and with little preparation, almost unavoidably betrays them. It cannot therefore be too earnestly recommended to those who are beginning to practice at the bar, that they early guard against this, while they have leisure for preparation. Let them form themselves to the habit of a strong and correct style; which will become natural to them afterward, when compelled by multiplicity of business to compose with precip itation. Whereas, if a loose and negligent style have been suffered to become familiar, they will not be able even upon occasions when they wish to make an unusual effort, to express themselves with force and elegance.

Distinctness in speaking at the bar is a capital property. It should be shown first in stating the question; in exhibiting clearly the point in debate; what we admit: what we deny; and where the line of diyision begins between us and the adverse party. Next, it should appear in the order and arrangement of all the parts of the pleading. A clear method is of the highest consequence in every species of oration; but in those intricate cases which belong to the bar, it is infinitely essential.

Narration of facts should always be as concise as the nature of them will admit. They are always very necessary to be remembered; consequently unnecessary minuteness in relating them overloads the memory. Whereas, if a pleader omit all superfluous circumstances in his recital, he adds strength to the material facts; gives a clearer view of what he relates, and makes the impression of it more lasting. In argumentation, however, a more diffuse manner

seems requisite at the bar than on some other oecasions. For in popular assemblies, where the subject of debate is often a plain question, arguments gain strength by conciseness. But the intricacy of law points frequently requires the arguments to be expanded and placed in different lights, in order to be fully apprehended.

Candour in stating the arguments of his adversary cannot be too much recommended to every pleader. If he disguise them, or place them in a false light, the artifice will soon be discovered; and the judge and the hearers will conclude, that he either wants discernment to perceive, or fairness to admit the strength of his opponent's reasoning. But, if he state with accuracy and candour, the arguments used against him, before he endeavour to combat them, a strong prejudice is created in his favour. He will appear to have entire confidence in his cause. since he does not attempt to support it by artifice or concealment. The judge will therefore be inclined to receive more readily the impressions made upon him by a speaker who appears both fair and penetrating.

Wit may sometimes be serviceable at the bar, particularly in a lively reply, by which ridicule is thrown on what an adversary has advanced. But a young pleader should never rest his strength on this dazzling talent. His office is not to excite laughter, but to produce conviction; nor perhaps did any one ever rise to an eminence in his profession by being a witty lawyer.

Since an advocate personates his client, he must plead his cause with a proper degree of warmth. He must be cautious however of pros.

tituting his earnestness and sensibility by an equal degree of ardor on every subject. There is a dignity of character, which it is highly important for every one of his profession to support. An opinion of probity and honor in a pleader is his most powerful instrument of persuasion. He should always, therefore, decline embarking in causes which are odious and manifestly unjust; and when he supports a doubtful cause, he should lay the chief stress upon those arguments which appear to him to be most forcible; reserving his zeal and indignation for cases where injustice and iniquity are flagrant.

ELOQUENCE OF THE PULPIT.

Having treated of the eloquence of popular assemblies, and of that of the bar, we shall now consider the strain and spirit of that eloquence which is suited to the pulpit. This field of public speaking has several advantages peculiar to itself. The dignity and importance of its subjects must be allowed to be superior to any other. They admit the highest embellishment in description, and the greatest warmth and vehemence of expression. In treating his subject the preacher has also peculiar advantages. He speaks not to one or a few judges, but to a large assembly. He is not afraid of interruption. He chooses his subject at leisure; and has all the assistance of the most accurate premeditation. The disadvantages, however, which attend the eloquence of the pulpit, are not inconsiderable. The preacher, it is true, has no contention with

an adversary; but debate awakens genius, and excites attention. His subjects, though noble, are trite and common. They are become so familiar to the public ear, that it requires no ordinary genius in the preacher to fix attention. Nothing is more difficult than to bestow on what is common the grace of novelty. Besides, the subject of the preacher usually confines him to abstract qualities, to virtues and vices; whereas that of other popular speakers leads them to treat of persons; which is generally more interesting to the hearers, and occupies more powerfully the imagination. We are taught by the preacher to detest only the crime; by the pleader to detest the criminal. Hence it happens that though the number of moderately good preachers is great, so few have arrived at eminence. Perfection is very distant from modern preaching. The object, however, is truly noble, and worthy of being pursued with zeal.

t

To excel in preaching it is necessary to have a fixed and habitual view of its object. This is to persuade men to become good. Every sermon ought therefore to be a persuasive oration. It is not to discuss some abstruse point, that the preacher ascends the pulpit. It is not to teach his hearers something new, but to make them better; to give them at once clear views and persuasive impressions of religious truths.

The principal characteristics of pulpit eloquence, as distinguished from the other kinds of public speaking, appear to be these two, gravity and warmth. It is neither easy nor common to unite these characters of eloquence. The grave whe it is predominant, becomes a dull, uniform

solemnity. The warm, when it wants gravity, borders on the light and theatrical. A proper union of the two, forms the character of preaching, which the French call Onction; that affecting, penetrating, and interesting manner, which flows from a strong sense in the preacher of the importance of the truths he delivers, and an earnest desire that they may make full impression on the hearts of his hearers.

A sermon, as a particular species of composition, requires the strictest attention to unity. By this we mean that there should be some main point to which the whole tenor of the sermon shall refer. It must not be a pile of different subjects heaped upon each other; but one object must predominate through the whole. Hence however, it must not be understood, that there should be no divisions or separate heads in a discourse; nor that one single thought only should be exhibited in different points of view. Unity is not to be understood in so limited a sense; it admits some variety; it requires only that union and connexion be so far preserved as to make the whole concur in some one impression on the mind. hus for instance, a preacher may employ several different arguments to enforce the love of God he may also inquire into the causes of the decay of this virtue; still one great object is presented to the mind. But if, because his text says, he that loveth God must love "his brother also" he should therefore mix in the same discourse arguments for the love of God and for the love of our neighbour, he would grossly offend against unity, and leave a very confused impression on the minds of his hearers.