they always use towards the laity. It must +open the eyes of a few and convince them, that the Preists mean +nothing but wealth and power, and have not the least ... of those +qualitys for w<sup>ch</sup> the superstitious world admires them.<small><a name="f17.1" id="f17.1" href="#f17">[17]</a></small></p></div> + +<p> </p> +<p>He applied this principle of divisive attack in <i>A Discourse of +Free-Thinking</i>. There in fifty-three pages he transparently ridiculed +contradictions which hedged three areas of fundamental religious belief: +<i>“The Nature and Attributes of the Eternal Being or God, ... the Authority +of Scriptures, and ... the Sense of Scripture.”</i> In accordance with one of +his favorite tricks—the massing of eminent authority—his exposition +rings with hallowed Anglican names: South, Bull, Taylor, Wallis, Carlton, +Davenant, Edwards, More, Tillotson, Fowler, Sherlock, Stillingfleet, +Sacheverell, Beveridge, Grabe, Hickes, Lesley.<small><a name="f18.1" id="f18.1" href="#f18">[18]</a></small> What united these men, +he insinuated, was not a Christian commitment but a talent to disagree +with one another and even to repudiate themselves—as in the case of +Stillingfleet. In effect, the entire <i>Discourse</i> bubbles with a carelessly +suppressed snicker.</p> + +<p>The clergy could not readily reply to this kind of incriminating exposure +or deny its reality. They therefore overreacted to other judgments that +Collins made, particularly to his attacks upon Christian revelation. These +they denigrated as misleading, guileful, sinister, contrived, deceitful, +insidious, shuffling, covert, subversive. What they objected to was, +first, the way in which<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_ix" id="Page_ix">[Pg ix]</a></span> he reduced the demonstration of Christian +revelation to only the “puzzling and perplexing” argument from prophecy, +the casual ease with which he ignored or dismissed those other “clear” +proofs derived from the miracles of Jesus and the resurrection itself.<small><a name="f19.1" id="f19.1" href="#f19">[19]</a></small> +But even more the orthodox resented the masked point of view from which +Collins presented his disbelief.</p> + +<p>For example, the <i>Grounds and Reasons</i> is the deist’s first extended +attack upon revelation. Ostensibly it is, as we have seen, an answer to +Whiston’s <i>Essay Towards Restoring the True Text of the Old Testament; and +for Vindicating the Citations Made Thence in the New Testament</i> (1722). In +it the mathematician argued that the Hebraic prophecies relating to the +messiah had been literally fulfilled in Jesus. But this truth, he +admitted, had been obscured “in the latter Ages,” only because of those +“Difficulties” which “have [almost wholly] arisen from the Corruptions, +the unbelieving <i>Jews</i> introduc’d into the Hebrew and Greek copies of the +Old Testament, [soon after] the Beginning of the Second Century.” These +conspiratorial corruptions he single-handedly planned to remove, returning +the Old Testament to a state of textual purity with emendations drawn from +sources as varied as the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Greek Psalms, the +Antiquities of Josephus, the Chaldee Paraphrases, the books of Philo. His +pragmatic purpose was to nullify the biblical criticism of historical +minded scholars as reputable as Grotius, to render useless the allegorical +interpretation of messianic prophecies. That is, he saw in the latter a +“pernicious” absence of fact, a “weak and enthusiastical” whimsy, +unchristian adjustments to the exigencies of the moment.<small><a name="f20.1" id="f20.1" href="#f20">[20]</a></small></p> + +<p>Collins fought not to destroy Whiston’s position, which was all too easily +destructible, but to undermine the structure, the very “grounds and +reasons” with which orthodoxy supported the mysteries of its faith. To do +so, he spun a gigantic web of irony controlled by a persona whose complex +purpose was concealed by a mien of hyper-righteousness. Here then was one +motivated by a fair-mindedness which allowed him to defend his opponent’s +right of scriptural exegesis even while disagreeing with its approach and +its conclusions. Here too was a conservative Christian different from +Whiston “and many other great divines; who seem to pay little deference to +the books of the New Testament,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_x" id="Page_x">[Pg x]</a></span> the text whereof they are perpetually +mending in their sermons, commentaries, and writings, to serve purposes; +who pretend <i>we should have more of the true text by being less tenacious +of the printed one</i>, and in consequence thereof, presume to correct by +critical <i>emendations</i>, serve <i>capital places</i> in the <i>sacred writers</i>; +and who ... do virtually set aside the authority of the scripture, and +place those compositions in its stead.” Finally, here was one who, +obedient to the spirit of God’s revealed word, rejected the fallacy that +messianic prophecy had been fulfilled in Christ in any “literal, obvious +and primary sense.”<small><a name="f21.1" id="f21.1" href="#f21">[21]</a></small></p> + +<p>But though the persona could not accept Whiston’s program, he was not a +mere negativist. With growing excitement he argued for allegorical +interpretation. At this point the reader discerns that he has been duped, +that nowhere has there been a denial of Whiston’s charge that the reading +of messianic prophecy in a typical or allegorical or secondary sense is +“weak and enthusiastical.” On the contrary, the reader finds only the +damning innuendo that the two methods—the allegorical and the +literal—differ from one another not in kind but in degree of absurdity. +After being protected for a long time by all the twists and turns of his +creator’s irony, the persona finally reveals himself for what he is, a man +totally insolent and totally without remorse. Never for one moment did he +wish to defend the scheme of allegorical prophecy but to attack it. His +argument, stripped of its convolutions and pseudo-piety, moves inexorably +to a single, negative conclusion. “Christianity pretends to derive itself +from Judaism. JESUS appeals to the religious books of the Jews as +prophesying of his Mission. None of these Prophecies can be understood of +him but in a <i>typical allegoric</i> sense. Now that sense is absurd, and +contrary to all scholastic rules of interpretation. Christianity, +therefore, not being really predicted in the Jewish Writings, is +consequently false.”<small><a name="f22.1" id="f22.1" href="#f22">[22]</a></small></p> + +<p>Collins continued his attack upon Christian revelation in the <i>Scheme</i>. In +the two years which separated this work from the earlier <i>Grounds and +Reasons</i>, there occurred no change in the author’s argument. What does +occur, however, is a perceptive if snide elaboration upon the mask. This +is in many ways the same persona who barely suppressed his guffaws in the +earlier work. Now he is given an added dimension; he is made more +decisively<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_xi" id="Page_xi">[Pg xi]</a></span> rational than his predecessor and therefore more insightful in +his knowledge of rhetorical method. As a disciple of certain Protestant +polemicists and particularly of Grotius, whose “integrity,” “honor,” and +biblical criticism he supports, he is the empirical-minded Christian who +knows exactly why the literalists have failed to persuade the +free-thinkers or even to have damaged their arguments. “For if you begin +with Infidels by denying to them, what is evident and agreeable to common +sense, I think there can be no reasonable hopes of converting or +convincing them.”<small><a name="f23.1" id="f23.1" href="#f23">[23]</a></small> The irony is abrasive simply because it unanswerably +singles out the great rhetorical failure of orthodoxy, its inability to +argue from a set of principles as acceptable to the deists as to +themselves.</p> + +<p>Many of the clergy chafed against Collins’s manipulation of this +tongue-in-cheek persona. They resented his irreverent wit which projected, +for example, the image of an Anglican God who “talks to all mankind from +corners” and who shows his back parts to Moses. They were irritated by his +jesting parables, as in “The Case of Free-Seeing,” and by the impertinence +of labelling Archbishop Tillotson as the man “whom all <i>English +Free-Thinkers</i> own as their Head.”<small><a name="f24.1" id="f24.1" href="#f24">[24]</a></small></p> + +<p>But most of all they gagged upon Collins’s use of satire in religious +controversy. As we have already seen, there were complex reasons for his +choice of technique. He was a naturally witty man who, sometimes out of +fear and sometimes out of malice, expressed himself best through +circuitous irony. In 1724, when he himself considered his oratorical +practice, he argued that his matter determined his style, that the targets +of his belittling wit were the “saint-errants.” We can only imagine the +exasperation of Collins’s Anglican enemies when they found their orthodoxy +thus slyly lumped with the eccentricities of Samuel Butler’s “true blew” +Presbyterians. It would be hard to live down the associations of those +facetious lines which made the Augustan divines, like their unwelcome +forebear Hudibras, members</p> + +<p class="poem"><span style="margin-left: 10em;">Of that stubborn Crew</span><br /> +Of Errant Saints, whom all men grant<br /> +To be the true Church Militant.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_xii" id="Page_xii">[Pg xii]</a></span>Those dignified Anglican exteriors were further punctured by Collins’s +irreverent attack upon their cry of religious uniformity, a cry which was +“ridiculous, romantick, and impossible to succeed.” He saw himself, in +short, as an emancipated Butler or even Cervantes; and like his famous +predecessors he too would laugh quite out of countenance the fool and the +hypocrite, the pretender and the enthusiast, the knave and the persecuter, +all those who would create a god in their own sour and puny image.</p> + + +<h3>III</h3> + +<p>By 1727 several of the orthodox felt that they could take no more of +Collins’s laughter, his sneering invectives against the clergy, or his +designs to make religion “a Matter purely personal; and the Knowledge of +it to be obtain’d by personal Consideration, <i>independently of any Guides, +Teachers, or Authority</i>.” In the forefront of this group was John Rogers, +whose hostility to the deist was articulate and compulsive. At least it +drove him into a position seemingly at odds with the spirit if not the law +of English toleration. He urged, for example, that those like Collins be +prosecuted in a civil court for a persuasion “which is manifestly +subversive of all Order and Polity, and can no more consist with civil, +than with religious, Society.”<small><a name="f25.1" id="f25.1" href="#f25">[25]</a></small></p> + +<p>Thereupon followed charge and countercharge. New gladiators, as different +from each other as the nonconformist divine Samuel Chandler and the deist +Thomas Chubb, entered the arena on behalf of Collins. For all the dogmatic +volubility of Rogers, orthodoxy appeared beleaguered. The moderate clergy, +who witnessed this exchange, became alarmed; they feared that in the melee +the very heart of English toleration would be threatened by the +contenders, all of whom spoke as its champion. Representative of such +moderation was Nathanael Marshall, who wished if not to end the debate, +then at least to contain its ardor. As canon of Windsor, he supported the +condition of a state religion protected by the magistrate but he worried +over the extent of the latter’s prerogative and power. Certainly he was +more liberal than Rogers in his willingness to entertain professions of +religious diversity. Yet he straitjacketed his liberalism when he denied +responsible men the right to attack<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_xiii" id="Page_xiii">[Pg xiii]</a></span> laws, both civil and canonical, with +“ludicrous Insult” or “with Buffoonery and Banter, Ridicule or Sarcastick +Irony.”<small><a name="f26.1" id="f26.1" href="#f26">[26]</a></small></p> + +<p>Once again Collins met the challenge. In <i>A Discourse concerning Ridicule +and Irony</i> he devoted himself to undermining the moral, the intellectual, +and practical foundations of that one restraint which Marshall would +impose upon the conduct of any religious quarrel. He had little difficulty +in achieving his objective. His adversary’s stand was visibly vulnerable +and for several reasons. It was too conscious of the tug-of-war between +the deist and Rogers, too arbitrary in its choice of prohibition. It was, +in truth, strained by a choice between offending the establishment and yet +rejecting clerical extremism.<small><a name="f27.1" id="f27.1" href="#f27">[27]</a></small> Moreover, Collins had this time an +invisible partner, a superior thinker against whom he could test his own +ideas and from whom he could borrow others. For the <i>Discourse concerning +Ridicule and Irony</i> is largely a particularization, a crude but powerful +reworking of Shaftesbury’s <i>Sensus Communis: An Essay on the Freedom of +Wit and Humour</i>.</p> + +<p>Supported by Shaftesbury’s urbane generalization, Collins laughed openly +at the egocentricity and blindness of Marshall’s timid zealotry. Indeed, +he wryly found his orthodox opponent guilty of the very crime with which +he, as a subversive, was charged. It seemed to him, he said,</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>a most prodigious Banter upon [mankind], for Men to talk in general +of the <i>Immorality</i> of <i>Ridicule</i> and <i>Irony</i>, and of <i>punishing</i> Men +for those Matters, when their own Practice is <i>universal Irony</i> and +<i>Ridicule</i> of all those who go not with them, and <i>universal +Applause</i> and <i>Encouragement</i> for such <i>Ridicule</i> and <i>Irony</i>, and +distinguishing by all the honourable ways imaginable such <i>drolling</i> +Authors for their Drollery; and when Punishment for <i>Drollery</i> is +never call’d for, but when <i>Drollery</i> is used or employ’d against them!</p> + +<p class="right">(<a href="#Page_29">p. 29</a>)</p></div> + +<p>Collins’s technique continued its ironic ambiguity, reversal, and +obliquity. Under a tone of seeming innocence and good will, he credited +his adversaries with an enviable capacity for satiric<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_xiv" id="Page_xiv">[Pg xiv]</a></span> argument. In +comradely fashion, he found precedent for his own rhetorical practice +through a variety of historical and biblical analogies. But even more +important for a contemporary audience, he again resorted to the device of +invoking the authority provided by some of the most respected names in the +Anglican Establishment. The use of satire in religious topics, hence, was +manifest in “the Writings of our most eminent Divines,” especially those +of Stillingfleet, “our greatest controversial Writer” (<a href="#Page_4">pp. 4-5</a>).</p> + +<p>With all the outrageous assurance of a self-invited guest, the deist had +seated himself at the table of his vainly protesting Christian hosts (whom +he insisted on identifying as brethren). “In a word,” he said so as to +obviate debate, “the Opinions and Practices of Men in all Matters, and +especially in Matters of Religion, are generally so absurd and ridiculous +that it is impossible for them not to be the Subjects of Ridicule” (<a href="#Page_19">p. 19</a>). Thus adopting Juvenal’s concept of +satiric necessity (“difficile est saturam non scribere”), Collins here set forth the thesis and rationale of +his enemy. There was a kind of impudent virtuosity in his “proofs,” in his +manner of drawing a large, impressive cluster of names into his ironic net +and making all of them appear to be credible witnesses in his defense. +Even Swift, amusingly compromised as “one of the greatest <i>Droles</i> that +ever appear’d upon the Stage of the World” (<a href="#Page_39">p. 39</a>), was brought to the +witness box as evidence of the privileged status to which satiric writing +was entitled. Collins enforced erudition with cool intelligence so that +contemptuous amusement is present on every page of his <i>Discourse</i>.</p> + +<p>Beneath his jeers and his laughter there was a serious denunciation of any +kind of intellectual restraint, however mild-seeming; beneath his verbal +pin-pricking there was conversely an exoneration of man’s right to +inquire, to profess, and to persuade. Beneath his jests and sarcasms there +was further a firm philosophical commitment that informed the rhetoric of +all his earlier work. Ridicule, he asserted in 1729, “is both a proper and +necessary Method of Discourse in many Cases, and especially in the Case of +<i>Gravity</i>, when that is attended with Hypocrisy or Imposture, or with +Ignorance, or with soureness of Temper and Persecution: all which ought to +draw after them the <i>Ridicule</i> and <i>Contempt</i> of the Society, which has no +other effectual Remedy against such<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_xv" id="Page_xv">[Pg xv]</a></span> Methods of Imposition” (<a href="#Page_22">p. 22</a>).</p> + +<p>For the modern reader the <i>Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony</i> is the +most satisfactory of Collins’s many pamphlets and books. It lacks the +pretentiousness of the <i>Scheme</i>, the snide convolutions of the <i>Grounds +and Reasons</i>, the argument by half-truths of the <i>Discourse of +Free-Thinking</i>. His last work is free of the curious ambivalence which +marked so many of his earlier pieces, a visible uncertainty which made him +fear repression and yet court it. On the contrary, his last work is in +fact a justification of his rhetorical mode and religious beliefs; it is +an <i>apologia pro vita sua</i> written with all the intensity and decisiveness +that such a justification demands. To be sure, it takes passing shots at +old enemies like Swift, but never with rancor. And while its language is +frequently ironical, its thinking makes an earnest defense of wit as a +weapon of truth. The essay sets forth its author as an <i>animal ridens</i>, a +creature that through laughter and affable cynicism worships a universal +God and respects a rational mankind.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p>Brown University</p> + + +<p> </p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_xvi" id="Page_xvi">[Pg xvi]</a></span></p> +<h3>NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION</h3> + +<p><a name="f1" id="f1" href="#f1.1">1.</a> <i>Universal Spectator, and Weekly Journal</i>, No. 98 (22 August 1730).</p> + +<p><a name="f2" id="f2" href="#f2.1">2.</a> To Des Maizeaux (5 May 1717): B. M. Sloane MSS. 4282, ff. 129-130.</p> + +<p><a name="f3" id="f3" href="#f3.1">3.</a> To Des Maizeaux (9 February 1716): B. M. Sloane MSS. 4282, f. 123.</p> + +<p><a name="f4" id="f4" href="#f4.1">4.</a> The title page of the <i>Scheme</i> is dated 1726. It was not advertised in +the newspapers or journals of that year—a strange silence for any of +Collins’s work. Its first notice appeared in the <i>Monthly Catalogue: Being +a General Register of Books, Sermons, Plays, Poetry, Pamphlets, &c. +Printed and Publish’d in London, or the Universities, during the Month of +May, 1727</i> (see No. 49). Yet we know that the <i>Scheme</i> had been remarked +upon as early as March when on the 10th of that month Samuel Chandler +published his <i>Reflections on the Conduct of the Modern Deists in their +late Writings against Christianity</i>. (For the dating of Chandler’s work, +see the <i>Daily Courant</i> [10 March 1727].) We know also that the <i>Scheme</i> +went to a second edition late in 1727 and was frequently advertised in the +<i>Daily Post</i> between 2 January and 20 January 1728.</p> + +<p><a name="f5" id="f5" href="#f5.1">5.</a> For the statement about the <i>Letter to Dr. Rogers</i>, see B. M. Sloane +MSS. 4282, f. 220 (15 August 1727). For that on the use of “personal +matters” in controversy, see B. M. Sloane MSS. 4282, f. 170 (27 December +1719); cf. <i>The Scheme of Literal Prophecy Considered</i> (London, 1726), pp. +422-438.</p> + +<p><a name="f6" id="f6" href="#f6.1">6.</a> <i>The Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion</i> was published in +London within the first four days of January 1724; see the advertisement +in the <i>Daily Post</i> (4 January 1724). <i>A Discourse concerning Ridicule and +Irony in Writing</i> was published on or close to 17 March 1729; see the +advertisement in the <i>Daily Journal</i> for that date.</p> + +<p><a name="f7" id="f7" href="#f7.1">7.</a> We can generally fix the date of Rogers’s <i>Eight Sermons</i> within the +first two months of 1727 because it was answered early by Samuel +Chandler’s <i>Reflections on the Conduct of the Modern Deists</i>. (See <a href="#f4">note 4</a>.) +For the dating of Collins’s rebuttal, see the <i>Monthly Catalogue</i>, No. 49 (May 1727).</p> + +<p><a name="f8" id="f8" href="#f8.1">8.</a> To Des Maizeaux (24 June 1727): B. M. Sloane MSS. 4282, ff. 218-219.</p> + +<p><a name="f9" id="f9" href="#f9.1">9.</a> For the dating of this work, see the <i>Daily Post</i> (31 January 1728).</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_xvii" id="Page_xvii">[Pg xvii]</a></span><a name="f10" id="f10" href="#f10.1">10.</a> For +Swift’s satire, see <i>Mr. C---ns’s Discourse of Free-Thinking, Put +into plain English, by way of Abstract, for the Use of the Poor</i>. For +Bentley’s devastating probe of Collins’s scholarly inadequacies, see his +<i>Remarks on the Discourse of Free-Thinking. By Phileleutherus Lipsiensis</i>. +Both works appeared in 1713.</p> + +<p><a name="f11" id="f11" href="#f11.1">11.</a> <i>Scheme</i>, pp. 432-433.</p> + +<p><a name="f12" id="f12" href="#f12.1">12.</a> Edward Chandler, <i>A Defence of Christianity from the Prophecies of +the Old Testament</i> (London, 1725), p. ii.</p> + +<p><a name="f13" id="f13" href="#f13.1">13.</a> <i>A Letter to Dr. Rogers</i>, p. 89.</p> + +<p><a name="f14" id="f14" href="#f14.1">14.</a> <i>A Vindication of the Divine Attributes</i> (London, 1710), p. 24.</p> + +<p><a name="f15" id="f15" href="#f15.1">15.</a> Robert Jenkin, <i>A Brief Confutation of the Pretences against Natural +and Revealed Religion</i> (London, 1702), p. 40.</p> + +<p><a name="f16" id="f16" href="#f16.1">16.</a> For Collins on his own rhetorical skills, see <i>Scheme</i>, p. 402; +William Warburton, <i>Divine Legation of Moses, Demonstrated</i> (London, +1846), III, 199.</p> + +<p><a name="f17" id="f17" href="#f17.1">17.</a> Jenkin, <i>Brief Confutation</i>, p. 51; for the letter (1 July 1717), see +B. M. Sloane MSS. 4282, f. 137.</p> + +<p><a name="f18" id="f18" href="#f18.1">18.</a> Pp. 46-99.</p> + +<p><a name="f19" id="f19" href="#f19.1">19.</a> See, for example, the statement of John Conybeare, Bishop of Bristol, +in Joseph Spence, <i>Observations, Anecdotes, and Characters of Books and +Men</i>, ed. James M. Osborn (Oxford, 1966), I, sect. 992.</p> + +<p><a name="f20" id="f20" href="#f20.1">20.</a> <i>Essay</i>, pp. 329-333 (for Whiston’s statement of sources); pp. +334-335 (for his defense of literal interpretation). The bracketed material indicates Whiston’s manuscript emendations of his own printed +text; see the British Museum’s copy of the <i>Essay</i> (873. 1. 10) which originally belonged to the mathematician. See Collins, <i>Grounds and +Reasons</i>, pp. 98-99, for the summary of Whiston’s attack upon allegorical interpretation.</p> + +<p><a name="f21" id="f21" href="#f21.1">21.</a> <i>Grounds and Reasons</i>, pp. 20, 48-50.</p> + +<p><a name="f22" id="f22" href="#f22.1">22.</a> This terse summary of the persona’s argument was correctly made by Warburton, III, 232.</p> + +<p><a name="f23" id="f23" href="#f23.1">23.</a> <i>Scheme</i>, p. 391.</p> + +<p><a name="f24" id="f24" href="#f24.1">24.</a> <i>Discourse of Free-Thinking</i>, pp. 15-17, 38, 171.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_xviii" id="Page_xviii">[Pg xviii]</a></span><a name="f25" id="f25" href="#f25.1">25.</a> <i>Eight Sermons</i>, pp. 1, lxi.</p> + +<p><a name="f26" id="f26" href="#f26.1">26.</a> Marshall, pp. 301, 337. For Samuel Chandler’s contribution, see his +<i>Reflections on the Conduct of the Modern Deists</i> (London, 1727); for +Chubb’s contribution see <i>Some Short Reflections on the Grounds and Extent +of Authority and Liberty, With respect to the Civil Government</i> (London, +1728).</p> + +<p><a name="f27" id="f27" href="#f27.1">27.</a> Marshall’s reluctance to support Rogers’s extremism is seen in the +funeral sermon he preached at the latter’s death (<i>A Sermon Delivered in the Parish Church of St. Giles Cripplegate, May 18, 1729. Upon Occasion of +the Much Lamented Death of the Rev<sup>d</sup>. John Rogers</i> [London, 1729]). He made only the most casual and indifferent reference to Rogers’s work. So +obvious was this slight that it called for a rebuttal; see Philalethes (A. A. Sykes [?]), <i>Some Remarks Upon the Reverend Dr. Marshall’s Sermon on +Occasion of the Death of the Rev<sup>d</sup> D<sup>r</sup> Rogers</i> (London, 1729).