_Citt and Bumpkin's_ popularity was indisputable. Of all the pamphlets about petitioning, it was by far the most widely read. It went into four editions by June 1680 and a fifth in 1681. Although there were no substantive changes in the various editions, the type was reset each time, so implying a continuing demand for the pamphlet. Indeed, the contemporary response was so overwhelming that within six weeks L'Estrange wrote a sequel entitled, _Citt and Bumpkin, The Second Part; Or, A Learned Discourse upon Swearing and Lying_. In addition, there were many references in the Whig press denigrating L'Estrange and his pamphlet; derogatory remarks appeared in newspapers, ballads, and poems. In particular, three pamphlets were issued, replying directly to _Citt and Bumpkin_ and attacking L'Estrange personally. The first and most considerable of these rejoinders appeared on 16 March, a month after the publication of _Citt and Bumpkin_, when its effect was being fully realized and the need felt to combat it. _A Dialogue Between Tom and Dick Over a Dish of Coffee Concerning Matters of Religion and Government_, issued also as _Crack-fart and Tony; Or, Knave and Fool_,[9] is a parody following closely the format and arguments of _Citt and Bumpkin_. Having appropriated the framework employed by L'Estrange, the author of _Tom and Dick_ adjusted it by a series of simple substitutions from an attack on the Protestant Plot, Dissenters, Schism, and republicans, to an assault on the Popish Plot, Papists, Roman Catholicism, and loyalists. The parallels in setting and characterization are established immediately, when Tom and Dick meet in a coffee house and agree to hold a conversation in which Tom will speak, write, invent, and hold forth as Citt had done, while Dick will hear, believe, and speak in his turn (but to little purpose) like Bumpkin. The parody breaks down, however, when one compares Trueman with Goodman, who endorses Trueman's arguments rather than misrepresenting or opposing them. Nor does Goodman observe Trueman's scrupulous care in replying to all the issues raised by the other two characters. Throughout the dialogue, the author manages to maintain dramatic realism and to sustain a mock-serious tone in the absurd-but-credible verbal exchange between his two buffoons.