we are immediately to treat for ourselves. I was once told an anecdote of the following kind. An old clergyman, was asked by a young one, if it was, in all cases, improper to borrow the method of a sermon-"It is what I never do," said the old man; "not so much because I think the thing absolutely wrong in itself, as because I like nobody's method so well as my own. Not surely that I think mine is always the best possible method; but still it is always the best for me. A method that I devise for myself, I can easily fill up, because I know what views of the subject have led me to adopt it; but if I should take the method of another, and not take the filling up likewise, I should be trammelled with what I had borrowed, from the beginning to the end of my discourse." There was, I think, an old man's wisdom in these remarks, which you will do well to remember. 6. I shall now state what I consider as the most proper mental process, in forming a regular sermon on a given text. This process, you will observe, is to be regarded in framing your epitome, as well as afterwards; although I have found it convenient to speak of these several points in an inverted order. -I shall make a few practical remarks as I proceed. Having clearly ascertained the true meaning of your text, or what our old writers used properly to call "the mind of the Spirit in the words," reduce this, first of all, to one distinct proposition. Sometimes, as you will presently see, it will be necessary to state this proposition to your hearers, and sometimes it may be most proper to retain it in your own mind. But whether you conceal it, or make it known, it will be highly useful to form it accurately; as it will keep before you a clear view of your subject, aid you in giving unity to your discourse, and be calculated to keep VOL. II. Ch. Adv. you to your point, in the whole of the subsequent discussion. After your proposition is formed, examine whether it be single or compound; that is, whether it will admit of being divided, or not. If it is a single proposition, such, for example, as is contained in the text, "God is love," you will of course state this as the subject of discourse: and here it is plain you can have no general divisions. You will therefore proceed immediately to think of, and select, the considerations, proofs, examples, illustrations, and arguments, by which your proposition is to be established, and rendered clear and impressive; and which in this case will constitute particulars.-When this is done, your subject will be prepared for the application or improvement. But if the proposition to which you have reduced the truth contained in your text be-as in a great majority of cases it will be-a compound proposition, that is, made up of two or more distinct parts, such as it would be if your text were Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God," these parts are to be taken severally, and stated as the general divisions of your subject. And here you perceive that as these divisions are only parts of the same proposition, the propriety of expressing, or forbearing to express, that proposition by itself, must depend on the judgment of the speaker. I will just remark here, that very often the best general division that can be made is, first, to ascertain or illustrate the truth contained in the text; and secondly, to show its bearings and its importance. Each of your general divisions is to be treated exactly as I have shown that you are to treat a single proposition; for such in fact each general division is: and here your explanations, proofs, considerations, illustrations, and arguments, will constitute subdivisions, or particu SY lars; which you may mention numerically or not, as you think best. The old Puritan writers used to number almost every distinct thought. This was a great extreme; but I am of the opinion that many modern sermonizers have gone almost as far from propriety, in the opposite direction. Let me caution you against a pretty common error-the error of spending time in proving what requires no proof. I once actually heard a clergyman spend several minutes in a serious argument, to prove that his hearers and all mankind would certainly die. The sources of proof are, you know, scripture, common sense, reason, sentiment, history, and observation. -Illustration should be mingled with proof. Illustration, indeed, is little else than a particular kind of proof; and the more of this you can draw from what your hearers have seen and felt for themselves, the more interesting and practical you will render all you say. What a difference is there among preachers in this respect? Some deliver every thing in a dry and abstract way; and constant and close attention is necessary to understand them-an attention which is often reluctantly given even by those who are accustomed to a connected train of reasoning. Other preachers constantly keep attention awake, and render every thing they say enter taining and impressive, by bringing it all home to the business and bosoms" of their hearers. Endeavour, by all means, to acquire this latter method of treating your subjects, or of proving and illustrating what you say in the pulpit. Much of your usefulness will depend on this; and proof and illustration of this palpable and popular kind, are really the most satisfactory, as well as the most interesting.