CHAPTER y. 199 hearken to; we may overawe them from pursuing theirown ruin by the terrors of a solemn shadow, or allure then by a sugar- plum to their own happiness. But after all, we must conclude, that wheresoever it can be done, it is best to remove and root out those prejudices which obstruct the entrance of truth iuío the mind, rather than to palliate, humour, or indulge them ; and sometimes this must necessarilybe done, before you can make a person part with some beloved error, and lead him into better sentiments. Suppose you would convince a gamester, that gaming is not a lawful calling, or business of life, to maintain oneself by it,. and you make use of this argument, namely, That which doth not admit us to ask the blessing of God that we may get gain by it, cannot be a lawful employment ; but we cannot ask the bles- sing of God on gaming, therefore, &c. The minor is proved thus: We cannot pray that our neighbour may lose; this is con- trary to the rule of seeking our neighbour's welfare, and loving him as ourselves ; this is wishing mischief to our neighbour.-- But in gaining, we can gain but just so much as our neighbour loses ; therefore in gaming we cannot pray for the blessing of God that we may gain by it. Perhaps the gamester shrugs and winces, turns and twists the argument every way, but he cannot fairly answer it ; yet he will patch up an answer to satisfy hirn. self, and will never yield to the conviction, because he feels.so much of the sweet influence of gaining, either towards the gra- tification of his avarice, pr the support of his eapeuces. Thus he is under a strong prejudice in favour of it, and is not easily convinced. Your first work therefore, must be to lead hinr by degrees to separate the thoughts of his own interest from the argument, and shew him that our own temporal interests, our livelihood, or pur loss, path nothing to do to determine this point in opposition to the plain reason of things, and that he ought to put these con- siderations quite out of the question, ifhe would be honest and sin- cere in his search after truth or duty ; and that he must be content- ed to hearken to the voice of reason and truth, even though it should run counter to his secular interest. When this is done, then an argument may carry someweight of force with it toward his conviction. . jut like manner if the question were whether Matrissa ought to expose herself and her other children to poverty and misery; in order to support the extravagancies of a favourite son ? Per- haps the mother can hear no argument against it ; she feels no conviction in the most cogent reasonings, so close do her fond prejudices stick to her heart. The first business here is to remove this prejudice. Ask her therefore, whether it is not a parent's duty to love all her children, so as to provide for their welfare ?
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=