Maxims of the Great ROCHEFOUCAULD. In fhort, I think it was a Master-Piece. But, Sir, I fhall be glad to know your Opinion of it.

A. I'm unwilling to tell you my Thoughts, or to leffen your Efteem, of it. We ought to reverence the Word of GOD; to improve ourselves by all the Truths that a Preacher explains; and avoid a critical Humour, left we should leffen the Authority of the Sacred Function.

B. You have nothing to fear, Sir, at prefent. It is not out of Curiofity that I afk your Opinion; but because I wou'd have clear Notions of it; and fuch folid Inftructions as may not only fatisfy myfelf, but be of use to others: for you know my Profeffion obliges me to preach. Give us your Thoughts therefore, without any referve; and don't be afraid either of contradicting, or offending me,

A. Since you will have it fo, I must obey your Commands. To be free then I conclude, from your own Account of this Sermon, that it was a very forry one. B. Why fo?

A. Why can a Sermon in which the Scripture is falfly apply'd; a Scrap of prophane Hiftory is told after a dry childish manner; and a vain Affectation of Wit

B 3

runs

runs throughout the whole; can fuch a Sermon be good?

B. By no means: But I don't think that the Sermon I heard is of that fort.

A. Have patience, and I doubt not but you and I fhall agree. When the Preacher chose these words for his Text, I have eaten afhes like bread, ought he to have ainus'd his Audience with obferving fome kind of relation between the mere Sound of his Text, and the Ceremony of the Day? Shou'd he not firft have explain'd the true Senfe of the Words, before he apply'd them to the prefent Occafion? B. It had been better.

A. Ought he not therefore to have trac'd the Subject a little higher, by entering into the true Occafion and Defign of the Pfalm; and explaining the Context? Was it not proper for him to enquire whether the Interpretation he gave of the Words was agreeable to the true Meaning of them, before he deliver'd his own Senfe to the People, as if it were the Word of GOD?

B. He ought to have done fo: But what Fault was there in his Interpretation ?

A. Why, I'll tell you.

DAVID

(who was the Author of the CHd Pfalm) fpeaks of his own Misfortunes: he tells us,, that his Enemies infulted him cruelly,

when

when they faw him in the Duft, humbled at their Feet, and reduc'd (as he poetically expreffes it) to eat afhes like bread; and to mingle his drink with weeping. Now what relation is there between the Complaints of DAVID, driven from his Throne, and perfecuted by his Son ABSALOM; and the Humiliation of a Chriftian, who puts Athes on his Forehead, to remind him of his Mortality, and difengage him from finful Pleafures? Cou'd the Preacher find no other Text in Scripture? Did CHRIST and his Apoftles, or the Prophets, never fpeak of Death, and the Duft of the Grave, to which all our Pride and Vanity must be reduc'd? Does not the Scripture contain many affecting Images of this important Truth? Might he not have been content with the words of Genefis, Gen. iij. which are so natural and proper for this 19. Ceremony, and chofen by the Church it felf? Shou'd a vain Delicacy make him afraid of too often repeating a Text that the Holy Spirit has dictated, and which the Church appoints to be used every Year? Why fhould he neglect fuch a pertinent Paffage, and many other Places of Scripture, to pitch on one that is not proper ? This muft flow from a depraved Tafte, and a fond Inclination to fay fomething that is New. B. You

B 4

B. You grow too warm, Sir: suppafing the literal Senfe of the Text not to be the true Meaning of it, the Preacher's Remarks might however be very fine and folid.

C. As for my part, I don't care whether a Preacher's Thoughts be fine or not, till I am firft fatisfied of their being true. But, Sir, what fay you to the reft of the Sermon ?

A. It was exactly of a piece with the Text. How cou'd the Preacher give fuch misplac'd Ornaments to a Subject in itself fo terrifying; and amufe his Hearers with an idle ftory of Artemefia's Sorrow when he ought to have aların'd them, and given them the most terrible Images of Death?

B. I perceive then you don't love Turns of Wit, on fuch occafions. But what wou'd become of Eloquence if it were ftript of fuch Ornaments? Wou'd you confine every body to the Plainnefs of country Preachers? Such Men are ufeful among the common People; but Perfons of Diftinction have more delicate Ears; and we must adapt our Difcourfes to their polite Tafte.

A. You are now leading me off from the Point. I was endeavouring to convince you, that the Plan of the Sermon was ill laid; and I was juft going to touch upon the

Divi

Divifion of it: but I fuppofe you already perceive the Reason why I dislike it; for, the Preacher lays down three quaint Conceits for theSubject of his whole Difcourse. When one chufes to divide a Sermon, he fhou'd do it plainly, and give fuch a Divifion as naturally arifes from the Subjec itself, and gives a Light and juft Order to the feveral Parts; fuch a Divifion as may be easily remember'd, and at the fame time help to connect and retain the whole; in fine, a Divifion that fhews at once the extent of the Subject, and of all its parts. But, on the contrary, here's a Man who endeavours to dazzle his Hearers, and puts them off with three Points of Wit, or puzzling Riddles, which he turns and plies fo dexterously, that they muft fancy they faw fome Tricks of Legerdemain. Did this Preacher ufe fuch a ferious grave manner of Addrefs as might make you hope for fomething useful and important from him? But, to return to the Point you propos'd; did you not ask me whether I meant to banish Eloquence from the Pulpit ?

B. Yes, I fancy that is your Drift. A. Think you fo? Pray what do you mean by Eloquence?

B. It is the Art of Speaking well. A. Has this Art no other End, befides that of Speaking well? Have not Men

fome