detects, describes, and proclaims their contrivances, and thus puts men on their guard; for "every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be made manifest."

To the prevailing association of the term "Rhetoric," with the idea of these delusive contrivances, may be traced the opinion (which I believe is also common) that the power of elo quence is lost on those who themselves possess it; or at least that a critical knowledge of the art of Composition fortifies any one, in proportion to his proficiency, against being affected by the persuasive powers of another. This is undoubtedly true, as far as Sophistical skill is concerned. The better acquainted one is with any kind of rhetorical trick, the less liable he is to be misled by it. The Artifices, strictly so called, of the Orator, are,

-like tricks by sleight of hand, Which to admire, one should not understand:

and he who has himself been behind the scenes of a puppet-show, and pulled the strings by which the figures are moved, is not likely to be much affected by their performance. This is indeed one great recommendation of the study of Rhetoric, that it furnishes the most effectual antidote against deception of this kind. But it is by no

means true that acquaintance with an Art-inthe nobler sense of the word,—not as consisting in juggling tricks,-tends to diminish our sensibility to the most excellent productions of Art. The greatest proficients in music are usually the most enthusiastic admirers of good music: the best Painters and Poets, and such as are best versed in the principles of those arts, are in general (when rivalry is out of the question) the most powerfully affected by paintings and by poetry, of superior excellence. And none I believe are more open to the impression of sound, honest, manly eloquence, than those who display it in their own compositions, and are capable of analyzing critically the mode in which its effects are produced.

A few passages will be found in the following pages which presuppose some acquaintance with Logic; but the greatest part will, I trust, be intelligible to those who have not this knowledge. At the same time, it is implied by what I have said of that Science, and indeed by the very circumstance of my having written on it, that I cannot but consider him as undertaking a task of unnecessary difficulty, who endeavours, without studying Logic, to become a thoroughly good argumentative writer

It may be thought that some apology is necessary for the frequent reference made to the treatise just mentioned, and occasionally, to some other works of my own. It appeared to me, however, that either of the other two alternatives would have been more objectionable; viz. either to omit entirely much that was needful for the elucidation of the subject in hand; or, to repeat, in the same or in other words, what had been already published.

Perhaps some apology may also be thought necessary for the various illustrations, selected from several authors, or framed for the occasion, which occur both in the present treatise, and in that on Logic; and in which opinions on various subjects are incidentally conveyed; in all of which, it cannot be expected that every one of my readers will concur. And some may accordingly be disposed to complain that they cannot put these works into the hands of any young person under their care, without a risk of his imbibing notions which they think erroneous. This objection, I have reason to believe, has been especially felt, though not always explicitly stated, by the most decidedly anti-christian writers of the present day. But it should be remembered, that Logic and Rhetoric having no proper subject-matte" of their own, it was necessary to

resort to other departments of knowledge for exemplifications of the principles laid down; and it would have been impossible, without confining myself so the most insipid truisms, to avoid completely all topics on which there exists any difference of opinion. If, in the course of either work, I have advocated any erroneous tenet, the obvious remedy is, to refute it. I am utterly unconscious of having in any instance resorted to the employment of fallacy, or substituted declamation for argument; but if any such faults exist, it is easy to expose them. Nor is it necessary that when any book is put into the hands of a young student, he should understand that he is to adopt implicitly every doctrine contained in it, or should not be cautioned against any erroneous principles which it may inculcate: otherwise, indeed, it would be impossible to give young men what is called a classical education, without making them Pagans.

That I have avowed an assent to the evidences of Christianity, (that, I believe, is the point on which the greatest soreness is felt,) and that this does incidentally imply some censure of those who reject it, is not to be denied. But they again are at liberty, and they are not backward in using their liberty, to repel the censure, by refuting, if they can, those evidences. And as

long as they confine themselves to calm argumentation, and abstain from insult, libellous personality, and falsification of facts, I earnestly hope no force will ever be employed to silence them, except force of argument. I am not one of those jealous lovers of freedom who would fain keep it all to themselves; nor do I dread ultimate danger to the cause of truth from fair discussion.

It may be objected by some, that in the foregoing words I have put forth a challenge which cannot be accepted; inasmuch as it has been declared by the highest legal authorities, that "Christianity is part of the Law of the Land;" and consequently any one who impugns it, is liable to prosecution. What is the precise meaning of the above legal maxim, I do not profess to determine; having never met with any one who could explain it to me: but evidently the mere circumstance, that we have a Religion by Law established, does not, of itself, imply the illegality of arguing against that Religion. The regulations of Trade and of Navigation, for instance, are unquestionably part of the Law of the Land; but the question of their expediency is freely discussed, and frequently in no very measured language; nor did I ever hear of any one's being menaced with prosecution for censuring them.