Chapter IV: Part 4

Let us now just look over our own Country-men till King _Charles_ the Second. _Shakespear_ takes the Freedom to represent the _Clergy_ in several of his _Plays_: But for the most part he holds up the _Function_, and makes them neither Act, nor Suffer any thing unhandsom. In one Play or two He is much bolder with the _Order_.[265] Sr. _Hugh Evans_ a _Priest_ is too Comical and Secular in his Humour. However he understands his Post, and converses with the Freedom of a Gentleman. I grant in _Loves Labour lost_ the _Curate_ plays the Fool egregiously; And so does the _Poet_ too, for the whole _Play_ is a very silly one. In the History of Sr. _John Old-Castle_, Sr. _John, Parson_ of _Wrotham_ Swears, Games, Wenches, Pads, Tilts, and Drinks: This is extreamly bad, and like the Author of the _Relapse_ &c. Only with this difference; _Shakespears_, Sr. _John_ has some Advantage in his Character. He appears Loyal, and Stout; He brings in Sr. _John Acton_, and other Rebels Prisoners. He is rewarded by the King, and the Judge uses him Civilly and with Respect. In short He is represented Lewd, but not Little; And the Disgrace falls rather on the Person, then the Office. But the _Relapsers_ business, is to sink the Notion, and Murther the Character, and make the Function despicable: So that upon the whole, _Shakespear_ is by much the gentiler Enemy.

Towards the End of the _Silent Woman_, _Ben Johnson_ brings in a _Clergy-man_, and a _Civilian_ in their _Habits_. But then he premises a handsom Excuse, acquaints the _Audience_, that the _Persons_ are but borrowed, and throws in a _Salvo_ for the Honour of either profession. In the Third _Act_, we have another _Clergy-man_; He is abused by _Cutberd_, and a little by _Morose_. But his Lady checks him for the ill Breeding of the Usage. In his _Magnetick Lady_, _Tale of a Tub_, and _Sad Sheapherd_, there are _Priests_ which manage but untowardly. But these _Plays_ were his _last Works_, which Mr. _Dryden_ calls _his Dotages_.[266] This Author has no more _Priests_, and therefore we'll take Leave.

_Beaumont_ and _Fletcher_ in the _Faithful Shepheardess_, _The False one_, _A Wife for a Month_, and the _Knight of Malta_, give, us both _Priests_ and _Bishops_, part Heathen and part Christian: But all of them save their Reputation and make a creditable Appearance. The _Priests_ in the _Scornful Lady_, and _Spanish Curate_ are ill used. The first is made a Fool, and the other a Knave. Indeed they seem to be brought in on purpose to make sport, and disserve Religion. And so much for _Beaumont_ and _Fletcher_.

Thus we see the English _Stage_ has always been out of Order, but never to the Degree 'tis at present.

I shall now take Leave of the _Poets_, and touch a little upon History and Argument.

And here I shall briefly shew the Right the _Clergy_ have to Regard, and fair Usage, upon these Three following Accounts.

I. _Because of their Relation to the Deity._

II. _Because of the Importance of their Office._

III. _They have prescription for their Privilege. Their function has been in Possession of Esteem in all Ages, and Countries._

I. _Upon the account of their Relation to the Deity._

The Holy _Order_ is appropriated to the Divine Worship: And a _Priest_ has the peculiar Honour to _Belong_ to nothing less then God Almighty. Now the Credit of the _Service_ always rises in proportion to the Quality and Greatness of the Master. And for this Reason 'tis more Honourable to serve a Prince, than a private Person. To apply this. Christian _Priests_ are the Principal Ministers of Gods Kingdom. They Represent his Person, Publish his Laws, Pass his Pardons, and Preside in his Worship. To expose a _Priest_ much more to burlesque his Function, is an Affront to the Diety. All indignities done to Ambassadors, are interpreted upon their Masters, and reveng'd as such. To outrage the _Ministers_ of Religion, is in effect to deny the Being, or Providence of God; And to treat the _Bible_ like a _Romance_. As much as to say the Stories of an other World are nothing but a little _Priest-craft_, and therefore I am resolv'd to Lash the Profession. But to droll upon the Institutions of God; To make his Ministers cheap, and his Authority contemptible; To do this is little less than open defyance. Tis a sort of Challenge to awaken his Vengeance, to exert his Omnipotence; and do Right to his Honour. If the Profession of a Courtier was unfashionable, a Princes Commission thought a Scandal, and the _Magistracy_ laught at for their Business; the Monarch had need look to himself in time; He may conclude his Person is despis'd, his Authority but a Jest, and the People ready either to change their Master, or set up for themselves. Government and Religion, no less than _Trade_ Subsist upon Reputation. 'Tis true God can't be Deposed, neither does his Happiness depend upon Homage; But since he does not Govern by Omnipotence, since he leaves Men to their Liberty, Acknowledgment must sink, and Obedience decline, in proportion to the Lessenings of Authority. How provoking an Indignity of this kind must be, is easy to imagine.

II. The Functions and Authorities of Religion have a great Influence on _Society_. The Interest of this Life lies very much in the Belief of another. So that if our Hopes were bounded with _Sight_, and _Sense_, if _Eternity_ was out of the Case, General Advantage, and Publick Reason, and Secular Policy, would oblige us to be just to the _Priesthood_. For _Priests_, and Religion always stand and fall together; Now Religion is the Basis of Government, and Man is a wretched Companion without it. When Conscience takes its Leave, Good Faith, and Good Nature goes with it. _Atheism_ is all Self, Mean and Mercenary. The _Atheist_ has no _Hereafter_, and therefore will be sure to make the most of this World. Interest, and Pleasure, are the Gods he Worships, and to these he'll Sacrifice every Thing else.

