Chapter III (1)

By 1727 several of the orthodox felt that they could take no more of Collins's laughter, his sneering invectives against the clergy, or his designs to make religion "a Matter purely personal; and the Knowledge of it to be obtain'd by personal Consideration, _independently of any Guides, Teachers, or Authority_." In the forefront of this group was John Rogers, whose hostility to the deist was articulate and compulsive. At least it drove him into a position seemingly at odds with the spirit if not the law of English toleration. He urged, for example, that those like Collins be prosecuted in a civil court for a persuasion "which is manifestly subversive of all Order and Polity, and can no more consist with civil, than with religious, Society."[25]

Thereupon followed charge and countercharge. New gladiators, as different from each other as the nonconformist divine Samuel Chandler and the deist Thomas Chubb, entered the arena on behalf of Collins. For all the dogmatic volubility of Rogers, orthodoxy appeared beleaguered. The moderate clergy, who witnessed this exchange, became alarmed; they feared that in the melee the very heart of English toleration would be threatened by the contenders, all of whom spoke as its champion. Representative of such moderation was Nathanael Marshall, who wished if not to end the debate, then at least to contain its ardor. As canon of Windsor, he supported the condition of a state religion protected by the magistrate but he worried over the extent of the latter's prerogative and power. Certainly he was more liberal than Rogers in his willingness to entertain professions of religious diversity. Yet he straitjacketed his liberalism when he denied responsible men the right to attack laws, both civil and canonical, with "ludicrous Insult" or "with Buffoonery and Banter, Ridicule or Sarcastick Irony."[26]

Once again Collins met the challenge. In _A Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony_ he devoted himself to undermining the moral, the intellectual, and practical foundations of that one restraint which Marshall would impose upon the conduct of any religious quarrel. He had little difficulty in achieving his objective. His adversary's stand was visibly vulnerable and for several reasons. It was too conscious of the tug-of-war between the deist and Rogers, too arbitrary in its choice of prohibition. It was, in truth, strained by a choice between offending the establishment and yet rejecting clerical extremism.[27] Moreover, Collins had this time an invisible partner, a superior thinker against whom he could test his own ideas and from whom he could borrow others. For the _Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony_ is largely a particularization, a crude but powerful reworking of Shaftesbury's _Sensus Communis: An Essay on the Freedom of Wit and Humour_.

Supported by Shaftesbury's urbane generalization, Collins laughed openly at the egocentricity and blindness of Marshall's timid zealotry. Indeed, he wryly found his orthodox opponent guilty of the very crime with which he, as a subversive, was charged. It seemed to him, he said,

a most prodigious Banter upon [mankind], for Men to talk in general
of the _Immorality_ of _Ridicule_ and _Irony_, and of _punishing_ Men
for those Matters, when their own Practice is _universal Irony_ and
_Ridicule_ of all those who go not with them, and _universal
Applause_ and _Encouragement_ for such _Ridicule_ and _Irony_, and
distinguishing by all the honourable ways imaginable such _drolling_
Authors for their Drollery; and when Punishment for _Drollery_ is
never call'd for, but when _Drollery_ is used or employ'd against
them!

(p. 29)

Collins's technique continued its ironic ambiguity, reversal, and obliquity. Under a tone of seeming innocence and good will, he credited his adversaries with an enviable capacity for satiric argument. In comradely fashion, he found precedent for his own rhetorical practice through a variety of historical and biblical analogies. But even more important for a contemporary audience, he again resorted to the device of invoking the authority provided by some of the most respected names in the Anglican Establishment. The use of satire in religious topics, hence, was manifest in "the Writings of our most eminent Divines," especially those of Stillingfleet, "our greatest controversial Writer" (pp. 4-5).

With all the outrageous assurance of a self-invited guest, the deist had seated himself at the table of his vainly protesting Christian hosts (whom he insisted on identifying as brethren). "In a word," he said so as to obviate debate, "the Opinions and Practices of Men in all Matters, and especially in Matters of Religion, are generally so absurd and ridiculous that it is impossible for them not to be the Subjects of Ridicule" (p. 19). Thus adopting Juvenal's concept of satiric necessity ("difficile est saturam non scribere"), Collins here set forth the thesis and rationale of his enemy. There was a kind of impudent virtuosity in his "proofs," in his manner of drawing a large, impressive cluster of names into his ironic net and making all of them appear to be credible witnesses in his defense. Even Swift, amusingly compromised as "one of the greatest _Droles_ that ever appear'd upon the Stage of the World" (p. 39), was brought to the witness box as evidence of the privileged status to which satiric writing was entitled. Collins enforced erudition with cool intelligence so that contemptuous amusement is present on every page of his _Discourse_.

Beneath his jeers and his laughter there was a serious denunciation of any kind of intellectual restraint, however mild-seeming; beneath his verbal pin-pricking there was conversely an exoneration of man's right to inquire, to profess, and to persuade. Beneath his jests and sarcasms there was further a firm philosophical commitment that informed the rhetoric of all his earlier work. Ridicule, he asserted in 1729, "is both a proper and necessary Method of Discourse in many Cases, and especially in the Case of _Gravity_, when that is attended with Hypocrisy or Imposture, or with Ignorance, or with soureness of Temper and Persecution: all which ought to draw after them the _Ridicule_ and _Contempt_ of the Society, which has no other effectual Remedy against such Methods of Imposition" (p. 22).

For the modern reader the _Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony_ is the most satisfactory of Collins's many pamphlets and books. It lacks the pretentiousness of the _Scheme_, the snide convolutions of the _Grounds and Reasons_, the argument by half-truths of the _Discourse of Free-Thinking_. His last work is free of the curious ambivalence which marked so many of his earlier pieces, a visible uncertainty which made him fear repression and yet court it. On the contrary, his last work is in fact a justification of his rhetorical mode and religious beliefs; it is an _apologia pro vita sua_ written with all the intensity and decisiveness that such a justification demands. To be sure, it takes passing shots at old enemies like Swift, but never with rancor. And while its language is frequently ironical, its thinking makes an earnest defense of wit as a weapon of truth. The essay sets forth its author as an _animal ridens_, a creature that through laughter and affable cynicism worships a universal God and respects a rational mankind.

Brown University

NOTES TO THE INTRODUCTION

[1] _Universal Spectator, and Weekly Journal_, No. 98 (22 August 1730).

