does not forbid divisions; it only requires that these should not exhibit several distinct subjects, but only that they should present several parts of the same subject, as one complete whole. Against such a fault as that just alluded to, it will be our business to guard still farther, in considering the characteristics of a perfect division.

LECTURE IX.

DIVISION.-OBJECTIONS TO;-UTILITY OF ;-KINDS

OF;-RULES.

THE objection that divisions in a sermon are inconsistent with unity, rendered it proper to consider, at length, in my last lecture, this most important principle in the sacred work of the preacher. Two other objections require a brief notice at this time.

It is sometimes said, that divisions give a stiff and mechanical appearance to a discourse; that to announce its chief parts beforehand, is to take from it the charm of novelty, and to destroy the pleasure which an intelligent hearer would derive from discovering your method for himself.

But you must remember, that of those to whom the gospel is preached, only a small part are so intelligent, as to perceive that which is not very easily perceived. To adopt an occult method, because this is supposed to be most consistent with the rules of elegance, or because some obscurity furnishes 'exercise to the ingenuity of hearers, is a doubtful expedient, even in respect to cultivated minds; but in respect to plain men, such as constitute the body of every congregation, it is, to say the least, a great error in judgment. If such hearers might be able to analyze an obscure train of thought in a printed discourse, this is not to be expected in one that

F

is spoken, where they have no opportunity to examine and compare different parts.

The other objection is, that divisions are a scholastic device, unknown in the best days of ancient oratory.

That the celebrated orators of old were less formal in this respect than has been common in the modern sermon, is certain; and perhaps a sufficient reason for this appears in the object of their orations, and the character of those to whom they were addressed. But the most celebrated of those orations have method, and some of them, method very distinctly expressed. Cicero, in his oration for the Manilian law, has three divisions; the nature of the Mithridatic war;-the greatness of it;-and the choice of a proper general. The first of these heads is discussed under four minor heads,—the honour of the state;-the safety of their allies;-the public revenue,-and the interests of private citizens. The third head, too, has four minor heads. Pompey is recommended as a consummate general, for his military skill;-his courage ;-his authority; and his success. The same orator, in his seventh Philippic, dissuades the senate from making peace with Marc Antony, by three heads of argument, showing the measure to be base, to be dangerous, and to be impracticable. In his oration for Muræna, the division has been allowed by some critics to be perfect. < The whole accusation, O judges, may be reduced to three heads; one consists in objections against his life; the second relates to the dignity of his office; the third includes the corruption, with which he is charged.'

His oration against Cæcilius has two, and that for Publius Quinctius three general divisions.

To mention no other examples, Quinctilian says, 'divisions may be too many, but ought not, as some think, to be limited to three.' So much for an objection,

drawn from antiquity, against that method in a discourse which constituted so important a part of both theory and practice in ancient eloquence.

We proceed now to consider the utility of divisions,the different kinds that have been employed--and the rules by which they should be conducted.

In remarking on the utility of method, let it be observed, that I mean to recommend a method which is obvious to the hearers; and in general, one that is announced by the preacher, in entering on the discussion of his subject. Though his plan of thought may be distinctly marked in his own mind, and though every sentence he utters may be intelligible, the sermon, if the method is studiously concealed, will have only the aspect and effect of a smooth essay. He who aims to save rather than amuse his hearers, will not scruple to interrupt the polished flow of his composition, by dividing it into separate heads. Not that these should, of course, be named numerically at the opening of the sermon. is not always best that so formal a distribution by first, second, third, &c. should announce the main heads beforehand; and seldom can this be properly done with the subordinate ones.1 In regard to these latter, the speaker as he passes on, may, if he chooses to omit the numerical distribution, mark them sufficiently by pauses, by antithetic distinction of words, by change of quantity and pitch of voice, or by simple emphasis.?

It

Doctor Doddridge advises that more prominence still should be given to divisions, by the manner of announcing them. Thus his own practice was to mention the general heads twice, beforehand. At the opening of each head,

1 Note (12.)

2 Jay's Family Discourses, furnish a good pattern for short subdivisions.

if it was to have subdivisions, he announced these beforehand; and in the conclusion, he briefly recapitulated all his topics, principal and subordinate. So rigid an exactness, as an universal habit of a preacher, seems to me undesirable; yet he will be compelled to study lucid arrangement, by a frequent resort to such a practice.

Among the advantages of an obvious method, I remark that perspicuity is promoted by it. The understanding is a faculty that delights in order. It contemplates with ease and pleasure, things that are placed before it in the light of a just arrangement. Hence Horace properly calls such arrangement, lucidus ordo.'-Hence again,

Beauty is promoted by order. Aside from those laws of mind, agreeably to which method facilitates our perception of relations among things; according to our principles of emotion, good taste is disgusted with confusion. A fine library, promiscuously jumbled together, without regard to connexion of volumes, or distinct works, would offend the eye just in proportion to the intrinsic worth, or the elegant appearance of the several books. The same sensation of incongruity is excited by thoughts or expressions, however brilliant, which have no connexion.

Brevity is promoted by order. The poet above alluded to says- This will be the excellence and beauty of method, that it will enable the writer just now to say what just now ought to be said, and to omit every thing else.' He who classes his thoughts on a subject, will see what to use, and what to refuse, among the general mass of matter related to that subject. Besides, confusion of thought leads to repetition; and repetition leads to undue length.

Energy is prompted by order, in two ways; the first is by concentration. The power of a discourse to im