III. The _Priest-hood_ ought to be fairly treated, because it has prescription for this Privilege. This is so evident a Truth, that there is hardly any Age or Country, but affords sufficient Proof. A just Discourse upon this Subject would be a large Book, but I shall just skim it over and pass on. and

_1st._ For the Jews. _Josephus_ tells us the Line of _Aaron_ made some of the best Pedigrees, and that the _Priests_ were reckon'd among the Principal Nobility.[267]

By the Old _Testament_ we are inform'd that the _High-Priest_ was the Second Person in the Kingdom.[268] The Body of that _Order_ had Civil Jurisdiction. And the _Priests_ continued Part of the Magistracy in the time of our Saviour. _Jehoiada_ the _High-Priest_ was thought an Alliance big enough for the Royal Family.[269] He Married the Kings Daughter; His Interest and Authority was so great that he broke the Usurpation under _Athalia_; and was at the Head of the Restauration. And lastly the _Assamonean_ Race were both Kings and Priests.[270]

To Proceed. The _Ægyptian_ Monarchy was one of the most antient and best polish'd upon Record. Here Arts and Sciences, the Improvment of Reason, and the Splendor of Life had its first Rise. Hither 'twas that _Plato_ and most of the Celebrated Philosophers travel'd for their Learning. Now in this Kingdom the _Priests_ made no vulgar Figure. These with the Military Men were the Body of the Nobility, and Gentry. Besides the Business of Religion, the _Priests_ were the Publick _Annalists_ and kept the Records of _History_, and _Government_. They were many of them bred in Courts, formed the Education of their Princes, and assisted at their Councils.[271] When _Joseph_ was Viceroy of _Ægypt_, and in all the height of his Pomp, and Power, the King Married him to the Daughter of _Potipherah Priest_ of _On_. The Text says _Pharaoh gave him her to Wife_.[272] This shows the Match was deliberate Choice, and Royal Favour, no stooping of Quality, or Condescensions of Love, on _Joseph_'s Side.

To pass on. The _Persian Magi_, and the _Druids_, of _Gaul_ were of a Religious Profession, and consign'd to the Service of the Gods. Now all these were at the upper End of the Government, and had a great share of Regard and Authority.[273] The Body of the _Indians_ as _Diodorus Siculus_ reports is divided into Seven parts. The first is the _Clan_ of the _Bramines_, the _Priests_, and Philosophers of that Country. 'This Division is the least in Number, but the first in Degree. Their Privileges are extraordinary. They are exempted from Taxes, and Live Independent of Authority. They are called to the Sacrifices, and take care of Funerals; They are look'd on as the Favourites of the Gods, and thought skillful in the Doctrins of an other Life: And upon these accounts are largely consider'd in Presents, and Acknowledgment. The _Priestesses_ of _Argos_ were so Considerable, that _Time_ is dated from them, and they stand for a Reign in _Chronology_.[274] The Brave _Romans_ are commended by _Polybius_ for their Devotion to the Gods; Indeed they gave great Proof of their being in earnest; For when thier Cheif Magistrates, their Consuls themselves, met any of the _Vestals_, they held down their _Fasces_, and stoop'd their _Sword_ and _Mace_ to Religion.[275]

The _Priest-hood_ was for sometime confin'd to the _Patrician_ Order, that is to the Upper Nobility. And afterwards the _Emperours_ were generally _High-Priests_ themselves. The Romans in distress endeavour'd to make Friends with _Coriolanus_ whom they had banish'd before. To this purpose they furnish'd out several _Solemn_ Embasayes. Now the Regulation of the Ceremony, and the Remarks of the Historian;[276] plainly discover that the _Body_ of the _Priests_ were thought not inferior to any other. One Testimony from _Tully_ and I have done. 'Tis in his Harangue to the College of the _Priests_.[277] _Cum multa divinitus, Pontifices, a majoribus nostris inventa atque instituta sunt; tum nihil preclarius quam quòd vos eosdem et Religionibus Deorum immortalium, & summe Rei publicæ præesse voluerunt._ &c. _i. e. Amongst the many laudable Instances of our Ancestors Prudence, and Capacity, I know nothing better contrived then their placing your Order at the Helm, and setting the same Persons at the Head both of Religion, and Government._ Thus we see what _Rank_ the _Priest-hood_ held among the _Jews_, and how Nature taught the _Heathen_ to regard it. And is it not now possess'd of as fair pretences as formerly? Is Christianity any disadvantage to the Holy Office. And does the Dignity of a Religion lessen the Publick Administrations in't? The _Priests of the most High God_ and of _Idolatry_, can't be compared without Injury. To argue for the Preference is a Reflection upon the _Creed_. 'Tis true the _Jewish Priest-hood_ was instituted by God: But every Thing Divine is not of Equal Consideration. _Realities_ are more valuable than _Types_; And as the Apostle argues, the _Order_ of _Melchizedeck_ is greater than that of _Aaron_.[278] The Author, (I mean the immediate one,) the Authorities, the Business, and the End, of the _Christian Priest-hood_, are more Noble than those of the _Jewish_. For is not _Christ_ greater than _Moses_, _Heaven_ better than the Land of _Canaan_, and the _Eucharist_ to be prefer'd to all the _Sacrifices_, and _Expiations_ of the _Law_? Thus the Right, and the Reason of Things stands. And as for _Fact_, the Christian World have not been backward in their Acknowledgments. Ever since the first Conversion of Princes, the _Priest-hood_ has had no small share of Temporal Advantage. The _Codes_, _Novels_, and _Church History_, are Sufficient Evidence what Sense _Constantine_ and his Successors had of these Matters. But I shall not detain the _Reader_ in remote Instances.

To proceed then to Times and Countries more generally known. The People of _France_ are branched into three Divisions, of these the _Clergy_, are the First. And in consequence of this Privilege, at the Assembly of the _States_, they are first admitted to Harangue before the King.[279]

In _Hungary_ the _Bishops_ are very Considerable, and some of them great Officers of _State_.[280] In _Poland_ they are _Senators_ that is part of the Upper _Nobless_. In _Muscovy_ the _Bishops_ have an Honourable Station; and the Present Czar is descended from the _Patriarchal_ Line.[281] I suppose I need say nothing of _Italy_. In _Spain_ the _Sees_ generally are better endowed than elswhere, and Wealth alwaies draws Consideration.[282] The _Bishops_ hold their Lands by a Military Noble _Tenure_, and are excused from Personal Attendance. And to come toward an end; They are Earls and Dukes in _France_, and Soveraign Princes, in _Germany_.[283] In _England_ the _Bishops_ are Lords of Parliament: And the _Law_ in plain words distinguishes the _Upper House_ into the _Spiritual_ and _Temporal Nobility_. And several _Statutes_ call the Bishops _Nobles_ by direct Implication.[284] To mention nothing more, their _Heraldry_ is regulated by _Garter_, and _Blazon'd_ by _Stones_, which none under the _Nobility_ can pretend to. In this Country of ours, Persons of the First Quality have been in _Orders_; To give an Instance of some few. _Odo_ Brother to _William_ the _Conquerour_ was _Bishop_ of _Baieux_, and Earl of _Kent_. King _Stephens_ Brother was _Bishop_ of _Winchester_. _Nevill Arch-Bishop_ of _York_ was Brother to the Great Earl of _Warwick_, and _Cardinal Pool_ was of the Royal Family. To come a little lower, and to our own Times. And here we may reckon not a few Persons of Noble Descent in Holy _Orders_. Witness the _Berklyes_, _Comptons_, _Montagues_, _Crews_, and _Norths_; The _Annesleys_, _Finches_, _Grayhams_ &c. And as for the Gentry, there are not many good Families in _England_, but either have, or have had a _Clergy-man_ in them,

