In answer to this, our author, in his thirteenth chapter, obe ferves, that this variety of elocution, which Dr. Browne affects to deduce from the difference of languages, prevailed, at different periods, among those who spoke the very fame language. He takes a fhort review of the gradual progrefs of eloquence among the Athenians and Romans, the only two people who acquired the reputation of it in the antient world, in order to fhew, how faulty or imperfect modes of elocution are neceffarily corrected and improved by experience and judgment; and that reafon and good fenfe have always prevailed over fashion, however gene→ ially adopted and established.

The most antient fpeakers of Athens, we are informed by Cicero, were pompous in their diction, fententious, concife, and fomewhat obfcure. Their liveliness and vanity, our author fays, hurried them into general conclufions from their own obfervation and experience: their quickness of conception produced and warranted concifenefs; and the obfcurity which arofe from thence, feems to have been increased from that boldness of figure which they still retained from their state of rudeness, and which oftentimes gave an ænigmatical appearance to their language and obfervations.

These antient orators, we are told, with a kind of rude untutored violence, applied themselves to roufe, to terrify and inflame, till the gradual refinement of their hearers taught them to guard against this dangerous power: and obliged the orators to reduce their eloquence within ftricter bounds. Thus it became the next care of this people to give their style a greater elegance and neatness; to prune the luxuriance of the antient diction; to render it more open and explicit, and to range it into fuch well-adjusted periods, as might relieve the voice, and come with due force and pleasure to the ear. And thus plainnefs, neatness, elegance and harmony, became the diftinguishing character of Attic eloquence.

And this, continues our author, we should readily pronounce the most perfect mode, if mankind could be always influenced. by the mere force of inftruction conveyed with ease and grace. But these were found too feeble inftruments for operating on public affemblies; and genius, obfervation, and good fenfe confpired to produce another neceffary alteration in the eloquence of Athens, which rendered it more powerful, and more the object of wonder and delight. Demofthenes had the glory of uniting the grandeur, pathos, and impetuofity of the antient fpeakers, with the clearness, elegance, and fimplicity of their immediate fucceffors; ornament with propriety; correctness with elevation. He found the happy art of harmonizing the

period,

period, without enervating the language, and without the appearance of ftudied refinement. His animated warmth was. justly proportioned to the importance of his fubject; the boldness of his figures to the majesty of his fentiments. This union of great qualities has ever been regarded as forming the most perfect fpecies of Grecian eloquence. If it be afferted, that this is an arbitrary and fantaftical determination, and that this fpecies hath no real fuperiority over any of thofe modes which preceded or fucceeded it: we muft appeal to the effects. Can pomp or brevity of ftyle, can elegance or neatnefs, or harmony of language, can any one or more of these qualities prove equally effectual, not only in informing the understanding, but in reconciling the affections, and influencing the will? Powerful conviction, elevation of fentiment, and a flame of generous paffion, are the greatest and nobleft effects produced by any fpecies of human eloquence: and the eloquence beft fitted to produce them, must be of the greatest and nobleft kind: must have a fuperiority fomething more than nominal or local.'

The Doctor goes on to obferve, that, when the Romans first began to attend to elocution, they might have copied from the very beft models in Greece; and yet they did not attain to their greatest perfection, he fays, but by a gradual progress and improvement, fimilar to that of Athens.

There prevailed in the days of the elder Cato, what Cicero calls, unctior quædam ac fplendidior confuetudo loquendi. This fulnefs and magnificence of expreffion was rude and undirected; yet vehement and impetuous.-Emilius Lepidus had the honour of first introducing the lenitas Græcorum, verborum comprehenfio, et artifex ftylus.-Antonius and Craffus are compared by Cicero to Demofthenes and Hyperides; yet feem, from his defcription, (de claris oratoribus, 1. 37, 38, 39.) to have been more indebted for their fame, to art and exercise, than to any extraordinary elevation of genius. The ftyle of the former, though not elegant or correct, was forcible and harmonious, his action graceful and affecting; and thefe, together with promptnefs and memory, are the qualities to which his influence is principally afcribed. The abilities of Craffus were chiefly confined to explaining and inftructing. Their immediate fucceffors ftudied the Attic eloquence, and imitated it even to a degree of ridiculous affectation till Cæfar taught them a more judicious application of this mode to their own language. Hortenfius indeed adopted fomewhat of the Afiatic manner; but Atticism, or what was fo deemed, ftill continued moft generally fashionable, till the great mafter arofe, and gave life and energy to the Roman eloquence, by fuch a union of great qualities as obtained the palm in Greece.

Thus

Thus these two people gradually advanced by the fame fteps, to the fame point of excellence. At Athens, our author fays, this was the pure refult of good fenfe and obfervation which corrected or improved established fashions. At Rome, the effect was partly produced by an imitation of Grecian models. But thefe models were not imitated merely because they were Grecian, because they had been admired by others, or had once been fashionable in the country of eloquence. Nor were former or present fashions ever regarded as the standard of eloquence. Even in the periods of refinement, the great Roman fpeakers formed higher ideas of this accomplishment than had ever been fuggested by their own obfervation. It was the fay-ing of Antonius the orator,-difertos fe vidiffe multos, eloquentem omnino neminem. And Cicero thus addreffes himself to his friend, -Inveftigemus hunc igitur, Brute, fi poffumus, quem nunquam vidit Antonius, aut qui omnino nullus unquam fuit.

