[ 89 ]
of the government of his Reason is, in a word, a Monster rather than a Man.
Methinks the modest Reader may take this as it is intended, viz. to extend to the Exercise of a brutal ungoverned Appetite, in any other Case, to which this of eating and drinking is apposite, and may apply it suitably, though Decency forbids me to do it.
We should all blush to be told, in other Cases, that we had no Government of our selves; that we were insatiably Covetous, or unboundedly Ambitious, or Vain, and much more should we have reason to blush, as being insatiable in any other Appetite.
Decency also puts another Difficulty upon me here, viz. it obliges me to speak of this Article, as if the Man was the only guilty Person, and that the Modesty of the Woman was a sufficient restraint to her upon all Occasions: Nor will I make so much as an attempt in Prejudice of that Charity; if it happen otherwise on any Occasion 'tis so much the worse, because, I think, of the two, the Extream on that Side is the most fatal, as well as shameful.
There is a Part of this Circumstance, which, as it is necessary to be mentioned, so it may be mentioned without Offence, tho' it regards even the nicest Branch of the Argument; and that is, How fatal this Exorbitance is, when it meets, not as it were in a kind of Conjunction, as where neither the Man or the Woman have the Government of themselves; but where the Extream is on one Side only, with a coldness and indifferency equally extream on the other; I say, this may be mentioned without offence, because it must not be deny'd but there is anError