[2] To Des Maizeaux (5 May 1717): B. M. Sloane MSS. 4282, ff. 129-130.

[3] To Des Maizeaux (9 February 1716): B. M. Sloane MSS. 4282, f. 123.

[4] The title page of the _Scheme_ is dated 1726. It was not advertised in the newspapers or journals of that year--a strange silence for any of Collins's work. Its first notice appeared in the _Monthly Catalogue: Being a General Register of Books, Sermons, Plays, Poetry, Pamphlets, &c. Printed and Publish'd in London, or the Universities, during the Month of May, 1727_ (see No. 49). Yet we know that the _Scheme_ had been remarked upon as early as March when on the 10th of that month Samuel Chandler published his _Reflections on the Conduct of the Modern Deists in their late Writings against Christianity_. (For the dating of Chandler's work, see the _Daily Courant_ [10 March 1727].) We know also that the _Scheme_ went to a second edition late in 1727 and was frequently advertised in the _Daily Post_ between 2 January and 20 January 1728.

[5] For the statement about the _Letter to Dr. Rogers_, see B. M. Sloane MSS. 4282, f. 220 (15 August 1727). For that on the use of "personal matters" in controversy, see B. M. Sloane MSS. 4282, f. 170 (27 December 1719); cf. _The Scheme of Literal Prophecy Considered_ (London, 1726), pp. 422-438.

[6] _The Grounds and Reasons of the Christian Religion_ was published in London within the first four days of January 1724; see the advertisement in the _Daily Post_ (4 January 1724). _A Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony in Writing_ was published on or close to 17 March 1729; see the advertisement in the _Daily Journal_ for that date.

[7] We can generally fix the date of Rogers's _Eight Sermons_ within the first two months of 1727 because it was answered early by Samuel Chandler's _Reflections on the Conduct of the Modern Deists_. (See note 4.) For the dating of Collins's rebuttal, see the _Monthly Catalogue_, No. 49 (May 1727).

[8] To Des Maizeaux (24 June 1727): B. M. Sloane MSS. 4282, ff. 218-219.

[9] For the dating of this work, see the _Daily Post_ (31 January 1728).

[10] For Swift's satire, see _Mr. C---ns's Discourse of Free-Thinking, Put into plain English, by way of Abstract, for the Use of the Poor_. For Bentley's devastating probe of Collins's scholarly inadequacies, see his _Remarks on the Discourse of Free-Thinking. By Phileleutherus Lipsiensis_. Both works appeared in 1713.

[11] _Scheme_, pp. 432-433.

[12] Edward Chandler, _A Defence of Christianity from the Prophecies of the Old Testament_ (London, 1725), p. ii.

[13] _A Letter to Dr. Rogers_, p. 89.

[14] _A Vindication of the Divine Attributes_ (London, 1710), p. 24.

[15] Robert Jenkin, _A Brief Confutation of the Pretences against Natural and Revealed Religion_ (London, 1702), p. 40.

[16] For Collins on his own rhetorical skills, see _Scheme_, p. 402; William Warburton, _Divine Legation of Moses, Demonstrated_ (London, 1846), III, 199.

[17] Jenkin, _Brief Confutation_, p. 51; for the letter (1 July 1717), see B. M. Sloane MSS. 4282, f. 137.

[18] Pp. 46-99.

[19] See, for example, the statement of John Conybeare, Bishop of Bristol, in Joseph Spence, _Observations, Anecdotes, and Characters of Books and Men_, ed. James M. Osborn (Oxford, 1966), I, sect. 992.

[20] _Essay_, pp. 329-333 (for Whiston's statement of sources); pp. 334-335 (for his defense of literal interpretation). The bracketed material indicates Whiston's manuscript emendations of his own printed text; see the British Museum's copy of the _Essay_ (873. 1. 10) which originally belonged to the mathematician. See Collins, _Grounds and Reasons_, pp. 98-99, for the summary of Whiston's attack upon allegorical interpretation.

[21] _Grounds and Reasons_, pp. 20, 48-50.

[22] This terse summary of the persona's argument was correctly made by Warburton, III, 232.

[23] _Scheme_, p. 391.

[24] _Discourse of Free-Thinking_, pp. 15-17, 38, 171.

[25] _Eight Sermons_, pp. 1, lxi.

[26] Marshall, pp. 301, 337. For Samuel Chandler's contribution, see his _Reflections on the Conduct of the Modern Deists_ (London, 1727); for Chubb's contribution see _Some Short Reflections on the Grounds and Extent of Authority and Liberty, With respect to the Civil Government_ (London, 1728).

[27] Marshall's reluctance to support Rogers's extremism is seen in the funeral sermon he preached at the latter's death (_A Sermon Delivered in the Parish Church of St. Giles Cripplegate, May 18, 1729. Upon Occasion of the Much Lamented Death of the Revd. John Rogers_ [London, 1729]). He made only the most casual and indifferent reference to Rogers's work. So obvious was this slight that it called for a rebuttal; see Philalethes (A. A. Sykes [?]), _Some Remarks Upon the Reverend Dr. Marshall's Sermon on Occasion of the Death of the Revd Dr Rogers_ (London, 1729).

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

This facsimile of _A Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony in Writing_ (1729) is reproduced from a copy in the William Andrews Clark Memorial Library.

A
DISCOURSE
CONCERNING
Ridicule and Irony
IN
WRITING,
IN A
LETTER
To the Reverend
Dr. NATHANAEL MARSHALL.

-------- _Ridiculum acri
Fortius & melius magnas plerumq; secat res._

-------- _Ridentem dicere verum
Quid vetat?_

_LONDON:_

Printed for J. BROTHERTON in _Cornhill_ and sold
by T. WARNER in _Pater-noster-Row_, and
A. DODD without _Temple-Bar_. 1729.

A
DISCOURSE
CONCERNING
_Ridicule_ and _Irony_, &c.

REVEREND SIR,

In your _Letter_ to Dr. _Rogers_, which he has publish'd at the End of his _Vindication of the Civil Establishment of Religion_, I find a Notion advanc'd by you: which as it is a common and plausible Topick for Persecution, and a Topick by which you, and many others, urge the Magistrate to punish [or, as you phrase it, _to pinch_] [28] Men for controversial Writings, is particularly proper at this time to be fully consider'd; and I hope to treat it in such manner as to make you your self, and every fair Reader, sensible of the Weakness thereof.