In short; The _Priest-hood_ is the profession of a Gentleman. A _Parson_ notwithstanding the ignorant Pride of some People, is a Name of Credit, and Authority, both in Religion, and _Law_. The _Addition_ of _Clerk_ is at least equal to that of Gentleman. Were it otherwise the _Profession_ would in many cases be a kind of Punishment. But the _Law_ is far from being so singular as to make _Orders_ a Disadvantage to _Degree_. No, The Honour of the Family continues, and the _Heraldry_ is every jot as safe in the _Church_, as 'twas in the _State_. And yet when the _Laity_ are taken leave of, not _Gentleman_ but _Clerk_ is usually written. This Custom is an argument the Change is not made for the worse, that the Spiritual Distinction is as valuable as the other; And to speak Modestly, that the first _Addition_ is not lost, but Cover'd. Did the Subject require it, this Point might be farther made good. For the stile of a higher Secular Honour is continued as well with _Priest-hood_ as without it. A Church-man who is either _Baronet, or Baron_, writes himself so, notwithstanding His _Clerkship_. Indeed we can't well imagine the Clergy degraded from Paternal Honour without a strange Reflection on the Country; without supposing _Julian_ at the Helm, the _Laws_ Antichristian, and _Infidelity_ in the very _Constitution_. To make the Ministers of Religion less upon the score of their Function, would be a Penalty on the _Gospel_, and a contempt of the God of Christianity. 'Tis our Saviours reasoning; _He that despises you, despises Me, and he that Despises Me, Despises Him that sent me._[285]

I hope what I have offer'd on this Subject will not be misunderstood. There is no Vanity in necessary Defence. To wipe off Aspersions, and rescue Things from Mistake, is but bare Justice: Besides, where the Honour of God, and the Publick Interest are concern'd, a Man is bound to speak. To argue from a resembling Instance. He that has the Kings Commission ought to Maintain it. To let it suffer under Rudeness is to betray it. To be tame and silent in such cases, is not Modesty but Meanness, Humility obliges no Man to desert his Trust; To throw up his Privilege, and prove false to his Character. And is our Saviours Authority inferiour to that of Princes? Are the Kingdoms of this World more Glorious than that of the next? And can the Concerns of Time be greater than those of Eternity? If not, the reasoning above mention'd must hold in the Application.

And now by this time I conceive the ill Manners of the _Stage_ may be in some measure apparent; And that the _Clergy_ deserve none of that Coarse Usage which it puts upon them. I confess I know no _Profession_ that has made a more creditable Figure, that has better Customs for their Privileges, and better Reasons to maintain them. And here setting aside the point of Conscience, where lies the Decency of falling foul upon this _Order_? What Propriety is there in Misrepresentation? In confounding Respects, disguising Features, and painting Things out of all Colour and Complexion? This crossing upon Nature and Reason, is great Ignorance, and out of Rule. And now what Pleasure is there in Misbehaviour and Abuse? Is it such an Entertainment to see Religion worryed by Atheism, and Things the most Solemn and Significant tumbled and tost by Buffoons? A Man may laugh at a Puppy's tearing a Wardrobe, but I think 'twere altogether as discreet to beat him off. Well! but the _Clergy_ mismanage sometimes, and they must be told of their Faults. What then? Are the _Poets_ their _Ordinaries_? Is the _Pulpit_ under the Discipline of the _Stage_? And are those fit to correct the Church, that are not fit to come into it? Besides, What makes them fly out upon the _Function_; and rail by wholesale? Is the _Priesthood_ a crime, and the service of God a disadvantage? I grant Persons and Things are not always suited. A good _Post_ may be ill kept, but then the Censure should keep close to the Fault, and the Office not suffer for the Manager. The _Clergy_ may have their Failings sometimes like others, but what then? The _Character_ is still untarnish'd. The _Men_ may be Little, but the _Priests_ are not so. And therefore like other People, they ought to be treated by their best Distinction.

If 'tis Objected that the _Clergy_ in _Plays_ are commonly _Chaplains_, And that these _Belonging_ to Persons of Quality they were obliged to represent them servile and submissive. To this I Answer

_1st._ In my former remark, that the _Stage_ often outrages the whole _Order_, without regard to any particular Office. But were it not so in the

_2d._ Place, They quite overlook the Character, and mistake the Business of _Chaplains_. They are no _Servants_, neither do they _Belong_ to any _Body_, but God Almighty. This Point I have fully proved in another, _Treatise_,[286] and thither I refer the _Reader_.

CHAP. IV.

