and definite idea to the majority of your hearers. Those of your congregation who constantly read their Bible, and think about it, will know the meaning; but a large proportion will require to be continually reminded of the simplest truths. A good plan to render them intelligible is frequently to use a paraphrase in apposition with them; indeed some of them are of such importance, that a whole sermon might be well devoted to their explanation.

Another caution, which I would beg to suggest to you in the use of Scriptural language, is, that you be careful not to give a New Testament signification to words quoted from the Old Testament. In the text, "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell'," the words soul and hell must not be assumed to have the same signification as in St. Matthew's Gospel: "Fear him that is able to destroy both body and soul in hell"." These words in the Old Testament generally signify, the one life, (which, in Levit. xvii. 2, is said to be the blood,) and the other, the grave. So again the words salvation and redemption, which occur frequently in the Psalms, mean deliverance from temporal dangers; as in the passages, "with the Lord there is plenteous redemption," "It is good that a man should both hope and quietly wait for the salvation of the Lord:" It is true that these and similar passages may often be used analogically or prophetically in the same sense

as in the New Testament. What I wish to caution you against is the using them too prominently, and placing them forward as proofs of any doctrine, to which, except the doctrine itself be previously admitted, they can have no relation.

Though I have said thus much by way of caution in the use of Scriptural language, I am far from wishing to discourage it. You had better use too much than too little.

It remains for me to add a few remarks on the sorts of words which are to be avoided. It is affected, and in bad taste, to invent new words, or to use those which are uncommon, if old and common ones would do as well. When words are wanted to express new ideas, great authors are allowed the privilege of coining them, and if approved, they afterwards pass current. But great authors should not capriciously exercise their privilege. Why should the able author of Lectures on Prophecy employ such uncommon words as "extravagate, deletion, excision, correption?" The use of old words in a new sense without just cause is also to be avoided. Horace's rule,

"Dixeris egregiè, notum si callida verbum
Reddiderit junctura novum,"

is good in poetry, where vivacity is the object; but does not apply equally to prose, especially sermonwriting, where perspicuity is of primary value.

Some writers are fond of coining adjectives out of proper names, or other substantives. Those which have become familiar from use do not offend the ear, as Mosaic, ante-diluvian. Mosaic is a good word, because it is taken in a sense not to be expressed otherwise, except by a periphrasis. The law of Moses would not correctly express the sense of the law given by God through Moses. But I do not see why the world before the flood is not in every respect as good as the ante-diluvian world, and in many respects better. There are other derivatives sanctioned by great names, as Adamic, .Paradisiacal," which, I must say, appear misplaced in the pulpit. Sometimes, however, as in the case of the word Mosaic just mentioned, it may be difficult to find a substitute.

66

Again, it is lawful, and often highly conducive to energy, to use compound words which could not, perhaps, be found in Johnson's Dictionary, or any standard author, as God-fearing, soul-encouraging, heartconsoling; but there are many strange and uncouth compounds and combinations which modern preachers have thought themselves privileged to adopt, as it seems to me entirely without use or reason, such as ‘out-putting, high-virtued, wrongously, battle-tug, wrathcup, creature-ship, topmost-marvel, the for ever and for ever of the Godhead." Some of these expressions would only have the effect of causing the congregation to lose two or three minutes in wonder and admiration, before they could again turn their thoughts to the

66

drift of the discourse. The objection to all these sorts of words is, that they savour of pedantry and affectation, which are amongst the worst faults in the pulpit.

LETTER XVII.

ON STYLE-AS DEPENDENT ON THE NUMBER

OF WORDS.

LET us now consider what effect on style is produced by the number of words;-still keeping in mind that the excellence of style in sermon-writing is, that it be clear, forcible, and not inelegant.

In the number of words employed, two extremes are to be avoided-too great conciseness, and excessive prolixity.

Long and short sentences ought to be interspersed, so as to relieve each other. It is very tiresome to hear a string of sentences about the same length, and uttered, with the same tone and cadence, like couplets of long and short verses in the mouth of a school-boy. But conciseness and prolixity depend, not so much on actual length or shortness, as on the diffuseness or condensation of matter. In some kinds of writing