You profess to "vindicate [29] a sober, serious, and modest Inquiry into the Reasons of any Establishment."

And you add, that you "have not ordinarily found it judg'd inconsistent with the Duty of a _private Subject_, to propose his Doubts or his Reasons to the Publick in a _modest_ way, concerning the _Repeal_ of any Law which he may think of ill Consequence by its Continuance. If he be a Man of Ability, and well vers'd in the Argument, he will deserve some Attention; but if he mistakes his Talent, and will be busy with what he very little understands, Contempt and Odium will be his unavoidable and just Allotment." And you say, that "Religion is more a personal Affair, in which every Man has a peculiar Right and Interest, and a Concern that he be not mistaken, than in any other Case or Instance which can fall under the Cognizance of the Magistrate; and that greater Allowances seem due to each private Person for Examination and Inquiry in this, than in any other Example."

And herein I must do you the Justice to acknowledge, that you speak like a Christian, like a Protestant, like an _Englishman_, and a reasonable Man; like a Man concerned for Truth, like a Man of Conscience; like a Man concern'd for the Consciences of others; like a Man concern'd to have some Sense, Learning, and Virtue in the World; and, in a word, like a Man who is not for abandoning all the valuable Things in Life to the Tyranny, Ambition, and Covetousness of Magistrates and Ecclesiasticks.

But you observe, that "municipal Laws[30], how trivial soever in their intrinsick Value, are never to be _insulted_; never to be treated with _Buffoonery_ and _Banter_, _Ridicule_ and _Sarcastick Irony_. So that Dr. _Rogers_'s grand Adversary will have from you no measure of Encouragement to his manner of Writing." Again, you "never [31] desire to see the Magistrate fencing in the publick Religion with so thick a Hedge as shall exclude all Light, and shall tear out the Eyes of all such as endeavour to see thro' it. _Sober arguing_ you never fear: _Mockery_ and _bitter Railing_, if you could help it, you would never bear, either _for the Truth or against it_."

Upon which I offer these following Considerations.

I. _First_, If what you call _Insult_, _Buffoonery_, _Banter_, _Ridicule_ and _Irony_, _Mockery_ and _bitter Railing_, be Crimes in Disputation, you will find none more deeply involv'd in it than our most famous Writers, in their controversial Treatises about _serious_ Matters; as all Notions and Practices in Religion, whether reasonable or absurd, may be equally and justly deem'd: the Notions and Practices of Papists, Presbyterians, Quakers, and all other Sects, being no less _serious_ to their respective Sects than ridiculous to one another. Let any Man read the Writings of our most eminent Divines against the _Papists_, _Puritans_, _Dissenters_, and _Hereticks_, and against one another, and particularly the Writings of _Alexander Cook_, _Hales_, _Chillingworth_, _Patrick_, _Tillotson_, _Stillingfleet_, _Burnet_, _South_, _Hickes_, _Sherlock_ and _Edwards_, and he will find them to abound with _Banter_, _Ridicule_, and _Irony_. _Stillingfleet_ in particular, our greatest controversial Writer, who passes for _grave_ and _solemn_, is so conscious of his use thereof, that he confesses that Charge of the Papists against him, saying[32], "But I forget my Adversary's grave admonition, that I _would treat these Matters seriously, and lay aside Drollery_." And again, after a _Banter_ of near a Page, he says[33], "But I forget I am so near my Adversary's Conclusion, wherein he so _gravely_ advises me, that I _would be pleas'd for once to write Controversy, and not Play-Books_." Nor did I ever hear the Divines of the Church condemn the Doctor for his sarcastical Method of writing Controversy. On the contrary, I remember at the University, that he used to be applauded no less for his Wit than for his Learning. And to exalt his Character as a Wit, his _Conferences between a_ Romish _Priest, a Fanatick Chaplain, and a Divine of the Church of_ England, _&c._ were spoken of as an excellent _Comedy_, and especially for that Part which the _Fanatick Chaplain_ acts therein, who makes as comical and as ridiculous a Figure as he does in any of the _Plays_ acted on the Stage. And in his _Controversy_ with _Dryden_ about the _Royal Papers_, and those of the _Duchess_ of _York_, he was deem'd to have out-done that famous _Satirist_ in tart Repartees and Reflections; and to have attack'd the Character of the _Poet_ with more severity, than that _Poet_, who was so remarkable for his satirical Reflections on the holy Order, did the Character of the _Divine_: As for example, he says to _Dryden_[34], "Could nothing be said by you of Bishop _Morley_, but that _Prelate of rich Memory_? Or had you a mind to tell us he was no _Poet_? Or that he was out of the Temptation of changing his Religion for Bread?" And many Citations us'd to be produc'd out of his Writings, as Specimens of his ironical Talent; among which I particularly remember his _Ridicule_ of his Adversary Mr. _Alsop_, a famous Presbyterian Wit and Divine; whose Book, which was full of low Raillery and Ridicule, he resembles [35] to _the Bird of_ Athens, as _made up of Face and Feathers_. And the Doctor himself adds, in Justification of the polite Method of Raillery in Controversy, that _there is a pleasantness of Wit, which serves to entertain the Reader in the rough and deep way of Controversy_. Nor did Mr. _Alsop_ want Approvers of his Raillery in his own Party. Mr. _Gilbert Rule_[36], a great _Scotch_ Presbyterian Divine, who defended him against _Stillingfleet_, contends in behalf of his Raillery, "That the Facetiousness of Mr. _Alsop_'s Strain needed to have bred no Disgust, being as a Condiment to prevent _Tædium_ and Nauseousness." And he adds, "That he knows none that blame the excellent Writings of Mr. _Fuller_, which have a Pleasantness not unlike that of Mr. _Alsop_."