</p> + + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="Bibliographical Note"> +<tr><td align="center"><b>BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE</b></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td>This facsimile of <i>A Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony in Writing</i> +(1729) is reproduced from a copy in the William Andrews Clark Memorial Library.</td></tr></table> + +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h3>A</h3> +<h1>DISCOURSE</h1> +<h3>CONCERNING</h3> +<h2>Ridicule and Irony</h2> +<h3>IN</h3> +<h1>WRITING,</h1> +<h3>IN A</h3> +<h2>LETTER</h2> +<h4>To the Reverend</h4> +<h3>Dr. <span class="smcap">Nathanael Marshall</span>.</h3> +<p> </p> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="quotes"> +<tr><td>———— <i>Ridiculum acri<br /> +Fortius & melius magnas plerumq; secat res.</i></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td>———— <i>Ridentem dicere verum<br /> +Quid vetat?</i></td></tr></table> +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><i>L O N D O N :</i></p> + +<p class="center">Printed for <span class="smcap">J. Brotherton</span> in <i>Cornhill</i> and sold<br /> +by <span class="smcap">T. Warner</span> in <i>Pater-noster-Row</i>, and<br /> +<span class="smcap">A. Dodd</span> without <i>Temple-Bar</i>. 1729.</p> + +<hr style="width: 35%;" /> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span></p> + +<h3>A</h3> +<h1>DISCOURSE</h1> +<h3>CONCERNING</h3> +<h2><i>Ridicule</i> and <i>Irony</i>, &c.</h2> + +<p><span class="smcap">Reverend Sir</span>,</p> + +<p class='dropcap'><span class="caps">In</span> your <i>Letter</i> to Dr. <i>Rogers</i>, which he has publish’d at the End of his +<i>Vindication of the Civil Establishment of Religion</i>, I find a Notion +advanc’d by you: which as it is a common and plausible Topick for +Persecution, and a Topick by which you, and many others, urge the +Magistrate to punish [or, as you phrase it, <i>to pinch</i>] <small><a name="f28.1" id="f28.1" href="#f28">[28]</a></small> Men for +controversial Writings, is particularly proper at this time to be fully +consider’d; and I hope to treat it in such manner as to make you your +self, and every fair Reader, sensible of the Weakness thereof.</p> + +<p>You profess to “vindicate <small><a name="f29.1" id="f29.1" href="#f29">[29]</a></small> a sober, serious, and modest Inquiry into +the Reasons of any Establishment.”</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span>And you add, that you “have not ordinarily found it judg’d inconsistent +with the Duty of a <i>private Subject</i>, to propose his Doubts or his Reasons +to the Publick in a <i>modest</i> way, concerning the <i>Repeal</i> of any Law which +he may think of ill Consequence by its Continuance. If he be a Man of +Ability, and well vers’d in the Argument, he will deserve some Attention; +but if he mistakes his Talent, and will be busy with what he very little +understands, Contempt and Odium will be his unavoidable and just +Allotment.” And you say, that “Religion is more a personal Affair, in +which every Man has a peculiar Right and Interest, and a Concern that he +be not mistaken, than in any other Case or Instance which can fall under +the Cognizance of the Magistrate; and that greater Allowances seem due to +each private Person for Examination and Inquiry in this, than in any other +Example.”</p> + +<p>And herein I must do you the Justice to acknowledge, that you speak like a +Christian, like a Protestant, like an <i>Englishman</i>, and a reasonable Man; +like a Man concerned for Truth, like a Man of Conscience; like a Man +concern’d for the Consciences of others; like a Man concern’d to have some +Sense, Learning, and Virtue in the World; and, in a word, like a Man who +is not for abandoning all the valuable Things in Life to the Tyranny, +Ambition, and Covetousness of Magistrates and Ecclesiasticks.</p> + +<p>But you observe, that “municipal Laws<small><a name="f30.1" id="f30.1" href="#f30">[30]</a></small>, how trivial soever in their +intrinsick Value, are never to be <i>insulted</i>; never to be treated with +<i>Buffoonery</i> and <i>Banter</i>, <i>Ridicule</i> and <i>Sarcastick Irony</i>. So that Dr. +<i>Rogers</i>’s grand Adversary will have from you no measure of Encouragement +to his manner of Writing.” Again, you “never <small><a name="f31.1" id="f31.1" href="#f31">[31]</a></small> desire to see the +Magistrate fencing in the publick Religion<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span> with so thick a Hedge as shall +exclude all Light, and shall tear out the Eyes of all such as endeavour to +see thro’ it. <i>Sober arguing</i> you never fear: <i>Mockery</i> and <i>bitter +Railing</i>, if you could help it, you would never bear, either <i>for the +Truth or against it</i>.”</p> + +<p>Upon which I offer these following Considerations.</p> + +<p>I. <i>First</i>, If what you call <i>Insult</i>, <i>Buffoonery</i>, <i>Banter</i>, <i>Ridicule</i> +and <i>Irony</i>, <i>Mockery</i> and <i>bitter Railing</i>, be Crimes in Disputation, you +will find none more deeply involv’d in it than our most famous Writers, in +their controversial Treatises about <i>serious</i> Matters; as all Notions and +Practices in Religion, whether reasonable or absurd, may be equally and +justly deem’d: the Notions and Practices of Papists, Presbyterians, +Quakers, and all other Sects, being no less <i>serious</i> to their respective +Sects than ridiculous to one another. Let any Man read the Writings of our +most eminent Divines against the <i>Papists</i>, <i>Puritans</i>, <i>Dissenters</i>, and +<i>Hereticks</i>, and against one another, and particularly the Writings of +<i>Alexander Cook</i>, <i>Hales</i>, <i>Chillingworth</i>, <i>Patrick</i>, <i>Tillotson</i>, +<i>Stillingfleet</i>, <i>Burnet</i>, <i>South</i>, <i>Hickes</i>, <i>Sherlock</i> and <i>Edwards</i>, +and he will find them to abound with <i>Banter</i>, <i>Ridicule</i>, and <i>Irony</i>. +<i>Stillingfleet</i> in particular, our greatest controversial Writer, who +passes for <i>grave</i> and <i>solemn</i>, is so conscious of his use thereof, that +he confesses that Charge of the Papists against him, saying<small><a name="f32.1" id="f32.1" href="#f32">[32]</a></small>, “But I +forget my Adversary’s grave admonition, that I <i>would treat these Matters +seriously, and lay aside Drollery</i>.” And again, after a <i>Banter</i> of near a +Page, he says<small><a name="f33.1" id="f33.1" href="#f33">[33]</a></small>, “But I forget I am so near my Adversary’s Conclusion, +wherein he so <i>gravely</i> advises me, that I <i>would be pleas’d for once</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span> <i>to +write Controversy, and not Play-Books</i>.” Nor did I ever hear the Divines +of the Church condemn the Doctor for his sarcastical Method of writing +Controversy. On the contrary, I remember at the University, that he used +to be applauded no less for his Wit than for his Learning. And to exalt +his Character as a Wit, his <i>Conferences between a</i> Romish <i>Priest, a +Fanatick Chaplain, and a Divine of the Church of</i> England, <i>&c.</i> were +spoken of as an excellent <i>Comedy</i>, and especially for that Part which the +<i>Fanatick Chaplain</i> acts therein, who makes as comical and as ridiculous a +Figure as he does in any of the <i>Plays</i> acted on the Stage. And in his +<i>Controversy</i> with <i>Dryden</i> about the <i>Royal Papers</i>, and those of the +<i>Duchess</i> of <i>York</i>, he was deem’d to have out-done that famous <i>Satirist</i> +in tart Repartees and Reflections; and to have attack’d the Character of +the <i>Poet</i> with more severity, than that <i>Poet</i>, who was so remarkable for +his satirical Reflections on the holy Order, did the Character of the +<i>Divine</i>: As for example, he says to <i>Dryden</i><small><a name="f34.1" id="f34.1" href="#f34">[34]</a></small>, “Could nothing be said +by you of Bishop <i>Morley</i>, but that <i>Prelate of rich Memory</i>? Or had you a +mind to tell us he was no <i>Poet</i>? Or that he was out of the Temptation of +changing his Religion for Bread?” And many Citations us’d to be produc’d +out of his Writings, as Specimens of his ironical Talent; among which I +particularly remember his <i>Ridicule</i> of his Adversary Mr. <i>Alsop</i>, a +famous Presbyterian Wit and Divine; whose Book, which was full of low +Raillery and Ridicule, he resembles <small><a name="f35.1" id="f35.1" href="#f35">[35]</a></small> to <i>the Bird of</i> Athens, as <i>made +up of Face and Feathers</i>. And the Doctor himself adds, in Justification of +the polite Method of Raillery in Controversy, that <i>there is a +pleasantness of Wit, which serves to entertain</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span> <i>the Reader in the rough +and deep way of Controversy</i>. Nor did Mr. <i>Alsop</i> want Approvers of his +Raillery in his own Party. Mr. <i>Gilbert Rule</i><small><a name="f36.1" id="f36.1" href="#f36">[36]</a></small>, a great <i>Scotch</i> +Presbyterian Divine, who defended him against <i>Stillingfleet</i>, contends in +behalf of his Raillery, “That the Facetiousness of Mr. <i>Alsop</i>’s Strain +needed to have bred no Disgust, being as a Condiment to prevent <i>Tædium</i> +and Nauseousness.” And he adds, “That he knows none that blame the +excellent Writings of Mr. <i>Fuller</i>, which have a Pleasantness not unlike +that of Mr. <i>Alsop</i>.”</p> + +<p>And this manner of writing is seldom complain’d of, as unfit to be +allow’d, by any but those who feel themselves hurt by it. For the solemn +and grave can bear a solemn and grave Attack: That gives them a sort of +Credit in the World, and makes them appear considerable to themselves, as +worthy of a serious Regard. But <i>Contempt</i> is what they, who commonly are +the most contemptible and worthless of Men, cannot bear nor withstand, as +setting them in their true Light, and being the most effectual Method to +drive Imposture, the sole Foundation of their Credit, out of the World. +Hence <i>Stillingfleet</i>’s Popish Adversaries, more conscious perhaps of the +Ridiculousness of Popery than the common People among Protestants +themselves, fall upon him very furiously. One says<small><a name="f37.1" id="f37.1" href="#f37">[37]</a></small>, “That by the +Phrases, which are the chief Ornaments that set off the Doctor’s Works, we +may easily guess in what Books he has spent his Time; and that he is well +vers’d in <i>Don Quixot</i>, the <i>Seven Champions</i>, and other <i>Romantick +Stories</i>. Sure the Doctor err’d in his Vocation: Had he quitted all +serious Matters, and dedicated himself wholly to Drollery and Romance, +with two or three <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span>Years under <i>Hudibras</i>, he might have been a Master in +that Faculty; the Stage might have been a Gainer by it, and the Church of +<i>England</i> would have been no Loser.”</p> + +<p>Another of his Adversaries says, “<small><a name="f38.1" id="f38.1" href="#f38">[38]</a></small>Peruse the Doctor Page after Page, +you will find the Man all along in peevish Humour, when you see his Book +brimfull of tart biting Ironies, Drolleries, comical Expressions, +impertinent Demands, and idle Stories, <i>&c.</i> as if the discharging a +little Gall were enough to disparage <i>the clearest Miracles</i> God ever wrought.”</p> + +<p>But what are these <i>clearest Miracles God ever wrought</i>? Why, the most +extravagant, whimsical, absurd, and ridiculous Legends and Stories +imaginable; such as that of <i>St. Dominick</i><small><a name="f39.1" id="f39.1" href="#f39">[39]</a></small>, who when the Devil came to +him in the Shape of a <i>Monkey</i>, made him hold a Candle to him while he +wrote, and keep it so long between his Toes, till it burnt them; and his +keeping the Devil, who sometimes came to him in the Shape of a <i>Flea</i>, and +by skipping on the Leaves of his Book disturb’d his Reading, in that +Shape, and using him for a Mark to know where he left off reading: Such as +St. <i>Patrick</i>’s heating an Oven with Snow, and turning a Pound of Honey +into a Pound of Butter: Such as <i>Christ</i>’s marrying Nuns, and playing at +Cards with them; and Nuns living on the Milk of the blessed Virgin <i>Mary</i>; +and that of divers Orders, and especially the <i>Benedictine</i>, being so dear +to the blessed Virgin, that in Heaven she lodges them under her +Petticoats: Such as making broken Eggs whole; <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span>and of People, who had +their Heads cut off, walking with their Heads in their Hands, which were +sometimes set on again: Such as Failing for a hundred Years; and raising +Cows, Calves, and Birds from the Dead, after they had been chopt to Pieces +and eaten, and putting on their Heads after they had been pull’d or cut +off; and turning a Pound of Butter into a Bell; and making a Bull give +Milk; and raising a King’s Daughter from the Dead, and turning her into a +Son; and the several Translations thro’ the Air of the Virgin <i>Mary</i>’s +House from <i>Palestine</i> to <i>Loretto</i>, and the Miracles wrote there; and +more of the like Kind.</p> + +<p>Are these, or such as these the <i>clearest Miracles God ever wrought</i>? Do +such Miracles deserve a serious Regard? And shall the <i>Gravity</i> with which +Mankind is thus banter’d out of their common Sense, excuse these Matters +from <i>Ridicule</i>?</p> + +<p>It will be difficult to find any Writers who have exceeded the Doctors, +<i>South</i> and <small><a name="f40.1" id="f40.1" href="#f40">[40]</a></small> <i>Edwards</i>, in <i>Banter</i>, <i>Irony</i>, <i>Satire</i> and <i>Sarcasms</i>: +The last of whom has written a Discourse in <i>Defence of sharp Reflections +on Authors and their Opinions</i>; wherein he enumerates, as Examples for his +Purpose, almost all the eminent Divines of the Church of <i>England</i>. And +Mr. <small><a name="f41.1" id="f41.1" href="#f41">[41]</a></small> <i>Collier</i>, speaking of a Letter of the Venerable <i>Bede</i> to +<i>Egbert</i> Bishop of <i>York</i>, says, “The Satire and Declamation in this +<i>Epistle</i> shews the <i>pious Zeal</i> and <i>Integrity</i> of the Author;” which +seems to imply, that <i>Satire</i> and <i>Declamation</i> is the orthodox and most +pious Method of writing in behalf of <i>Orthodoxy</i>.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span>Dr. <i>Rogers</i>, to whom you write, falls into the Method of Buffoonery, +Banter, Satire, Drollery, Ridicule, and Irony, even in the Treatise to +which your Letter is subjoined, and against that <i>Person</i> whom you would +have punish’d for that Method: When he says to him, <small><a name="f42.1" id="f42.1" href="#f42">[42]</a></small> “Religion then, +it seems, must be left to the Scholars and Gentlefolks, and to them ’tis +to be of no other use, but as a Subject of Disputation to improve their +Parts and Learning; but methinks the Vulgar might be indulged a little of +it now and then, upon Sundays and Holidays, instead of Bull-baiting and +Foot-ball.” And this insipid Piece of Drollery and false Wit [which is +design’d to ridicule his Adversary for asserting, that <i>What Men +understand nothing of, they have no Concern about</i>; which is a Proposition +that will stand the Test of <i>Ridicule</i>, which will be found wholly to lie +against the Doctor, for asserting the Reasonableness of imposing Things on +the People which they do not understand] is the more remarkable, as it +proceeds from one, who is at the same time for using the Sword of the +Magistrate against his Adversary. One would think the <small><a name="f43.1" id="f43.1" href="#f43">[43]</a></small> <i>Inquisitor</i> +should banish the <i>Droll</i>, and the <i>Droll</i> the <i>Inquisitor</i>.</p> + +<p>One of the greatest and best Authorities for the <i>pleasant</i> and <i>ironical</i> +manner of treating <i>serious</i> Matters, is that eminent Divine at the Time +of the Reformation, the great <i>Erasmus</i>, who has written two Books in this +way with great Applause of Protestants, and without subjecting himself to +any Persecution of Papists: which makes it highly proper to propose them +to the Consideration of the Reader, that he may regulate his Notions, by +what, it <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span>may be presum’d, he approves of in that Author. These two Books +of <i>Erasmus</i> are his <i>Colloquies</i>, and his <i>Praise of Folly</i>.</p> + +<p>His <i>Colloquies</i> were wrote in imitation of <i>Lucian</i>’s <i>Dialogues</i>; and I +think with equal, if not superior, Success.</p> + +<p>Both these Authors had an Aversion to sullen, austere, designing Knaves; +and both of them being Men of Wit and Satire, employ’d their Talents +against <i>Superstition</i> and <i>Hypocrisy</i>. <i>Lucian</i> liv’d in an Age when +<i>Fiction</i> and <i>Fable</i> had usurp’d the Name of <i>Religion</i>, and <i>Morality</i> +was corrupted by <i>Men</i> of <i>Beard</i> and <i>Grimace</i>, but scandalously <i>Leud</i> +and <i>Ignorant</i>; who yet had the Impudence to preach up <i>Virtue</i>, and style +themselves <i>Philosophers</i>, perpetually clashing with one another about the +Precedence of their several Founders, the Merits of their different Sects, +and if ’tis possible, about Trifles of less Importance: yet all agreeing +in a different way to dupe and amuse the poor People, by the <i>fantastick</i> +Singularity of their Habits, the unintelligible Jargon of their Schools, +and their Pretensions to a severe and mortify’d Life.</p> + +<p>These Jugglers and Impostors <i>Lucian</i> in great measure help’d to chase out +of the World, by exposing them in their proper Colours, and by +representing them as ridiculous as they were. But in a few Generations +after him, a new Race of Men sprung up in the World, well known by the +Name of <i>Monks</i> and <i>Fryars</i>, different indeed from the former in +Religion, Garb, and a few other Circumstances; but in the main, the same +sort of Impostors, the same ever-lasting Cobweb-Spinners, as to their +nonsensical Controversies, the same abandon’d <i>Wretches</i>, as to their +Morals; but as to the mysterious Arts of heaping up Wealth, and picking<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span> +the People’s Pockets, infinitely superior to the <i>Pagan Philosophers</i> and +<i>Priests</i>. These were the sanctify’d Cheats, whose Folly and Vices +<i>Erasmus</i> has so effectually lash’d, that some Countries have entirely +turn’d these Drones out of their Cells; and in other Places, where they +are still kept up, they are in some measure become contemptible, and +obliged to be always on their Guard.</p> + +<p>The Papists say, that these “<small><a name="f44.1" id="f44.1" href="#f44">[44]</a></small><i>Colloquies</i>, by turning into <i>Ridicule</i> +the Devotion to the holy Virgin and Saints, the Worship of Relicks and +Images, religious Vows and Pilgrimages, have made more Hereticks than the +Works of <i>Luther</i> and <i>Calvin</i>.” And I find the reverend Mr. <i>Trapp</i> +[after calling <small><a name="f45.1" id="f45.1" href="#f45">[45]</a></small> <i>Reliques</i>, <span class="smcap">Foolish</span>] celebrates <i>Erasmus</i> for <i>having +abundantly</i> <span class="smcap">ridicul’d</span> <i>them</i>.</p> + +<p>His <i>Praise of Folly</i> treats of <i>serious</i> Matters, in such a gay, +familiar, ingenious and pleasant manner, as makes it a Work proper to be +read by intelligent People, to remove out of their Minds all Bigotry +contracted by Ignorance and an evil Education, all Peevishness, Hatred, +and Ill-nature towards one another, on account of different Sentiments in +Religion; and to form in them the natural Principles of Moderation, +Humanity, Affection and Friendship. Our learned and ingenious Bishop +<i>Kennet</i> could not do a more signal Piece of Service to our Country, than +by translating into <i>English</i> this Book, which the Ladies have now an +Opportunity of understanding no less than the Men; and from whence they +may see the pleasant, amiable, and just Disposition of Mind of one of the +most learned and ingenious Men that ever liv’d, as well <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span>as Author of a +great Number of religious and devotional Books; nor could the Bishop well +give a heartier Stroke at Popery, than by approving of <i>Erasmus</i>’s <small><a name="f46.1" id="f46.1" href="#f46">[46]</a></small> +<i>laughing</i> at it, and applauding his numberless <i>Taunts on its Impostures, +Cheats, and Delusions</i>.</p> + +<p>Our Clergy have ever treated Mr. <i>Hobbes</i> with the greatest Mockery, +Ridicule and Raillery: As for example, <i>Ward</i> Bishop of <i>Sarum</i>, <i>Brambal</i> +Bishop of <i>Derry</i>, <i>Parker</i> Bishop of <i>Oxford</i>, Dr. <i>Wallis</i> in his +several bantering Treatises against him, <i>Lucy</i> Bishop of <i>St. Davids, +Shafto</i>, and particularly the Reverend <i>Droll</i>, Dr. <i>Eachard</i>, in two +<i>Dialogues</i>, which, it is well known, have been universally well receiv’d +by the Clergy, and that for their Treatment of Mr. <i>Hobbes</i> in the +ridiculing Way; for which the Author himself makes the following just +Apology, in his <i>Dedication</i> of his <i>Second Dialogue</i> to Archbishop +<i>Sheldon</i>, “That of all Triflers, ’tis the <i>Set</i>, the <i>Grave</i>, the +<i>Philosophical</i>, and the <i>Mathematical Trifler</i>, to which he has the +greatest Aversion; whom when he meets, very gravely making out all Men to +be rational Beasts both in Nature and Conversation, and every Man, he +pleases, a rational Rebel; and upon any Fright or Pinch a rational Atheist +and Anti-Christian; and all this perform’d with all <span class="smcap">Demureness</span>, <span class="smcap">Solemnity</span>, +<span class="smcap">Quotation</span> of <span class="smcap">Scripture</span>, <span class="smcap">Appeals</span> to <span class="smcap">Conscience</span> and <span class="smcap">Church-History</span>; he must +humbly beg his <i>Grace’s</i> Pardon, if then he has endeavour’d to <span class="smcap">smile</span> a +little, and to get as much out of his Road and way of Writing as +possible.” These <i>Dialogues</i> used to be much recommended to the Youth to +make them laugh at Mr <i>Hobbes</i>, who <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span>was constantly represented as +provok’d and put out of all Temper by them, and was said to have vented +this strange and impious Expression, upon its being told him, that <i>the +Clergy said</i> Eachard <i>had crucify’d</i> Hobbes; “Why then don’t they fall +down and worship me?”</p> + +<p>Mr. <i>Selden</i> has been the constant Subject of Clergy-banter, for his +<i>History of Tythes</i>; in the <i>Preface</i> to which, “He reproaches the Clergy +with Ignorance and Laziness, and upbraids them with having nothing to keep +up their Credit but <i>Beard</i>, <i>Title</i>, and <i>Habit</i>; and their Studies +reach’d no farther than the <i>Breviary</i>, the <i>Postils</i>, and <i>Polyanthea</i>.” +For this Work he was attack’d more particularly by three Divines, +<i>Tillesly</i>, <i>Mountagu</i>, and <i>Nettles</i>. And their Success was thus +originally represented<small><a name="f47.1" id="f47.1" href="#f47">[47]</a></small>, “That he was so gall’d by <i>Tillesly</i>, so +gagg’d by <i>Mountagu</i>, and so stung by <i>Nettles</i>, that he never came off in +any of his Undertakings with more loss of Credit.” And this Jest has +pass’d much upon the World, and been continued down in many Books, where +Mr. <i>Selden</i> is mention’d, to his Discredit with ignorant Readers, but not +with the Knowing and Learned; who, as Dr. <i>Wotton</i> tells us<small><a name="f48.1" id="f48.1" href="#f48">[48]</a></small>, <i>have, +now Party-heats are over, acquiesced in what Mr.</i> Selden advanc’d; <i>who +first</i>, <span class="smcap">of all Christians</span>, <i>set the Affair</i> of Tythes <i>in a clear Light</i>.</p> + +<p>It is usually said the Comedy called <i>Ignoramus</i>, which is a Clergy-banter +upon the <i>Law</i>, was a design’d Return for Mr. <i>Selden</i>’s <i>History of Tythes</i>.</p> + +<p>The Reverend Dr. <i>Beaumont</i>, late Master of St. <i>Peter</i>’s <i>College</i> and +King’s Professor of Divinity, has given us a Book, entitled, “Some +Observations <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span>upon the Apology of Dr. <i>Henry More</i> for his <i>Mystery of +Godliness</i>;” which endeavours to render the said Doctor <i>ridiculous</i>, and +set People a <i>laughing</i> at him, (<i>p. 9. &c. 64.</i>) and used to be applauded +as a complete Performance in the way of Raillery and Irony, and was well +receiv’d for being directed against a Person esteem’d Heterodox.</p> + +<p>Many Clergymen have written Books to banter the Works of Mr. <i>Locke</i>, +among whom Dr. <i>Edwards</i> must have the first Place; whose <i>Brief +Vindication of the fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith</i>, which has +the <i>Imprimatur</i> before it of <i>James</i>, <i>Beaumont</i>, <i>Covel</i>, and +<i>Balderston</i>, four <i>Cambridge</i> Heads, was never exceeded by the most licentious <i>Droll</i>.</p> + +<p>When <i>Sorbier</i>’s <i>Voyage</i> to <i>England</i>, which was a pert and insolent +Abuse and Satire on the Nation, and written in the <i>French</i> manner of +contemptuously treating all Countries and Men but <i>France</i> and +<i>Frenchmen</i>, was publish’d, it was deem’d proper that a drolling and +satirical Answer should be given to it, and that the Reverend Dr. <i>Sprat</i> +should be the <i>Droll</i> employ’d; who perform’d his Part according to the +Expectation of the Drolling Court of King <i>Charles</i> II. and as the +ingenious Mr. <i>Addison</i> tells us, <small><a name="f49.1" id="f49.1" href="#f49">[49]</a></small> <i>Vindicated the Honour of his +Country, in a Book full of Satire and Ingenuity</i>.</p> + +<p>Bishop <i>Beveridge</i> ever pass’d for a serious and profound Divine; and his +Writings have fix’d that Character upon him among the Religious of the +High Church, who have receiv’d his <i>Private Thoughts</i> and his Volumes of +<i>Sermons</i>, like <i>Manna</i> from Heaven. And yet possibly never Man had two +more severe Attacks made upon him than he had; one by Bishop +<i>Stillingfleet</i>, who in <i>A Vindication of their Majesties Authority to +fill the Sees of</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span> <i>the depriv’d Bishops</i>, &c. occasion’d by Dr. +<i>Beveridge</i>’s Refusal of the Bishoprick of <i>Bath</i> and <i>Wells</i>, satirizes +both his <i>Prudence</i> and his <i>Sincerity</i>; and another, by an ingenious +Bishop also, who in <i>A short View of Dr.</i> Beveridge<i>’s Writings</i>, has in a +most refin’d <i>drolling manner</i> represented those Writings as abounding in +most absurd and ridiculous Divinity.</p> + +<p>But one of the justest and finest Pieces of <i>Irony</i>, and the most timely +and seasonably vented, and that deserves perpetual Remembrance, is, +<i>Andrews</i> the grave Bishop of <i>Winchester</i>’s Irony, on <i>Neal</i> the grave +Bishop of <i>Durham</i>; of which we have the following Relation in the Poet +<i>Waller</i>’s <i>Life</i>, prefix’d before his Works: “On the Day of the +Dissolution of the last Parliament of King <i>James</i> the First, Mr. +<i>Waller</i>, out of Curiosity or Respect, went to see the King at Dinner; +with whom were Dr. <i>Andrews</i> the Bishop of <i>Winchester</i>, and Dr. <i>Neal</i> +Bishop of <i>Durham</i>, standing behind his Majesty’s Chair. There happen’d +something very extraordinary in the Conversation those Prelates had with +the King, on which Mr. <i>Waller</i> did often reflect. His Majesty ask’d the +Bishops, <i>My Lords, cannot I take my Subjects Money when I want it, +without all this Formality in Parliament?</i> The Bishop of <i>Durham</i> readily +answer’d, <i>God forbid, Sir, but you should; you are the Breath of our +Nostrils</i>. Whereupon the King turn’d and said to the Bishop of +<i>Winchester</i>, <i>Well, my Lord, what say you? Sir</i>, replied the Bishop, <i>I +have no Skill to judge of Parliamentary Cases</i>. The King answer’d, <i>No +Put-offs, my Lord; answer me presently. Then, Sir</i>, said he, <i>I think it +is lawful for you to take my Brother</i> Neal<i>’s</i> <i>Money, for he offers it</i>. +Mr. <i>Waller</i> said the Company was pleas’d with this Answer, and the<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span> Wit +of it seem’d to affect the King.” Which shews the exceeding Aptness and +Usefulness of a good <i>Irony</i>; that can convey an Instruction to a vicious, +evil, and tyrannical Prince, highly reflecting on his Conduct, without +drawing on his Resentment.</p> + +<p>To these famous Divines I might add the most eminent and renowned +Philosophers of Antiquity, who, either out of a Contempt of Mankind, or to +gratify their peculiar Tempers, or to correct the Vices and Follies of +Men, and to instil virtuous Maxims in those who would only receive them in +some pleasant way, set up for good Humour, Mirth, and Drollery, as their +standing Method of Life, and of Conversation with the World; and have left +behind them some of their occasional Sayings upon record, which do more +Honour to their Memories than the most elaborate Treatises would have +done, and more Good to Men; upon whom a Jest, or witty Saying, is more +fitted to operate and make Impression than long Deductions and Reasonings, +and particularly on Princes and great Men, who will receive no Instruction +but in some very artful and short Way: whereof even the rude <i>Diogenes</i>, +the <i>Cynick</i>, has given us a most incomparable Example, in his occasional +Conference with <i>Alexander the Great</i>, who was put into such Temper by the +mere Freedom and Raillery of the Philosopher, as to take every thing in +good part he said to him, and consequently be dispos’d to reflect upon it, +and to act with Discretion. At the Head of these Philosophers I place +<span class="smcap">Socrates</span>, who has very generally in all Ages pass’d for the <i>wisest</i> of +<i>Men</i>, and was declared so by an <i>Oracle</i>; which, at least, was therein +directed and influenc’d by some considerable human Authority, or by the +common Sentiments of Men at that time. His Character I<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span> shall give you in +the words of the most ingenious <i>Addison</i>, who was himself a Master of +<i>Humour</i> and <i>Drollery</i>, and practis’d them in Perfection, and with great +Success in almost all his Prose-writings. “<i>Socrates</i>, says he<small><a name="f50.1" id="f50.1" href="#f50">[50]</a></small>, who +was the greatest Propagator of Morality in the Heathen World, and a Martyr +for the Unity of the Godhead, was so famous for the exercise of the Talent +[of Raillery and Humour] among the politest People of Antiquity, that he +gain’d the Name of <span class="smcap">the Drole</span>.<small><a name="f51.1" id="f51.1" href="#f51">[51]</a></small>” A Character that intitled him to the +greatest Merit, as it most of all enabled him to promote Virtue.</p> + +<p>I might also offer to your Confederation the Affair of <i>Comedies</i>; which +all polite Governments have permitted, or establish’d, in their several +populous and wealthy Cities, as the necessary and proper means to +encounter Vice and recommend Virtue, and to employ innocently and usefully +the vacant Hours of many, who know not how to employ their Time, or would +employ it amiss, by entering into <small><a name="f52.1" id="f52.1" href="#f52">[52]</a></small> Factions and Cabals to disturb the +State; or by Gaming, or by backbiting Conversations about their +Neighbours. And as <i>Comedies</i>, which were originally very gross, grew by +Use more polite and refin’d in <i>Satire</i> and <i>Raillery</i>: so the most +celebrated Wits and Statesmen, and Persons of the greatest Quality, have +engag’d and join’d with others in them, and performed with the greatest +Success and Reputation to themselves; and have been valu’d, not only for +their Talents of <i>Irony</i> and <i>Drollery</i>, which were essential to the +Credit of such Performances; but applauded, as acting the virtuous Part of <i>Droles</i>.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span>In fine, Books of Satire, Wit, +Humour, <ins class="correction" title="original reads 'Rididicule'">Ridicule</ins>, Drollery, and Irony, are +the most read and applauded of all Books, in all Ages, Languages, and +Countries. And as those which are exquisite in their kinds, are the +standing Entertainment of the Ingenious and Learned; so others, of a lower +kind, are to be found among the lower Readers, who sleep under all Works which do not make them merry.</p> + +<p>In a word, the Opinions and Practices of Men in all Matters, and +especially in Matters of Religion, are generally so absurd and ridiculous +that it is impossible for them not to be the Subjects of Ridicule.</p> + +<p>For what else can be expected from Men who generally take up their +Opinions without any Inquiry into their Reasonableness or Truth, and upon +the most incompetent Grounds? I cannot be supposed to injure Mankind, if I +consider them under the Character which the very ingenious Sir <i>Richard +Steele</i> gives of himself; who <i>acknowledges</i> <small><a name="f53.1" id="f53.1" href="#f53">[53]</a></small> that (even while he took +upon himself the Title of the <i>Censor</i> of <i>Great Britain</i>, and in so many +fine Papers corrects his Countrymen, and particularly <i>the Freethinkers</i>, +whom he directs the Magistrate to punish with Death) <i>it had been with +him, as it is with too many others, that a</i> <small><a href="#f53">[53]</a></small> <i>sort of an</i> implicit +Religion <i>seem’d the most easy and most comfortable; and that a blind +Veneration for</i> he knew not what, <i>and he</i> knew not whom, <i>stood for every +thing important</i>. And he <i>confesses</i> he <i>was not enough aware, that this +Implicitness of Conduct is the great Engine of Popery, fram’d for the +Destruction of</i> good Nature, <i>as well as</i> good Sense. If so great a Man +could take up with such a Method, and act the Part of a <i>Censor</i> and +Director<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span> of others, in a Matter which he had not at all consider’d, what +can be expected else from others, but absurd and ridiculous Opinions and Practices?</p> + +<p>And if some Men will fall into absurd and ridiculous Opinions, Habits, +Forms, Figures and Grimaces; there will be those who will <i>laugh</i>, nay, +cannot help <i>laughing</i> at them. Hence most Parties laugh at one another, +without the least Scruple, and with great Applause of their own Parties; +and the Leaders of the same Party laugh with one another, when they +consider the absurd and ridiculous Opinions they profess, and how they +cheat and govern their Followers; agreeably to what <i>Cicero</i> reports of +<i>Cato</i><small><a name="f54.1" id="f54.1" href="#f54">[54]</a></small>, “<i>Vetus autem illud</i> Catonis <i>admodum scitum est, qui</i> mirari +se <i>aiebat, quod non rideret haruspex cum haruspicem vidisset</i>.”</p> + +<p>I think it may be justly suppos’d, that Pope <i>Alexander</i> and <i>Thomas +Becket</i> could not but laugh together at the Simplicity and Weakness of +their Followers, the Papists, who receiv’d for truth the following Story. +It was told as a Fact<small><a name="f55.1" id="f55.1" href="#f55">[55]</a></small>, “that when <i>Thomas Becket</i>, who never drank any +thing but Water, sat at Table with <i>Pope Alexander</i>, and that his Holiness +would needs taste of his Cup; lest his abstemiousness should be known, God +turn’d the Water into Wine: so that the <i>Pope</i> found nothing but Wine in +the Cup. But when <i>Becket</i> pledg’d him, it was turn’d into Water again.”</p> + +<p><i>Laughing</i> therefore, and <i>Ridicule</i> in <i>serious Matters</i>, go round the +World with no inconsiderable Applause, and seem highly proper for this +World of Nonsense and Folly. To hinder <i>laughing</i> upon such just Occasions +as are given, is almost all one <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span>as to hinder <i>breathing</i>. A very witty, +drolling, Dramatick Poet, and of the first Rank for Quality, says in a +<i>Prologue</i> to his Auditors.</p> + +<p class="poem"> +“<i>Suppose now, at this Instant, one of you</i><br /> +“<i>Were tickled by a Fool, what would you do?</i><br /> +“<i>’Tis ten to one you’d</i> laugh: <i>here’s just the Case.</i><br /> +“<i>For there are Fools that tickle with their Face.</i><br /> +“<i>Your gay Fool tickles with his Dress and Motions;</i><br /> +“<i>But your</i> grave Fool <i>of</i> Fools <i>with</i> silly Notions.<br /> +“<i>Is it not then unjust that Fops should still</i><br /> +“<i>Force one to</i> laugh, <i>and then take laughing ill?</i></p> + +<p> </p> +<p>II. <i>Secondly</i>, If it be a Fault in those reverend Divines, mention’d in +the foregoing Article, to use <i>Irony</i>, <i>Drollery</i>, <i>Ridicule</i>, and +<i>Satire</i>, in any Case; or if the Fault lies in an exorbitant Use thereof, +or in any particular Species of <i>Drollery</i>; as, for example, such +<i>Drollery</i> as is to be found in the polemical Writings and Sermons of Dr. +<i>South</i>; it is fit some Remedy should be employ’d for the Cure of this +Evil. And the Remedy I would propose, should not be to have the Authors +punish’d by the Magistrate, any more than for any other Faults in writing; +but either to neglect and despise it, as Rage and Scolding, which drop +into Oblivion with the Sound, and would have a Life given it by +Resentment: or to allow Men to <i>criticize</i> and <i>ridicule</i> one another for +their <i>Ironies</i> and <i>Drollery</i>, and to exercise their Wit and Parts +against each other; that being the true Method to bring Things to a +Standard, to fix the Decency and Propriety of Writing, to teach Men how to +write to the Satisfaction of the ingenious, polite, and sensible Part of +Mankind: for Decency and Propriety will stand the Test of Ridicule, and +triumph over all the false Pretences to Wit; and Indecency and +Impropriety<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span> will sink under the Trial of Ridicule, as being capable of +being baffled by Reason, and justly ridicul’d. And if any kind or degree +of <i>Ridicule</i> be absurd or <i>ridiculous</i>, that will appear so upon Trial, +no less than the low and gross <i>Ridicule</i> prevalent among the unpolite +Part of the World: But that will never appear. On the contrary, <i>Ridicule</i> +of certain kinds, and under reasonable Directions and Rules, and used in +proper Time, Place, and Manner, (all which also are only to be found out +and fix’d by Trial and Experience) is both a proper and necessary Method +of Discourse in many Cases, and especially in the Case of <i>Gravity</i>, when +that is attended with Hypocrisy or Imposture, or with Ignorance, or with +soureness of Temper and Persecution; all which ought to draw after them +the <i>Ridicule</i> and <i>Contempt</i> of the Society, which has no other effectual +Remedy against such Methods of Imposition. And to determine in some +measure the Nature and Extent of the <i>Irony</i> I contend for, as <i>Just</i>, I +profess to approve the noble <i>Sarcasm</i> of <i>Elijah</i><small><a name="f56.1" id="f56.1" href="#f56">[56]</a></small>; wherein he thus +mocks the <i>Priests</i> of <i>Baal</i>, saying in effect to them, “<i>Cry aloud, for</i> +your <i>Baal</i> is a fine God: <i>He is either talking, or he is pursuing, or he +is in a Journey; or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked</i>.” And I +concur with the <i>Psalmist</i><small><a name="f57.1" id="f57.1" href="#f57">[57]</a></small>, who thought it no Indecency to say, that +<i>he that sits in Heaven shall laugh them</i> (that is, certain Kings, who +were <i>David</i>’s Enemies) <i>to scorn; the Lord shall have them in Derision</i>: +and must judge, that <i>laughing to scorn</i>, and <i>deriding</i> the greatest Men +upon Earth, even Kings and Princes, to be a laudable and divine Method of +dealing with them, who are only to be taught or rebuk’d in some artful +way. I also approve of the following <i>Sarcasm</i> or <i>Irony</i>, which <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span>has a +better Authority for it than <i>Elijah</i> or the <i>Psalmist</i>. <i>Moses</i> +introduces God speaking thus after the Fall<small><a name="f58.1" id="f58.1" href="#f58">[58]</a></small>, <i>Behold the Man is become +like one of us, to know Good and Evil!</i> And I think this Passage shews, +that the whole Affair of the <i>Fall</i>, of which we have so very brief an +Account, was a very entertaining Scene; and would have appear’d so, if set +forth at large; as indeed it does under the Hands of our Divines, who have +supplied that short Narration by various Additions, founded on +Conjectures, and particularly under the fine Hand of Dr. <i>Tho. Burnet</i>, +who has made a most ingenious Dialogue of what he suppos’d pass’d between +<i>Eve</i> and the <i>Serpent</i><small><a name="f59.1" id="f59.1" href="#f59">[59]</a></small>. To say nothing of <i>Milton</i>’s famous <i>Paradise Lost</i>.</p> + +<p>In fine, ever since I could read the <i>Bible</i>, I was particularly pleas’d +with the <i>History</i> of <i>Jonas</i>, where such a Representation is made of that +<i>Prophet</i>’s Ignorance, Folly, and Peevishness, as exposes him to the +utmost Contempt and Scorn, and fixes a perpetual <i>Ridicule</i> on his +Character. And let me here observe, that this <i>History</i> has had ample +Justice done it, in an Explication thereof by <i>two</i> <small><a name="f60.1" id="f60.1" href="#f60">[60]</a></small> very ingenious +Authors, who, by most penetrating and happy Criticisms and Reflections, +have drawn the Character of <i>Jonas</i> in a more open manner.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p>III. But, <i>Thirdly</i>, I wave my <i>Remedy</i>, and am ready to come into any Law +that shall be made to rectify this suppos’d Fault of <i>Irony</i>, by punishing those who are guilty of it.</p> + +<p>The great Concern is and ought to be, that <i>the Liberty of examining into +the Truth of Things should be</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span> <i>kept up</i>, that Men may have some Sense and +Knowledge, and not be the <i>Dupes</i> of <i>Cheats</i> and <i>Impostors</i>, or of those +who would keep them in the dark, and let them receive nothing but thro’ +their Hands. If that be secur’d to us by Authority, I, for my part, am +very ready to sacrifice the Privilege of <i>Irony</i>, tho so much in fashion +among all Men; being persuaded, that a great Part of the <i>Irony</i> +complain’d of, has its rise from the <i>want of Liberty to examine into the +Truth of Things</i>; and that if that <i>Liberty</i> was prevalent, it would, +without a Law, prevent all that <i>Irony</i> which Men are driven into for want +of Liberty to speak plainly, and to protect themselves from the Attacks of +those who would take the Advantage to ruin them for direct Assertions; and +that such Authors as <i>Rabelais</i>, <i>Saint Aldegonde</i>, <i>Blount</i>, <i>Marvel</i>, +<i>Thekeringil</i>, and many others, would never have run into that Excess of +<i>Burlesque</i>, for which they are all so famous, had not the Restraint from +writing <i>seriously</i> been so great.</p> + +<p>“If <small><a name="f61.1" id="f61.1" href="#f61">[61]</a></small> Men are forbid to speak their Minds <i>seriously</i> on certain +Subjects, they will do it <i>ironically</i>. If they are forbid at all upon +such Subjects, or if they find it dangerous to do so, they will then +redouble their Disguise, involve themselves in mysteriousness, and talk so +as hardly to be understood, or at least not plainly interpreted by those +who are dispos’d to do them a Mischief. And thus <i>Raillery</i> is brought +more in fashion, and runs into an Extreme. ’Tis the persecuting Spirit has +rais’d the <i>bantering</i> one: And want of Liberty may account for want of a +true Politeness, and for the Corruption or wrong Use of Pleasantry and Humour.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span>“If in this respect we strain the just Measure of what we call <i>Urbanity</i>, +and are apt sometimes to take a buffooning rustick Air, we may thank the +ridiculous Solemnity and sour Humour of our <i>Pedagogues</i>: or rather they +may thank themselves, if they in particular meet with the heaviest of this +kind of Treatment. For it will naturally fall heaviest, where the +Constraint has been the severest. The greater the Weight is, the bitterer +will be the Satire. The higher the Slavery, the more exquisite the Buffoonery.</p> + +<p>“That this is really so, may appear by looking on those Countries where +the spiritual Tyranny is highest. For the greatest of <i>Buffoons</i> are the +<i>Italians</i>: and in their Writings, in their freer sort of Conversations, +on their Theatres, and in their <i>Streets</i>, <i>Buffoonery</i> and <i>Burlesque</i> +are in the highest Vogue. ’Tis the only manner in which the poor cramp’d +Wretches can discharge a free Thought. We must yield to ’em the +Superiority in this sort of Wit. For what wonder is it if we, who have +more Liberty, have less Dexterity in that egregious way of <i>Raillery</i> and <i>Ridicule</i>?”</p> + +<p>Liberty of <i>grave</i> Examination being fix’d by Law, I am, I say, ready to +sacrifice the Privilege of <i>Irony</i>, and yield to have a Law enacted to +prevent it. I am, moreover, willing to leave the drawing up such a Law to +your self; who honestly and impartially say<small><a name="f62.1" id="f62.1" href="#f62">[62]</a></small>, that all who <i>droll</i>, let +them be of any Party, let them <i>droll for the Truth or against it</i>, should be equally punish’d.</p> + +<p>Thus this grand Affair of <i>Irony</i>, <i>Banter</i>, and <i>Ridicule</i>; this last +persecuting Pretence, upon which you would set the Humours and Passions of +People,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span> who are all at quiet, on float, and make a Fermentation, and +raise a Persecution against particular People, seems perfectly settled, by +yielding to your own Terms.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p>IV. Let me here add, that I am apt to think, that when you draw up your +Law, you will find it so very difficult to settle the Point of <i>Decency</i> +in Writing, in respect to all the various kinds of <i>Irony</i> and <i>Ridicule</i>, +that you will be ready to lay aside your Project; and that you will be no +more able to settle that <i>Point of Decency</i>, than you would be to settle +by Law, that <i>Cleanliness</i> in Clothes, and that Politeness in Dress, +Behaviour, and Conversation, which become Men of Quality and Fortune in +the World, and should be habitual to them: And that, if you are able to do +that to your own Satisfaction, you will find it very difficult to engage +the Lawmakers in your Project. For I am persuaded, that if our Lawmakers +were, out of a rational Principle, disposed to give Liberty by Law to +<i>serious</i> Opposition to publickly receiv’d Notions, they would not think +it of much Importance to make a <i>Law</i> about a Method of <i>Irony</i>. They will +naturally conclude, that if Men may and ought to be allow’d to write +<i>seriously</i> in Opposition to publickly receiv’d Doctrines, they should be +allow’d to write in their own way; and will be unwilling to be depriv’d of +ingenious and witty Discourses, or such as some of them will judge so, +about a Subject wherein <i>serious free</i> Discourse is allow’d. Besides, I am +apt to think, that you, upon consideration of the Advantages which the +Church has receiv’d from the <i>Berkenheads</i>, the <i>Heylins</i>, the <i>Ryves’s</i>, +the <i>Needhams</i>, the <i>Lestranges</i>, the <i>Nalsons</i>, the <i>Lesleys</i>, the +<i>Oldesworths</i>, and others, in their <i>Mercurius Aulicus</i>’s, their +<i>Mercurius Pragmaticus’s</i>,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span> their <i>Mercurius Rusticus’s</i>, their +<i>Observators</i><small><a name="f63.1" id="f63.1" href="#f63">[63]</a></small>, their <i>Heraclitus Ridens</i>’s, <i>Rehearsals</i>, their +<i>Examiners</i><small><a name="f64.1" id="f64.1" href="#f64">[64]</a></small>, and the three Volumes against the <i>Rights of the Church</i>; +from the <i>Butlers</i> in their <i>Hudibras</i>’s, and other Burlesque Works upon +the Religion and Religious Conduct of the Dissenters; or from the +<i>Eachards</i>, the <i>Tom Browns</i>, and <i>Swifts</i>; or from the <i>Parkers</i><small><a name="f65.1" id="f65.1" href="#f65">[65]</a></small>, +<i>Patricks</i><small><a name="f66.1" id="f66.1" href="#f66">[66]</a></small>, <i>Souths</i><small><a name="f67.1" id="f67.1" href="#f67">[67]</a></small>, +<i>Sherlocks</i><small><a name="f68.1" id="f68.1" href="#f68">[68]</a></small>, <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span><i>Atterburys</i><small><a name="f69.1" id="f69.1" href="#f69">[69]</a></small>, and +<i>Sacheverels</i><small><a name="f70.1" id="f70.1" href="#f70">[70]</a></small>; in their Discourses, and Tracts against the +Nonconformists, Whigs, Low-Church-men, and Latitudinarians; and other such +ironical, satirical, and polemical Divines; and from such <i>drolling</i> +Judges as <i>Howel</i>, <i>Recorder</i> of London, and the Chief Justice <i>Jefferys</i>, +who, in all Causes, where <i>Whigs</i> or Dissenters were the Persons accus’d +and try’d before them, carried on the Trial by a <small><a name="f71.1" id="f71.1" href="#f71">[71]</a></small> Train of ridicule on +them, their Witnesses and Counsel: I say, I am apt to think, that you +would be unwilling to be depriv’d of what has been and may be again so serviceable.