would presently it seems have censured it as a Judgment of God upon the Childe or Parent yet Christ told his Disciples It neither came for any Sin of the Childe nor of the Parents For the Iudgments of God are as secret as fearfull they are an Abyss till he give them a bottom and where God keeps silence therâ— men â—an have no science For what man is he â—hat can know the counsel of God or who can think what his Will is He â—ells us of Play-houses both publick and private some suddenly fallen down some burnt up with fire without any apparent cause preceding And what great wonder is this if in so many hundred years in so many thousand places some few such accidents have sometimes happened Have not the like happened even to Churches and Chappels and private places of Religious meetings Will he therefore say they were Iudgments of God against the use of Churches and Chappels he tells us of some Players and some Spectatours of Plays that have died at the very Play both suddenly and strangely and what great wonder is this if in so many hundred years in so many thousand places amongst so many millions of people some few such chances have sometimes fallen out Have not the like happened to some Preachers in the Pulpit and to some devout persons even at their prayers Will he therefore say they were Judgments of God against the use of Preaching and Praying How much better is that censure in Minutius Foelix Fulmina passim cadunt sine delectu tangunt loca sacra prophana homines noxios feriunt saepe Religiosos Thunder-bolts fall down indifferently they light upon places prophane and sacred without any choice they strike good men and bad both alike His Inference therefore of these Iudgments shews he hath no Iudgment being as idle as busie and proceeding rather from a malice to the cause then from any understanding of these effects and as little from any Charitie at all to the Reader Thus this final Argument which should hâ—ve made a final End of Plays hath made a final End of all his Reasons and of all his Reason and yet he hath one Argument more though not one Reason more but a kind of prognostication rather for he tells before hand Fol. 565. what entertainment both Players and Spectatours of Plays are like to finde in another world even without Repentance Eternal Damnation And this 〈◊〉 calls an Argument with a witness and 〈◊〉 is so indeed for it is a witness to us 〈◊〉 his rashness and irreligion For he â—efies being a Papist and he denies â—eing a Puritan and now this Arguâ—ent is a witness against him that he 〈◊〉 no Protestant For by aggravating â—e sin as he accompts it of seeing a â—lay being not Repented with Eternal â—amnation he shews himself to think â—â—at every Sin not Repented deserves â—ot so much for if he thought Eternal â—amnation the common punishment â—f every sin why should he lay it as an â—ggravating punishment upon this â—n and if he think Some sin not Reâ—ented not to be Mortal we think him â—or so thinking not to be a Protestant â—f then neither Protestant nor Puritan â—or Papist what Religion should he be of â—hat we may not justly leave the Damnaâ—ion of this Argument upon himself And thus it befalls men transported with malice that whilest they make their own threatning the measure of others suffering they fall them selves to â—â—â—fer that which they threatned to othâ—â—â— Thus you have seen his Fore-paâ—â— which are his Reasons you may now 〈◊〉 pleased to see his Back-parts which 〈◊〉 his Testimonies and Authorities and yâ—â— shall finde him no better to follow thâ—â— he was to meet yet it makes a bettâ—â— shew for he began his Reasons froâ— the Devil but he begins his Authoritâ—â—â— from God for Fol. 545 he begiâ— with the Scriptures the word of God 〈◊〉 doubt a most powerfull evidence not 〈◊〉 be spoken of without honour not 〈◊〉 be thought of without reverence anâ— indeed if he could alledg but onely thâ— name of Plays or Players as spoken oâ— in the Scriptures we should have a wonderfull respect and be wouderfull ciâ—cumspect how we medled with themâ— but seeing he cannot do this we maâ— justy suspect him to be no better a maâ— in his Authorities then he was in his Reasons great pretences but no proofs fair colours but no substance all he can say is but onely to say he hath nothing buâ— â—ords and words are but winde and â—ay well enough be blown over For 〈◊〉 for his Inferences and Collections and â—eductions we may demur upon them at â—asure and take time to consider But â—â—st any man should think we waved his â—estimonies of Scripture as being conâ—â—ncing and such as cannot be answerâ—d let us for the reverence we bear â—â—em hear him at large and see what he â—ath to say out of these sacred Records â—nd he seems to bewray the weakness â—f his Cause at the very first for Fol. â—45 he grants that Scripture speaks noâ—hing against Plays in precise terms and â—hy then will he condemn them in preâ—ise terms if the Scripture