Th'overthrow of stage-plays, by the way of controversy betwixt D. Gager and D. Rainoldes…Th'overthrow of stage-playes, by the way of controversie betwixt D. Gager and D. Rainoldes…

if not, why do you condemn us? Wherefore when, to reprove the former part of my dilemma, you affirm that no man can rightly say unto you, If our reasons be naught, discover their naughtiness, because Christ undoubtedly had said nothing but reason: undoubtedly your self do speak beside all reason. As much in a manner, as beside the trueth, when to reprove the later part thereof you add, that you do Mome no man. For so must I interpret your words of smiting no man: or else you speak beside all reason herein too, when upon my citing Christs words, Why doest thou smite me, by way of similitude to your Moming us, you say, no man is smitten by you. But that some are smitten by you with Momus name, even all reprovers of plays, and so (which is the next branch you pluck at) my self; I showed by the meaning of the tale of Momus, opened out of Aristotle, joined with your applying thereof unto a person who chargeth plays as we do. To the refutation whereof it maketh nothing, that when you declared you did enlarge therefore your answer unto Momus, because I and others had asked why the things by him objected were not answered, you say that by others you meant some of your friends, not reprovers of plays: and that you had no purpose to touch me in particular, nor knew, when you conceived and penned ⟨p. 48⟩the devise of Momus, that I had reproved them. For was it the man in the moon, trow we, whose ⁵rascal reproaches, or (as you correct it) trivial and common, you put in the mouth of Momus, and made your Epilogue control them? Or was it some on earth, whose speeches, being noted by you as common and taunting, do argue that they had one or more authors, not friends, but adversaries of plays? Moreover, when you tell me, that till you understood it by me and by a Preacher of late, you never thought that either I, or any other, in the University had abetted Momus objections: do you not confess, that, ere you wrote this, you understood it of us two? And can you persuade your self that we two alone, and no body else, are abetters of them? Nay, do you not signify that you see there are more, when, speaking of others, you say you mean• not such, as you perceive by me there are, who should mislike your plays; and by way of opposing me and them to Many, you name us One or a Few?

if not, why doe you condemne vs? Wherfore when, to reproove the former part of my dilemma, you affirme that no man can rightlie saye vnto you, If our reasons bee naught, discouer their naughtines, because Christ vndoubtedlie had saide nothing but reason: vndoubtedly your selfe doe speak beside all reason. As much in a manner, as beside the trueth, when to reprooue the later part thereof you adde, that you doe Mome no man. For so must I interpret your wordes of smiting no man: or else you speake beside all reason herein too, when vpon my citing Christes wordes, Why doest thou smite me, by way of similitude to your Moming vs, you say, no man is smitten by you. But that some are smitē by you with Momus name, euen all reproovers of playes, and so (which is the next branch you plucke at) my selfe; I shewed by the meaning of the tale of Momus, opened out of Aristotle, ioyned with your applying thereof vnto a person who chargeth playes as we doe. To the refutation whereof it maketh nothing, that when you declared you did enlarge therefore your aunswer vnto Momus, because I and others had asked why the thinges by him obiected were not answered, you say that by others you meant some of your friends, not reprovers of playes: and that you had no purpose to touch me in particular, nor knew, when you conceyued and penned