_The Stage-Poets make their Principal Persons Vitious, and reward them at the End of the Play._

The Lines of Virtue and Vice are Struck out by Nature in very Legible Distinctions; They tend to a different Point, and in the greater Instances the Space between them is easily perceiv'd. Nothing can be more unlike than the Original Forms of these Qualities: The First has all the sweetness, Charms, and Graces imaginable; The other has the Air of a _Post_ ill Carved into a _Monster_, and looks both foolish and Frightful together. These are the Native Appearances of good and Evil: And they that endeavour to blot the Distinctions, to rub out the Colours, or change the Marks, are extreamly to blame. 'Tis confessed as long as the Mind is awake, and Conscience goes true, there's no fear of being imposed on. But when Vice is varnish'd over with Pleasure, and comes in the Shape of Convenience, the case grows somewhat dangerous; for then the Fancy may be gain'd, and the Guards corrupted, and Reason suborn'd against it self. And thus a _Disguise_ often passes when the Person would otherwise be stopt. To put _Lewdness_ into a Thriving condition, to give it an Equipage of Quality, and to treat it with Ceremony and Respect, is the way to confound the Understanding, to fortifie the Charm, and to make the Mischief invincible. Innocence is often owing to Fear, and Appetite is kept under by Shame; But when these Restraints are once taken off, when Profit and Liberty lie on the same side, and a Man can Debauch himself into Credit, what can be expected in such a case, but that Pleasure should grow Absolute, and Madness carry all before it? The _Stage_ seem eager to bring Matters to this Issue; They have made a considerable progress, and are still pushing their Point with all the Vigour imaginable. If this be not their Aim why is _Lewdness_ so much consider'd in Character and Success? Why are their Favourites Atheistical, and their fine Gentleman debauched? To what purpose is _Vice_ thus prefer'd, thus ornamented, and caress'd, unless for Imitation? That matter of Fact stands thus, I shall make good by several Instances: To begin then with their Men of Breeding and Figure. _Wild-blood_ sets up for _Debauchery_, Ridicules Marriage, and Swears by _Mahomet_.[287] _Bellamy_ makes sport with the Devil,[288] and _Lorenzo_ is vitious and calls his Father _Bawdy Magistrate.[289] Horner_ is horridly Smutty, and _Harcourt_ false to his Friend who used him kindly.[290] In the _Plain Dealer_ _Freeman_ talks coarsely, cheats the Widdow, debauches her Son, and makes him undutiful. _Bellmour_ is Lewd and Profane,[291] And _Mellefont_ puts _Careless_ in the best way he can to debauch _Lady Plyant_.[292] These _Sparks_ generally Marry up the Top Ladys, and those that do not, are brought to no Pennance, but go off with the Character of Fine Gentlemen: In _Don-Sebastian_, _Antonio_ an Atheistical Bully is rewarded with the Lady _Moraima_, and half the _Muffty_'s Estate. _Valentine_ in _Love for Love_ is (if I may so call him) the Hero of the _Play_;[293] This Spark the _Poet_ would pass for a Person of Virtue, but he speaks to late. 'Tis true, He was hearty in his Affection to _Angelica_. Now without question, to be in Love with a fine Lady of 30000 Pounds is a great Virtue! But then abating this single Commendation, _Valentine_ is altogether compounded of Vice.[294] He is a prodigal Debauchee, unnatural, and Profane, Obscene, Sawcy, and undutiful, And yet this Libertine is crown'd for the Man of Merit, has his Wishes thrown into his Lap, and makes the Happy _Exit_. I perceive we should have a rare set of _Virtues_ if these _Poets_ had the making of them! How they hug a Vitious Character, and how profuse are they in their Liberalities to Lewdness? In the _Provoked Wife_, _Constant_ Swears at Length, solicits Lady _Brute_, Confesses himself Lewd, and prefers Debauchery to Marriage. He handles the last Sybject very notably and worth the Hearing. _There is_ (says he) _a poor sordid Slavery in Marriage, that turns the flowing Tide of Honour, and sinks it to the lowest ebb of Infamy. 'Tis a Corrupted Soil, Ill Nature, Avarice, Sloth, Cowardize, and Dirt, are all its Product_.--But then _Constancy (alias Whoring) is a Brave, Free, Haughty, Generous, Agent_. This is admirable stuff both for the Rhetorick and the Reason![295] The Character _Young Fashion_ in the _Relapse_ is of the same Staunchness, but this the _Reader_ may have in another Place.

To sum up the Evidence. A fine Gentleman, is a fine Whoring, Swearing, Smutty, Atheistical Man. These Qualifications it seems compleat the _Idea_ of Honour. They are the Top-Improvements of Fortune, and the distinguishing Glories of Birth and Breeding! This is the _Stage-Test_ for _Quality_, and those that can't stand it, ought to be _Disclaim'd_. The Restraints of Conscience and the Pedantry of Virtue, are unbecoming a Cavalier: Future Securities, and Reaching beyond Life, are vulgar Provisions: If he falls a Thinking at this rate, he forfeits his Honour; For his Head was only made to run against a Post! Here you have a Man of Breeding and Figure that burlesques the _Bible_, Swears, and talks Smut to Ladies, speaks ill of his Friend behind his Back, and betraies his Interest. A fine Gentleman that has neither Honesty, nor Honour, Conscience, nor Manners, Good Nature, nor civil Hypocricy. Fine, only in the Insignificancy of Life, the Abuse of Religion and the Scandals of Conversation. These Worshipful Things are the _Poets_ Favourites: They appear at the Head of the _Fashion_; and shine in Character, and Equipage. If there is any Sense stirring, They must have it, tho' the rest of the _Stage_ suffer never so much by the Partiality. And what can be the Meaning of this wretched Distribution of Honour? Is it not to give Credit and Countenance to Vice, and to shame young People out of all pretences to Conscience, and Regularity? They seem forc'd to turn Lewd in their own Defence: They can't otherwise justifie themselves to the Fashion, nor keep up the Character of Gentlemen: Thus People not well furnish'd with Thought, and Experience, are debauch'd both in Practise and Principle. And thus Religion grows uncreditable, and passes for ill Education. The _Stage_ seldom gives Quarter to any Thing that's serviceable or Significant, but persecutes Worth, and Goodness under every Appearance. He that would be safe from their Satir must take care to disguise himself in Vice, and hang out the _Colours_ of Debauchery. How often is Learning, Industry, and Frugality, ridiculed in Comedy? The rich Citizens are often Misers, and Cuckolds, and the _Universities_, Schools of Pedantry upon this score. In short, Libertinism and Profaness, Dressing, Idleness, and Gallantry, are the only valuable Qualities. As if People were not apt enough of themselves to be Lazy, Lewd, and Extravagant, unless they were prick'd forward, and provok'd by Glory, and Reputation. Thus the Marks of Honour, and Infamy are misapplyed, and the Idea's of Virtue and Vice confounded. Thus Monstrousness goes for Proportion, and the Blemishes of Human Nature, make up the Beauties of it.

