{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_30343/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_30343","id":"gutenberg_30343","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30343","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Satire"],"text":"THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY\n\n  ANTHONY COLLINS\n\n  A DISCOURSE\n  CONCERNING\n  Ridicule and Irony\n  IN WRITING\n\n  (1729)\n\n  _Introduction by_\n  EDWARD A. BLOOM AND LILLIAN D. BLOOM\n\n  PUBLICATION NUMBER 142\n  WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY\n  UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES\n\n  1970\n\n\n\n  GENERAL EDITORS\n\n  William E. Conway, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_\n  George Robert Guffey, _University of California, Los Angeles_\n  Maximillian E. Novak, _University of California, Los Angeles_\n\n\n  ASSOCIATE EDITOR\n\n  David S. Rodes, _University of California, Los Angeles_\n\n\n  ADVISORY EDITORS\n\n  Richard C. Boys, _University of Michigan_\n  James L. Clifford, _Columbia University_\n  Ralph Cohen, _University of Virginia_\n  Vinton A. Dearing, _University of California, Los Angeles_\n  Arthur Friedman, _University of Chicago_\n  Louis A. Landa, _Princeton University_\n  Earl Miner, _University of California, Los Angeles_\n  Samuel H. Monk, _University of Minnesota_\n  Everett T. Moore, _University of California, Los Angeles_\n  Lawrence Clark Powell, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_\n  James Sutherland, _University College, London_\n  H. T. Swedenberg, Jr., _University of California, Los Angeles_\n  Robert Vosper, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_\n\n\n  CORRESPONDING SECRETARY\n\n  Edna C. Davis, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_\n\n\n  EDITORIAL ASSISTANT\n\n  Roberta Medford, _William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nBetween 1710 and 1729 Anthony Collins was lampooned, satirized, and\ngravely denounced from pulpit and press as England's most insidious\ndefiler of church and state. Yet within a year of his death he became the\nmodel of a proper country gentleman,\n\n     ... he had an opulent Fortune, descended to him from his Ancestors,\n     which he left behind him unimpair'd: He lived on his own Estate in\n     the Country, where his Tenants paid him moderate Rents, which he\n     never enhanced on their making any Improvements; he always oblig'd\n     his Family to a constant attendance on Publick Worship; as he was\n     himself a Man of the strictest Morality, for he never suffer'd any\n     Body about him who was deficient in that Point; he exercised a\n     universal Charity to all Sorts of People, without any Regard either\n     to Sect or Party; being in the Commission of the Peace, he\n     administered Justice with such Impartiality and Incorruptness, that\n     the most distant Part of the County flock'd to his Decisions; but the\n     chief Use he made of his Authority was in accommodating\n     Differences;...[1]\n\nIn a comparison which likens him to Sir Roger de Coverley, there is less\ntruth than fiction. What they did share was a love of the countryside and\na \"universal Charity\" towards its inhabitants. For the most part, however,\nwe can approximate Collins's personality by reversing many of Sir Roger's\ntraits. Often at war with his world, as the spectatorial character was\nnot, he managed to maintain an intellectual rapport with it and even with\nthose who sought his humiliation. He never--as an instance--disguised his\nphilosophical distrust of Samuel Clarke; yet during any debate he planned\n\"most certainly [to] outdo him in civility and good manners.\"[2] This\ndecorum in no way compromised his pursuit of what he considered objective\ntruth or his denunciation of all \"methods\" or impositions of spiritual\ntyranny. Thus, during the virulent, uneven battle which followed upon the\npublication of the _Discourse of Free-Thinking_, he ignored his own wounds\nin order to applaud a critic's\n\n     _suspicions that there is a sophism_ in what he calls my\n     _hypothesis_. That is a temper that ought to go thro' all our\n     Inquirys, and especially before we have an opportunity of examining\n     things to the bottom. It is safest at all times, and we are least\n     likely to be mistaken, if we constantly suspect our selves to be\n     under mistakes.... I have no system to defend or that I would seem to\n     defend, and am unconcerned for the consequence that may be drawn from\n     my opinion; and therefore stand clear of all difficultys wch others\n     either by their opinion or caution are involved in.[3]\n\n\nThis is the statement of a man whose intellectual and religious commitment\nmakes him see that his own fallibility is symptomatic of a human tendency\nto error. For himself, hence, he tries to avoid all manner of hard-voiced\nenthusiasm. Paradoxically, however, Collins searched with a zealot's\navidity for any controversy which would either assert his faith or test\nhis disbelief. When once he found his engagement, he revelled in it,\nwhether as the aggressor or the harassed defendant. For example, in the\n\"Preface\" to the _Scheme of Literal Prophecy Considered_ he boastfully\nenumerated all the works--some twenty-nine--which had repudiated his\nearlier _Discourse on the Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion_.\nAnd in malicious fact he held up the publication of the _Scheme_ for\nalmost a year that he might add a \"Postscript to the Preface\" in which he\nidentified six more pieces hostile to the _Grounds and Reasons_.[4]\n\nBy May of 1727 and with no visible sign of fatigue he took on a new\ncontender; this time it was John Rogers, canon in ordinary to the Prince\nof Wales. At the height of their debate, in late summer, Collins made\npractical enquiries about methods to prolong and intensify its\ngive-and-take. Thus, in a note to his friend Pierre Des Maizeaux, he said:\n\"But I would be particularly informed of the success and sale of the\nLetter to Dr Rogers; because, if it could be, I would add to a new\nedition thereof two or three as sheets; which also might be sold\nseparately to those who have already that Letter.\" For all his militant\npolemic, he asked only that his \"Adversaries\" observe with him a single\nrule of fair play; namely, that they refrain from name-calling and petty\nsniping. \"Personal matters,\" he asserted, \"tho they may some times afford\nuseful remarks, are little regarded by Readers, who are very seldom\nmistaken in judging that the most impertinent subject a man can talk of is\nhimself,\" particularly when he inveighs against another.[5]\n\nIf Collins had been made to look back over the years 1676-1729, he\nprobably would have summarized the last twenty with a paraphrase of the\nPopean line, \"This long controversy, my life.\" For several years and in\nsuch works as _Priestcraft in Perfection_ (1710) and _A Discourse of\nFree-Thinking_ (1713), he was a flailing polemicist against the entire\nAnglican hierarchy. Not until 1724 did he become a polished debater, when\nhe initiated a controversy which for the next five years made a \"very\ngreat noise\" and which ended only with his death. The loudest shot in the\npersistent barrage was sounded by the _Grounds and Reasons_, and its last\nfusillade by the _Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony in Writing_.[6]\n\nDuring those five years Collins concentrated upon a single opponent in\neach work and made it a rhetorical practice to change his \"Adversary\" in\nsuccessive essays. He created in this way a composite victim whose\nstrength was lessened by deindividualization; in this way too he ran no\nrisk of being labelled a hobbyhorse rider or, more seriously, a\npersecutor. Throughout the _Grounds and Reasons_ he laughed at, reasoned\nagainst, and satirized William Whiston's assumption that messianic\nprophecies in the Old Testament were literally fulfilled in the figure and\nmission of Jesus. Within two years and in a new work, he substituted\nEdward Chandler, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, for the mathematician.\nIt need not have been the Bishop; any one of thirty-four others could have\nqualified for the role of opponent, among them people like Clarke, and\nSykes, and Sherwood, and even the ubiquitous Whiston. Collins rejected\nthem, however, to debate in the _Scheme_ with Bishop Chandler, the author\nof _A Defence of Christianity from the Prophecies of the old Testament_,\nwith one who was, in short, the least controversial and yet the most\northodox of his many assailants.\n\nEarly in 1727 the Anglican establishment came to the abrupt realization\nthat the subject of the continuing debate--the reliability of the argument\nfrom prophecy--was inconclusive, that it could lead only to pedantic\nwrangling and hair-splitting with each side vainly clutching victory.\nCertainly the devotion of many clergymen to biblical criticism was\nsecondary to their interest in orthodoxy as a functional adjunct of\ngovernment, both civil and canonical. It was against this interest, as it\nwas enunciated in Rogers's _Eight Sermons concerning the Necessity of\nRevelation_ (1727) and particularly in its vindictive preface, that\nCollins chose to fight.[7] The debate had now taken a happy turn for him.\nAs he saw it, the central issue devolved upon man's natural right to\nreligious liberty. At least he made this the theme of his _Letter to Dr.\nRogers_. In writing to Des Maizeaux about the success of this work, he\nobviously enjoyed his own profane irony:\n\n     I have had particular compliments made me by the BP of Salisbury,\n     and by Dr Clark, who among other things sayd, that the Archbp of\n     Canterbury might have writ all that related to Toleration in it: to\n     say nothing of what I hear from others. Dr Rogers himself has\n     acknowledg[ed] to his Bookseller who sent it to him into the Country,\n     that he has receivd it; but says that he is so engaged in other\n     affairs, that he has no thought at present of answering it; tho he\n     may perhaps in time do so.[8]\n\n\nIn time Rogers did. He counterattacked on 2 February 1728 with a\n_Vindication of the Civil Establishment of Religion_.[9] For Collins this\nwork was a dogged repetition of what had gone before, and so it could be\nignored except for one of its appendices, _A Letter from the Rev. Dr.\nMarshall jun. To the Rev. Dr. Rogers, upon Occasion of his Preface to his\nEight Sermons_. Its inclusion seemed an afterthought; yet it altered the\ndimensions of the debate by narrowing and particularizing the areas of\ngrievance which separated the debaters. Collins, therefore, rebutted it\nsome fourteen months later in _A Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony\nin Writing_. He had great hopes for this pamphlet, preparing carefully for\nits reception. He encouraged the republication of his three preceding\nworks, which find their inevitable conclusion, even their exoneration, in\nthis last performance, and he probably persuaded his bookseller to\nundertake an elaborate promotional campaign. For the new editions were\nadvertised on seven different days between 10 January and 27 February 1729\nin the _Daily Post_. He wanted no one to miss the relationship between the\n_Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony_ and these earlier pieces or to\noverlook its presence when it finally appeared in the pamphlet shops on 17\nMarch.\n\nCollins was animated by his many debates. Indeed, \"he sought the storms.\"\nOtherwise he would not, could not, have participated in these many verbal\ncontests. Throughout them all, his basic strategy--that of\nprovocation--was determined by the very real fact that he had many more\nenemies than allies, among them, for instance, such formidable antagonists\nas Swift and Richard Bentley.[10] To survive he had to acquire a tough\nresilience, a skill in fending off attacks or turning them to his own\nadvantage. Nevertheless, he remained a ready target all his life.\nUnderstandably so: his radicalism was stubborn and his opinions\npredictable. Such firmness may of course indicate his aversion to\ntrimming. Or it may reveal a lack of intellectual growth; what he believed\nas a young man, he perpetuated as a mature adult. Whether our answer is\ndrawn from either possibility or, more realistically, from both, the fact\nremains that he never camouflaged the two principles by which he lived and\nfought:\n\n     1. That universal liberty be established in respect to opinions and\n     practises not prejudicial to the peace and welfare of society: by\n     which establishment, truth must needs have the advantages over\n     _error_ and _falsehood_, the _law_ of _God_ over the _will_ of _man_,\n     and _true Christianity tolerated_; private _judgment_ would be really\n     exercised; and men would be allowed to have suffered to follow their\n     consciences, over which God only is supreme:...\n\n     2. Secondly, that nothing but the _law of nature_, (the observance\n     whereof is absolutely necessary to society) and what can be built\n     thereon, should be enforced by the civil sanctions of the\n     magistrate:...[11]\n\n\nII\n\nThere is very little in this statement to offend modern readers. Yet the\northodox in Collins's own time had reason to be angry with him: his\narguments were inflammatory and his rhetoric was devious, cheeky, and\neffective. Those contesting him underscored his negativism, imaging him as\na destroyer of Christianity eager \"to proselyte men, from the Christian to\nno religion at all.\"[12] Certainly it is true that he aimed to disprove a\nChristian revelation which he judged fraudulent and conspiratorial. In\nplace of ecclesiastical authority he offered the rule of conscience. For\northodoxy he substituted \"a Religion antecedent to Revelation, which is\nnecessary to be known in order to _ascertain Revelation_; and by that\nReligion [he meant] _Natural Religion_, which is presupposed to\nRevelation, and is a Test by which Reveal'd Religion is to be tried, is a\nBottom on which it must stand, and is a Rule to understand it by.\"[13]\nCategorical in tone, the statement frustrated the Anglican clergy by its\nvery slipperiness; its generalities left little opportunity for decisive\nrebuttal. It provided no definition of natural religion beyond the\npredication of a body of unnamed moral law which is rational and original,\nthe archetype of what is valid in the world's religions.\n\nHis dismissal of revelation and his reduction of Christianity to what he\ncalled its \"natural\" and hence incontrovertible basis carried with it a\ncorollary, that of man's absolute right to religious enquiry and\nprofession. Here he became specific, borrowing from Lockean empiricism his\nconditions of intellectual assent. \"Evidence,\" he said, \"ought to be the\nsole ground of Assent, and Examination is the way to arrive at Evidence;\nand therefore rather than I wou'd have Examination, Arguing and Objecting\nlaid aside, I wou'd chuse to say, That no Opinions whatever can be\ndangerous to a Man that impartially examines into the Truth of\nThings.\"[14] The church leadership saw in this statement and others like\nit not an epistemological premise but a deliberate subterfuge, an\ninsidious blind to vindicate his attacks upon an organized priesthood. We\ncan recognize now that his opponents oversimplified his intention, that\nthey blackened it to make his villainy at once definitive and vulnerable.\nAt the same time we must admit that he often equated the ideas of\nrepression and clerical authority, even as he coupled those of freedom and\nthe guide of private conscience.\n\nThe Anglican church was infuriated by these correlations, angered as much\nby their manner of expression as by their substance. For the faithful were\nfrequently thrown off balance by a strategy of ironical indirection.\nSometimes this took the form of omission or the presentation of an\nargument in so fragmentary or slanted a fashion that Collins's \"Enemies\"\ncould debate neither his implications nor his conclusions. At other times\nhe used this artful circumlocution to create his favorite mask, that of\nthe pious Christian devoted to scripture or of the moralist perplexed by\nthe divisions among the orthodox clergy. Finally, his rhetoric was shaped\nby deistic predecessors who used sarcasm and satire to mock the gravity of\nchurch authority. So much was their wit a trademark that as early as 1702\none commentator had noted, \"when you expect an argument, they make a\njest.\"[15] Collins himself resorted to this practice with both instinctive\nskill and deliberate contrivance.\n\nAll these methods, though underhanded, he silently justified on the\nassumption that he was dealing with a conspiracy of priests: hence, he\nprofessed that he had to fight fraud and deception with their like, and\nthat such craftiness, suitable \"to his particular genius and temper,\" was\n\"serviceable to his cause.\" For these reasons even William Warburton, who\nhad vainly struggled to be judicious, described him as \"a Writer, whose\ndexterity in the arts of Controversy was so remarkably contrasted by his\nabilities in reasoning and literature, as to be ever putting one in mind\nof what travellers tell us of the genius of the proper Indians, who,\nalthough the veriest bunglers in all the fine arts of manual operation,\nyet excel everybody in slight of hand and the delusive feats of\nactivity.\"[16] Whatever may be said of Collins and his achievement, one\nfact remains constant. He was a brilliant and persistent trickster whose\ncunning in the techniques of polemic often silenced an opponent with every\nsubstantive right to win the debate.\n\nHe seized any opportunity to expose the diversity of ethical and\ntheological opinion which set one Anglican divine against another, \"to\nobserve\"--as Jenkin put it--\"how the gladiators in dispute murder the\ncause between them, while they so fiercely cut and wound one another.\" For\nCollins such observation was more than oratorical artifice; it was one of\nthe dogmas of his near-nihilism. He commented once to Des Maizeaux upon\nthe flurry of critics who replied to his statement of necessitarianism in\nthe _Philosophical Inquiry concerning Human Liberty_:\n\n     I was extreamly pleasd with BP Hoadley, ... as it was upon the true\n     and only point worth disputing with ye Preists, viz whether we the\n     laity are the Calves and Sheep of the Preist. And I am not less\n     pleasd to see them manage this controversy with ye same vile arts\n     against one another, as they always use towards the laity. It must\n     open the eyes of a few and convince them, that the Preists mean\n     nothing but wealth and power, and have not the least ... of those\n     qualitys for wch the superstitious world admires them.[17]\n\n\nHe applied this principle of divisive attack in _A Discourse of\nFree-Thinking_. There in fifty-three pages he transparently ridiculed\ncontradictions which hedged three areas of fundamental religious belief:\n_\"The Nature and Attributes of the Eternal Being or God, ... the Authority\nof Scriptures, and ... the Sense of Scripture.\"_ In accordance with one of\nhis favorite tricks--the massing of eminent authority--his exposition\nrings with hallowed Anglican names: South, Bull, Taylor, Wallis, Carlton,\nDavenant, Edwards, More, Tillotson, Fowler, Sherlock, Stillingfleet,\nSacheverell, Beveridge, Grabe, Hickes, Lesley.[18] What united these men,\nhe insinuated, was not a Christian commitment but a talent to disagree\nwith one another and even to repudiate themselves--as in the case of\nStillingfleet. In effect, the entire _Discourse_ bubbles with a carelessly\nsuppressed snicker.\n\nThe clergy could not readily reply to this kind of incriminating exposure\nor deny its reality. They therefore overreacted to other judgments that\nCollins made, particularly to his attacks upon Christian revelation. These\nthey denigrated as misleading, guileful, sinister, contrived, deceitful,\ninsidious, shuffling, covert, subversive. What they objected to was,\nfirst, the way in which he reduced the demonstration of Christian\nrevelation to only the \"puzzling and perplexing\" argument from prophecy,\nthe casual ease with which he ignored or dismissed those other \"clear\"\nproofs derived from the miracles of Jesus and the resurrection itself.[19]\nBut even more the orthodox resented the masked point of view from which\nCollins presented his disbelief.\n\nFor example, the _Grounds and Reasons_ is the deist's first extended\nattack upon revelation. Ostensibly it is, as we have seen, an answer to\nWhiston's _Essay Towards Restoring the True Text of the Old Testament; and\nfor Vindicating the Citations Made Thence in the New Testament_ (1722). In\nit the mathematician argued that the Hebraic prophecies relating to the\nmessiah had been literally fulfilled in Jesus. But this truth, he\nadmitted, had been obscured \"in the latter Ages,\" only because of those\n\"Difficulties\" which \"have [almost wholly] arisen from the Corruptions,\nthe unbelieving _Jews_ introduc'd into the Hebrew and Greek copies of the\nOld Testament, [soon after] the Beginning of the Second Century.\" These\nconspiratorial corruptions he single-handedly planned to remove, returning\nthe Old Testament to a state of textual purity with emendations drawn from\nsources as varied as the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Greek Psalms, the\nAntiquities of Josephus, the Chaldee Paraphrases, the books of Philo. His\npragmatic purpose was to nullify the biblical criticism of historical\nminded scholars as reputable as Grotius, to render useless the allegorical\ninterpretation of messianic prophecies. That is, he saw in the latter a\n\"pernicious\" absence of fact, a \"weak and enthusiastical\" whimsy,\nunchristian adjustments to the exigencies of the moment.[20]\n\nCollins fought not to destroy Whiston's position, which was all too easily\ndestructible, but to undermine the structure, the very \"grounds and\nreasons\" with which orthodoxy supported the mysteries of its faith. To do\nso, he spun a gigantic web of irony controlled by a persona whose complex\npurpose was concealed by a mien of hyper-righteousness. Here then was one\nmotivated by a fair-mindedness which allowed him to defend his opponent's\nright of scriptural exegesis even while disagreeing with its approach and\nits conclusions. Here too was a conservative Christian different from\nWhiston \"and many other great divines; who seem to pay little deference to\nthe books of the New Testament, the text whereof they are perpetually\nmending in their sermons, commentaries, and writings, to serve purposes;\nwho pretend _we should have more of the true text by being less tenacious\nof the printed one_, and in consequence thereof, presume to correct by\ncritical _emendations_, serve _capital places_ in the _sacred writers_;\nand who ... do virtually set aside the authority of the scripture, and\nplace those compositions in its stead.