by the efficacy of means, but by the influence of the Holy Spirit. And, thirdly, exhibit evidence, that wherever this change is produced by the Holy Spirit, it is followed by the fruits of holiness, or a life of obedience. See how this drapery of words is dismissed by the aid of ellipsis, suspending all the heads on one connecting term; thus, in discussing regeneration, I shall CONSIDER, 1. Its nature. 2. Its Author. And 3. Its fruits.

Reybaz says,A clear division is the handle of a vase; in the taking hold of which, every thing it contains, goes with it. But if it has no handle, its contents are lost to us.' Of this clear division, we have an example in the six particulars of Father Bernard, on the text, "The Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout; &c. Quis veniat?- Unde? - Quo? - Quando? -Quomodo?-Ad quid?' On this point I will only add two examples, from a valuable English preacher ; 1 so brief and clear, that a hearer might repeat them mentally, several times, without losing more than one sentence of the sermon. The first is on the repentance of Judas, which is shewn to differ from true repentance in four respects; Its origin ;-Its object;-Its extent; and its result.' The next is, "On the wrath to come,' with five heads.

1

It is divine wrath ;- Deserved

wrath ;- Unmingled wrath ;-Accumulated wrath ;— Eternal wrath.'

1 Bradley.

LECTURE XI.

ARGUMENT IN SERMONS,

HAVING stated some of the general principles which should govern the preacher in the choice and exposition of his text, the annunciation and the division of his subject; I am now to consider the sources and rules of argument, which fall under the head of discussion.

I am aware that many subjects must be introduced into the pulpit, which do not admit of what may strictly be called reasoning. I am aware too, that in the Christian community, an opinion is cherished by many, and is countenanced by the example of some popular preachers, that reasoning is never appropriate to the business of the pulpit. The secular orator, it is said, speaks to men of cultivated minds, who can comprehend a train of discussion; but to plain, unlettered men, such as the preacher addresses, every thing in the form of argument is dry and uninteresting. Certainly plain men are not logicians, but it does not follow that they are incapable of reasoning. Even children, in their own department of knowledge, draw conclusions from premises, as well as the philosopher in his. This tendency of the human mind, which appears in its earliest operations, ought to be cherished. Persuasion and action ought to depend on conviction, and conviction on proof. To substitute declamation for reasoning in the pulpit, is to give the preacher a loose and desultory habit of

thinking. In this way too, no stability of religious character can be produced in hearers, except through implicit faith, and blind prejudice. The preacher who always declaims, from the supposition that his hearers are unable to comprehend argument, gives the whole influence of his labours, and of his own example, against the use of their reasoning powers, in religion. He takes the direct way to make them bigots, on the one hand, or on the other children, liable to be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine." Whenever such preaching prevails, for a period long enough to produce its genuine influence, that influence is certainly unfavourable to manly discrimination, and strength in Christian attainments. The question, then, needs not to be discussed, Whether, in its proper place, argument should be employed in sermons? but, In what manner should it be employed? This will lead us to consider two things, the sources of argument, and the principles on which it is to be conducted.

My object in these remarks does not require me to confirm or to controvert the doctrines of modern writers on pneumatology and moral philosophy, nor to notice them at all, in addressing those who are already conversant with these writers. My simple business is, to inquire in what way religious truths may best be vindicated and enforced by argument in the pulpit. The laws of intellectual philosophy indeed are directly auxiliary to this end. Even the study of geometry has its important uses to the preacher, as it gives him discipline of thought, and precision of language. Much of the controversy, which has distracted the church, would have been prevented, had theologians employed the same care in selecting and defining their terms,

which has rendered mathematical reasoning so perspicuous, and so powerful an instrument of conviction. But is mathematical reasoning, as well as moral, appropriate to the pulpit? I answer, no. Demonstration, in the exact use of the word, belongs only to the science of abstract quantities; and it would be no more absurd to mingle tropes with terms of geometry, than to apply a mathematical argument to a moral truth. Still, it is a vain triumph in which infidelity has sometimes gloried, that religion is a subject which cannot admit of certainty. For in no subject of mere science can our data be more fixed, or our conclusions more unquestionable, than in religion. Many of our first principles, in theology and morals, have as much clearness of intuitive evidence, as mathematical axioms; and we rest in our deductions with all the confidence that attends the most perfect demonstration.

But while it is only moral evidence that can be employed in preaching, this evidence arises from different sources, each of which is more or less applicable, on different occasions. The immediate end of reasoning is to produce conviction; and this is to be effected in each particular case, by the power of evidence that is adapted to that case.1

SOURCES OF ARGUMENT.

The first and chief source of that evidence which is to be employed in the pulpit, is the volume of Revelation. In respect to an important class of subjects, no other evidence can be relied on. What we know for example, respecting the Trinity, the incarnation and atonement of

1. Note (13).

Christ, and justification by faith; we know only from the sacred oracles. The simple and only inquiry on such subjects is, what does the Bible teach? And just so far as we rely on the speculations of philosophy, where the truth lies beyond the research of reason, the light of heaven ceases to shine on our path, and we grope in darkness. A want of strict adherence to this obvious principle, has been the prolific occasion of heresy and controversy in all ages. But while on subjects of this sort, the Bible is the sole standard of faith and of duty, our reason is of course to be employed in ascertaining what the Bible teaches; and also in illustrating and applying to a particular subject, the proof which it furnishes. This is what St. Paul meant by "reasoning out of the Scriptures." It is so to class and exhibit our proof, as to show distinctly that God has declared as truth, or enjoined as duty, some particular thing.

Now this mode of reasoning, if I mistake not, as it is too commonly found in sermons, is not sufficiently explicit and direct. In a case where the preacher does not doubt that the ultimate appeal is exclusively to the Bible, often a fastidious delicacy, or a perverted taste, prevents him from giving prominence to the divine testimony. He thrusts forward his proof texts, perhaps in a random and unskilful way, without proper regard to their bearing on each other, or the end in view. Or, on the other hand, he may assume the fine rhetorician, and shape the declarations of the Bible into such a subserviency to the easy flow of his own style, that the proof is diluted and humanized in his hands, and leaves no strong impression on the minds of the hearers, that "thus hath the Lord spoken." Illustrations of this great defect might easily be given from the published discourses of many who are called elegant or polite