</p> + +<p>I am dispos’d to think that Dr. <i>Snape</i>, who is notoriously known to have +gone into the greatest Lengths of Calumny and Satire against Bishop +<i>Hoadley</i><small><a name="f72.1" id="f72.1" href="#f72">[72]</a></small>, to have fall’n upon the dissenting Clergy in a burlesque +and bantering Address to the <i>Peirces</i>, the <i>Calamys</i>, and the +<i>Bradburys</i>, and to have written a long <i>ironical Letter</i> in the Name of +the <i>Jesuits</i> to Mr. <i>de la Pilloniere</i><small><a name="f73.1" id="f73.1" href="#f73">[73]</a></small>, will be thought a very +improper Object of Censure for such Employment of his Pen. On the +contrary, such sort of Attacks upon such Persons are the most meritorious +Parts of a Man’s Life, recommend him as a Person of true and sincere +Religion, much more than the strongest Reasoning, and the most regular +Life; and pave the way to all the Riches, and Pleasures<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span> and Advantages or +Life; not only among those, who, under the Colour of Religion, are +carrying on a common <i>Corporation Cause</i> of Wealth, Power, and Authority, +but among many well-meaning People, who allow of all Practices, which they +suppose help out the <i>Truth</i>! It seems to me a most prodigious Banter upon +us, for Men to talk in general of the <i>Immorality</i> of <i>Ridicule</i> and +<i>Irony</i>, and of <i>punishing</i> Men for those Matters, when their own Practice +is <i>universal Irony</i> and <i>Ridicule</i> of all those who go not with them, and +<i>universal Applause</i> and <i>Encouragement</i> for such <i>Ridicule</i> and <i>Irony</i>, +and distinguishing by all the honourable ways imaginable such <i>drolling</i> +Authors for their Drollery; and when Punishment for <i>Drollery</i> is never +call’d for, but when <i>Drollery</i> is used or employ’d against them!</p> + +<p>I don’t know whether you would be willing, if you consider of it, to limit +the Stage it self, which has with great Applause and Success, from Queen +<i>Elizabeth</i>’s Time downwards, ridicul’d the serious <i>Puritans</i> and +<i>Dissenters</i>, and that without any Complaints from <i>good Churchmen</i>, that +<i>serious</i> Persons and Things were <i>banter’d</i> and <i>droll’d</i> upon; and has +triumph’d over its fanatical Adversaries in the Person of <i>Pryn</i>, who +sufficiently suffer’d for his <i>Histrio-Mastix</i>, and has been approv’d of +as an innocent Diversion by the religious Dr. <i>Patrick</i> in his <i>Friendly +Debate</i>, in the Reign of King <i>Charles</i> II. when the Stage was in a very +immoral State. I don’t know whether you would be willing even to restrain +<i>Bartholomew Fair</i>, where the Sect of the <i>New Prophets</i> was the Subject +of a <i>Droll</i> or <i>Puppet-Show</i>, to the great Satisfaction of the Auditors, +who, it may be presum’d, were all good Churchmen, <i>Puritans</i> and +<i>Dissenters</i> usually declining such Entertainments out<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span> of <i>real</i> or +<i>pretended</i> Seriousness. (“A certain Clergyman thought fit to remark, that +King <i>William</i> could be no good Churchman, because of his not frequenting +the <i>Play-House</i>.”<small><a name="f74.1" id="f74.1" href="#f74">[74]</a></small>)</p> + +<p> </p> +<p>V. It will probably be a Motive with you to be against abolishing +<i>Drollery</i>, when you reflect that the Men of <i>Irony</i>, the <i>Droles</i> and +<i>Satirists</i>, have been and always will be very numerous on your side, +where they have been and are so much incourag’d for acting that Part, and +that they have always been and always will be very few on the side of +<i>Heterodoxy</i>; a Cause wherein an Author by engaging, may hurt his +Reputation and Fortune, and can propose nothing to himself but Poverty and +Disgrace. I doubt whether you would be for punishing your Friend Dr. +<i>Rogers</i>, from whom I just now quoted an <i>Irony</i> on the Author of <i>The +Scheme of Literal Prophecy consider’d</i>, or any one else, for <i>laughing</i> at +and making sport with him; or whether you would be for punishing the +Reverend Mr. <i>Trapp</i>, who implies the <i>Justness</i> and <i>Propriety of +ridiculing Popery</i>; when he says<small><a name="f75.1" id="f75.1" href="#f75">[75]</a></small>, that <i>Popery is so foolish and +absurd, that every body of common Sense must</i> <span class="smcap">laugh</span> <i>at it</i>; and when he +refers to <i>Erasmus</i> for having <i>abundantly</i> <span class="smcap">ridicul’d</span> their <i>Reliques</i>; +and himself puts <i>Ridicule</i> in Practice against them, by representing +their Doctrines and Practices as <i>ridiculously foolish</i>, as <i>despicably +childish</i>, and <i>Matter of mere Scorn</i>; as <i>monstrous</i>; as <i>Spells</i>, +<i>juggling Tricks</i>, <i>gross Cheats</i>, <i>Impostures</i><small><a name="f76.1" id="f76.1" href="#f76">[76]</a></small>, and <i>wretched +Shifts</i>; and in fine, in representing by way of <i>Specimen</i>, all their +<i>Miracles</i> as <i>Legends</i>; of which he says, <i>These and a thousand more such +like unreasonable Lies, which a Child of common Sense</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span> <i>would laugh at, are +impos’d upon and swallow’d by the ignorant People, and make a</i> <span class="smcap">very great</span> +<i>Part of the Popish Religion.</i></p> + +<p>And this, in concurrence with Mr. <i>Trapp</i>, I also take to be the Case of +Popery, that it must make Men <i>laugh</i>; and that it is much easier to be +gravely disposed in reading a <i>Stage-Comedy</i> or <i>Farce</i>, than in +considering and reflecting on the <i>Comedy</i> and <i>Farce</i> of <i>Popery</i>; than +which, Wit and Folly, and Madness in conjunction, cannot invent or make a +thing more ridiculous, according to that Light in which I see their +Doctrines, Ceremonies and Worship, the Histories and Legends of their +Saints, and the pretended Miracles wrought in their Church; which has +hardly any thing <i>serious</i> in it but its Persecutions, its Murders, its +Massacres; all employ’d against the most innocent and virtuous, and the +most sensible and learned Men, because they will not be <i>Tools</i> to support +Villany and Ignorance.</p> + +<p>“Transubstantiation, says <i>Tillotson</i><small><a name="f77.1" id="f77.1" href="#f77">[77]</a></small>, is not a Controversy of +Scripture against Scripture, or of Reason against Reason, but of downright +Impudence against the plain meaning of Scripture, and all the Sense and +Reason of Mankind.” And accordingly he scruples not to say, in a most +<i>drolling</i> manner, that “Transubstantiation is one of the chief of the +<i>Roman</i> Church’s <i>legerdemain</i> and <i>juggling Tricks</i> of Falshood and +Imposture; and that in all Probability those common juggling Words of +<i>Hocus-pocus</i>, are nothing else but a Corruption of <i>hoc est corpus</i>, by +way of ridiculous Imitation of the Church of <i>Rome</i> in their <i>Trick</i> of +<i>Transubstantiation</i>.” And as he <i>archly</i> makes the Introduction of this +monstrous Piece of <i>grave Nonsense</i> to be owing to its being at first +preach’d by its Promoters with <i>convenient Gravity and</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span> +<i>Solemnity</i><small><a name="f78.1" id="f78.1" href="#f78">[78]</a></small>, +which is the common Method of imposing Absurdities on the World; so I +think that Doctrine taught with such <i>convenient Gravity and Solemnity</i> +should necessarily produce <i>Levity, Laughter and Ridicule</i>, in all +intelligent People to whom it is propos’d, who must <i>smile</i>, if they can +with safety, to see such Stuff vented with a grave Face.</p> + +<p>In like manner many other Divines treat and laugh at <i>Popery</i>. Even the +solemn and grave Dr. <i>Whitby</i> has written a Book against +<i>Transubstantiation</i>, under the Title of “Irrisio Dei Panarii, <i>The +Derision of the Breaden God</i>,” in Imitation of the primitive Fathers, who +have written <i>Derisions</i> and <i>Mockeries</i> of the <i>Pagan</i> Religion.</p> + +<p>And he takes the Materials whereof this drolling Performance of his +consists, from the <i>holy Scriptures</i>, the <i>Apocryphal Books</i>, and +<i>Writings</i> of the <i>holy Fathers</i>, as he tells us in his Title-Page; three +inexhaustible Sources of Wit and Irony against the Corrupters of true and +genuine Religion. In like manner he turns upon the Popish Clergy the +several Arguments urg’d by the <i>Jewish</i> Clergy in the <i>New Testament</i>, for +the Authority of the <i>Jewish</i> Church; and answers, under that <i>Irony</i>, all +that the Popish Clergy offer in behalf of the <i>Authority</i> of their +<i>Church</i>, in a <i>Sermon</i> at the End of his <i>Annotations</i> on St. <i>John</i>’s <i>Gospel</i>.</p> + +<p>Nor do our Divines confine their <i>Derisions</i>, <i>Ridicule</i> and <i>Irony</i> +against <i>Popery</i> to their Treatises and Discourses, but fill their +<i>Sermons</i>, and especially their <i>Sermons</i> on the <i>Fifth</i> of <i>November</i>, +and other political <i>Days</i>, with infinite Reflections of that Kind. Of +these <i>Reflections</i> a Popish Author publish’d a <i>Specimen</i>, in a Book +intitled<small><a name="f79.1" id="f79.1" href="#f79">[79]</a></small>, <i>Good Advice</i> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span><i>to Pulpits</i>, in order to shame the Church out +of their Method of <i>drolling</i> and <i>laughing</i> <small><a name="f80.1" id="f80.1" href="#f80">[80]</a></small> at <i>Popery</i>. But this +Book had no other effect, than to produce a <i>Defence</i> of those <i>Sermons</i> +under the Title of <i>Pulpit Popery true Popery</i>, vindicating the several +<i>Droll</i> Representations made of <i>Popery</i> in those <i>Sermons</i>.</p> + +<p>Of these <i>drolling</i> Reflections cited by the Popish Author out of our +Church of <i>England Sermons</i>, take these following for a Specimen of what +are to be met with in those <i>Sermons</i><small><a name="f81.1" id="f81.1" href="#f81">[81]</a></small>.</p> + +<p>“Pilgrimages, going Bare-foot, Hair-shirts, and Whips, with other such +Gospel-artillery, are their only Helps to Devotion.——It seems that with +them a Man sometimes cannot be a Penitent, unless he also turns Vagabond, +and foots it to <i>Jerusalem</i>.——He that thinks to expiate a Sin by going +bare-foot, does the Penance of a Goose, and only makes one Folly the +Atonement of another. <i>Paul</i> indeed was scourg’d and beaten by the <i>Jews</i>; +but we never read that he beat or scourg’d himself; and if they think his +keeping under his Body imports so much, they must first prove that the +Body cannot be kept under by a virtuous Mind, and that the Mind cannot be +made virtuous but by a Scourge; and consequently, that Thongs and Whipcord +are Means of Grace, and Things necessary to Salvation. The truth is, if +Mens Religion lies no deeper than their Skin, it is possible they may +scourge themselves into very great Improvements.——But they will find +that bodily Exercise touches not the Soul; and consequently that in this +whole Course they are like Men out of the way: let them flash on never so +fast, they <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span>are not at all nearer their Journey’s-end: And howsoever they +deceive themselves and others, they may as well expect to bring a Cart, as a Soul, to Heaven.</p> + +<p>“What say you to the Popish Doctrine of the <i>Sacrifice of the +Mass</i>.——According to this Doctrine, our blessed Saviour must still, to +the end of the World, be laid hold on by Sinners, be ground with their +Teeth, and sent down into their impure Paunches, as often as the Priest +shall pronounce this Charm, <i>hoc est corpus meum</i>: and it seems that he +was a false Prophet, when he said upon the Cross, <i>It is finish’d</i>, seeing +there was such an infinite deal of <i>loathsom Drudgery</i> still to be undergone.</p> + +<p>“For <i>Purgatory</i>, ’tis not material in it self, whether it be, or where it +be, no more than the World in the Moon; but so long as that false Fire +serves to maintain a true one, and his Holiness’s Kitchen smokes with the +Rents he receives for releasing Souls from thence, which never came there, +it concerns him and his to see to it, that it be not suffer’d to go out.”</p> + +<p>An ingenious Author, Sir <i>Richard Steel</i>, has of late made a <i>Dedication</i> +to his <i>Holiness</i> the <i>Pope</i> himself, before a Book entitled, <i>An Account +of the State of the Roman Catholick Religion throughout the World</i>, &c. In +which <i>Dedication</i>, that most exalted Clergyman the <i>Pope</i>, that +[suppos’d] infallible Dictator in Religion, and most grave Person; who, if +<i>serious</i> Matters and Persons were always to be treated <i>seriously</i>, may +vie with any other Mortal for a Right to <i>serious</i> Treatment; is expos’d +by incomparable <i>Drollery</i> and <i>Irony</i> to the utmost Contempt, to the +universal Satisfaction of Protestant Readers, who have been pleas’d to see +a gross Impostor, however<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span> respected and ador’d by godly and serious +Papists, so treated.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p>VI. In fine, it is suited to the common Practice of this Nation to +ridicule <i>Popery</i> as well as <i>Nonconformity</i>; and tho several <i>grave</i> +Books, written among us against Popery, in the Reign of King <i>James</i> II. +(of which yet the <i>Romish</i> Priests complain’d, as treating the King’s <small><a name="f82.1" id="f82.1" href="#f82">[82]</a></small> +<i>Religion</i> with Contempt) were then very well receiv’d and applauded for +Learning and strength of Arguing; yet, I believe, it may with more +Propriety be said, that King <i>James</i> II. and <i>Popery</i> were <small><a name="f83.1" id="f83.1" href="#f83">[83]</a></small> <i>laugh’d</i> +or <i>Lilli-bullero’d</i>, than that they were <i>argu’d</i> out of the Kingdom.</p> + +<p>The reading the <i>King’s Declaration of Indulgence</i> in Churches 1688, had +this fatal <i>Jest</i> put upon it by a reverend Divine, “Who pleasantly told +his People, <i>That tho he was obliged to read it, they were not obliged to +hear it</i><small><a name="f84.1" id="f84.1" href="#f84">[84]</a></small>; and stop’d till they all went out, and then he read it to +the Walls.” To which may be added, the famous Mr. <i>Wallop</i>’s excellent +Comparison of that <i>Declaration</i> upon the Instant of its Publication, to +<i>the scaffolding of St.</i> Paul<i>’s Church; which, as soon as the Building +was finish’d, would be pull’d down</i>.</p> + +<p>Bishop <i>Burnet</i> celebrates, with the greatest Justness, our Taste, and +indeed the Taste of the World in this Respect, when he relates how +<i>Popery</i> was then used among us; and he recites some of the <i>Jests</i> which +passed and were received with universal Applause. He tells us<small><a name="f85.1" id="f85.1" href="#f85">[85]</a></small>, “The +Court was now (that is, in 1686,) much set on making Converts, which +fail’d in most Instances, and produc’d <i>Repartees</i>; that whether true or +false, were much repeated, <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span>and were heard with great Satisfaction. The +Earl of <i>Mulgrave</i> (since Duke of <i>Buckinghamshire</i>) was Lord Chamberlain; +he was apt to comply in every thing that he thought might be acceptable, +for he went with the King to Mass, and kneeled at it; and being look’d on +as indifferent to all Religions, the Priests made an Attack upon him: He +heard them <i>gravely</i> arguing for <i>Transubstantiation</i>. He told them he was +willing to receive Instruction; he had taken much Pains to bring himself +to believe in God, who made the World and all Men in it: But it must not +be an ordinary Force of Argument that could make him believe that Man was +quits with God, and made God again. The Earl of <i>Middleton</i> had marry’d +into a Popish Family, and was a Man of great Parts and a generous Temper, +but of loose Principles in Religion; so a Priest was sent to instruct him. +He began with <i>Transubstantiation</i>, of which he said he would convince him +immediately: And began thus, You believe the <i>Trinity</i>. <i>Middleton</i> stop’d +him, and said, who told you so? At which he seem’d amazed. So the Earl +said, he expected he should convince him of his Belief, but not question +him of his own: With this the Priest was so disorder’d, that he could +proceed no farther. One Day the King gave the Duke of <i>Norfolk</i> the Sword +of State to carry before him to the Chappel, and he stood at the Door. +Upon which the King said to him, My Lord, your Father would have gone +farther. To which the Duke answer’d, Your Majesty’s Father was the better +Man, and he would not have gone so far. <i>Kirk</i> was also spoken to, to +change his Religion, and he reply’d briskly, that he was already +pre-engag’d, for <i>he had promised the King of</i> Morocco, <i>that if ever</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span> +<i>he chang’d his Religion he would turn</i> Mahometan.” When K. <i>James</i> sent an +<i>Irish</i> Priest to convert the D. of <i>Bucks</i> [<i>Villers</i>] the said Duke +entertain’d the Priest with a Bottle, and engag’d him in a <i>Dialogue</i>, +which the Duke afterwards caus’d to be printed, to the no small +Mortification of all Papists, who were therein exceedingly ridicul’d, and +to the Triumph of all good Churchmen, who are never better pleas’d, than +when they have the <i>Laugh</i> on their side.</p> + +<p>At this time also were publish’d two merry Books, by a couple of our +Divines, with express View to make Protestants laugh at <i>Popery</i>, as at a +<i>Farce</i>; and they were, <i>The School of the Eucharist</i>, wherein is a +Collection of ridiculous <i>Miracles</i>, pretended to be wrought to support +the Truth of <i>Transubstantiation</i>, and <i>Purgatory prov’d by Miracles</i>.</p> + +<p>I must not omit another incomparable Piece of Wit and Raillery against +<i>Popery</i>, publish’d at that time. It seems the famous Poet, <i>Dryden</i>, +thought fit to declare himself a <i>Roman Catholick</i>; and had, as ’tis said, +a <i>Penance</i> injoyn’d him by his Confessor, for having formerly written +<i>The Spanish Fryar</i>, of composing some <i>Treatise</i> in a <i>poetical way</i> for +<i>Popery</i>, and against the <i>Reformation</i>. This he executed in a <i>Poem</i>, +intituled, <i>The Hind and Panther</i>; which, setting aside the Absurdity of +the Matters therein asserted, and of the several Arguments to maintain +them, is, in other Respects, one of the most mean Compositions that ever +the Press produc’d. Was it proper to pass over in silence such a Work, +from whence probably the Popish Party expected great Matters, as knowing +the Efficacy of Poetry, and being Witnesses of the Success the Author had +had in his <i>Absalom</i> and <i>Achitophel</i> against the <i>Whigs</i>? Was it proper +to write <i>seriously</i> and <i>gravely</i> against a Book, wherein the Author +every where aims at Wit, Irony, and Burlesque, and does himself make<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span> so +ridiculous a Figure, as to be a standing Jest throughout the whole? Was +not the Convert himself, as such, a <i>Jest</i>, or as professing any Religion, +a <i>Jest</i>; who argu’d for Pay, and spoke as he was brib’d, and would have +profess’d any Opinions, as is the Mode and Practice of the World, to which +Salary and Preferments are annexed? Some ingenious Persons of the Times +took a better Method, and agreeably to the Temper and Disposition of our +Countrymen, and to the nature of <i>Dryden</i>’s Attack, and his interested +Writing for Religion, made a Return in a Paper intituled, <i>The Hind and +Panther transvers’d to the Story of the Country-Mouse and City-Mouse</i>: Out +of which, for a Specimen of <i>just Irony</i>, and <i>fine Raillery</i>, I will give you the following Passage.</p> + +<p class="poem"> +“<i>Sirrah, says</i> Brindle, <i>thou hast brought us</i> Wine,<br /> +“<i>Sour to my Taste, and to my Eyes unfine.</i><br /> +“<i>Says</i> Will, <i>All Gentlemen like it. Ah! says</i> White,<br /> +“<i>What is approved by them must needs be right.</i><br /> +“<i>’Tis true, I thought it bad, but if the</i> House<br /> +“<i>Commend it, I submit, a</i> private Mouse.<br /> +“<i>Nor to their Catholick Consent oppose</i><br /> +“<i>My erring Judgment and reforming Nose.</i><br /> +“<small><a name="f86.1" id="f86.1" href="#f86">[86]</a></small><i>Why, what a Devil, shan’t I trust my Eyes,</i><br /> +“<i>Must I drink Stum, because the Rascal lies,</i><br /> +“<i>And palms upon us</i> Catholick <i>Consent,</i><br /> +“<i>To give</i> sophisticated Brewings <i>Vent?</i><br /> +“<i>Says</i> White, <i>what antient Evidence can sway,</i><br /> +“<i>If you must argue thus and not obey?</i><br /> +“Drawers <i>must be trusted, thro’ whose hands convey’d</i><br /> +“<i>You take the Liquor, or you spoil the Trade.</i><br /> +“<i>For sure those honest</i> Fellows <i>have no Knack</i><br /> +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span>“<i>Of putting off stum’d Claret for</i> Pontack.<br /> +“<i>How long alas! would the poor Vintner last,</i><br /> +“<i>If all that drink must</i> judge, <i>and every Guest</i><br /> +“<i>Be allow’d to have an understanding</i> Taste?</p> + +<p> </p> +<p>VII. I question whether High-Church would be willing to have the reverend +Author of the <i>Tale of a Tub</i>, one of the greatest <i>Droles</i> that ever +appear’d upon the Stage of the World, punish’d for that or any other of +his <i>drolling</i> Works: For tho religious Matters, and all the various Forms +of Christianity have therein a considerable Share of <i>Ridicule</i>; yet in +regard of his <i>Drollery</i> upon the <i>Whigs</i>, <i>Dissenters</i>, and the <i>War</i> +with <i>France</i> (things of as <i>serious</i> and weighty Consideration, and as +much affecting the Peace of Society, as <i>Justification</i> by <i>Faith only</i>, +<i>Predestination</i>, <i>Transubstantiation</i>, or <i>Constansubstantiation</i>, or +<i>Questions</i> about <i>religious Ceremonies</i>, or any such interested Matters) +the <i>Convocation</i> in their famous <i>Representation</i> of the <i>Profaneness</i> +and <i>Blasphemy</i> of the Nation, took no notice of his <i>drolling</i> on +Christianity: And his Usefulness in <i>Drollery</i> and <i>Ridicule</i> was deem’d +sufficient by the <i>Pious</i> Queen <i>Anne</i>, and her <i>pious Ministry</i>, to +intitle him to a Church Preferment of several hundred Pounds <i>per Ann.</i> +<small><a name="f87.1" id="f87.1" href="#f87">[87]</a></small> which she bestow’d upon him, notwithstanding a <i>fanatick +High-Churchman</i>, who weakly thought <i>Seriousness</i> in Religion of more use +to High-Church than <i>Drollery</i>, and attempted to hinder his Promotion, by +representing to her Majesty, “What a Scandal it would be both to Church +and State to bestow Preferment upon a Clergyman, who was hardly suspected +of being a Christian.” Besides, High-Church receives daily most signal +Services from his drolling Capacity, which has of late exerted itself on +the Jacobite Stage of <i>Mist</i>’s <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span>and <i>Fogg</i>’s Journal, and in other little +Papers publish’d in <i>Ireland</i>; in which he endeavours to expose the +present Administration of publick Affairs to contempt, to inflame the +<i>Irish</i> Nation against the <i>English</i>, and to make them throw off all +Subjection to the <i>English</i> Government, to satirize Bishop <i>Burnet</i> and +other <i>Whig</i> Bishops; and, in fine, to pave the way for a new or Popish +Revolution, as far as choosing the most proper Topicks of Invective, and +treating of them in the way of <i>Drollery</i>, can do.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p>VIII. It is well known, that Gravity, Preciseness, Solemnity, Sourness, +formal Dress and Behaviour, Sobriety of Manners, keeping at a distance +from the common Pastimes of the World, Aversion to Rites and Ceremonies in +the publick Worship, and to Pictures, Images, and Musick in Churches; +mixing Religion in common Conversion, using long Graces, practising +Family-Worship, part of which was praying <i>ex tempore</i>; setting up and +hearing Lectures, and a strict Observation of the Lord’s Day, which was +call’d the <i>Sabbath</i>, were the Parts of the Character of a <i>Puritan</i>; who, +it is to be observ’d, usually had the Imputation of Hypocrisy for his +great and extraordinary Pretences to Religion: He was also a great Opposer +of the Court-Measures in the Reign of King <i>James</i> and King <i>Charles</i> I. +and most zealous for Law, Liberty, and Property, when those two Princes +set up for raising Money by their own Authority, and in consequence +thereof, fell into numerous other Acts of Violence and Injustice. It is +also well known, that to quell these Puritans, and lessen their Credit, +and baffle all their Pretences, Gaiety, Mirth, Pastimes or Sports, were +incourag’d and requir’d on <i>Sundays</i> of the People, that Churches were +render’d<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span> gay, theatrical, and pleasant by the Decorations, Paintings, +Musick, and Ceremonies therein perform’d<small><a name="f88.1" id="f88.1" href="#f88">[88]</a></small>; and that the utmost Ridicule +was employ’d against some of them, as <i>Enthusiasts</i>, and against others of +them as <i>Hypocrites</i>, and against them all as factious and seditious, by +their Adversaries; who were under no Restraints, but incourag’d to write +with Scorn, Contempt, Raillery and Satire against these suppos’d Enemies +of Church and State. Nor did the great Success of the <i>Puritans</i> in the +Field of Battle suppress that <i>Vein</i> and <i>Humour</i> of <i>Ridicule</i> begun +against them; but the <i>Laudean</i> Party still carry’d on a Paper War with +innumerable Pamphlets, which all tended more or less to make the World +<i>laugh</i> at and <i>ridicule</i> the <i>Puritans</i>. And I am verily persuaded, that +no History of any other Country in the World can produce a Parallel, +wherein the Principle and Practice of <i>Ridicule</i> were ever so strongly +encourag’d, and so constantly pursu’d, fix’d and rooted in the Minds of +Men, as it was and is in Churchmen against Puritans and Dissenters. Even +at this Day the <i>Ridicule</i> is so strong against the present Dissenters, so +promoted by Clergy and Laity, especially in Villages and small Country +Towns, that they are unable to withstand its Force, but daily come over in +Numbers to the Church to avoid being <i>laugh’d</i> at. It seems to me a Mark +of Distinction more likely to last in the Church than any other Matter +that I can observe. Passive Obedience, the divine Right of Kings, <i>&c.