do not Is â—ot this to incur the reprehension of Sâ—â—omon Noli esse nimium justus be not â—oo precise for to condemn a thing â—n precise terms which the Scriptures do not what is this but to be nimium justus more precise then needs But if the Scriptures condemn them not in precise terms in what terms then Indeed onely in Hilary Tâ—rm for it would make a man merrie or rather it woulâ— make a Hâ—rse break his halter to see thâ— strange Antick faces of applications hâ— makes to wring out a condemnatioâ— of Plays from places of Scripture anâ— when he hath all done we might makâ— as good an Argument and say This maâ— speaks scarce a wise word in all his book Therefore Plays are unlawfull For wheresoever he findes any place against Idolatry and Altars against Adultery or Murther aganst wantonness or prophaneneâ—â— he presently applies them as spoken against Plays never considers how idle and simple he is to stand picking and culling out some certain Texts of Scripture when if these applications would serve he might have said it in a word that all the whole Scripture is nothing else but a very arraignment condemnation of Plays But thus he fetches it abouâ— he confesseth that no Scripture condemns Plays in precise terms but that Fol. 546. they positively prohibit and censure them under the names of Idolatry of things consecrated to Idols of the Câ—p and Table of Devils of the Customs Rites and delights of Idolaters of the way and fashiâ—n of the Heathen of the will of the Genâ—iles and such like under which Plays are â—s really and absolutely comprised as any â—art is under the whole or any Species under its proper Genus A very fine device â—o make Quidlibet ex Quolibet He seems one of that mans Scholers who deduceth and findes
Itch of Vain-Glory made many in Old Time go out of the Church and become Hereticks in Divinity so the like Itch of Vain-Glory makes other men go out of Humane Society and become Hereticks in Morality Like Erostratus who burnt the Temple of Diana at Ephesus for no other cause but to be talked-of in the World His very beginning is very suspicious For he begins not à Iove as yet Poets whom he taxeth so much use to do but à Diabolo He takes his First Reason from the Devil Fol. 9. He therefore thinks Plays unlawfull because they were invented by the Devil wherein he shews himself to be better acquainted with the Devil then we areâ— for we know nothing of it whether they were of his inventing or no and we may marvel how he comes to know it unless the Devil himself have told him so and then it is the more unlikely to be so seeing The Devil is a Liar and the Father of Lies He will say perhaps he had it from Tertullian who tells also thaâ— the Angels were cast out of Heaven for inventing Astrologie as true in the one as in the other It seems Tertullian had no true Inventory of the Devil's Inventions yet this man would make us as very Fools as himself to take all for current that he hears him say But what if we should say that many things have been discovered and made known to Men even by the Devil which yet are profitable to be known and lawful to be used Doth not Lodovicus Vives affirm that the Devil invented Logick Yet will any man that hath Reason affirm Logick to be unlawful The Devil confessed Christ to be the Son of God when the Iews knew it not or would not know it and is this man so very a Iew to think it therefore unlawful to confess Christ And why is it any better Argumâ—nt to say The Devil invented it therefore it is Impious then to say God invented it therefore it is Pious And yet who knows not of things invented by God which for their abuse have been rejected Which he cannot be so forgetful as to deny if he do but remember the Brazen Serpent If then a thing Invented and Instituted by God might being abused be rejected why may not a thing Invented and Instituted by the Devil the Evil being removed be retained For it is not the Inventour that makes a thing to be good or evil but it is the Conformity or Opposition to the Rule and Will of God Indeed by the Paw of this first Argument we may see what a kind of Lyon we are like to finde in the sequel of his Discourse For where Tertullian and other Fathers prove the Plays of the Heathen to be all naught and execrable because Idolatrous and full of Superstition and thereupon infers that they were Inventa Diabolorum Invention of Devils as from whom all Evil originally doth flow this man like a Crab goes backward with their Reason and saith Plays were invented by the Devil therefore are execrable and unlawful so making that the Medius Terminus or Proof of his Argument which the spake onely by way of Exaggeration and making that his Foundation whicâ— they laid on as onely a Superstructurâ— And even for the guiltiness of this yoâ— shall see in his next Argument with whaâ— a trick he seeks to put it off again anâ— yet is willing to hold it still For Fol. 16. Though he cannot