Since rhetoric is used to give conviction to both truth
and falsehood, who could dare to maintain that truth, which depends on us for
its defence, should stand unarmed in the fight against falsehood? This would
mean that those who are trying to give conviction to their falsehoods would
know how to use an introduction to make their listeners favourable, interested,
and receptive, while we would not; that they would expound falsehoods in
descriptions that are succinct, lucid, and convincing, while we would expound
the truth in such a way as to bore our listeners, cloud their understanding,
and stifle their desire to believe;that they would assail the truth and advocate falsehood
with fallacious arguments, while we would be too feeble either to defend what
is true or refute what is false; that they, pushing and propelling their
listeners’ minds towards error, would speak so as to inspire fear, sadness, and
elation, and issue passionate exhortations, while we, in the name of truth, can
only idle along sounding dull and indifferent. Who could be so senseless as to
find this sensible? No; oratorical ability, so effective a resource to commend
either right or wrong, is available to both sides; why then is it not acquired
by good and zealous Christians to fight for the truth, if the wicked employ it
in the service of iniquity and error, to achieve their perverse and futile purposes?- St. Augustine, On Christian Teaching
Enter Text Here
bookstore