</i> +rise and fall according to particular <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span>Occasions; but <i>Laughter</i> at +<i>Dissenters</i> seems fixt for ever, if they should chance to last so long.</p> + +<p><i>South</i>’s Sermons, which now amount to <i>six Volumes</i>, make Reading <i>Jests</i> +and <i>Banter</i> upon <i>Dissenters</i>, the religious Exercise of good Churchmen +upon <i>Sundays</i>, who now can serve God (as many think they do by hearing or +reading Sermons) and be as merry as at the Play-house. And <i>Hudibras</i>, +which is a daily High-Church Entertainment, and a Pocket and Travelling +High-Church Companion, must necessarily have a very considerable Effect, +and cannot fail forming in Men that Humour and Vein of <i>Ridicule</i> upon +<i>Dissenters</i> which runs thro’ that Work. In a word, High-Church has +constantly been an Enemy to, and a Ridiculer of the <i>Seriousness</i> of +<i>Puritans</i> and <i>Dissenters</i>, whom they have ever charg’d with <i>Hypocrisy</i> +for their <i>Seriousness</i>.</p> + +<p>“After <small><a name="f89.1" id="f89.1" href="#f89">[89]</a></small> the Civil War had broke out in 1641, and the King and Court +had settled at <i>Oxford</i>, one <i>Birkenhead</i>, who had liv’d in <i>Laud</i>’s +Family, and been made Fellow of <i>All Souls College</i> by <i>Laud</i>’s Means, was +appointed to write a Weekly Paper under the Title of <i>Mercurius Aulicus</i>; +the first whereof was publish’d in 1642. In the Absence of the Author, +<i>Birkenhead</i>, from <i>Oxford</i>, it was continued by <i>Heylin</i>. <i>Birkenhead</i> +pleas’d the Generality of Readers with his <i>Waggeries</i> and <i>Buffooneries</i>; +and the Royal Party were so taken with it, that the Author was recommended +to be Reader of <i>Moral Philosophy</i> by his Majesty;” who, together with the +religious Electors, it is justly to be presum’d, thought <i>Waggery</i> and +<i>Buffoonery</i>, not only Political, but <i>Religious</i> and <i>Moral</i>, when +employ’d against <i>Puritans</i> and <i>Dissenters</i>.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span>IX. King <i>Charles</i> the Second’s Restoration brought along with it glorious +<i>High-Church</i> Times; which were distinguish’d as much by <i>laughing</i> at +<i>Dissenters</i>, as by persecuting them; which pass for a Pattern how +Dissenters are to be treated; and which will never be given up, by +<i>High-Church-men</i>, as faulty, for ridiculing Dissenters.</p> + +<p>The King himself, who had very good natural Parts, and a Disposition to +banter and ridicule every Body, and especially the <i>Presbyterians</i>, whose +Discipline he had felt for his Lewdness and Irreligion in <i>Scotland</i>, had +in his <i>Exile</i> an Education, and liv’d, among some of the greatest +<i>Droles</i> and <i>Wits</i> that any Age ever produc’d; who could not but form him +in that way, who was so well fitted by Temper for it. The Duke of +<i>Buckingham</i> was his constant Companion. And he had a <small><a name="f90.1" id="f90.1" href="#f90">[90]</a></small> <i>great +Liveliness of Wit, and a peculiar Faculty of turning all things into +ridicule</i>. He was Author of the <i>Rehearsal</i>; which, as a most noble Author +says, is <small><a name="f91.1" id="f91.1" href="#f91">[91]</a></small> <i>a justly admir’d Piece of comick Wit</i>, and <i>has furnish’d +our best Wits in all their Controversies, even in Religion and Politicks, +as well as in the Affairs of Wit and Learning, with the most effectual and +entertaining Method of exposing Folly, Pedantry, false Reason, and ill +Writing</i>. The Duke of <i>Buckingham</i> <small><a name="f92.1" id="f92.1" href="#f92">[92]</a></small> brought <i>Hobbes</i> to him to be his +<i>Tutor</i>, who was a <i>Philosophical Drole</i>, and had a great deal of <i>Wit</i> of +the <i>drolling</i> kind. <i>Sheldon</i>, who was afterwards Archbishop of +<i>Canterbury</i>, and attended the King constantly in his Exile as his +<i>Chaplain</i>, was an eminent <i>Drole</i>, as appears from Bishop <i>Burnet</i>, who +says<small><a name="f93.1" id="f93.1" href="#f93">[93]</a></small>, <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span>that +<i>he had a great Pleasantness of Conversation, perhaps too great</i>.</p> + +<p>And <i>Hide</i>, afterwards Earl of <i>Clarendon</i>, who attended the King in his +Exile, seems also to have been a great Drole, by Bishop <i>Burnet</i>’s +representing him, as one, that <i>had too much Levity in his Wit, and that +did not observe the Decorum of his Post</i><small><a name="f94.1" id="f94.1" href="#f94">[94]</a></small>. In a <i>Speech</i> to the Lords +and Commons, <i>Hide</i> attack’d the Gravity of the Puritans, saying<small><a name="f95.1" id="f95.1" href="#f95">[95]</a></small>, +“Very merry Men have been very godly Men; and if a good Conscience be a +continued Feast, there is no reason but Men may be very merry at it.” And +upon Mr. <i>Baxter</i> and other Presbyterian Ministers waiting on him in +relation to the <i>Savoy Conference</i>, he said to Mr. <i>Baxter</i> on the first +Salute<small><a name="f96.1" id="f96.1" href="#f96">[96]</a></small>, that if “he were but as fat as Dr. <i>Manton</i>, we should all do well.”</p> + +<p>No wonder therefore, that <i>Ridicule</i>, and <i>Raillery</i>, and <i>Satire</i>, should +prevail at Court after the <i>Restoration</i>; and that King <i>Charles</i> the +Second, who was a Wit himself, and early taught to laugh at his <i>Father’s +Stiffness</i><small><a name="f97.1" id="f97.1" href="#f97">[97]</a></small>, should be so great a Master of them, and bring them into +play among his Subjects; and that he who had the most sovereign Contempt +for all Mankind, and in particular for the People and Church of <i>England</i>, +should use his Talent against them; and that his People in return should give him like for like.</p> + +<p>It is well known how he banter’d the Presbyterian Ministers, who out of +Interest came over to him at <i>Breda</i>; where they were placed in a Room +next to his Majesty, and order’d to attend till his Majesty had done his +Devotions; who, it seems, pray’d so artfully, and poured out so many of +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span>their Phrases, which he had learned when he was in <i>Scotland</i>, where he +was forced to be present at religious Exercises of six or seven Hours +a-day; and had practis’d among the <i>Huguenot</i> Ministers in <i>France</i><small><a name="f98.1" id="f98.1" href="#f98">[98]</a></small>, +who reported him to have a <i>sanctify’d Heart</i>, and to <i>speak the very +Language of</i> Canaan. This <i>Ridicule</i> he <i>cover’d</i> with <i>Seriousness</i>; +having at that time Occasion for those Ministers, who were then his great +Instruments in reconciling the Nation to his <i>Restoration</i>. When he had no +farther Occasion for them, he was open in his <i>Ridicule</i>, and would say, +that <small><a name="f99.1" id="f99.1" href="#f99">[99]</a></small> <i>Presbyterianism was not a Religion for a Gentleman</i>.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p>X. Would you, who are a Man of Sense and Learning, and of some Moderation, +be for punishing the Author of <i>The Difficulties and Discouragements which +attend the Study of the Scriptures in the way of private Judgment</i>, &c. +who is suppos’d to be a Prelate of the Church, for that Book, which is +wholly an <i>Irony</i> about the most sacred Persons and Things? Must not the +fine <i>Irony</i> it self, and the Execution of it, with so much Learning, +Sense, and Wit, raise in you the highest Esteem and Admiration of the +Author, instead of a Disposition to punish him? Would you appear to the +intelligent Part of the World such an Enemy to Knowledge, and such a +Friend to the Kingdom of Darkness, as such Punishment would imply? In +fine, can you see and direct us to a better way, to make us inquire after +and understand Matters of Religion, to make us get and keep a good temper +of Mind, and to plant and cultivate in us the Virtues necessary to good +Order and Peace in Society, and to eradicate <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span>the Vices that every where +give Society so much Disturbance, than what is prescrib’d or imply’d in +that Book? And can you think of a better <i>Form</i> of <i>Conveyance</i>, or +<i>Vehicle</i> for Matters of such universal Concern to all intelligent People +(if you consider the State of the World, and the infinite Variety of +Understandings, Interests, and Designs of Men, who are all to be address’d +to at the same Time) than his Method of <i>Irony</i>? And has not Success +justify’d his Method? For the Book has had a free Vent in several +Impressions; has been very generally read and applauded; has convinced +Numbers, and has been no Occasion of trouble either to Bookseller or +Author. It has also had the Advantage to have a most ingenious <i>Letter</i> of +<i>John Hales</i> of <i>Eton</i> join’d to some Editions of it; who by this +<i>Letter</i>, as well as by several others of his Pieces, shews himself to +have been another <i>Socrates</i>, one of the greatest Masters of <i>true Wit</i> +and <i>just Irony</i>, as well as Learning, which the World ever produc’d; and +shews he could have writ such a Book as the <i>Difficulties</i>, &c. But if you +are capable of coming into any Measures for punishing the Author of the +<i>Difficulties</i>, &c. for his <i>Irony</i>, I conceive, that you may possibly +hesitate a little in relation to the same Author, about his <i>New Defence +of the Bishop of</i> Bangor<i>’s Sermon of the Kingdom of Christ, consider’d as +it is the Performance of a Man of Letters</i>; which, tho far below <i>The +Difficulties</i>, &c. is an ingenious <i>Irony</i> on that <i>Sermon</i>. You may +probably, like many others of the Clergy, approve of Satire so well +employ’d, as against that Bishop, who has succeeded Bishop <i>Burnet</i> in +being the Subject of <i>Clergy-Ridicule</i>, as well as in his Bishoprick. The +Bishop himself was very justly patient, under all Attacks by the Reverend +<i>Trapp</i>, <i>Earbery</i>, <i>Snape</i>, <i>Law</i>, and <i>Luke Milbourne</i>, in his <i>Tom of +Bedlam’s Answer</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span> <i>to his Brother</i> Ben Hoadley, <i>St.</i> Peter<i>’s</i> Poor <i>Parson +near the Exchange of Principles</i>; some of which were of a very abusive +kind, and such as can hardly be parallel’d; and did not call upon the +Magistrate to come to his Aid against that Author, or against any others +of the Clergy who had attack’d him with as great Mockery, Ridicule, and +Irony, as ever Bishop had been by the profess’d Adversaries of the Order; +or as ever the Bishops had been by the <i>Puritans</i> and <i>Libellers</i> in the +Reigns of Queen <i>Elizabeth</i>, King <i>James</i> and King <i>Charles</i> the First; or +as <i>Lesley</i>, <i>Hickes</i>, <i>Hill</i>, <i>Atterbury</i>, <i>Binks</i>, and other High-Church +Clergy, did the late Bishop <i>Burnet</i>. Instead of that he took the true and +proper Method, by publishing an <i>Answer</i> to the said <i>Irony</i>, compos’d in +the same <i>ironical Strain</i>, intitled, <i>The Dean of</i> Worcester <i>still the +same: Or his new Defence of the Bishop of</i> Bangor<i>’s Sermon, consider’d, +as it is the Performance of a great Critick, a Man of Sense, and a Man of +Probity</i>. Which Answer does, in my Opinion, as much Honour to the Bishop, +by its Excellency in the <i>ironical Way</i>, as it does by allowing the Method +it self, and going into that Method, in imitation of his Reverend Brethren +of the Clergy, who appear to be under no Restraints from the <i>Immorality</i> +or <i>Indecency</i> of treating the Bishop in the way of Ridicule and with the +utmost Contempt; but, on the contrary, to be spurr’d on by the +<i>Excellency</i> and <i>Propriety</i> thereof to use it against him, even in the +<small><a name="f100.1" id="f100.1" href="#f100">[100]</a></small> <i>Pulpit</i>, as Part of the religious Exercise on the <i>Lord’s-day</i>.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p>XI. There is an universal Love and Practice of <i>Drollery</i> and <i>Ridicule</i> +in all, even the most <i>serious</i> <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span>Men, in the most <i>serious Places</i>, and on +the most <i>serious Occasions</i>. Go into the Privy-Councils of Princes, into +Senates, into Courts of Judicature, and into the Assemblies of the Kirk or +Church; and you will find that Wit, good Humour, Ridicule, and Drollery, +mix themselves in all the Questions before those Bodies; and that the most +solemn and sour Person there present, will ever be found endeavouring, at +least, to crack his Jest, in order to raise a Character for Wit; which has +so great an Applause attending it, and renders Men so universally +acceptable for their Conversation, and places them above the greatest +Proficients in the Sciences, that almost every one is intoxicated with the Passion of aiming at it.</p> + +<p>In the Reports made to us of the Debates in the Houses of Lords, Commons, +and Convocation, the serious Parts of the Speeches there made die for the +most part with the Sound; but the Wit, the Irony, the Drollery, the +Ridicule, the Satire, and Repartees, are thought worthy to be remember’d +and repeated in Conversation, and make a Part of the History of the +Proceedings of those Bodies, no less than their grave Transactions, as some such must necessarily be.</p> + +<p>Whoever will look into Antiquity for an Account of the Lives, Actions, and +Works of the old Philosophers, will find little remaining of them; but +some of their witty, drolling, and bantering Sayings, which alone have +been thought worthy to be preserv’d to Posterity. And if you will look +into the Lives of the modern Statesmen, Philosophers, Divines, Lawyers, +<i>&c.</i> you will find that their witty Sayings ever make a considerable +Part: by reporting which great Honour is intended to be done to their +Memory. The great and most religious Philosopher Dr. <i>H. More</i>, has a +great many Pieces<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span> of Wit attributed to him in his <i>Life</i> by Mr. <i>Ward</i>, +who represents him from his Companions, <small><a name="f101.1" id="f101.1" href="#f101">[101]</a></small> <i>as one of the merriest +Greeks they were acquainted with</i>, and tells us, that the Doctor said in +his <i>last Illness</i>, to him<small><a name="f102.1" id="f102.1" href="#f102">[102]</a></small>, <i>that the merry way was that which he saw +mightily to take; and so he used it the more</i>.</p> + +<p>The great and famous Sir <i>Thomas More</i>, Lord Chancellor of <i>England</i> in +<i>Henry</i> the Eighth’s time, was an inexhaustible Source of <i>Drollery</i><small><a name="f103.1" id="f103.1" href="#f103">[103]</a></small>, +as his voluminous Works, which consist for the most part of controversial +Divinity in behalf of Popery, show, and which are many of them written in +Dialogue, the better to introduce the <i>drolling</i> Way of Writing, which he +has us’d in such Perfection, that it is said <small><a name="f104.1" id="f104.1" href="#f104">[104]</a></small> <i>none can ever be weary +of reading them, tho they be never so long</i>. Nor could Death it self, in +immediate view before his Eyes, suppress his <i>merry</i> Humour, and hinder +him from cracking <i>Jests</i> on the <i>Scaffold</i>; tho he was a Man of great +<i>Piety</i> and <i>Devotion</i>, whereof all the World was convinced by his Conduct +both in his Life and at his Death.</p> + +<p>It is said (as I have before observ’d) of my Lord Chancellor <i>Clarendon</i>, +that “he had too much <i>Levity</i> in his <i>Wit</i><small><a name="f105.1" id="f105.1" href="#f105">[105]</a></small>, and that he did not +always observe the <i>Decorum</i> of his Post.” Which implies not only his +Approbation of <i>Drollery</i> in the most <i>grave</i> Business, but also his great +Knowledge of Mankind, by applying to them in that <i>Way</i>; which he knew +from Experience, and especially from the common <i>drolling</i> <small><a name="f106.1" id="f106.1" href="#f106">[106]</a></small> +Conversation in the Court of King <i>Charles</i> the Second, would recommend +him to the World much more than an <i>impartial Administration of Justice</i>; +which is less felt, less understood, <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span>and less taken notice of and +applauded, than a <i>Piece</i> of <i>Wit</i>; which is generally suppos’d to imply +in it a great deal of Knowledge, and a Capacity fit for any thing.</p> + +<p>Mr. <i>Whiston</i><small><a name="f107.1" id="f107.1" href="#f107">[107]</a></small>, a famous Person among us, sets up for great <i>Gravity</i>, +and proposes a Scheme of <i>Gravity</i> for the Direction of those who write +about Religion: He is for allowing <i>Unbelievers</i>, nay for having them +“invited by Authority to produce all the real or original Evidence they +think they have discover’d against any Parts of the <i>Bible</i>; against any +Parts of the <i>Jewish</i> and Christian Religions, in order to their being +fully weigh’d and consider’d by all learned Men; provided at the same +time, that the whole be done <i>gravely</i>, and <i>seriously</i>, without all +<i>Levity</i>, <i>Banter</i>, and <i>Ridicule</i>.” And yet this Man, having a handle +given him by Bishop <i>Robinson</i>’s Letter to the <i>Clergy</i> of his <i>Diocess</i> +about <i>New Doxologies borrow’d from Old Hereticks</i>, takes the advantage of +the Bishop’s (supposed) Ignorance, Dulness, Stupidity, and Contradiction +to himself, and writes and prints, like a <i>Tom Brown</i> or <i>Swift</i>, a most +<i>bantering</i> and <i>drolling</i> Letter, under the sneering Title of a <i>Letter +of Thanks to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of</i> London, <i>for his late +Letter</i>, &c. whom, one would think, he should not only have spar’d, but +have applauded for his <i>profound Gravity</i>, and carrying on the Cause of +Religion in a very remarkable manner, with the most <i>consummate +Solemnity</i>. But so strong was the Temptation, so naturally productive of +Mirth was the Bishop’s <i>Cause</i>, and his grave Management thereof, as that +he could not help laughing at the Bishop, by himself; and so was led on +mechanically to write in that Humour, and to publish what he wrote, and +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span>afterwards to defend his drole +<i>Manner</i> <small><a name="f108.1" id="f108.1" href="#f108">[108]</a></small> of attacking the Bishop, +against those who took <i>offence</i> at that <i>Manner</i> of writing.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p>XII. The burning Papists themselves are not always <i>serious</i> with us: They +treat the Church and its Defenders as <i>fanatical</i>, and <i>laugh</i> at them as +<i>such</i>, just as the Church does the Dissenters, and have their elaborate +Works of <i>Drollery</i> against their Adversaries. They publish’d a Poem +against the <i>Reformation</i>, just before the Death of Queen <i>Anne</i>, which +was design’d to have given such a Stroke to the Protestant Religion among +us, under the new projected Revolution, as <i>Hudibras</i> did to <i>Puritanism</i> +after the <i>Restoration</i>. The Popish Editor, in the Preface to the said +Poem, says, “that the Motive of the Author (<i>Thomas Ward</i>) for publishing +the <i>History of the Reformation in a Burlesque Style</i> (tho a History full +of melancholy Incidents, which have distracted the Nation, even beyond the +hope of recovery, after so much Blood drawn from all its Veins, and from +its Head) was that which he met with in Sir <i>Roger L’Estrange</i>’s Preface +to the second Part of his <i>Cit</i> and <i>Bumkin</i>, express’d in these Words; +<i>Tho this way of fooling is not my Talent, nor Inclination; yet I have +great Authorities for the taking up this Humour, in regard not only of the +Subject, but of the Age we live in; which is so much upon the Drole, that +hardly any thing else will down with it.</i>”</p> + +<p>And the ingenious Protestant Editor of this Poem at <i>London</i>, which he +allows to have some Wit in it, concludes the Remarks he makes upon it, by +saying, “One thing more we can’t forbear hinting at, that a Retaliation +would be as happy <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span>a Thought as could enter into the Head of a Man of +Genius and Spirit. What a fruitful Harvest would the Legends, Tricks, +spiritual Jugglings, Convents, and Nunneries, yield to a good Poet? +<i>Buchanan</i> in his <i>Franciscani</i>, and <i>Oldham</i> in his <i>Satires</i> on the +Jesuits, have open’d the Way, and we heartily wish some equal Pen would +write the whole Mystery of Iniquity at length.”</p> + +<p> </p> +<p>XIII. All the old Puritan Preachers, who were originally Divines of the +Church of <i>England</i>, sprinkled and season’d their Sermons with a great +many <i>drolling</i> Sayings against <i>Libertinism</i> and <i>Vice</i>, and against +Church Ceremonies; many of which Sayings are reported and handed down to +us in Books and Conversation, as are also the Effects of those Sayings, +which we are told converted many to <i>Christ</i> on the Spot, or in the +Instant of Delivery. Nor is that manner wholly laid aside, but has +continued to be kept alive by some Hands at all times; who have been +greatly follow’d for their Success in drolling upon <i>Sinners</i>, and +treating of Religion in humoursom and fantastical Phrases, and fixing that +way of Religion in some Mens Minds.</p> + +<p>I do not remember to have met with a more complete Drole in the Church of +<i>England</i>, or in any other of the <i>laughing</i> or <i>ridiculing</i> Sects, than +<i>Andrew Marvel</i> of the grave <i>Puritan</i> Sect, in many Works of his both in +Prose and Verse, but especially in his <i>Rehearsal Transprosed</i>; which tho +writ against <i>Parker</i>, who with great Eloquence, Learning, and a Torrent +of Drollery and Satire, had defended the Court and Church’s Cause, in +asserting the Necessity of Penal Laws against the Nonconformists, “was +read from the <i>King</i> down to the Tradesman with great pleasure, on account +of that Burlesque Strain and lively Drollery that ran thro’ it,”<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span> as +Bishop <i>Burnet</i> tells us<small><a name="f109.1" id="f109.1" href="#f109">[109]</a></small>. Nor were the gravest <i>Puritans</i> and +Dissenters among us less taken and pleas’d with his Writings for their +<i>Drollery</i>, than our <i>drole King</i>; tho there are some Passages in them, +which should give just Offence to chaste Ears.</p> + +<p>I find also, that the <i>Puritans</i> and <i>Dissenters</i> have always born with, +and allow’d of, a great Mixture of <i>Drollery</i> in their Sermons, that one +would think should offend their Gravity, and pious Ears; and that they +applaud their Ministers for such their Discourses, as much as the Church +does Dr. <i>South</i> for the Ribaldry sprinkled thro’out his Sermons about the +most high Points in Divinity. They have always had some eminent Divines +among them who have been remarkable for such Passages and Reflections: And +these have never lessen’d their number of Auditors, nor drawn upon +themselves the Character of <i>Irreligious</i>; but have had the largest +Auditories of contributing Hearers, as well as of Churchmen, who came to +smile, and have been esteem’d very <i>pious</i> Men.</p> + +<p>In fine, the <i>Puritans</i> and <i>Dissenters</i> have, like the Church, their +Taste of Humour, Irony, and Ridicule, which they promote with great Zeal, +as a Means to serve Religion: And I remember, that, among other things +said in behalf of <i>Bunyan</i>’s <i>Pilgrim’s Progress</i>, upon the reprinting it +lately by Subscription, it was affirm’d, and that, in my Opinion, truly, +“that it had infinitely out-done <i>The Tale of a Tub</i>; which perhaps had +not made one Convert to Infidelity, whereas the <i>Pilgrim’s Progress</i> had +converted many Sinners to <i>Christ</i>.”