what set of men; and what was their much recommended to those who are office? What may we next observe? beginning to practice at the bar? To How is this remark fully illustrated? what habit should they form themHence, what consequences followed; selves? If this habit be once acquired, and hence, what practices, which would what will be the consequence? Wherebe reckoned theatrical among us, were as, what will be the consequence of common at the Roman bar? Why, then, suffering a loose and negligent style to would too strict an imitation of Cicero's become familiar? What is a capital manner of pleading, now be extremely property in speaking at the bar; and injudicious? As he may, however, still in what two things, chiefly, should it be studied to great advantage, in what be shown? What is of the utmost conought he to be imitated? By what sequence in every sort of oration; and imitations of him would a pleader ren- where is this indispensable? In what, der himself perfectly ridiculous? Be- therefore, cannot too much pains be fore descending to more particular di- taken; and why? With respect to the rections concerning the eloquence of the conduct of narration and argument, bar, of what does our author take no what only, at present, is observed? tice? Of this, what is observed; and Why is this remark made? Whereas, why? Besides previous study, and a by cutting off all superfluous circumproper stock of knowledge attained, stances in his recital, what effect does what is highly material to the success he produce? Why should a more difof every pleader? How did the ancient fuse manner in argumentation be used rhetoricians regard this? What does at the bar, than on some other occaCicero tell us on this subject? Whomsions? does he very severely censure; and When the pleader comes to refute the with what does he tax them? To the arguments employed by his adversary, same purpose, what is done by Quinti- why should he not do them injustice? lian; and what does he again and Whereas, what will be the effect of again recommend? Repeat the pas- stating them with accuracy and cansage. Suppose an advocate to be thus dour? In this case, what are they natuprepared, what is next observed ? rally led to think? To what is the What inference would be altogether judge thereby inclined; and what rewrong? Though the manner of speak- mark follows? When may wit be of ing be changed, yet what follows? service at the bar? Though the repuFrom what consideration does it ap- tation of wit be dazzling to a young pear that, perhaps, there is no scene pleader, yet why should he not rest his of public speaking, where eloquence is strength upon this talent? In pleading more necessary than at the bar? What a cause, what is always of use? How does the dryness and subtilty of the is this remark illustrated? As an advosubjects generally agitated at the bar, cate personates his client, and stands in require? How is this illustrated? his place, what is very improper, and What is no small encouragement to has a bad effect; and what follows? eloquence, at the bar? To what is he At the same time, of what must he less exposed than some others? Why beware; why; and what must never is he sure of coming forward according be forgotten? What is scarcely possible? to his merit? What may be done for a How is this illustrated? How must this young pleader, by his friends? Why opinion of honour and probity, therewill a reputation resting on these assist- fore, be preserved? Though, perhaps, ances, soon fall? What must be laid the nature of the profession may ren down for a first principle? Why may der it difficult to carry this delicacy to a little play to the imagination be some- its utmost length, yet what follows? times allowed; but how must this liber-Embarking in what causes will he alty be taken? How is the speaker who ways decline; and when he supports a uses a florid style and sparkling manner doubtful one, what course will he purheard? What is their effect? What issue? In what manner does our author chiefly to be studied? Of what are the propose further to illustrate this subgentlemen of this profession often ac-ject? What oration has our author cused; and how are they betrayed in- chosen; and why? What is the subject to it? What. therefore, cannot be tool of the oration? Of the introduction

ANALYSIS.

what is observed? How does it begin; following passage? Repeat it. In the and what were these two parts? What latter part of the oration, of what does does Cicero propose? On what does he Cicero treat? Of this, what is observed? make several proper observations; and What does Cicero here show? Of the what does he acknowledge? Begging peroration what is observed; and on a patient and attentive hearing, of what two points does it turn? With rewhat does he assure the judges? What gard to Sassia, what does Cicero do? reigns throughout this introduction? To the character of Sassia, what does What circumstances naturally raised he oppose; and what does he produce? strong prejudices against Cicero's client? With what remarks does he conclude? What was, therefore, the first step to be In this skeleton, what was principally taken by the orator; and in what man- aimed at? In order to have a full view ner? What rendered this plan proper? of it, to what must recourse be had; In executing his plan, what does he and why? do? What evidence have we of the abandoned character of Sassia, the mother? What was the fate of Melinus? When Oppianicus himself made his addresses to her, on what ground 1. Eloquence of the bar. did she object to him? Upon the removal of this objection, what followed? How are these flagrant deeds painted by Cicero? As Cluentius could no longer live on terms with Sassia, what followed? What does Cicero say of Oppianicus? Repeat, fully, the history of the trial. Of both these Prejudicia, what is observed; and what was a natural consequence? What was peculiar to this prosecution? By what arguments does Cicero defend his client against this heavy charge of the Crimen corrupti Judicii? What is the effect of these plausible facts and reasonings? What difficult part of the orator's business still remained? To all these decisions, how does Cicero reply; and what does he show? At length, Cicero comes to reason of what; and

A. The difference between it and popular eloquence.

B. Cicero's and Demosthenes' orations not models for modern speakers at the bar.

c. The requisites for a lawyer's suc

cess.

a. A profound knowledge of his profession.

b. Eloquence in pleading. D. Directions for speaking at the bar. a. To be calm and temperate. b. Verbosity to be avoided.

c. Distinctness a capital property. d. Conciseness in narration requisite.

e. Candidness in stating an opponent's arguments.

f. A proper degree of warmth useful.

of what does he take advantage? 2. An analysis of one of Cicero's oraWhy does our author introduce the

tions.

LECTURE XXIX.

ELOQUENCE OF THE PULPIT.

BEFORE treating of the structure and component parts of a regular oration, I purposed making some observations on the peculiar strain, the distinguishing characters, of each of the three great kinds of public speaking. I have already treated of the eloquence of popular assemblies, and of the eloquence of the bar. The subject which remains for this lecture is, the strain and spirit of that eloquence which is suited to the pulpit.

Let us begin with considering the advantages and disadvantages which belong to this field of public speaking. The pulpit has plainly several advantages peculiar to itself. The dignity and impor

tance of its subjects must be acknowledged superior to any other. They are such as ought to interest every one, and can be brought home to every man's heart; and such as admit, at the same time, both the highest embellishment in describing, and the greatest vehemence and warmth in enforcing them. The preacher has also great advantages in treating his subjects. He speaks not to one or a few judges, but to a large assembly. He is secure from all interruption. He is obliged to no replies, or extemporaneous efforts. He chooses his theme at leisure; and comes to the public with all the assistance which the most accurate premeditation can give him. But, together with these advantages, there are also peculiar difficulties that attend the eloquence of the pulpit. The preacher, it is true, has no trouble in contending with an adversary; but then, debate and contention enliven genius and procure attention. The pulpit orator is, perhaps, in too quiet possession of his field. His subjects of discourse are, in themselves, noble and important; but they are subjects trite and familiar. They have, for ages, employed so many speakers, and so many pens; the public ear is so much accustomed to them, that it requires more than an ordinary power of genius to fix attention. Nothing within the reach of art is more difficult, than to bestow, on what is common, the grace of novelty. No sort of composition whatever is such a trial of skill, as where the merit of it lies wholly in the execution; not in giving any information that is new, not in convincing men of what they did not believe; but in dressing truths which they knew, and of which they were before convinced, in such colours as may most forcibly affect their imagination and heart.* It is to be considered, too, that the subject of the preacher generally confines him to abstract qualities, to virtues and vices; whereas, that of other popular speakers leads them to treat of persons; which is a subject that commonly interests the hearers more, and takes faster hold of the imagination. The preacher's business is solely to make you detest the crime; the pleader's, to make you detest the criminal. He describes a living person; and with more facility rouses

What I have said on this subject, coincides very much with the observations made by the famous M. Bruyère, in his Mœurs de Siècle, when he is comparing the eloquence of the pulpit to that of the bar. L'eloquence de la chaire, en ce qui y entre d'humain, & du talent de l'orateur, est cachée, connue de peu de personnes, & d'une difficile execution. Il faut marcher par des chemins battus, dire ce qui a été dit, & ce qui l'on prévoit que vous allez dire: les matières sont grandes, mais usées & triviales; les principes surs, mais dont les auditeurs penetrent les conclusions d'une seule vue: il y entre des sujets qui sont sublimes, mais qui peut traiter le sublime?--Le Prédicateur n'est point soutenu comme l'avocat par des faits toujours nouveaux, par de differens evenémens, par des aventures inouies; il ne s'exerce point sur les questions douteuses; il ne fait point valoir les violentes conjectures, & les presomptions; toutes choses, neanmoins, qui élevent le genie, lui donnent de la force, & de l'étendue, & qui contraignent bien moins l'éloquence, qu'elles ne le fixent, & le dirigent. Il doit au contraire, tirer son discours d'une source commune, & ou tout le monde puise; & s'il s'écarte de ces lieux communs il n'est plus populaire; il est abstrait ou déclamateur.' The inference which he draws from these reflections is very just: 'il est plus aisé de prêcher que de plaider; mais plus difficile de bien prêcher que de bien plaider.' Les Caractères, ou Mœurs de ce Siècle, p. 601.

your indignation. From these causes, it comes to pass, that though we have a great number of moderately good preachers, we have, however, so few that are singularly eminent. We are still far from perfection in the art of preaching; and perhaps there are few things, in which it is more difficult to excel.* The object, however, is noble, and worthy, upon many accounts, of being pursued with zeal.