\" Finally, here was one who,\nobedient to the spirit of God's revealed word, rejected the fallacy that\nmessianic prophecy had been fulfilled in Christ in any \"literal, obvious\nand primary sense.\"[21]\n\nBut though the persona could not accept Whiston's program, he was not a\nmere negativist. With growing excitement he argued for allegorical\ninterpretation. At this point the reader discerns that he has been duped,\nthat nowhere has there been a denial of Whiston's charge that the reading\nof messianic prophecy in a typical or allegorical or secondary sense is\n\"weak and enthusiastical.\" On the contrary, the reader finds only the\ndamning innuendo that the two methods--the allegorical and the\nliteral--differ from one another not in kind but in degree of absurdity.\nAfter being protected for a long time by all the twists and turns of his\ncreator's irony, the persona finally reveals himself for what he is, a man\ntotally insolent and totally without remorse. Never for one moment did he\nwish to defend the scheme of allegorical prophecy but to attack it. His\nargument, stripped of its convolutions and pseudo-piety, moves inexorably\nto a single, negative conclusion. \"Christianity pretends to derive itself\nfrom Judaism. JESUS appeals to the religious books of the Jews as\nprophesying of his Mission. None of these Prophecies can be understood of\nhim but in a _typical allegoric_ sense. Now that sense is absurd, and\ncontrary to all scholastic rules of interpretation. Christianity,\ntherefore, not being really predicted in the Jewish Writings, is\nconsequently false.\"[22]\n\nCollins continued his attack upon Christian revelation in the _Scheme_. In\nthe two years which separated this work from the earlier _Grounds and\nReasons_, there occurred no change in the author's argument. What does\noccur, however, is a perceptive if snide elaboration upon the mask. This\nis in many ways the same persona who barely suppressed his guffaws in the\nearlier work. Now he is given an added dimension; he is made more\ndecisively rational than his predecessor and therefore more insightful in\nhis knowledge of rhetorical method. As a disciple of certain Protestant\npolemicists and particularly of Grotius, whose \"integrity,\" \"honor,\" and\nbiblical criticism he supports, he is the empirical-minded Christian who\nknows exactly why the literalists have failed to persuade the\nfree-thinkers or even to have damaged their arguments. \"For if you begin\nwith Infidels by denying to them, what is evident and agreeable to common\nsense, I think there can be no reasonable hopes of converting or\nconvincing them.\"[23] The irony is abrasive simply because it unanswerably\nsingles out the great rhetorical failure of orthodoxy, its inability to\nargue from a set of principles as acceptable to the deists as to\nthemselves.\n\nMany of the clergy chafed against Collins's manipulation of this\ntongue-in-cheek persona. They resented his irreverent wit which projected,\nfor example, the image of an Anglican God who \"talks to all mankind from\ncorners\" and who shows his back parts to Moses. They were irritated by his\njesting parables, as in \"The Case of Free-Seeing,\" and by the impertinence\nof labelling Archbishop Tillotson as the man \"whom all _English\nFree-Thinkers_ own as their Head.\"[24]\n\nBut most of all they gagged upon Collins's use of satire in religious\ncontroversy. As we have already seen, there were complex reasons for his\nchoice of technique. He was a naturally witty man who, sometimes out of\nfear and sometimes out of malice, expressed himself best through\ncircuitous irony. In 1724, when he himself considered his oratorical\npractice, he argued that his matter determined his style, that the targets\nof his belittling wit were the \"saint-errants.\" We can only imagine the\nexasperation of Collins's Anglican enemies when they found their orthodoxy\nthus slyly lumped with the eccentricities of Samuel Butler's \"true blew\"\nPresbyterians. It would be hard to live down the associations of those\nfacetious lines which made the Augustan divines, like their unwelcome\nforebear Hudibras, members\n\n                      Of that stubborn Crew\n  Of Errant Saints, whom all men grant\n  To be the true Church Militant.\n\nThose dignified Anglican exteriors were further punctured by Collins's\nirreverent attack upon their cry of religious uniformity, a cry which was\n\"ridiculous, romantick, and impossible to succeed.\" He saw himself, in\nshort, as an emancipated Butler or even Cervantes; and like his famous\npredecessors he too would laugh quite out of countenance the fool and the\nhypocrite, the pretender and the enthusiast, the knave and the persecuter,\nall those who would create a god in their own sour and puny image.\n\n\nIII\n\nBy 1727 several of the orthodox felt that they could take no more of\nCollins's laughter, his sneering invectives against the clergy, or his\ndesigns to make religion \"a Matter purely personal; and the Knowledge of\nit to be obtain'd by personal Consideration, _independently of any Guides,\nTeachers, or Authority_.\" In the forefront of this group was John Rogers,\nwhose hostility to the deist was articulate and compulsive. At least it\ndrove him into a position seemingly at odds with the spirit if not the law\nof English toleration. He urged, for example, that those like Collins be\nprosecuted in a civil court for a persuasion \"which is manifestly\nsubversive of all Order and Polity, and can no more consist with civil,\nthan with religious, Society.\"[25]\n\nThereupon followed charge and countercharge. New gladiators, as different\nfrom each other as the nonconformist divine Samuel Chandler and the deist\nThomas Chubb, entered the arena on behalf of Collins. For all the dogmatic\nvolubility of Rogers, orthodoxy appeared beleaguered. The moderate clergy,\nwho witnessed this exchange, became alarmed; they feared that in the melee\nthe very heart of English toleration would be threatened by the\ncontenders, all of whom spoke as its champion. Representative of such\nmoderation was Nathanael Marshall, who wished if not to end the debate,\nthen at least to contain its ardor. As canon of Windsor, he supported the\ncondition of a state religion protected by the magistrate but he worried\nover the extent of the latter's prerogative and power. Certainly he was\nmore liberal than Rogers in his willingness to entertain professions of\nreligious diversity. Yet he straitjacketed his liberalism when he denied\nresponsible men the right to attack laws, both civil and canonical, with\n\"ludicrous Insult\" or \"with Buffoonery and Banter, Ridicule or Sarcastick\nIrony.\"[26]\n\nOnce again Collins met the challenge. In _A Discourse concerning Ridicule\nand Irony_ he devoted himself to undermining the moral, the intellectual,\nand practical foundations of that one restraint which Marshall would\nimpose upon the conduct of any religious quarrel. He had little difficulty\nin achieving his objective. His adversary's stand was visibly vulnerable\nand for several reasons. It was too conscious of the tug-of-war between\nthe deist and Rogers, too arbitrary in its choice of prohibition. It was,\nin truth, strained by a choice between offending the establishment and yet\nrejecting clerical extremism.[27] Moreover, Collins had this time an\ninvisible partner, a superior thinker against whom he could test his own\nideas and from whom he could borrow others. For the _Discourse concerning\nRidicule and Irony_ is largely a particularization, a crude but powerful\nreworking of Shaftesbury's _Sensus Communis: An Essay on the Freedom of\nWit and Humour_.\n\nSupported by Shaftesbury's urbane generalization, Collins laughed openly\nat the egocentricity and blindness of Marshall's timid zealotry. Indeed,\nhe wryly found his orthodox opponent guilty of the very crime with which\nhe, as a subversive, was charged. It seemed to him, he said,\n\n     a most prodigious Banter upon [mankind], for Men to talk in general\n     of the _Immorality_ of _Ridicule_ and _Irony_, and of _punishing_ Men\n     for those Matters, when their own Practice is _universal Irony_ and\n     _Ridicule_ of all those who go not with them, and _universal\n     Applause_ and _Encouragement_ for such _Ridicule_ and _Irony_, and\n     distinguishing by all the honourable ways imaginable such _drolling_\n     Authors for their Drollery; and when Punishment for _Drollery_ is\n     never call'd for, but when _Drollery_ is used or employ'd against\n     them!\n\n     (p. 29)\n\nCollins's technique continued its ironic ambiguity, reversal, and\nobliquity. Under a tone of seeming innocence and good will, he credited\nhis adversaries with an enviable capacity for satiric argument. In\ncomradely fashion, he found precedent for his own rhetorical practice\nthrough a variety of historical and biblical analogies. But even more\nimportant for a contemporary audience, he again resorted to the device of\ninvoking the authority provided by some of the most respected names in the\nAnglican Establishment. The use of satire in religious topics, hence, was\nmanifest in \"the Writings of our most eminent Divines,\" especially those\nof Stillingfleet, \"our greatest controversial Writer\" (pp. 4-5).\n\nWith all the outrageous assurance of a self-invited guest, the deist had\nseated himself at the table of his vainly protesting Christian hosts (whom\nhe insisted on identifying as brethren). \"In a word,\" he said so as to\nobviate debate, \"the Opinions and Practices of Men in all Matters, and\nespecially in Matters of Religion, are generally so absurd and ridiculous\nthat it is impossible for them not to be the Subjects of Ridicule\" (p.\n19). Thus adopting Juvenal's concept of satiric necessity (\"difficile est\nsaturam non scribere\"), Collins here set forth the thesis and rationale of\nhis enemy. There was a kind of impudent virtuosity in his \"proofs,\" in his\nmanner of drawing a large, impressive cluster of names into his ironic net\nand making all of them appear to be credible witnesses in his defense.\nEven Swift, amusingly compromised as \"one of the greatest _Droles_ that\never appear'd upon the Stage of the World\" (p. 39), was brought to the\nwitness box as evidence of the privileged status to which satiric writing\nwas entitled. Collins enforced erudition with cool intelligence so that\ncontemptuous amusement is present on every page of his _Discourse_.\n\nBeneath his jeers and his laughter there was a serious denunciation of any\nkind of intellectual restraint, however mild-seeming; beneath his verbal\npin-pricking there was conversely an exoneration of man's right to\ninquire, to profess, and to persuade. Beneath his jests and sarcasms there\nwas further a firm philosophical commitment that informed the rhetoric of\nall his earlier work. Ridicule, he asserted in 1729, \"is both a proper and\nnecessary Method of Discourse in many Cases, and especially in the Case of\n_Gravity_, when that is attended with Hypocrisy or Imposture, or with\nIgnorance, or with soureness of Temper and Persecution: all which ought to\ndraw after them the _Ridicule_ and _Contempt_ of the Society, which has no\nother effectual Remedy against such Methods of Imposition\" (p. 22).\n\nFor the modern reader the _Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony_ is the\nmost satisfactory of Collins's many pamphlets and books. It lacks the\npretentiousness of the _Scheme_, the snide convolutions of the _Grounds\nand Reasons_, the argument by half-truths of the _Discourse of\nFree-Thinking_. His last work is free of the curious ambivalence which\nmarked so many of his earlier pieces, a visible uncertainty which made him\nfear repression and yet court it. On the contrary, his last work is in\nfact a justification of his rhetorical mode and religious beliefs; it is\nan _apologia pro vita sua_ written with all the intensity and decisiveness\nthat such a justification demands. To be sure, it takes passing shots at\nold enemies like Swift, but never with rancor. And while its language is\nfrequently ironical, its thinking makes an earnest defense of wit as a\nweapon of truth. The essay sets forth its author as an _animal ridens_, a\ncreature that through laughter and affable cynicism worships a universal\nGod and respects a rational mankind.\n\nBrown University\n\n\n\n\nNOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION\n\n[1] _Universal Spectator, and Weekly Journal_, No. 98 (22 August 1730).\n\n[2] To Des Maizeaux (5 May 1717): B. M. Sloane MSS. 4282, ff. 129-130.\n\n[3] To Des Maizeaux (9 February 1716): B. M. Sloane MSS. 4282, f. 123.\n\n[4] The title page of the _Scheme_ is dated 1726. It was not advertised in\nthe newspapers or journals of that year--a strange silence for any of\nCollins's work. Its first notice appeared in the _Monthly Catalogue: Being\na General Register of Books, Sermons, Plays, Poetry, Pamphlets, &c.\nPrinted and Publish'd in London, or the Universities, during the Month of\nMay, 1727_ (see No. 49). Yet we know that the _Scheme_ had been remarked\nupon as early as March when on the 10th of that month Samuel Chandler\npublished his _Reflections on the Conduct of the Modern Deists in their\nlate Writings against Christianity_. (For the dating of Chandler's work,\nsee the _Daily Courant_ [10 March 1727].) We know also that the _Scheme_\nwent to a second edition late in 1727 and was frequently advertised in the\n_Daily Post_ between 2 January and 20 January 1728.\n\n[5] For the statement about the _Letter to Dr. Rogers_, see B. M. Sloane\nMSS. 4282, f. 220 (15 August 1727). For that on the use of \"personal\nmatters\" in controversy, see B. M. Sloane MSS. 4282, f. 170 (27 December\n1719); cf. _The Scheme of Literal Prophecy Considered_ (London, 1726), pp.\n422-438.\n\n[6] _The Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion_ was published in\nLondon within the first four days of January 1724; see the advertisement\nin the _Daily Post_ (4 January 1724). _A Discourse concerning Ridicule and\nIrony in Writing_ was published on or close to 17 March 1729; see the\nadvertisement in the _Daily Journal_ for that date.\n\n[7] We can generally fix the date of Rogers's _Eight Sermons_ within the\nfirst two months of 1727 because it was answered early by Samuel\nChandler's _Reflections on the Conduct of the Modern Deists_. (See note\n4.) For the dating of Collins's rebuttal, see the _Monthly Catalogue_, No.\n49 (May 1727).\n\n[8] To Des Maizeaux (24 June 1727): B. M. Sloane MSS. 4282, ff. 218-219.\n\n[9] For the dating of this work, see the _Daily Post_ (31 January 1728).\n\n[10] For Swift's satire, see _Mr. C---ns's Discourse of Free-Thinking, Put\ninto plain English, by way of Abstract, for the Use of the Poor_. For\nBentley's devastating probe of Collins's scholarly inadequacies, see his\n_Remarks on the Discourse of Free-Thinking. By Phileleutherus Lipsiensis_.\nBoth works appeared in 1713.\n\n[11] _Scheme_, pp. 432-433.\n\n[12] Edward Chandler, _A Defence of Christianity from the Prophecies of\nthe Old Testament_ (London, 1725), p. ii.\n\n[13] _A Letter to Dr. Rogers_, p. 89.\n\n[14] _A Vindication of the Divine Attributes_ (London, 1710), p. 24.\n\n[15] Robert Jenkin, _A Brief Confutation of the Pretences against Natural\nand Revealed Religion_ (London, 1702), p. 40.\n\n[16] For Collins on his own rhetorical skills, see _Scheme_, p. 402;\nWilliam Warburton, _Divine Legation of Moses, Demonstrated_ (London,\n1846), III, 199.\n\n[17] Jenkin, _Brief Confutation_, p. 51; for the letter (1 July 1717), see\nB. M. Sloane MSS. 4282, f. 137.\n\n[18] Pp. 46-99.\n\n[19] See, for example, the statement of John Conybeare, Bishop of Bristol,\nin Joseph Spence, _Observations, Anecdotes, and Characters of Books and\nMen_, ed. James M. Osborn (Oxford, 1966), I, sect. 992.\n\n[20] _Essay_, pp. 329-333 (for Whiston's statement of sources); pp.\n334-335 (for his defense of literal interpretation). The bracketed\nmaterial indicates Whiston's manuscript emendations of his own printed\ntext; see the British Museum's copy of the _Essay_ (873. 1. 10) which\noriginally belonged to the mathematician. See Collins, _Grounds and\nReasons_, pp. 98-99, for the summary of Whiston's attack upon allegorical\ninterpretation.\n\n[21] _Grounds and Reasons_, pp. 20, 48-50.\n\n[22] This terse summary of the persona's argument was correctly made by\nWarburton, III, 232.\n\n[23] _Scheme_, p. 391.\n\n[24] _Discourse of Free-Thinking_, pp. 15-17, 38, 171.\n\n[25] _Eight Sermons_, pp. 1, lxi.\n\n[26] Marshall, pp. 301, 337. For Samuel Chandler's contribution, see his\n_Reflections on the Conduct of the Modern Deists_ (London, 1727); for\nChubb's contribution see _Some Short Reflections on the Grounds and Extent\nof Authority and Liberty, With respect to the Civil Government_ (London,\n1728).\n\n[27] Marshall's reluctance to support Rogers's extremism is seen in the\nfuneral sermon he preached at the latter's death (_A Sermon Delivered in\nthe Parish Church of St. Giles Cripplegate, May 18, 1729. Upon Occasion of\nthe Much Lamented Death of the Revd. John Rogers_ [London, 1729]). He\nmade only the most casual and indifferent reference to Rogers's work. So\nobvious was this slight that it called for a rebuttal; see Philalethes (A.\nA. Sykes [?]), _Some Remarks Upon the Reverend Dr. Marshall's Sermon on\nOccasion of the Death of the Revd Dr Rogers_ (London, 1729).\n\n\n\n\nBIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE\n\nThis facsimile of _A Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony in Writing_\n(1729) is reproduced from a copy in the William Andrews Clark Memorial\nLibrary.\n\n\n\n\n  A\n  DISCOURSE\n  CONCERNING\n  Ridicule and Irony\n  IN\n  WRITING,\n  IN A\n  LETTER\n  To the Reverend\n  Dr. NATHANAEL MARSHALL.\n\n  -------- _Ridiculum acri\n  Fortius & melius magnas plerumq; secat res._\n\n  -------- _Ridentem dicere verum\n  Quid vetat?_\n\n  _LONDON:_\n\n  Printed for J. BROTHERTON in _Cornhill_ and sold\n  by T. WARNER in _Pater-noster-Row_, and\n  A. DODD without _Temple-Bar_. 1729.\n\n\n\n\n  A\n  DISCOURSE\n  CONCERNING\n  _Ridicule_ and _Irony_, &c.\n\n\nREVEREND SIR,\n\nIn your _Letter_ to Dr. _Rogers_, which he has publish'd at the End of his\n_Vindication of the Civil Establishment of Religion_, I find a Notion\nadvanc'd by you: which as it is a common and plausible Topick for\nPersecution, and a Topick by which you, and many others, urge the\nMagistrate to punish [or, as you phrase it, _to pinch_] [28] Men for\ncontroversial Writings, is particularly proper at this time to be fully\nconsider'd; and I hope to treat it in such manner as to make you your\nself, and every fair Reader, sensible of the Weakness thereof.\n\nYou profess to \"vindicate [29] a sober, serious, and modest Inquiry into\nthe Reasons of any Establishment.\"\n\nAnd you add, that you \"have not ordinarily found it judg'd inconsistent\nwith the Duty of a _private Subject_, to propose his Doubts or his Reasons\nto the Publick in a _modest_ way, concerning the _Repeal_ of any Law which\nhe may think of ill Consequence by its Continuance. If he be a Man of\nAbility, and well vers'd in the Argument, he will deserve some Attention;\nbut if he mistakes his Talent, and will be busy with what he very little\nunderstands, Contempt and Odium will be his unavoidable and just\nAllotment.\" And you say, that \"Religion is more a personal Affair, in\nwhich every Man has a peculiar Right and Interest, and a Concern that he\nbe not mistaken, than in any other Case or Instance which can fall under\nthe Cognizance of the Magistrate; and that greater Allowances seem due to\neach private Person for Examination and Inquiry in this, than in any other\nExample.\"\n\nAnd herein I must do you the Justice to acknowledge, that you speak like a\nChristian, like a Protestant, like an _Englishman_, and a reasonable Man;\nlike a Man concerned for Truth, like a Man of Conscience; like a Man\nconcern'd for the Consciences of others; like a Man concern'd to have some\nSense, Learning, and Virtue in the World; and, in a word, like a Man who\nis not for abandoning all the valuable Things in Life to the Tyranny,\nAmbition, and Covetousness of Magistrates and Ecclesiasticks.\n\nBut you observe, that \"municipal Laws[30], how trivial soever in their\nintrinsick Value, are never to be _insulted_; never to be treated with\n_Buffoonery_ and _Banter_, _Ridicule_ and _Sarcastick Irony_. So that Dr.\n_Rogers_'s grand Adversary will have from you no measure of Encouragement\nto his manner of Writing.\" Again, you \"never [31] desire to see the\nMagistrate fencing in the publick Religion with so thick a Hedge as shall\nexclude all Light, and shall tear out the Eyes of all such as endeavour to\nsee thro' it. _Sober arguing_ you never fear: _Mockery_ and _bitter\nRailing_, if you could help it, you would never bear, either _for the\nTruth or against it_.\"\n\nUpon which I offer these following Considerations.\n\nI. _First_, If what you call _Insult_, _Buffoonery_, _Banter_, _Ridicule_\nand _Irony_, _Mockery_ and _bitter Railing_, be Crimes in Disputation, you\nwill find none more deeply involv'd in it than our most famous Writers, in\ntheir controversial Treatises about _serious_ Matters; as all Notions and\nPractices in Religion, whether reasonable or absurd, may be equally and\njustly deem'd: the Notions and Practices of Papists, Presbyterians,\nQuakers, and all other Sects, being no less _serious_ to their respective\nSects than ridiculous to one another. Let any Man read the Writings of our\nmost eminent Divines against the _Papists_, _Puritans_, _Dissenters_, and\n_Hereticks_, and against one another, and particularly the Writings of\n_Alexander Cook_, _Hales_, _Chillingworth_, _Patrick_, _Tillotson_,\n_Stillingfleet_, _Burnet_, _South_, _Hickes_, _Sherlock_ and _Edwards_,\nand he will find them to abound with _Banter_, _Ridicule_, and _Irony_.\n_Stillingfleet_ in particular, our greatest controversial Writer, who\npasses for _grave_ and _solemn_, is so conscious of his use thereof, that\nhe confesses that Charge of the Papists against him, saying[32], \"But I\nforget my Adversary's grave admonition, that I _would treat these Matters\nseriously, and lay aside Drollery_.\" And again, after a _Banter_ of near a\nPage, he says[33], \"But I forget I am so near my Adversary's Conclusion,\nwherein he so _gravely_ advises me, that I _would be pleas'd for once to\nwrite Controversy, and not Play-Books_.