Six Discourses on the Miracles of Our Saviour, and Defences of His DiscoursesWoolston, Thomas
Religion
Six Discourses on the Miracles of Our Saviour, and Defences of His Discourses
Woolston, Thomas
Gibson, Edmund, 1669-1748; Jesus Christ -- Miracles -- Early works to 1800; Smalbroke, Richard, 1672-1749
_First_, We should endeavour to write as plainly and intelligibly as
we can, and never amuse our _Readers_ with Expressions void of Sense,
or with false Reasoning against our _Adversaries_, where we want
what's good and solid. This _Rule_ none can except against: Whether I
am an Observer of this _Rule_, my Readers are to be Judges. As I am to
answer it to God and a good Conscience, I endeavour to observe it; but
much question, whether some of my _Adversaries_ can say so too, or
they would never vent such dark, impertinent and unintelligible Stuff,
if it was not, because they are at a Loss for what's clear and
shining. There's no End of giving Instances out of their Writings to
this Purpose. I shall only mention one, that's repeated amongst them,
and that is, of their pretended Distinction between Popish
_Persecution_ and Protestant _Prosecution_ for Opinions, wherewith
they have amused weak and injudicious Heads. The Wife, I am sure, can
discern no more Difference here, than between a _Rope_ and a _Halter_
to hang an innocent Man, in which Case too there is a _nominal_
Distinction without a _real_ Difference.
_Secondly_, We should be open and sincere in our Opinions, and not
profess with our Mouths to believe, what we disown in our Hearts; nor,
like _Watermen_, that look one way and row another, should we pretend
to have one Design in View, when we are pursuing the quite contrary.
This is a reasonable _Rule_, and ought to be observ'd, or we shall
confound the Understandings of our _Readers_, who will soon lose Sight
of our Arguments, if they apprehend not their Aim and Drift. This
_Rule_, my Adversaries will say, is levell'd at my self, than whom no
body has more dissembled and prevaricated in his Opinions. Have not
you, will they say to me, frequently declared, that your Design in
your _Discourses_ is to make way for the Proof of the Truth of
Christianity, and of the Messiahship of the Holy _Jesus_, when you
mean and intend the Subversion of both? And is not here grand
Hypocrisy, and a Transgression of this Rule? Yes, if I intend the
Subversion of Christ's Religion and Messiahship, here is grand
Hypocrisy, and a Transgression of this _Rule_; and I can't think of
such a Piece of Prevarication without Horror. The Bishop of _St.
David_'s[357] and Mr. _Stackhouse_,[358] in particular, have
animadverted upon me for such Hypocrisy; and if I was guilty of it, in
much gentler Terms than I deserv'd. This Hypocrisy, which they falsely
charge me with, is as heinous a Sin as I can think of; it is as bad as
wilful _Perjury_, as bad as a _Clergyman_'s taking the Abjuration
Oath, with his Heart full of Zeal and Affection for the Pretender, and
worse than his giving his solemn Assent and Consent to Articles of
Religion he believes little or nothing of. I should hardly have
mention'd this _Rule_ to be observ'd in Controversy, if I had been
guilty of the Breach of it. It is somewhat excusable in _Infidels_ a
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account