-After explaining, illustrating, and proving your doctrine, the last thing is to consider how many legitimate inferences may be drawn from it, and 66 of what application to different characters, or description of persons, it fairly admits. This is usually called the improvement of a discourse, and is really the most important part of all. For this part a considerable portion of time ought, in most cases, to be kept in reserve -far more than is, I think, usually reserved. I do not know so frequent a fault in preaching as the want of a proper measure of application. I am aware, that the common excuse or reason assigned for this defect, is, the want of time. I admit that the want of time is the real cause, but I deny that it is a justifiable cause. Time, as I have said, should be reserved for applying doctrinal truth, instead of being misspent, as it often is, in superfluous reasoning. In some cases, it is best to apply every thing as you go along; and then, indeed, your discourse will properly end where your last division, with its application, terminates. In most cases, you will not be able to make all the inferences that might justly be made from your subject; and your discretion must be used to select those which are the most important, or most applicable to the circumstances of your hearers. I am clear that in general it is best to announce your method distinctly to your audience. All admit that there can be no such thing as a good discourse, without method-a method that is natural, and which is clearly defined in the speaker's own mind, and to which he suitably adheres. Why should this be concealed? A preacher is not like an orator in the senate, or a lawyer at the bar, who may wish that his hearers should not know how long he intends to speak, or at what conclusion he means to arrive. It is known when the preacher rises what is the usual time he will occupy, and what is the end at which he aims; and it both serves to keep up attention while he is speaking, and to assist in recollecting what he has said when he has finished, to specify his divisions and subdivisions distinctly-they are like milestones in a journey, which keep the traveller apprized where he is, and how much is yet before him. I will not say that there are no occasions on which a concealed method may not be better for a pulpit address, than one that is previously announced; but in general the latter is, in my judgment, decisively entitled to the preference. 7. The language of a sermon ought always to be free from vulgarisms, and from coarse expressions of every kind; but after avoiding this extreme, it cannot be too plain and simple. Let me, on this point, recommend to you the careful reading of "Swift's letter to a young clergyman." It is marked with the known peculiarities of the writer, but it abounds in good sense and just observations. It has been with real concern that I have lately observed a few of our clergy introducing into their pulpit compositions, not only a great number of those single terms, derived from the Latin and Greek, which the common people call hard words, but likewise that inverted and artificial structure of sentences, which the same class denominate high flown language; and by which they are in no respect more instructed or profited, than if they were addressed, literally, "in an unknown tongue." Such addresses, therefore, I consider as a real violation of an apostolick injunction. Their being in bad taste, which they are to an extreme, is hardly worth mentioning, while we think of the censure they deserve on considerations of an infinitely higher kind. I must say, they strike me as an awful example of trifling with the truth of God, and with the souls of men. The larger part of almost every worshipping assembly in our country is composed of the unlearned-Of many assemblies they make up more than nine-tenths. These people, moreover, whose souls are as precious as any, have but little religious instruction or admonition, except what they receive from the pulpit. How dreadful, then, to deprive them of it here. Yet they are completely deprived of it, on every occasion on which they are addressed in the manner I condemn. How will those who thus defraud them, answer for it, at the bar of that Saviour, who gave it as the distinguishing characteristick of his gospel, that it was "preached to the poor." There is folly, too, as well as wickedness, in the composition of these unintelligible sermons: for the best informed and most polished part of every Christian audience, would be even better pleased with a style which the unlearned could perfectly understand, than with these wretched attempts to appear singularly erudite and refined. There is a chaste simplicity of manner, entirely on a level with the understandings of illiterate men, which is, at the same time, the most pleasing to persons of the best taste and the highest improvement; and this manner also is more favourable than any other, to every description of real eloquence. The sermons of Dr. Witherspoon, and of Mr. Walker of Edinburgh, though very different in several respects, are still most excellent examples of the language and manner which I here contemplate-So likewise are all the sermons of Archbishop Secker. Make these, my son, and such as these, your models-Not by imitating them with servility, but by learning from them how evangelical truth may be taught and inculcated from the pulpit, in a manner perfectly intelligible to the unlearned, and yet most pleasing to every person who possesses a cultivated understanding and a correct taste. 8. As to the length of sermons, no rule, at once general and definite, should I think be given.-Their length ought to vary according to circumstances. In places where the people hear a religious discourse but once in some weeks, or perhaps months, they ought, on every opportunity of addressing them, to hear as much as their patience will bear, and the strength of the speaker will allow him to deliver. For a like reason, where but one sermon is preached on the Lord's day, it is clear that it ought commonly to be longer, than would be proper for an audience expecting to hear a second or a third. On extraordinary occasions, such as ordinations, the opening of ecclesiastical assemblies, and some others, a discourse more than usually extended, is not improper, and is commonly looked for. I have heretofore observed, when speaking of publick prayer, that the whole time of attendance on any single religious exercise in the sanctuary, should be about equally divided, between preaching and the devotional parts of the service. According to this rule, where religious services are frequent, a sermon of the length of three-quarters of an hour is long enough. Be tween forty minutes and an hour, is, I should say, the space within which sermons should terminate, where preaching abounds-with some exceptions, for seasons of religious revival, or when, from other causes, the desire to hear is peculiarly great. For myself, I must say, that very rarely indeed have I heard a sermon that I wished to be more than an hour long. It is, in all cases, better to leave off while our hearers are willing that we should continue a little longer, than to continue, after the most of them are wishing that every sentence might be the last. Although I have drawn out this letter to an unusual length, I have said nothing about the introduction of a sermon-I have, in regard to this, nothing to say which you may not find in books that are common. Possibly you will remark, that you could also have found in books a good deal of what I have said; and truly it has several times occurred to me, that perhaps I was treating you too much like a tyro. But I was induced to go on, from thinking that when I was as young a minister as you are, I would have been very glad to find brought together, the remarks and information contained in this letter-A number of my observations I have certainly never seen in books. I cannot yet conclude, without renewedly counselling you, to compose all your sermons under a deep impression of your responsibility to God, for the way in which you handle his sacred truth-For both the matter and the manner of every discourse that you form. Keep back nothing that you conscientiously think might be profitable to the souls of your people; and say nothing that you may know is not likely to profit them. Reject every ornament, and every thought, and every expression, and every word, which cannot have place, consistently with a regard to the greatest spiritual benefit of those who hear you; and study to introduce every thing by which this spiritual benefit may, under the divine blessing, be promoted to the greatest extent. This single rule will of itself keep you right, in all that is essential. To aid you in carrying it into effect, is the sole aim of all I have said on the preparation or composition of sermons.-The Lord direct and bless you-Affectionately adieu. Miscellaneous. FOR THE CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE. No. IV. "But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, who is the head, even Christ."-EPH. iv. 15. Mr. Editor-When I come, with your leave, to treat of the nature of atonement, a reply to the interrogatories of Omicron will find a place, in accordance with the plan I have adopted, and by which I mean to control myself in these essays. I would here remark, however, that the whole of his last paragraph appears to me to involve a petitio principii of the entire question. If I entertained his views of "satisfaction," I should feel the force of the queries he has based on them. Obviously, the difference between the two schools commences earlier than the question of the extent, and depends cardinally upon that of the nature of the atonement. Why does God punish sin? is the primary question; and I intend to answer it in due time. As to my "implied challenge," allow me to say that I have consciously made none. My motive in these essays -if I know myself-is fraternal, and very far removed from the spirit of theological duelling. One reason I can say it sincerely with Melancthon-why I desire heaven is, to be rid of theological controversy. I wish no antagonist; and my only intended provocation is"to love and to good works." While we are members of the church militant, we must " contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints." I am ambitious to aid the cause of truth, according to "the ability which God giveth," and for which I am accountable to him. Omicron has not convinced me of my ignorance of "the views of my brethren of the old school," nor of any "misstatement" of those views; as I hope yet to evince to the conviction of others. I ask no mercy against the truth of God, or from the consciences of men; and whenever you shall feel, Mr. Editor, one sentiment of duty against the admission of my numbers, you have only to signify it, and they shall be discontinued at least so far as your miscellany is concerned. “Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil-speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: and be ye kind one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." If I have ever offended against this divine admonition in these essays, I think it has been indeliberate; and I pray God to prevent fence. recurrence of the of In further proof of the illimitable fulness of the atonement and of its essential availableness to all men, we adduce the universal offer of the gospel, and its moral and judicial connexions in the government of God. If this is an "old" argument, certainly brethren of the old school will not despise it on that account. 66 By an offer I do not mean a promise. The promises are actually made to saints alone-conditionally to all men. Let us therefore fear, lest a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it." An offer is much the same with a conditional promise, only that it involves more the idea of a tender, an overture, an invitation, accompanied with authority commanding compliance and uttering a commination of wrath in case of refusal. The gospel offer we affirm to be universal: or, that it is made as really, as sincerely, and as earnestly to those who never will, as to those who shall accept of it! There |