YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

LECTURES

ON

SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

AND

PULPIT ELOQUENCE.

BY THE LATE GEORGE CAMPBELL, D. D. F. R. S. Ed.
FEINCIPAL OF MARISCHAL COLLEGE, ABERDEEN.

TO WHICH ARE ADDED,
DIALOGUES ON ELOQUENCE,
BY M. DE FENELON, ARCHBISHOP OF CAMBRAY.

EDITED BY
HENRY J. RIPLEY,
PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE AND PASTORAL DUTIES
IN THE NEWTON THEOLOGICAL INSTITUTION.

BOSTON:
LINCOLN AND EDMANDS.
1832.

Entered according to act of Congress, in the year 1832,
By Lincoln & Edmands,
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts.

nc3

Ct55

PREFACE TO THE PRESENT EDITION.

To theological students and ministers in this country, a new
edition of the following work will, it is hoped, be highly acceptable.
The Lectures on Pulpit Eloquence are studied in one of the depart
ments of the Newton Theological Institution. For several years
the work has been out of print, and it has been found difficult to
procure the requisite number of copies. In consequence of a sug
gestion from my respected colleague. Professor Chase, I was
induced to undertake the present edition. My original design was,
that the Lectures on Pulpit Eloquence should be published without
the Lectures on Systematic Theology ; for the latter course of
Lectures pertains to studies different from those in regard to which
I have a responsibility, and the two series are not, from the nature
of the subjects, necessarily connected.
Another perusal, however, of the Lectures on Systematic The
ology has made me unwilling to lose the present opportunity for
extending their influence. They inculcate the true mode in which
the study of theology should be conducted. This study has been
too long and too much pursued without- a thorough and an impar
tial investigation of the pure word of God. And though all have
joined in the declaration, 'The Bible, the Bible only, is the religion
of Protestants,' yet who, of only ordinary opportunities for obser
vation, can have failed to perceive that the spirit of this declaration
has not thoroughly pervaded even favored places of theological
study ? Of the impropriety here alluded to, we have all been
guilty ; we have all too much neglected ' the law and the testimo
ny,' and have too much depended upon human authorities for not
a few modes of thinking and of expression.
Deeply impressed with the correctness and the value of the
sentiments contained in these Lectures on Systematic Theology, I
have thought it desirable that they should be perpetuated. This

iv EDITOR'S PREFACE.
desire was also somewhat increased by the fact, that the Theologi
cal Institution with which 1 have the happiness to be connected,
has adopted a course of study very similar to that which Dr. Camp
bell recommends ; a course, which does not require a connected
scheme of theology to be forraed by the student, till he shall have
carefully studied in the original languages, the whole of the New
Testament and the most important portions of the Old.
It has, however, been thought best to republish only the first of
those Lectures which have been placed, in other editions, at the
commencement of the volume, and which have been entitled Intro
ductory Discourses. The omission of these Discourses will be
satisfactory to all, when it is stated that, with the exception of the
first, they are almost throughout of a local nature, having reference
to the peculiar state of things in the established church of Scotland,
and in the college at Aberdeen, of which the author was Principal.
For the same reason, the first paragraph in the first Lecture on
Systematic Theology has been omitted.
The Lectures on Pulpit Eloquence need no recommendation.
During the several years in which I have given instruction in the
departraent of Pastoral Duties, I have met with nothing so well
adapted to prepare a student for the composition of sermons. This,
however, does not imply that every thing contained in these Lec
tures is indispensable, or is. in fact just as it should be. Sorae may
doubt the utility of the author's exact distribution of sermons into
the various kinds which he mentions. Some, again, may fear that
sermons executed according to his directions would be like marble
statues, graceful indeed, and polished, yet destitute of living expres
sion. But of what system of directions on any subject, as used
by a beginner, raay not the sarae complaint be made ? Shall the
artist then refuse to study rules? Shall we have no books on rhet
oric 1 It requires no uncommon share of good sense either in a
student or an instructer, least of all in the affectionate pastor, to
derive the conteraplated benefit from a systera of directions, and,
at the same time, to avoid the stiffness of scholastic rule. Experi
ence will soon render the application of rules easy ; and to the cor
rectness which the study of rules may impart, will add a happy
adaptation to the characters and circumstances of men. For this
adaptation, as for true eloquence, 'labor and learning may toil, but
they will toil in vain. They cannot compass it. It must exist in
the man ;' and it can be cherished and perfected only by his cont-

EDITOR'S PREFACE. V
ing into contact with his fellow-men. He must be a slow leamer
indeed who does not soon discover, that one of the most important
rules for preparing profitable sermons in the actual stateof a minis
ter's people is, not to bn so fettered by any rules respecting the
choice of a subject or text, or respecting the manner of discussion,
as to be prevented from embracing a favorable opportunity for
impressing religious truth. A correct acquaintance with the Scrip
tures, a mind deeply imbued with tbeir sentiments, good common
sense, an affectionate solicitude fbr the salvation of men, an abid-
ing sense of responsibility to God, are the grand requisites for use
ful preaching. And did a man possessing these, never read For
dyce, Claude, or Campbell, he stiil might become a highly valuable
minister ofthe gospel. But ofthe utility of some helps in this part
of the minister's duty, who can doubt ? That helps have been
sought to an extreme, is painfully evident from the fact that such
books as Simeon's Skeletons and Hannam's Pulpit Assistant,
have found purchasers. The other extreme would be, for an un
practised man to neglect all helps. A suitable mediura is furnished
by Dr. Campbell, whose directions proceed from a correct view of
human nature, and are adapted to call forth and sharpen the mental
powers of the preacher.
In preparing this edition, ray aim has been to make the work
more fitted to students in this country, and more profitable to those
whose studies have not extended beyond their own language. In
former editions, sentences occur in the Latin language without a
translation. These are now made intelligible to the mere English
reader. The last paragraph of the Introductory Discourse has been
omitted, as it only contained the author's reasons for not writing
his Lectures in Latin. In the third and fourth of the Lectures on
Pulpit Eloquence, as published in former editions, are remarks spe
cially adapted to natives of Scotland ; in these two Lectures six
sentences have been omitted as not applicable in this country, and
four others have been modified so as to retain what would be uni
versally applicable. In the same Lectures, for the word elocution
the word expression has been substituted, a word used by Dr. Camp
bell as conveying essentially the same idea as he intended to convey
by the word elocution. But as the vvord elocution has now an en
tirely different meaning, no doubt were Dr. Campbell living, he
himself would employ a different word. The reader who is accus
tomed to Dr. Campbell's style, will also perceive that the pronoun
I

vi EDITOR'S PREFACE.
you, for the nominative plural, has been substituted for the anti
quated ye. A few other peculiarities of Dr. Campbell which occur
in this work, it was not thought expedient to alter.
The excellence of Fenelon's Dialogues concerning Eloquence,
their general agreement with the sentiments of Dr. Campbell's
Lectures, and their more ample discussion of certain topics con
nected with preaching, render their insertion in this volume quite
appropriate. These Dialogues Dr. Doddridge has called ' incom
parable dialogues on eloquence ; which,' he remarks, ' may God
put it into the hearts of our preachers often and attentively to read.'
It will be perceived that the copious Greek and Latin notes intro
duced by Fenelon are not translated. The reasons for not trans
lating them are simply these. The reader who is acquainted with
merely the English language, is not embarrassed by them, and does
not, in consequence of them, lose any of the author's thoughts.
The classical reader will also perceive, that the notes, for the most
part, express the same ideas as are expressed in the text, and seem
intended by Fenelon as confirmations of his sentiments, derived
from the distinguished writers of antiquity ; or rather, as proofs
that he drew his notions of eloquence frora the great masters of
oratory.
H. J. RIPLEY.
Newton Theological Institution,
February, 1832.

ADVERTISEMENT

TO THE FIRST EDITION.

The favourable reception of the Lectures on Ecclesiastical His
tory, and the desire of many to have an opportunity of perusing
Dr. Campbell's prelections on the other branches of his theological
courses, have led to the publication of the following work. The
Lectures on Ecclesiastical History the author had prepared for the
press, having carefully transcribed and corrected them. The pre
lections now published were coraposed for the benefit of the stu
dents of divinity in Marischal College, without any view to publica
tion. They were first delivered in the years 1772 and 1773, and
the author continued, during his professorship, to read them to the
students, as they had been at first composed. Indeed, they were
written so closely as to admit very little addition or alteration.
But though they want the benefit of the author's corrections,
the language, it is presumed, will not be found very deficient in
that of perspicuity, precision and accuracy, which distinguished Dr.
Campbell as a writer. His other acknowledged qualities as an
author, the judicious and attentive reader will not be at a loss to
discern. He will discover in this volume great ingenuity with
no affectation of singularity, freedom and impartiality of spirit

8 ADVERTISEMENT.
witbout any propensity to fabricate new theories, acuteness of un
derstanding without precipitancy or impatience in judging ; en
dowments perhaps rare, but of the first importance in theological
discussions. To students of theology these discourses will be highly useful.
They are more of a practical nature, than his lectures formerly
published, and they abound in valuable counsels and remarks. From
this volume and frora the author's work on the Gospels, the student
will learn, both by precept and example, how his industry and in
genuity may be most profitably employed.
The greater part of the abstract theological questions, which
have afforded matter of inexhaustible contention, and the pre
carious speculations of some of our late intrepid theorists in reli
gion. Dr. Campbell regarded as worse than unprofitable. In these
theorists he observed a fundamental mistake, in regard to the
proper province of the reasoning faculty. Impatience in judging,
he thought, was another great source of the evil alluded to.
" Some people," he remarks in his last preliminary dissertation
to his work on the Gospels, " have so strong a propensity to forra
fixed opinions on every subject to which they turn their thoughts,
that their mind will brook no delay. They cannot bear to
doubt or hesitate. Suspense in judging is to them more in
sufferable, than the manifest hazard of judging wrong." He
adds a little after, " In questions, which have appeared to me,
either unimportant, or of very dubious solution, I have thought
it better to be silent, than to amuse the reader, with those remarks
in which I have myself found no satisfaction." Never could teach
er, with a better grace, recommend a patient cautiousness in judg
ing. His premises, which are often of greater iraportance than a
superficial reader is aware of, are commonly sure ; the proper and
obvious inferences he often leaves to the reader to deduce. The
conclusions, which the author draws, are so well limited, and ex
pressed in terms so precise, and so remote from the ostentatious

ADVERTISEMENT.

9

and dogmatical manner, that the attentive reader is inclined to
think, that he sometimes achieves more than he had led us to
expect. On questions that have been rendered intricate by using scrip
tural terms in a sense merely modern, and of such questions the
number is not small. Dr. Campbell's clearness of apprehension,
critical acuteness and patience of research, have enabled him to
throw a good deal of light. The Lectures on Ecclesiastical
History afford some striking examples of his success in this way.
And his work on the Gospels abounds in illustrations of scripture,
that raay be of great utility in reforming our style in sacred mat
ters, aud in shortening, if not deciding, many theological ques
tions. Some good judges have no hesitation in saying, that they
never saw the scripture terms heresy and schism, well explained,
till they read Dr. Campbell's Preliminary Dissertations. Former
writers had been so far misled by the common and modern ac
ceptation of the terms, as to include error in doctrine as essential
to the notion of heresy, and to make a separation from coramu
nion in religious offices the distinguishing badge of schism. The
primitive and genuine import of the words is so clearly ascertain
ed by the author, that if a person unacquainted with the ecclesi
astical and comparatively modern language were to read the dis
sertation, he would wonder, that there should ever have been
any difficulty or difference of opinion on the question. This is
only one instance out of many that might be produced from the
same work, in which the reader will find the obscurity, wherein a
subject was formerly involved, vanish entirely, and the genuine
conceptions of the most venerable antiquity unfolded to his view.
When that great work is understood and studied with the atten
tion it merits, may it not be expected to have considerable influ
ence, in leading men to look for the good old paths, that may have
been long untrodden, and known but to few ?
In the preface to the work above quoted, speaking of expositors
of Scripture, the author has the following remark, " If I can safely

