C.

THE

THIRD DIALOGUE.

Began to fear, Sir, that

you

wou'd not come; and was

very near going to fee for you at Mr. ***·.

A. I was detain'd by a perplexing Affair I had upon my Hands: but I have got rid of it to my Satisfaction. B. I'm very glad of it: for, we wantyou extremely to finish the Subject we were talking of in the Morning.

ed

C. Since I parted with you, Sir, I heard a Sermon at ***, and I thought of you. The Preacher fpoke in a very edifying manner: but I queftion whether the common People understood him, or

not.

A. It happens but too often (as I heard an ingenious Lady obferve,) that our Preachers fpeak Latin, in English. The most effential Quality of a good Preacher is to be inftructive: but he must have great

K 3

great Abilities and Experience to make him fo. On the one hand he must be perfectly acquainted with the Force of Scripture-Expreffions: on the other, he must understand the Capacity of thofe to whom he preaches; and adapt himself to it. Now this requires a folid Knowledge, and great Difcernment. Preachers speak every day to People of the Scripture, the Church, the Mofaick Law, the Gofpel; of Sacrifices; of MOSES and AARON, and MELCHISEDECK; of the Prophets, and Apostles: but there is not fufficient Care taken to inftruct the People in the true Meaning of thefe Things, and in the Characters of thofe holy Perfons. One might follow fome Preachers, twenty Years, without getting fufficient Knowledge of Religion.

B. Do you think that People are really ignorant of thofe Things you mention'd? C. For my part, I believe they are: and that few or none understand them enough to receive any Benefit from Ser

mons.

B. That may be true of the lowest Rank of People.

C. Well; ought not they to be inftructed as well as others? don't they make up the Bulk of Mankind?

A. The Truth is, Perfons of Rank and Fashion have but little more Knowledge

of

of Religion than the common People. There are always three Fourth-parts of an ordinary Audience, who don't know those first Principles of Religion, in which the Preacher fuppofes every-one to be fully inftructed.

B. Wou'd you then have him explain the Catechifm in his Sermons to a polite Congregation?

A. I grant there is a due Regard to be had to an Audience; and Discretion to be us'd in adapting a Difcourfe to their Capacity. But still without giving the least Offence, a Preacher might remind the most difcerning Hearers of thofe Paffages of the Sacred Hiftory, which explain the Origin and Inftitution of holy Things. This way of having Recourfe to the first Foundations of Religion, wou'd be fo far from feeming low, that it wou'd give moft Difcourfes that Force and Beauty which they generally want.

This is particularly true with regard to the Mysteries of Religion: For the Hearers can never be inftructed, nor perfwaded, if you don't trace Things back to their Source. For example, how can you make them understand what the Church fays, after St. PAUL, that JESUS * 1 Cor. CHRIST is our Paffover, if you do not explain to them the Jewish Paffover, which was appointed to be a perpetual Memorial of their Deliverance from Esypt,

K 4

V. 7.

gypt, and to typify a more important Redemption that was referv'd for the Meffiah. It is for this Reason, I faid that almost every thing in Religion is Hiftorical. And if Preachers wou'd have a full Knowledge of this Truth, they muft be very converfant in the Scripture

B. You must excufe my interrupting you on this Subject; Sir, you told us in the Morning that the Scriptures are eloquent and I was glad to hear you fay so. Let me intreat you to fhew us how we may difcern the Beauties of Scripture; and in what its Eloquence confifts. The Latin Bible feems to me moft vulgar and inaccurate. I fee no Delicacy in it. What is it then that you fo much admire?

A. The Latin is only a literal Verfion in which out of refpect to the Original, there are many Greek and Hebrew Phrafes retain'd. Do you defpife HoMER because he has been forrily tranflated into French?

B. But the Greek it-felf (which is the original Language of the New Teftament) appears to me very coarse and unpolite.

A. The Apoftles were not acquainted with the genuine Greek, but us'd that corrupted kind which prevail'd among the Hellenistical Jews. For this Reafon *2 Cor. St. PAUL fays* I am rude in speech, but not in Knowledge. It is very obvious that the Apostle here only meant he

xj, 16.

was

was not a Master of the Greek Tongue; tho' he folidly explain'd the Doctrine of the Holy Scripture.

C. Had not the Apoftles the Gift of fpeaking unknown Tongues?

A. Undoubtedly: and they even convey'd that Gift to great Numbers of their illiterate Converts. But as for the Languages that the Apoftles had learnt in a natural way, we have Reason to believe that the Spirit of God permitted them to fpeak as they did before. St. PAUL who was a Citizen of Tarfus, in Cilicia, naturally fpake the corrupted Greek us'd among the Jews there: and we find that this is the Language he wrote in. St. LUKE feems to have understood Greek a little better.

C. But I always thought that in the Paffage you mention'd, St. PAUL gave up all Pretences to Oratory: and regarded nothing but the Simplicity of the Evangelical Doctrine. Nay I have heard feveral Perfons of Worth and good Judgment affirin that the Holy Scripture is not eloquent. St. JEROM was punish't for being difgufted at the Simplicity of Scripture; and liking TULLY better. St, AUSTIN (in his Confeffions) feeins to have fallen into the fame Fault. Did not GOD intend to try our Faith by the Obfcurity, and even by the Lowness of

the