A. I wish I could prevail with you, Sir, to give us fome general notion of the elegant harangue you heard.

B. Since you are fo very urgent, I'll tell you what I can recollect of it, the text was this, * I have eaten ' afhes like bread.' now could any one make a happier choice of a text for Ash-wednesday! he fhewed us that, according to this paffage, afhes ought this day to be the food of our fouls: then in his preamble he ingenioufly interwove the story of Artemefia, with regard to her husband's ashes. his † transition to his Ave Maria was very artful; and his divifion was extremely ingenious: you shall judge of it. (1) tho' this duft (said

he) be a fign of repentance, it is a principle of feli

city: (11.) tho' it seems to humble us, it is really a

*PSAL. CII. 9. †The Romish preachers, in the preamble of their fermons, address themselves to the Virgin Mary; and are ofttimes very artful in their tranfition to it, as our author obferves. we have a remarkable example of this in one of the greatest French orators, M. L'Esprit Flechier, bishop of Nifmes, who feems to be oftner than once alluded to in thefe dialogues. in his panegyric on S. Jofeph he introduces his Ave Maria thus,

---Every thing feems to con cur to the glory of my fubject; the Holy Spirit, Jefus Christ, and Mary, are concern. ed in it; why may I not hope for the affiftance of one of them, the grace of the other, and the interceffions of the virgin? to whom we will ad

drefs ourselves in those words that the angel faid to her, and which S. Joseph no doubt often repeated; Hail! Mary, &c. Panegyriques, Vol. I. p. 71.

a

fource of glory: (III.) and tho' it represents death, it is a remedy that gives immortal life.' he turned this division various ways, and every time he gave it new luftre by his antitheses. the rest of his discourse was not less bright and elegant; the language was polite; the thoughts new; the periods were harmonious; and each of them concluded with some surprizing turn. he gave fuch just characters of common life, that his hearers found their various pictures faithfully drawn: and his exact anatomy of all the paffions equalled the maxims of the great ROCHEFOCAULT. in fhort, I think it was a master-piece. but, Sir, I shall be glad to know your opinion of it.

A. I am unwilling to tell you my thoughts, or to leffen your esteem, 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 facred function.

B. You have nothing to fear, Sir, at present. it is not out of curiofity that I ask your opinion; but because I would have clear notions of it; and fuch folid instructions as may not only fatisfy myself, but be of use to others: for you know my profeffion obliges me to preach. give us your thoughts therefore, without any referve; and do not 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 fermon, that it was a very forry one.

B. Why fo?

A. Why; can a fermon in which the fcripture is falfly applyed; a scrap of prophane history is told after a dry childish manner; and a vain affectation of wit runs throughout the whole; can fuch a fermon be good?

B. By no means: but I do not think that the fermon I heard is of that fort.

A. Have patience, and I doubt not but you and I shall agree. when the preacher chose these words for his text, I have eaten ashes like bread,' ought he to have amused his audience with obferving fome kind of relation between the mere found of his text, and the ceremony of the day? fhould he not first have explained the true sense of the words, before he applyed them to the prefent occafion?

B. It had been better.

A. Ought he not therefore to have traced the fubject 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 inquire whether the interpretation he gave of the words was agrecable to the true meaning of them, before he delivered his own fense to the people, as if it were the word of God?

B. He ought to have done so: but what fault was there in his interpretation?

A. Why, I will tell you. David (who was the author of the cii. Pfalm) fpeaks of his own misfortunes :

he tells us, that his enemies infulted him cruelly, when they faw him in the dust, humbled at their feet, and reduced (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 fon Abfalom; and the humiliation of a Christian, who puts afhes on his forehead, to remind him of his mortality, and difengage him from finful pleasures? could the preacher find no other text in fcripture ? did Christ and his apostles, or the prophets, never speak of death, and the duft of the grave, to which all our pride and vanity must be reduced? does not the scripture contain many affecting images of this important truth? might he not have been content with the words of Genefis ‡, which are so natural and proper for this ceremony, and chofen by the church itself? fhould a vain delicacy make him afraid of too often repeating a text that the holy fpirit 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 fcripture, to pitch on one that is not proper? this must flow from a depraved taste, and a fond inclination to fay fomething that is new.

B. You grow too warm, Sir: fuppofing the literal sense of the text not to be the true meaning of it, the preacher's remarks might however be very fine and folid. ‡ GEN. III. 19.

C. As for my part, I do not care whether a preacher's thoughts be fine or not, till I am firft fatisfied of their being true. but, Sir, what say you to the rest of . the fermon ?

A. It was exactly of a piece with the text. how could the preacher give fuch misplaced ornaments to a fubject in itself fo terrifying; and amufe his hearers with an idle ftory of Artemefia's forrow; when he ought to have alarmed them, and given them the most terrible images of death?

B. I perceive then you do not love turns of wit, on fuch occafions. but what would become of eloquence if it were ftript of fuch ornaments? would you confine every body to the plainnefs of country preachers? fuch men are ufeful among the common people; but perfons of diftinction have more delicate ears; and we must adapt our difcourfes to their polite taste.

A. You are now leading me off from the point. I was endeavouring to convince you, that the plan of the fermon was ill laid; and I was just going to touch upon the divifion of it: but I fuppofe you already perceive the reason why I diflike it; for, the preacher lays down three quaint conceits for the fubject of his whole difcourfe. when one chufes to divide a fermon, he fhould do it plainly, and give fuch a divifion as naturally arifes from the fubject itself, and gives a light and just order to the feveral parts; such a division as may be eafily remembred, and at the fame time help to connect