10 ADVERTISEMENT.
reason from experience, I do not hesitate to say, that the least dog
matica], the most diffident oftheir own judgment, and moderate in
their opinion of others, will be ever found the most judicious.'' To
judge by this criterion, few authors have a better claim to our con
fidence than Dr. Campbell. Few have seen the right track so
clearly, and few have advanced in it with a firraer step.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE.
Of the Science of Theology, and its several Branches, .... 13
OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.
LECTURE I.
Of the Study of Natural Rehgion, and of the Evidences of
Christianity,   23
LECTURE II.
Of the Christian System— the Scriptures ought to be the first
Study — afterwards Systems and Commentaries may be occa
sionally consulted — bad Consequences of beginning the Study
of Theology with Systems and Comraentaries,  33
LECTURE III.
How the Student ought to set about the Examination of the
Scriptures — Directions for forming an Abstract of the Doctrine
of Holy Writ,  42
LECTURE IV.
Directions for forming a System of Christian Morality. Ad
vantages of the Method recommended,  56
LECTURE V.
Subject continued. The Knowledge of the Scriptures the most
essential Part ofthe Study. How far the Study of Controversy
demands our Attention,  68
LECTURE VI-
Method of prosecuting our Inquiries in Polemic Divinity — The
Use to be made of Scholia, Paraphrases, and Commentaries —
Danger of relying on Human Guidance in matters of Religion, 80
ON PULPIT ELOQUENCE.
LECTURE I.
Importance of the Study, and Objections against it answered —
Helpsforthe Attainment of the Art,  93

12 CONTENTS.
LECTURE II.
Ofthe Sentiraent in Pulpit Discourses, .

100

LECTURE III.
Ofthe Expression,  ^^^
LECTURE IV.
Of Pronunciation,   US
LECTURE v.
Discourses distributed into various Kinds, as addressed to the
Understanding, the Imagination, thePassions, and the Will, . 129
LECTURE VI.
Of the Composition of Lectures,  1-39
LECTURE VII.
Of explanatory Sermons — The Choice of a Subject and of Texts, 149
LECTURE VIII.
Of explanatory Sermons — the Introduction — Exposition of the
Text — Partition of the subject. Unity a principal Requisite
in the Subject — how this is to be preserved — Offences against
Unity,  159
LECTURE IX.
Of explanatory Sermons — how the Branches should be arranged
and treated — ofthe Style — technical Language to be avoided
and that of Scripture preferred — Abuse of Scripture style — of
the Conclusion,   170
LECTURE X.
Of controversial Discourses — Candour and Simplicity ever to
be studied in the defence of truth, .......... 178
LECTURE XI.
Of commendatory Discourses, or those addressed to the Im
agination,  188
LECTURE XII.
Of pathetic Discourses, or those addressed to the Passions.
Of persuasive Discourses, or such as are intended to operate
on the Will  197

LECTURE S.

INTRODUCTORY DISCOURSE.
Of the Science of Theology, and its several Branches.
That we may discover what is necessary for the acquisition of
any science, we ought to consider attentively the end for which it
is made the object of our pursuit. If the ultimate end be knowl
edge, or that entertainment which the mind derives from the per
ception of truth, the properest plan of teaching must be very differ
ent from that which ought to be adopted, when the end is practice.
And as this last admits a subdivision (for there may be practical
ends of very different sorts) the method best adapted to one sort
may not be the best adapted to another.
I explain myself by an example, which comes directly to the
point in hand. The Christian theology may be studied, first, like
any other branch of liberal education, in order to gratify a laudable
curiosity ; or, secondly, to qualify us for acting the part of Chris
tians, by practising the duties "of the Christian life ; or, lastly, to
qualify us fbr discharging the office of Christian pastors. It is man
ifest, that if, for answering properly the first of these purposes, a
good deal more is requisite, than would suffice for attaining the
second, yet much less is necessary for the accomplishment of both
these ends, than for answering the third. With regard to the first,
which terminates in the acquisition of knowledge, theology is now
very rarely, if ever, in this country, studied, like other sciences,
purely for its own sake, as a part of genteel education, which, (ab
stracting from its utility) is both ornamental and entertaining.
2

14 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
Why it is not, though we may trace the causes, no good reason
that I know of can be assigned. And with regard to the second
view of teaching, namely to promote the practice of the duties of
Christian life, every minister of a parish is thus far a professor of
divinity, and every parishioner is, or ought to be, thus far a student.
It is, I may say, solely for the third purpose, the most comprehen
sive of all, to fit us for the discharge of the duties ofthe pastoral of
fice, that theological schools with us have been erected. I say this
end is the most comprehensive of all. The least of what is required
in the Christian pastor, is, that be may be qualified for discharging
the several duties of the Christian life ; for in these he ought to be
an ensample to the flock. Further, whatever, in respect of knowl
edge, supplies the materials necessary for edifying, comforting, and
protecting from all spiritual danger the people that may be cora
mitted to his charge, or is of use for defending the cause of his
Master, must evidently be a proper study for the man who intends
to enter into the holy ministry. Again, whatever may enable him
to make a proper application of those acquisitions in knowledge, so
as to turn them to the best account for the benefit of his people, is
not less requisite. To little purpose will it be for him to be possessed
of the best materials, if he have not acquired the skill to use them.
The former we may call the theory ofthe profession; thelatterthe
practice. That both are necessary is manifest. The first without
the second, however considerable, may be compared to wealth witb
out economy. It will not be found near so beneficial to the owner,
and those who depend on him for their support, as a more scanty store
would be, where this virtue is understood and practised in perfec
tion. Nor will the second do entirely without the first ; for the
best economy in the world can be of no value, where there is no
subject to be exercised upon. Hence arises a two-fold division of
what is proper to be taught to all who have made choice of this
profession, a division which merits your particular attention. The
first regards purely the science of theology, the second the appli
cation of that science to the purposes ofthe Christian pastor.
Under what concerns the science, I would comprehend all that
knowledge in relation to our holy religion, which serves iramedi
ately to illustrate, to confirm, or to recommend it. I say, vmmedi-
ately, because there are several acquisitions in literature v/hich the
Christian divine ought previously to have made, and which are not
only important, but even necessary in the way of preparation,
though the connection of some ofthem with the Christian theology