The fine Ladies are of the same Cut with the Gentlemen; _Moraima_ is scandalously rude to her Father, helps him to a beating, and runs away with _Antonio_.[296] _Angelica_ talks sawcily to her Uncle,[297] and _Belinda_ confesses her Inclination for a Gallant.[298] And as I have observ'd already,[299] the Toping Ladies in the _Mock Astrologer_, _Spanish Fryar_, _Country Wife_, _Old Batchelour_, _Orphan_, _Double Dealer_, and _Love Triumphant_, are smutty, and sometimes Profane.

And was Licentiousness and irreligion, alwaies a mark of Honour? No; I don't perceive but that the old _Poets_ had an other Notion of Accomplishment, and bred their people of Condition a different way. _Philolaches_ in _Plautus_ laments his being debauch'd; and dilates upon the Advantages of Virtue, and Regularity.[300] _Lusiteles_ another Young Gentleman disputes handsomly by himself against Lewdness. And the discourse between him and _Philto_ is Moral, and well managed.[301] And afterwards he lashes Luxury and Debauching with a great deal of Warmth, and Satir.[302] _Chremes_ in _Terence_ is a modest young Gentleman, he is afraid of being surpriz'd by _Thais_, and seems careful not to sully his Reputation.[303] And _Pamphilus_ in _Hecyra_ resolves rather to be govern'd by Duty, than Inclination.[304]

_Plautus_'s _Pinacium_ tells her Friend _Panegyric_ that they ought to acquit themselves fairly to their Husbands, tho' These should fail in their Regards towards them.[305] For all good People will do justice tho' they don't receive it. Lady _Brute_ in the _Provok'd Wife_ is govern'd by different maxims. She is debauch'd with ill Usage, says _Virtue is an Ass, and a Gallant's worth forty on't_.[306] _Pinacium_ goes on to another Head of Duty, and declares that a Daughter can never respect her Father too much, and that Disobedience has a great deal of scandal, and Lewdness in't.[307] The Lady _Jacinta_ as I remember does not treat her Father at this rate of Decency. Let us hear a little of her Behaviour. The _Mock Astrologer_ makes the Men draw, and frights the Ladys with the Apprehension of a Quarrel. Upon this; _Theodosia_ crys _what will become of us!_ _Jacinta_ answers, _we'll die for Company: nothing vexes me but that I am not a Man, to have one thrust at that malicious old Father of mine, before I go_.[308] Afterwards the old Gentleman _Alonzo_ threatens his Daughters with a Nunnery. _Jacinta_ spars again and says, _I would have thee to know thou graceless old Man, that I defy a Nunnery: name a Nunnery once more and I disown thee for my Father_.[309] I could carry on the Comparison between the old and Modern Poets somewhat farther. But this may suffice.

Thus we see what a fine time Lewd People have on the _English Stage_. No Censure, no mark of Infamy, no Mortification must touch them. They keep their Honour untarnish'd, and carry off the Advantage of their Character. They are set up for the Standard of Behaviour, and the Masters of Ceremony and Sense. And at last that the Example may work the better, they generally make them rich, and happy, and reward them with their own Desires.

Mr. _Dryden_ in the _Preface_ to his _Mock-Astrologer_, confesses himself blamed for this Practise. _For making debauch'd Persons his_ Protagonists, _or chief Persons of the Drama; And, for making them happy in the Conclusion of the Play, against the Law of Comedy, which is to reward Virtue, and punish Vice_. To this Objection He makes a lame Defence. And answers

_1st._ _That he knows no such Law constantly observ'd in Comedy by the Antient or Modern Poets._ What then? _Poets_ are not always exactly in Rule. It may be a good Law tho' 'tis not constantly observ'd, some Laws are constantly broken, and yet ne're the worse for all that. He goes on, and pleads the Authorities of _Plautus_, and _Terence_. I grant there are Instances of Favour to vitious young People in those Authors, but to this I reply

_1st._ That those _Poets_ had a greater compass of Liberty in their Religion. Debauchery did not lie under those Discouragements of Scandal, and penalty, with them as it does with us. Unless therefore He can prove _Heathenism_, and _Christianity_ the same, his _precedents_ will do him little service.

_2ly._ _Horace_ who was as good a judge of the _Stage_, as either of those _Comedians_, seems to be of another Opinion. He condemns the obscenities of _Plautus_, and tells you Men of Fortune and Quality in his time; would not endure immodest Satir.[310] He continues, that Poets were formerly admired for the great services they did. For teaching Matters relating to Religion, and Government; For refining the Manners, tempering the Passions, and improving the Understandings of Mankind: For making them more useful in Domestick Relations, and the publick Capacities of Life.[311] This is a demonstration that Vice was not the Inclination of the Muses in those days; and that _Horace_ beleiv'd the chief business of a _Poem_ was, to Instruct the Audience. He adds farther that the _Chorus_ ought to turn upon the Argument of the _Drama_, and support the Design of the _Acts_. That They ought to speak in Defence of Virtue, and Frugality, and show a Regard to Religion. Now from the Rule of the _Chorus_, we may conclude his Judgment for the _Play_. For as he observes, there must be a Uniformity between the _Chorus_ and the _Acts_: They must have the same View, and be all of a Piece. From hence 'tis plain that _Horace_ would have no immoral _Character_ have either Countenance or good Fortune, upon the _Stage_. If 'tis said the very mention of the _Chorus_ shews the Directions were intended for _Tragedy_. To this

I answer, that the Consequence is not good. For the use of a _Chorus_ is not inconsistent with _Comedy_. The antient _Comedians_ had it. _Aristophanes_ is an Instance. I know 'tis said the _Chorus_ was left out in that they call the _New Comedy_. But I can't see the conclusiveness of this Assertion. For _Aristophanes_ his _Plutus_ is _New Comedy_ with a _Chorus_ in't.[312] And _Aristotle_ who lived after this Revolution of the _Stage_, mentions nothing of the Omission of the _Chorus_. He rather supposes its continuance by saying the _Chorus was added by the Government long after the Invention of Comedy_.[313] 'Tis true _Plautus_ and _Terence_ have none, but those before them probably might. _Moliere_ has now reviv'd them,[314] And _Horace_ might be of his Opinion, for ought wee know to the contrary.

_Lastly._ _Horace_ having expresly mentioned the beginning and progress of _Comedy_, discovers himself more fully: He advises a _Poet_ to form his Work upon the Precepts of _Socrates_ and _Plato_, and the Models of Moral Philosophy. This was the way to preserve Decency, and to assign a proper Fate and Behaviour to every _Character_.[315] Now if _Horace_ would have his _Poet_ govern'd by the Maxims of Morality, he must oblige him to Sobriety of Conduct, and a just distribution of Rewards, and Punishments.

