tences and Quotations that he has gather'd together.

A. You cannot but perceive, Sir, that this Method will never make him an able judicious Preacher. In fuch Cafes, a Man cannot talk with Strength and Clearness: he is not sure of any thing he fays: nor doth any thing flow eafily from him. His whole Discourse has a borrow'd Air; and looks like an awkard Piece of Patch-work. Certainly those are much to be blam'd, who are fo impatiently fond of fhowing their Parts.

B. Before you leave us, Sir, pray tell us what you reckon the chief Effect of Eloquence.

any

A. PLATO fays an Oration is fo far eloquent as it affects the Hearer's Mind. By this Rule you may judge certainly of Difcourfe you hear. If an Harangue leave you cold and languid; and only amufes your Mind, inftead of enlightening it; if it does not move your Heart and Paffions, however florid and pompous it may be, it is not truly eloquent. TULLY approves of PLATO's Sentiments on this Point; and tells us that the whole* Lib. I. Drift and Force of a Difcourfe fhou'd tend Lib. II. to move those secret Springs of Action that §. 82. Nature has plac'd in the Hearts of Men. Wou'd you then confult your own Mind to know whether thofe you hear be truly

eloquent?

S. 5.

*

eloquent? If they make a lively Impreffion upon you, and gain your Attention and Affent to what they fay; if they move *See Lon- and animate your Paflions, so as to raise ginus §.vij. you above yourself, you may be affur’d they are true Orators. But if inftead of affecting you thus, they only please or divert you, and make you admire the Brightnefs of their Thoughts, or the Beauty and Propriety of their Language, you may freely pronounce them to be mere Declaimers.

B. Stay a little, Sir, if you please, till I ask you a few more Questions.

A. I wish I cou'd ftay longer, Gentlemen; for your Converfation is very engaging: but I have an Affair to dispatch which will not admit of Delay. Tomorrow I will wait on you again : and then we shall finish this Subject at our leifure.

B. Adieu, then, Sir, till To-morrow.

The

B.

THE

SECOND DIALOGUE.

OU are extremely kind, Sir, in coming fo punctu ally. Your Converfation Yesterday was fo agreeably inftructive, that we long'd impatiently to hear you again upon the fame Subject.

C. For my part, I made what Hafte I cou'd, left I fhou'd have come too late : For, I was unwilling to lose any part of your Difcourfe.

A. Such Conferences are very ufeful, among those who really love Truth, and talk with Temper: for then they exchange their beft Thoughts, and exprefs them as clearly as they can. As for myfelf, Gentlemen, I find an Advantage in converfing with you; feeing you are not difpleas'd at the Freedom I take.

B. Let us leave off Compliments, Sir; I know beft how to judge of myfelf: and F

I per

I perceive clearly that without your Affiftance I fhou'd have continu'd in several Errors. I intreat you, Sir, to go on, and fet me intirely right in my Notions of Eloquence.

A. Your Mistakes, (if you will allow me to call them fo,) prevail among most People of Worth and Learning who have not examin'd this Matter to the Bottom.

B. Let us not lose Time in Preamble: we shall have a thousand Things to fay. Proceed therefore, Sir, to rectify my Miftakes; and begin at the Point where we left off Yefterday.

A. Of what Point were we talking, when we parted? I have really forgot. C. You were speaking of that kind of Eloquence which confifts intirely in moving the Paffions.

B. Yes: but I cou'd not well comprehend that the whole Design of Rhetorick is to move the Paffions. Is that your pinion, Sir?

A. By no means.

C. It seems then I miftook you Yefterday.

A. What wou'd you fay of a Man who fhou'd perfwade without any Proof; and affect his Hearers, without inlightening them? You cou'd not reckon him a true Orator. He might feduce People by this Art of perfwading them to what he wou'd,

without

without fhewing them that what he recommends is right. Such a Perfon must prove very dangerous in the Commonwealth : as we have seen before from the Reasoning of SOCRATES.

B. It is very true.

A. But on the other hand, what wou'd you think of a Man, who in his publick Difcourfes fhou'd demonftrate the Truth, in a plain, dry, exact, methodical manner; or make use of the Geometrical way of Reasoning; without adding any thing to adorn or enliven his Difcourfe? wou'd you reckon him an Orator?

B. No: I fhou'd think him a Philofopher only.

A. To make a compleat Orator then, we must find a Philofopher who knows both how to demonstrate any Truth; and at the fame time, to give his accurate Reafoning all the natural Beauty and Vehemence of an agreeable, moving Discourse, to render it intirely eloquent. And herein lies the Difference betwixt the clear convincing Method of Philofophy; and the affecting, perfwafive Art of Eloquence.

C. What do you fay is the Difference? A. I fay a Philofopher's Aim is merely to demonftrate the Truth, and gain your Affent; while the Orator not only conF 2

vinces