But before we inspect further, or touch upon the Moralist's Immorality,
for I dare ingage it is not altogether impossible to prove, the
_Pulpiteer_ may be tainted a little as well as the _Poetaster_, let us
see whether we can find him guilty of the first Charge against us, which
is _Immodesty_; and upon this subject indeed, if our Learn'd Reformer
did not impose upon us with a Fallacy, I should (to shew my good Nature
walk hand in hand with my resentment) once more admire him for his
Character of Modesty in the 11th page of his Book, which is, to do him
Justice, very fine; but then he only tells us of one kind of Modesty,
when he knows there are two, and therein he is Falacious, in not
exposing the other, which is decency of Speech and Behaviour; and truly,
meerly, I believe, through a conscious reflection of his own frequent
miscarriages in that case. If therefore, these Papers differ a little
from that Civility which is proper, I beg the Readers pardon, and assure
him 'tis only in imitation of his Stile to me, as all those that read
his Book may find.

For, in the first place, he does not shew his own, nor, indeed, any part
of decent modesty, in exposing any Gentlemans Name in print, when the
subject matter is Satyr, Reflection, Scandal, _&c._ and in which case I
believe the Law might do Justice, if apply'd to; but if not, I am sure
good Manners, and civil Education, ought to tie the Cassock as close as
the Sash or Sursingle; but this our Divine helper, most Bully-like,
disallows; for he, puff'd with his Priestly Authority, calls us boldly
to the Bar of his Injustice by our own Names, the same minute that he is
roaringly accusing us of Blasphemy, Smuttery, Foolery, and a thousand
Monstrosities besides, as he'd make you believe; unless for variety, he
picks out one amongst the rest, now and then, to abuse a little more
civilly, and then, rubbing up his old College Wit, he Nicknames 'em,