Mr. _Dryden_ makes Homewards, and endeavours to fortifie himself in Modern Authority. He lets us know that _Ben Johnson after whom he may he proud to Err, gives him more than one example of this Conduct_;[316] _That in the_ Alchemist _is notorius_, where neither _Face_ nor his _Master_ are corrected according to their Demerits. But how Proud soever Mr. _Dryden_ may be of an Errour, he has not so much of _Ben Jonson_'s company as he pretends. His Instance of _Face &c._ in the _Alchemist_ is rather _notorious_ against his Purpose then for it.

For _Face_ did not Council his Master _Lovewit_ to debauch the Widdow; neither is it clear that the Matter went thus far. He might gain her consent upon Terms of Honour for ought appears to the contrary. 'Tis true _Face_ who was one of the Principal Cheats is Pardon'd and consider'd. But then his Master confesses himself kind to a fault. He owns this Indulgence was a Breach of Justice, and unbecoming the Gravity of an old Man. And then desires the Audience to excuse him upon the Score of the Temptation. But _Face continued, in the Cousenage till the last without Repentance_.[317] Under favour I conceive this is a Mistake. For does not _Face_ make an Apology before he leaves the _Stage_? Does he not set himself at the _Bar_, arraign his own Practise, and cast the Cause upon the Clemency of the Company? And are not all these Signs of the Dislike of what he had done? Thus careful the _Poet_ is to prevent the Ill Impressions of his _Play_! He brings both Man and Master to Confession. He dismisses them like Malefactours; And moves for their Pardon before he gives them their Discharge. But the _Mock-Astrologer_ has a gentler Hand: _Wild-Blood_ and _Jacinta_ are more generously used: There is no Acknowledgment exacted; no Hardship put upon them: They are permitted to talk on in their Libertine way to the Last: And take Leave without the least Appearance of Reformation. The _Mock-Astrologer_ urges _Ben Johnson's_ _Silent Woman_ as an other _Precedent_ to his purpose. For _there_ Dauphine _confesses himself in Love with all the Collegiate Lady's_. _And yet this naughty_ Dauphine _is Crowned in the end with the Possession of his Uncles Estate, and with the hopes of all his Mistresses_.[318] This Charge, as I take it, is somewhat too severe. I grant _Dauphine_ Professes himself in Love with the Collegiate Ladies at first. But when they invited him to a private Visit, he makes them no Promise; but rather appears tired, and willing to disengage. _Dauphine_ therefore is not altogether so naughty as this Author represents him.

_Ben Johnson's_ _Fox_ is clearly against Mr. _Dryden_. And here I have his own Confession for proof. He declares the _Poets end in this Play was the Punishment of Vice, and the Reward of Virtue_.[319] _Ben_ was forced to strain for this piece of Justice, and break through the _Unity of Design_. This Mr. _Dryden_ remarks upon him: How ever he is pleased to commend the Performance, and calls it an excellent _Fifth Act_.

_Ben Johnson_ shall speak for himself afterwards in the Character of a Critick; In the mean time I shall take a Testimony or two from _Shakespear_. And here we may observe the admir'd _Falstaffe_ goes off in Disappointment. He is thrown out of Favour as being a _Rake_, and dies like a Rat behind the Hangings. The Pleasure he had given, would not excuse him. The _Poet_ was not so partial, as to let his Humour compound for his Lewdness. If 'tis objected that this remark is wide of the Point, because _Falstaffe_ is represented in Tragedy, where the Laws of Justice are more strickly observ'd, To this I answer, that you may call _Henry_ the Fourth and Fifth, Tragedies if you please. But for all that, _Falstaffe_ wears no _Buskins_, his Character is perfectly Comical from end to end.

The next Instance shall be in _Flowerdale_ the _Prodigal_. This Spark notwithstanding his Extravagance, makes a lucky Hand on't at last, and marries a rich Lady.[320] But then the Poet qualifies him for his good Fortune, and mends his Manners with his Circumstances. He makes him repent, and leave off his Intemperance, Swearing _&c._ And when his Father warn'd him against a Relapse, He answers very soberly,

_Heaven helping me I'le hate the Course of Hell._

I could give some instances of this kind out of _Beaumount_ and _Fletcher_, But there's no need of any farther Quotation; For Mr. _Dryden_ is not satisfied with his Apology from Authority: He does as good as own that this may be construed no better than defending one ill practise by another. To prevent this very reasonable objection he endeavours to vindicate his _Precedents_ from the Reason of the Thing. To this purpose he _makes a wide difference between the Rules of Tragedy and Comedy. That Vice must be impartially prosecuted in the first, because the Persons are Great &c._

It seems then _Executions_ are only for _Greatness_; and _Quality_. _Justice_ is not to strike much _lower_ than a _Prince_. _Private People_ may do what they _please_. They are too _few_ for _Mischief_, and too _Little_ for _Punishment_! This would be admirable Doctrine for _Newgate_, and give us a general _Goal-Delivery_ without more ado. But in _Tragedy_ (says the _Mock Astrologer_.) _the Crimes are likewise Horrid_, so that there is a necessity for Severity and Example. And how stands the matter in _Comedy_? Quite otherwise. There the _Faults are but the follies of Youth, and the Frailties of Human Nature_.[321] For Instance. There is nothing but a little Whoring, Pimping, Gaming, Profaness _&c_, And who could be so hard hearted to give a Man any Trouble for This? Such Rigours would be strangely Inhumane! A _Poet_ is a better natur'd Thing I can assure you. These little Miscarrages _move Pity and Commiseration, and are not such as must of necessity be Punish'd_.[322] This is comfortable Casuistry! But to be Serious. Is Dissolution of Manners such a Peccadillo? Does a Profligate Conscience deserve nothing but Commiseration? And are People damn'd only for _Humane Frailties_? I perceive the Laws of Religion and those of the _Stage_ differ extreamly! The strength of his Defence lies in this choice Maxim, that the _Cheif End of Comedy is Delight_. He questions _whether Instruction has any thing to do in Comedy_; If it has, he is sure _'tis no more then its secondary end_: _For the business of the Poet is to make you laugh_.[323] Granting the Truth of this Principle, I somewhat question the serviceableness of it. For is there no Diversion to be had unless Vice appears prosperous, and rides at the Head of Success. One would think such a preposterous, distribution of Rewards, should rather shock the Reason, and raise the Indignation of the _Audience_. To laugh without reason is the Pleasure of Fools, and against it, of something worse. The exposing of Knavery, and making _Lewdness_ ridiculous, is a much better occasion for Laughter. And this with submission I take to be the End of _Comedy_. And therefore it does not differ from _Tragedy_ in the End, but in the _Means_. Instruction is the principal Design of both. The one works by Terror, the other by Infamy. 'Tis true, they don't move in the same Line, but they meet in the same point at last. For this Opinion I have good Authority, besides what has been cited already.