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 15
may, upon a superficial view, appear remote. Such are the Latin
tongue, moral philosophy, pneumatology, natural theology, and even
history, both ancient and modern, but especially the former. But
though several branches of knowledge may contribute legs or more
to all the different purposes of illustrating, confirming and recom
mending religion, it is evident that some studies are more directly
adapted to one of these purposes, and others to another.
Let us begin with the illustration of our religion. It is proper
to acquire a right apprehension of the subject, before we consider
either its evidence, or what may serve to recommend it. The
knowledge of the Christian theology, in the strictest sense of the
word, is no doubt principally to be sought for in the books of the
New Testament. It was for the publication of this religion through
out the world, that these books were originally written. They
contain the doctrine which first our Lord Jesus Christ hiraself,
afterwards his apostles in his name, by their preaching, promul
gated to mankind. As those great events, which make the subject,
and serve as a foundation to the whole, were not accomplished till
the ascension of our Lord, Christianity as a religious institution,
authoritatively given by the Almighty to the human race, may be
considered as commencing from the descent of the Holy Ghost on
the Apostles on the day of Pentecost, as recorded in the second
chapter of the Acts of the Apostles.
I said, that the knowledge of our religion was principally to be
learnt from the books ofthe Nevv Testament, but neither entirely
nor solely from these books. In these, there are frequent refer
ences to the doctrines contained, fhe precepts given, and the facts
recorded, in other books of an older date, as comprising also a di
vine revelation supposed to be already known, and therefore not
always quoted, when referred to, so as fo be engrossed in the writ
ings of the disciples of our Lord. These are the books ofthe Old
Testaraent. Though both are of divine authority, and though each
is eminently useful to the right understanding ofthe other, there is
this difference in the reception due to them from Christians. The
import ofthe declarations and the obligation of the precepts in the
scriptures ofthe Old Testament are more properly to be interpreted
and limited by those ofthe New, than the declarations and precepts
ofthe scriptures of the New Testament can be by thoseof the Old.
The reason is obvious. The Mosaic dispensation was introductory
and subordinate to the Christian, to which it pointed, and in which it
had its consummation. It was no other than the dawn of that light,.

16 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
which by the coming of Jesus Christ has arisen on the nations in
all its glory. Things necessarily obscure in the former are cleared
up by the latter. From this also we learn to distinguish things of
temporary, from things of perpetual obligation. It happens in sev
eral instances, that what was incumbent under the weakness ofthe
first economy, is superseded by the perfection of the last.
Now for attaining a more perfect knowledge of the scriptures,
none will question the utility of studying carefully those languages
in which they were originally composed. These are especially the
Hebrew and the Greek. I say especially, because a small part of
the Old Testament is written in the Chaldee, which ought rather
perhaps to be considered as a sister dialect of the Hebrew, than as
a different tongue.
The books of the Old Testament are the only books extant,
which are written in Vhe genuine ancient Hebrew. And though
the writings of the New Testament make, in respect to size, but
an inconsiderable part of what is written in Greek, their style, or
rather idiom, has something in it so peculiar, that neither the
knowledge of the elements of the language, nor an acquaintance
with the Greek classics, will always be sufficient to remove the dif
ficulties that may occur, and to lead us to the right understanding
ofthe sacred text. To this the knowledge of the Hebrew will be
found greatly subservient : for as the penmen of the New Testa
ment were of the Jewish nation, and had early been accustomed to
the manner and phraseology of the Septuagint, a literal version of
the Old Testament into Greek ; fhere is a peculiarity in their
idiom, to be master of which requires an intimate acquaintance
with that people's manner of thinking (and in this every people has
something peculiar) as well as a critical attention to their turn of
expression, both in their native tongue, and in that most ancient
translation. Leaving therefore the rudiments of those tongues, as
what ought to be studied under their several professors, or privately
with the help of books, I shall consider what may be necessary, for
begetting and improving in us a critical discernment in both, as
far as holy writ is concerned. What is necessary for the attain
ment of this end I shall comprehend uuder the name of biblical
criticism. This I consider as the first branch of the theoretical
part ofthe study of theology, and as particulaily calculated for the
elucidation of our religion, by leading us to the true meaning of
the sacred volume, its acknowledged source.

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 17
Again, the Christian revelation comprising a most important nar
rative of a series of events, relating to the creation, the fall, the re
covery, and the eternal state of man ; and the three first of these
including a period of some thousands of years now elapsed, and be
ing intimately connected with the history of a particular nation,
during a great part ofthat time ; the knowledge ofthe polity, laws,
customs, and memorable transactions of that nation, must be of
considerable consequence to the theological student, both for the
illustration and for the confirmation of the sacred books. On the
other hand, it will not be of less consequence for the confirmation
of our religion, and the recommendation of this study, by render
ing our knowledge in divinity raore extensively useful, that we be
acquainted also with those events, which the propagation and estab
lishment of Christianity have given rise to, from its first publication
by the apostles, to the present time. The whole of this branch we
may denominate sacred liistory , which naturally divides itsplf into
two parts, the Jewish and the ecclesiastical, or that which preced
ed, and that which has followed, the comraenceraent of the gospel
dispensation. Further, as the great truihs and precepts of our religion are not
arranged methodically in sacred writ, in the form of an art or sci
ence, but are disclosed gradually, as it suited the ends of Provi
dence, and pleased the Divine Wisdom to reveal them, and as some
of the truths are explained and the duties recommended in some re
spect incidentally, as time and circumstances have given the occa
sion, it is of consequence that the theological student should have
it in his power to contemplate them in their natural connexion, and
thus be enabled to perceive both the mutual dependence of the
parts and the symmetry of the whole. Arrangement, every one
acknowledges, is a very considerable help both to the understand
ing and to the memory ; and the raore simple and natural the ar
rangement is, the greater is the assistance which we derive from it.
There are indeed few arts or sciences which raay not be digested
into different methods; and each method may have advantages pe
culiar to itself; yet in general it may be affirmed, that that ar
rangeraent will answer best upon the whole, wherein the order of
nature is most strictly adhered to, and wherein nothing is taught
previously, which presupposes the knowledge of what is to be ex
plained afterwards. This branch of study I call the Christian sys
tem ; and it is commonly considered as the science of theology,
strictly so called ; the other branches, however indispensable, being

