-17, 38, 171.

[25] _Eight Sermons_, pp. 1, lxi.

[26] Marshall, pp. 301, 337. For Samuel Chandler's contribution, see his
_Reflections on the Conduct of the Modern Deists_ (London, 1727); for
Chubb's contribution see _Some Short Reflections on the Grounds and Extent
of Authority and Liberty, With respect to the Civil Government_ (London,
1728).

[27] Marshall's reluctance to support Rogers's extremism is seen in the
funeral sermon he preached at the latter's death (_A Sermon Delivered in
the Parish Church of St. Giles Cripplegate, May 18, 1729. Upon Occasion of
the Much Lamented Death of the Revd. John Rogers_ [London, 1729]). He
made only the most casual and indifferent reference to Rogers's work. So
obvious was this slight that it called for a rebuttal; see Philalethes (A.
A. Sykes [?]), _Some Remarks Upon the Reverend Dr. Marshall's Sermon on
Occasion of the Death of the Revd Dr Rogers_ (London, 1729).

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

This facsimile of _A Discourse concerning Ridicule and Irony in Writing_
(1729) is reproduced from a copy in the William Andrews Clark Memorial
Library.

A
DISCOURSE
CONCERNING
Ridicule and Irony
IN
WRITING,
IN A
LETTER
To the Reverend
Dr. NATHANAEL MARSHALL.

-------- _Ridiculum acri
Fortius & melius magnas plerumq; secat res._

-------- _Ridentem dicere verum
Quid vetat?_

_LONDON:_

Printed for J. BROTHERTON in _Cornhill_ and sold
by T. WARNER in _Pater-noster-Row_, and
A. DODD without _Temple-Bar_. 1729.

A
DISCOURSE
CONCERNING
_Ridicule_ and _Irony_, &c.

REVEREND SIR,

In your _Letter_ to Dr. _Rogers_, which he has publish'd at the End of his
_Vindication of the Civil Establishment of Religion_, I find a Notion
advanc'd by you: which as it is a common and plausible Topick for
Persecution, and a Topick by which you, and many others, urge the
Magistrate to punish [or, as you phrase it, _to pinch_] [28] Men for
controversial Writings, is particularly proper at this time to be fully
consider'd; and I hope to treat it in such manner as to make you your
self, and every fair Reader, sensible of the Weakness thereof.

You profess to "vindicate [29] a sober, serious, and modest Inquiry into
the Reasons of any Establishment."

And you add, that you "have not ordinarily found it judg'd inconsistent
with the Duty of a _private Subject_, to propose his Doubts or his Reasons
to the Publick in a _modest_ way,