\" Nor did I ever hear the Divines\nof the Church condemn the Doctor for his sarcastical Method of writing\nControversy. On the contrary, I remember at the University, that he used\nto be applauded no less for his Wit than for his Learning. And to exalt\nhis Character as a Wit, his _Conferences between a_ Romish _Priest, a\nFanatick Chaplain, and a Divine of the Church of_ England, _&c._ were\nspoken of as an excellent _Comedy_, and especially for that Part which the\n_Fanatick Chaplain_ acts therein, who makes as comical and as ridiculous a\nFigure as he does in any of the _Plays_ acted on the Stage. And in his\n_Controversy_ with _Dryden_ about the _Royal Papers_, and those of the\n_Duchess_ of _York_, he was deem'd to have out-done that famous _Satirist_\nin tart Repartees and Reflections; and to have attack'd the Character of\nthe _Poet_ with more severity, than that _Poet_, who was so remarkable for\nhis satirical Reflections on the holy Order, did the Character of the\n_Divine_: As for example, he says to _Dryden_[34], \"Could nothing be said\nby you of Bishop _Morley_, but that _Prelate of rich Memory_? Or had you a\nmind to tell us he was no _Poet_? Or that he was out of the Temptation of\nchanging his Religion for Bread?\" And many Citations us'd to be produc'd\nout of his Writings, as Specimens of his ironical Talent; among which I\nparticularly remember his _Ridicule_ of his Adversary Mr. _Alsop_, a\nfamous Presbyterian Wit and Divine; whose Book, which was full of low\nRaillery and Ridicule, he resembles [35] to _the Bird of_ Athens, as _made\nup of Face and Feathers_. And the Doctor himself adds, in Justification of\nthe polite Method of Raillery in Controversy, that _there is a\npleasantness of Wit, which serves to entertain the Reader in the rough\nand deep way of Controversy_. Nor did Mr. _Alsop_ want Approvers of his\nRaillery in his own Party. Mr. _Gilbert Rule_[36], a great _Scotch_\nPresbyterian Divine, who defended him against _Stillingfleet_, contends in\nbehalf of his Raillery, \"That the Facetiousness of Mr. _Alsop_'s Strain\nneeded to have bred no Disgust, being as a Condiment to prevent _T\u00e6dium_\nand Nauseousness.\" And he adds, \"That he knows none that blame the\nexcellent Writings of Mr. _Fuller_, which have a Pleasantness not unlike\nthat of Mr. _Alsop_.\"\n\nAnd this manner of writing is seldom complain'd of, as unfit to be\nallow'd, by any but those who feel themselves hurt by it. For the solemn\nand grave can bear a solemn and grave Attack: That gives them a sort of\nCredit in the World, and makes them appear considerable to themselves, as\nworthy of a serious Regard. But _Contempt_ is what they, who commonly are\nthe most contemptible and worthless of Men, cannot bear nor withstand, as\nsetting them in their true Light, and being the most effectual Method to\ndrive Imposture, the sole Foundation of their Credit, out of the World.\nHence _Stillingfleet_'s Popish Adversaries, more conscious perhaps of the\nRidiculousness of Popery than the common People among Protestants\nthemselves, fall upon him very furiously. One says[37], \"That by the\nPhrases, which are the chief Ornaments that set off the Doctor's Works, we\nmay easily guess in what Books he has spent his Time; and that he is well\nvers'd in _Don Quixot_, the _Seven Champions_, and other _Romantick\nStories_. Sure the Doctor err'd in his Vocation: Had he quitted all\nserious Matters, and dedicated himself wholly to Drollery and Romance,\nwith two or three Years under _Hudibras_, he might have been a Master in\nthat Faculty; the Stage might have been a Gainer by it, and the Church of\n_England_ would have been no Loser.\"\n\nAnother of his Adversaries says, \"[38]Peruse the Doctor Page after Page,\nyou will find the Man all along in peevish Humour, when you see his Book\nbrimfull of tart biting Ironies, Drolleries, comical Expressions,\nimpertinent Demands, and idle Stories, _&c._ as if the discharging a\nlittle Gall were enough to disparage _the clearest Miracles_ God ever\nwrought.\"\n\nBut what are these _clearest Miracles God ever wrought_? Why, the most\nextravagant, whimsical, absurd, and ridiculous Legends and Stories\nimaginable; such as that of _St. Dominick_[39], who when the Devil came to\nhim in the Shape of a _Monkey_, made him hold a Candle to him while he\nwrote, and keep it so long between his Toes, till it burnt them; and his\nkeeping the Devil, who sometimes came to him in the Shape of a _Flea_, and\nby skipping on the Leaves of his Book disturb'd his Reading, in that\nShape, and using him for a Mark to know where he left off reading: Such as\nSt. _Patrick_'s heating an Oven with Snow, and turning a Pound of Honey\ninto a Pound of Butter: Such as _Christ_'s marrying Nuns, and playing at\nCards with them; and Nuns living on the Milk of the blessed Virgin _Mary_;\nand that of divers Orders, and especially the _Benedictine_, being so dear\nto the blessed Virgin, that in Heaven she lodges them under her\nPetticoats: Such as making broken Eggs whole; and of People, who had\ntheir Heads cut off, walking with their Heads in their Hands, which were\nsometimes set on again: Such as Failing for a hundred Years; and raising\nCows, Calves, and Birds from the Dead, after they had been chopt to Pieces\nand eaten, and putting on their Heads after they had been pull'd or cut\noff; and turning a Pound of Butter into a Bell; and making a Bull give\nMilk; and raising a King's Daughter from the Dead, and turning her into a\nSon; and the several Translations thro' the Air of the Virgin _Mary_'s\nHouse from _Palestine_ to _Loretto_, and the Miracles wrote there; and\nmore of the like Kind.\n\nAre these, or such as these the _clearest Miracles God ever wrought_? Do\nsuch Miracles deserve a serious Regard? And shall the _Gravity_ with which\nMankind is thus banter'd out of their common Sense, excuse these Matters\nfrom _Ridicule_?\n\nIt will be difficult to find any Writers who have exceeded the Doctors,\n_South_ and [40] _Edwards_, in _Banter_, _Irony_, _Satire_ and _Sarcasms_:\nThe last of whom has written a Discourse in _Defence of sharp Reflections\non Authors and their Opinions_; wherein he enumerates, as Examples for his\nPurpose, almost all the eminent Divines of the Church of _England_. And\nMr. [41] _Collier_, speaking of a Letter of the Venerable _Bede_ to\n_Egbert_ Bishop of _York_, says, \"The Satire and Declamation in this\n_Epistle_ shews the _pious Zeal_ and _Integrity_ of the Author;\" which\nseems to imply, that _Satire_ and _Declamation_ is the orthodox and most\npious Method of writing in behalf of _Orthodoxy_.\n\nDr. _Rogers_, to whom you write, falls into the Method of Buffoonery,\nBanter, Satire, Drollery, Ridicule, and Irony, even in the Treatise to\nwhich your Letter is subjoined, and against that _Person_ whom you would\nhave punish'd for that Method: When he says to him, [42] \"Religion then,\nit seems, must be left to the Scholars and Gentlefolks, and to them 'tis\nto be of no other use, but as a Subject of Disputation to improve their\nParts and Learning; but methinks the Vulgar might be indulged a little of\nit now and then, upon Sundays and Holidays, instead of Bull-baiting and\nFoot-ball.\" And this insipid Piece of Drollery and false Wit [which is\ndesign'd to ridicule his Adversary for asserting, that _What Men\nunderstand nothing of, they have no Concern about_; which is a Proposition\nthat will stand the Test of _Ridicule_, which will be found wholly to lie\nagainst the Doctor, for asserting the Reasonableness of imposing Things on\nthe People which they do not understand] is the more remarkable, as it\nproceeds from one, who is at the same time for using the Sword of the\nMagistrate against his Adversary. One would think the [43] _Inquisitor_\nshould banish the _Droll_, and the _Droll_ the _Inquisitor_.\n\nOne of the greatest and best Authorities for the _pleasant_ and _ironical_\nmanner of treating _serious_ Matters, is that eminent Divine at the Time\nof the Reformation, the great _Erasmus_, who has written two Books in this\nway with great Applause of Protestants, and without subjecting himself to\nany Persecution of Papists: which makes it highly proper to propose them\nto the Consideration of the Reader, that he may regulate his Notions, by\nwhat, it may be presum'd, he approves of in that Author. These two Books\nof _Erasmus_ are his _Colloquies_, and his _Praise of Folly_.\n\nHis _Colloquies_ were wrote in imitation of _Lucian_'s _Dialogues_; and I\nthink with equal, if not superior, Success.\n\nBoth these Authors had an Aversion to sullen, austere, designing Knaves;\nand both of them being Men of Wit and Satire, employ'd their Talents\nagainst _Superstition_ and _Hypocrisy_. _Lucian_ liv'd in an Age when\n_Fiction_ and _Fable_ had usurp'd the Name of _Religion_, and _Morality_\nwas corrupted by _Men_ of _Beard_ and _Grimace_, but scandalously _Leud_\nand _Ignorant_; who yet had the Impudence to preach up _Virtue_, and style\nthemselves _Philosophers_, perpetually clashing with one another about the\nPrecedence of their several Founders, the Merits of their different Sects,\nand if 'tis possible, about Trifles of less Importance: yet all agreeing\nin a different way to dupe and amuse the poor People, by the _fantastick_\nSingularity of their Habits, the unintelligible Jargon of their Schools,\nand their Pretensions to a severe and mortify'd Life.\n\nThese Jugglers and Impostors _Lucian_ in great measure help'd to chase out\nof the World, by exposing them in their proper Colours, and by\nrepresenting them as ridiculous as they were. But in a few Generations\nafter him, a new Race of Men sprung up in the World, well known by the\nName of _Monks_ and _Fryars_, different indeed from the former in\nReligion, Garb, and a few other Circumstances; but in the main, the same\nsort of Impostors, the same ever-lasting Cobweb-Spinners, as to their\nnonsensical Controversies, the same abandon'd _Wretches_, as to their\nMorals; but as to the mysterious Arts of heaping up Wealth, and picking\nthe People's Pockets, infinitely superior to the _Pagan Philosophers_ and\n_Priests_. These were the sanctify'd Cheats, whose Folly and Vices\n_Erasmus_ has so effectually lash'd, that some Countries have entirely\nturn'd these Drones out of their Cells; and in other Places, where they\nare still kept up, they are in some measure become contemptible, and\nobliged to be always on their Guard.\n\nThe Papists say, that these \"[44]_Colloquies_, by turning into _Ridicule_\nthe Devotion to the holy Virgin and Saints, the Worship of Relicks and\nImages, religious Vows and Pilgrimages, have made more Hereticks than the\nWorks of _Luther_ and _Calvin_.\" And I find the reverend Mr. _Trapp_\n[after calling [45] _Reliques_, FOOLISH] celebrates _Erasmus_ for _having\nabundantly_ RIDICUL'D _them_.\n\nHis _Praise of Folly_ treats of _serious_ Matters, in such a gay,\nfamiliar, ingenious and pleasant manner, as makes it a Work proper to be\nread by intelligent People, to remove out of their Minds all Bigotry\ncontracted by Ignorance and an evil Education, all Peevishness, Hatred,\nand Ill-nature towards one another, on account of different Sentiments in\nReligion; and to form in them the natural Principles of Moderation,\nHumanity, Affection and Friendship. Our learned and ingenious Bishop\n_Kennet_ could not do a more signal Piece of Service to our Country, than\nby translating into _English_ this Book, which the Ladies have now an\nOpportunity of understanding no less than the Men; and from whence they\nmay see the pleasant, amiable, and just Disposition of Mind of one of the\nmost learned and ingenious Men that ever liv'd, as well as Author of a\ngreat Number of religious and devotional Books; nor could the Bishop well\ngive a heartier Stroke at Popery, than by approving of _Erasmus_'s [46]\n_laughing_ at it, and applauding his numberless _Taunts on its Impostures,\nCheats, and Delusions_.\n\nOur Clergy have ever treated Mr. _Hobbes_ with the greatest Mockery,\nRidicule and Raillery: As for example, _Ward_ Bishop of _Sarum_, _Brambal_\nBishop of _Derry_, _Parker_ Bishop of _Oxford_, Dr. _Wallis_ in his\nseveral bantering Treatises against him, _Lucy_ Bishop of _St. Davids,\nShafto_, and particularly the Reverend _Droll_, Dr. _Eachard_, in two\n_Dialogues_, which, it is well known, have been universally well receiv'd\nby the Clergy, and that for their Treatment of Mr. _Hobbes_ in the\nridiculing Way; for which the Author himself makes the following just\nApology, in his _Dedication_ of his _Second Dialogue_ to Archbishop\n_Sheldon_, \"That of all Triflers, 'tis the _Set_, the _Grave_, the\n_Philosophical_, and the _Mathematical Trifler_, to which he has the\ngreatest Aversion; whom when he meets, very gravely making out all Men to\nbe rational Beasts both in Nature and Conversation, and every Man, he\npleases, a rational Rebel; and upon any Fright or Pinch a rational Atheist\nand Anti-Christian; and all this perform'd with all DEMURENESS, SOLEMNITY,\nQUOTATION of SCRIPTURE, APPEALS to CONSCIENCE and CHURCH-HISTORY; he must\nhumbly beg his _Grace's_ Pardon, if then he has endeavour'd to SMILE a\nlittle, and to get as much out of his Road and way of Writing as\npossible.\" These _Dialogues_ used to be much recommended to the Youth to\nmake them laugh at Mr _Hobbes_, who was constantly represented as\nprovok'd and put out of all Temper by them, and was said to have vented\nthis strange and impious Expression, upon its being told him, that _the\nClergy said_ Eachard _had crucify'd_ Hobbes; \"Why then don't they fall\ndown and worship me?\"\n\nMr. _Selden_ has been the constant Subject of Clergy-banter, for his\n_History of Tythes_; in the _Preface_ to which, \"He reproaches the Clergy\nwith Ignorance and Laziness, and upbraids them with having nothing to keep\nup their Credit but _Beard_, _Title_, and _Habit_; and their Studies\nreach'd no farther than the _Breviary_, the _Postils_, and _Polyanthea_.\"\nFor this Work he was attack'd more particularly by three Divines,\n_Tillesly_, _Mountagu_, and _Nettles_. And their Success was thus\noriginally represented[47], \"That he was so gall'd by _Tillesly_, so\ngagg'd by _Mountagu_, and so stung by _Nettles_, that he never came off in\nany of his Undertakings with more loss of Credit.\" And this Jest has\npass'd much upon the World, and been continued down in many Books, where\nMr. _Selden_ is mention'd, to his Discredit with ignorant Readers, but not\nwith the Knowing and Learned; who, as Dr. _Wotton_ tells us[48], _have,\nnow Party-heats are over, acquiesced in what Mr._ Selden advanc'd; _who\nfirst_, OF ALL CHRISTIANS, _set the Affair_ of Tythes _in a clear Light_.\n\nIt is usually said the Comedy called _Ignoramus_, which is a Clergy-banter\nupon the _Law_, was a design'd Return for Mr. _Selden_'s _History of\nTythes_.\n\nThe Reverend Dr. _Beaumont_, late Master of St. _Peter_'s _College_ and\nKing's Professor of Divinity, has given us a Book, entitled, \"Some\nObservations upon the Apology of Dr. _Henry More_ for his _Mystery of\nGodliness_;\" which endeavours to render the said Doctor _ridiculous_, and\nset People a _laughing_ at him, (_p._ 9. _&c._ 64.) and used to be\napplauded as a complete Performance in the way of Raillery and Irony, and\nwas well receiv'd for being directed against a Person esteem'd Heterodox.\n\nMany Clergymen have written Books to banter the Works of Mr. _Locke_,\namong whom Dr. _Edwards_ must have the first Place; whose _Brief\nVindication of the fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith_, which has\nthe _Imprimatur_ before it of _James_, _Beaumont_, _Covel_, and\n_Balderston_, four _Cambridge_ Heads, was never exceeded by the most\nlicentious _Droll_.\n\nWhen _Sorbier_'s _Voyage_ to _England_, which was a pert and insolent\nAbuse and Satire on the Nation, and written in the _French_ manner of\ncontemptuously treating all Countries and Men but _France_ and\n_Frenchmen_, was publish'd, it was deem'd proper that a drolling and\nsatirical Answer should be given to it, and that the Reverend Dr. _Sprat_\nshould be the _Droll_ employ'd; who perform'd his Part according to the\nExpectation of the Drolling Court of King _Charles_ II. and as the\ningenious Mr. _Addison_ tells us, [49] _Vindicated the Honour of his\nCountry, in a Book full of Satire and Ingenuity_.\n\nBishop _Beveridge_ ever pass'd for a serious and profound Divine; and his\nWritings have fix'd that Character upon him among the Religious of the\nHigh Church, who have receiv'd his _Private Thoughts_ and his Volumes of\n_Sermons_, like _Manna_ from Heaven. And yet possibly never Man had two\nmore severe Attacks made upon him than he had; one by Bishop\n_Stillingfleet_, who in _A Vindication of their Majesties Authority to\nfill the Sees of the depriv'd Bishops_, &c. occasion'd by Dr.\n_Beveridge_'s Refusal of the Bishoprick of _Bath_ and _Wells_, satirizes\nboth his _Prudence_ and his _Sincerity_; and another, by an ingenious\nBishop also, who in _A short View of Dr._ Beveridge_'s Writings_, has in a\nmost refin'd _drolling manner_ represented those Writings as abounding in\nmost absurd and ridiculous Divinity.\n\nBut one of the justest and finest Pieces of _Irony_, and the most timely\nand seasonably vented, and that deserves perpetual Remembrance, is,\n_Andrews_ the grave Bishop of _Winchester_'s Irony, on _Neal_ the grave\nBishop of _Durham_; of which we have the following Relation in the Poet\n_Waller_'s _Life_, prefix'd before his Works: \"On the Day of the\nDissolution of the last Parliament of King _James_ the First, Mr.\n_Waller_, out of Curiosity or Respect, went to see the King at Dinner;\nwith whom were Dr. _Andrews_ the Bishop of _Winchester_, and Dr. _Neal_\nBishop of _Durham_, standing behind his Majesty's Chair. There happen'd\nsomething very extraordinary in the Conversation those Prelates had with\nthe King, on which Mr. _Waller_ did often reflect. His Majesty ask'd the\nBishops, _My Lords, cannot I take my Subjects Money when I want it,\nwithout all this Formality in Parliament?_ The Bishop of _Durham_ readily\nanswer'd, _God forbid, Sir, but you should; you are the Breath of our\nNostrils_. Whereupon the King turn'd and said to the Bishop of\n_Winchester_, _Well, my Lord, what say you? Sir_, replied the Bishop, _I\nhave no Skill to judge of Parliamentary Cases_. The King answer'd, _No\nPut-offs, my Lord; answer me presently. Then, Sir_, said he, _I think it\nis lawful for you to take my Brother_ Neal_'s_ _Money, for he offers it_.\nMr. _Waller_ said the Company was pleas'd with this Answer, and the Wit\nof it seem'd to affect the King.\" Which shews the exceeding Aptness and\nUsefulness of a good _Irony_; that can convey an Instruction to a vicious,\nevil, and tyrannical Prince, highly reflecting on his Conduct, without\ndrawing on his Resentment.\n\nTo these famous Divines I might add the most eminent and renowned\nPhilosophers of Antiquity, who, either out of a Contempt of Mankind, or to\ngratify their peculiar Tempers, or to correct the Vices and Follies of\nMen, and to instil virtuous Maxims in those who would only receive them in\nsome pleasant way, set up for good Humour, Mirth, and Drollery, as their\nstanding Method of Life, and of Conversation with the World; and have left\nbehind them some of their occasional Sayings upon record, which do more\nHonour to their Memories than the most elaborate Treatises would have\ndone, and more Good to Men; upon whom a Jest, or witty Saying, is more\nfitted to operate and make Impression than long Deductions and Reasonings,\nand particularly on Princes and great Men, who will receive no Instruction\nbut in some very artful and short Way: whereof even the rude _Diogenes_,\nthe _Cynick_, has given us a most incomparable Example, in his occasional\nConference with _Alexander the Great_, who was put into such Temper by the\nmere Freedom and Raillery of the Philosopher, as to take every thing in\ngood part he said to him, and consequently be dispos'd to reflect upon it,\nand to act with Discretion. At the Head of these Philosophers I place\nSOCRATES, who has very generally in all Ages pass'd for the _wisest_ of\n_Men_, and was declared so by an _Oracle_; which, at least, was therein\ndirected and influenc'd by some considerable human Authority, or by the\ncommon Sentiments of Men at that time. His Character I shall give you in\nthe words of the most ingenious _Addison_, who was himself a Master of\n_Humour_ and _Drollery_, and practis'd them in Perfection, and with great\nSuccess in almost all his Prose-writings. \"_Socrates_, says he[50], who\nwas the greatest Propagator of Morality in the Heathen World, and a Martyr\nfor the Unity of the Godhead, was so famous for the exercise of the Talent\n[of Raillery and Humour] among the politest People of Antiquity, that he\ngain'd the Name of THE DROLE.[51]\" A Character that intitled him to the\ngreatest Merit, as it most of all enabled him to promote Virtue.\n\nI might also offer to your Confederation the Affair of _Comedies_; which\nall polite Governments have permitted, or establish'd, in their several\npopulous and wealthy Cities, as the necessary and proper means to\nencounter Vice and recommend Virtue, and to employ innocently and usefully\nthe vacant Hours of many, who know not how to employ their Time, or would\nemploy it amiss, by entering into [52] Factions and Cabals to disturb the\nState; or by Gaming, or by backbiting Conversations about their\nNeighbours. And as _Comedies_, which were originally very gross, grew by\nUse more polite and refin'd in _Satire_ and _Raillery_: so the most\ncelebrated Wits and Statesmen, and Persons of the greatest Quality, have\nengag'd and join'd with others in them, and performed with the greatest\nSuccess and Reputation to themselves; and have been valu'd, not only for\ntheir Talents of _Irony_ and _Drollery_, which were essential to the\nCredit of such Performances; but applauded, as acting the virtuous Part of\n_Droles_.\n\nIn fine, Books of Satire, Wit, Humour, Ridicule, Drollery, and Irony, are\nthe most read and applauded of all Books, in all Ages, Languages, and\nCountries. And as those which are exquisite in their kinds, are the\nstanding Entertainment of the Ingenious and Learned; so others, of a lower\nkind, are to be found among the lower Readers, who sleep under all Works\nwhich do not make them merry.\n\nIn a word, the Opinions and Practices of Men in all Matters, and\nespecially in Matters of Religion, are generally so absurd and ridiculous\nthat it is impossible for them not to be the Subjects of Ridicule.