above all with that great Being who is constantly promoting the welfare of his creatures. He should exert this persuasive influence, first by presenting the truths which impose on a man the obligation of striving to attain this perfect harmony with his own nature and with the universe; and secondly, by exciting the emotions, affections and desires which prompt the man to exert himself in the discharge of this duty; in reducing all his evil desires into a state of subordination to the authority of conscience, and in furnishing his fellow-men with the same advantages for outward and inward culture, which he himself enjoys. It is true, that in practice the communication of appropriate ideas cannot be separated from the attempt to awaken appropriate emotions; for all the powers and susceptibilities of man are so intimate in their union, that the operation upon one of them often involves an influence upon more than that one. But in theory, we may and must distinguish between an address to the percipient, and an address to the sensitive part of our natures. Although every motive is in one sense an argument, yet every argument is not a motive; and the immediate design, the first characteris. tic of a process of ratiocination is obviously different from that of an appeal to the feelings. The union of the convincing with the persuasive argument constitutes the truest eloquence, and the preacher should therefore aim at that comprehensive style of argumentation, which calls forth all the energies of the intellect, heart and will. In attempting to convince his hearers of the truth, the preacher should pursue the shortest and most simple course which the nature of his subject will allow. His object is to go as directly as possible to the hearts of his audience; therefore he will not stop longer with the intellect than the wants of the heart require. The philosopher seeks to prove the truth by all the arguments which can establish it; the orator, by such arguments as will be effectual in gaining the assent of the hearers. The former seeks especially for the fundamental proofs; the latter for such as, being valid, will produce the readiest and most indelible impression on the public mind. While the philosopher regards all arguments according to their intrinsic value, the orator regards them according to their relative worth. Therefore in producing a conviction in favor of some truths, the preacher will simply delineate the nature of the truths themselves, the lucid statement of them being a sufficient argument in their favor. Sometimes he will refer to the proof as already known, and will not 1846.] Argument from Testimony. 485 minutely analyze it; sometimes he will contrast the proposition to be established with its opposite, and will make the truth appear obvious by setting it over against the related error. Cicero places his arguments for the guilt of Clodius in ingenious contrast with those for the innocence of Milo, and the former reflect additional light upon the latter. Many sermons are written on a plan similar to this oration of Cicero pro Milone. Remembering that he is engaged in a practical colloquy with his audience, for the purpose of securing their consent to perform some specific duty, the preacher should endeavor to bring them up, as soon as possible, to the agreement which he desires them to make, and therefore should never detain them with needless argumentation, however curious, and should never like Dr. Barrow, manifest more desire for exhausting the subject, than for inciting to the specific act of the will. Especially, should he avoid all artificial, and apparently cunning processes of reasoning. He may forfeit the confidence of his hearers in his probity and fairmindedness, by allowing himself to pursue a circuitous course of argument, where he could take a straight one, or by resorting to any kind of dialectical trick. If he be really interested in the truth and in the welfare of his audience, the course of reasoning most suitable for convincing their minds will suggest itself to him spontaneously. Aeschines was less honestly and heartily engaged than Demosthenes in the case of Ctesiphon; therefore the reasoning of the former was far less natural, direct and cogent than the reasoning of the latter. The preacher should aim to select those arguments which his people, in their daily life, virtually allow to be valid, and the denial of which would involve them in self-contradiction; those arguments also which excite the imagination and the feelings as well as inform the intellect, and the definite, graphic statement of which will commend them at once to the belief. The sermons of Cyril of Jerusalem, and of Asterius, bishop of Amasea, abound with these forms of popular argumentation. The judicial orators of antiquity derived signal advantages for this species of reasoning, from the historical character of their speeches. The testimonies which they adduced were concrete and vivid exhibitions of principles which, being thus exemplified, did not require to be treated abstractly. Quinctilian and other ancient rhetoricians recommend the testimonia aliorum as the class of arguments most readily comprehended, and imparting the most lively conceptions of the facts to be proved. The preacher as well as the political VOL. III. No. 11. 43 orator, is at liberty to quote the opinions and appeal to the authority of men, as a means of commending the truth to his hearers, for they will be naturally influenced by the example of their fellow-beings, especially of the great and good. Reinhard, in his published discourses, gives many striking examples of this reference to human testimony. As many religious doctrines have their foundation in human experience, they can be properly illustrated and confirmed by human examples. The authority, however, to which the minister should most frequently appeal is that of the inspired authors. There is a natural tendency in the human mind not only to adopt a system of religious belief, but also to derive this system from positive instructions. Hence all religionists profess to have obtained their creed from some express testimony of superior beings. The Bible satisfies the Christian's demand for an outward corroboration of his faith. It gives a new influence to the teachings of the pulpit. It is, therefore, of more value than the testimony of witnesses to which the orators of Greece and Rome appealed. It affords more vivid, more quickening exemplifications of truth than can be obtained from merely scientific treatises. By no means, however, does it pre 1 See especially his sermon (Pred. 1795) on the expectation which a man feels that, after his decease, there will be an improvement in the state of society and of the times. After alluding to the fact that ancient prophets and kings died in the confident hope