He has proved a great doctrine of the gospel to be true, perhaps by clear argument. What then? Shall that doctrine be left on the same footing with a mathematical axiom? Shall the hearers rest in mere assent to its truth, when its truth is the very thing that cuts them off from hope and heaven? Look on an assembly of immortal beings sinking down to death, under an accumulation of unpardoned guilt; think of the unspeakable love and agonies which procured for them forgiveness; anticipate your meeting with these very hearers at the judgment; and the certainty that each one of them who dies impenitent, will be an eternal outcast from God; and then, if you feel no stirrings of a mighty emotion in your own bosom, where is your compassion for dying men? Where is your love to Christ? Talk not of a piety that can offer apology for such a state of heart. Mourn for it rather as your sin.

LECTURE XV.

STYLE OF THE PULPIT.-GENERAL REMARKS.-FAULTS OF STYLE IN SERMONS.EXCELLENCIES.

I COME now to offer some remarks on the appropriate style of the pulpit. The opinion that the Christian preacher, when he speaks on religion must assume a countenance, a tone, and a style, such as are adapted to no other subject, has been greatly prejudicial to the interests of piety.

1. Our first inquiry is, how far may the preacher's style be professional and peculiar. The views which I entertain as to the peculiarity of diction, allowable in sermons, may be expressed under two general remarks.

One is, that religion must have terms, call them technical if you please, but terms appropriate to itself. The arts and the physical sciences require words and phrases which cannot be used in theology. For the same reason theology must have to a certain extent its own expressions, adapted to its own peculiar subjects. And Christian theology must be distinguished in this respect, from Mahometan and Pagan systems of religion. If the writers of the New Testament must have been rigidly tied down to classical usage, they could have had no words to express those thoughts which were peculiar to the gospel. Plato and Xenophon had no such thoughts; and the primary classical import of the words which they employed, could not therefore express the

meaning of St. Paul, on topics peculiar to the style he must use in preaching the gospel. Strike out from the language of the pulpit the words, sin, holiness, redeemer, atonement, regeneration, grace, covenant, justification, salvation, and others of similar import, and what would become of the distinctive character of Christianity? The preacher in this case must either not exhibit the truths of the gospel at all, or exhibit them under all the disadvantages of an endless and needless circumlocution. In either case, his ministrations, whatever literary merit they might possess, would have little tendency to instruct and save his hearers. Before he can submit to the requisitions of a taste so perverted, he must have forgotten the sacred dignity of his office, as an ambassador of Christ.

My other remark is, that, with the above exception, the general character of style in sermons, should be such as is proper, in discussing any elevated and interesting subject. The reasons are obvious. If we would impress religious truth on the hearts of men, it must be done through the medium of the understanding. We must address them, therefore, in language to which they are accustomed. After the example of our Saviour, we should employ words and figures which accord with the familiar conceptions of our hearers. By this means, too, we may avoid any repulsive associations, which would otherwise prevent the access of truth to the mind. If he who speaks on religion, assumes the aspect and tones of sadness, he makes the impression on the minds of the irreligious, that piety is inconsistent with cheerfulness. An effect not less favourable is produced by a correspondent peculiarity of language. Besides, a strong and vivid representation of any subject cannot be made, when the terms employed are inappropriate or indefinite.

2. We are prepared, in the next place, to glance at

those peculiarities, most common in the style of sermons, which must be accounted faults.

The theological dialect, as distinguished from what may be called classical style, results in a considerable measure, from a designed imitation of scriptural language. I say imitation, for unquestionably direct quotation from the Bible, is not only necessary in adducing proofs from this standard of religious belief and practice, but is required by good taste, for purposes of illustration and impression. Such quotations, if made with judgment, give weight and authority to a sermon. But the fault I am describing, lies in the unskilful amalgamation of sacred with common phraseology.

This sometimes arises from a necessary familiarity with theological writers of past times. The excellent sentiments which these often contain, expressed, perhaps, in quaint and antiquated phraseology, imperceptibly give a cast to his own diction, resembling, in its influence on other minds, the stiffness and peculiarity which would appear in his garb, if it were conformed to the fashion of the sixteenth century.

Having suggested these hints on the defects of pulpit style, I proceed to state some of the chief qualities which it ought to possess. Taking it for granted that perspicuity, strength, and a proper degree of ornament are essential attributes of all good writing, and therefore never to be neglected by the preacher, I shall consider certain properties of style, which he is under peculiar obligations to cultivate.

The first of these which I shall mention, is SIM

PLICITY.

This, as I have already observed, is required by the principles of good taste. But it is more to my purpose, at present, to show that it is required of the Christian

preacher, by the principles of religion. He is appointed to instruct men in the way of salvation; to instruct those, many of whom are ignorant. To instruct them in that gospel of which it was a remarkable characteristic, at its first publication, "that it was preached to the poor." In this respect our Saviour was a perfect pattern,accommodating his instructions to the weak and illiterate, in distinction from the Jewish teachers, and the heathen philosophers, who delivered their discourses only to a few select disciples.'

The simplicity of language which a preacher should adopt, requires him to choose such words as are INTELLIGIBLE to his hearers. I say not that he shall adopt the extravagant principle sometimes laid down, never to use a word, which is not familiar to every child. This would forbid him to preach at all, on the simplest topics, without such a constant explanation of terms, as would render his discourses tedious and uninteresting, to the greater part of every assembly. But the proper rule of conduct in this case, lies in a narrow compass.

We should take care then never to use a hard word, when a plain one would express our meaning. The sense to be expressed, is the main point, and language is only the vehicle of communication. The affectation which leads a man to sacrifice the object for which he speaks, to the reputation of being an erudite or elegant speaker, is altogether beneath the dignity of the sacred office.

Who would expect a teacher of babes,' to ransack the resources of etymology, and to speak of the lapsed state of man,' and the moral adaptation of things,' when his proper business is to discuss the great and simple truths of the gospel, in the plainest manner? It is a familiar anecdote of the distinguished Prelate, Archbishop Tillotson, that before he delivered his ser