\n\nFor what else can be expected from Men who generally take up their\nOpinions without any Inquiry into their Reasonableness or Truth, and upon\nthe most incompetent Grounds? I cannot be supposed to injure Mankind, if I\nconsider them under the Character which the very ingenious Sir _Richard\nSteele_ gives of himself; who _acknowledges_ [53] that (even while he took\nupon himself the Title of the _Censor_ of _Great Britain_, and in so many\nfine Papers corrects his Countrymen, and particularly _the Freethinkers_,\nwhom he directs the Magistrate to punish with Death) _it had been with\nhim, as it is with too many others, that a [53] sort of an_ implicit\nReligion _seem'd the most easy and most comfortable; and that a blind\nVeneration for_ he knew not what, _and he_ knew not whom, _stood for every\nthing important_. And he _confesses_ he _was not enough aware, that this\nImplicitness of Conduct is the great Engine of Popery, fram'd for the\nDestruction of_ good Nature, _as well as_ good Sense. If so great a Man\ncould take up with such a Method, and act the Part of a _Censor_ and\nDirector of others, in a Matter which he had not at all consider'd, what\ncan be expected else from others, but absurd and ridiculous Opinions and\nPractices?\n\nAnd if some Men will fall into absurd and ridiculous Opinions, Habits,\nForms, Figures and Grimaces; there will be those who will _laugh_, nay,\ncannot help _laughing_ at them. Hence most Parties laugh at one another,\nwithout the least Scruple, and with great Applause of their own Parties;\nand the Leaders of the same Party laugh with one another, when they\nconsider the absurd and ridiculous Opinions they profess, and how they\ncheat and govern their Followers; agreeably to what _Cicero_ reports of\n_Cato_[54], \"_Vetus autem illud_ Catonis _admodum scitum est, qui_ mirari\nse _aiebat, quod non rideret haruspex cum haruspicem vidisset_.\"\n\nI think it may be justly suppos'd, that Pope _Alexander_ and _Thomas\nBecket_ could not but laugh together at the Simplicity and Weakness of\ntheir Followers, the Papists, who receiv'd for truth the following Story.\nIt was told as a Fact[55], \"that when _Thomas Becket_, who never drank any\nthing but Water, sat at Table with _Pope Alexander_, and that his Holiness\nwould needs taste of his Cup; lest his abstemiousness should be known, God\nturn'd the Water into Wine: so that the _Pope_ found nothing but Wine in\nthe Cup. But when _Becket_ pledg'd him, it was turn'd into Water again.\"\n\n_Laughing_ therefore, and _Ridicule_ in _serious Matters_, go round the\nWorld with no inconsiderable Applause, and seem highly proper for this\nWorld of Nonsense and Folly. To hinder _laughing_ upon such just Occasions\nas are given, is almost all one as to hinder _breathing_. A very witty,\ndrolling, Dramatick Poet, and of the first Rank for Quality, says in a\n_Prologue_ to his Auditors.\n\n  \"_Suppose now, at this Instant, one of you_\n  \"_Were tickled by a Fool, what would you do?_\n  \"_'Tis ten to one you'd_ laugh: _here's just the Case._\n  \"_For there are Fools that tickle with their Face._\n  \"_Your gay Fool tickles with his Dress and Motions;_\n  \"_But your_ grave Fool _of_ Fools _with_ silly Notions.\n  \"_Is it not then unjust that Fops should still_\n  \"_Force one to_ laugh, _and then take laughing ill?_\n\n\nII. _Secondly_, If it be a Fault in those reverend Divines, mention'd in\nthe foregoing Article, to use _Irony_, _Drollery_, _Ridicule_, and\n_Satire_, in any Case; or if the Fault lies in an exorbitant Use thereof,\nor in any particular Species of _Drollery_; as, for example, such\n_Drollery_ as is to be found in the polemical Writings and Sermons of Dr.\n_South_; it is fit some Remedy should be employ'd for the Cure of this\nEvil. And the Remedy I would propose, should not be to have the Authors\npunish'd by the Magistrate, any more than for any other Faults in writing;\nbut either to neglect and despise it, as Rage and Scolding, which drop\ninto Oblivion with the Sound, and would have a Life given it by\nResentment: or to allow Men to _criticize_ and _ridicule_ one another for\ntheir _Ironies_ and _Drollery_, and to exercise their Wit and Parts\nagainst each other; that being the true Method to bring Things to a\nStandard, to fix the Decency and Propriety of Writing, to teach Men how to\nwrite to the Satisfaction of the ingenious, polite, and sensible Part of\nMankind: for Decency and Propriety will stand the Test of Ridicule, and\ntriumph over all the false Pretences to Wit; and Indecency and\nImpropriety will sink under the Trial of Ridicule, as being capable of\nbeing baffled by Reason, and justly ridicul'd. And if any kind or degree\nof _Ridicule_ be absurd or _ridiculous_, that will appear so upon Trial,\nno less than the low and gross _Ridicule_ prevalent among the unpolite\nPart of the World: But that will never appear. On the contrary, _Ridicule_\nof certain kinds, and under reasonable Directions and Rules, and used in\nproper Time, Place, and Manner, (all which also are only to be found out\nand fix'd by Trial and Experience) is both a proper and necessary Method\nof Discourse in many Cases, and especially in the Case of _Gravity_, when\nthat is attended with Hypocrisy or Imposture, or with Ignorance, or with\nsoureness of Temper and Persecution; all which ought to draw after them\nthe _Ridicule_ and _Contempt_ of the Society, which has no other effectual\nRemedy against such Methods of Imposition. And to determine in some\nmeasure the Nature and Extent of the _Irony_ I contend for, as _Just_, I\nprofess to approve the noble _Sarcasm_ of _Elijah_[56]; wherein he thus\nmocks the _Priests_ of _Baal_, saying in effect to them, \"_Cry aloud, for_\nyour _Baal_ is a fine God: _He is either talking, or he is pursuing, or he\nis in a Journey; or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked_.\" And I\nconcur with the _Psalmist_[57], who thought it no Indecency to say, that\n_he that sits in Heaven shall laugh them_ (that is, certain Kings, who\nwere _David_'s Enemies) _to scorn; the Lord shall have them in Derision_:\nand must judge, that _laughing to scorn_, and _deriding_ the greatest Men\nupon Earth, even Kings and Princes, to be a laudable and divine Method of\ndealing with them, who are only to be taught or rebuk'd in some artful\nway. I also approve of the following _Sarcasm_ or _Irony_, which has a\nbetter Authority for it than _Elijah_ or the _Psalmist_. _Moses_\nintroduces God speaking thus after the Fall[58], _Behold the Man is become\nlike one of us, to know Good and Evil!_ And I think this Passage shews,\nthat the whole Affair of the _Fall_, of which we have so very brief an\nAccount, was a very entertaining Scene; and would have appear'd so, if set\nforth at large; as indeed it does under the Hands of our Divines, who have\nsupplied that short Narration by various Additions, founded on\nConjectures, and particularly under the fine Hand of Dr. _Tho. Burnet_,\nwho has made a most ingenious Dialogue of what he suppos'd pass'd between\n_Eve_ and the _Serpent_[59]. To say nothing of _Milton_'s famous _Paradise\nLost_.\n\nIn fine, ever since I could read the _Bible_, I was particularly pleas'd\nwith the _History_ of _Jonas_, where such a Representation is made of that\n_Prophet_'s Ignorance, Folly, and Peevishness, as exposes him to the\nutmost Contempt and Scorn, and fixes a perpetual _Ridicule_ on his\nCharacter. And let me here observe, that this _History_ has had ample\nJustice done it, in an Explication thereof by _two_ [60] very ingenious\nAuthors, who, by most penetrating and happy Criticisms and Reflections,\nhave drawn the Character of _Jonas_ in a more open manner.\n\n\nIII. But, _Thirdly_, I wave my _Remedy_, and am ready to come into any Law\nthat shall be made to rectify this suppos'd Fault of _Irony_, by punishing\nthose who are guilty of it.\n\nThe great Concern is and ought to be, that _the Liberty of examining into\nthe Truth of Things should be kept up_, that Men may have some Sense and\nKnowledge, and not be the _Dupes_ of _Cheats_ and _Impostors_, or of those\nwho would keep them in the dark, and let them receive nothing but thro'\ntheir Hands. If that be secur'd to us by Authority, I, for my part, am\nvery ready to sacrifice the Privilege of _Irony_, tho so much in fashion\namong all Men; being persuaded, that a great Part of the _Irony_\ncomplain'd of, has its rise from the _want of Liberty to examine into the\nTruth of Things_; and that if that _Liberty_ was prevalent, it would,\nwithout a Law, prevent all that _Irony_ which Men are driven into for want\nof Liberty to speak plainly, and to protect themselves from the Attacks of\nthose who would take the Advantage to ruin them for direct Assertions; and\nthat such Authors as _Rabelais_, _Saint Aldegonde_, _Blount_, _Marvel_,\n_Thekeringil_, and many others, would never have run into that Excess of\n_Burlesque_, for which they are all so famous, had not the Restraint from\nwriting _seriously_ been so great.\n\n\"If [61] Men are forbid to speak their Minds _seriously_ on certain\nSubjects, they will do it _ironically_. If they are forbid at all upon\nsuch Subjects, or if they find it dangerous to do so, they will then\nredouble their Disguise, involve themselves in mysteriousness, and talk so\nas hardly to be understood, or at least not plainly interpreted by those\nwho are dispos'd to do them a Mischief. And thus _Raillery_ is brought\nmore in fashion, and runs into an Extreme. 'Tis the persecuting Spirit has\nrais'd the _bantering_ one: And want of Liberty may account for want of a\ntrue Politeness, and for the Corruption or wrong Use of Pleasantry and\nHumour.\n\n\"If in this respect we strain the just Measure of what we call _Urbanity_,\nand are apt sometimes to take a buffooning rustick Air, we may thank the\nridiculous Solemnity and sour Humour of our _Pedagogues_: or rather they\nmay thank themselves, if they in particular meet with the heaviest of this\nkind of Treatment. For it will naturally fall heaviest, where the\nConstraint has been the severest. The greater the Weight is, the bitterer\nwill be the Satire. The higher the Slavery, the more exquisite the\nBuffoonery.\n\n\"That this is really so, may appear by looking on those Countries where\nthe spiritual Tyranny is highest. For the greatest of _Buffoons_ are the\n_Italians_: and in their Writings, in their freer sort of Conversations,\non their Theatres, and in their _Streets_, _Buffoonery_ and _Burlesque_\nare in the highest Vogue. 'Tis the only manner in which the poor cramp'd\nWretches can discharge a free Thought. We must yield to 'em the\nSuperiority in this sort of Wit. For what wonder is it if we, who have\nmore Liberty, have less Dexterity in that egregious way of _Raillery_ and\n_Ridicule_?\"\n\nLiberty of _grave_ Examination being fix'd by Law, I am, I say, ready to\nsacrifice the Privilege of _Irony_, and yield to have a Law enacted to\nprevent it. I am, moreover, willing to leave the drawing up such a Law to\nyour self; who honestly and impartially say[62], that all who _droll_, let\nthem be of any Party, let them _droll for the Truth or against it_, should\nbe equally punish'd.\n\nThus this grand Affair of _Irony_, _Banter_, and _Ridicule_; this last\npersecuting Pretence, upon which you would set the Humours and Passions of\nPeople, who are all at quiet, on float, and make a Fermentation, and\nraise a Persecution against particular People, seems perfectly settled, by\nyielding to your own Terms.\n\n\nIV. Let me here add, that I am apt to think, that when you draw up your\nLaw, you will find it so very difficult to settle the Point of _Decency_\nin Writing, in respect to all the various kinds of _Irony_ and _Ridicule_,\nthat you will be ready to lay aside your Project; and that you will be no\nmore able to settle that _Point of Decency_, than you would be to settle\nby Law, that _Cleanliness_ in Clothes, and that Politeness in Dress,\nBehaviour, and Conversation, which become Men of Quality and Fortune in\nthe World, and should be habitual to them: And that, if you are able to do\nthat to your own Satisfaction, you will find it very difficult to engage\nthe Lawmakers in your Project. For I am persuaded, that if our Lawmakers\nwere, out of a rational Principle, disposed to give Liberty by Law to\n_serious_ Opposition to publickly receiv'd Notions, they would not think\nit of much Importance to make a _Law_ about a Method of _Irony_. They will\nnaturally conclude, that if Men may and ought to be allow'd to write\n_seriously_ in Opposition to publickly receiv'd Doctrines, they should be\nallow'd to write in their own way; and will be unwilling to be depriv'd of\ningenious and witty Discourses, or such as some of them will judge so,\nabout a Subject wherein _serious free_ Discourse is allow'd. Besides, I am\napt to think, that you, upon consideration of the Advantages which the\nChurch has receiv'd from the _Berkenheads_, the _Heylins_, the _Ryves's_,\nthe _Needhams_, the _Lestranges_, the _Nalsons_, the _Lesleys_, the\n_Oldesworths_, and others, in their _Mercurius Aulicus_'s, their\n_Mercurius Pragmaticus's_, their _Mercurius Rusticus's_, their\n_Observators_[63], their _Heraclitus Ridens_'s, _Rehearsals_, their\n_Examiners_[64], and the three Volumes against the _Rights of the Church_;\nfrom the _Butlers_ in their _Hudibras_'s, and other Burlesque Works upon\nthe Religion and Religious Conduct of the Dissenters; or from the\n_Eachards_, the _Tom Browns_, and _Swifts_; or from the _Parkers_[65],\n_Patricks_[66], _Souths_[67], _Sherlocks_[68], _Atterburys_[69], and\n_Sacheverels_[70]; in their Discourses, and Tracts against the\nNonconformists, Whigs, Low-Church-men, and Latitudinarians; and other such\nironical, satirical, and polemical Divines; and from such _drolling_\nJudges as _Howel_, _Recorder_ of London, and the Chief Justice _Jefferys_,\nwho, in all Causes, where _Whigs_ or Dissenters were the Persons accus'd\nand try'd before them, carried on the Trial by a [71] Train of ridicule on\nthem, their Witnesses and Counsel: I say, I am apt to think, that you\nwould be unwilling to be depriv'd of what has been and may be again so\nserviceable.\n\nI am dispos'd to think that Dr. _Snape_, who is notoriously known to have\ngone into the greatest Lengths of Calumny and Satire against Bishop\n_Hoadley_[72], to have fall'n upon the dissenting Clergy in a burlesque\nand bantering Address to the _Peirces_, the _Calamys_, and the\n_Bradburys_, and to have written a long _ironical Letter_ in the Name of\nthe _Jesuits_ to Mr. _de la Pilloniere_[73], will be thought a very\nimproper Object of Censure for such Employment of his Pen. On the\ncontrary, such sort of Attacks upon such Persons are the most meritorious\nParts of a Man's Life, recommend him as a Person of true and sincere\nReligion, much more than the strongest Reasoning, and the most regular\nLife; and pave the way to all the Riches, and Pleasures and Advantages or\nLife; not only among those, who, under the Colour of Religion, are\ncarrying on a common _Corporation Cause_ of Wealth, Power, and Authority,\nbut among many well-meaning People, who allow of all Practices, which they\nsuppose help out the _Truth_! It seems to me a most prodigious Banter upon\nus, for Men to talk in general of the _Immorality_ of _Ridicule_ and\n_Irony_, and of _punishing_ Men for those Matters, when their own Practice\nis _universal Irony_ and _Ridicule_ of all those who go not with them, and\n_universal Applause_ and _Encouragement_ for such _Ridicule_ and _Irony_,\nand distinguishing by all the honourable ways imaginable such _drolling_\nAuthors for their Drollery; and when Punishment for _Drollery_ is never\ncall'd for, but when _Drollery_ is used or employ'd against them!\n\nI don't know whether you would be willing, if you consider of it, to limit\nthe Stage it self, which has with great Applause and Success, from Queen\n_Elizabeth_'s Time downwards, ridicul'd the serious _Puritans_ and\n_Dissenters_, and that without any Complaints from _good Churchmen_, that\n_serious_ Persons and Things were _banter'd_ and _droll'd_ upon; and has\ntriumph'd over its fanatical Adversaries in the Person of _Pryn_, who\nsufficiently suffer'd for his _Histrio-Mastix_, and has been approv'd of\nas an innocent Diversion by the religious Dr. _Patrick_ in his _Friendly\nDebate_, in the Reign of King _Charles_ II. when the Stage was in a very\nimmoral State. I don't know whether you would be willing even to restrain\n_Bartholomew Fair_, where the Sect of the _New Prophets_ was the Subject\nof a _Droll_ or _Puppet-Show_, to the great Satisfaction of the Auditors,\nwho, it may be presum'd, were all good Churchmen, _Puritans_ and\n_Dissenters_ usually declining such Entertainments out of _real_ or\n_pretended_ Seriousness. (\"A certain Clergyman thought fit to remark, that\nKing _William_ could be no good Churchman, because of his not frequenting\nthe _Play-House_.\"[74])\n\n\nV. It will probably be a Motive with you to be against abolishing\n_Drollery_, when you reflect that the Men of _Irony_, the _Droles_ and\n_Satirists_, have been and always will be very numerous on your side,\nwhere they have been and are so much incourag'd for acting that Part, and\nthat they have always been and always will be very few on the side of\n_Heterodoxy_; a Cause wherein an Author by engaging, may hurt his\nReputation and Fortune, and can propose nothing to himself but Poverty and\nDisgrace. I doubt whether you would be for punishing your Friend Dr.\n_Rogers_, from whom I just now quoted an _Irony_ on the Author of _The\nScheme of Literal Prophecy consider'd_, or any one else, for _laughing_ at\nand making sport with him; or whether you would be for punishing the\nReverend Mr. _Trapp_, who implies the _Justness_ and _Propriety of\nridiculing Popery_; when he says[75], that _Popery is so foolish and\nabsurd, that every body of common Sense must_ LAUGH _at it_; and when he\nrefers to _Erasmus_ for having _abundantly_ RIDICUL'D their _Reliques_;\nand himself puts _Ridicule_ in Practice against them, by representing\ntheir Doctrines and Practices as _ridiculously foolish_, as _despicably\nchildish_, and _Matter of mere Scorn_; as _monstrous_; as _Spells_,\n_juggling Tricks_, _gross Cheats_, _Impostures_[76], and _wretched\nShifts_; and in fine, in representing by way of _Specimen_, all their\n_Miracles_ as _Legends_; of which he says, _These and a thousand more such\nlike unreasonable Lies, which a Child of common Sense would laugh at, are\nimpos'd upon and swallow'd by the ignorant People, and make a_ VERY GREAT\n_Part of the Popish Religion._\n\nAnd this, in concurrence with Mr. _Trapp_, I also take to be the Case of\nPopery, that it must make Men _laugh_; and that it is much easier to be\ngravely disposed in reading a _Stage-Comedy_ or _Farce_, than in\nconsidering and reflecting on the _Comedy_ and _Farce_ of _Popery_; than\nwhich, Wit and Folly, and Madness in conjunction, cannot invent or make a\nthing more ridiculous, according to that Light in which I see their\nDoctrines, Ceremonies and Worship, the Histories and Legends of their\nSaints, and the pretended Miracles wrought in their Church; which has\nhardly any thing _serious_ in it but its Persecutions, its Murders, its\nMassacres; all employ'd against the most innocent and virtuous, and the\nmost sensible and learned Men, because they will not be _Tools_ to support\nVillany and Ignorance.\n\n\"Transubstantiation, says _Tillotson_[77], is not a Controversy of\nScripture against Scripture, or of Reason against Reason, but of downright\nImpudence against the plain meaning of Scripture, and all the Sense and\nReason of Mankind.\" And accordingly he scruples not to say, in a most\n_drolling_ manner, that \"Transubstantiation is one of the chief of the\n_Roman_ Church's _legerdemain_ and _juggling Tricks_ of Falshood and\nImposture; and that in all Probability those common juggling Words of\n_Hocus-pocus_, are nothing else but a Corruption of _hoc est corpus_, by\nway of ridiculous Imitation of the Church of _Rome_ in their _Trick_ of\n_Transubstantiation_.\" And as he _archly_ makes the Introduction of this\nmonstrous Piece of _grave Nonsense_ to be owing to its being at first\npreach'd by its Promoters with _convenient Gravity and Solemnity_[78],\nwhich is the common Method of imposing Absurdities on the World; so I\nthink that Doctrine taught with such _convenient Gravity and Solemnity_\nshould necessarily produce _Levity, Laughter and Ridicule_, in all\nintelligent People to whom it is propos'd, who must _smile_, if they can\nwith safety, to see such Stuff vented with a grave Face.\n\nIn like manner many other Divines treat and laugh at _Popery_. Even the\nsolemn and grave Dr. _Whitby_ has written a Book against\n_Transubstantiation_, under the Title of \"Irrisio Dei Panarii, _The\nDerision of the Breaden God_,\" in Imitation of the primitive Fathers, who\nhave written _Derisions_ and _Mockeries_ of the _Pagan_ Religion.\n\nAnd he takes the Materials whereof this drolling Performance of his\nconsists, from the _holy Scriptures_, the _Apocryphal Books_, and\n_Writings_ of the _holy Fathers_, as he tells us in his Title-Page; three\ninexhaustible Sources of Wit and Irony against the Corrupters of true and\ngenuine Religion. In like manner he turns upon the Popish Clergy the\nseveral Arguments urg'd by the _Jewish_ Clergy in the _New Testament_, for\nthe Authority of the _Jewish_ Church; and answers, under that _Irony_, all\nthat the Popish Clergy offer in behalf of the _Authority_ of their\n_Church_, in a _Sermon_ at the End of his _Annotations_ on St. _John_'s\n_Gospel_.\n\nNor do our Divines confine their _Derisions_, _Ridicule_ and _Irony_\nagainst _Popery_ to their Treatises and Discourses, but fill their\n_Sermons_, and especially their _Sermons_ on the _Fifth_ of _November_,\nand other political _Days_, with infinite Reflections of that Kind. Of\nthese _Reflections_ a Popish Author publish'd a _Specimen_, in a Book\nintitled[79], _Good Advice to Pulpits_, in order to shame the Church out\nof their Method of _drolling_ and _laughing_ [80] at _Popery_. But this\nBook had no other effect, than to produce a _Defence_ of those _Sermons_\nunder the Title of _Pulpit Popery true Popery_, vindicating the several\n_Droll_ Representations made of _Popery_ in those _Sermons_.\n\nOf these _drolling_ Reflections cited by the Popish Author out of our\nChurch of _England Sermons_, take these following for a Specimen of what\nare to be met with in those _Sermons_[81].\n\n\"Pilgrimages, going Bare-foot, Hair-shirts, and Whips, with other such\nGospel-artillery, are their only Helps to Devotion.----It seems that with\nthem a Man sometimes cannot be a Penitent, unless he also turns Vagabond,\nand foots it to _Jerusalem_.----He that thinks to expiate a Sin by going\nbare-foot, does the Penance of a Goose, and only makes one Folly the\nAtonement of another. _Paul_ indeed was scourg'd and beaten by the _Jews_;\nbut we never read that he beat or scourg'd himself; and if they think his\nkeeping under his Body imports so much, they must first prove that the\nBody cannot be kept under by a virtuous Mind, and that the Mind cannot be\nmade virtuous but by a Scourge; and consequently, that Thongs and Whipcord\nare Means of Grace, and Things necessary to Salvation. The truth is, if\nMens Religion lies no deeper than their Skin, it is possible they may\nscourge themselves into very great Improvements.