_1st._ Monsieur _Rapin_ affirms 'That Delight is the End that Poetry aims at, but not the Principal one. For Poetry being an Art, ought to be profitable by the quality of it's own nature, and by the Essential Subordination that all Arts should have to Polity, whose End in General is the publick Good. This is the Judgment of _Aristotle_ and of _Horace_ his chief Interpreter.[324] _Ben Johnson_ in his Dedicatory Epistle of his _Fox_ has somewhat considerable upon this Argument; And declaims with a great deal of zeal, spirit, and good Sense, against the Licentiousness of the _Stage_. He lays it down for a Principle, 'That 'tis impossible to be a good _Poet_ without being a good _Man_. That he (a good Poet) is said to be able to inform Young Men to all good Discipline, and enflame grown Men to all great Virtues &c.--That the general complaint was that the _Writers_ of those days had nothing remaining in them of the Dignity of a _Poet_, but the abused Name. That now, especially in Stage Poetry, nothing but Ribaldry, Profanation, _Blasphemy_, all Licence of Offence to God and Man, is practised. He confesses a great part of this Charge is over-true, and is sorry he dares not deny it. But then he hopes all are not embark'd in this bold Adventure for Hell. For my part (says he) I can, and from a most clear Conscience affirm; That I have ever trembled to think towards the least Profaness, and loath'd the Use of such foul, and unwash'd Bawdry, as is now made the Food of the _Scene_.--The encrease of which Lust in Liberty, what Learned or Liberal Soul does not abhor? In whole _Enterludes_ nothing but the Filth of the Time is utter'd--with Brothelry able to violate the Ear of a _Pagan_, and Blasphemy, to turn the Blood of a Christian to Water. He continues, that the Insolence of these Men had brought the _Muses_ into Disgrace, and made _Poetry_ the lowest scorn of the Age. He appeals to his Patrons the _Universities_, that his Labour has been heretofore, and mostly in this his latest Work, to reduce not only the antient Forms, but Manners of the _Scene_, the Innocence and the Doctrine, which is the Principal End of Poesy, to inform Men in the best Reason of Living.' Lastly he adds, that 'he has imitated the Conduct of the Antients in this _Play_, The goings out (or Conclusions) of whose _Comedies_, were not always joyful but oft-times the Bawds, the Slaves, the Rivals, ye and the Masters are multed, and fitly, it being the Office of a _Comick Poet_ (mark that!) to imitate Justice, and Instruct to Life _&c._' Say you so! Why then if _Ben Johnson_ knew any thing of the Matter, Divertisment and Laughing is not as Mr. _Dryden_ affirms, the _Chief End_ of _Comedy_. This Testimony is so very full and clear, that it needs no explaining, nor any enforcement from Reasoning, and Consequence.

And because Laughing and Pleasure has such an unlimited Prerogative upon the _Stage_, I shall add a Citation or two from _Aristotle_ concerning this Matter. Now this great Man 'calls those Buffoons, and Impertinents, who rally without any regard to Persons or Things, to Decency, or good Manners. That there is a great difference between Ribaldry, and handsom Rallying. He that would perform exactly, must keep within the Character of Virtue, and Breeding. He goes on, and tells us that the old Comedians entertain'd the Audience with Smut, but the Modern ones avoided that Liberty, and grew more reserv'd. This latter way he says was much more proper and Gentile then the other. That in his Opinion Rallying, no less than Railing, ought to be under the Discipline of Law; That he who is ridden by his _Jests_, and minds nothing but the business of _Laughing_, is himself Ridiculous. And that a Man of Education and Sense, is so far from going these Lengths that he wont so much as endure the hearing some sort of Buffoonry.'[325]

And as to the point of Delight in general, the same Author affirms, 'that scandalous Satisfactions are not properly Pleasures. 'Tis only Distemper, and false Appetite which makes them palatable. And a Man that is sick, seldom has his Tast true. Besides, supposing we throw Capacity out of the Question, and make Experiment and Sensation the Judge; Granting this, we ought not to chop at every Bait, nor Fly out at every Thing that strikes the Fancy. The meer Agreableness must not overbear us, without distinguishing upon the Quality, and the Means. Pleasure how charming soever, must not be fetched out of Vice. An Estate is a pretty thing, but if we purchase by Falshood, and Knavery, we pay too much for't. Some Pleasures, are Childish and others abominable; And upon the whole, Pleasure, absolutely speaking, is no good Thing.'[326] And so much for the Philosopher. And because _Ribaldry_ is used for Sport, a passage or two from _Quintilian_, may not be unseasonable. This Orator does not only Condemn the grosser Instances, but cuts off all the _Double-Entendre's_ at a Blow. He comes up to the Regularity of Thought, and tells us 'that the Meaning, as well as the Words of Discourse must be unsullied.'[327] And in the same _Chapter_ he adds that 'A Man of Probity has always a Reserve in his Freedoms, and Converses within the Rules of Modesty, and Character. And that Mirth at the expence of Virtue, is an Over-purchase,' _Nimium enim risus pretium est si probitatis impendio constat_.