And this manner of writing is seldom complain'd of, as unfit to be allow'd, by any but those who feel themselves hurt by it. For the solemn and grave can bear a solemn and grave Attack: That gives them a sort of Credit in the World, and makes them appear considerable to themselves, as worthy of a serious Regard. But _Contempt_ is what they, who commonly are the most contemptible and worthless of Men, cannot bear nor withstand, as setting them in their true Light, and being the most effectual Method to drive Imposture, the sole Foundation of their Credit, out of the World. Hence _Stillingfleet_'s Popish Adversaries, more conscious perhaps of the Ridiculousness of Popery than the common People among Protestants themselves, fall upon him very furiously. One says[37], "That by the Phrases, which are the chief Ornaments that set off the Doctor's Works, we may easily guess in what Books he has spent his Time; and that he is well vers'd in _Don Quixot_, the _Seven Champions_, and other _Romantick Stories_. Sure the Doctor err'd in his Vocation: Had he quitted all serious Matters, and dedicated himself wholly to Drollery and Romance, with two or three Years under _Hudibras_, he might have been a Master in that Faculty; the Stage might have been a Gainer by it, and the Church of _England_ would have been no Loser."

Another of his Adversaries says, "[38]Peruse the Doctor Page after Page, you will find the Man all along in peevish Humour, when you see his Book brimfull of tart biting Ironies, Drolleries, comical Expressions, impertinent Demands, and idle Stories, _&c._ as if the discharging a little Gall were enough to disparage _the clearest Miracles_ God ever wrought."

But what are these _clearest Miracles God ever wrought_? Why, the most extravagant, whimsical, absurd, and ridiculous Legends and Stories imaginable; such as that of _St. Dominick_[39], who when the Devil came to him in the Shape of a _Monkey_, made him hold a Candle to him while he wrote, and keep it so long between his Toes, till it burnt them; and his keeping the Devil, who sometimes came to him in the Shape of a _Flea_, and by skipping on the Leaves of his Book disturb'd his Reading, in that Shape, and using him for a Mark to know where he left off reading: Such as St. _Patrick_'s heating an Oven with Snow, and turning a Pound of Honey into a Pound of Butter: Such as _Christ_'s marrying Nuns, and playing at Cards with them; and Nuns living on the Milk of the blessed Virgin _Mary_; and that of divers Orders, and especially the _Benedictine_, being so dear to the blessed Virgin, that in Heaven she lodges them under her Petticoats: Such as making broken Eggs whole; and of People, who had their Heads cut off, walking with their Heads in their Hands, which were sometimes set on again: Such as Failing for a hundred Years; and raising Cows, Calves, and Birds from the Dead, after they had been chopt to Pieces and eaten, and putting on their Heads after they had been pull'd or cut off; and turning a Pound of Butter into a Bell; and making a Bull give Milk; and raising a King's Daughter from the Dead, and turning her into a Son; and the several Translations thro' the Air of the Virgin _Mary_'s House from _Palestine_ to _Loretto_, and the Miracles wrote there; and more of the like Kind.

Are these, or such as these the _clearest Miracles God ever wrought_? Do such Miracles deserve a serious Regard? And shall the _Gravity_ with which Mankind is thus banter'd out of their common Sense, excuse these Matters from _Ridicule_?

It will be difficult to find any Writers who have exceeded the Doctors, _South_ and [40] _Edwards_, in _Banter_, _Irony_, _Satire_ and _Sarcasms_: The last of whom has written a Discourse in _Defence of sharp Reflections on Authors and their Opinions_; wherein he enumerates, as Examples for his Purpose, almost all the eminent Divines of the Church of _England_. And Mr. [41] _Collier_, speaking of a Letter of the Venerable _Bede_ to _Egbert_ Bishop of _York_, says, "The Satire and Declamation in this _Epistle_ shews the _pious Zeal_ and _Integrity_ of the Author;" which seems to imply, that _Satire_ and _Declamation_ is the orthodox and most pious Method of writing in behalf of _Orthodoxy_.

Dr. _Rogers_, to whom you write, falls into the Method of Buffoonery, Banter, Satire, Drollery, Ridicule, and Irony, even in the Treatise to which your Letter is subjoined, and against that _Person_ whom you would have punish'd for that Method: When he says to him, [42] "Religion then, it seems, must be left to the Scholars and Gentlefolks, and to them 'tis to be of no other use, but as a Subject of Disputation to improve their Parts and Learning; but methinks the Vulgar might be indulged a little of it now and then, upon Sundays and Holidays, instead of Bull-baiting and Foot-ball." And this insipid Piece of Drollery and false Wit [which is design'd to ridicule his Adversary for asserting, that _What Men understand nothing of, they have no Concern about_; which is a Proposition that will stand the Test of _Ridicule_, which will be found wholly to lie against the Doctor, for asserting the Reasonableness of imposing Things on the People which they do not understand] is the more remarkable, as it proceeds from one, who is at the same time for using the Sword of the Magistrate against his Adversary. One would think the [43] _Inquisitor_ should banish the _Droll_, and the _Droll_ the _Inquisitor_.

One of the greatest and best Authorities for the _pleasant_ and _ironical_ manner of treating _serious_ Matters, is that eminent Divine at the Time of the Reformation, the great _Erasmus_, who has written two Books in this way with great Applause of Protestants, and without subjecting himself to any Persecution of Papists: which makes it highly proper to propose them to the Consideration of the Reader, that he may regulate his Notions, by what, it may be presum'd, he approves of in that Author. These two Books of _Erasmus_ are his _Colloquies_, and his _Praise of Folly_.

His _Colloquies_ were wrote in imitation of _Lucian_'s _Dialogues_; and I think with equal, if not superior, Success.

Both these Authors had an Aversion to sullen, austere, designing Knaves; and both of them being Men of Wit and Satire, employ'd their Talents against _Superstition_ and _Hypocrisy_. _Lucian_ liv'd in an Age when _Fiction_ and _Fable_ had usurp'd the Name of _Religion_, and _Morality_ was corrupted by _Men_ of _Beard_ and _Grimace_, but scandalously _Leud_ and _Ignorant_; who yet had the Impudence to preach up _Virtue_, and style themselves _Philosophers_, perpetually clashing with one another about the Precedence of their several Founders, the Merits of their different Sects, and if 'tis possible, about Trifles of less Importance: yet all agreeing in a different way to dupe and amuse the poor People, by the _fantastick_ Singularity of their Habits, the unintelligible Jargon of their Schools, and their Pretensions to a severe and mortify'd Life.

These Jugglers and Impostors _Lucian_ in great measure help'd to chase out of the World, by exposing them in their proper Colours, and by representing them as ridiculous as they were. But in a few Generations after him, a new Race of Men sprung up in the World, well known by the Name of _Monks_ and _Fryars_, different indeed from the former in Religion, Garb, and a few other Circumstances; but in the main, the same sort of Impostors, the same ever-lasting Cobweb-Spinners, as to their nonsensical Controversies, the same abandon'd _Wretches_, as to their Morals; but as to the mysterious Arts of heaping up Wealth, and picking the People's Pockets, infinitely superior to the _Pagan Philosophers_ and _Priests_. These were the sanctify'd Cheats, whose Folly and Vices _Erasmus_ has so effectually lash'd, that some Countries have entirely turn'd these Drones out of their Cells; and in other Places, where they are still kept up, they are in some measure become contemptible, and obliged to be always on their Guard.

The Papists say, that these "[44]_Colloquies_, by turning into _Ridicule_ the Devotion to the holy Virgin and Saints, the Worship of Relicks and Images, religious Vows and Pilgrimages, have made more Hereticks than the Works of _Luther_ and _Calvin_." And I find the reverend Mr. _Trapp_ [after calling [45] _Reliques_, FOOLISH] celebrates _Erasmus_ for _having abundantly_ RIDICUL'D _them_.

His _Praise of Folly_ treats of _serious_ Matters, in such a gay, familiar, ingenious and pleasant manner, as makes it a Work proper to be read by intelligent People, to remove out of their Minds all Bigotry contracted by Ignorance and an evil Education, all Peevishness, Hatred, and Ill-nature towards one another, on account of different Sentiments in Religion; and to form in them the natural Principles of Moderation, Humanity, Affection and Friendship. Our learned and ingenious Bishop _Kennet_ could not do a more signal Piece of Service to our Country, than by translating into _English_ this Book, which the Ladies have now an Opportunity of understanding no less than the Men; and from whence they may see the pleasant, amiable, and just Disposition of Mind of one of the most learned and ingenious Men that ever liv'd, as well as Author of a great Number of religious and devotional Books; nor could the Bishop well give a heartier Stroke at Popery, than by approving of _Erasmus_'s [46] _laughing_ at it, and applauding his numberless _Taunts on its Impostures, Cheats, and Delusions_.

Our Clergy have ever treated Mr. _Hobbes_ with the greatest Mockery, Ridicule and Raillery: As for example, _Ward_ Bishop of _Sarum_, _Brambal_ Bishop of _Derry_, _Parker_ Bishop of _Oxford_, Dr. _Wallis_ in his several bantering Treatises against him, _Lucy_ Bishop of _St. Davids, Shafto_, and particularly the Reverend _Droll_, Dr. _Eachard_, in two _Dialogues_, which, it is well known, have been universally well receiv'd by the Clergy, and that for their Treatment of Mr. _Hobbes_ in the ridiculing Way; for which the Author himself makes the following just Apology, in his _Dedication_ of his _Second Dialogue_ to Archbishop _Sheldon_, "That of all Triflers, 'tis the _Set_, the _Grave_, the _Philosophical_, and the _Mathematical Trifler_, to which he has the greatest Aversion; whom when he meets, very gravely making out all Men to be rational Beasts both in Nature and Conversation, and every Man, he pleases, a rational Rebel; and upon any Fright or Pinch a rational Atheist and Anti-Christian; and all this perform'd with all DEMURENESS, SOLEMNITY, QUOTATION of SCRIPTURE, APPEALS to CONSCIENCE and CHURCH-HISTORY; he must humbly beg his _Grace's_ Pardon, if then he has endeavour'd to SMILE a little, and to get as much out of his Road and way of Writing as possible." These _Dialogues_ used to be much recommended to the Youth to make them laugh at Mr _Hobbes_, who was constantly represented as provok'd and put out of all Temper by them, and was said to have vented this strange and impious Expression, upon its being told him, that _the Clergy said_ Eachard _had crucify'd_ Hobbes; "Why then don't they fall down and worship me?"

Mr. _Selden_ has been the constant Subject of Clergy-banter, for his _History of Tythes_; in the _Preface_ to which, "He reproaches the Clergy with Ignorance and Laziness, and upbraids them with having nothing to keep up their Credit but _Beard_, _Title_, and _Habit_; and their Studies reach'd no farther than the _Breviary_, the _Postils_, and _Polyanthea_." For this Work he was attack'd more particularly by three Divines, _Tillesly_, _Mountagu_, and _Nettles_. And their Success was thus originally represented[47], "That he was so gall'd by _Tillesly_, so gagg'd by _Mountagu_, and so stung by _Nettles_, that he never came off in any of his Undertakings with more loss of Credit." And this Jest has pass'd much upon the World, and been continued down in many Books, where Mr. _Selden_ is mention'd, to his Discredit with ignorant Readers, but not with the Knowing and Learned; who, as Dr. _Wotton_ tells us[48], _have, now Party-heats are over, acquiesced in what Mr._ Selden advanc'd; _who first_, OF ALL CHRISTIANS, _set the Affair_ of Tythes _in a clear Light_.

It is usually said the Comedy called _Ignoramus_, which is a Clergy-banter upon the _Law_, was a design'd Return for Mr. _Selden_'s _History of Tythes_.

The Reverend Dr. _Beaumont_, late Master of St. _Peter_'s _College_ and King's Professor of Divinity, has given us a Book, entitled, "Some Observations upon the Apology of Dr. _Henry More_ for his _Mystery of Godliness_;" which endeavours to render the said Doctor _ridiculous_, and set People a _laughing_ at him, (_p._ 9. _&c._ 64.) and used to be applauded as a complete Performance in the way of Raillery and Irony, and was well receiv'd for being directed against a Person esteem'd Heterodox.

Many Clergymen have written Books to banter the Works of Mr. _Locke_, among whom Dr. _Edwards_ must have the first Place; whose _Brief Vindication of the fundamental Articles of the Christian Faith_, which has the _Imprimatur_ before it of _James_, _Beaumont_, _Covel_, and _Balderston_, four _Cambridge_ Heads, was never exceeded by the most licentious _Droll_.

When _Sorbier_'s _Voyage_ to _England_, which was a pert and insolent Abuse and Satire on the Nation, and written in the _French_ manner of contemptuously treating all Countries and Men but _France_ and _Frenchmen_, was publish'd, it was deem'd proper that a drolling and satirical Answer should be given to it, and that the Reverend Dr. _Sprat_ should be the _Droll_ employ'd; who perform'd his Part according to the Expectation of the Drolling Court of King _Charles_ II. and as the ingenious Mr. _Addison_ tells us, [49] _Vindicated the Honour of his Country, in a Book full of Satire and Ingenuity_.