----But they will find\nthat bodily Exercise touches not the Soul; and consequently that in this\nwhole Course they are like Men out of the way: let them flash on never so\nfast, they are not at all nearer their Journey's-end: And howsoever they\ndeceive themselves and others, they may as well expect to bring a Cart, as\na Soul, to Heaven.\n\n\"What say you to the Popish Doctrine of the _Sacrifice of the\nMass_.----According to this Doctrine, our blessed Saviour must still, to\nthe end of the World, be laid hold on by Sinners, be ground with their\nTeeth, and sent down into their impure Paunches, as often as the Priest\nshall pronounce this Charm, _hoc est corpus meum_: and it seems that he\nwas a false Prophet, when he said upon the Cross, _It is finish'd_, seeing\nthere was such an infinite deal of _loathsom Drudgery_ still to be\nundergone.\n\n\"For _Purgatory_, 'tis not material in it self, whether it be, or where it\nbe, no more than the World in the Moon; but so long as that false Fire\nserves to maintain a true one, and his Holiness's Kitchen smokes with the\nRents he receives for releasing Souls from thence, which never came there,\nit concerns him and his to see to it, that it be not suffer'd to go out.\"\n\nAn ingenious Author, Sir _Richard Steel_, has of late made a _Dedication_\nto his _Holiness_ the _Pope_ himself, before a Book entitled, _An Account\nof the State of the Roman Catholick Religion throughout the World_, &c. In\nwhich _Dedication_, that most exalted Clergyman the _Pope_, that\n[suppos'd] infallible Dictator in Religion, and most grave Person; who, if\n_serious_ Matters and Persons were always to be treated _seriously_, may\nvie with any other Mortal for a Right to _serious_ Treatment; is expos'd\nby incomparable _Drollery_ and _Irony_ to the utmost Contempt, to the\nuniversal Satisfaction of Protestant Readers, who have been pleas'd to see\na gross Impostor, however respected and ador'd by godly and serious\nPapists, so treated.\n\n\nVI. In fine, it is suited to the common Practice of this Nation to\nridicule _Popery_ as well as _Nonconformity_; and tho several _grave_\nBooks, written among us against Popery, in the Reign of King _James_ II.\n(of which yet the _Romish_ Priests complain'd, as treating the King's [82]\n_Religion_ with Contempt) were then very well receiv'd and applauded for\nLearning and strength of Arguing; yet, I believe, it may with more\nPropriety be said, that King _James_ II. and _Popery_ were [83] _laugh'd_\nor _Lilli-bullero'd_, than that they were _argu'd_ out of the Kingdom.\n\nThe reading the _King's Declaration of Indulgence_ in Churches 1688, had\nthis fatal _Jest_ put upon it by a reverend Divine, \"Who pleasantly told\nhis People, _That tho he was obliged to read it, they were not obliged to\nhear it_[84]; and stop'd till they all went out, and then he read it to\nthe Walls.\" To which may be added, the famous Mr. _Wallop_'s excellent\nComparison of that _Declaration_ upon the Instant of its Publication, to\n_the scaffolding of St._ Paul_'s Church; which, as soon as the Building\nwas finish'd, would be pull'd down_.\n\nBishop _Burnet_ celebrates, with the greatest Justness, our Taste, and\nindeed the Taste of the World in this Respect, when he relates how\n_Popery_ was then used among us; and he recites some of the _Jests_ which\npassed and were received with universal Applause. He tells us[85], \"The\nCourt was now (that is, in 1686,) much set on making Converts, which\nfail'd in most Instances, and produc'd _Repartees_; that whether true or\nfalse, were much repeated, and were heard with great Satisfaction. The\nEarl of _Mulgrave_ (since Duke of _Buckinghamshire_) was Lord Chamberlain;\nhe was apt to comply in every thing that he thought might be acceptable,\nfor he went with the King to Mass, and kneeled at it; and being look'd on\nas indifferent to all Religions, the Priests made an Attack upon him: He\nheard them _gravely_ arguing for _Transubstantiation_. He told them he was\nwilling to receive Instruction; he had taken much Pains to bring himself\nto believe in God, who made the World and all Men in it: But it must not\nbe an ordinary Force of Argument that could make him believe that Man was\nquits with God, and made God again. The Earl of _Middleton_ had marry'd\ninto a Popish Family, and was a Man of great Parts and a generous Temper,\nbut of loose Principles in Religion; so a Priest was sent to instruct him.\nHe began with _Transubstantiation_, of which he said he would convince him\nimmediately: And began thus, You believe the _Trinity_. _Middleton_ stop'd\nhim, and said, who told you so? At which he seem'd amazed. So the Earl\nsaid, he expected he should convince him of his Belief, but not question\nhim of his own: With this the Priest was so disorder'd, that he could\nproceed no farther. One Day the King gave the Duke of _Norfolk_ the Sword\nof State to carry before him to the Chappel, and he stood at the Door.\nUpon which the King said to him, My Lord, your Father would have gone\nfarther. To which the Duke answer'd, Your Majesty's Father was the better\nMan, and he would not have gone so far. _Kirk_ was also spoken to, to\nchange his Religion, and he reply'd briskly, that he was already\npre-engag'd, for _he had promised the King of_ Morocco, _that if ever he\nchang'd his Religion he would turn_ Mahometan.\" When K. _James_ sent an\n_Irish_ Priest to convert the D. of _Bucks_ [_Villers_] the said Duke\nentertain'd the Priest with a Bottle, and engag'd him in a _Dialogue_,\nwhich the Duke afterwards caus'd to be printed, to the no small\nMortification of all Papists, who were therein exceedingly ridicul'd, and\nto the Triumph of all good Churchmen, who are never better pleas'd, than\nwhen they have the _Laugh_ on their side.\n\nAt this time also were publish'd two merry Books, by a couple of our\nDivines, with express View to make Protestants laugh at _Popery_, as at a\n_Farce_; and they were, _The School of the Eucharist_, wherein is a\nCollection of ridiculous _Miracles_, pretended to be wrought to support\nthe Truth of _Transubstantiation_, and _Purgatory prov'd by Miracles_.\n\nI must not omit another incomparable Piece of Wit and Raillery against\n_Popery_, publish'd at that time. It seems the famous Poet, _Dryden_,\nthought fit to declare himself a _Roman Catholick_; and had, as 'tis said,\na _Penance_ injoyn'd him by his Confessor, for having formerly written\n_The Spanish Fryar_, of composing some _Treatise_ in a _poetical way_ for\n_Popery_, and against the _Reformation_. This he executed in a _Poem_,\nintituled, _The Hind and Panther_; which, setting aside the Absurdity of\nthe Matters therein asserted, and of the several Arguments to maintain\nthem, is, in other Respects, one of the most mean Compositions that ever\nthe Press produc'd. Was it proper to pass over in silence such a Work,\nfrom whence probably the Popish Party expected great Matters, as knowing\nthe Efficacy of Poetry, and being Witnesses of the Success the Author had\nhad in his _Absalom_ and _Achitophel_ against the _Whigs_? Was it proper\nto write _seriously_ and _gravely_ against a Book, wherein the Author\nevery where aims at Wit, Irony, and Burlesque, and does himself make so\nridiculous a Figure, as to be a standing Jest throughout the whole? Was\nnot the Convert himself, as such, a _Jest_, or as professing any Religion,\na _Jest_; who argu'd for Pay, and spoke as he was brib'd, and would have\nprofess'd any Opinions, as is the Mode and Practice of the World, to which\nSalary and Preferments are annexed? Some ingenious Persons of the Times\ntook a better Method, and agreeably to the Temper and Disposition of our\nCountrymen, and to the nature of _Dryden_'s Attack, and his interested\nWriting for Religion, made a Return in a Paper intituled, _The Hind and\nPanther transvers'd to the Story of the Country-Mouse and City-Mouse_: Out\nof which, for a Specimen of _just Irony_, and _fine Raillery_, I will give\nyou the following Passage.\n\n  \"_Sirrah, says_ Brindle, _thou hast brought us_ Wine,\n  \"_Sour to my Taste, and to my Eyes unfine._\n  \"_Says_ Will, _All Gentlemen like it. Ah! says_ White,\n  \"_What is approved by them must needs be right._\n  \"_'Tis true, I thought it bad, but if the_ House\n  \"_Commend it, I submit, a_ private Mouse.\n  \"_Nor to their Catholick Consent oppose_\n  \"_My erring Judgment and reforming Nose._\n  \"[86]_Why, what a Devil, shan't I trust my Eyes,_\n  \"_Must I drink Stum, because the Rascal lies,_\n  \"_And palms upon us_ Catholick _Consent,_\n  \"_To give_ sophisticated Brewings _Vent?_\n  \"_Says_ White, _what antient Evidence can sway,_\n  \"_If you must argue thus and not obey?_\n  \"Drawers _must be trusted, thro' whose hands convey'd_\n  \"_You take the Liquor, or you spoil the Trade._\n  \"_For sure those honest_ Fellows _have no Knack_\n  \"_Of putting off stum'd Claret for_ Pontack.\n  \"_How long alas! would the poor Vintner last,_      }\n  \"_If all that drink must_ judge, _and every Guest_  }\n  \"_Be allow'd to have an understanding_ Taste?       }\n\n\nVII. I question whether High-Church would be willing to have the reverend\nAuthor of the _Tale of a Tub_, one of the greatest _Droles_ that ever\nappear'd upon the Stage of the World, punish'd for that or any other of\nhis _drolling_ Works: For tho religious Matters, and all the various Forms\nof Christianity have therein a considerable Share of _Ridicule_; yet in\nregard of his _Drollery_ upon the _Whigs_, _Dissenters_, and the _War_\nwith _France_ (things of as _serious_ and weighty Consideration, and as\nmuch affecting the Peace of Society, as _Justification_ by _Faith only_,\n_Predestination_, _Transubstantiation_, or _Constansubstantiation_, or\n_Questions_ about _religious Ceremonies_, or any such interested Matters)\nthe _Convocation_ in their famous _Representation_ of the _Profaneness_\nand _Blasphemy_ of the Nation, took no notice of his _drolling_ on\nChristianity: And his Usefulness in _Drollery_ and _Ridicule_ was deem'd\nsufficient by the _Pious_ Queen _Anne_, and her _pious Ministry_, to\nintitle him to a Church Preferment of several hundred Pounds _per Ann._\n[87] which she bestow'd upon him, notwithstanding a _fanatick\nHigh-Churchman_, who weakly thought _Seriousness_ in Religion of more use\nto High-Church than _Drollery_, and attempted to hinder his Promotion, by\nrepresenting to her Majesty, \"What a Scandal it would be both to Church\nand State to bestow Preferment upon a Clergyman, who was hardly suspected\nof being a Christian.\" Besides, High-Church receives daily most signal\nServices from his drolling Capacity, which has of late exerted itself on\nthe Jacobite Stage of _Mist_'s and _Fogg_'s Journal, and in other little\nPapers publish'd in _Ireland_; in which he endeavours to expose the\npresent Administration of publick Affairs to contempt, to inflame the\n_Irish_ Nation against the _English_, and to make them throw off all\nSubjection to the _English_ Government, to satirize Bishop _Burnet_ and\nother _Whig_ Bishops; and, in fine, to pave the way for a new or Popish\nRevolution, as far as choosing the most proper Topicks of Invective, and\ntreating of them in the way of _Drollery_, can do.\n\n\nVIII. It is well known, that Gravity, Preciseness, Solemnity, Sourness,\nformal Dress and Behaviour, Sobriety of Manners, keeping at a distance\nfrom the common Pastimes of the World, Aversion to Rites and Ceremonies in\nthe publick Worship, and to Pictures, Images, and Musick in Churches;\nmixing Religion in common Conversion, using long Graces, practising\nFamily-Worship, part of which was praying _ex tempore_; setting up and\nhearing Lectures, and a strict Observation of the Lord's Day, which was\ncall'd the _Sabbath_, were the Parts of the Character of a _Puritan_; who,\nit is to be observ'd, usually had the Imputation of Hypocrisy for his\ngreat and extraordinary Pretences to Religion: He was also a great Opposer\nof the Court-Measures in the Reign of King _James_ and King _Charles_ I.\nand most zealous for Law, Liberty, and Property, when those two Princes\nset up for raising Money by their own Authority, and in consequence\nthereof, fell into numerous other Acts of Violence and Injustice. It is\nalso well known, that to quell these Puritans, and lessen their Credit,\nand baffle all their Pretences, Gaiety, Mirth, Pastimes or Sports, were\nincourag'd and requir'd on _Sundays_ of the People, that Churches were\nrender'd gay, theatrical, and pleasant by the Decorations, Paintings,\nMusick, and Ceremonies therein perform'd[88]; and that the utmost Ridicule\nwas employ'd against some of them, as _Enthusiasts_, and against others of\nthem as _Hypocrites_, and against them all as factious and seditious, by\ntheir Adversaries; who were under no Restraints, but incourag'd to write\nwith Scorn, Contempt, Raillery and Satire against these suppos'd Enemies\nof Church and State. Nor did the great Success of the _Puritans_ in the\nField of Battle suppress that _Vein_ and _Humour_ of _Ridicule_ begun\nagainst them; but the _Laudean_ Party still carry'd on a Paper War with\ninnumerable Pamphlets, which all tended more or less to make the World\n_laugh_ at and _ridicule_ the _Puritans_. And I am verily persuaded, that\nno History of any other Country in the World can produce a Parallel,\nwherein the Principle and Practice of _Ridicule_ were ever so strongly\nencourag'd, and so constantly pursu'd, fix'd and rooted in the Minds of\nMen, as it was and is in Churchmen against Puritans and Dissenters. Even\nat this Day the _Ridicule_ is so strong against the present Dissenters, so\npromoted by Clergy and Laity, especially in Villages and small Country\nTowns, that they are unable to withstand its Force, but daily come over in\nNumbers to the Church to avoid being _laugh'd_ at. It seems to me a Mark\nof Distinction more likely to last in the Church than any other Matter\nthat I can observe. Passive Obedience, the divine Right of Kings, _&c._\nrise and fall according to particular Occasions; but _Laughter_ at\n_Dissenters_ seems fixt for ever, if they should chance to last so long.\n\n_South_'s Sermons, which now amount to _six Volumes_, make Reading _Jests_\nand _Banter_ upon _Dissenters_, the religious Exercise of good Churchmen\nupon _Sundays_, who now can serve God (as many think they do by hearing or\nreading Sermons) and be as merry as at the Play-house. And _Hudibras_,\nwhich is a daily High-Church Entertainment, and a Pocket and Travelling\nHigh-Church Companion, must necessarily have a very considerable Effect,\nand cannot fail forming in Men that Humour and Vein of _Ridicule_ upon\n_Dissenters_ which runs thro' that Work. In a word, High-Church has\nconstantly been an Enemy to, and a Ridiculer of the _Seriousness_ of\n_Puritans_ and _Dissenters_, whom they have ever charg'd with _Hypocrisy_\nfor their _Seriousness_.\n\n\"After [89] the Civil War had broke out in 1641, and the King and Court\nhad settled at _Oxford_, one _Birkenhead_, who had liv'd in _Laud_'s\nFamily, and been made Fellow of _All Souls College_ by _Laud_'s Means, was\nappointed to write a Weekly Paper under the Title of _Mercurius Aulicus_;\nthe first whereof was publish'd in 1642. In the Absence of the Author,\n_Birkenhead_, from _Oxford_, it was continued by _Heylin_. _Birkenhead_\npleas'd the Generality of Readers with his _Waggeries_ and _Buffooneries_;\nand the Royal Party were so taken with it, that the Author was recommended\nto be Reader of _Moral Philosophy_ by his Majesty;\" who, together with the\nreligious Electors, it is justly to be presum'd, thought _Waggery_ and\n_Buffoonery_, not only Political, but _Religious_ and _Moral_, when\nemploy'd against _Puritans_ and _Dissenters_.\n\n\nIX. King _Charles_ the Second's Restoration brought along with it glorious\n_High-Church_ Times; which were distinguish'd as much by _laughing_ at\n_Dissenters_, as by persecuting them; which pass for a Pattern how\nDissenters are to be treated; and which will never be given up, by\n_High-Church-men_, as faulty, for ridiculing Dissenters.\n\nThe King himself, who had very good natural Parts, and a Disposition to\nbanter and ridicule every Body, and especially the _Presbyterians_, whose\nDiscipline he had felt for his Lewdness and Irreligion in _Scotland_, had\nin his _Exile_ an Education, and liv'd, among some of the greatest\n_Droles_ and _Wits_ that any Age ever produc'd; who could not but form him\nin that way, who was so well fitted by Temper for it. The Duke of\n_Buckingham_ was his constant Companion. And he had a [90] _great\nLiveliness of Wit, and a peculiar Faculty of turning all things into\nridicule_. He was Author of the _Rehearsal_; which, as a most noble Author\nsays, is [91] _a justly admir'd Piece of comick Wit_, and _has furnish'd\nour best Wits in all their Controversies, even in Religion and Politicks,\nas well as in the Affairs of Wit and Learning, with the most effectual and\nentertaining Method of exposing Folly, Pedantry, false Reason, and ill\nWriting_. The Duke of _Buckingham_ [92] brought _Hobbes_ to him to be his\n_Tutor_, who was a _Philosophical Drole_, and had a great deal of _Wit_ of\nthe _drolling_ kind. _Sheldon_, who was afterwards Archbishop of\n_Canterbury_, and attended the King constantly in his Exile as his\n_Chaplain_, was an eminent _Drole_, as appears from Bishop _Burnet_, who\nsays[93], that _he had a great Pleasantness of Conversation, perhaps too\ngreat_.\n\nAnd _Hide_, afterwards Earl of _Clarendon_, who attended the King in his\nExile, seems also to have been a great Drole, by Bishop _Burnet_'s\nrepresenting him, as one, that _had too much Levity in his Wit, and that\ndid not observe the Decorum of his Post_[94]. In a _Speech_ to the Lords\nand Commons, _Hide_ attack'd the Gravity of the Puritans, saying[95],\n\"Very merry Men have been very godly Men; and if a good Conscience be a\ncontinued Feast, there is no reason but Men may be very merry at it.\" And\nupon Mr. _Baxter_ and other Presbyterian Ministers waiting on him in\nrelation to the _Savoy Conference_, he said to Mr. _Baxter_ on the first\nSalute[96], that if \"he were but as fat as Dr. _Manton_, we should all do\nwell.\"\n\nNo wonder therefore, that _Ridicule_, and _Raillery_, and _Satire_, should\nprevail at Court after the _Restoration_; and that King _Charles_ the\nSecond, who was a Wit himself, and early taught to laugh at his _Father's\nStiffness_[97], should be so great a Master of them, and bring them into\nplay among his Subjects; and that he who had the most sovereign Contempt\nfor all Mankind, and in particular for the People and Church of _England_,\nshould use his Talent against them; and that his People in return should\ngive him like for like.\n\nIt is well known how he banter'd the Presbyterian Ministers, who out of\nInterest came over to him at _Breda_; where they were placed in a Room\nnext to his Majesty, and order'd to attend till his Majesty had done his\nDevotions; who, it seems, pray'd so artfully, and poured out so many of\ntheir Phrases, which he had learned when he was in _Scotland_, where he\nwas forced to be present at religious Exercises of six or seven Hours\na-day; and had practis'd among the _Huguenot_ Ministers in _France_[98],\nwho reported him to have a _sanctify'd Heart_, and to _speak the very\nLanguage of_ Canaan. This _Ridicule_ he _cover'd_ with _Seriousness_;\nhaving at that time Occasion for those Ministers, who were then his great\nInstruments in reconciling the Nation to his _Restoration_. When he had no\nfarther Occasion for them, he was open in his _Ridicule_, and would say,\nthat [99] _Presbyterianism was not a Religion for a Gentleman_.\n\n\nX. Would you, who are a Man of Sense and Learning, and of some Moderation,\nbe for punishing the Author of _The Difficulties and Discouragements which\nattend the Study of the Scriptures in the way of private Judgment_, &c.\nwho is suppos'd to be a Prelate of the Church, for that Book, which is\nwholly an _Irony_ about the most sacred Persons and Things? Must not the\nfine _Irony_ it self, and the Execution of it, with so much Learning,\nSense, and Wit, raise in you the highest Esteem and Admiration of the\nAuthor, instead of a Disposition to punish him? Would you appear to the\nintelligent Part of the World such an Enemy to Knowledge, and such a\nFriend to the Kingdom of Darkness, as such Punishment would imply? In\nfine, can you see and direct us to a better way, to make us inquire after\nand understand Matters of Religion, to make us get and keep a good temper\nof Mind, and to plant and cultivate in us the Virtues necessary to good\nOrder and Peace in Society, and to eradicate the Vices that every where\ngive Society so much Disturbance, than what is prescrib'd or imply'd in\nthat Book? And can you think of a better _Form_ of _Conveyance_, or\n_Vehicle_ for Matters of such universal Concern to all intelligent People\n(if you consider the State of the World, and the infinite Variety of\nUnderstandings, Interests, and Designs of Men, who are all to be address'd\nto at the same Time) than his Method of _Irony_? And has not Success\njustify'd his Method? For the Book has had a free Vent in several\nImpressions; has been very generally read and applauded; has convinced\nNumbers, and has been no Occasion of trouble either to Bookseller or\nAuthor. It has also had the Advantage to have a most ingenious _Letter_ of\n_John Hales_ of _Eton_ join'd to some Editions of it; who by this\n_Letter_, as well as by several others of his Pieces, shews himself to\nhave been another _Socrates_, one of the greatest Masters of _true Wit_\nand _just Irony_, as well as Learning, which the World ever produc'd; and\nshews he could have writ such a Book as the _Difficulties_, &c. But if you\nare capable of coming into any Measures for punishing the Author of the\n_Difficulties_, &c. for his _Irony_, I conceive, that you may possibly\nhesitate a little in relation to the same Author, about his _New Defence\nof the Bishop of_ Bangor_'s Sermon of the Kingdom of Christ, consider'd as\nit is the Performance of a Man of Letters_; which, tho far below _The\nDifficulties_, &c. is an ingenious _Irony_ on that _Sermon_. You may\nprobably, like many others of the Clergy, approve of Satire so well\nemploy'd, as against that Bishop, who has succeeded Bishop _Burnet_ in\nbeing the Subject of _Clergy-Ridicule_, as well as in his Bishoprick. The\nBishop himself was very justly patient, under all Attacks by the Reverend\n_Trapp_, _Earbery_, _Snape_, _Law_, and _Luke Milbourne_, in his _Tom of\nBedlam's Answer to his Brother_ Ben Hoadley, _St._ Peter_'s_ Poor _Parson\nnear the Exchange of Principles_; some of which were of a very abusive\nkind, and such as can hardly be parallel'd; and did not call upon the\nMagistrate to come to his Aid against that Author, or against any others\nof the Clergy who had attack'd him with as great Mockery, Ridicule, and\nIrony, as ever Bishop had been by the profess'd Adversaries of the Order;\nor as ever the Bishops had been by the _Puritans_ and _Libellers_ in the\nReigns of Queen _Elizabeth_, King _James_ and King _Charles_ the First; or\nas _Lesley_, _Hickes_, _Hill_, _Atterbury_, _Binks_, and other High-Church\nClergy, did the late Bishop _Burnet_. Instead of that he took the true and\nproper Method, by publishing an _Answer_ to the said _Irony_, compos'd in\nthe same _ironical Strain_, intitled, _The Dean of_ Worcester _still the\nsame: Or his new Defence of the Bishop of_ Bangor_'s Sermon, consider'd,\nas it is the Performance of a great Critick, a Man of Sense, and a Man of\nProbity_. Which Answer does, in my Opinion, as much Honour to the Bishop,\nby its Excellency in the _ironical Way_, as it does by allowing the Method\nit self, and going into that Method, in imitation of his Reverend Brethren\nof the Clergy, who appear to be under no Restraints from the _Immorality_\nor _Indecency_ of treating the Bishop in the way of Ridicule and with the\nutmost Contempt; but, on the contrary, to be spurr'd on by the\n_Excellency_ and _Propriety_ thereof to use it against him, even in the\n[100] _Pulpit_, as Part of the religious Exercise on the _Lord's-day_.