be thought to dispose us to a blameable Extreme of Rigor in
these matters. And therefore a Forreign Authority was artificially
enough brought in, to reproach our pretended Niceness and Austerity.
But when the Arguments of this Reply are observed to carry the Point
as high, as even the so much upbraided _View_ it self; All but the
Willfully blind must see, that even the Gayeties of France could not
endure the Corruptions of the Modern Theatres. And that the Complaints
against such detestable Abuses are not due to any Quality of the
Climate, or particular turn of Temper; but to the common and uniform
Principles of Christianity and Virtue, which are the same in every
Nation, professing to be governed by them.

To give that _Discourse_ a better face, it is introduced by way of
Letter from a _Worthy Divine_ of the Church of England; and published
before a late Play called _Beauty in Distress_. [Footnote: P. IX. X.
XXVI.] Tis said to be approved, and recommended by that Reverend Person,
for the satisfying some Scruples, _whether a man may Lawfully write for
the Stage_. For a full Resolution whereof the doubting Poet is referred
to this _Discourse_, as that which is presumed _to come fully up to his
purpose_. But we are not told, whether the _Divine_ or the _Poet_, or
who else was the Translator of this Discourse: Or whether that _Worthy_
Friend perused it in French, or in English only. Which yet in the
present Case are Material Circumstances, and such as ought not to have
been concealed, for Two Reasons particularly, which I hold myself
obliged to give the Reader Intimation of.

The First is, That the following Reply produces and answers some
Passages of the French Discourse, not to be found in the English. And
these not only Expressions or single Sentences, but entire Arguments.
Such is that of Plays being a Diversion suitable to the Design of
instituting the Sabbath. Such again That which justifies the Acting them
the whole Lent throughout. Now this manner of dealing is not exactly
agreeable with that _Impartiality_ and _Freedom_ promised in the
beginning of the _Worthy Divines_ Letter. [Footnote: _P. IX._] And
therefore I can very hardly be perswaded, that One of that Character
and Function, had the Forming of the _Discourse_, in the manner it now
appears before _Mr. M's._ Play.

The other Reason, why I Suspect the _Discourse_ not to be translated,
or indeed so throughly approved, by a _Divine of the Church of England_,