These Romans then, continues the Doctor, ftudied and admired the fame general excellencies of speech which had been ftudied and admired in Greece, but not blindly or implicitly,, but with a juft regard to their own national character, their own occafions, and the temper of their hearers. They difcovered the imperfections both of their co-temporaries and their predeceffors, whether in Greece or Rome, through all the mifts which prejudice or fashion could oppofe to their penetration. They were not, then, entirely guided by imitation, as, in general, they, pursued the fame means of influencing their hearers; and as the fame means are still approved by all polished and lettered nations, as most fit and proper, it follows, that this fitness and propriety cannot be merely nominal and local.'

After giving, in the fourteenth, a fummary view of what is contained in the preceding chapters, our Author proceeds, in the three remaining ones, to an important part of his Lordship's difquifition, viz. his character of an inspired language.-The enemies of our faith, as well as fome imprudent friends, have fometimes afferted, that an inspired language fhould be a language of perfect eloquence. With regard to this propofition, his LordThip affirms on the contrary, that rudenefs and barbarousness form the character of an inspired language: and that, fuppofing the ftyle of the New Teftament to abound in every fault that can poffibly deform a language, this is one certain mark of its divine original. The arguments brought by his Lordship in fupport of this bold affertion are as follow:-Language, fays he, confifts of two parts: 1. Single terms, which are arbitrary. 2. Phrafes and idioms, which arise infenfibly from the manners, cuftoms, and tempers of those to whom the language is verna

cular

cular. When illiterate men would acquire the knowledge of a foreign tongue, they make it at firft their only ftudy to treasure up in their memory the fignification of the terms: and when they come to talk or write in the fpeech thus acquired, their language is full of their own native idioms. If we fuppofe this foreign tongue to be inftantaneoufly infufed, the effect must be the fame. Divine infpiration can only convey the terms and fingle words of one language correfponding to those of another. For, an impreffion of phrafcology or idiom, requires a previous one of the tempers, fafhions and opinions of the people to whom the language is native, upon the minds of them to whom it is imparted. But this would be a waste of miracles without fufficient caufe. For, the terms of one language adapted to the idiom of another, abundantly ferve the purpose of giving clear intelligence; Doct. ef Grace, Ch. 8. p. 42, 43, 44.

There are fome things affumed here, our Author obferves, as evident and inconteftible, which yet may be controverted without any breach of candor. The bishop tells us, that in order to convey clear intelligence to a foreigner, nothing more is neceffary, than to ufe the words of his language, adapted to the idiom of our own.

But fhall we always find, fays our author, correfpondent words in his language? It is a point well known to philologers and critics, that every language hath not only its own idiom, but also many terms peculiar to itfelf. It is equally well known, and generally acknowledged, that the real purport of almoft every fentence, in every language, is not to be learned from the fignification of detached words, and their grammatical congruity, even where their fignification may be expreffed by correfponding words in another language. Cicero writes thus to Cato. Quem ego currum aut quam lauream cum tua laudatis ne conferam?-Adapt English words to this phrafeology, and fay whether the fentiment will be conveyed to a mere unlettered English reader.'

Inftead, therefore, of accepting that proof of the divine infpiration of the apoftolical writings, the utm cft rudeness and barbaroufnefs of ftyle, which the moft exaggerated accounts can reprefent;' a proof deduced from principles at leaft precarious and controvertible, if not ab olutely erroneous; a proof which thefe writings do not need, and which, if rejected, cannot in the leaft impair their authority; items more prudent, our Author justly obferves, to confine ourfelves to a propofition, which admits of the clearest evidence ;-that all the rudeness of ftyle which the most accurate critic can difcover in the writings of REV. Aug. 1764.

K

the

the New Teftament, affords neither proof nor presumption, that the authors were not divinely inspired.

What the Doctor advances in fupport of this propofition is candid and fenfible. He concludes his Differtation with fome very pertinent obfervations on the eloquence of the apostle Paul. His fpeech before the Roman governor, we are told, had powers and excellencies, compared with which, purity, politeness, and elegance, are lefs than nothing. It difplayed that character which God hath plainly impreffed upon the word, whether preached or written by his infpired teachers. It is lively and mighty in operation, and fharper than any two-edged fword, and entereth thorough, even unto the dividing afunder of the foul and spirit, and of the joints and the marrow, and is a difcerner of the thoughts, and intents of the heart." Heb. 4. 21.

He who cannot feel this wonderful power, fays the Doctor, in the apoftolical writings, is fit for the piddling employment of culling rhetorical flowers, weighing words, and rounding periods. He may call this literature; but while the picus Chrif tian pities his folly, the critic of true tafte and fenfibility must defpife his mean notions of perfect eloquence?

To conclude our account of this Diflertation, we cannot help faying, that the author of it appears to have the advantage of his learned opponent, not only in point of argument, but in regard to his manner of writing, which is candid, liberal, and manly, and fhews not only the fcholar, but the gentleman. Few of his obfervations, indeed, are new; but he appears, throughout, to be mafter of his fubject; difcovers nothing of a dictatorial fpirit; but delivers his fentiments with a becoming modefty, and deference to the opinions of others, which are fure marks of good fense and found judgment.

R

The Hiftory of the Life of Reginald Pole. Part I. By Thomas Philips. 4to. 10s. 6d. few'd. Payne, &c.

RITICS have been often ridiculed for an affectation of

CR extraordinary fagacity, in endeavouring to discover latent

meanings, which never were within the view of the authors themfelves. Perhaps in the coure of our animadverfions on the work before Us, we may fall under this predicament. But be that as it may, we are not afraid to premife, that we more than fufpect this Biographer to have had fome other defign than that of placing Cardinal Pole's History in a true, distinct, and con

fpicuous