of a favorable change in the future destinies of the world, he says: "Permit me now to revive your recollections of that noble minded man, who more than a hundred years ago lived in this city, and adorned the offices which are at present committed to me, and died in the joyful hope that a better state of things would ensue after his demise. Philip James Spener is the venerable man whom I mean. All his life long, had he toiled, contended, suffered for the cause of Christian truth and godliness, and he had often received for his labors the ingratitude of his contemporaries. But the hope of a future improvement in the condition of society, the belief that God would surely cause virtue to triumph, was so active, so efficacious in the soul of the dying old man, that it was his last request to have not a thread of black put upon his corpse, for this is the color denoting sorrow. Clothed in white, he chose that his dead body should attest the cheerful hope with which he died, that a brighter day would soon dawn upon the world. Thou hast not hoped without reason, venerable witness for God! Much better has it gone, since thy times, and by means of thy labors and example! He on whom thou hast relied will perfect that which he has commenced in the name of his Son. Joy be with thee, and with all those who sleep as thou sleepest! May God permit us to labor, contend, hope and conquer as thou hast done." Such examples as these stimulate the hearer to resort to the same sources of right feeling and belief, which had proved so beneficial to the individuals quoted as authorities. They are suggestive and confirmatory arguments in favor of the truth, as well as persuasive arguments to the duty resulting from that truth. 1846.] Use of the Bible in Sermons. 487 clude, it rather sanctions, both by precept and example, the unremitted exercise of our own faculties in the various processes of induction and of deduction, in the search for religious truth through the departments of external nature, of human consciousness, of history and general science. The preacher should never hes itate to employ such philosophical arguments, as are needful for the nourishment of the minds of his audience and for the enforcement of evangelical doctrine. He should remember that the Bible communicates its instructions in the form of general princi ples, and therefore requires the free action of our own powers in applying these principles to the specific details of life. It was written in a style immediately adapted to its first readers or hearers, and consequently demands the application of a sound judgment in distinguishing the spirit of its assertions from the form of them. It is not, therefore, by simply quoting a multitude of biblical passages, that a minister produces a conviction in favor of sound doctrine. He must make the truth commend itself to every man's reason and conscience, by showing that it accords with the spirit of the Bible, and with the laws of the divine government. In what proportion he should quote specific texts of the inspired word, depends on the character of his audience and the nature of his theme. His invariable rule should be, to make no statement which is at variance with the moral aims of inspiration, and to exhibit truth in such a manner as to show that the Bible is his highest standard of appeal, and that he is penetrated with reverence for all its instructions. He should resort, first of all, to the records of the New Testament; for these present the most instructive realization, the most affecting embodiment of goodness in the person of our Redeemer, and are most immediately authoritative as witnesses for the Christian system. Still, he must not omit references to the Old Testament; for this teaches many doctrines which are presupposed in the gospels and epistles, furnishes the most important verbal illustrations of both the language and the spirit of those records, and is essential to the harmonious, diversified and comprehensive exhibition of evangelical truth. By showing the convergence of the Old and New Testaments to the particular doctrine which is under discussion, the preacher will make the biblical element predominant in his discourses, and will give them that persuasive power which comes from truth well fortified, even directly sanctioned by the Omniscient Father of us all. It is sometimes necessary that the minister prove, not only the truth of his doctrine by passages of Scripture, but also the correctness of the explanation which he gives of those passages. Often he has not sufficient authority over his people to make them receive his interpretation, without assigning a reason for it. In such cases, he is tempted to introduce a series of hermeneutitical remarks which are too recondite for the facile comprehension of his auditors, and which give to the intellectual, a decided preponderance over the practical character of his discourse. It is better for him to select such arguments in favor of his exposition as are founded on general principles, than such as are founded on verbal minutiae. He may exhibit the internal evidence which is afforded by the passage explained; the evidence derived from the design of uttering the text, the connection in which the words are found, the nature of the subject to which they refer. He may also exhibit the external evidence suggested by the passage; the evidence derived from comparing it with other passages of the Bible, from considering the character and circumstances of the person who uttered it, or the persons to whom it was addressed, the customs, and especially the modes of speaking prevalent in times when it was written. Herm. Niemeyer and Schuler have published excellent treatises on the rules for interpreting Scripture in the pulpit. See also Mosheim's Anweisung erbaulich zu predigen, 387 sq. 12. Different Methods in which the same kind of Arguments and Motives may be presented in a Discourse. The same argument may be exhibited in a great variety of styles; the parts of it being differently arranged, and the forms of statement being diversified, according to the various objects designed to be secured. It is sometimes advisable to begin a discussion with some very plain statement, from which a second may be easily derived, and from this second, a third; and thus, after a series of inferences, the main proposition of the discourse will present itself as virtually admitted in the preceding statements. This arrangement is called the Progressive or Synthetic, because it leads the mind forward from what is established to something new, and combines the conceded premises, one after another, into propositions which involve more or less distinctly the very idea which is the subject of the discourse. The sermon, being a dialogue between the preacher and his hearers, calls forth from their |