REMARKS ON THE FOREGOING. $2^ 



roughly unfufpicious one, in maintaining: That we 

 fhould not lay more harm to their account than they 

 actually have done, not mifconftrue what is capable 

 of a good conftrudlion, not charge them in particular 

 with what they have in common with fo many other 

 feels, orders, and focieties, and — as this lies the hea- 

 vier!: at my heart — we ought not to expofe them to 

 fcorn, unlefs we are able to paint them fomewhat more 

 truely and accurately than is commonly done in come- 

 dies and fatires, and which I have fometimes witnefTed 

 not without perturbation of fpirit. 



My delign at prefent is not by any means to enter 

 into a critical difcuffion of their merits. But! only fay, 

 that on thefe occafions the cafe with me is nearly the 

 fame with that of the honeft citizen of Paris, at the 

 reprefentation of Pradon's Judith, the tears excepted; 



Je pleure, helas ! ce pauvre Holoferne 

 Si mechamment mis a mort par Judith. 



But I beg my reader's pardon, for having unbur- 

 dened my heart a little by this iTiort digreffion ; as the 

 matter properly before us is not concerning fictitious 

 jefuits, but folely relates to fome reproaches call on the 

 real jefuits in the entrance of the piece above referred 

 to, and wherein, according to my poor apprehenlion, 

 they have been too liberally beftowed. It is fo plain a 

 proportion, that perfons alike well-difpofed and equally 

 the friends of truth, think varioully on fubjecls that 

 have more than one Ude, and may be feen in more 

 than one light, that I have no need to make any apo- 

 logy to the learned author, to whom my friendmip and 



eiteem 



