4 Terr,c-Filius. f�&ion in it? a?d even that may upon occgion be difpenl?d with :, as by the following account of the method of their dit?tations at Oxford will ap. The ?rf?$ of this argumentative drama are three, ?iz. the ottv?ent, the aej?ondent, and the Mod?. r?. The O??onent is the perfort who flways begins t? attack. and is thre of lofing the day, being alwa) (as th? ?ll it) on tM wron? fide of the queflion? ?o' off,times, that fide is ?l?bly the tight tide, aycotdmg to o? ?ern philofophy aM dffcove rle$. The Ref?on?nt fus ov?-againg the opponent, and is pre?r'd to deny whatev? he a?rms, and alwa)s ?mes off with flying colours? which muff needs make him enter the ?fls with great fortitude and ?epidity, T& MMermor i? ?e hero, or-prind?l charafter of t? ?ama, and !s not muc? unlike the godde? l?fi?0ri$, as defcrib'd by the poets, hovering between two armies in an engagement, and with an arbi. tr'ary nod, deciding the fate of' the field. There is this riflerenee, indeed, between the military comba- t?nt? and our f?hod combatants, that the latter know the iffue of thdr conflifl; before they begin? which the form?r do not. This M?alerator firtits-about between the two ?ardycham??ons, during the time of a?ion, to t?e that they do not wander from the quefiion in ely bate; and when he perceives them deviating from it, to cut them fhort, and put them into the right road ?gain; tbr which putpole he is provided with a gl'eat quantit)' of rubble term? and phrat?s of ar?, fuch a?, quoad &?, ? quoad iliad, form#brer c? materialleer, ?r?ti�.?men.?ali.ter i? tranj2endaliter, ??ualiter & loote?tialiter, dire?tb ?5' ?er fl, rtauc7i? ?3' per acu&m, entitati?..b O' {uidd?t.,;t.i�?i? .&c.. all which
�
