"first lesson in Dioptrics." I shall only say in general of this method, when introduced into the pulpit, that however acceptable it may be with the many, with whom sound always goes much farther than sense; and favourite words and phrases to which their ears have been accustomed; than the most judicious sentiments, I know no surer method of rendering preaching utterly inefficacious and uninstructive. To attempt every thing, is the direct way to effect nothing. If you will go over every part, you must be superficial in every part; you can examine no part to any useful purpose.

What

would you think of a professor of anatomy, who should run over all the organs and limbs and parts of the human body, external and internal, in every lecture, and think himself sufficiently excused by saying that there is a connection in all the parts; and that the treating of one naturally led him to say something of another; and so on, till he got through the whole? Or what would your opinion be of a lecturer in architecture, who in every discourse discussed all the five orders, and did not leave a single member or ornament in any one of them unnamed? From such teachers, could a reasonable man expect to learn any thing but words? The head of the learner would, in consequence of this extraordinary manner of teaching, very quickly be stuffed with technical terms and phrases to which he could affix no definite signification. He might soon be made an accomplished pedant in these arts, but, to the end of the world, would not in this way be rendered a proficient. And do we not see among the common people many such pedants in divinity, who think themselves wonderful

scholars, because they have got the knack of uttering, with great volubility, all the favourite phrases and often unmeaning cant of a particular sect or faction? It is indeed solely to be imputed to that jealousy, which party-spirit and our unhappy divisions in religious matters have produced, that this futile manner owes its origin. In consequence of this party-spirit, many hearers whose minds are unhappily poisoned with its malignity come to a new preacher with an anxious concern, not to be instructed but to be satisfied, whether he is what they call orthodox, is a true partisan, and has the shibboleth of the party in him; and the preacher on the other hand, either because he hath imbibed the same sectarian spirit, or because he is more ambitious to please than to edify, takes this way, which is by far the shortest and the easiest, of ingratiating himself into their favour. But to return to the particular instance which gave rise to these observations, all that in regard to the two points grace and salvation is previously necessary to the explication of the only point, which makes the subject, is to observe in so many words, that grace means here the unmerited favour of God, and salvation deliverance from all that evil which is consequent on sin. And this may be sufficiently effected in the exposition of the text, or in a paraphrase upon it. Nay, whatever further is of importance as to both these points, grace and salvation, will necessarily and more naturally occur, without doing any violence to the unity and simplicity of the discourse, in the illustration of the subject, which is purely to show in what respect divine grace is the genuine source of man's salvation. But would you have only one point? Where

is then the distribution or partition of the subject, of which you spoke before? I would indeed have but one subject, though, where the nature of the thing will admit it, distributed for order's and for memory's sake into its different members, and then the several points in the division must appear as the constituent parts of one subject and one whole, and not as so many distinct though related subjects or wholes. Thus the forementioned subject may be illustrated under these two articles, which will make the heads of discourse: the plan itself of our redemption by the mediation of the Son is the result of grace or unmerited favour; the completion of it in us by the operation of the Spirit is also the result of grace. Both these manifestly centre in the same point; salvation springs from grace. But if you must draw in every thing that is related, you can never have done, till you have made your sermon a complete system of christian divinity.

The method in making sermons, which for a long time hath carried the vogue in this country over every other, and which is considered as very simple compared with the more laboured and intricate methods formerly in use, is a division of every text, into what the schoolmen call the subject, the predicate, and the copula. Thus, suppose the topic to be discussed were the nature of the divine faithfulness, and the text 1 Cor. x. 13— "God is faithful;" this most simple and apposite passage would be divided into three heads. The first would be the divine nature, the second the attribute of faithfulness, and the third the connexion between the two. This is not discoursing on the subject, but cutting the text into fritters, where if

the subject come in for a share, it is much; often it is eluded altogether. But the impropriety, and if it were not for the commonness, I should say, the puerility of this manner will appear better by applying it to other matters, in which the pulpit is not concerned. I shall suppose one hath it prescribed to him as the subject of an oration, an inquiry into the antiquity of rhime. Accordingly he goes to work, and having well weighed every word and syllable of the question, he thus lays down his plan of operations. First, says he, I shall consider what is implied in the word antiquity, and all the different acceptations of which the term is susceptible; secondly, I shall consider the nature, import, and properties of what is called rhime; and thirdly, the relation in which the one stands to the other, or how far and in what respect the one may be justly predicated of the other. Could any one imagine that such a disquisitor understood the subject? Good people are sometimes offended at the application of the word eloquence to preaching. They think it savours of something merely human and too artificial. But the art of preaching, as in fact it hath been long taught and practised by the men, whom those people generally most admire, is the genuine offspring of the dialectic of the schools, and fifty times more artificial, or, if you will, mechanical, than that which true rhetoric would inculcate. On the contrary, it is the business of the latter to bring men back from all scholastic pedantry and jargon, to nature, simplicity, and truth. And let me add, that discourses on this plan will be found much more conformable, in manner and composition, to the simple but excellent models to be found in sacred writ.

LECTURE IX.

OF EXPLANATORY SERMONS.HOW THE BRANCHES SHOULD BE ARRANGED AND TREATED-OF THE STYLE-TECHNICAL LANGUAGE TO BE AVOIDED AND THAT OF SCRIPTURE PREFERRED-ABUSE OF SCRIPTURE STYLE OF THE CONCLUSION.

IN my last discourse on christian eloquence, I considered part of the explanatory sermon, which was begun with, as the simplest, to wit, the exordium or introduction, the proposing of the design with the explication of the text and context, where such explication is necessary, and the division of the subject. I should now proceed to consider in what method the branches of the division should be ranged, how they should be treated, and the properest way of forming the conclusion. As to the first, the order in which the principal heads of a discourse ought to be arranged, this is sometimes of considerable consequence, sometimes it is a matter merely discretionary. It is of consequence, when the knowledge of one part is, in its nature, prerequisite to the right understanding of another part; it is also of consequence, when in the order of time or of nature, the one part is conceived as preceding the other. The arrangement may be said to be discretionary, when neither of the above mentioned cases takes place. Suppose, for in