Libel and slander; Sermons, English -- 17th century; Swearing
It may also be expedient to put the world out of conceit that all
sober and good men are a sort of such lumpish or sour people that
they can utter nothing but flat and drowsy stuff, by showing them
that such persons, when they see cause, in condescension, can be as
brisk and smart as themselves; when they please, can speak
pleasantly and wittily, as well as gravely and judiciously. This
way at least, in respect to the various palates of men, may for
variety sake be sometimes attempted, when other means do fail; when
many strict and subtle arguings, many zealous declamations, many
wholesome serious discourses have been spent, without effecting the
extirpation of bad principles, or conversion of those who abet them;
this course may be tried, and some perhaps may be reclaimed thereby.
7. Furthermore, the warrantableness of this practice in some cases
may be inferred from a parity of reason, in this manner. If it be
lawful (as by the best authorities it plainly doth appear to be), in
using rhetorical schemes, poetical strains, involutions of sense in
allegories, fables, parables, and riddles, to discoast from the
plain and simple way of speech, why may not facetiousness, issuing
from the same principles, directed to the same ends, serving to like
purposes, be likewise used blamelessly? If those exorbitancies of
speech may be accommodated to instill good doctrine into the head,
to excite good passions in the heart, to illustrate and adorn the
truth, in a delightful and taking way, and facetious discourse be
sometimes notoriously conducible to the same ends, why, they being
retained, should it be rejected, especially considering how
difficult often it may be to distinguish those forms of discourse
from this, or exactly to define the limits which sever rhetoric and
raillery. Some elegant figures and trophies of rhetoric (biting
sarcasms, sly ironies, strong metaphors, lofty hyperboles,
paronomasies, oxymorons, and the like, frequently used by the best
speakers, and not seldom even by sacred writers) do lie very near
upon the confines of jocularity, and are not easily differenced from
those sallies of wit wherein the lepid way doth consist: so that
were this wholly culpable, it would be matter of scruple whether one
hath committed a fault or no when he meant only to play the orator
or the poet; and hard surely it would be to find a judge who could
precisely set out the difference between a jest and a flourish.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account