18 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
more properly subservient to the attainment of this, than this can,
with any propriety, be said lo be to them.
Nor is it any objection either against holy writ on the one hand,
or against this study on the other, that there is no. -Such digest of
the doctrines and precepts of our religion exhibited in the Bible.
It is no objection against holy writ, because to one who considers
attentively the whole plan of Providence regarding the redemption
and final restoration of man, it will be evident, that in order to the
perfecting ofthe whole, the parts must have been unveiled success
ively and by degrees, as the scheme advanced towards its comple
tion. And if the doctrines tobe believed and the duties to be prac
tised are delivered there with sufficient clearness, we have no rea
son to complain ; nor is it for us to prescribe rules to Infinite Wis
dom. On the other hand, it is no objection against this study, or
the attempt to reduce the articles of our religion into a systematic
form, that they are not thus methodically digested in the Bible. Holy
writ is given us, that it may be used by us for our spiritual instruc
tion and improvement ; reason is given us to enable us to raake the
proper use of both the temporal and the spiritual benefits which
God hath seen meet to bestow. The conduct of the beneficent
Father of the universe is entirely analogous in both. He confers
liberally the raaterials or raeans of enjoyment, he gives the capacity
of using them, at the same time he requires the exertion ofthat ca
pacity, that so the advantages he has bestowed may be turned by
us to the best account. We are then at liberty, nay it is our duty,
to arrange the doctrine of holy writ in such a way, as may prove
most useful in assisting us, both to understand and to retain it.
It has been objected more plausibly against every atterapt of re
ducing the principles and precepts of religion to an order, which
may be called raerely human and artificial, that it has but too plain
a tendency to stint the powers of the mind, biasing it in favour of
a particular set of opinions, infusing prejudices against what does
not perfectly tally with a system perhaps too hastily adopted, and
fomenting a spirit of dogmatism whereby we are led to pronounce
positively on points which scripture has left undecided, or to which
perhaps our faculties are not adapted. That this has often been tbe
consequence on the mind of the systematic student, is a lamentable
truth, which experience but too clearly evinces. On inquiry, how
ever, it will generally be found to have arisen not so much from the
study itself, of which it is by no means a necessary consequence,
as from something wrong in the manner of conducting it. Let us

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 19
then, like wise men, guard against the abuse without renouncing
the use, that is, without relinquishing the advantage which may re
sult from this study properly pursued.
And the more effectually to guard us against this abuse, let us
habitually attend to the three following important considerations.
First, that every truth contained in divine revelation, or deducible
from it, is not conveyed with equal perspicuity, nor is in itself of
equal importance. There are some things so often, and so clearly
laid down in scripture, that hardly any, who profess the belief of
revealed religion, pretend to question them. About these, there is
no controversy in the church. Such are the doctrines ofthe unity,
the spirituality, the natural and moral attributes ofGod, the creation,
preservation and governraent of the world by him ; the principal
events in the life of Jesus Christ, as well as his crucifixion, re
surrection and ascension, the doctrine of a future judgment, heav
en and hell, together with all those moral truths which exhibit the
great outlines of our duty to God, our neighbour and ourselves. In
general it will be found, that what is of most importance to us to be
acquainted with and believed, is oftenest and most clearly inculcar
ted ; and that, as we find, there are degrees in belief as well as in
evidence, it is a very natural and just conclusion, that our belief in
those points is most rigorously required, which are notified to us in
scripture, with the clearest evidence. The more is exacted where
much is given, the less, where little is given. The dogmatist knows
nothing of degrees, either in evidence or in faith. He has prop
erly no opinions or doubts. Every thing with him is either certain
ly true, or certainly false. Of this turn of mind I shall only say,
tbat far from being an indication of vigour, it is a sure indication of
debility in the intellectual powers.
A second consideration is, that many questions will be found to
have been agitated among theologians, as to which the scriptures
when examined with impartiality, cannot be said to have given a
decision on either side ; though, were we to judge from the misrep
resentations of the controvertists themselves, we should be led to
conclude, that contradictory decisions had been given, which equally
favoured both sides. It has not been duly attended to by any party,
that a revelation from God was not given us, to make us subtle
metaphysicians, dexterous at solving abstruse and knotty questions,
but to make us good men, to inform us of our duty, and to supply
us with the most plain and most cogent motives to a due observance
ofit. From both the above observations, we should learn, at least.