Bishop _Beveridge_ ever pass'd for a serious and profound Divine; and his Writings have fix'd that Character upon him among the Religious of the High Church, who have receiv'd his _Private Thoughts_ and his Volumes of _Sermons_, like _Manna_ from Heaven. And yet possibly never Man had two more severe Attacks made upon him than he had; one by Bishop _Stillingfleet_, who in _A Vindication of their Majesties Authority to fill the Sees of the depriv'd Bishops_, &c. occasion'd by Dr. _Beveridge_'s Refusal of the Bishoprick of _Bath_ and _Wells_, satirizes both his _Prudence_ and his _Sincerity_; and another, by an ingenious Bishop also, who in _A short View of Dr._ Beveridge_'s Writings_, has in a most refin'd _drolling manner_ represented those Writings as abounding in most absurd and ridiculous Divinity.

But one of the justest and finest Pieces of _Irony_, and the most timely and seasonably vented, and that deserves perpetual Remembrance, is, _Andrews_ the grave Bishop of _Winchester_'s Irony, on _Neal_ the grave Bishop of _Durham_; of which we have the following Relation in the Poet _Waller_'s _Life_, prefix'd before his Works: "On the Day of the Dissolution of the last Parliament of King _James_ the First, Mr. _Waller_, out of Curiosity or Respect, went to see the King at Dinner; with whom were Dr. _Andrews_ the Bishop of _Winchester_, and Dr. _Neal_ Bishop of _Durham_, standing behind his Majesty's Chair. There happen'd something very extraordinary in the Conversation those Prelates had with the King, on which Mr. _Waller_ did often reflect. His Majesty ask'd the Bishops, _My Lords, cannot I take my Subjects Money when I want it, without all this Formality in Parliament?_ The Bishop of _Durham_ readily answer'd, _God forbid, Sir, but you should; you are the Breath of our Nostrils_. Whereupon the King turn'd and said to the Bishop of _Winchester_, _Well, my Lord, what say you? Sir_, replied the Bishop, _I have no Skill to judge of Parliamentary Cases_. The King answer'd, _No Put-offs, my Lord; answer me presently. Then, Sir_, said he, _I think it is lawful for you to take my Brother_ Neal_'s_ _Money, for he offers it_. Mr. _Waller_ said the Company was pleas'd with this Answer, and the Wit of it seem'd to affect the King." Which shews the exceeding Aptness and Usefulness of a good _Irony_; that can convey an Instruction to a vicious, evil, and tyrannical Prince, highly reflecting on his Conduct, without drawing on his Resentment.

To these famous Divines I might add the most eminent and renowned Philosophers of Antiquity, who, either out of a Contempt of Mankind, or to gratify their peculiar Tempers, or to correct the Vices and Follies of Men, and to instil virtuous Maxims in those who would only receive them in some pleasant way, set up for good Humour, Mirth, and Drollery, as their standing Method of Life, and of Conversation with the World; and have left behind them some of their occasional Sayings upon record, which do more Honour to their Memories than the most elaborate Treatises would have done, and more Good to Men; upon whom a Jest, or witty Saying, is more fitted to operate and make Impression than long Deductions and Reasonings, and particularly on Princes and great Men, who will receive no Instruction but in some very artful and short Way: whereof even the rude _Diogenes_, the _Cynick_, has given us a most incomparable Example, in his occasional Conference with _Alexander the Great_, who was put into such Temper by the mere Freedom and Raillery of the Philosopher, as to take every thing in good part he said to him, and consequently be dispos'd to reflect upon it, and to act with Discretion. At the Head of these Philosophers I place SOCRATES, who has very generally in all Ages pass'd for the _wisest_ of _Men_, and was declared so by an _Oracle_; which, at least, was therein directed and influenc'd by some considerable human Authority, or by the common Sentiments of Men at that time. His Character I shall give you in the words of the most ingenious _Addison_, who was himself a Master of _Humour_ and _Drollery_, and practis'd them in Perfection, and with great Success in almost all his Prose-writings. "_Socrates_, says he[50], who was the greatest Propagator of Morality in the Heathen World, and a Martyr for the Unity of the Godhead, was so famous for the exercise of the Talent [of Raillery and Humour] among the politest People of Antiquity, that he gain'd the Name of THE DROLE.[51]" A Character that intitled him to the greatest Merit, as it most of all enabled him to promote Virtue.

I might also offer to your Confederation the Affair of _Comedies_; which all polite Governments have permitted, or establish'd, in their several populous and wealthy Cities, as the necessary and proper means to encounter Vice and recommend Virtue, and to employ innocently and usefully the vacant Hours of many, who know not how to employ their Time, or would employ it amiss, by entering into [52] Factions and Cabals to disturb the State; or by Gaming, or by backbiting Conversations about their Neighbours. And as _Comedies_, which were originally very gross, grew by Use more polite and refin'd in _Satire_ and _Raillery_: so the most celebrated Wits and Statesmen, and Persons of the greatest Quality, have engag'd and join'd with others in them, and performed with the greatest Success and Reputation to themselves; and have been valu'd, not only for their Talents of _Irony_ and _Drollery_, which were essential to the Credit of such Performances; but applauded, as acting the virtuous Part of _Droles_.

In fine, Books of Satire, Wit, Humour, Ridicule, Drollery, and Irony, are the most read and applauded of all Books, in all Ages, Languages, and Countries. And as those which are exquisite in their kinds, are the standing Entertainment of the Ingenious and Learned; so others, of a lower kind, are to be found among the lower Readers, who sleep under all Works which do not make them merry.

In a word, the Opinions and Practices of Men in all Matters, and especially in Matters of Religion, are generally so absurd and ridiculous that it is impossible for them not to be the Subjects of Ridicule.

For what else can be expected from Men who generally take up their Opinions without any Inquiry into their Reasonableness or Truth, and upon the most incompetent Grounds? I cannot be supposed to injure Mankind, if I consider them under the Character which the very ingenious Sir _Richard Steele_ gives of himself; who _acknowledges_ [53] that (even while he took upon himself the Title of the _Censor_ of _Great Britain_, and in so many fine Papers corrects his Countrymen, and particularly _the Freethinkers_, whom he directs the Magistrate to punish with Death) _it had been with him, as it is with too many others, that a [53] sort of an_ implicit Religion _seem'd the most easy and most comfortable; and that a blind Veneration for_ he knew not what, _and he_ knew not whom, _stood for every thing important_. And he _confesses_ he _was not enough aware, that this Implicitness of Conduct is the great Engine of Popery, fram'd for the Destruction of_ good Nature, _as well as_ good Sense. If so great a Man could take up with such a Method, and act the Part of a _Censor_ and Director of others, in a Matter which he had not at all consider'd, what can be expected else from others, but absurd and ridiculous Opinions and Practices?

And if some Men will fall into absurd and ridiculous Opinions, Habits, Forms, Figures and Grimaces; there will be those who will _laugh_, nay, cannot help _laughing_ at them. Hence most Parties laugh at one another, without the least Scruple, and with great Applause of their own Parties; and the Leaders of the same Party laugh with one another, when they consider the absurd and ridiculous Opinions they profess, and how they cheat and govern their Followers; agreeably to what _Cicero_ reports of _Cato_[54], "_Vetus autem illud_ Catonis _admodum scitum est, qui_ mirari se _aiebat, quod non rideret haruspex cum haruspicem vidisset_."

I think it may be justly suppos'd, that Pope _Alexander_ and _Thomas Becket_ could not but laugh together at the Simplicity and Weakness of their Followers, the Papists, who receiv'd for truth the following Story. It was told as a Fact[55], "that when _Thomas Becket_, who never drank any thing but Water, sat at Table with _Pope Alexander_, and that his Holiness would needs taste of his Cup; lest his abstemiousness should be known, God turn'd the Water into Wine: so that the _Pope_ found nothing but Wine in the Cup. But when _Becket_ pledg'd him, it was turn'd into Water again."

_Laughing_ therefore, and _Ridicule_ in _serious Matters_, go round the World with no inconsiderable Applause, and seem highly proper for this World of Nonsense and Folly. To hinder _laughing_ upon such just Occasions as are given, is almost all one as to hinder _breathing_. A very witty, drolling, Dramatick Poet, and of the first Rank for Quality, says in a _Prologue_ to his Auditors.

"_Suppose now, at this Instant, one of you_
"_Were tickled by a Fool, what would you do?_
"_'Tis ten to one you'd_ laugh: _here's just the Case._
"_For there are Fools that tickle with their Face._
"_Your gay Fool tickles with his Dress and Motions;_
"_But your_ grave Fool _of_ Fools _with_ silly Notions.
"_Is it not then unjust that Fops should still_
"_Force one to_ laugh, _and then take laughing ill?_

II. _Secondly_, If it be a Fault in those reverend Divines, mention'd in the foregoing Article, to use _Irony_, _Drollery_, _Ridicule_, and _Satire_, in any Case; or if the Fault lies in an exorbitant Use thereof, or in any particular Species of _Drollery_; as, for example, such _Drollery_ as is to be found in the polemical Writings and Sermons of Dr. _South_; it is fit some Remedy should be employ'd for the Cure of this Evil. And the Remedy I would propose, should not be to have the Authors punish'd by the Magistrate, any more than for any other Faults in writing; but either to neglect and despise it, as Rage and Scolding, which drop into Oblivion with the Sound, and would have a Life given it by Resentment: or to allow Men to _criticize_ and _ridicule_ one another for their _Ironies_ and _Drollery_, and to exercise their Wit and Parts against each other; that being the true Method to bring Things to a Standard, to fix the Decency and Propriety of Writing, to teach Men how to write to the Satisfaction of the ingenious, polite, and sensible Part of Mankind: for Decency and Propriety will stand the Test of Ridicule, and triumph over all the false Pretences to Wit; and Indecency and Impropriety will sink under the Trial of Ridicule, as being capable of being baffled by Reason, and justly ridicul'd. And if any kind or degree of _Ridicule_ be absurd or _ridiculous_, that will appear so upon Trial, no less than the low and gross _Ridicule_ prevalent among the unpolite Part of the World: But that will never appear. On the contrary, _Ridicule_ of certain kinds, and under reasonable Directions and Rules, and used in proper Time, Place, and Manner, (all which also are only to be found out and fix'd by Trial and Experience) is both a proper and necessary Method of Discourse in many Cases, and especially in the Case of _Gravity_, when that is attended with Hypocrisy or Imposture, or with Ignorance, or with soureness of Temper and Persecution; all which ought to draw after them the _Ridicule_ and _Contempt_ of the Society, which has no other effectual Remedy against such Methods of Imposition. And to determine in some measure the Nature and Extent of the _Irony_ I contend for, as _Just_, I profess to approve the noble _Sarcasm_ of _Elijah_[56]; wherein he thus mocks the _Priests_ of _Baal_, saying in effect to them, "_Cry aloud, for_ your _Baal_ is a fine God: _He is either talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a Journey; or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked_." And I concur with the _Psalmist_[57], who thought it no Indecency to say, that _he that sits in Heaven shall laugh them_ (that is, certain Kings, who were _David_'s Enemies) _to scorn; the Lord shall have them in Derision_: and must judge, that _laughing to scorn_, and _deriding_ the greatest Men upon Earth, even Kings and Princes, to be a laudable and divine Method of dealing with them, who are only to be taught or rebuk'd in some artful way. I also approve of the following _Sarcasm_ or _Irony_, which has a better Authority for it than _Elijah_ or the _Psalmist_. _Moses_ introduces God speaking thus after the Fall[58], _Behold the Man is become like one of us, to know Good and Evil!_ And I think this Passage shews, that the whole Affair of the _Fall_, of which we have so very brief an Account, was a very entertaining Scene; and would have appear'd so, if set forth at large; as indeed it does under the Hands of our Divines, who have supplied that short Narration by various Additions, founded on Conjectures, and particularly under the fine Hand of Dr. _Tho. Burnet_, who has made a most ingenious Dialogue of what he suppos'd pass'd between _Eve_ and the _Serpent_[59]. To say nothing of _Milton_'s famous _Paradise Lost_.

In fine, ever since I could read the _Bible_, I was particularly pleas'd with the _History_ of _Jonas_, where such a Representation is made of that _Prophet_'s Ignorance, Folly, and Peevishness, as exposes him to the utmost Contempt and Scorn, and fixes a perpetual _Ridicule_ on his Character. And let me here observe, that this _History_ has had ample Justice done it, in an Explication thereof by _two_ [60] very ingenious Authors, who, by most penetrating and happy Criticisms and Reflections, have drawn the Character of _Jonas_ in a more open manner.

III. But, _Thirdly_, I wave my _Remedy_, and am ready to come into any Law that shall be made to rectify this suppos'd Fault of _Irony_, by punishing those who are guilty of it.

The great Concern is and ought to be, that _the Liberty of examining into the Truth of Things should be kept up_, that Men may have some Sense and Knowledge, and not be the _Dupes_ of _Cheats_ and _Impostors_, or of those who would keep them in the dark, and let them receive nothing but thro' their Hands. If that be secur'd to us by Authority, I, for my part, am very ready to sacrifice the Privilege of _Irony_, tho so much in fashion among all Men; being persuaded, that a great Part of the _Irony_ complain'd of, has its rise from the _want of Liberty to examine into the Truth of Things_; and that if that _Liberty_ was prevalent, it would, without a Law, prevent all that _Irony_ which Men are driven into for want of Liberty to speak plainly, and to protect themselves from the Attacks of those who would take the Advantage to ruin them for direct Assertions; and that such Authors as _Rabelais_, _Saint Aldegonde_, _Blount_, _Marvel_, _Thekeringil_, and many others, would never have run into that Excess of _Burlesque_, for which they are all so famous, had not the Restraint from writing _seriously_ been so great.

"If [61] Men are forbid to speak their Minds _seriously_ on certain Subjects, they will do it _ironically_. If they are forbid at all upon such Subjects, or if they find it dangerous to do so, they will then redouble their Disguise, involve themselves in mysteriousness, and talk so as hardly to be understood, or at least not plainly interpreted by those who are dispos'd to do them a Mischief. And thus _Raillery_ is brought more in fashion, and runs into an Extreme. 'Tis the persecuting Spirit has rais'd the _bantering_ one: And want of Liberty may account for want of a true Politeness, and for the Corruption or wrong Use of Pleasantry and Humour.

"If in this respect we strain the just Measure of what we call _Urbanity_, and are apt sometimes to take a buffooning rustick Air, we may thank the ridiculous Solemnity and sour Humour of our _Pedagogues_: or rather they may thank themselves, if they in particular meet with the heaviest of this kind of Treatment. For it will naturally fall heaviest, where the Constraint has been the severest. The greater the Weight is, the bitterer will be the Satire. The higher the Slavery, the more exquisite the Buffoonery.

"That this is really so, may appear by looking on those Countries where the spiritual Tyranny is highest. For the greatest of _Buffoons_ are the _Italians_: and in their Writings, in their freer sort of Conversations, on their Theatres, and in their _Streets_, _Buffoonery_ and _Burlesque_ are in the highest Vogue. 'Tis the only manner in which the poor cramp'd Wretches can discharge a free Thought. We must yield to 'em the Superiority in this sort of Wit. For what wonder is it if we, who have more Liberty, have less Dexterity in that egregious way of _Raillery_ and _Ridicule_?"

Liberty of _grave_ Examination being fix'd by Law, I am, I say, ready to sacrifice the Privilege of _Irony_, and yield to have a Law enacted to prevent it. I am, moreover, willing to leave the drawing up such a Law to your self; who honestly and impartially say[62], that all who _droll_, let them be of any Party, let them _droll for the Truth or against it_, should be equally punish'd.

Thus this grand Affair of _Irony_, _Banter_, and _Ridicule_; this last persecuting Pretence, upon which you would set the Humours and Passions of People, who are all at quiet, on float, and make a Fermentation, and raise a Persecution against particular People, seems perfectly settled, by yielding to your own Terms.

IV. Let me here add, that I am apt to think, that when you draw up your Law, you will find it so very difficult to settle the Point of _Decency_ in Writing, in respect to all the various kinds of _Irony_ and _Ridicule_, that you will be ready to lay aside your Project; and that you will be no more able to settle that _Point of Decency_, than you would be to settle by Law, that _Cleanliness_ in Clothes, and that Politeness in Dress, Behaviour, and Conversation, which become Men of Quality and Fortune in the World, and should be habitual to them: And that, if you are able to do that to your own Satisfaction, you will find it very difficult to engage the Lawmakers in your Project. For I am persuaded, that if our Lawmakers were, out of a rational Principle, disposed to give Liberty by Law to _serious_ Opposition to publickly receiv'd Notions, they would not think it of much Importance to make a _Law_ about a Method of _Irony_. They will naturally conclude, that if Men may and ought to be allow'd to write _seriously_ in Opposition to publickly receiv'd Doctrines, they should be allow'd to write in their own way; and will be unwilling to be depriv'd of ingenious and witty Discourses, or such as some of them will judge so, about a Subject wherein _serious free_ Discourse is allow'd. Besides, I am apt to think, that you, upon consideration of the Advantages which the Church has receiv'd from the _Berkenheads_, the _Heylins_, the _Ryves's_, the _Needhams_, the _Lestranges_, the _Nalsons_, the _Lesleys_, the _Oldesworths_, and others, in their _Mercurius Aulicus_'s, their _Mercurius Pragmaticus's_, their _Mercurius Rusticus's_, their _Observators_[63], their _Heraclitus Ridens_'s, _Rehearsals_, their _Examiners_[64], and the three Volumes against the _Rights of the Church_; from the _Butlers_ in their _Hudibras_'s, and other Burlesque Works upon the Religion and Religious Conduct of the Dissenters; or from the _Eachards_, the _Tom Browns_, and _Swifts_; or from the _Parkers_[65], _Patricks_[66], _Souths_[67], _Sherlocks_[68], _Atterburys_[69], and _Sacheverels_[70]; in their Discourses, and Tracts against the Nonconformists, Whigs, Low-Church-men, and Latitudinarians; and other such ironical, satirical, and polemical Divines; and from such _drolling_ Judges as _Howel_, _Recorder_ of London, and the Chief Justice _Jefferys_, who, in all Causes, where _Whigs_ or Dissenters were the Persons accus'd and try'd before them, carried on the Trial by a [71] Train of ridicule on them, their Witnesses and Counsel: I say, I am apt to think, that you would be unwilling to be depriv'd of what has been and may be again so serviceable.