perâ—haps punctually say that Plays were immâ—â—diately invented by the Devil yet he maâ— truly say they were invented by Idolatrouâ— Heathen People as the Devilâ—s Instrumentâ— which comes much to One But see thâ— Judgment of this man that sees noâ— what a Fall he hath taken by raising thâ— Argument to fall from the Devil to Heaâ—then People but well Quod dat accipimuâ— we take what he lays down Plays werâ— not invented by the Devil but by Heaâ—then People so his First Argument is casâ— out of Doors by himself and will hiâ— second be served with any better Sawceâ— For can nothing be lawfully used thaâ— hath been invented by Peopleâ— Let him look in Polydore Virgil and see â—ow many things of our daily use have â—een invented by them even the Letâ—ers he writes his Book withall Then â—e were best go quickly and blot out all his Book lest being written with Letters invented by the Heathen the Devil should come and challenge it to be of his inventing Here he thinks to mend the matter with saying that Fol. 18. good things invented by the Heathen may lawfully be used but not bad things as Plays are but must he not first prove Plays to be bad before this Reason will do him any good And if he can prove them to be bad they shall then be unlawful as bad but not as invented by the Heathen and so this Reason would do him no good though he could make it good But though he can fetch no Argument against Plays from the Devilâ—s â—s Invention yet he hath an Invention to fetch an Argument from him and this it is Fol. 28. Plays were at first ordained and destinated to the immediate Worship and gratification of Devil-Gods therefore unlawful but he hath no sooner made this Argument but he finds fault with it himself for Fol. 37. so were many of our Churches which now are converted to Christian uses Upon this he replyes and then again rejoyns and plays at fast and loose goes in and out so often in it that it were but to run a Wilde-Goose Chase to offer to follow him Yet I cannot let pass one subtile part he plays at parting where he saith Fol. 40 that He for his part thinks it impossible that ever Plays should be râ—formed for who should do it Good men will not they rather wish their ruine then their useless welfare Bad men will not because they delight in their pleasing Corruptions And so he concludes them to be desperate and past all hope of Reformation But may we not better apply his Argument to himself and say We for our parts think it impossible that this man's Malice should ever be Reformed for who should do it God's Holy Spirit will not so long as he is resolved to â—ontinue in his Malice the Devil will not who would have him be more malicious then â—e is if possibly it might be effected by â—im and so conclude his Case to be â—esperate and that he must be fain to â—o on in the rage of his Malice still â—or want of One to mend him But his Fourth Reason comes in most â—tately where he makes Fol. 42. Plays the Pomps of the Devil and Vanities of this wicked World which every Chriâ—tian man hath renounced in his Baptism But this Reason comes not more vauntâ—ngly in then we shall see it go sneakingly out as having no Credit for want of being known For who ever took the Pomps of the Devil to be meant of Plays and not rather of Pride Vain-glory Luxury Idolatry especially and such
Plays the Lectures to teach men how to â—heat and Steal For Who knows not â—hat Theevs and Cheatours can have their Scholing for nothing and need not to pay for it by going to Plays Indeed â— farr cunninger Schole-master they have to teach them the Craft then Players one that is in Earnest and would take it ill at their hands that they should take any ill in hand which they had not from him But doth not this Reason through the sides of Plays give greater wounds to Assizes and Sessions For there indeed the plots and practizes of Theevery the tricks and conveyances of Cheatours are openly laid open and publikly made known that if he call it a Schole certainly they are Free-Scholes or rather Academies in comparison of Plays But who knows not that both Plays and Sessions discoâ—ver Thefts and Cheatings indeed buâ— not as this man would cheat us and make us think to the end they may be used but as Logick teaches fallacies to the end to avoid them We may justly therefore for this reason binde him over to the Sessions both for the implicite aspersion he lays upon them and for the explicite cheating he seeks to put upon us He hath another Argument which we may call his Rain-bow seeing there are as many Vices in it as there are Colours in the Rain-bow Fol. 551. where he makes Plays unlawfull because they occasion an apparent breach of all the ten Commandments of which we may say Decem mundi facti sunt sed ubi sunt illi novem for some sins are incompatible that where one is familiar the other will always be a stranger unless he mean it as St. Iames speaks that he which is guilty of one sin is