the Scripture-Stile, as well as by the Poverty of our Redeemer?

A. You feem, Sir, to carry this Point too far. Whether do you chufe to believe St. JEROM when he was punish't for having follow'd his youthful Studies too clofely in his Retreat; or when he had made the greateft Progrefs both in facred and profane Learning; and, in an Epiftle to PAULINUS, invited him to ftudy the Scripture; affuring him that he wou'd find more Charms in the Prophets than he had discover'd in the Heathen Poets? Or, was St. AUSTIN'S Judgment better in his Youth, when the feeming Meannefs of the facred Stile difgufted him; than when he compos'd his Books Of the Chriftian Doctrine? There he often fays that St. PAUL was powerfully perfwafive; and that the Torrent of his Eloquence must be perceiv'd by the most unattentive Reader. He adds that in the Apostle, Wifdom did not feek after the Beauty of Language; but that the Beauties of Language offer'd themfelves, and attended his Wifdom. He quotes many lofty Paffages of his Epiftles; wherein he fhews all the Art and Addrefs of the Heathen Orators far outdone. St. AUSTIN excepts only two Things in this Comparifon : He says, that thefe Orators ftudy'd the Ornaments

of

of Eloquence, but that the Beauties of Oratory naturally follow'd St. PAUL, and others of the facred Writers. And then he own's that he did not fufficiently understand the Delicacies of the Greek Tongue, to be a competent Judge, whether there be the fame Numbers and Cadence of Periods in the facred Text, that we meet with in profane Authors. I forgot to tell you that he quotes that Paffage of the Prophet Amos which begins thus* Wo to them that are at eafe * ch. vi. in Zion, and trust in the mountain of Samaria --- and affures us that in this Place the Prophet has furpafs't every thing that is fublime in the Heathen Orators. C. But how do you understand these Words of St. PAUL; † My speech and † 1 Cor. my preaching was not with the enticing xj. 4. [perfwafive] words of man's wisdom --? Does he not tell the Corinthians that he came not to preach CHRIST to them, with the Sublimity of Difcourfe and of Wisdom that he knew nothing among them but JESUS, and him crucify'd: that his preaching was founded not upon the perfwafive Language of human Wifdom, and Learning, but upon the fenfible Effects of the Spirit and the Power of God; to the end (as he adds) that their Faith fhou'd not depend upon the wif dom of men, but on the power of God.

What

What is the Meaning of these Words, Sir? What stronger Expreffions cou'd the Apostle use to condemn this Art of Perfwafion that you wou'd establish? For my part, I freely own that at first I was glad when you cenfur'd all thofe affected·· Ornaments of Difcourfe that vain Declaimers are fo fond of: but the Sequel of your Scheme does not anfwer the pious Beginning of it. I find that you wou'd ftill make Preaching a human Art; and banish Apoftolical Simplicity from the Pulpit.

A. Tho' you judge very unfavourably of my Efteem for Eloquence; I am not diffatisfy'd at the Zeal with which you cenfure it. However, Sir, let us endeavour to understand one another aright. There are feveral worthy Perfons who judge, with you, that eloquent Preaching is repugnant to the Simplicity of the Gofpel. But when we have mutually explain'd our Sentiments, perhaps they may be found to agree. What then do you mean by Simplicity ? and what do you call Eloquence?

C. By Simplicity, I mean a Difcourfe without any Artifice or Magnificence. By Eloquence, I mean a Difcourfe full of Art and Ornaments.

A. When you require an artlefs fimple Difcourfe, wou'd you have it without

Order,

.

:

Order, and Connection without folid and convincing Proofs; and without a proper Method for inftructing the Ignorant? wou'd you have a Preacher fay nothing that is pathetick; and never endeavour to affect the Heart?

C. Far from it: I wou'd have a Difcourse that both inftructs, and moves People.

A. That wou'd make it eloquent: For we have seen before that Eloquence is the Art of inftructing and perfwading Men, by moving their Paffions.

C. I grant that Preachers ought to convince and affect their Hearers: but I wou'd have them to do it without Art, by an Apoftolical Simplicity.

A. The more artless and natural fuch a convincing perfwafive Eloquence is, it must be the more powerful. But let us inquire whether the Art of Perfwafion be inconfiftent with the Simplicity of the Gospel. What mean you by Art?

C. I mean a Syftem of Rules that Men have invented, and ufually obferve in their Discourses, to make them more beautiful, elegant, and pleasing.

A. If by Art you only mean this Invention to render a Difcourfe more handfome and polifh't in order to please People; I won't difpute with you about Words; but will readily acknowledge

that

that this Art ought not to be admitted into Sermons: For, (as we agreed before) this Vanity is unworthy of Eloquence and far more unbecoming the facred Function. This is the very Point about which I reafon'd fo much with Mr. B.. But if by Art, and Eloquence, you mean what the moft judicious Writers among the Antients understood; we must then fet a juft Value upon Eloquence.

C. What did they underftand by it? 4. According to them the Art of Eloquence comprehends thofe Means that wife Reflection and Experience have difcover'd to render a Difcourfe proper to perfwade Men of the Truth; and to engage them to love and obey it. And this is what you think every Preacher shou'd be able to do. For did you not say that you approv'd of Order, and a right Manner of Inftruction; Solidity of Reasoning, and pathetick Movements; I mean fuch as can touch and affect Peoples Hearts? Now this is what I call Eloquence: you inay give it what Name you please.

C. Now I comprehend your Notion of Eloquence: and I cannot but acknowledge that fuch a manly, grave, ferious Manner of Perfwafion wou'd much become the Pulpit; and that it feems even neceffary to instruct People with Success. But how do you understand thofe Words of St. PAUL

that