</p> + +<p> </p> +<p>XIV. The <i>Quakers</i> are certainly the most <i>serious</i> and solemn People +among us in Matters of Religion,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span> and out-go the Dissenters of all other +Kinds therein: But yet the Church has no regard to them on that Account, +but takes Advantage from thence to <i>ridicule</i> them the more, and to call +their Sincerity more in question. And I much doubt whether there was ever +a Book written against them by the Divines of any Sect with perfect +Decency, and that had not its extravagant Flouts, Scorn, Banter, and +Irony, and that not only of the <i>laughing</i>, but of the <i>cruel</i> kind: +Wherein they copy’d after the <i>Jews</i> of old, who while they prosecuted +<i>Christ</i> to Death, and carried on their High-Church Tragedy against him, +acted against him the <i>comick Scenes</i> <small><a name="f110.1" id="f110.1" href="#f110">[110]</a></small> “of spitting in his Face, and +buffeting him with the Palms of their Hands, saying, <i>Prophesy unto us, +thou Christ, who is he that smote thee</i>;” and who, when they had nail’d +him to the Cross, <i>revil’d</i> him with divers <i>Taunts</i>, in which the <i>Chief +Priests</i>, <i>Scribes</i>, <i>Elders</i>, and even the <i>Thieves, which were crucified +with him</i>, concurr’d. But yet for all this, these solemn Quakers +themselves are not altogether averse to <i>Irony</i> and <i>Ridicule</i>, and use it +when they can. Their Books abound in Stories to ridicule in their Turn the +Priests, their great and bitter Adversaries: And they please themselves +with throwing at the Priests the <i>Centuries of Scandalous Ministers</i>, and +the Books of the <i>Cobler of</i> Glocester. They have also their Satirist and +Banterer, <i>Samuel Fisher</i>; whose Works, tho all wrote in the <i>drolling</i> +Style and Manner, they pride themselves in, and have collected into one +great Volume in <i>Folio</i>; in which Quaker-Wit and Irony are set up against +Church, Presbyterian, and Independent Wit and Irony, without the least +Scruple of the lawfulness of such Arms. In a word, their Author acts the +Part of a <i>Jack-Pudding</i>, <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span><i>Merry Andrew</i>, or <i>Buffoon</i>, with all the +seeming Right, Authority, and Privilege, of the Member of some Establish’d +Church of abusing all the World but themselves. The <i>Quakers</i> have also +encourag’d and publish’d a most arch Book of the famous <i>Henry Stubbe</i>, +intitled, <i>A Light shining out of Darkness</i>, &c. Wherein all the other +religious Parties among us are as handsomly and learnedly banter’d and +ridicul’d, as the <i>Quakers</i> have been in any Book against them. And when +they were attack’d by one <i>Samuel Young</i>, a whimsical +Presbyterian-Buffoon-Divine, who call’d himself <i>Trepidantium Malleus</i>, +and set up for an Imitator of Mr. <i>Alsop</i>, in several Pamphlets full of +Stories, Repartees, and Ironies; in which <i>Young</i>, perhaps, thought +himself as secure from a Return of the like kind, as a Ruffian or Thief +may when he assaults Men: His Attacks were repell’d in a Book intitled +“<i>Trepidantium Malleus intrepidanter malleatus</i>; or the West Country +Wiseaker’s crack-brain’d <i>Reprimand</i> hammer’d about his own Numbscul. +Being a <i>Joco-satirical</i> Return to a late Tale of a Tub, emitted by a +reverend <i>Non-con</i>, at present residing not far from <i>Bedlam</i>,” said to be +written by <i>William Penn</i>, who has therein made use of the carnal Weapons +of Irony and Banter, and dress’d out the Presbyterian Priest in a Fool’s +Coat, for a Spectacle to the Mob. It is also to be observ’d, that there +are several Tracts in the two Volumes of <i>William Penn</i>’s Works lately +publish’d, that for ingenious Banter and Irony, are much superior to the +Priests his Adversaries; and that other Quaker Authors profess to write +sometimes in a <small><a name="f111.1" id="f111.1" href="#f111">[111]</a></small> <i>drolling Style</i>.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p>XV. The Jacobite Clergy have set up for great <i>Droles</i> upon all the true +Friends of the <i>Establishment</i>. <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span>And I presume, the Body of our High +Churchmen would not willingly deprive them of the Benefit of their +<i>Drollery</i>.</p> + +<p>The celebrated Mr. <i>Collier</i> <small><a name="f112.1" id="f112.1" href="#f112">[112]</a></small> thus attacks Bishop <i>Burnet</i>, for his +<span class="smcap">Essay</span> <i>on the Memory of Queen</i> Mary. “This Doctor, you know, is a Man of +mighty <i>Latitude</i>, and can say any thing to serve a Turn; whose +<i>Reverence</i> resolves Cases of Conscience backwards and forwards, disputes +<i>pro</i> and <i>con</i>, praises and dispraises by secular Measures; with whom +Virtue and Vice, passive Obedience and Rebellion, Parricide and filial +Duty, Treachery and Faithfulness, and all the Contradictions in Nature, +are the <i>best</i> and <i>worst</i> things under the Sun, as they are for his +Purpose, and according as the Wind sits: who equally and indifferently +writes for and against all Men, the Gospel, and himself too, as the World +goes: who can bestow a Panegyrick upon the seven deadly Sins, and (if +there be occasion) can make an Invective against all the Commandments.——”</p> + +<p>In relation to Dr. <i>Payne</i>’s <i>Sermon</i> on the Death of that <i>Queen</i>, he +says<small><a name="f113.1" id="f113.1" href="#f113">[113]</a></small>, “that to go thro’ it is too great a Discipline for any Man, +whose Palate hath ever relish’d any thing above <i>three half-penny +Poetry</i>.” He adds, “Why, Sir, many Years ago I have heard some of it sung +about the Streets in wretched and nauseous <i>Doggrel</i>. What think you of +this? <i>Page</i> 6. <i>I know not how to draw her Picture, ’tis so all over +beauteous, without any Foil, any Shade, any Blemish; so perfect in every +Feature, so accomplish’d in every Part, so adorn’d with every Perfection +and every Grace.</i> O rare, Sir! here’s <i>Phillis</i> and <i>Chloris</i>, and <i>Gillian a Croydon</i>.</p> + +<p class="poem"><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span> +“<i>Sh’ hath</i> every Feature, every Grace,<br /> +“<i>So charming</i> every part, <i>&c</i>.</p> + +<p>“Tis no wonder he tells us, (<i>p.</i> 8.) of <i>strewing her with the Flowers of +withered and decay’d Poetry</i>; for the <i>Song</i> out of which he hath +transcrib’d his <i>Sermon</i>, is of very <i>great age</i>, and hath been sung at +many a <i>Whitsun-Ale</i>, and many a <i>Wedding</i> (tho I believe never at a +Funeral before) and therefore in all this time may well be <i>decay’d and +wither’d</i>: In the mean time, if you were to draw the Picture of a <i>great +Princess</i>, I fansy you would not make choice of <i>Mopsa</i> to sit to it. +Alas! Sir, there was <i>Cassandra</i> and <i>Cleopatra</i>, and many a famed +<i>Romance</i> more, which might have furnish’d him with handsome Characters, +and yet he must needs be <i>preaching and instructing</i> his People out of +<i>Hey down derry</i>, and the <i>fair Maid of</i> Kent. If he had intitled it, +<i>The</i> White-Chapel <i>Ballad</i>, and got some body to set it to the Tune of +<i>Amaryllis</i>, compos’d by <i>W. P. Songster</i>, the Character of the <i>Author</i>, +the <i>Title</i>, and the <i>Matter</i>, would have very well agreed, and perhaps it +might have passed at the Corners of the Streets; but to call it a +<i>Sermon</i>, and by <i>W. P.</i> Doctor in <i>Divinity</i>, ’tis one of the <i>lewdest</i> +things in the World.——”</p> + +<p>Mr. <i>Lesley</i> attacks the Clergy, who pray’d “that God would give King +<i>James</i> Victory over all his Enemies<small><a name="f114.1" id="f114.1" href="#f114">[114]</a></small>, when that was the thing they +least wish’d; and confess’d, that they labour’d all they could against +it,” saying, “good God! What Apprehensions, what Thought had those Men of +their publick Prayers; bantering God Almighty,<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a></span> and mocking him to his +Face, who heard their Words, and saw their Hearts? Is not <i>Atheism</i> a +smaller Sin than this, since it is better to have no God, than so to set up one <i>to laugh at him</i>.”</p> + +<p>Again he says, (<i>p.</i> 123.) “It is a severe Jest, that the common People +have got up against the Clergy, that there was but one thing formerly +which the Parliament could not do, that is, to make a Man a Woman: But now +there is another, that is, to make an Oath which the Clergy will not take.”</p> + +<p>The same Author attacks Bishop <i>Burnet</i>’s <i>Speech upon the Bill against +Occasional Conformity</i>, by a Pamphlet intitled, <i>The Bishop of</i> +Salisbury<i>’s proper Defence from a Speech cry’d about the Streets in his +Name, and said to have been spoken by him in the House of Lords upon the +Bill against Occasional Conformity</i>; which is one perpetual <i>Irony</i> on the +Bishop, and gives the Author occasion to throw all manner of Satire and +Abuse on the Bishop. The beginning of this Pamphlet, which is as follows, +will let the Reader into the full Knowledge of the Design of the Irony, and the manner of Execution.</p> + +<p>“The License of this Age and of the Press is so great, that no Rank or +Quality of Men is free from the Insults of loose and extravagant Wits.</p> + +<p>“The good Bishop of <i>Salisbury</i> has had a plentiful Share in this sort of +Treatment: And now at last, some or other has presum’d to burlesque his +Lordship in printing a Speech for him, which none that knows his Lordship can believe ever came from him.</p> + +<p>“But because it may go down with others who are too apt to take Slander +upon trust, and that his Lordship has already been pelted with several<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span> +Answers to his Speech, I have presum’d to offer the following +Considerations, to clear his Lordship from the Suspicion of having vented +(in such an august Assembly) those crude and undigested Matters which are +set forth in that Speech, and which so highly reflect on his Lordship’s self.”</p> + +<p>He has taken the same Method of Irony to attack the said Bishop for his +<i>Speech</i> on the <i>Trial</i> of <i>Sacheverel</i>, and for a <i>Sermon</i>, under this +Title, “The Good Old Cause, <i>or</i> Lying in Truth; being a Second Defence of +the Lord Bishop of <i>Sarum</i> from a Second Speech, and also the Dissection +of a Sermon it is said his Lordship preach’d in the Cathedral Church of +<i>Salisbury</i>.” And this Pamphlet, which is also a continued Banter, begins thus.</p> + +<p>“No Man has more deserv’d than this good Bishop, and no Man has been +more persecuted by various Ways and Means than his Lordship, even to +mobbing! But the ugliest and most malicious of all these Arts, is +that of putting false Things upon him; to write scandalous, +seditious, and senseless Papers, and to affix his Lordship’s Name! I +was forc’d some Years ago to vindicate his Lordship’s Reputation from +one of this sort: That Speech had a Bookseller’s Name to it of good +figure, and look’d something like; but this Speech (said likewise to +be spoken in the House of Lords) has no body to own it, and has all +the Marks of <i>Grub</i>. But the nasty Phiz is nothing to the inside. That discovers the Man; the Heart is false.”</p> + +<p>This same Author has thought fit to attack Mr. <i>Hoadley</i> (since a Bishop) +in the way of Banter: His<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span> <i>Best Answer ever was made, and to which no +Answer will ever be made</i>, is by his own Confession a <i>Farce</i>; when he +says in his <i>Preface</i>, “If you ask why I treat this Subject by way of +<i>farce</i>, and shew a little Merriment sometimes? it was because the +Foundation you stand upon is not only <i>false</i> but <i>ridiculous</i>, and ought +to be treated with the <i>utmost Contempt</i>.”</p> + +<p>Again, in his “<i>Finishing Stroke, in defence of</i> his <i>Rehearsals, Best +Answer, and Best of all</i>,” he gives us (<i>p.</i> 125.) what he calls, “A +Battle-Royal between three Cocks of the Game, <i>Higden</i>, <i>Hoadley</i>, and a +<i>Hottentot</i>;” which in the <i>Contents</i> he calls <i>A Farce</i>, and to which he +joins both a <i>Prologue</i> and <i>Epilogue</i>, and divers other Particulars, all +taken from the <i>Play-house</i>.</p> + +<p>The Reverend Mr. <i>Matthias Earbery</i> sets up for a great Satirist and Drole +upon the swearing and Low-Church Clergy, in numerous Pamphlets of late, +more particularly in his “<i>Serious Admonition to Dr.</i> Kennet: To which is +added, a short but complete Answer to Mr. <i>Marshal</i>’s late Treatise +called, <i>A Defence of our Constitution in Church and State</i>; and a +Parallel is drawn between him and Dr. <i>Kennet</i>, for the Satisfaction of +the unprejudic’d Reader.”</p> + +<p>He has a bantering Argument <small><a name="f115.1" id="f115.1" href="#f115">[115]</a></small> to shew, that, “If in future Ages Mr. +<i>Marshal</i>’s Book should escape the just Judgment it deserves, of being +condemn’d to the <i>Pastry-Cooks</i> and <i>Grocers</i>, an industrious Chronologist +might make an Observation to prove him too young to write it.”</p> + +<p>The <i>Parallel</i> is in <i>Pag.</i> 126, which being very gross <i>Raillery</i>, I only +refer you to it.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span>This Mr. <i>Earbery</i> also wrote a <i>Letter to Bishop</i> Fleetwood, under the +Title of “A Letter to the Bishop of <i>Ely</i>, upon the Occasion of his +<i>suppos’d</i> late <i>Charge</i>, said to be deliver’d at <i>Cambridge August</i> 7, +1716, <i>&c.</i>” in which he pursues the Ironical Scheme laid down in the said +Title, and endeavours to <i>vindicate</i> his <i>Lordship from the Aspersion of +writing such a mean Pamphlet</i>, as the <i>Charge</i>.</p> + +<p>Nor do these <i>Jacobites</i> confine their Drollery to their Adversaries +without, but exercise it on one another, as may be seen in their late +Dispute about King <i>Edward the Sixth</i>’s Liturgy. And Mr. <i>Lesley</i> himself, +happening to engage on the side opposite to the Traditions of the Fathers, +and attacking those Traditions by Low-Church Notions and Arguments, and +thereby running counter to all his former Books, is attack’d just in the +same manner he attack’d Bishop <i>Burnet</i>, in a Book under this Title, “Mr. +<i>Lesley</i>’s Defence, from some erroneous and dangerous Principles, advanced +in a Letter said to have been written concerning the New Separation.” And +it has several Paragraphs at the beginning in the very words of one of Mr. +<i>Lesley</i>’s Books against the said Bishop, as may be seen on Comparison.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p>XVI. <i>Christ-Church</i> in <i>Oxford</i> is no less famous for the <i>Drolling</i>, +than for the <i>Orthodox</i> Spirit reigning there; and the former, being +judged an excellent Method to support the latter, is cultivated among the +Youth, and employ’d by the Members of that Society against all the +supposed Adversaries of the Church, and encourag’d by the governing +Ecclesiasticks there and elsewhere.</p> + +<p>Among the many, who have receiv’d their Education there, and been form’d +in Drollery, I will only instance in the Reverend Dr. <i>Atterbury</i> and Dr.<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span> +<i>South</i>; who being as famous for <i>Drollery</i> as for Zeal for Religion, and +applauded for their <i>Wit</i> no less than for their <i>Orthodoxy</i>; and +particularly for imploying the former in behalf of the latter, seem of +sufficient Weight to bear down all Attempts to stifle their Productions. +What Considerations can make us amends for the Loss of such excellent +<i>drolling Writings</i>, which promote Religion as well as Mirth?</p> + +<p>With what incomparable Mockery, Ridicule and Sarcasm does Dr. <i>Atterbury</i> +treat all the Low-Church Clergy that come in his way, together with the +<i>Whig</i> Ministry and Administration in his several <i>Convocational Tracts</i>? +Dr. <i>Wake</i>, our present Archbishop of <i>Canterbury</i>, is represented by him +as writing so <i>contumeliously</i> <small><a name="f116.1" id="f116.1" href="#f116">[116]</a></small> of the Clergy, <i>that had he not +inform’d us in his Title Page who he was, we should rather have guess’d +him to have been of the Cabal against Priests and Priestcraft, than one of +the Order</i>; and as wholly govern’d by <small><a name="f117.1" id="f117.1" href="#f117">[117]</a></small> <i>Interest</i> in the <i>Debate</i>, +and as giving us a most <small><a name="f118.1" id="f118.1" href="#f118">[118]</a></small> <i>shallow empty Performance</i> in relation to +our Ecclesiastical Constitution, which he <small><a name="f119.1" id="f119.1" href="#f119">[119]</a></small> <i>has done his best to +undermine</i>, as knowing himself to be in the wrong; and as <i>deserving</i> any +Name or Censure, none being <i>too bad to be bestow’d</i> on him; and in fine, +as <i>the least of the little officious Pens by which he expects to be traduc’d</i>.</p> + +<p>Dr. <i>Bentley</i> is represented as <i>wrote out of Reputation into Preferment</i>; +which, whether it be a more severe Sarcasm on the Doctor, than on the +Government, is hard to determine; and besides, it gives Applause to one of +the most drolling and bantering Performances that this drolling Age has +produc’d, I mean <i>Dr.</i> Bentley<i>’s Dissertations on the Epistles of</i> +Phalaris, <i>and the Fables of</i> Æsop, <i>examin’d</i>.</p> + +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span>Bishop <i>Burnet</i> is a standing Subject of Ridicule with him; as are Bishop +<i>Nicholson</i>, Bishop <i>Kennet</i>, Bishop <i>Gibson</i>, Bishop <i>Trimnel</i> [to whom +he writes a most drolling <small><a name="f120.1" id="f120.1" href="#f120">[120]</a></small> Letter] and Dr. <i>West</i>; and all the +Topicks that can affect them as Scholars, as honest Men, and Clergymen, +are imploy’d to render them <ins class="correction" title="original reads 'ridiulons'">ridiculous</ins>, and set the World a laughing at +them, who are not in the least spar’d for their being of the Holy Order; +but on the contrary seem more loaded and baited with Sarcasms for that +reason.</p> + +<p>For a <i>Specimen</i>, take this Banter or Burlesque upon Bishop <i>Kennet</i>’s +Dedication of his <i>Ecclesiastical Synods and Parliamentary Convocations</i>, +&c. to the Archbishop of <i>Canterbury</i>; which Banter runs thus<small><a name="f121.1" id="f121.1" href="#f121">[121]</a></small>.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span style="margin-left: 2em;">“<i>May it please your Grace</i>,</span></p> + +<p>“Mr. <i>Atterbury</i> has lately forc’d a Dedication upon you, which +favours too much of Presumption or Design; he has presum’d to +surprize you with an unexpected Address, and appears very indecently +before your Grace, because he has taken no care to express upon this +Subject a due Respect and Reverence to the Governors in Church and +State, such as is suitable to the Christian Religion, and his +particular Function: The Reports and Authorities in his Book are +Fruits of other Mens Collections, not the immediate Effects of his +own Searches into <i>Registers</i> and <i>Records</i>; he imperiously summons +your Grace and my Lords the Bishops to an immediate Compliance upon +pain of being pronounc’d Betrayers of the Church——This, my Lord, is +the Character of the Person <i>I set up</i> against; but as for me, I <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span>am +quite another sort of Man, I am very well bred, a great Antiquary, +beholden to no body, <i>some Wits and merry Folks call me a Tool and a +Play-thing</i> (<i>Pref. p.</i> 8.) But I assure your Grace, that what +Freedom soever I may have taken in taxing the Vices of the inferior +<i>Clergy</i>, (<i>p.</i> 77. 188.) and in reflecting <i>upon the ambitious +Designs of dignify’d Presbyters</i> (<i>p.</i> 196.); yet <i>I am however +tender and dutiful in treating the Governors of our Church</i> (p. 78.); +especially <i>those of them who are of the Ecclesiastical Commission +for Preferments</i>, (p. 311). I have a very great Respect and Reverence +for every body that will give me any thing; and how resolute soever +Mr. <i>Atterbury</i> may be, your Grace may do what you please with</p> + +<p><span style="margin-left: 6em;"><i>Your Grace’s most humble</i></span></p> + +<p><span style="margin-left: 8em;"><i>and obedient Servant</i>,</span></p> + +<p><span style="margin-left: 10em;">WHITE KENNET.</span></p></div> + +<p> </p> +<p>But for <i>Drollery</i>, the Reverend Dr. <i>South</i> outdoes even <i>Christ-Church</i>, +and fills all his Performances with it, and throws it out against the +Enemies of the Church, and in particular against the late Dr. <i>Sherlock</i>, +whom he thought fit to single out. I shall select some Passages from his +Writings against the said Doctor, which cannot but entertain the +High-Church Orthodox Reader, and reconcile him to a <i>Drollery</i> so well +employ’d.</p> + +<p>He stiles him <i>a great good Man, as a certain poor Wretch</i>, meaning +<i>Prior, calls him</i>.</p> + +<p>Again, he says<small><a name="f122.1" id="f122.1" href="#f122">[122]</a></small>, “There is hardly any one Subject which he (that is +Dr. <i>Sherlock</i>) has wrote upon<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span> Popery excepted, that he has wrote both +for it and against it. Could any thing be more sharp and bitter against +the Dissenters than what this Man wrote in his <i>Answer</i> to the <i>Protestant +Reconciler</i>; and yet how frankly, or rather fulsomly does he open both his +Arms to embrace them in his Sermon preach’d before the Lord Mayor on +<i>November</i> 4, 1688. Tho I dare say, that the Dissenters themselves are of +that Constancy, as to own that they were of the same Principles in 88 that +they were of in 85; but the Truth is, old Friendships cannot be so easily +forgot: And it has been an Observation made by some, that hardly can any +one be found, who was first tainted with a Conventicle, whom a Cathedral +could ever after cure, but that still upon every cross turn of Affairs +against the <i>Church</i>, the irresistible <i>Magnetism</i> of the <i>Good Old Cause</i> +(as some still think it) would quickly draw him out of the <i>Good Old Way</i>. +The Fable tells us of a <i>Cat</i> once turn’d into a <i>Woman</i>, but the next +sight of a <i>Mouse</i> quickly dissolv’d the <i>Metamorphosis</i>, cashier’d the +Woman, and restor’d the Brute. And some <i>Virtuosi</i> (skill’d in the <i>useful +Philosophy</i> of <i>Alterations</i>) have thought her much a Gainer by the latter +Change, there being so many unlucky Turns in the World, in which it is not +half so safe and advantageous to <i>walk upright</i>, as to be <i>able to fall +always upon one’s Legs</i>.”</p> + +<p>Again, Dr. <i>South</i> says<small><a name="f123.1" id="f123.1" href="#f123">[123]</a></small>, “When I consider how wonderfully pleas’d the +Man is with these two new started Terms (<i>Self-consciousness</i> and <i>mutual +Consciousness</i>) so high in Sound and so empty of Sense, instead of one +substantial word (<i>Omniscience</i>)<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span> which gives us all that can be pretended +useful in them, with vast Overplus and Advantage, and even swallows them +up, as <i>Moses</i>’s Rod did those pitiful Tools of the <i>Magicians</i>: This (I +say) brings to my mind (whether I will or no) a certain Story of a grave +Person, who riding in the Road with his Servant, and finding himself +something uneasy in his Saddle, bespoke his Servant thus: <i>John</i> (says he) +<i>alight, and first take off the Saddle that is upon my Horse, and then +take off the Saddle that is upon your Horse; and when you have done this, +put the Saddle that was upon my Horse, upon your Horse; and put the Saddle +that was upon your Horse, upon my Horse</i>. Whereupon the Man, who had not +studied the Philosophy of Saddles (whether <i>Ambling</i> or <i>Trotting</i>) so +exactly as his Master, replies something short upon him; <i>Lord, Master, +what need all these words? Could you not as well have said, Let us change +Saddles?</i> Now I must confess, I think the Servant was much in the right; +tho the Master having a <i>rational Head of his own</i>, and being withal +willing to make the <i>Notion</i> of <i>changing</i> Saddles more <i>plain</i>, <i>easy</i> +and <i>intelligible</i>, and to give a clearer Explication of that word (which +his Forefathers, how good <i>Horsemen</i> soever they might have been, yet were +<i>not equally happy in explaining of</i>) was pleas’d to set it forth by that +more full and accurate Circumlocution.”</p> + +<p>He says<small><a name="f124.1" id="f124.1" href="#f124">[124]</a></small>, <i>The Author</i>, Dr. <i>Sherlock, is no doubt a</i> Grecian <i>in his +Heart</i>! And the tenth Chapter of the <i>Animadversions</i> is one continued +Banter upon the <i>Dean</i> for his Ignorance in <i>Greek</i> and <i>Latin</i>, and even +his Inability to spell: All which he <i>closes</i> <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span>with saying, “That St. +<i>Paul</i>’s <i>School</i> is certainly an excellent School, and St. <i>Paul</i>’s +Church a most noble Church; and therefore he thinks that he directs his +Course very prudently, and happily too, who in his Passage to such a +<i>Cathedral</i>, takes a School in his way.”</p> + +<p>Again, he says<small><a name="f125.1" id="f125.1" href="#f125">[125]</a></small>, “He cannot see any new Advantage that the Dean has +got over the <i>Socinians</i>, unless it be, that the Dean thinks his <i>three +Gods</i> will be too hard for their <i>one</i>.”</p> + +<p>After citing several Scurrilities of the Dean<small><a name="f126.1" id="f126.1" href="#f126">[126]</a></small>, (who it must be +confess’d, appears therein a great Banterer also of Dr. <i>South</i> and his +Performance) the Dr. says, “These, with several more of the like +<i>Gravel-Lane</i> Elegancies, are all of them such peculiar Strictures of the +Dean’s <i>Genius</i>, that he might very well spare his Name, where he had made +himself so well known by his Mark; for all the foregoing +<i>Oyster-Wive-Kennel-Rhetorick</i> seems so naturally to flow from him, who +had been so long Rector of St. <i>Botolph</i> (with the well-spoken +<i>Billingsgate</i> under his Care) that (as much a Teacher as he was) it may +well be question’d, whether he has learn’d more from his Parish, than his +Parish from him.—All favours of the Porter, the Carman, and the Waterman; +and a pleasant Scene it must be to see the <i>Master of the Temple</i> laying +about him in the Language of the Stairs.”</p> + +<p>To the Dean’s Scoff, that <i>this Argument</i>, &c. <i>was worth its weight in +Gold, tho the</i> Dean <i>fears it will not much enrich the Buyer</i>, the Doctor +replies<small><a name="f127.1" id="f127.1" href="#f127">[127]</a></small>, “What is that to him? Let him mind his own Markets, who +never writes to <i>enrich the Buyer</i> but the Seller;<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span> and that <i>Seller</i> is +himself: and since he is so, well is it for his Books and his Bookseller +too, that Men generally <i>buy</i> before they <i>read</i>.”</p> + +<p>In requital of the scurrilous Character of an <i>ingenious Blunderer</i>, Dr. +<i>South</i> says<small><a name="f128.1" id="f128.1" href="#f128">[128]</a></small>, “He must here return upon him the just Charge of an +<i>impious Blasphemer</i>, and that upon more Accounts than one; telling him +withal, that had he liv’d in the former Times of the Church, his Gown +would have been stript off his Back for his detestable Blasphemies and +Heresies, and some other Place found out for him to perch in than the Top +of St. <i>Paul’s</i>, where at present he is placed like a true Church +Weather-Cock, (as he is) notable for nothing so much, as <i>standing high and turning round</i>.”</p> + +<p>Again, he says<small><a name="f129.1" id="f129.1" href="#f129">[129]</a></small>, “And so I take my leave of the Dean’s <i>three distinct +infinite Minds, Spirits</i>, or <i>Substances</i>, that is to say, of his <i>three +Gods</i>; and having done this, methinks I see him go whimpering away with +his Finger in his Eye, and the Complaint of <i>Micah</i> in his Mouth, <i>Ye have +taken away my Gods which I made, and what have I more</i><small><a name="f130.1" id="f130.1" href="#f130">[130]</a></small>? Tho he must +confess, he cannot tell why he should be so fond of them, since he dares +undertake that he will never be able to bring the Christian World either +to believe in, or to worship a <i>Trinity of Gods</i>: Nor does he see what use +they are likely to be of, even to himself, unless peradventure to <i>swear by</i>.”</p> + +<p>Again, the Doctor says<small><a name="f131.1" id="f131.1" href="#f131">[131]</a></small>, “The Dean’s following Instruction to his +Friend is certainly very diverting, in these words, where the Animadverter +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span>charges the Dean with Absurdities and Contradictions; turn to the Place +and read it with its Context, and tell me what you cannot answer, and I +will; to which he would have done well to have added, <i>If I can</i>. But the +whole Passage is just as if he had said, Sir, if you find not +Contradictions and Absurdities enough in my Book to satisfy your Curiosity +that way, pray come to the Fountain-head, and consult me, and you shall be +sure of a more plentiful Supply.”</p> + +<p>Again, upon the Dean’s “Frequent reproaching the <small><a name="f132.1" id="f132.1" href="#f132">[132]</a></small> Animadverter with +the Character of a <i>Wit</i>, tho join’d with such ill-favour’d Epithets, as +his witless Malice has thought fit to degrade it with, as that he is <i>a +spiteful Wit</i>, a <i>wrangling Wit</i>, a <i>satirical Wit</i>, and the <span class="smcap">Witty</span>, +<i>subtle</i>, <i>good-natur’d Animadverter, &c.</i> the Dr. says, that tho there be +but little <i>Wit</i> shewn in making such Charges; yet if <i>Wit</i> be a +<i>Reproach</i> (be it of what sort it will) the Animadverter is too <i>just</i> to +return this <i>Reproach</i> upon the <i>Defender</i>; and withal, understands +himself, and what becomes him, too well, either to <i>assume</i> to himself, or +so much as to <i>admit</i> the Character of a <i>Wit</i>, as at all due to him; +especially since he knows that <i>common Sense</i> (a thing much short of Wit) +is enough to enable him to deal with such an Adversary. Nevertheless, +there are many in the World, who are both call’d and accounted <i>Wits</i>, and +really are so; which (one would think) should derive something of Credit +upon this Qualification, even in the Esteem of this Author himself, or at +least rebate the Edge of his Invectives against it, considering that it +might have pleas’d God to have made him a <i>Wit</i> too.”</p> + +<p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span>XVII. As things now stand, it may easily be seen, that Prosecutions for +<i>Raillery</i> and <i>Irony</i> would not be relish’d well by the Publick, and +would probably turn to the Disreputation and Disgrace of the Prosecutor.</p> + +<p>Archbishop <i>Laud</i> has always been much censur’d for his malicious +Prosecution of <i>Williams</i> in the <i>Star-Chamber</i>; among whose Crimes I find +the following laid to his Charge: <small><a name="f133.1" id="f133.1" href="#f133">[133]</a></small> <i>That he said all Flesh in</i> +England <i>had corrupted their Ways</i>; that <i>he call’d a Book intitled</i>, A +Coal from the Altar (written by Dr. <i>Heylin</i>, for placing the +Communion-Table at the East-end of the Church, and railing it in) <i>a +Pamphlet</i>; that he <i>scoffingly said, that he had heard of a Mother Church, +but not of a Mother Chapel, meaning the King’s, to which all Churches in +Ceremony ought to conform</i>; that <i>he wickedly jested on St.</i> Martin<i>’s +Hood</i>; that <i>he said the People ought not to be lash’d by every body’s +Whip</i>; that <i>he said</i>, (citing <i>a National Council for it</i>) <i>that the +People are God’s and the King’s, and not the Priest’s People; and that he +doth not allow Priests to jeer and make Invectives against the People</i>. +And I humbly conceive, that such Matters had much better be suffer’d to go +on in the World, and take their Course, than that Courts of Judicature +should be employ’d about them. A Sentence that imply’d some <i>Clergymen</i> +corrupt, as well as some <i>Laymen</i>, of whom <i>Laud</i> would only allow to have +it said, that they had <i>corrupted their Ways</i>; a <i>Jest</i> upon St. +<i>Martin</i>’s <i>Hood</i>, which, according to Ecclesiastical History, <i>cur’d sore +Eyes</i>; and a <i>Ridicule</i> upon a High-Church Book of <i>Heylin</i>’s, by calling +it a Pamphlet, tho it was really a Pamphlet, as consisting of but seventy +<span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span>Pages in Quarto; seem less <i>wicked</i> and hurtful than disturbing, fining, +and undoing Men about them. And the having some Concern for the People, +that they should not be used as the Priest pleas’d; that the <i>People</i> +belong to <i>God</i> and the <i>King</i>, and <i>not to the Priest</i>; and the <i>not +allowing</i> the <i>Priests</i> to <i>jeer and make Invectives against the People</i>; +seem all Errors fit to be born with.</p> + +<p>Archbishop <i>Laud</i> was also thought guilty of an excessive Piece of +Weakness in the Punishment of <small><a name="f134.1" id="f134.1" href="#f134">[134]</a></small> <i>Archibald</i> the King’s Fool, by laying +the Matter before the Privy-Council, and occasioning him to be expell’d +the King’s House for a poor <i>Jest</i> upon himself; who, as he was a Man at +the Head of the State, should have despis’d such a thing in any Body, much +more in a <i>Fool</i>, and who should never have been hurried on to be the +Instrument of any <i>Motion</i> against him, but have left it to others; who +upon the least Intimation would have been glad to make their court to +<i>Laud</i>, by sacrificing a <i>Fool</i> only to his Resentment.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p>XVIII. I could have entertain’d the Reader with a great Variety of +Passages out of the Fathers of the Church, whose Writings are Magazines of +Authority, and urg’d upon us upon all Occasions by Ecclesiasticks, and are +particularly full of <i>Burlesque</i> and <i>Ridicule</i> on the <i>Gods and Religion</i> +of the <i>Pagans</i>; in the use whereof they are much more unanimous, than in +the Articles of their <i>Creed</i>. But that being a Subject too great and +extensive for a Digression, I shall content my self with the few following +Reflections; which will sufficiently evince, that the <i>Taste</i> of the +Primitive Christians was like that of the rest <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span>of the World; that they +could laugh and be as merry as the <i>Greeks</i> and other <i>Pagans</i>; and that +they would take the Advantage of the <i>Pagans</i> weak Cause, to introduce +<i>Ridicule</i>, which always bears hard upon Weakness and Folly, and must load +them so as to prevent a Possibility of their being remov’d by another +<i>Ridicule</i>.</p> + +<p>These Fathers have transfused into their Writings all the Wit and Raillery +of the antient <i>Pagan</i> Writers and Philosophers; who it is well known +wrote a great deal to turn <i>Paganism</i> into Ridicule; most of which now +exists no where but in the Works of the Fathers; all Books of that kind +being lost, except <i>Cicero</i>’s Books of <i>the Nature of Gods</i>, and of +<i>Divination</i>, and the Dialogues of <i>Lucian</i>; both which Authors have been +of great use to the <i>Fathers</i> to set them up for <i>Wits</i>, <i>Droles</i>, and +<i>Satirists</i>. For a Specimen how well these antient <i>Pagans</i> could <i>drole</i>, +and how much beholden we are to the Fathers for recording their +Drolleries, the most remarkable, I think, are some <i>Fragments</i> of a Book +of <i>Oenomaus</i> concerning the <i>Pagan Oracles</i>, cited and preserv’d by <small><a name="f135.1" id="f135.1" href="#f135">[135]</a></small> +<i>Eusebius</i>; who has given us occasion to <small><a name="f136.1" id="f136.1" href="#f136">[136]</a></small> <i>regret</i> the loss of this +Work, as one of the most valuable Books written by the Antients on the +Subject of <i>Oracles</i>, tho those Books were <i>very numerous</i>. And it is to +be observ’d, that this Book and a great many, perhaps a <small><a name="f137.1" id="f137.1" href="#f137">[137]</a></small> thousand +more, were publish’d in <i>Greece</i>, where the Imposture of <i>Oracles</i> greatly +prevail’d, and great Wealth flow’d in, not only to the Priests of the +<i>Oracular Temples</i>, but to all the Inhabitants of <i>Greece</i>, and especially +to those who lived in the Neighbourhood of the several <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span><i>Oracular +Temples</i>; who made a great Profit from the rich Travellers, that came from +all Parts of the World to know their Fortunes. This shews the great +Integrity and Fairness of the old <i>Pagans</i>; who would suffer not only +their supposed standing Revelation to be call’d in <ins class="correction" title="original reads 'qustion'">question</ins>, but a +Revelation that brought in as much Money, as the Chapels, Churches, and +Shrines dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, or to any of the Saints, do in +the <i>Roman</i> Church, without calling any Man to Account for the Liberties +they took; who, as far as appears, were not expos’d <small><a name="f138.1" id="f138.1" href="#f138">[138]</a></small> <i>to any Danger</i> +thereby. It is also to be observ’d, that the merry <small><a name="f139.1" id="f139.1" href="#f139">[139]</a></small> <i>Epicureans were +none of them ever prosecuted</i>, and <i>that</i> Epicurus <i>himself died quietly +at</i> Athens <i>in a very great old Age</i>.</p> + +<p>But the Book, which the Fathers made the most use of, was that arch, fly, +and drolling Performance, now lost, of <i>Evemerus</i>, which he intitled, <i>A +sacred History</i>: wherein he gave an <i>historical Account</i> of the <i>Birth</i>, +<i>Country</i>, <i>Lives</i>, <i>Deaths</i>, and <i>Burials</i> of the <i>Gods</i>. This Work was +translated into <i>Latin</i> by that arch Wag <i>Ennius</i>, who himself has most +ingeniously <i>ridicul’d</i> several Impostors or very grave Persons, in a +remarkable Piece of Poetry, which I shall give my Reader in <i>English</i>.</p> + +<p class="poem"> +“<i>I value not a Rush the</i> Marsian <i>Augur,</i><br /> +“<i>Nor Country-Fortune Tellers, nor Town-Star-Gazers,</i><br /> +“<i>Nor jugling Gypsies, nor yet Dream-Interpreters:</i><br /> +“<i>For, not by Skill or Art, are these Diviners;</i><br /> +“<i>But superstitious Prophets, Guessers impudent,</i><br /> +“<i>Or idle Rogues, or craz’d, or mere starving Beggars.</i><br /> +“<i>They know no way themselves, yet others would direct;</i><br /> +“<i>And crave a Groat of those, to whom they promise Riches:</i><br /> +“<i>Thence let them take the Groat, and give back all the rest.</i></p> + +<p> </p> +<p><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span>XIX. Wherefore I cannot but presume, that an Attempt to make a <i>Law</i> to +restrain <i>Irony</i>, &c. would prove abortive, and that the Attempt would be +deem’d the Effect of a very partial Consideration of things, and of +present Anger at a poor Jest; which Men are not able to bear themselves, +how much soever they abound in <i>Jests</i>, both of the <i>light</i> and <i>cruel</i> +kind, on others: tho for my own part I concur heartily with you in +<i>making</i> such a <i>Law</i>, and in leaving it to a Person of your <i>Equity</i> to +draw it up, craving only the Liberty to propose an Amendment or Addition, +<i>viz.</i> that you would be pleas’d to insert a Clause to prevent <i>Irony</i>, +<i>Ridicule</i>, and <i>Banter</i>, from invading the Pulpit, and particularly to +prevent pointing out <i>Persons of Men</i> <small><a name="f140.1" id="f140.1" href="#f140">[140]</a></small> from thence, and reviling +them, as also reviling whole Bodies of Men: For whatever is immoral in +Print, is, in my Opinion, immoral in the Pulpit. Besides, these things +seem more improper in the Pulpit, than they can be in Print: because no +<i>Reprisals</i> can be made in the former, as in the latter Case; where they, +or the Fear of them, may give some Check to the Disorder, and reduce +things to a tolerable Temper and Decency. If, in order to justify my +Motion, it could be thought necessary or proper here to give a Detail of +ridiculing and ironical Passages, taken from Sermons against particular +Men, and Bodies of Men, and their Doctrines, you cannot but know how easy +it would be to fill a Volume with them, without going to Authors, who have +occasionally produc’d abundance of them. And I will only mention here a +Passage in a <i>Volume of Sermons</i>, just now publish’d, of a well known +<i>High Divine</i>, the Reverend Mr. <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span><i>William Reeves</i>, made famous by his +<i>Translation</i> of some <i>Apologies of the Primitive Fathers</i>, which gain’d +him the Applauses of a great many <i>High Men</i>, and particularly <i>Hickes</i>, +<i>Dodwel</i>, and <i>Nelson</i>, &c. and a Recommendation from the last to the +Queen, who in the latter end of her Reign made him <i>Chaplain in Ordinary</i>, +and obtain’d for him a considerable Preferment. This Gentleman, attacking +Bishop <i>Hoadley</i>’s <i>Sermon</i> of <i>The Kingdom of Christ</i>, says<small><a name="f141.1" id="f141.1" href="#f141">[141]</a></small>, “In +these last Days we have been taught to be as indolent and unconcern’d as +possible in the Service of God: A noted <i>Novellist</i> [Bp. <i>Hoadley</i>] among +many other odd <i>Engines</i>, hath invented one, to pump out all Devotion from +Prayer, and make it a <i>Vacuum</i>. Instead of the old fervent, affectionate +way of Worshipping, he hath substituted a new Idol, a Vanity, a Nothing of +his own, <i>a calm and undisturb’d Address to God</i>.——The <i>Arrows</i> and +<i>bitter Words</i> Mr. <i>Hales</i> hath levell’d against <i>Rome</i> only, our Right +Reverend hath <i>pointed a-new</i>, and shot them full against the Church he +superintends, and with all the Force of inbred, fanatick Fury. And by this +time surely it is well known, that he is a very <i>warm Man</i> in every thing, +but his <i>Prayers</i>.”</p> + +<p> </p> +<p>XX. Instead of addressing the foregoing Papers to you, I could have +address’d them to several others; who of late have thought fit to +recognize the Right of Men, to examine into, and judge for themselves in +all Matters of speculation, and especially in Matters of mere Religion, +and to publish their Reasons against any Opinions they judge erroneous, +tho publickly receiv’d in the Country where they live, provided they do it +<i>seriously</i><span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span> and <i>gravely</i>: which is a noble Progress in Truth, and owing +to that glorious Liberty, and Freedom of Debate, that we enjoy under our +most excellent Princes; and which extorts it even from them, who, to have +some Credit in the World, are forced to own, what would discredit them to +go on to deny, among all who have any degree of <i>Virtue</i>, <i>Sense</i>, and +<i>Learning</i>. But I was determin’d to address my self to you, as a Person of +more remarkable <i>Moderation</i> than ordinary in your <i>Letter</i> to Dr. +<i>Rogers</i>: And one, who had, long before, in your <i>Defence of the +Constitution in Church and State; in answer to the Charge of the +Nonjurors, accusing us of Heresy and Schism, Perjury and Treason</i>, “valu’d +<small><a name="f142.1" id="f142.1" href="#f142">[142]</a></small> and commended the Integrity of the Nonjurors in declaring their +Sentiments:” and who, tho you justly charge those of them you write +against, “as attacking us with such uncommon Marks of Violence <small><a name="f143.1" id="f143.1" href="#f143">[143]</a></small> as +most plainly intimate, that no Measures are intended to be kept with us by +them in the Day of their Prosperity, who in the Day of their Adversity, +even when they are most at Mercy, cannot refrain from such <i>raging</i> +Provocations; but when reduced to the Necessity of <i>taking</i> Quarter, +profess most plainly they will never give it:” Yet as to these Enemies, +who would destroy our Church and State, and <small><a name="f144.1" id="f144.1" href="#f144">[144]</a></small> “revive upon us the +Charge of <i>Heresy</i> and <i>Schism</i>, <i>Perjury</i> and <i>Treason</i>, Crimes of no +small figure either in the Law or in the Gospel,” you only say, that “if +you may have leave to borrow a Thought from <small><a name="f145.1" id="f145.1" href="#f145">[145]</a></small> one of their own most +celebrated Writers, you would tell them, that <i>the Blood and Spirits were +made to rise upon such Occasions</i>: Nature design’d not, that <span class='pagenum'><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a></span>we should be +cold or indifferent in our manner of receiving, or returning, such foul +Reproaches.” This is great Moderation, and such as I heartily approve, +being dispos’d to forgive the Punishment due by Law to any Fault, when the +Non-execution of it will not overturn the Government. And I am willing to +hope, that since you can think that such bitter Adversaries to you, as +these licentious <i>Jacobites</i> are, should only be smartly replied to, and +not be prosecuted by the Government, you will, upon Reflection, think, +that a merry, good humour’d Adversary should be treated as well.</p> + +<p>Tho I have endeavour’d to defend the Use of <i>Ridicule</i> and <i>Irony</i>, yet it +is such <i>Irony</i> and <i>Ridicule</i> only as is fit for polite Persons to use. +As to the gross <i>Irony</i> and <i>Ridicule</i>, I disapprove of it, as I do other +Faults in Writing; only I would not have Men punish’d, or any other way +disturb’d about it, than by a Return of <i>Ridicule</i> and <i>Irony</i>. This I +think fit to conclude with, more to prevent Misrepresentation from others, +than from you; whom I look on to have too much Sense and Integrity to +mistake or misrepresent me.</p> + +<p class="right"><i>I am Yours, &c.</i></p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><b><i>F<span class="spacer"> </span>I<span class="spacer"> </span>N<span class="spacer"> </span>I<span class="spacer"> </span>S.</i></b></p> + + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><b>Footnotes:</b></p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f28" id="f28" href="#f28.1">[28]</a> <i>Page</i> 337.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f29" id="f29" href="#f29.1">[29]</a> <i>Pag.</i> 302.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f30" id="f30" href="#f30.1">[30]</a> <i>Page</i> 301.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f31" id="f31" href="#f31.1">[31]</a> <i>Pag.</i> 307.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f32" id="f32" href="#f32.1">[32]</a> Stillingfleet’s <i>Answer to several late Treatises</i>, &c. <i>Page</i> 14.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f33" id="f33" href="#f33.1">[33]</a> <i>Pag.</i> 71.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f34" id="f34" href="#f34.1">[34]</a> Vindication of the Answer to the Royal Papers. <i>p.</i> 105.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f35" id="f35" href="#f35.1">[35]</a> <i>Preface to</i> Unreasonableness of Separation. <i>p.</i> 62.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f36" id="f36" href="#f36.1">[36]</a> Rule’s <i>Rational Defence</i> of Nonconf. <i>p.</i> 29.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f37" id="f37" href="#f37.1">[37]</a> <i>Preface to</i> Stillingfleet <i>still against</i> Stillingfleet.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f38" id="f38" href="#f38.1">[38]</a> <i>Preface to a Discourse of</i> Miracles wrote in the <i>Roman</i> Church, <i>&c.</i></p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f39" id="f39" href="#f39.1">[39]</a> See <i>Stillingfleet</i>’s Second Vind. of the Protestant Grounds of Faith, <i>c.</i> 3.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f40" id="f40" href="#f40.1">[40]</a> <i>Edwards’s</i> New Discov. <i>p.</i> 184-215.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f41" id="f41" href="#f41.1">[41]</a> <i>Ecclesiast. Hist.</i> cent. 8. <i>p.</i> 196.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f42" id="f42" href="#f42.1">[42]</a> Vind. <i>p.</i> 199.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f43" id="f43" href="#f43.1">[43]</a> <i>See</i> Shaftesbury’s <i>Characteristicks</i>, Vol. I. p. 61.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f44" id="f44" href="#f44.1">[44]</a> Memoirs de Trevoux, <i>An.</i> 1707. <i>p.</i> 396. <i>An.</i> 1717. <i>p.</i> 1200.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f45" id="f45" href="#f45.1">[45]</a> <ins class="correction" title="original reads 'Trap's'"><i>Trapp</i>’s</ins> Popery truly stated, <i>p.</i> 123.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f46" id="f46" href="#f46.1">[46]</a> <i>Preface.</i></p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f47" id="f47" href="#f47.1">[47]</a> <i>Heylin</i>’s History of the Presbyterians, <i>p.</i> 391.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f48" id="f48" href="#f48.1">[48]</a> <i>Wotton</i> on the <i>Misna</i>, p. 118.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f49" id="f49" href="#f49.1">[49]</a> <i>Freeholder</i>, Nº 30.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f50" id="f50" href="#f50.1">[50]</a> <i>Freeholder</i>, Numb. xlv.