\n\n\nXI. There is an universal Love and Practice of _Drollery_ and _Ridicule_\nin all, even the most _serious_ Men, in the most _serious Places_, and on\nthe most _serious Occasions_. Go into the Privy-Councils of Princes, into\nSenates, into Courts of Judicature, and into the Assemblies of the Kirk or\nChurch; and you will find that Wit, good Humour, Ridicule, and Drollery,\nmix themselves in all the Questions before those Bodies; and that the most\nsolemn and sour Person there present, will ever be found endeavouring, at\nleast, to crack his Jest, in order to raise a Character for Wit; which has\nso great an Applause attending it, and renders Men so universally\nacceptable for their Conversation, and places them above the greatest\nProficients in the Sciences, that almost every one is intoxicated with the\nPassion of aiming at it.\n\nIn the Reports made to us of the Debates in the Houses of Lords, Commons,\nand Convocation, the serious Parts of the Speeches there made die for the\nmost part with the Sound; but the Wit, the Irony, the Drollery, the\nRidicule, the Satire, and Repartees, are thought worthy to be remember'd\nand repeated in Conversation, and make a Part of the History of the\nProceedings of those Bodies, no less than their grave Transactions, as\nsome such must necessarily be.\n\nWhoever will look into Antiquity for an Account of the Lives, Actions, and\nWorks of the old Philosophers, will find little remaining of them; but\nsome of their witty, drolling, and bantering Sayings, which alone have\nbeen thought worthy to be preserv'd to Posterity. And if you will look\ninto the Lives of the modern Statesmen, Philosophers, Divines, Lawyers,\n_&c._ you will find that their witty Sayings ever make a considerable\nPart: by reporting which great Honour is intended to be done to their\nMemory. The great and most religious Philosopher Dr. _H. More_, has a\ngreat many Pieces of Wit attributed to him in his _Life_ by Mr. _Ward_,\nwho represents him from his Companions, [101] _as one of the merriest\nGreeks they were acquainted with_, and tells us, that the Doctor said in\nhis _last Illness_, to him[102], _that the merry way was that which he saw\nmightily to take; and so he used it the more_.\n\nThe great and famous Sir _Thomas More_, Lord Chancellor of _England_ in\n_Henry_ the Eighth's time, was an inexhaustible Source of _Drollery_[103],\nas his voluminous Works, which consist for the most part of controversial\nDivinity in behalf of Popery, show, and which are many of them written in\nDialogue, the better to introduce the _drolling_ Way of Writing, which he\nhas us'd in such Perfection, that it is said [104] _none can ever be weary\nof reading them, tho they be never so long_. Nor could Death it self, in\nimmediate view before his Eyes, suppress his _merry_ Humour, and hinder\nhim from cracking _Jests_ on the _Scaffold_; tho he was a Man of great\n_Piety_ and _Devotion_, whereof all the World was convinced by his Conduct\nboth in his Life and at his Death.\n\nIt is said (as I have before observ'd) of my Lord Chancellor _Clarendon_,\nthat \"he had too much _Levity_ in his _Wit_[105], and that he did not\nalways observe the _Decorum_ of his Post.\" Which implies not only his\nApprobation of _Drollery_ in the most _grave_ Business, but also his great\nKnowledge of Mankind, by applying to them in that _Way_; which he knew\nfrom Experience, and especially from the common _drolling_ [106]\nConversation in the Court of King _Charles_ the Second, would recommend\nhim to the World much more than an _impartial Administration of Justice_;\nwhich is less felt, less understood, and less taken notice of and\napplauded, than a _Piece_ of _Wit_; which is generally suppos'd to imply\nin it a great deal of Knowledge, and a Capacity fit for any thing.\n\nMr. _Whiston_[107], a famous Person among us, sets up for great _Gravity_,\nand proposes a Scheme of _Gravity_ for the Direction of those who write\nabout Religion: He is for allowing _Unbelievers_, nay for having them\n\"invited by Authority to produce all the real or original Evidence they\nthink they have discover'd against any Parts of the _Bible_; against any\nParts of the _Jewish_ and Christian Religions, in order to their being\nfully weigh'd and consider'd by all learned Men; provided at the same\ntime, that the whole be done _gravely_, and _seriously_, without all\n_Levity_, _Banter_, and _Ridicule_.\" And yet this Man, having a handle\ngiven him by Bishop _Robinson_'s Letter to the _Clergy_ of his _Diocess_\nabout _New Doxologies borrow'd from Old Hereticks_, takes the advantage of\nthe Bishop's (supposed) Ignorance, Dulness, Stupidity, and Contradiction\nto himself, and writes and prints, like a _Tom Brown_ or _Swift_, a most\n_bantering_ and _drolling_ Letter, under the sneering Title of a _Letter\nof Thanks to the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of_ London, _for his late\nLetter_, &c. whom, one would think, he should not only have spar'd, but\nhave applauded for his _profound Gravity_, and carrying on the Cause of\nReligion in a very remarkable manner, with the most _consummate\nSolemnity_. But so strong was the Temptation, so naturally productive of\nMirth was the Bishop's _Cause_, and his grave Management thereof, as that\nhe could not help laughing at the Bishop, by himself; and so was led on\nmechanically to write in that Humour, and to publish what he wrote, and\nafterwards to defend his drole _Manner_ [108] of attacking the Bishop,\nagainst those who took _offence_ at that _Manner_ of writing.\n\n\nXII. The burning Papists themselves are not always _serious_ with us: They\ntreat the Church and its Defenders as _fanatical_, and _laugh_ at them as\n_such_, just as the Church does the Dissenters, and have their elaborate\nWorks of _Drollery_ against their Adversaries. They publish'd a Poem\nagainst the _Reformation_, just before the Death of Queen _Anne_, which\nwas design'd to have given such a Stroke to the Protestant Religion among\nus, under the new projected Revolution, as _Hudibras_ did to _Puritanism_\nafter the _Restoration_. The Popish Editor, in the Preface to the said\nPoem, says, \"that the Motive of the Author (_Thomas Ward_) for publishing\nthe _History of the Reformation in a Burlesque Style_ (tho a History full\nof melancholy Incidents, which have distracted the Nation, even beyond the\nhope of recovery, after so much Blood drawn from all its Veins, and from\nits Head) was that which he met with in Sir _Roger L'Estrange_'s Preface\nto the second Part of his _Cit_ and _Bumkin_, express'd in these Words;\n_Tho this way of fooling is not my Talent, nor Inclination; yet I have\ngreat Authorities for the taking up this Humour, in regard not only of the\nSubject, but of the Age we live in; which is so much upon the Drole, that\nhardly any thing else will down with it._\"\n\nAnd the ingenious Protestant Editor of this Poem at _London_, which he\nallows to have some Wit in it, concludes the Remarks he makes upon it, by\nsaying, \"One thing more we can't forbear hinting at, that a Retaliation\nwould be as happy a Thought as could enter into the Head of a Man of\nGenius and Spirit. What a fruitful Harvest would the Legends, Tricks,\nspiritual Jugglings, Convents, and Nunneries, yield to a good Poet?\n_Buchanan_ in his _Franciscani_, and _Oldham_ in his _Satires_ on the\nJesuits, have open'd the Way, and we heartily wish some equal Pen would\nwrite the whole Mystery of Iniquity at length.\"\n\n\nXIII. All the old Puritan Preachers, who were originally Divines of the\nChurch of _England_, sprinkled and season'd their Sermons with a great\nmany _drolling_ Sayings against _Libertinism_ and _Vice_, and against\nChurch Ceremonies; many of which Sayings are reported and handed down to\nus in Books and Conversation, as are also the Effects of those Sayings,\nwhich we are told converted many to _Christ_ on the Spot, or in the\nInstant of Delivery. Nor is that manner wholly laid aside, but has\ncontinued to be kept alive by some Hands at all times; who have been\ngreatly follow'd for their Success in drolling upon _Sinners_, and\ntreating of Religion in humoursom and fantastical Phrases, and fixing that\nway of Religion in some Mens Minds.\n\nI do not remember to have met with a more complete Drole in the Church of\n_England_, or in any other of the _laughing_ or _ridiculing_ Sects, than\n_Andrew Marvel_ of the grave _Puritan_ Sect, in many Works of his both in\nProse and Verse, but especially in his _Rehearsal Transprosed_; which tho\nwrit against _Parker_, who with great Eloquence, Learning, and a Torrent\nof Drollery and Satire, had defended the Court and Church's Cause, in\nasserting the Necessity of Penal Laws against the Nonconformists, \"was\nread from the _King_ down to the Tradesman with great pleasure, on account\nof that Burlesque Strain and lively Drollery that ran thro' it,\" as\nBishop _Burnet_ tells us[109]. Nor were the gravest _Puritans_ and\nDissenters among us less taken and pleas'd with his Writings for their\n_Drollery_, than our _drole King_; tho there are some Passages in them,\nwhich should give just Offence to chaste Ears.\n\nI find also, that the _Puritans_ and _Dissenters_ have always born with,\nand allow'd of, a great Mixture of _Drollery_ in their Sermons, that one\nwould think should offend their Gravity, and pious Ears; and that they\napplaud their Ministers for such their Discourses, as much as the Church\ndoes Dr. _South_ for the Ribaldry sprinkled thro'out his Sermons about the\nmost high Points in Divinity. They have always had some eminent Divines\namong them who have been remarkable for such Passages and Reflections: And\nthese have never lessen'd their number of Auditors, nor drawn upon\nthemselves the Character of _Irreligious_; but have had the largest\nAuditories of contributing Hearers, as well as of Churchmen, who came to\nsmile, and have been esteem'd very _pious_ Men.\n\nIn fine, the _Puritans_ and _Dissenters_ have, like the Church, their\nTaste of Humour, Irony, and Ridicule, which they promote with great Zeal,\nas a Means to serve Religion: And I remember, that, among other things\nsaid in behalf of _Bunyan_'s _Pilgrim's Progress_, upon the reprinting it\nlately by Subscription, it was affirm'd, and that, in my Opinion, truly,\n\"that it had infinitely out-done _The Tale of a Tub_; which perhaps had\nnot made one Convert to Infidelity, whereas the _Pilgrim's Progress_ had\nconverted many Sinners to _Christ_.\"\n\n\nXIV. The _Quakers_ are certainly the most _serious_ and solemn People\namong us in Matters of Religion, and out-go the Dissenters of all other\nKinds therein: But yet the Church has no regard to them on that Account,\nbut takes Advantage from thence to _ridicule_ them the more, and to call\ntheir Sincerity more in question. And I much doubt whether there was ever\na Book written against them by the Divines of any Sect with perfect\nDecency, and that had not its extravagant Flouts, Scorn, Banter, and\nIrony, and that not only of the _laughing_, but of the _cruel_ kind:\nWherein they copy'd after the _Jews_ of old, who while they prosecuted\n_Christ_ to Death, and carried on their High-Church Tragedy against him,\nacted against him the _comick Scenes_ [110] \"of spitting in his Face, and\nbuffeting him with the Palms of their Hands, saying, _Prophesy unto us,\nthou Christ, who is he that smote thee_;\" and who, when they had nail'd\nhim to the Cross, _revil'd_ him with divers _Taunts_, in which the _Chief\nPriests_, _Scribes_, _Elders_, and even the _Thieves, which were crucified\nwith him_, concurr'd. But yet for all this, these solemn Quakers\nthemselves are not altogether averse to _Irony_ and _Ridicule_, and use it\nwhen they can. Their Books abound in Stories to ridicule in their Turn the\nPriests, their great and bitter Adversaries: And they please themselves\nwith throwing at the Priests the _Centuries of Scandalous Ministers_, and\nthe Books of the _Cobler of_ Glocester. They have also their Satirist and\nBanterer, _Samuel Fisher_; whose Works, tho all wrote in the _drolling_\nStyle and Manner, they pride themselves in, and have collected into one\ngreat Volume in _Folio_; in which Quaker-Wit and Irony are set up against\nChurch, Presbyterian, and Independent Wit and Irony, without the least\nScruple of the lawfulness of such Arms. In a word, their Author acts the\nPart of a _Jack-Pudding_, _Merry Andrew_, or _Buffoon_, with all the\nseeming Right, Authority, and Privilege, of the Member of some Establish'd\nChurch of abusing all the World but themselves. The _Quakers_ have also\nencourag'd and publish'd a most arch Book of the famous _Henry Stubbe_,\nintitled, _A Light shining out of Darkness_, &c. Wherein all the other\nreligious Parties among us are as handsomly and learnedly banter'd and\nridicul'd, as the _Quakers_ have been in any Book against them. And when\nthey were attack'd by one _Samuel Young_, a whimsical\nPresbyterian-Buffoon-Divine, who call'd himself _Trepidantium Malleus_,\nand set up for an Imitator of Mr. _Alsop_, in several Pamphlets full of\nStories, Repartees, and Ironies; in which _Young_, perhaps, thought\nhimself as secure from a Return of the like kind, as a Ruffian or Thief\nmay when he assaults Men: His Attacks were repell'd in a Book intitled\n\"_Trepidantium Malleus intrepidanter malleatus_; or the West Country\nWiseaker's crack-brain'd _Reprimand_ hammer'd about his own Numbscul.\nBeing a _Joco-satirical_ Return to a late Tale of a Tub, emitted by a\nreverend _Non-con_, at present residing not far from _Bedlam_,\" said to be\nwritten by _William Penn_, who has therein made use of the carnal Weapons\nof Irony and Banter, and dress'd out the Presbyterian Priest in a Fool's\nCoat, for a Spectacle to the Mob. It is also to be observ'd, that there\nare several Tracts in the two Volumes of _William Penn_'s Works lately\npublish'd, that for ingenious Banter and Irony, are much superior to the\nPriests his Adversaries; and that other Quaker Authors profess to write\nsometimes in a [111] _drolling Style_.\n\n\nXV. The Jacobite Clergy have set up for great _Droles_ upon all the true\nFriends of the _Establishment_. And I presume, the Body of our High\nChurchmen would not willingly deprive them of the Benefit of their\n_Drollery_.\n\nThe celebrated Mr. _Collier_ [112] thus attacks Bishop _Burnet_, for his\nESSAY _on the Memory of Queen_ Mary. \"This Doctor, you know, is a Man of\nmighty _Latitude_, and can say any thing to serve a Turn; whose\n_Reverence_ resolves Cases of Conscience backwards and forwards, disputes\n_pro_ and _con_, praises and dispraises by secular Measures; with whom\nVirtue and Vice, passive Obedience and Rebellion, Parricide and filial\nDuty, Treachery and Faithfulness, and all the Contradictions in Nature,\nare the _best_ and _worst_ things under the Sun, as they are for his\nPurpose, and according as the Wind sits: who equally and indifferently\nwrites for and against all Men, the Gospel, and himself too, as the World\ngoes: who can bestow a Panegyrick upon the seven deadly Sins, and (if\nthere be occasion) can make an Invective against all the\nCommandments.----\"\n\nIn relation to Dr. _Payne_'s _Sermon_ on the Death of that _Queen_, he\nsays[113], \"that to go thro' it is too great a Discipline for any Man,\nwhose Palate hath ever relish'd any thing above _three half-penny\nPoetry_.\" He adds, \"Why, Sir, many Years ago I have heard some of it sung\nabout the Streets in wretched and nauseous _Doggrel_. What think you of\nthis? _Page_ 6. _I know not how to draw her Picture, 'tis so all over\nbeauteous, without any Foil, any Shade, any Blemish; so perfect in every\nFeature, so accomplish'd in every Part, so adorn'd with every Perfection\nand every Grace._ O rare, Sir! here's _Phillis_ and _Chloris_, and\n_Gillian a Croydon_.\n\n  \"_Sh' hath_ every Feature, every Grace,\n  \"_So charming_ every part, _&c_.\n\n\"Tis no wonder he tells us, (_p._ 8.) of _strewing her with the Flowers of\nwithered and decay'd Poetry_; for the _Song_ out of which he hath\ntranscrib'd his _Sermon_, is of very _great age_, and hath been sung at\nmany a _Whitsun-Ale_, and many a _Wedding_ (tho I believe never at a\nFuneral before) and therefore in all this time may well be _decay'd and\nwither'd_: In the mean time, if you were to draw the Picture of a _great\nPrincess_, I fansy you would not make choice of _Mopsa_ to sit to it.\nAlas! Sir, there was _Cassandra_ and _Cleopatra_, and many a famed\n_Romance_ more, which might have furnish'd him with handsome Characters,\nand yet he must needs be _preaching and instructing_ his People out of\n_Hey down derry_, and the _fair Maid of_ Kent. If he had intitled it,\n_The_ White-Chapel _Ballad_, and got some body to set it to the Tune of\n_Amaryllis_, compos'd by _W. P. Songster_, the Character of the _Author_,\nthe _Title_, and the _Matter_, would have very well agreed, and perhaps it\nmight have passed at the Corners of the Streets; but to call it a\n_Sermon_, and by _W. P._ Doctor in _Divinity_, 'tis one of the _lewdest_\nthings in the World.----\"\n\nMr. _Lesley_ attacks the Clergy, who pray'd \"that God would give King\n_James_ Victory over all his Enemies[114], when that was the thing they\nleast wish'd; and confess'd, that they labour'd all they could against\nit,\" saying, \"good God! What Apprehensions, what Thought had those Men of\ntheir publick Prayers; bantering God Almighty, and mocking him to his\nFace, who heard their Words, and saw their Hearts? Is not _Atheism_ a\nsmaller Sin than this, since it is better to have no God, than so to set\nup one _to laugh at him_.\"\n\nAgain he says, (_p._ 123.) \"It is a severe Jest, that the common People\nhave got up against the Clergy, that there was but one thing formerly\nwhich the Parliament could not do, that is, to make a Man a Woman: But now\nthere is another, that is, to make an Oath which the Clergy will not\ntake.\"\n\nThe same Author attacks Bishop _Burnet_'s _Speech upon the Bill against\nOccasional Conformity_, by a Pamphlet intitled, _The Bishop of_\nSalisbury_'s proper Defence from a Speech cry'd about the Streets in his\nName, and said to have been spoken by him in the House of Lords upon the\nBill against Occasional Conformity_; which is one perpetual _Irony_ on the\nBishop, and gives the Author occasion to throw all manner of Satire and\nAbuse on the Bishop. The beginning of this Pamphlet, which is as follows,\nwill let the Reader into the full Knowledge of the Design of the Irony,\nand the manner of Execution.\n\n\"The License of this Age and of the Press is so great, that no Rank or\nQuality of Men is free from the Insults of loose and extravagant Wits.\n\n\"The good Bishop of _Salisbury_ has had a plentiful Share in this sort of\nTreatment: And now at last, some or other has presum'd to burlesque his\nLordship in printing a Speech for him, which none that knows his Lordship\ncan believe ever came from him.\n\n\"But because it may go down with others who are too apt to take Slander\nupon trust, and that his Lordship has already been pelted with several\nAnswers to his Speech, I have presum'd to offer the following\nConsiderations, to clear his Lordship from the Suspicion of having vented\n(in such an august Assembly) those crude and undigested Matters which are\nset forth in that Speech, and which so highly reflect on his Lordship's\nself.\"\n\nHe has taken the same Method of Irony to attack the said Bishop for his\n_Speech_ on the _Trial_ of _Sacheverel_, and for a _Sermon_, under this\nTitle, \"The Good Old Cause, _or_ Lying in Truth; being a Second Defence of\nthe Lord Bishop of _Sarum_ from a Second Speech, and also the Dissection\nof a Sermon it is said his Lordship preach'd in the Cathedral Church of\n_Salisbury_.\" And this Pamphlet, which is also a continued Banter, begins\nthus.\n\n\"No Man has more deserv'd than this good Bishop, and no Man has been more\npersecuted by various Ways and Means than his Lordship, even to mobbing!\nBut the ugliest and most malicious of all these Arts, is that of putting\nfalse Things upon him; to write scandalous, seditious, and senseless\nPapers, and to affix his Lordship's Name! I was forc'd some Years ago to\nvindicate his Lordship's Reputation from one of this sort: That Speech had\na Bookseller's Name to it of good figure, and look'd something like; but\nthis Speech (said likewise to be spoken in the House of Lords) has no body\nto own it, and has all the Marks of _Grub_. But the nasty Phiz is nothing\nto the inside. That discovers the Man; the Heart is false.\"\n\nThis same Author has thought fit to attack Mr. _Hoadley_ (since a Bishop)\nin the way of Banter: His _Best Answer ever was made, and to which no\nAnswer will ever be made_, is by his own Confession a _Farce_; when he\nsays in his _Preface_, \"If you ask why I treat this Subject by way of\n_farce_, and shew a little Merriment sometimes? it was because the\nFoundation you stand upon is not only _false_ but _ridiculous_, and ought\nto be treated with the _utmost Contempt_.