B. I.

ferent circum flances. Diferences in this refpect are numberless. It is enough here to have obferved those principles in the mind, on which the rules are founded.

CHAP. X.

The different kinds of public speaking in use among the moderns, compared, with a view to their different advantages in respect of eloquence.

THE principal forts of difcourfes which here

demand our notice, and on which I intend to make fome obfervations, are the three following: the orations delivered at the bar, thofe pronounced in the fenate, and thofe fpoken from the pulpit. I do not make a separate article of the fpeeches delivered by judges to their colleagues on the bench; because, though there be fomething peculiar here, arifing from the difference in character that fubfifts between the judge and the pleader, in all the other material circumftances, the perfons addreffed, the fubject, the occafion, and the purpose in speaking, there is in thefe two forts a perfect coincidence. In like manner, 1 forbear to mention the theatre, because fo entirely diffimilar, both in form and in

5

kind, as hardly to be capable of a place in the comparison. Befides, it is only a cursory view of the chief differences, and not a critical examination of them all, that is here propofed; my defign being folely to affift the mind both in apprehending rightly, and in applying properly, the principles above laid down. In this respect, the present difcuffion will ferve to exemplify and illuftrate those principles. Under these five particulars therefore, the fpeaker, the hearers or perfons addreffed, the fubject, the occafion, and the end in view, or the effect intended to be produced by the discourse, I shall range, for order's fake, the remarks I intend to lay before the reader.

SECTION I.

In regard to the speaker.

THE firft confideration is that of the character to be fuftained by the fpeaker. It was remarked in general, in the preceding chapter, that for promoting the fuccefs of the orator, (whatever be the kind of public fpeaking in which he is concerned) it is a matter of fome confequence, that, in the opinion of those whom he addreffeth, he is both a wife and a good man. But though this in fome measure holds univer

fally,

fally, nothing is more certain than that the degree of confequence which lies in their opinion, is exceedingly different in the different kinds. In each it depends chiefly on two circumftances, the nature of his profeffion as a public fpeaker, and the character of those to whom his discourses are addreffed. As to the firft, arifing from the nature of the profeffion, it will not admit a queftion, that the preacher hath in this refpect. the most difficult task; inafmuch as he hath a character to fupport, which is much more easily injured than that either of the fenator, or of the fpeaker at the bar. No doubt the reputation of capacity, experience in affairs, and as much integrity. as is thought attainable by thofe called men of the world, will add weight to the words of the fenator ; that of fkill in his profeffion, and fidelity in his representations, will ferve to recommend what is fpoken by the lawyer at the bar; but if these characters in general remain unimpeached, the public will be fufficiently indulgent to both in every other refpect. On the contrary, there is little or no indulgence, in regard to his own failings, to be expected by the man who is profeffedly a fort of authorized cenfor, who hath it in charge to mark, and reprehend the faults of others. And even in the execution of this sa ticklish

6

ticklish a part of his office, the leaft excefs on either hand expofeth him to cenfure and diflike. Too much lenity is enough to ftigmatize him as lukewarm in the cause of virtue, and too much feverity as a stranger to the fpirit of the gospel.

But let us confider more directly what is implied in the character, that we may better judge of the effect it will have on the expectations and demands of the people, and confequently on his public teaching. First then, it is a character of fome authority, as it is of one educated for a purpose fo important as that of a teacher of religion. This authority, however, from the nature of the function, must be tempered with moderation, candour, and benevolence. The preacher of the gofpel, as the very terms import, is the minister of grace, the herald of divine mercy to ignorant, finful, and erring men. The magiftrate, on the contrary, (under which term may be included fecular judges and counsellors of every denomination) is the minister of divine juftice and of wrath. He beareth not the fword in vain. He is on the part of heaven the avenger of the fociety with whofe protection he is intrufted, against all who invade its rights. The

* Rom, xiii. 4.

firft operates chiefly on our love, the fecond on our fear. Minifter of religion, like angel of God, is a name that ought to convey the idea of fomething endearing and attractive: whereas the title minifter of justice invariably fuggefts the notion of fomething awful and unrelenting. In the former, even his indignation against fin ought to be furmounted by his pity of the condition, and concern for the recovery, of the finner. Though firm in declaring the will of God, though fteady in maintaining the cause of truth, yet mild in his addreffes to the people, condescending to the weak, ufing rather entreaty than command, befeeching them by the lowlinefs and gentleness of Chrift, knowing that the fervant of the Lord must not ftrive, but be gentle to all men, apt to teach patience, in meekness inftructing those that oppose themfelves. He must be grave without moroseness, cheerful without levity. And even in setting before his people the terrors of the Lord, affection ought manifeftly to predominate in the warning which he is compelled to give. From these few hints it plainly appears, that there is a certain delicacy in the character of a preacher, which he is never at liberty totally to overlook, and to which, if there appear any thing incongruous,

2 Tim. ii, 24, 25: