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…

You acknowledge then, that notwithstanding your self meant not these by others, yet certain such there are. Neither can your using the devise of Criticus & Zoilus in like manner to rebuke the carpers of your own Tragedy as curious and malicious, permit you to deny with any colour of probability that you meant to note these by Momus name. Chiefly now that you have expressly fastened it on them in your reply: saying in excuse of the time, the Sunday, whereon your Tragedy was played, that some of them, it may be, who misliked your plays, were worse occupied then your actors were on the same night, playing Momus part in good earnest before you, which you did afterward but for pastime. Wherefore your complaining that you know not whom, nor very well what, I mean by They & Us, in that I said, They whose objections, and, Why do you Mome us, is frivolous and idle, to say no worse of it: frivolous, because you know I mean the Preacher, my self, and all abetters of Momus his objections: idle, because albeit you knew not whom I mean, yet my speech is found, that, They, whose objections against plays, you attributed to the person of Momus, might justly say in my judgement, If our reasons be naught, discover their naughtiness; if good, Why do you Morn ⟨p. 49⟩us? More idle and frivolous is your labouring to persuade me, that I had no just occasion to suspect that your purpose was therein to touch me, to tax me in particular; both by discoursing that those two inducements, to wit, my reproving of Theatre-sights and stage-plays in the Preface of my Thesis, and my reasons given thereof in letters to D. Thornton, which I (so you affirm) did chiefly allege to prove my conjecture, are not enough to prove it, in as much as you had not read the one of them, nor heard of the other: and by most earnestly avouching coram Deo (as if an ^coath needed to clear you from my wrongful opinion and surmise) that your meaning only was to move delight in the auditory, with the novelty of the invention, and the person; and to object those things against your selves by your selves, which might abate all suspicion of vain glory or self-pleasing in you; and so by this means, as it were with a slight, to shift of all occasion of others ill speaking, when you had prevented them with as ill as mought be.

You acknowledge then, that notwithstanding your selfe meant not these by others, yet certaine such there are. Neither can your vsing the devise of Criticus & Zoilus in like maner to rebuke the carpers of your owne Tragedie as curious and malitious, permit you to denie with anie colour of probabilitie that you meant to note these by Momus name. Chieflie nowe that you haue expreslie fastened it on them in your replie: saying in excuse of the time, the Sunday, whereon your Tragedie was played, that some of them, it may bee, who misliked your playes, were worse occupied then your actors were on the same night, playing Momus part in good earnest before you, which you did afterward but for pastime. Wherefore your complayning that you knowe not whom, nor very well what, I meane by They & Us, in that I said, They whose obiections, and, Why doe you Mome vs, is frivolous and idle, to say no worse of it: frivolous, because you know I meane the Preacher, my self, and all abbetters of Momus his obiections: idle, because albeit you knew not whom I meane, yet my speech is found, that, They, whose obiections against playes, you attributed to the person of Momus, might iustlie say in my iudgement, If our reasons be naught, discouer their naughtines; if good, Why doe you Morne