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f51" id="f51" href="#f51.1">[51]</a> <i>See</i> Cicero de Officiis, <i>l.</i> 1. <i>c.</i> 30.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f52" id="f52" href="#f52.1">[52]</a> <i>See</i> Patrick<i>’s Friendly Debate</i>, Part 1, <i>p.</i> 139-141. 5<i>th Edit.</i></p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f53" id="f53" href="#f53.1">[53]</a> <i>Preface to</i> The State of the Roman Catholick Religion, <i>p.</i> 11.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f54" id="f54" href="#f54.1">[54]</a> De Divin. l. 2. c. 25.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f55" id="f55" href="#f55.1">[55]</a> <i>Rog. Hoveden</i>, Pars ii. p. 520.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f56" id="f56" href="#f56.1">[56]</a> 1 <i>Kings</i> xviii.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f57" id="f57" href="#f57.1">[57]</a> <i>Psalm</i> ii. 4.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f58" id="f58" href="#f58.1">[58]</a> <i>Gen.</i> iii. 22.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f59" id="f59" href="#f59.1">[59]</a> Archæolog. Philos. <i>l.</i> 2. <i>c.</i> 7.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f60" id="f60" href="#f60.1">[60]</a> Shaftesbury <i>in Charact.</i> Vol. 3. <i>and</i> Whitchcot<i>’s Sermons</i>: Vol. I.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f61" id="f61" href="#f61.1">[61]</a> Shaftesbury’s <i>Characteristicks</i>, Vol. I. p. 71.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f62" id="f62" href="#f62.1">[62]</a> <i>Page</i> 307.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f63" id="f63" href="#f63.1">[63]</a> <i>How useful</i> Lestrange<i>’s</i> Observators, <i>which were design’d to +expose the Dissenters to Contempt and Persecution, were deem’d to the +Church at the time they were publish’d, may be judged of by Bp.</i> Burnet, +<i>who says</i> [<i>in his</i> Eighteen Papers, <i>p.</i> 90.] “<i>Another Buffoon was +hired to plague the Nation with three or four Papers a Week, which to the +Reproach of the Age in which we live, had but too great and too general +Effect, for poisoning the Spirits of the Clergy.</i>”</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f64" id="f64" href="#f64.1">[64]</a> <i>In this Work the Dissenters and Low Churchmen are sufficiently +rally’d and abus’d, and particularly the</i> Free-Thinkers, <i>whose</i> Creed <i>is +therein represented as consisting of these two Negatives</i>, No Queen and no God. <i>Examiners</i>, Vol. 3. p. 12.<br /> +<br /> +<i>Mr.</i> Addison <i>tells us</i> [Freeholder Nº. 19.] “<i>the</i> Examiner <i>was the +favourite Work of the Party. It was usher’d into the World by a Letter +from a Secretary of State, setting forth the great Genius of the Author, +the Usefulness of his Design, and the mighty Consequences that were to be +expected from it. It is said to be written by those among them whom they +look’d upon as their most celebrated Wits and Politicians, and was +dispers’d into all Quarters of the Nation with great Industry and +Expence.——In this Paper all the great Men who had done eminent Services +to their Country, but a few Years before, were draughted out one by one, +and baited in their Turns. No Sanctity of Character, or Privilege of Sex +exempted Persons.——Several of our Prelates were the standing Marks of +publick Raillery.</i>——”</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f65" id="f65" href="#f65.1">[65]</a> <i>In his</i> Ecclesiastical Policy, <i>his</i> Defence and Continuation +<i>thereof, and his</i> Reproof to <i>Marvel</i>’s Rehearsal transpos’d.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f66" id="f66" href="#f66.1">[66]</a> <i>In his</i> Friendly Debates.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f67" id="f67" href="#f67.1">[67]</a> <i>In his six Volumes of</i> Sermons, <i>and in his</i> Books <i>of the</i> Trinity.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f68" id="f68" href="#f68.1">[68]</a> <i>In his</i> Discourse of the Knowledge of Christ, <i>&c. his</i> Defences of +Dr. <i>Stillingfleet</i>’s Unreasonableness of Separation, <i>and his</i> Answer <i>to the</i> Protestant Reconciler.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f69" id="f69" href="#f69.1">[69]</a> <i>In his Translation of</i> Dryden<i>’s</i> Absalom <i>and</i> Achitophel <i>into</i> +Latin <i>Verse, whereby he was first flush’d; and in his</i> Convocational +Controversy, <i>and in his numerous State Libels</i>.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f70" id="f70" href="#f70.1">[70]</a> <i>In his</i> Sermons, Rights of the Church, <i>and especially his</i> Character of a Low-Church-man, <i>drawn to abuse Bishop</i> Floyd.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f71" id="f71" href="#f71.1">[71]</a> <i>Of this, the Trials of</i> Penn <i>and</i> Mead <i>before</i> Howel, <i>and of</i> +Baxter <i>before</i> Jefferys, <i>are Master Pieces; of which last you have an +Account in</i> Kennet<i>’s</i> Compleat History of <i>England, Vol. 3d. and of the +former in</i> the Phœnix, <i>Vol.</i> I.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f72" id="f72" href="#f72.1">[72]</a> Snape<i>’s</i> Vindication against <i>Pilloniere</i>. p. 50.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f73" id="f73" href="#f73.1">[73]</a> <i>Id.</i> p. 63.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f74" id="f74" href="#f74.1">[74]</a> <i>The Stage condemn’d</i>, p. 2.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f75" id="f75" href="#f75.1">[75]</a> Popery truly stated, <i>p.</i> 127, 128.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f76" id="f76" href="#f76.1">[76]</a> <i>Pag.</i> 75, 76, 77, 79, 81, 112, 113, 120, 122, 124, 125.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f77" id="f77" href="#f77.1">[77]</a> <i>Sermons</i>, Vol. III. p. 299.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f78" id="f78" href="#f78.1">[78]</a> Rule of Faith, <i>p.</i> 347, 348.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f79" id="f79" href="#f79.1">[79]</a> See <i>p.</i> 57.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f80" id="f80" href="#f80.1">[80]</a> <i>Pag.</i> 59.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f81" id="f81" href="#f81.1">[81]</a> <i>Pag.</i> 57.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f82" id="f82" href="#f82.1">[82]</a> Burnet<i>’s</i> History of his own Times, <i>p.</i> 674.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f83" id="f83" href="#f83.1">[83]</a> Ib. <i>p.</i> 792.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f84" id="f84" href="#f84.1">[84]</a> Ibid. <i>p.</i> 740.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f85" id="f85" href="#f85.1">[85]</a> Ibid. <i>p.</i> 683.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f86" id="f86" href="#f86.1">[86]</a> <i>The Protestant Mouse speaks.</i></p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f87" id="f87" href="#f87.1">[87]</a> <i>Boyer</i>’s Life of Queen <i>Anne</i>, in the Annual List of the Deaths, <i>p.</i> 65.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f88" id="f88" href="#f88.1">[88]</a> <i>A</i> Clergyman <i>preach’d thus to his</i> Auditory: <i>“You have</i> Moses +<i>and</i> Aaron <i>before you, and the Organs behind you, so are a happy People; +for what greater Comfort would mortal Men have?”</i> See <i>Walker</i>’s +Sufferings, <i>&c. p.</i> 178.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f89" id="f89" href="#f89.1">[89]</a> <i>See the Article</i> Heylin, in <i>Wood</i>’s Athenæ Oxon.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f90" id="f90" href="#f90.1">[90]</a> Burnet<i>’s Hist.</i> p. 100.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f91" id="f91" href="#f91.1">[91]</a> <i>Characteristicks</i>, Vol. I. p. 259.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f92" id="f92" href="#f92.1">[92]</a> Burnet. <i>ibid.</i></p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f93" id="f93" href="#f93.1">[93]</a> Page 177.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f94" id="f94" href="#f94.1">[94]</a> Burnet <i>p.</i> 95.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f95" id="f95" href="#f95.1">[95]</a> Kennet<i>’s Register</i>, p. 258.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f96" id="f96" href="#f96.1">[96]</a> <i>Ibid.</i> p. 516.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f97" id="f97" href="#f97.1">[97]</a> Burnet<i>’s Hist.</i></p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f98" id="f98" href="#f98.1">[98]</a> Kennet<i>’s Register</i>, p. 111.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f99" id="f99" href="#f99.1">[99]</a> Burnet<i>’s History</i>, p. 107.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f100" id="f100" href="#f100.1">[100]</a> <i>See the Bp. of</i> Bangor<i>’s Preface to the</i> Answer <i>to the</i> Representation <i>of the Lower House of Convocation</i>.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f101" id="f101" href="#f101.1">[101]</a> Ward<i>’s Life of Dr.</i> Henry More, <i>p.</i> 120.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f102" id="f102" href="#f102.1">[102]</a> Ibid. <i>p.</i> 122.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f103" id="f103" href="#f103.1">[103]</a> <i>See the several Lives of him.</i></p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f104" id="f104" href="#f104.1">[104]</a> <i>Life lately printed</i>, 1726. p. 99.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f105" id="f105" href="#f105.1">[105]</a> Burnet<i>’s Hist.</i> p. 95.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f106" id="f106" href="#f106.1">[106]</a> Temple<i>’s Works</i>, Vol. II. p. 40.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f107" id="f107" href="#f107.1">[107]</a> <i>Collection of authentick Records</i>, Vol. II. p. 1099.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f108" id="f108" href="#f108.1">[108]</a> <i>Second Letter to the Bishop of</i> London, <i>p.</i> 3, 4.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f109" id="f109" href="#f109.1">[109]</a> <i>History</i>, p. 260.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f110" id="f110" href="#f110.1">[110]</a> <i>Mat.</i> xxvi. 67, 68.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f111" id="f111" href="#f111.1">[111]</a> Elwood<i>’s History of his own Life</i>, &c. <i>p.</i> 318.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f112" id="f112" href="#f112.1">[112]</a> <i>Remarks on some late Sermons</i>, &c. <i>p.</i> 34.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f113" id="f113" href="#f113.1">[113]</a> <i>Pag.</i> 52.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f114" id="f114" href="#f114.1">[114]</a> <i>Answer to</i> State of the Protestants in <i>Ireland</i>, &c. <i>p.</i> 108.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f115" id="f115" href="#f115.1">[115]</a> <i>Pag.</i> 120, 121.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f116" id="f116" href="#f116.1">[116]</a> <i>Preface</i>, p. 14.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f117" id="f117" href="#f117.1">[117]</a> <i>Pag.</i> 11, 24.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f118" id="f118" href="#f118.1">[118]</a> <i>Pag.</i> 1.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f119" id="f119" href="#f119.1">[119]</a> <i>Pag.</i> 4, 11, 12, 13, 19.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f120" id="f120" href="#f120.1">[120]</a> Appendix to Parliamentary Original, &c. <i>p.</i> 14.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f121" id="f121" href="#f121.1">[121]</a> Some Remarks on the Temper of some late Writers, &c. <i>p.</i> 33.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f122" id="f122" href="#f122.1">[122]</a> Preface to Animad. <i>p.</i> 12, 13.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f123" id="f123" href="#f123.1">[123]</a> Animad. <i>p.</i> 114.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f124" id="f124" href="#f124.1">[124]</a> Ibid. <i>p.</i> 332.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f125" id="f125" href="#f125.1">[125]</a> Ibid. <i>p.</i> 348.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f126" id="f126" href="#f126.1">[126]</a> Tritheism charged, <i>p.</i> 2, 3.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f127" id="f127" href="#f127.1">[127]</a> Ib. <i>p.</i> 108.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f128" id="f128" href="#f128.1">[128]</a> Ibid. <i>p.</i> 170.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f129" id="f129" href="#f129.1">[129]</a> Ibid. <i>p.</i> 281.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f130" id="f130" href="#f130.1">[130]</a> Judg. 18.24.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f131" id="f131" href="#f131.1">[131]</a> Ib. <i>p.</i> 285.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f132" id="f132" href="#f132.1">[132]</a> Ibid. <i>p.</i> 299.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f133" id="f133" href="#f133.1">[133]</a> <i>Fuller</i>’s Church History, Cent. 17. B. 11. Sect. 89, Parag. 10.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f134" id="f134" href="#f134.1">[134]</a> <i>Rushworth</i>, Part II. Vol. I. <i>p.</i> 471.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f135" id="f135" href="#f135.1">[135]</a> <i>Prap. Evang.</i> l. 4. p. 209-234.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f136" id="f136" href="#f136.1">[136]</a> Fontenelle, Historie des Oracles. I. Dissert. c. vii.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f137" id="f137" href="#f137.1">[137]</a> Euseb. Id. l. 4.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f138" id="f138" href="#f138.1">[138]</a> <i>Baltus</i>, Suite de la Reponse a l’His. des Oracles, <i>p.</i> 283.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f139" id="f139" href="#f139.1">[139]</a> <i>Ibid.</i></p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f140" id="f140" href="#f140.1">[140]</a> <i>Bp.</i> Hoadley<i>’s Answer to</i> the Representation, <i>&c. Pref.</i> p. 12.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f141" id="f141" href="#f141.1">[141]</a> <i>Page</i> 91.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f142" id="f142" href="#f142.1">[142]</a> <i>Page</i> 2.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f143" id="f143" href="#f143.1">[143]</a> <i>Page</i> 1.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f144" id="f144" href="#f144.1">[144]</a> <i>Page</i> 4, 5.</p> + +<p class="hang"><a name="f145" id="f145" href="#f145.1">[145]</a> <i>Mr.</i> Collier.</p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<h3>WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK<br />MEMORIAL LIBRARY</h3> +<h3>UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES</h3> +<p> </p><p> </p> +<h2><span class="smcap">The Augustan Reprint Society</span></h2> +<h4>PUBLICATIONS IN PRINT</h4> +<p> </p><p> </p><p> </p> + +<h2><span class="smcap">The Augustan Reprint Society</span></h2> + +<h4>Publications in Print</h4> + +<h4>1948-1949</h4> +<div class="ads"> +<p>16. Henry Nevil Payne, <i>The Fatal Jealousie</i> (1673).</p> +<p class="hang">18. Anonymous, “Of Genius,” in <i>The Occasional Paper</i>, Vol. III, No. 1 (1719), and Aaron Hill, Preface to <i>The Creation</i> (1720).</p></div> + +<h4>1949-1950</h4> +<div class="ads"> +<p>19. Susanna Centlivre, <i>The Busie Body</i> (1709).</p> +<p>20. Lewis Theobald, <i>Preface to the Works of Shakespeare</i> (1734).</p> +<p>22. Samuel Johnson, <i>The Vanity of Human Wishes</i> (1749), and two <i>Rambler</i> papers (1750).</p> +<p>23. John Dryden, <i>His Majesties Declaration Defended</i> (1681).</p></div> + +<h4>1950-1951</h4> +<div class="ads"> +<p>26. Charles Macklin, <i>The Man of the World</i> (1792).</p></div> + +<h4>1951-1952</h4> +<div class="ads"> +<p>31. Thomas Gray, <i>An Elegy Wrote in a Country Churchyard</i> (1751), and <i>The Eton College Manuscript</i>.</p></div> + +<h4>1952-1953</h4> +<div class="ads"> +<p>41. Bernard Mandeville, <i>A Letter to Dion</i> (1732).</p></div> + +<h4>1963-1964</h4> +<div class="ads"> +<p>104. Thomas D’Urfey, <i>Wonders in the Sun; or, The Kingdom of the Birds</i> (1706).</p></div> + +<h4>1964-1965</h4> +<div class="ads"> +<p>110. John Tutchin, <i>Selected Poems</i> (1685-1700).</p> +<p>111. Anonymous, <i>Political Justice</i> (1736).</p> +<p>112. Robert Dodsley, <i>An Essay on Fable</i> (1764).</p> +<p>113. T. R., <i>An Essay Concerning Critical and Curious Learning</i> (1698).</p> +<p class="hang">114. <i>Two Poems Against Pope:</i> Leonard Welsted, <i>One Epistle to Mr. A. Pope</i> (1730), and Anonymous, <i>The Blatant Beast</i> (1742).</p></div> + +<h4>1965-1966</h4> +<div class="ads"> +<p>115. Daniel Defoe and others, <i>Accounts of the Apparition of Mrs. Veal</i>.</p> +<p>116. Charles Macklin, <i>The Covent Garden Theatre</i> (1752).</p> +<p>117. Sir George L’Estrange, <i>Citt and Bumpkin</i> (1680).</p> +<p>118. Henry More, <i>Enthusiasmus Triumphatus</i> (1662).</p> +<p>119. Thomas Traherne, <i>Meditations on the Six Days of the Creation</i> (1717).</p> +<p>120. Bernard Mandeville, <i>Aesop Dress’d or a Collection of Fables</i> (1704).</p></div> + +<h4>1966-1967</h4> +<div class="ads"> +<p>123. Edmond Malone, <i>Cursory Observations on the Poems Attributed to Mr. Thomas Rowley</i> (1782).</p> +<p>124. Anonymous, <i>The Female Wits</i> (1704).</p> +<p class="hang">125. Anonymous, <i>The Scribleriad</i> (1742). Lord Hervey, <i>The Difference Between Verbal and Practical Virtue</i> (1742).</p></div> + +<h4>1967-1968</h4> +<div class="ads"> +<p>129. Lawrence Echard, Prefaces to <i>Terence’s Comedies</i> (1694) and <i>Plautus’s Comedies</i> (1694).</p> +<p>130. Henry More, <i>Democritus Platonissans</i> (1646).</p> +<p>132. Walter Harte, <i>An Essay on Satire, Particularly on the Dunciad</i> (1730).</p></div> + +<h4>1968-1969</h4> +<div class="ads"> +<p class="hang">133. John Courtenay, <i>A Poetical Review of the Literary and Moral Character of the Late Samuel Johnson</i> (1786).</p> +<p>134. John Downes, <i>Roscius Anglicanus</i> (1708).</p> +<p>135. Sir John Hill, <i>Hypochondriasis, a Practical Treatise</i> (1766).</p> +<p class="hang">136. Thomas Sheridan, <i>Discourse ... Being Introductory to His Course of Lectures on Elocution and the English Language</i> (1759).</p> +<p>137. Arthur Murphy, <i>The Englishman From Paris</i> (1736).</p> +<p>138. [Catherine Trotter], <i>Olinda’s Adventures</i> (1718).</p></div> + +<p> </p> +<div class="ads"> +<p>Publications of the first fifteen years of the Society (numbers 1-90) are +available in paperbound units of six issues at $16.00 per unit, from the +Kraus Reprint Company, 16 East 46th Street, New York, N.Y. 10017.</p> + +<p>Publications in print are available at the regular membership rate of +$5.00 yearly. Prices of single issues may be obtained upon request. +Subsequent publications may be checked in the annual prospectus.</p></div> + +<hr style="width: 45%;" /> +<h3><span class="smcap">The Augustan Reprint Society</span></h3> +<h3><span class="smcap">William Andrews Clark<br />Memorial Library</span></h3> +<p class="center">UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES</p> +<p class="center">2520 Cimarron Street (at West Adams), Los Angeles, California 90018</p> +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><i>Make check or money order payable to</i><br />THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA</p> + +<hr style="width: 45%;" /> +<h4>William Andrews Clark Memorial Library: University of California, Los Angeles</h4> + +<h2><span class="smcap">The Augustan Reprint Society</span></h2> +<h5>2520 CIMARRON STREET, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90018</h5> +<p> </p> + +<p class="center"><i>General Editors:</i> William E. Conway, William Andrews Clark Memorial +Library; George Robert Guffey, University of California, Los Angeles; Maximillian E. Novak, University of California, Los Angeles</p> + +<p class="center"><i>Corresponding Secretary:</i> Mrs. Edna C. Davis, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library</p> +<p> </p> +<p>The Society’s purpose is to publish rare Restoration and +eighteenth-century works (usually as facsimile reproductions). All income +of the Society is devoted to defraying costs of publication and mailing.</p> + +<p>Correspondence concerning memberships in the United States and Canada +should be addressed to the Corresponding Secretary at the William Andrews +Clark Memorial Library, 2520 Cimarron Street, Los Angeles, California. +Correspondence concerning editorial matters may be addressed to the +General Editors at the same address. Manuscripts of introductions should +conform to the recommendations of the MLA <i>Style Sheet</i>. The membership +fee is $5.00 a year in the United States and Canada and £1.19.6 in Great +Britain and Europe. British and European prospective members should +address B. H. Blackwell, Broad Street, Oxford, England. Copies of back +issues in print may be obtained from the Corresponding Secretary.</p> + +<p>Publications of the first fifteen years of the Society (numbers 1-90) are +available in paperbound units of six issues at $16.00 per unit, from the +Kraus Reprint Company, 16 East 46th Street, New York, N.Y. 10017.</p> +<p> </p> +<p class="center">Make check or money order payable to <span class="smcap">The Regents of the University of California</span></p> + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 45%;" /> +<h4>REGULAR PUBLICATIONS FOR 1969-1970</h4> + +<p class="hang">139. John Ogilvie, <i>An Essay on the lyric poetry of the ancients</i> (1762). Introduction by Wallace Jackson.</p> + +<p class="hang">140. <i>A Learned Dissertation on Dumpling</i> (1726) and <i>Pudding burnt to pot or a compleat key to the Dissertation on Dumpling</i> (1727). Introduction by Samuel L. Macey.</p> + +<p class="hang">141. Selections from Sir Roger L’Estrange’s <i>Observator</i> (1681-1687). Introduction by Violet Jordain.</p> + +<p class="hang">142. Anthony Collins, <i>A Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony in writing</i> (1729). Introduction by Edward A. Bloom and Lillian D. Bloom.</p> + +<p class="hang">143. <i>A Letter from a clergyman to his friend, with an account of the travels of Captain Lemuel Gulliver</i> (1726). Introduction by Martin Kallich.</p> + +<p class="hang">144. <i>The Art of Architecture, a poem. In imitation of Horace’s Art of poetry</i> (1742). Introduction by William A. Gibson.</p> + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<h4>SPECIAL PUBLICATION FOR 1969-1970</h4> + +<p class="hang">Gerard Langbaine, <i>An Account of the English Dramatick Poets</i> (1691), Introduction by John Loftis. 2 Volumes. Approximately 600 pages. Price to +members of the Society, $7.00 for the first copy (both volumes), and $8.50 for additional copies. Price to non-members, $10.00.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p>Already published in this series:</p> + +<p class="hang">1. John Ogilby, <i>The Fables of Aesop Paraphras’d in Verse</i> (1668), with an Introduction by Earl Miner. 228 pages.</p> + +<p class="hang">2. John Gay, <i>Fables</i> (1727, 1738), with an Introduction by Vinton A. Dearing. 366 pages.</p> + +<p class="hang">3. <i>The Empress of Morocco and Its Critics</i> (Elkanah Settle, <i>The Empress of Morocco</i> [1673] with five plates; <i>Notes and Observations on the +Empress of Morocco</i> [1674] by John Dryden, John Crowne and Thomas Snadwell; <i>Notes and Observations on the Empress of Morocco Revised</i> +[1674] by Elkanah Settle; and <i>The Empress of Morocco. A Farce</i> [1674] by Thomas Duffett), with an Introduction by Maximillian E. Novak. 348 pages.</p> + +<p class="hang">4. <i>After THE TEMPEST</i> (the Dryden-Davenant version of <i>The Tempest</i> [1670]; the “operatic” <i>Tempest</i> [1674]; Thomas Duffett’s <i>Mock-Tempest</i> +[1675]; and the “Garrick” <i>Tempest</i> [1756]), with an Introduction by George Robert Guffey. 332 pages.</p> + +<p>Price to members of the Society, $3.50 for the first copy of each title, +and $4.25 for additional copies. Price to non-members, $5.00. Standing +orders for this continuing series of Special Publications will be +accepted. British and European orders should be addressed to B. H. +Blackwell, Broad Street, Oxford, England.</p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 65%;" /> +<p><b>Transcriber’s Notes:</b></p> + +<p>Additional spacing after some of the quotes is intentional to indicate +both the end of a quotation and the beginning of a new paragraph as +presented in the original text.</p> + +<p>Long “s” has been modernized.</p> + +<p>The inclusion of two footnotes numbered 53 in intentional to reflect the +original text.</p> + +<p>Footnote placement in this text reflects the placement in the original, +either inside punctuation or spaced between words.</p> + +<p>Other than the corrections noted by hover information, printer’s inconsistencies in +spelling, punctuation, hyphenation, and ligature usage have been retained.</p> + +<div>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 30343 ***</div> +</body> +</html> |