20 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
to be modest in our conclusions, and not over dogmatical or deci
sive, in regard to matters which may be justly styled of doubtful
disputation or of deep research.
The third consideration is, never to think ourselves entitled,
even in cases which we may imagine very clear, to form uncharita
ble judgments of those who think differently. I am satisfied that
such judgments on our part are unwarrantable in every case. Of
the truth of any tenet said to be revealed, we must judge according
to our abilities, before we can believe ; but as to the motives by
which the opinions of others are influenced, or oftheir state in God's
account, that is no concern of ours. Our Lord Jesus alone is'ap-
pointed of God the judge of all men ; and are we presumptuous
enouoh to think ourselves equal to the office, and to anticipate his
sentence? "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant?
To his own master he standeth or falleth." When Peter obtruded
upon his Master a question of mere curiosity, and said concerning
his fellow disciple, "What shall becorae of this raan?" he was
aptly checked by his Lord, and raade to attend to what nearly con
cerned himself, " What is that to thee ? Follow thou me."
Once more. It has been the fate of religion, from the begin
ning, to meet with contradiction. Not only have the divinity (and
consequently the truth) ofthe whole been controverted, but several
important articles thereof have been made the subject of disputation,
and explained by different persons and parties in ways contradicto
ry to one another ; therefore that the student raay be enabled, on
this momentous subject, to distinguish truth from error, and to de
fend the former against the most subtle attacks of its adversaries,
the patrons of the latter ; it is necessary for him to be acquainted
with theological controversy, which is the fourth and last branch
of the theory of theology.
I vVould not be understood to mean by this, a thorough knowl
edge 6f all the disputes that have ever arisen in the church. Such
a task would be both endless and unprofitable. Ofmany of these,
it is sufficient to learn from church history, that such questions have
been agitated, and what have been the consequences. To enter fur
ther into the affair will be found a great waste of time to little purpose.
But it is a matter of considerable consequence to us, to be able to
defend both natural and revealed religion against the attacks of in
fidels, and 'to defend its fundamental principles against those who,
though in general they agree with us as to the truth of Christianity,

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 21
are disposed to controvert some of its doctrines. A more particu
lar acquaintance theiefore with the disputes and questions in theolo
gy ofthe age and country vi'herein we live, and vvith the distinguish
ing tenets of the different sects, with which we are surrounded, is
necessary to the divine, not only in point of decency, but even for
self defence.
If must be owned at the same time, that this thorny path of con
troversy is the most unpleasant in all the walks of theology. It is
not unpleasant only, but unless trodden with great circumspection,
it is also dangerous. Passion, it has been justly said, begets pas
sion, words beget words. It is extremely difficult to preserve mod
eration, when one is opposed vvith bigotry ; or evenness of temper,
when one is encountered with fury. The love of victory is but too
apt to supplant in our breasts the love of knowledge, and in the
confusion, dust and smoke, raised by the combatants, both sides
often lose sight of truth. These considerations are not mentioned
to deter any of you from this part ofthe study, but to excite all of
you to come to it properly prepared, candid, circumspect, modest,
attentive, and cool. It has been truly and ingeniously observed,
that the ministers of religion are much in the same situation with
those builders, who, in rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem, whilst
they worked with one hand, were, on account oftheir enemies from
whom they were continually in danger, obliged to hold a weapon
with the other.
Let it here be remarked, that these two last branches, the Chris
tian system and polemic divinity, though perfectly distinct in their
nature, are almost universally and very commodiously joined to
gether in the course of study. The consideration of every separate
article of religion is aptly accompanied with the consideration of
its evidence; and the consideration of its evidence necessarily re
quires the consideration of those objections, which arise from a dif
ferent representation of the doctrine. Thus the great branches of
the theoretic part of this profession, though properly four in their
nature, are, in regard to the manner in which they may be most
conveniently learnt, justly reducible to three, namely. Scripture
Criticism, Sacred History, and Theological Controversy. These
are sufficient to complete the character of the theologian, as the
word is commonly understood ; who is precisely what our Lord has
denominated " a scribe instructed unto the kingdom of heaven,
3

22 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
who can, like a provident householder, bring out of his treasure,
new things and old.''
But even what is sufficient to constitute an able divine, is, though
a most essential part, yet not all that is necessary to make a useful
pastor. The furniture has been pointed out, but not the applica
tion. In the former, we may say, lies the knowledge of the pro
fession, but in the latter, the skill.

OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.

LECTURE I.
Of the Study of Natural Religion, and of the Evidences of Christianity.
AS to the order in which our theological inquiries ougbt to be
conducted, it may not be improper to observe here in the entry,
that religion hath been often and not unaptly divided into natural
and revealed. The former of these, subdivides itself into other two
parts, namely, what concerns the nature and providence of God,
and what concerns the duties and prospects of man. The first of
these is commonly called natural theology; the second, ethics;
both comprised under the science oi pneumatology, whereof they
are indeed the most sublime and most important parts ; and which
science is itself a branch of philosophy, in the largest acceptation
of the word, as importing the interpretation of nature. That to a
certain degree the knowledge of divine attributes and of human
obligations are discoverable by the light of nature, scripture itself
always presupposeth. As to the former, "the heavens," we are
told, "declare the glory of God, and the firmaraent sheweth his,
handywork." Again, " the invisible things of Hira from the crea
tion ofthe world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things
that are raade, even his eternal power and godhead." Nay our
raethods of arguing on this subject from the effect to the cause,
scripture itself disdains not to adopt and authenticate. " He that
planted the ear, shall he not hear ? He that formed the eye, shall
he not see ?" And as to the latter, the duties incumbent on men,
our Bible in like manner informs us that " when the Gentiles who
have n"bt the (written) law do by nature the things contained in the
law, these having not the law, are a law to themselves; who
show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience
also bearing witness, and their thoughts meanwhile accusing or

