C. The reason why it is fo hard to perfuade you in this cafe, is, because you judge of the matter by common experience. if they who get their fermons by. heart, were to preach without that preparation, it is likely they would fucceed but very ill nor am I furprized at it: for, they are not accustomed to follow nature: they have studyed only to compose their fermons; and that too with affectation, they have never once thought oft fpeaking in a noble, ftrong, and na the matter of their fermons,that as they are generally read with very little life or affection,' so they are heard with as little regard, or esteem. those who read, ought certainly to be at a little more pains, than (for the most part) they are to read true; to pronounce with an emphasis; to raise their head, and to direct their eyes to their hearers: and if they practifed more, alone, the just way of reading, they might deliver their fermons with much more advantage, man is a low fort of creature: be does not (nay the greater part cannot,) confider things in themselves, without thofe little feafonings that must recommend them to their affec This leads me to confider the difference that is between the reading, and the speaking of fermons. reading is peculiar to this nation; and is endured in no other. it has indeed made our fermons more exact; and fo has produced to us many volumes of the best that are extant. but after all, tho' fome few read fo happily, pronounce fo truly, and enter fo entirely into thofe affections which they recommend; that in them, we fee both the correctness of reading, and the ferioufnefs of Speaking fermons ; yet every one is not fo happy. Some by banging their head perpetually over their notes, by blundering as they read; and by a curfory running over them, do fo leffentions----befides, the people (who tural manner. indeed the greatest part of preachers have not a fufficient fund of folid knowledge to depend on, and are therefore afraid to trust themselves without the ufual preparation. the method of getting fermons by heart, qualifies many, who have but very scanty and fuperficial parts, to make a tolerable figure in the pulpit; feeing they need only lay together a certain number of paffages, and remarks: and however little genius or affistance a man has, he may with time and aplication be able to work up and polish his matter into fome form, but to preach with judgment and strength requires an attentive meditation upon the first principles of religion; an exact knowledge of morality; an infight into antiquity; ftrength of reafoning; and fuit, able action. is not this, Sir, what you require in an orator who does not learn his discourse by heart? A. You have explained my thoughts exactly. only it may not be improper to add, that tho' a man should not poffefs all these qualities in a remarkable degree, he may yet preach very well, if he has a folid juďgment, a tolerable stock of knowledge, and an eafy way of fpeaking. for, in this method, as in the other, there may be different degrees of eloquence. you may further observe that most of those who preach without getting their fermons by heart, do not prepare them are too apt to cenfure the clergy) are easily carried into an obvious reflection on reading, that it is an effect of laziness. Difcourfe of the pastoral care. ch. ix. felves enough, they ought to study their subject with the closest attention; prepare all those moving paffages that should affect the audience; and give the feveof their difcourfe fuch an order as will best parts ferve to set the whole in the most proper light. ral B. You have oftentimes fpoken of this order: do you mean any thing else by it than a division of the fubject? perhaps you have fome peculiar notion on this point too. A. You think that you rally me: but in good earneft, I am as fingular in my opinion upon this head, as on any other. B. I easily believe you. A. It is certainly fo: and fince we have fallen upon this fubject, I will fhew you how far I think the greater part of orators are defective in the point of order. B. Since you are fo fond of order, I hope you do not diflike divifions. A. I am far from approving them. B. Why? do they not methodize a discourse ? A. For the most part, divifions give only a feeming order; while they really mangle and clog a difcourfe, by feparating it into two or three parts; which muft interrupt the orator's action, and the effect it ought to produce, there remains no true ‡ unity after such divi A text being opened, then the point upon which the fer mon is to run is to be opened: and it will be the better heard, fions; feeing they make two or three different difcourfes, which are joined into one, only by an arbitrary connection. for three fermons preached at different times, (if they be formed upon some regular concerted plan, as the fermons in Advent ufually are,) make one piece, or intire discourse, as much, as the three points of any of thefe fermons make one whole by being joined, and delivered, together. B. What is it then that you mean by order? how confufed must a discourse be that is not divided? A. Do you think there is more confufion in the orations of Demofthenes, and Tully, than in the fermons of your parish-preacher ? B. I do not know----I believe not. A. You need not be afraid of giving your judgment too freely. the harangues of these great men are not divided as our fermons are. nay Ifocrates (of whom we fpake so much before,) and other antient orators, did not follow our method of dividing. the fathers of the church knew nothing of it. even S. Bernard, the last of them, only gives a hint of fome divifions, and does not pursue them; nor divide his difcourfes in form. and for a long time after him, fermons were not divided: it is a modern invention which we owe originally to the fcholaftic divines. and understood if there be but one point in a sermon: so that one bead, and only one, is well stated, and fully set out. Difcourfe of the pastoral care. p. 249. B. I grant that the school-men are a very bad model for eloquence: but what form did the antients use to give their discourses? A. They did not divide them; but they pointed out carefully all thofe things that ought to be diftinguished: to each of them † they affigned its proper place; after having attentively confidered where it might be introduced to the best advantage, and be fittest to make a due impreffion. ofttimes that which would feem nothing to the purpose, by being unfeafonably urged, has a very great weight when it is referved for its proper place; till the audience be prepared by other things to feel all its force and confequence. nay a single word when happily applyed, will fet the truth in the strongest light. Cicero tells us that we ought fometimes to delay giving a full view of the truth, till the very conclufion. but then, throughout our discourse there ought to run fuch a concatenation of proofs, as that the first may make way for the fecond: and the next always ferve to support the former. we ought at first to give a general view of our fubject, and endeavour to gain the favour of the audience + Ordinis haec virtus erit, et venus, aut ego fallor, Nefciet Hor. de A. P. |