\"\n\nAgain, in his \"_Finishing Stroke, in defence of_ his _Rehearsals, Best\nAnswer, and Best of all_,\" he gives us (_p._ 125.) what he calls, \"A\nBattle-Royal between three Cocks of the Game, _Higden_, _Hoadley_, and a\n_Hottentot_;\" which in the _Contents_ he calls _A Farce_, and to which he\njoins both a _Prologue_ and _Epilogue_, and divers other Particulars, all\ntaken from the _Play-house_.\n\nThe Reverend Mr. _Matthias Earbery_ sets up for a great Satirist and Drole\nupon the swearing and Low-Church Clergy, in numerous Pamphlets of late,\nmore particularly in his \"_Serious Admonition to Dr._ Kennet: To which is\nadded, a short but complete Answer to Mr. _Marshal_'s late Treatise\ncalled, _A Defence of our Constitution in Church and State_; and a\nParallel is drawn between him and Dr. _Kennet_, for the Satisfaction of\nthe unprejudic'd Reader.\"\n\nHe has a bantering Argument [115] to shew, that, \"If in future Ages Mr.\n_Marshal_'s Book should escape the just Judgment it deserves, of being\ncondemn'd to the _Pastry-Cooks_ and _Grocers_, an industrious Chronologist\nmight make an Observation to prove him too young to write it.\"\n\nThe _Parallel_ is in _Pag._ 126, which being very gross _Raillery_, I only\nrefer you to it.\n\nThis Mr. _Earbery_ also wrote a _Letter to Bishop_ Fleetwood, under the\nTitle of \"A Letter to the Bishop of _Ely_, upon the Occasion of his\n_suppos'd_ late _Charge_, said to be deliver'd at _Cambridge August_ 7,\n1716, _&c._\" in which he pursues the Ironical Scheme laid down in the said\nTitle, and endeavours to _vindicate_ his _Lordship from the Aspersion of\nwriting such a mean Pamphlet_, as the _Charge_.\n\nNor do these _Jacobites_ confine their Drollery to their Adversaries\nwithout, but exercise it on one another, as may be seen in their late\nDispute about King _Edward the Sixth_'s Liturgy. And Mr. _Lesley_ himself,\nhappening to engage on the side opposite to the Traditions of the Fathers,\nand attacking those Traditions by Low-Church Notions and Arguments, and\nthereby running counter to all his former Books, is attack'd just in the\nsame manner he attack'd Bishop _Burnet_, in a Book under this Title, \"Mr.\n_Lesley_'s Defence, from some erroneous and dangerous Principles, advanced\nin a Letter said to have been written concerning the New Separation.\" And\nit has several Paragraphs at the beginning in the very words of one of Mr.\n_Lesley_'s Books against the said Bishop, as may be seen on Comparison.\n\n\nXVI. _Christ-Church_ in _Oxford_ is no less famous for the _Drolling_,\nthan for the _Orthodox_ Spirit reigning there; and the former, being\njudged an excellent Method to support the latter, is cultivated among the\nYouth, and employ'd by the Members of that Society against all the\nsupposed Adversaries of the Church, and encourag'd by the governing\nEcclesiasticks there and elsewhere.\n\nAmong the many, who have receiv'd their Education there, and been form'd\nin Drollery, I will only instance in the Reverend Dr. _Atterbury_ and Dr.\n_South_; who being as famous for _Drollery_ as for Zeal for Religion, and\napplauded for their _Wit_ no less than for their _Orthodoxy_; and\nparticularly for imploying the former in behalf of the latter, seem of\nsufficient Weight to bear down all Attempts to stifle their Productions.\nWhat Considerations can make us amends for the Loss of such excellent\n_drolling Writings_, which promote Religion as well as Mirth?\n\nWith what incomparable Mockery, Ridicule and Sarcasm does Dr. _Atterbury_\ntreat all the Low-Church Clergy that come in his way, together with the\n_Whig_ Ministry and Administration in his several _Convocational Tracts_?\nDr. _Wake_, our present Archbishop of _Canterbury_, is represented by him\nas writing so _contumeliously_ [116] of the Clergy, _that had he not\ninform'd us in his Title Page who he was, we should rather have guess'd\nhim to have been of the Cabal against Priests and Priestcraft, than one of\nthe Order_; and as wholly govern'd by [117] _Interest_ in the _Debate_,\nand as giving us a most [118] _shallow empty Performance_ in relation to\nour Ecclesiastical Constitution, which he [119] _has done his best to\nundermine_, as knowing himself to be in the wrong; and as _deserving_ any\nName or Censure, none being _too bad to be bestow'd_ on him; and in fine,\nas _the least of the little officious Pens by which he expects to be\ntraduc'd_.\n\nDr. _Bentley_ is represented as _wrote out of Reputation into Preferment_;\nwhich, whether it be a more severe Sarcasm on the Doctor, than on the\nGovernment, is hard to determine; and besides, it gives Applause to one of\nthe most drolling and bantering Performances that this drolling Age has\nproduc'd, I mean _Dr._ Bentley_'s Dissertations on the Epistles of_\nPhalaris, _and the Fables of_ \u00c6sop, _examin'd_.\n\nBishop _Burnet_ is a standing Subject of Ridicule with him; as are Bishop\n_Nicholson_, Bishop _Kennet_, Bishop _Gibson_, Bishop _Trimnel_ [to whom\nhe writes a most drolling [120] Letter] and Dr. _West_; and all the\nTopicks that can affect them as Scholars, as honest Men, and Clergymen,\nare imploy'd to render them ridiculous, and set the World a laughing at\nthem, who are not in the least spar'd for their being of the Holy Order;\nbut on the contrary seem more loaded and baited with Sarcasms for that\nreason.\n\nFor a _Specimen_, take this Banter or Burlesque upon Bishop _Kennet_'s\nDedication of his _Ecclesiastical Synods and Parliamentary Convocations_,\n&c. to the Archbishop of _Canterbury_; which Banter runs thus[121].\n\n     \"_May it please your Grace_,\n\n     \"Mr. _Atterbury_ has lately forc'd a Dedication upon you, which\n     favours too much of Presumption or Design; he has presum'd to\n     surprize you with an unexpected Address, and appears very indecently\n     before your Grace, because he has taken no care to express upon this\n     Subject a due Respect and Reverence to the Governors in Church and\n     State, such as is suitable to the Christian Religion, and his\n     particular Function: The Reports and Authorities in his Book are\n     Fruits of other Mens Collections, not the immediate Effects of his\n     own Searches into _Registers_ and _Records_; he imperiously summons\n     your Grace and my Lords the Bishops to an immediate Compliance upon\n     pain of being pronounc'd Betrayers of the Church----This, my Lord, is\n     the Character of the Person _I set up_ against; but as for me, I am\n     quite another sort of Man, I am very well bred, a great Antiquary,\n     beholden to no body, _some Wits and merry Folks call me a Tool and a\n     Play-thing_ (_Pref. p._ 8.) But I assure your Grace, that what\n     Freedom soever I may have taken in taxing the Vices of the inferior\n     _Clergy_, (_p._ 77. 188.) and in reflecting _upon the ambitious\n     Designs of dignify'd Presbyters_ (_p._ 196.); yet _I am however\n     tender and dutiful in treating the Governors of our Church_ (p. 78.);\n     especially _those of them who are of the Ecclesiastical Commission\n     for Preferments_, (p. 311). I have a very great Respect and Reverence\n     for every body that will give me any thing; and how resolute soever\n     Mr. _Atterbury_ may be, your Grace may do what you please with\n\n     _Your Grace's most humble_\n\n     _and obedient Servant_,\n\n     WHITE KENNET.\n\n\nBut for _Drollery_, the Reverend Dr. _South_ outdoes even _Christ-Church_,\nand fills all his Performances with it, and throws it out against the\nEnemies of the Church, and in particular against the late Dr. _Sherlock_,\nwhom he thought fit to single out. I shall select some Passages from his\nWritings against the said Doctor, which cannot but entertain the\nHigh-Church Orthodox Reader, and reconcile him to a _Drollery_ so well\nemploy'd.\n\nHe stiles him _a great good Man, as a certain poor Wretch_, meaning\n_Prior, calls him_.\n\nAgain, he says[122], \"There is hardly any one Subject which he (that is\nDr. _Sherlock_) has wrote upon Popery excepted, that he has wrote both\nfor it and against it. Could any thing be more sharp and bitter against\nthe Dissenters than what this Man wrote in his _Answer_ to the _Protestant\nReconciler_; and yet how frankly, or rather fulsomly does he open both his\nArms to embrace them in his Sermon preach'd before the Lord Mayor on\n_November_ 4, 1688. Tho I dare say, that the Dissenters themselves are of\nthat Constancy, as to own that they were of the same Principles in 88 that\nthey were of in 85; but the Truth is, old Friendships cannot be so easily\nforgot: And it has been an Observation made by some, that hardly can any\none be found, who was first tainted with a Conventicle, whom a Cathedral\ncould ever after cure, but that still upon every cross turn of Affairs\nagainst the _Church_, the irresistible _Magnetism_ of the _Good Old Cause_\n(as some still think it) would quickly draw him out of the _Good Old Way_.\nThe Fable tells us of a _Cat_ once turn'd into a _Woman_, but the next\nsight of a _Mouse_ quickly dissolv'd the _Metamorphosis_, cashier'd the\nWoman, and restor'd the Brute. And some _Virtuosi_ (skill'd in the _useful\nPhilosophy_ of _Alterations_) have thought her much a Gainer by the latter\nChange, there being so many unlucky Turns in the World, in which it is not\nhalf so safe and advantageous to _walk upright_, as to be _able to fall\nalways upon one's Legs_.\"\n\nAgain, Dr. _South_ says[123], \"When I consider how wonderfully pleas'd the\nMan is with these two new started Terms (_Self-consciousness_ and _mutual\nConsciousness_) so high in Sound and so empty of Sense, instead of one\nsubstantial word (_Omniscience_) which gives us all that can be pretended\nuseful in them, with vast Overplus and Advantage, and even swallows them\nup, as _Moses_'s Rod did those pitiful Tools of the _Magicians_: This (I\nsay) brings to my mind (whether I will or no) a certain Story of a grave\nPerson, who riding in the Road with his Servant, and finding himself\nsomething uneasy in his Saddle, bespoke his Servant thus: _John_ (says he)\n_alight, and first take off the Saddle that is upon my Horse, and then\ntake off the Saddle that is upon your Horse; and when you have done this,\nput the Saddle that was upon my Horse, upon your Horse; and put the Saddle\nthat was upon your Horse, upon my Horse_. Whereupon the Man, who had not\nstudied the Philosophy of Saddles (whether _Ambling_ or _Trotting_) so\nexactly as his Master, replies something short upon him; _Lord, Master,\nwhat need all these words? Could you not as well have said, Let us change\nSaddles?_ Now I must confess, I think the Servant was much in the right;\ntho the Master having a _rational Head of his own_, and being withal\nwilling to make the _Notion_ of _changing_ Saddles more _plain_, _easy_\nand _intelligible_, and to give a clearer Explication of that word (which\nhis Forefathers, how good _Horsemen_ soever they might have been, yet were\n_not equally happy in explaining of_) was pleas'd to set it forth by that\nmore full and accurate Circumlocution.\"\n\nHe says[124], _The Author_, Dr. _Sherlock, is no doubt a_ Grecian _in his\nHeart_! And the tenth Chapter of the _Animadversions_ is one continued\nBanter upon the _Dean_ for his Ignorance in _Greek_ and _Latin_, and even\nhis Inability to spell: All which he _closes_ with saying, \"That St.\n_Paul_'s _School_ is certainly an excellent School, and St. _Paul_'s\nChurch a most noble Church; and therefore he thinks that he directs his\nCourse very prudently, and happily too, who in his Passage to such a\n_Cathedral_, takes a School in his way.\"\n\nAgain, he says[125], \"He cannot see any new Advantage that the Dean has\ngot over the _Socinians_, unless it be, that the Dean thinks his _three\nGods_ will be too hard for their _one_.\"\n\nAfter citing several Scurrilities of the Dean[126], (who it must be\nconfess'd, appears therein a great Banterer also of Dr. _South_ and his\nPerformance) the Dr. says, \"These, with several more of the like\n_Gravel-Lane_ Elegancies, are all of them such peculiar Strictures of the\nDean's _Genius_, that he might very well spare his Name, where he had made\nhimself so well known by his Mark; for all the foregoing\n_Oyster-Wive-Kennel-Rhetorick_ seems so naturally to flow from him, who\nhad been so long Rector of St. _Botolph_ (with the well-spoken\n_Billingsgate_ under his Care) that (as much a Teacher as he was) it may\nwell be question'd, whether he has learn'd more from his Parish, than his\nParish from him.--All favours of the Porter, the Carman, and the Waterman;\nand a pleasant Scene it must be to see the _Master of the Temple_ laying\nabout him in the Language of the Stairs.\"\n\nTo the Dean's Scoff, that _this Argument_, &c. _was worth its weight in\nGold, tho the_ Dean _fears it will not much enrich the Buyer_, the Doctor\nreplies[127], \"What is that to him? Let him mind his own Markets, who\nnever writes to _enrich the Buyer_ but the Seller; and that _Seller_ is\nhimself: and since he is so, well is it for his Books and his Bookseller\ntoo, that Men generally _buy_ before they _read_.\"\n\nIn requital of the scurrilous Character of an _ingenious Blunderer_, Dr.\n_South_ says[128], \"He must here return upon him the just Charge of an\n_impious Blasphemer_, and that upon more Accounts than one; telling him\nwithal, that had he liv'd in the former Times of the Church, his Gown\nwould have been stript off his Back for his detestable Blasphemies and\nHeresies, and some other Place found out for him to perch in than the Top\nof St. _Paul's_, where at present he is placed like a true Church\nWeather-Cock, (as he is) notable for nothing so much, as _standing high\nand turning round_.\"\n\nAgain, he says[129], \"And so I take my leave of the Dean's _three distinct\ninfinite Minds, Spirits_, or _Substances_, that is to say, of his _three\nGods_; and having done this, methinks I see him go whimpering away with\nhis Finger in his Eye, and the Complaint of _Micah_ in his Mouth, _Ye have\ntaken away my Gods which I made, and what have I more_[130]? Tho he must\nconfess, he cannot tell why he should be so fond of them, since he dares\nundertake that he will never be able to bring the Christian World either\nto believe in, or to worship a _Trinity of Gods_: Nor does he see what use\nthey are likely to be of, even to himself, unless peradventure to _swear\nby_.\"\n\nAgain, the Doctor says[131], \"The Dean's following Instruction to his\nFriend is certainly very diverting, in these words, where the Animadverter\ncharges the Dean with Absurdities and Contradictions; turn to the Place\nand read it with its Context, and tell me what you cannot answer, and I\nwill; to which he would have done well to have added, _If I can_. But the\nwhole Passage is just as if he had said, Sir, if you find not\nContradictions and Absurdities enough in my Book to satisfy your Curiosity\nthat way, pray come to the Fountain-head, and consult me, and you shall be\nsure of a more plentiful Supply.\"\n\nAgain, upon the Dean's \"Frequent reproaching the [132] Animadverter with\nthe Character of a _Wit_, tho join'd with such ill-favour'd Epithets, as\nhis witless Malice has thought fit to degrade it with, as that he is _a\nspiteful Wit_, a _wrangling Wit_, a _satirical Wit_, and the WITTY,\n_subtle_, _good-natur'd Animadverter, &c._ the Dr. says, that tho there be\nbut little _Wit_ shewn in making such Charges; yet if _Wit_ be a\n_Reproach_ (be it of what sort it will) the Animadverter is too _just_ to\nreturn this _Reproach_ upon the _Defender_; and withal, understands\nhimself, and what becomes him, too well, either to _assume_ to himself, or\nso much as to _admit_ the Character of a _Wit_, as at all due to him;\nespecially since he knows that _common Sense_ (a thing much short of Wit)\nis enough to enable him to deal with such an Adversary. Nevertheless,\nthere are many in the World, who are both call'd and accounted _Wits_, and\nreally are so; which (one would think) should derive something of Credit\nupon this Qualification, even in the Esteem of this Author himself, or at\nleast rebate the Edge of his Invectives against it, considering that it\nmight have pleas'd God to have made him a _Wit_ too.\"\n\n\nXVII. As things now stand, it may easily be seen, that Prosecutions for\n_Raillery_ and _Irony_ would not be relish'd well by the Publick, and\nwould probably turn to the Disreputation and Disgrace of the Prosecutor.\n\nArchbishop _Laud_ has always been much censur'd for his malicious\nProsecution of _Williams_ in the _Star-Chamber_; among whose Crimes I find\nthe following laid to his Charge: [133] _That he said all Flesh in_\nEngland _had corrupted their Ways_; that _he call'd a Book intitled_, A\nCoal from the Altar (written by Dr. _Heylin_, for placing the\nCommunion-Table at the East-end of the Church, and railing it in) _a\nPamphlet_; that he _scoffingly said, that he had heard of a Mother Church,\nbut not of a Mother Chapel, meaning the King's, to which all Churches in\nCeremony ought to conform_; that _he wickedly jested on St._ Martin_'s\nHood_; that _he said the People ought not to be lash'd by every body's\nWhip_; that _he said_, (citing _a National Council for it_) _that the\nPeople are God's and the King's, and not the Priest's People; and that he\ndoth not allow Priests to jeer and make Invectives against the People_.\nAnd I humbly conceive, that such Matters had much better be suffer'd to go\non in the World, and take their Course, than that Courts of Judicature\nshould be employ'd about them. A Sentence that imply'd some _Clergymen_\ncorrupt, as well as some _Laymen_, of whom _Laud_ would only allow to have\nit said, that they had _corrupted their Ways_; a _Jest_ upon St.\n_Martin_'s _Hood_, which, according to Ecclesiastical History, _cur'd sore\nEyes_; and a _Ridicule_ upon a High-Church Book of _Heylin_'s, by calling\nit a Pamphlet, tho it was really a Pamphlet, as consisting of but seventy\nPages in Quarto; seem less _wicked_ and hurtful than disturbing, fining,\nand undoing Men about them. And the having some Concern for the People,\nthat they should not be used as the Priest pleas'd; that the _People_\nbelong to _God_ and the _King_, and _not to the Priest_; and the _not\nallowing_ the _Priests_ to _jeer and make Invectives against the People_;\nseem all Errors fit to be born with.\n\nArchbishop _Laud_ was also thought guilty of an excessive Piece of\nWeakness in the Punishment of [134] _Archibald_ the King's Fool, by laying\nthe Matter before the Privy-Council, and occasioning him to be expell'd\nthe King's House for a poor _Jest_ upon himself; who, as he was a Man at\nthe Head of the State, should have despis'd such a thing in any Body, much\nmore in a _Fool_, and who should never have been hurried on to be the\nInstrument of any _Motion_ against him, but have left it to others; who\nupon the least Intimation would have been glad to make their court to\n_Laud_, by sacrificing a _Fool_ only to his Resentment.\n\n\nXVIII. I could have entertain'd the Reader with a great Variety of\nPassages out of the Fathers of the Church, whose Writings are Magazines of\nAuthority, and urg'd upon us upon all Occasions by Ecclesiasticks, and are\nparticularly full of _Burlesque_ and _Ridicule_ on the _Gods and Religion_\nof the _Pagans_; in the use whereof they are much more unanimous, than in\nthe Articles of their _Creed_. But that being a Subject too great and\nextensive for a Digression, I shall content my self with the few following\nReflections; which will sufficiently evince, that the _Taste_ of the\nPrimitive Christians was like that of the rest of the World; that they\ncould laugh and be as merry as the _Greeks_ and other _Pagans_; and that\nthey would take the Advantage of the _Pagans_ weak Cause, to introduce\n_Ridicule_, which always bears hard upon Weakness and Folly, and must load\nthem so as to prevent a Possibility of their being remov'd by another\n_Ridicule_.\n\nThese Fathers have transfused into their Writings all the Wit and Raillery\nof the antient _Pagan_ Writers and Philosophers; who it is well known\nwrote a great deal to turn _Paganism_ into Ridicule; most of which now\nexists no where but in the Works of the Fathers; all Books of that kind\nbeing lost, except _Cicero_'s Books of _the Nature of Gods_, and of\n_Divination_, and the Dialogues of _Lucian_; both which Authors have been\nof great use to the _Fathers_ to set them up for _Wits_, _Droles_, and\n_Satirists_. For a Specimen how well these antient _Pagans_ could _drole_,\nand how much beholden we are to the Fathers for recording their\nDrolleries, the most remarkable, I think, are some _Fragments_ of a Book\nof _Oenomaus_ concerning the _Pagan Oracles_, cited and preserv'd by [135]\n_Eusebius_; who has given us occasion to [136] _regret_ the loss of this\nWork, as one of the most valuable Books written by the Antients on the\nSubject of _Oracles_, tho those Books were _very numerous_. And it is to\nbe observ'd, that this Book and a great many, perhaps a [137] thousand\nmore, were publish'd in _Greece_, where the Imposture of _Oracles_ greatly\nprevail'd, and great Wealth flow'd in, not only to the Priests of the\n_Oracular Temples_, but to all the Inhabitants of _Greece_, and especially\nto those who lived in the Neighbourhood of the several _Oracular\nTemples_; who made a great Profit from the rich Travellers, that came from\nall Parts of the World to know their Fortunes. This shews the great\nIntegrity and Fairness of the old _Pagans_; who would suffer not only\ntheir supposed standing Revelation to be call'd in question, but a\nRevelation that brought in as much Money, as the Chapels, Churches, and\nShrines dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, or to any of the Saints, do in\nthe _Roman_ Church, without calling any Man to Account for the Liberties\nthey took; who, as far as appears, were not expos'd [138] _to any Danger_\nthereby. It is also to be observ'd, that the merry [139] _Epicureans were\nnone of them ever prosecuted_, and _that_ Epicurus _himself died quietly\nat_ Athens _in a very great old Age_.\n\nBut the Book, which the Fathers made the most use of, was that arch, fly,\nand drolling Performance, now lost, of _Evemerus_, which he intitled, _A\nsacred History_: wherein he gave an _historical Account_ of the _Birth_,\n_Country_, _Lives_, _Deaths_, and _Burials_ of the _Gods_. This Work was\ntranslated into _Latin_ by that arch Wag _Ennius_, who himself has most\ningeniously _ridicul'd_ several Impostors or very grave Persons, in a\nremarkable Piece of Poetry, which I shall give my Reader in _English_.