24 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
else excusing one another." Now in strictness of speech neither
natural theology nor raoral philosophy, nor (which is also some
times comprehended under the same general name) the doctrines
ofthe immateriality and natural immortality of the soul, fall within
my province, as a teacher of Christian theology. They are in fact
preliminary studies, and constitute a part of the philosophic course.
It is however necessary, in order both to prevent mistakes and to
obviate objections, to observe, that I do by no means intend to insin
uate, that these studies are unconnected with the Christian system,
and therefore unnecessary. On the contrary, I think thera of the
utmost consequence. As it is the same God (for there is no other)
who is the author of nature and the author of revelation, who speaks
to us in the one by his works, and in the other by his Spirit, it be-
.comes his creatures reverently to hearken to his voice, in whatever
manner he has pleased to address them. Now the philosopher is
by profession the interpreter of nature — that is, ofthe language of
God's works, as the Chrisfian divine is the interpreter of scripture —
that is, ofthe language of God's Spirit. Nor da I mean to signify,
that there is not in many things a coincidence in the discoveries
made in tbese two different ways. The conclusions may be the
same, though deduced, and justly deduced, from different premises.
The result raay be one, when the methods of investigation are
widely different. There is even a considerable utility in pursuing
both methods, as what is clear in the one, rnay serve to enlighten
what is obscure in the other. And both have their difficulties and
their obscurities. The most profound philosopher will be the most
ready to acknowledge that there are phenomena in nature for which
he cannot account ; and that divine, you may depend upon it,.
whatever be his attainraents, hath more arrogance than either
knowledge or wisdom, wbo will not admit, that there are many texts
in scripture which he cannot explain. Nor does this in the least cofl-
tradict the protestant doctrine of the perspicuity of sacred writ ; for
though everything which proceeds frora God, it must be of conse
quence to us to be acquainted with, and therefore requires diligent
attention,, especially from the minister ofhis word, yet all the truths
revealed are not of equal consequence, as we learn from scripture
itself. The most important things are still the plainest, and set in
the greatest variety of lights. Now if God is pleased to address us
in two different languages, neither ofwhich is without its difficul
ties, we may find considerable assistance in comparing both for
semaving the difficulties of each. But though, as I observed, nat-

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 25
ural theology and ethics are strictly the province ofthe philosopher,
it raay not be amiss, to suggest in a few words concerning the
former, that the use of reading elaborate demonstrations ofthe be
ing and perfections ofGod, is more perhaps to fix our attention on
the object, than to give conviction to the understanding. The nat
ural evidences of true theism are among the simplest, and at the
same time the clearest deductions from the effect to the cause.
And it were to be wished, that the subject had not been rather
perplexed, than facilitated, by the abstruse and metaphysical dis
cussions, in which it hath been sometimes involved.
But to come to the proper departraent of the Christian divine,
the first inquiry that occurs on this subject, is concerning the
truth, or, which in the present case is precisely the sarae, the di
vinity of our religion. The grand question, to adopt the scripture
idiom, is no other than this : Is the doctrine which Jesus Christ
preached from heaven, or of men ? That it is from heaven, is the
avowed belief of all his disciples; that it is ofmen, is, on the con
trary, the declared opinion of Jews and pagans. The Mahome
tans, indeed, acknowledge its divine original ; but as they at the
same time maintain, that we have no standard ofthat religion now
existing, the scriptures both Jewish and Christian being totally
corrupted, in their account, even in the most essential matters, we
are under a necessity of classing them also with the infidels of
every other denomination. Would we know in what manner the
truth of our religion may be most successfully defended, let us con
sider in what way it hath been most strenuously attacked. Upon
a careful examination of all the raultifarious assaults that have
been made by argument against the Christian institution by its ad
versaries, they are almost all reducible to these two classes. They
are either attempts against the character of the institution itself,
and are produced to evince that it is unworthy ofGod, and unsuit
able to those original sentiments of right and wrong which we de
rive frora natural conscience ; or they are levelled against the pos
itive proofs of revelation, and propose to invalidate its evidence.
In the first, the subject may be said to be considered as a question
of right ; in the second, as a question oifact. Accordingly, objec
tions of the former kind are properly philosophical ; of the latter,
historical and critical.
As to those ofthe class first mentioned, upon the' most impartial
examination I have ever been able to make ofthem, I have always
found, that the much greater part proceeded from a total misap-

26 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
prehension of the subject. The spirit of the church, or rather of
churchmen of the hierarchy, hath been mistaken for the spirit
of the gospel ; and the absurd glosses of corrupt and fallible men
have been confounded with the pure dictates of the divine oracles.
To the candid and intelligent inquirer, there will appear in many
of the boasted arguraents produced by the most renowned cham
pions in the deistical controversy, a manifest ignoratio etecAi, (that
is, misapprehension of the subject,) as the logicians term it. And
I will take upon me to say, that an intimate acquaintance with the
mind ofthe Spirit as delivered in holy writ, in its native simplicity
and beauty, unadulterated by the traditions and inventions of men,
will do more to dissipate the clouds raised by such objectors, than
whole torrents of scholastic chicane and sophistry. And even in
those objections, in which we cannot say there is a raistake of
the subject, we shall often find a woful raistake of the natural
powers and faculties of raan. Nor do I know a better method
of answering cavils of this nature, than that which has been so
successfully employed by Bishop Butler in his admirable treatise
entitled, " The Analogy of Religion natural and revealed to
the Constitution and Course of Nature." Now as a great many
of the arguments of our sceptics and unbelievers are aimed
against the genius and character of our religion, so on the other
hand it is proper to observe, that to some persons of the most acute
discernment and most delicate sensibility, there has appeared in
this same subject, the character of religion, an intrinsic but irresis
tible evidence of its divinity. The spirit it breathes, the doctrines
it teaches, the morals it inculcates, when candidly examined in the
fountain, the New Testament, and not in the corrupted streams of
human comments and systems, have an energy which no feeling
heart can withstand, and which seems not to have been withstood
by some who have even dared to corabat all its other evidences.
Of this the late Rousseau is an eminent exaraple.
As to the second class of objections, which are levelled against
the external proofs of revelation, they differ according to the dif
ferent branches of evidence against which they are airaed. The
two principal branches of external evidence, by which the Chris
tian doctrine is recommended to our faith, are prophecy'&nA mira
cles. The latter of these were strongly urged by the apostles for
the conviction of the Gentiles; both were insisted on in their rea
sonings with the Jews. The pagans knew nothing of those books
in which the prophecies were contained, and consequently argu-

