it ought to produce. There remains no true unity after such divisions, seeing they make two or three differ- ent discourses, which are joined into one only by an ar- bitrary connection. Three sermons preached at differ- ent times, if they be formed upon some regular concert- ed plan, make one piece or entire discourse as much as the three points of any of these sermons make one whole by being joined and delivered together." That Fene- lon, in the above quotation, was arguing against the abuses of division, rather than against proper plans of discourse, is sufficiently obvious from his own subse- quent directions as to the plan and development of a sermon. " We ought," said he, " at first to give a gen- eral view of our subject, and endeavor to gain the favor of the audience by a modest introduction, a respectful address, and the genuine marks of candor and probity. Then we should establish those principles on which we design to argue, and in a clear, easy, sensible manner, propose the principal facts we are to build on, insisting chiefly on those circumstances of which we intend to make use afterwards. From these principles and facts we must draw just consequences, and argue in such a clear and well-connected manner that all our proofs may support each other, and so be the more remembered. Every step we advance, our discourse ought to grow stronger, so that the hearers may gradually perceive the force and evidence of the truth ; and then we ought to display it in such lively images and movements as are proper to excite the passions." A following sentence discloses more definitely the view of Fenelon : " We ought to choose some method, but such a method as is not discovered and promised in the beginning of our discourse." In this he admits the importance, if not the necessity, of a plan, but denies the propriety of stat- ing the plan in advance. In respect to the latter item, it is safe to believe that different subjects and occasions may make different requisitions of the preacher — cir- cumstances not seldom occurring in which a lucid state- ment of plan may conduce greatly to the appropri- ate objects of a sermon. At other times and on other subjects, it may be better to carry the hearers insensi- bly along to conclusions, without disclosing the proc- esses or marking the steps by which the conclusions are reached. The governing principle in this matter should be that of adaptation. Hence any attempt to fix arbi- trary and unvarying rules must result in failure. But the preacher should not, on this account, make the mis- take of attempting to prepare and deliver sermons with- out plan. He should rather accustom himself to habits and forms of close logical analysis and synthesis, study- ing carefully the adaptation of the most available forms to different classes of subjects and occasions. By this means, he may rise above the necessity of loading down his mind with numerous rules, and attain not only facil- ity, but correctness of mental action in shaping his ad- dresses to the comprehension and the persuasion of his hearers. On this plan, an essential and ever-increasing variety, both in the form and matter of his discourses, may be secured ; while without it, or some similar mode of procedure, there is great danger of falling into ruts or grooves of thought which, however easy to the preacher, become trite and wearisome to hearers. If, then, his logical plans be set on fire with evangelical love and a consuming zejil in behalf of the souls of men, he will be able to produce sermons of the highest rhe- torical power.
According to all the best authorities, a sermon should have an organic structure — at least an introduction, an argument, and a conclusion. In cases of extreme brev- ity, the beginning and end of tlie argument may serve as the introduction and conclusion of the sermon. Whether and to what extent the principal and essential parts of a sermon should be marked with divisions and subdivisions should be determined with reference to the probability of oratorical effect. If they can be made to secure greater attention on the part of hearers, and to fasten clearer and deeper impressions on their minds, it
would be prudery to reject them. If, on the other hand, thej' would break the course of thought or mar the uni- ty of the sermon, it would be folly to employ them. So of any style of division, if found helpful and auxiliary to good results, it is to be cultivated. If it seem artifi- cial, redundant, or otherwise a hindrance to oratorical power, let it be sternly rejected.
2. Style. — The impracticability of prescribing fixed and arbitrary rules as to the language to be emploved in preaching is quite as great as in reference to plans of discourse. Nevertheless, there are not wanting im- portant principles to guide the composers of sermons, whether written or oral.
(1.) The language of a sermon should be prose, and not poetry.
(2.) All the essential qualities of a good prose style should be found in every sermon. Summarily stated, those qualities are purity, precision, perspicuity, unity, harmony, and strength. The lack of any one of those qualities may justly be counted as a defect in the style of any sermon. It belongs to the science of rhetoric to define and illustrate them severally, and also to give suggestions as to their attainment, their laws, and their special uses.