guilty of all and in that sense we may say as much of him when he doth but onely tell a Lie This man with a little help would bring it about â—hat the very sin of our first Parent Eveâ—as â—as nothing else but her being a Player where she and the Serpent were the Actours and Adam the Spectatour and not onely that all Players are damned â—ut that none else are damned but they For if Players break all God's Commandments then he who is no Player breaks none of the Commandments as when Aesop's fellow being asked what he coâ—ld do answered He could do all things then faith Aesop If he can do all things there is nothing left for me to do You will say This is not to answer but to trifle and hath not Solomon advised us Answer not a fool in his folly lest thou be like unto him yet seeing we haveâ— answered his Arguments before where he charged Plays with the Vices in particular it may well enough serve for an answer to this Argument where he chargeth them in general and so we observe also the other Precept of Solomon fellow to the former Answer a fool in his folly lest he be wise in his own conâ—â—iâ— You have heard many grave Argumentâ—â— you shall hear one now to make you laugh Fol. 291. where he makes Plays unlawfull because they provoke oftentimes profuse laughter as though he knew not that to be risible is onely proper to menâ— and no excess in this can tainâ— them with aspersion of any beastlike quality or make them as all vices do and this should if it were a vice to be like a Beast And especially he is not well advised in this in his own behalf for if it were not for this Risible we should hardly perhaps finde any thing in himself to know him to be a man But why should he blame Plays for provoking of Laughter when he makes an Argument here himself that provokes more laughter then ever any Play did that we may truly say Omnes qui audiunt risiâ— emori For what was ever heard more ridiculous then to make it an Argument against Plays f. 714. because Noah Melchisedech Abraham and the Patriarchs are never read in Scripture to havâ— approved Plays Or as his Elegancy â—â—pâ—esseth it tâ— have been experimentally â—equaiâ—ted with them As absurdly as if â—ne would prove that Guns are no good weapons in the Wars because Ioshua Giâ—eon David and the antient Warriours are never read in Scripture to have used Guns or to have been experimentally acquainted with them much like the â—oolishness which Livie notes in a Roman Tribune who threatned the people he would hinder their levying of Souldiers when there was no War toward and Is there not in this as just cause to set Mâ—rous Crassus a laughing as when he saw an Asseat Thistles He hath another Reason as vain and ridiculous as this Fol. 127. where he makes it a Reason to condemn Plays because they are at the best but vain and ridiculous As though any thing of this world even the best things that are when they are at the best were any other then vain and ridiculous and let him not distinguish of things and say that some are sâ—rious for the more serious the more riâ—iâ—â—lous for what is this but the very Argument at which Democritus could noâ— forbear laughing all his life time But these are but the small Fry of hâ—â— great Pool he hath three Reasonâ— which like the great Pikes may be saiâ— to contain in their Bellies all his otheâ— Gudgin-Reasons and in the taking oâ— them consists in effect the taking awaâ— of all the other And may we not adâ—mit them all to be true and yet as oâ—â— case is take no Disparagement by adâ—mitting them seeing as he urgeâ—â— them against Plays so we may urgâ—â— them as well against no worse a thinâ— then Riches For his first Reason maâ— be this Fol. 327. that Plays are a prâ—vocation unto Lust and is it not said 〈◊〉 Riches that they are Irritamenta malâ—â—rum His second that Plays Fol. 521. â— Indispose men to all Religious Duties and is it not said of Riches that we cannâ—â— serve God and Mammon His third thaâ— Fol. 565. they bring Damnation upoâ— mens Souls and Bodies and Is it not said of a Rich man that he cannot Enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and why â—â—en should he think to fright us with â—â—s Thundring phrases from seeing of â—lays and is not himself frighted with â—â—em from seeking of Riches Cerâ—â—inly seeing all his Reasons are as â—â—rong against Riches as against Plays â—nd yet Riches we doubt not may be â—ad and held by good men why may â—ot Plays also be Acted and be beheld â—y good men notwithstanding his reasons For as there may be Bonus usus Divitiarum which makes void all the reasons against Riches so there may be Bonus usus Ludorum which may avoid all his Reasons against Plays that unless he can prove it is not lawful to be Rich we shall never admit his proofs that it is not lawfull to see a Play let him therefore either allow men to see a Play as well â—s to be Rich or if he will perswade men not to see Plays let him then write