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 eloquence 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. 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:

The

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-in the 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.

I may add, that I have in one place (Part II. ch. 1. § 2.) pointed out an important part of the legitimate art of the orator, in respect of the minds of his hearers, as coinciding exactly with the practice of a wise and good man in respect of his own mind.

Several 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 endeavors, without studying Logic, to become a thoroughly good argumentative writer.

It should be observed, however, that a considerable portion of what is by many writers reckoned as a part of Logic, has been treated of by me not under that head, but in Part I. of the present work.*

* I have recently been represented (while the sixth edition of this

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 antichristian writers of the present day. But it should be remembered, that Logic and Rhetoric having no

very work was before the public) as having declared the impossibility of making such an Analysis and Classification of the different kinds of Arguments as I have here laid before the reader. Such a misapprehension seems very unaccountable; for if I ever had made such an assertion, I should have been, I suppose, the first person that ever proclaimed the impossibility of something which at the same time he professed to have accomplished.

proper subject-matter 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 to 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. 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.

I presume not, however, to decide what steps might, legally, be taken; I am looking only to facts and probabilities; and I feel a confident trust, as well as hope (and that, founded on experience of the past), that no legal penalties will, in fact, be incurred by temperate,

* See Speech on Jews' Relief Bill, and Remarks appended to it. Vol. of Tracts, &c., pp. 419-446.