Thus we see how these great _Masters_ qualify Diversion, and tie it up to _Provisoes,_ and Conditions. Indeed to make _Delight_ the main business of _Comedy_ is an unreasonable and dangerous Principle. It opens the way to all Licentiousness, and Confounds the distinction between Mirth, and Madness. For if Diversion is the _Chief End_, it must be had at any Price, No serviceable Expedient must be refused, tho' never so scandalous. And thus the worst Things are said, and best abus'd; Religion is insulted, and the most serious Matters turn'd into Ridicule! As if the Blindside of an Audience ought to be caress'd, and their Folly and Atheism entertain'd in the first Place. Yes, if the Palate is pleas'd, no matter tho' the Body is Poyson'd! For can one die of an easier Disease than Diversion? But Raillery apart, certainly Mirth and Laughing, without respect to the Cause, are not such supreme Satisfactions! A man has sometimes Pleasure in losing his Wits. Frensy, and _Possession_, will shake the Lungs, and brighten the Face; and yet I suppose they are not much to be coveted. However, now we know the Reason of the Profaness, and Obscenity of the _Stage_, of their Hellish Cursing, and Swearing, and in short of their great Industry to make God, and Goodness Contemptible: 'Tis all to Satisfie the Company, and make People Laugh! A most admirable justification! What can be more engaging to an _Audience_, then to see a _Poet_ thus Atheistically brave? To see him charge up to the Canons Mouth, and defy the Vengeance of Heaven to serve them? Besides, there may be somewhat of Convenience in the Case. To fetch Diversion out of Innocence is no such easy matter. There's no succeeding it may be in this method, without Sweat, and Drudging. Clean Wit, inoffensive Humour, and handsom Contrivance, require Time, and Thought. And who would be at this Expence, when the Purchase is so cheap another way? 'Tis possible a _Poet_ may not alwaies have Sense enough by him for such an Occasion. And since we are upon supposals, it may be the _Audience_ is not to be gain'd without straining a Point, and giving a Loose to Conscience: And when People are sick, are they not to be Humour'd? In sine, We must make them Laugh, right or wrong, for _Delight_ is the _Cheif End of Comedy_. _Delight!_ He should have said _Debauchery_: That's the English of the Word, and the Consequence of the Practise. But the Original Design of _Comedy_ was otherwise: And granting 'twas not so, what then? If the _Ends_ of Thing are naught, they must be mended. Mischief is the Chief end of Malice, would it be then a Blemish in Ill Nature to change Temper, and relent into Goodness? The Chief _End_ of a Madman it may be is to Fire a House, must we not therefore bind him in his Bed? To conclude. If _Delight_ without Restraint, or Distinction without Conscience or Shame, is the Supream Law of _Comedy_, 'twere well if we had less on't. Arbitrary Pleasure, is more dangerous than Arbitrary Power. Nothing is more Brutal than to be abandon'd to Appetite; And nothing more wretched than to serve in such a Design. The _Mock-Astrologer_ to clear himself of this Imputation, is glad to give up his Principle at Last. _Least any Man should think_ (says He) _that I write this to make Libertinism amiable, or that I cared not to debase the end, and Institution of_ Comedy. (It seems then _Delight_ is not the Chief end.) _I must farther declare that we make not Vitious Persons Happy, but only as Heaven makes Sinners so._ &c. If this will hold, all's well. But _Heaven_ does not forgive without Repentance. Let us see then what Satisfaction he requires from his _Wild-Blood_, and what Discipline he puts him under. Why, He helps him to his Mistress, he Marries him to a Lady of Birth and Fortune. And now do you think He has not made him an Example, and punish'd him to some Purpose! These are frightful Severities! Who would be vitious when such Terrors hang over his Head? And does _Heaven make Sinners happy_ upon these Conditions? Sure some People have a good Opinion of Vice, or a very ill one of Marriage, otherwise they would have Charged the Penance a little more. But I have nothing farther with the _Mock-Astrologer_.

And now for the Conclusion of a _Chapter_, I shall give some Instances of the _Manners_ of the _Stage_, and that with respect to Poetry, and Ceremony. _Manners_ in the Language of Poetry, is a Propriety of Actions, and Persons. To succeed in this business, there must always be a regard had to Age, Sex, and Condition: And nothing put into the Mouths of Persons which disagrees with any of these Circumstances. 'Tis not enough to say a witty Thing, unless it be spoken by a likely Person, and upon a Proper occasion. But my Design will lead me to this Subject afterwards, and therefore I shall say no more of it at present, but proceed to apply the Remark.

One Instance of Impropriety in _Manners_ both Poetical and Moral, is their making Women, and Women of Quality talk Smuttily. This I have proved upon them already, and could cite many more places to the same Purpose were it necessary.

But I shall go on, and give the _Reader_ some other examples of Decency, Judgment, and Probability. _Don Sebastian_ will help us in some measure. Here the _Mufti_ makes a foolish Speech to the Rabble, and jests upon his own Religion. He tells them, _tho' your Tyrant is a Lawful Emperour, yet your Lawful Emperour is but a Tyrant,----That your Emperour is a Tyrant is most Manifest, for you were born to be Turks, but he has play'd the Turk with you._ And now is not this Man fit to Manage the _Alcoran_, and to be set up for on Oracle of State? _Captain Tom_ should have had this Speech by right: But the _Poet_ had a farther Design, and any thing is good enough for a _Mufti_.

_Sebastian_ after all the violence of his Repentance, his grasping at self Murther, and Resolutions for the _Cell_, is strangely pleased with the Remembrance of his _Incest_, and wishes the Repetition of it: And _Almeida_ out of her Princely Modesty, and singular Compunction, is of the same mind. This is somewhat surprising! _Oedipus_ and _Jocasta_ in _Sophocles_ don't Repent at this rate. No: The horror of the first Discovery continues upon their Spirits: They never relapse into any fits of Intemperance, nor entertain themselves with a lewd Memory. This sort of Behaviour is not only more Instructive but more Natural too. It being very unlikely one should wish the Repeating a Crime, when He was almost Distracted at the thoughts on't, At the thoughts on't, tho' 'twas comitted under all the Circumstances of excuse. Now when Ignorance and meer Mistake are so very disquieting, 'tis very strange if a Man should plague his Mind with the Aggravations of Knowledge; To carry Aversion, and Desire, in their full strength upon the same Object; To fly and pursue with so much eagerness, is somewhat Unusual.[328]

If we step to the _Spanish Fryar_ He will afford us a Flight worth the observing. 'Tis part of the Addresses of _Torrismond_ to _Leonora_.

_You are so Beautiful
So wondrous Fair, you justifie Rebellion;
As if that faultless Face could make no Sin,
But Heaven by looking on it must forgive._