It may perhaps occur to some, that preaching is no proper subject of the art of eloquence. This, it may be said, belongs only to human studies and inventions: but the truths of religion, with the greater simplicity, and the less mixture of art they are set forth, are likely to prove the more successful. This objection would have weight, if eloquence were as the persons who make such an objection commonly take it to be, an ostentatious and deceitful art, the study of words and of plausibility, only calculated to please, and to tickle the ear. But against this idea of eloquence I have all along guarded. True eloquence is the art of placing truth in the most advantageous light for conviction and persuasion. This is what every good man who preaches the gospel not only may, but ought to have at heart. It is most intimately connected with the success of his ministry; and were it needful, as assuredly it is not, to reason any farther on this head, we might refer to the discourses of the prophets and Apustles, as models of the most sublime and persuasive eloquence, adapted both to the imagination and the passions of men.

An essential requisite, in order to preach well, is, to have a just, and at the same time, a fixed and habitual view of the end of preaching. For in no art can any man execute well, who has not a just idea of the end and object of that art. The end of all preaching is, to persuade men to become good. Every sermon, therefore, should be a persuasive oration. Not but that the preacher is to instruct and to teach, to reason and argue. All persuasion, as I showed formerly, is to be founded on conviction. The understanding must always be applied to in the first place, in order to make a lasting impression on the heart: and he who would work on men's passions, or influence their practice, without first giving them just principles, and enlightening their minds, is no better than a mere declaimer. He may raise transient emotions, or kindle a passing ardour, but can produce no solid or lasting effect. At the same time,

* What I say here, and in other passages, of our being far from perfection in the art of preaching, and of there being few who are singularly eminent in it, is to be always understood as referring to an ideal view of the perfection of this art, which none perhaps, since the days of the Apostles, ever did, or ever will reach. But in that degree of the eloquence of the pulpit, which promotes, in a considerable measure, the great end of edification, and gives a just title to high reputation and esteem, there are many who hold a very honourable rank. I agree entirely in opinion with a candid judge (Dr. Campbell, on Rhetoric, b. i. ch. 10.) who observes, that considering how rare the talent of eloquence is among men, and considering all the disadvantages under which preachers labour, particularly from the frequency of this exercise, joined with the other duties of their office, to which fixed pastors are obliged, there is more reason to wonder that we hear so many instructive, and even eloquent sermons, than that we hear so few.

it must be remembered, that all the preacher's instructions are to be of the practical kind, and that persuasion must ever be his ultimate object. It is not to discuss some abstruse point, that he ascends the pulpit; it is not to illustrate some metaphysical truth, or to inform men of something which they never heard before; but it is to make them better men; it is to give them, at once, clear views and persuasive impressions of religious truth. The eloquence of the pulpit,then, must be popular eloquence. One of the first qualities of preaching is to be popular; not in the sense of accommodation to the humours and prejudices of the people, (which tends only to make a preacher contemptible,) but, in the true sense of the word, calculated to make impression on the people; to strike and to seize their hearts. I scruple not therefore to assert, that the abstract and philosophical manner of preaching, however it may have sometimes been admired, is formed upon a very faulty idea, and deviates widely from the just plan of pulpit eloquence. Rational, indeed, a preacher ought always to be; he must give his audience clear ideas on every subject, and entertain them with sense, not with sound: but to be an accurate reasoner will be small praise, if he be not a persuasive speaker also.

Now, if this be the proper idea of a sermon, a persuasive oration, one very material consequence follows, that the preacher himself, in order to be successful, must be a good man. In a preceding lecture I endeavoured to show, that on no subject can any man be truly eloquent, who does not utter the "veræ voces ab imo pectore," who does not speak the language of his own conviction and his own feelings. If this holds, as in my opinion it does, in other kinds of public speaking, it certainly holds in the highest degree in preaching. There, it is of the utmost consequence that the speaker firmly believe both the truth and the importance of those principles which he inculcates on others; and, not only that he believe them speculatively, but have a lively and serious feeling of them. This will always give an earnestness and strength, a fervour of piety to his exhortations, superior in its effects to all the arts of studied eloquence; and, without it, the assistance of art will seldom be able to conceal the mere declaimer. A spirit of true piety would prove the most effectual guard againt those errors which preachers are apt to commit. It would make their discourses solid, cogent, and useful; it would prevent those frivolous and ostentatious harangues, which have no other aim than merely to make a parade of speech, or amuse an audience; and perhaps the difficulty of attaining that pitch of habitual piety and goodness, which the perfection of pulpit eloquence would require, and of uniting it with that thorough knowledge of the world, and those other talents which are requisite for excelling in the pulpit, is one of the great causes why so few arrive at very high eminence in this sphere.

The chief characteristics of the eloquence suited to the pulpit, as distinguished from the other kinds of public speaking, appear to me to be these two, gravity and warmth. The serious nature of the sub