\n\n  \"_I value not a Rush the_ Marsian _Augur,_\n  \"_Nor Country-Fortune Tellers, nor Town-Star-Gazers,_\n  \"_Nor jugling Gypsies, nor yet Dream-Interpreters:_\n  \"_For, not by Skill or Art, are these Diviners;_\n  \"_But superstitious Prophets, Guessers impudent,_\n  \"_Or idle Rogues, or craz'd, or mere starving Beggars._\n  \"_They know no way themselves, yet others would direct;_\n  \"_And crave a Groat of those, to whom they promise Riches:_\n  \"_Thence let them take the Groat, and give back all the rest._\n\n\nXIX. Wherefore I cannot but presume, that an Attempt to make a _Law_ to\nrestrain _Irony_, &c. would prove abortive, and that the Attempt would be\ndeem'd the Effect of a very partial Consideration of things, and of\npresent Anger at a poor Jest; which Men are not able to bear themselves,\nhow much soever they abound in _Jests_, both of the _light_ and _cruel_\nkind, on others: tho for my own part I concur heartily with you in\n_making_ such a _Law_, and in leaving it to a Person of your _Equity_ to\ndraw it up, craving only the Liberty to propose an Amendment or Addition,\n_viz._ that you would be pleas'd to insert a Clause to prevent _Irony_,\n_Ridicule_, and _Banter_, from invading the Pulpit, and particularly to\nprevent pointing out _Persons of Men_ [140] from thence, and reviling\nthem, as also reviling whole Bodies of Men: For whatever is immoral in\nPrint, is, in my Opinion, immoral in the Pulpit. Besides, these things\nseem more improper in the Pulpit, than they can be in Print: because no\n_Reprisals_ can be made in the former, as in the latter Case; where they,\nor the Fear of them, may give some Check to the Disorder, and reduce\nthings to a tolerable Temper and Decency. If, in order to justify my\nMotion, it could be thought necessary or proper here to give a Detail of\nridiculing and ironical Passages, taken from Sermons against particular\nMen, and Bodies of Men, and their Doctrines, you cannot but know how easy\nit would be to fill a Volume with them, without going to Authors, who have\noccasionally produc'd abundance of them. And I will only mention here a\nPassage in a _Volume of Sermons_, just now publish'd, of a well known\n_High Divine_, the Reverend Mr. _William Reeves_, made famous by his\n_Translation_ of some _Apologies of the Primitive Fathers_, which gain'd\nhim the Applauses of a great many _High Men_, and particularly _Hickes_,\n_Dodwel_, and _Nelson_, &c. and a Recommendation from the last to the\nQueen, who in the latter end of her Reign made him _Chaplain in Ordinary_,\nand obtain'd for him a considerable Preferment. This Gentleman, attacking\nBishop _Hoadley_'s _Sermon_ of _The Kingdom of Christ_, says[141], \"In\nthese last Days we have been taught to be as indolent and unconcern'd as\npossible in the Service of God: A noted _Novellist_ [Bp. _Hoadley_] among\nmany other odd _Engines_, hath invented one, to pump out all Devotion from\nPrayer, and make it a _Vacuum_. Instead of the old fervent, affectionate\nway of Worshipping, he hath substituted a new Idol, a Vanity, a Nothing of\nhis own, _a calm and undisturb'd Address to God_.----The _Arrows_ and\n_bitter Words_ Mr. _Hales_ hath levell'd against _Rome_ only, our Right\nReverend hath _pointed a-new_, and shot them full against the Church he\nsuperintends, and with all the Force of inbred, fanatick Fury. And by this\ntime surely it is well known, that he is a very _warm Man_ in every thing,\nbut his _Prayers_.\"\n\n\nXX. Instead of addressing the foregoing Papers to you, I could have\naddress'd them to several others; who of late have thought fit to\nrecognize the Right of Men, to examine into, and judge for themselves in\nall Matters of speculation, and especially in Matters of mere Religion,\nand to publish their Reasons against any Opinions they judge erroneous,\ntho publickly receiv'd in the Country where they live, provided they do it\n_seriously_ and _gravely_: which is a noble Progress in Truth, and owing\nto that glorious Liberty, and Freedom of Debate, that we enjoy under our\nmost excellent Princes; and which extorts it even from them, who, to have\nsome Credit in the World, are forced to own, what would discredit them to\ngo on to deny, among all who have any degree of _Virtue_, _Sense_, and\n_Learning_. But I was determin'd to address my self to you, as a Person of\nmore remarkable _Moderation_ than ordinary in your _Letter_ to Dr.\n_Rogers_: And one, who had, long before, in your _Defence of the\nConstitution in Church and State; in answer to the Charge of the\nNonjurors, accusing us of Heresy and Schism, Perjury and Treason_, \"valu'd\n[142] and commended the Integrity of the Nonjurors in declaring their\nSentiments:\" and who, tho you justly charge those of them you write\nagainst, \"as attacking us with such uncommon Marks of Violence [143] as\nmost plainly intimate, that no Measures are intended to be kept with us by\nthem in the Day of their Prosperity, who in the Day of their Adversity,\neven when they are most at Mercy, cannot refrain from such _raging_\nProvocations; but when reduced to the Necessity of _taking_ Quarter,\nprofess most plainly they will never give it:\" Yet as to these Enemies,\nwho would destroy our Church and State, and [144] \"revive upon us the\nCharge of _Heresy_ and _Schism_, _Perjury_ and _Treason_, Crimes of no\nsmall figure either in the Law or in the Gospel,\" you only say, that \"if\nyou may have leave to borrow a Thought from [145] one of their own most\ncelebrated Writers, you would tell them, that _the Blood and Spirits were\nmade to rise upon such Occasions_: Nature design'd not, that we should be\ncold or indifferent in our manner of receiving, or returning, such foul\nReproaches.\" This is great Moderation, and such as I heartily approve,\nbeing dispos'd to forgive the Punishment due by Law to any Fault, when the\nNon-execution of it will not overturn the Government. And I am willing to\nhope, that since you can think that such bitter Adversaries to you, as\nthese licentious _Jacobites_ are, should only be smartly replied to, and\nnot be prosecuted by the Government, you will, upon Reflection, think,\nthat a merry, good humour'd Adversary should be treated as well.\n\nTho I have endeavour'd to defend the Use of _Ridicule_ and _Irony_, yet it\nis such _Irony_ and _Ridicule_ only as is fit for polite Persons to use.\nAs to the gross _Irony_ and _Ridicule_, I disapprove of it, as I do other\nFaults in Writing; only I would not have Men punish'd, or any other way\ndisturb'd about it, than by a Return of _Ridicule_ and _Irony_. This I\nthink fit to conclude with, more to prevent Misrepresentation from others,\nthan from you; whom I look on to have too much Sense and Integrity to\nmistake or misrepresent me.\n\n_I am Yours, &c._\n\n\n_FINIS._\n\n\n\n\nWILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY\n\nUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES\n\n\nTHE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY\n\nPUBLICATIONS IN PRINT THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY\n\nPUBLICATIONS IN PRINT\n\n\n1948-1949\n\n16. Henry Nevil Payne, _The Fatal Jealousie_ (1673).\n\n18. Anonymous, \"Of Genius,\" in _The Occasional Paper_, Vol. III, No. 1\n(1719), and Aaron Hill, Preface to _The Creation_ (1720).\n\n\n1949-1950\n\n19. Susanna Centlivre, _The Busie Body_ (1709).\n\n20. Lewis Theobald, _Preface to the Works of Shakespeare_ (1734).\n\n22. Samuel Johnson, _The Vanity of Human Wishes_ (1749), and two _Rambler_\npapers (1750).\n\n23. John Dryden, _His Majesties Declaration Defended_ (1681).\n\n\n1950-1951\n\n26. Charles Macklin, _The Man of the World_ (1792).\n\n\n1951-1952\n\n31. Thomas Gray, _An Elegy Wrote in a Country Churchyard_ (1751), and _The\nEton College Manuscript_.\n\n\n1952-1953\n\n41. Bernard Mandeville, _A Letter to Dion_ (1732).\n\n\n1963-1964\n\n104. Thomas D'Urfey, _Wonders in the Sun; or, The Kingdom of the Birds_\n(1706).\n\n\n1964-1965\n\n110. John Tutchin, _Selected Poems_ (1685-1700).\n\n111. Anonymous, _Political Justice_ (1736).\n\n112. Robert Dodsley, _An Essay on Fable_ (1764).\n\n113. T. R., _An Essay Concerning Critical and Curious Learning_ (1698).\n\n114. _Two Poems Against Pope:_ Leonard Welsted, _One Epistle to Mr. A.\nPope_ (1730), and Anonymous, _The Blatant Beast_ (1742).\n\n\n1965-1966\n\n115. Daniel Defoe and others, _Accounts of the Apparition of Mrs. Veal_.\n\n116. Charles Macklin, _The Covent Garden Theatre_ (1752).\n\n117. Sir George L'Estrange, _Citt and Bumpkin_ (1680).\n\n118. Henry More, _Enthusiasmus Triumphatus_ (1662).\n\n119. Thomas Traherne, _Meditations on the Six Days of the Creation_\n(1717).\n\n120. Bernard Mandeville, _Aesop Dress'd or a Collection of Fables_ (1704).\n\n\n1966-1967\n\n123. Edmond Malone, _Cursory Observations on the Poems Attributed to Mr.\nThomas Rowley_ (1782).\n\n124. Anonymous, _The Female Wits_ (1704).\n\n125. Anonymous, _The Scribleriad_ (1742). Lord Hervey, _The Difference\nBetween Verbal and Practical Virtue_ (1742).\n\n\n1967-1968\n\n129. Lawrence Echard, Prefaces to _Terence's Comedies_ (1694) and\n_Plautus's Comedies_ (1694).\n\n130. Henry More, _Democritus Platonissans_ (1646).\n\n132. Walter Harte, _An Essay on Satire, Particularly on the Dunciad_\n(1730).\n\n\n1968-1969\n\n133. John Courtenay, _A Poetical Review of the Literary and Moral\nCharacter of the Late Samuel Johnson_ (1786).\n\n134. John Downes, _Roscius Anglicanus_ (1708).\n\n135. Sir John Hill, _Hypochondriasis, a Practical Treatise_ (1766).\n\n136. Thomas Sheridan, _Discourse ... Being Introductory to His Course of\nLectures on Elocution and the English Language_ (1759).\n\n137. Arthur Murphy, _The Englishman From Paris_ (1736).\n\n138. [Catherine Trotter], _Olinda's Adventures_ (1718).\n\n\nPublications of the first fifteen years of the Society (numbers 1-90) are\navailable in paperbound units of six issues at $16.00 per unit, from the\nKraus Reprint Company, 16 East 46th Street, New York, N.Y. 10017.\n\nPublications in print are available at the regular membership rate of\n$5.00 yearly. Prices of single issues may be obtained upon request.\nSubsequent publications may be checked in the annual prospectus.\n\n\nTHE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY\n\nWILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY\n\nUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES\n\n2520 Cimarron Street (at West Adams), Los Angeles, California 90018\n\n_Make check or money order payable to_\n\nTHE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA William Andrews Clark\nMemorial Library: University of California, Los Angeles\n\nTHE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY\n\n2520 CIMARRON STREET, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90018\n\n_General Editors:_ William E. Conway, William Andrews Clark Memorial\nLibrary; George Robert Guffey, University of California, Los Angeles;\nMaximillian E. Novak, University of California, Los Angeles\n\n_Corresponding Secretary:_ Mrs. Edna C. Davis, William Andrews Clark\nMemorial Library\n\nThe Society's purpose is to publish rare Restoration and\neighteenth-century works (usually as facsimile reproductions). All income\nof the Society is devoted to defraying costs of publication and mailing.\n\nCorrespondence concerning memberships in the United States and Canada\nshould be addressed to the Corresponding Secretary at the William Andrews\nClark Memorial Library, 2520 Cimarron Street, Los Angeles, California.\nCorrespondence concerning editorial matters may be addressed to the\nGeneral Editors at the same address. Manuscripts of introductions should\nconform to the recommendations of the MLA _Style Sheet_. The membership\nfee is $5.00 a year in the United States and Canada and \u00a31.19.6 in Great\nBritain and Europe. British and European prospective members should\naddress B. H. Blackwell, Broad Street, Oxford, England. Copies of back\nissues in print may be obtained from the Corresponding Secretary.\n\nPublications of the first fifteen years of the Society (numbers 1-90) are\navailable in paperbound units of six issues at $16.00 per unit, from the\nKraus Reprint Company, 16 East 46th Street, New York, N.Y. 10017.\n\nMake check or money order payable to THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF\nCALIFORNIA\n\n\nREGULAR PUBLICATIONS FOR 1969-1970\n\n139. John Ogilvie, _An Essay on the lyric poetry of the ancients_ (1762).\nIntroduction by Wallace Jackson.\n\n140. _A Learned Dissertation on Dumpling_ (1726) and _Pudding burnt to pot\nor a compleat key to the Dissertation on Dumpling_ (1727). Introduction by\nSamuel L. Macey.\n\n141. Selections from Sir Roger L'Estrange's _Observator_ (1681-1687).\nIntroduction by Violet Jordain.\n\n142. Anthony Collins, _A Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony in\nwriting_ (1729). Introduction by Edward A. Bloom and Lillian D. Bloom.\n\n143. _A Letter from a clergyman to his friend, with an account of the\ntravels of Captain Lemuel Gulliver_ (1726). Introduction by Martin\nKallich.\n\n144. _The Art of Architecture, a poem. In imitation of Horace's Art of\npoetry_ (1742). Introduction by William A. Gibson.\n\n\nSPECIAL PUBLICATION FOR 1969-1970\n\nGerard Langbaine, _An Account of the English Dramatick Poets_ (1691),\nIntroduction by John Loftis. 2 Volumes. Approximately 600 pages. Price to\nmembers of the Society, $7.00 for the first copy (both volumes), and $8.50\nfor additional copies. Price to non-members, $10.00.\n\nAlready published in this series:\n\n1. John Ogilby, _The Fables of Aesop Paraphras'd in Verse_ (1668), with an\nIntroduction by Earl Miner. 228 pages.\n\n2. John Gay, _Fables_ (1727, 1738), with an Introduction by Vinton A.\nDearing. 366 pages.\n\n3. _The Empress of Morocco and Its Critics_ (Elkanah Settle, _The Empress\nof Morocco_ [1673] with five plates; _Notes and Observations on the\nEmpress of Morocco_ [1674] by John Dryden, John Crowne and Thomas\nSnadwell; _Notes and Observations on the Empress of Morocco Revised_\n[1674] by Elkanah Settle; and _The Empress of Morocco. A Farce_ [1674] by\nThomas Duffett), with an Introduction by Maximillian E. Novak. 348 pages.\n\n4. _After THE TEMPEST_ (the Dryden-Davenant version of _The Tempest_\n[1670]; the \"operatic\" _Tempest_ [1674]; Thomas Duffett's _Mock-Tempest_\n[1675]; and the \"Garrick\" _Tempest_ [1756]), with an Introduction by\nGeorge Robert Guffey. 332 pages.\n\nPrice to members of the Society, $3.50 for the first copy of each title,\nand $4.25 for additional copies. Price to non-members, $5.00. Standing\norders for this continuing series of Special Publications will be\naccepted. British and European orders should be addressed to B. H.\nBlackwell, Broad Street, Oxford, England.\n\n\n\n\nFootnotes:\n\n[28] _Page_ 337.\n\n[29] _Pag._ 302.\n\n[30] _Page_ 301.\n\n[31] _Pag._ 307.\n\n[32] Stillingfleet's _Answer to several late Treatises_, &c. _Page_ 14.\n\n[33] _Pag._ 71.\n\n[34] Vindication of the Answer to the Royal Papers. _p._ 105.\n\n[35] _Preface to_ Unreasonableness of Separation. _p._ 62.\n\n[36] Rule's _Rational Defence_ of Nonconf. _p._ 29.\n\n[37] _Preface to_ Stillingfleet _still against_ Stillingfleet.\n\n[38] _Preface to a Discourse of_ Miracles wrote in the _Roman_ Church,\n_&c._\n\n[39] See _Stillingfleet_'s Second Vind. of the Protestant Grounds of\nFaith, _c._ 3.\n\n[40] _Edwards's_ New Discov. _p._ 184-215.\n\n[41] _Ecclesiast. Hist._ cent. 8. _p._ 196.\n\n[42] Vind. _p._ 199.\n\n[43] _See_ Shaftesbury's _Characteristicks_, Vol. I. p. 61.\n\n[44] Memoirs de Trevoux, _An._ 1707. _p._ 396. _An._ 1717. _p._ 1200.\n\n[45] _Trapp_'s Popery truly stated, _p._ 123.\n\n[46] _Preface._\n\n[47] _Heylin_'s History of the Presbyterians, _p._ 391.\n\n[48] _Wotton_ on the _Misna_, p. 118.\n\n[49] _Freeholder_, N\u00ba 30.\n\n[50] _Freeholder_, Numb. xlv.\n\n[51] _See_ Cicero de Officiis, _l._ 1. _c._ 30.\n\n[52] _See_ Patrick_'s Friendly Debate_, Part 1, _p._ 139-141. 5_th Edit._\n\n[53] _Preface to_ The State of the Roman Catholick Religion, _p._ 11.\n\n[54] De Divin. l. 2. c. 25.\n\n[55] _Rog. Hoveden_, Pars ii. p. 520.\n\n[56] 1 _Kings_ xviii.\n\n[57] _Psalm_ ii. 4.\n\n[58] _Gen._ iii. 22.\n\n[59] Arch\u00e6olog. Philos. _l._ 2. _c._ 7.\n\n[60] Shaftesbury _in Charact._ Vol. 3. _and_ Whitchcot_'s Sermons_: Vol.\nI.\n\n[61] Shaftesbury's _Characteristicks_, Vol. I. p. 71.\n\n[62] _Page_ 307.\n\n[63] _How useful_ Lestrange_'s_ Observators, _which were design'd to\nexpose the Dissenters to Contempt and Persecution, were deem'd to the\nChurch at the time they were publish'd, may be judged of by Bp._ Burnet,\n_who says_ [_in his_ Eighteen Papers, _p._ 90.] \"_Another Buffoon was\nhired to plague the Nation with three or four Papers a Week, which to the\nReproach of the Age in which we live, had but too great and too general\nEffect, for poisoning the Spirits of the Clergy._\"\n\n[64] _In this Work the Dissenters and Low Churchmen are sufficiently\nrally'd and abus'd, and particularly the_ Free-Thinkers, _whose_ Creed _is\ntherein represented as consisting of these two Negatives_, No Queen and no\nGod. _Examiners_, Vol. 3. p. 12.\n\n_Mr._ Addison _tells us_ [Freeholder N\u00ba. 19.] \"_the_ Examiner _was the\nfavourite Work of the Party. It was usher'd into the World by a Letter\nfrom a Secretary of State, setting forth the great Genius of the Author,\nthe Usefulness of his Design, and the mighty Consequences that were to be\nexpected from it. It is said to be written by those among them whom they\nlook'd upon as their most celebrated Wits and Politicians, and was\ndispers'd into all Quarters of the Nation with great Industry and\nExpence.----In this Paper all the great Men who had done eminent Services\nto their Country, but a few Years before, were draughted out one by one,\nand baited in their Turns. No Sanctity of Character, or Privilege of Sex\nexempted Persons.----Several of our Prelates were the standing Marks of\npublick Raillery._----\"\n\n[65] _In his_ Ecclesiastical Policy, _his_ Defence and Continuation\n_thereof, and his_ Reproof to _Marvel_'s Rehearsal transpos'd.\n\n[66] _In his_ Friendly Debates.\n\n[67] _In his six Volumes of_ Sermons, _and in his_ Books _of the_ Trinity.\n\n[68] _In his_ Discourse of the Knowledge of Christ, _&c. his_ Defences of\nDr. _Stillingfleet_'s Unreasonableness of Separation, _and his_ Answer _to\nthe_ Protestant Reconciler.\n\n[69] _In his Translation of_ Dryden_'s_ Absalom _and_ Achitophel _into_\nLatin _Verse, whereby he was first flush'd; and in his_ Convocational\nControversy, _and in his numerous State Libels_.\n\n[70] _In his_ Sermons, Rights of the Church, _and especially his_\nCharacter of a Low-Church-man, _drawn to abuse Bishop_ Floyd.\n\n[71] _Of this, the Trials of_ Penn _and_ Mead _before_ Howel, _and of_\nBaxter _before_ Jefferys, _are Master Pieces; of which last you have an\nAccount in_ Kennet_'s_ Compleat History of _England, Vol. 3d. and of the\nformer in_ the Phoenix, _Vol._ I.\n\n[72] Snape_'s_ Vindication against _Pilloniere_. p. 50.\n\n[73] _Id._ p. 63.\n\n[74] _The Stage condemn'd_, p. 2.\n\n[75] Popery truly stated, _p._ 127, 128.\n\n[76] _Pag._ 75, 76, 77, 79, 81, 112, 113, 120, 122, 124, 125.\n\n[77] _Sermons_, Vol. III. p. 299.\n\n[78] Rule of Faith, _p._ 347, 348.\n\n[79] See _p._ 57.\n\n[80] _Pag._ 59.\n\n[81] _Pag._ 57.\n\n[82] Burnet_'s_ History of his own Times, _p._ 674.\n\n[83] Ib. _p._ 792.\n\n[84] Ibid. _p._ 740.\n\n[85] Ibid. _p._ 683.\n\n[86] _The Protestant Mouse speaks._\n\n[87] _Boyer_'s Life of Queen _Anne_, in the Annual List of the Deaths,\n_p._ 65.\n\n[88] _A_ Clergyman _preach'd thus to his_ Auditory: _\"You have_ Moses\n_and_ Aaron _before you, and the Organs behind you, so are a happy People;\nfor what greater Comfort would mortal Men have?\"_ See _Walker_'s\nSufferings, _&c. p._ 178.\n\n[89] _See the Article_ Heylin, in _Wood_'s Athen\u00e6 Oxon.\n\n[90] Burnet_'s Hist._ p. 100.\n\n[91] _Characteristicks_, Vol. I. p. 259.\n\n[92] Burnet. _ibid._\n\n[93] Page 177.\n\n[94] Burnet _p._ 95.\n\n[95] Kennet_'s Register_, p. 258.\n\n[96] _Ibid._ p. 516.\n\n[97] Burnet_'s Hist._\n\n[98] Kennet_'s Register_, p. 111.\n\n[99] Burnet_'s History_, p. 107.\n\n[100] _See the Bp. of_ Bangor_'s Preface to the_ Answer _to the_\nRepresentation _of the Lower House of Convocation_.\n\n[101] Ward_'s Life of Dr._ Henry More, _p._ 120.\n\n[102] Ibid. _p._ 122.\n\n[103] _See the several Lives of him._\n\n[104] _Life lately printed_, 1726. p. 99.\n\n[105] Burnet_'s Hist._ p. 95.\n\n[106] Temple_'s Works_, Vol. II. p. 40.\n\n[107] _Collection of authentick Records_, Vol. II. p. 1099.\n\n[108] _Second Letter to the Bishop of_ London, _p._ 3, 4.\n\n[109] _History_, p. 260.\n\n[110] _Mat._ xxvi. 67, 68.\n\n[111] Elwood_'s History of his own Life_, &c. _p._ 318.\n\n[112] _Remarks on some late Sermons_, &c. _p._ 34.\n\n[113] _Pag._ 52.\n\n[114] _Answer to_ State of the Protestants in _Ireland_, &c. _p._ 108.\n\n[115] _Pag._ 120, 121.\n\n[116] _Preface_, p. 14.\n\n[117] _Pag._ 11, 24.\n\n[118] _Pag._ 1.\n\n[119] _Pag._ 4, 11, 12, 13, 19.\n\n[120] Appendix to Parliamentary Original, &c. _p._ 14.\n\n[121] Some Remarks on the Temper of some late Writers, &c. _p._ 33.\n\n[122] Preface to Animad. _p._ 12, 13.\n\n[123] Animad. _p._ 114.\n\n[124] Ibid. _p._ 332.\n\n[125] Ibid. _p._ 348.\n\n[126] Tritheism charged, _p._ 2, 3.\n\n[127] Ib. _p._ 108.\n\n[128] Ibid. _p._ 170.\n\n[129] Ibid. _p._ 281.\n\n[130] Judg. 18.24.\n\n[131] Ib. _p._ 285.\n\n[132] Ibid. _p._ 299.\n\n[133] _Fuller_'s Church History, Cent. 17. B. 11. Sect. 89, Parag. 10.\n\n[134] _Rushworth_, Part II. Vol. I. _p._ 471.\n\n[135] _Prap. Evang._ l. 4. p. 209-234.\n\n[136] Fontenelle, Historie des Oracles. I. Dissert. c. vii.\n\n[137] Euseb. Id. l. 4.\n\n[138] _Baltus_, Suite de la Reponse a l'His. des Oracles, _p._ 283.\n\n[139] _Ibid._\n\n[140] _Bp._ Hoadley_'s Answer to_ the Representation, _&c. Pref._ p. 12.\n\n[141] _Page_ 91.\n\n[142] _Page_ 2.\n\n[143] _Page_ 1.\n\n[144] _Page_ 4, 5.\n\n[145] _Mr._ Collier.\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\nPassages in italics are indicated by _underscore_.\n\nAdditional spacing after some of the quotes is intentional to indicate\nboth the end of a quotation and the beginning of a new paragraph as\npresented in the original text.\n\nLong \"s\" has been modernized.\n\nThe inclusion of two footnotes numbered 53 in intentional to reflect the\noriginal text.\n\nFootnote placement in this text reflects the placement in the original,\neither inside punctuation or spaced between words.\n\nThe following misprints have been corrected:\n  \"administred\" corrected to \"administered\" (page i)\n  \"othodoxy\" corrected to \"orthodoxy\" (page vi)\n  \"Trap's\" corrected to \"Trapp's\" (page 12)\n  \"Rididicule\" corrected to \"Ridicule\" (page 19)\n  \"ridiulons\" corrected to \"ridiculous\" (page 63)\n  \"qustion\" corrected to \"question\" (page 73)\n\nOther than the corrections listed above, printer's inconsistencies in\nspelling, punctuation, hyphenation, and ligature usage have been retained.","title":"A discourse concerning ridicule and irony in writing (1729)","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":29654}