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 27
ments drawn from these would have been unintelligible to them.
Now as the miracles which were wrought in support of our religion,
wjth us stand on the evidence of testimony conveyed in history, and
as the fulfilraent of most of the prophecies urged in support of the
same cause, are vouched to us in the same manner, the argument
with regard to miracles is entirely, and with regard to prophecy is
in agreat measure of the historical kind. I say with regard to pro
phecy it is only in a great measure historical. My reason for mak
ing the distinction is plainly this. The prophetic style hath some
thing peculiar in it, It is both more figurative, and more obscure,
than that of simple narration. Whereas therefore with regard to
the performance of such a miracle, there can be only one question,
and a mere question of fact, with regard to the accomplishment of
such a prophecy, there naturally arise two questions. First, is the
meaning of the prophecy such as hath been assigned to it ? This
is a question of criticism ; secondly. Was the event, by which it is
said to be accomplished, such as is alleged ? This again is a ques
tion of fact. Before I disraiss this topic of the different ways
wherein the truth of revelation has been assailed by its adversaries,
it is necessary to take notice of an interraediate method, by which
indeed the external proofs are struck at, but in a different manner.
It is not the reality of individual facts alleged, namely miracles and
prophecies, but the possibility of the kind, as being supernatural,
which is made the question. Again, the fitness of these, though
admitted true, to serve as evidence of doctrine, hath been also
questioned. Both these inquiries are of the philosophic kind.
Their solution depends on a just apprehension of the nature of
evidence. Would I, now, that you should be particularly acquainted with
all the trite and all the novel topics, that have been, or are insisted
on by the enemies of our religion, and that you should read and
remember exactly all the most approved answers that have been
made by its defenders ; I should in that case be under a necessity
of assigning you a very frightful task, sending you to consult an
innumerable multitude of volumes, written on both sides of the
question. And should any of you happen to be blest with a tena
cious meraory, he might in this way at very little expense of judg
ment, be qualified for encountering any ordinary caviller he might
meet with. But in truth, the task is, in ray opinion, especially for
a novice in theology, both too laborious and unpleasant, and by no
means sufficiently profitable, to recompense the time and pains that

28 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
would be bestowed upon it. And though I think that such contro
versial pieces raay be perused occasionally as they fall in one's
way, I would by no means recommend a regular prosecution of
this study ; a method which would tend only to form a habit of
turning everything into matter of wrangling and logoraachy, those
noxious weeds, those briars and thorns with which alraost all the
walks of theology have been so unhappily pestered. In ray judg
ment, a habit of this kind greatly hurts the rational powers, when
in appearance it only exercises thera : it doth worse ; it often
greatly injures an ingenuous and candid temper ; it infects one
with a rage of disputation, the cacoethes of pedants; it inclines
the mind to hunt more for the specious than the solid, and in the
ardor of the combat to sacrifice truth to victory. Not that I would
dissuade any one, who may have doubts of his own, to cdnsult im
partially whatever authors may be of use to remove them, and to
examine the question freely. It is not truth, but error, that shuns
the light, and dreads to undergo an impartial trial. It is the liberal
advice of an apostle, " prove all things ; hold fast that which is
good;" an advice which breathes nothing ofthat narrow, jealous,
sectarian spirit, which hath so long and so generally prevailed
among Christians of all denominations, and hath proved the greatest
pest of the cause. Or in case one's situation exposes him to the
attacks of wranglers, it may be necessary also on this account to
furnish himself with armor where he soonest can, that he may
neither be seduced by their sophisms, nor give them the appear
ance of a triumph at the expense of truth. But where nehher of
these is the case, I am not satisfied that this summary way of pro
ceeding is the best. Would you then have the theological student
to neglect this most important question, concerning the truth of
revelation, the foundation of all the rest 1 By no means. I dis
suade only from his taking this hasty way pf overloading his memory
with the productions ofothers, and with all the trash that has been
hatched in disputatious, idle heads. I only dissuade from this,
that I may indicate the method whereby he may be enabled to
search the cause itself fo the bottom, and if possible to produce
something of his own.
It was observed, that some of the arguments against revelation,
vvere of a philosophic nature, deriving, or at least pretending to
derive their efficacy frora the sources of pneumatology, logic, ethics,
and natural theology ; others of an historical nature, and others
critical. Let us therefore become acquainted with these several

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 29
sources, pneiiraatology, history, criticism, and vve shall not need
to see with other's eyes, and to retail by rofe fhe answers that have
been given by others. VVe shall be qualified to see with our own
eyes, and to give answers for ourselves, arising frora our own
knowledge and distinct apprehension of the subject. But this, it
will be said, is assigning us by rauch the harder task of the two.
The streams are open and at hand, the fountain is often remote and
hidden from our view. True indeed, and therefore vvithout doubt
it will be longer before we reach it; but when we have reached
it, our work is done ; whereas the streams are numberless — every
day discovers some unknown before, and to examine thera all sev
erally is endless. And though the task vvere possible, it would not
be near so satisfactory to the mind.
It has been the error of ages, and still is of the present age, that
to have read much is to be very learned. There is not, I may say,
a greater heresy against common sense. Reading is doubtless
necessary, and it must be owned, that eminence in knowledge is
not to be attained without it. But two things are ever specially to
be regarded on this topic, which are these. First, that more
depends on the quality of what we read, than on the quantity ;
secondly, more depends on the use, which by reflection, conversa
tion, and composition we have made of what we read, than upon
both the former. In whatever depends upon history, or the knowl
edge of languages, the materials indeed can only be furnished us
by reading ; but if that reading be properly conducted and im
proved, its influence will be very extensive. Whilst therefore it is
by far the too general cry, " Read, read, coramentators, systema-
tists, paraphrasts, controvertists, demonstrations, confutations, apol
ogies, answers, defences, replies, and ten thousand other such like,"
I should think the most important advice to be, "Devoutly study
the scriptures themselves, if you would understand their doctrine in
singleness of heart. Get acquainted with the sacred history, in
all its parts — Jewish,- canonical, ecclesiastic. Study the sacred
languages; observe the peculiarities of their diction. Attend to the
idiom ofthe Hebrew, and of the ancient Greek translation, between
which and the style of fhe New Testament there is a great affinity.
Study the Jewish and ancient customs, polity, laws, ceremonies,
institutions, manners, and with the help of some knovvledge in nat
ural theology and the philosophy ofthe human mind, you will have
ground to believe, that, with the blessing of God, you shall in a
4

30 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
wreat measure serve as commentators, controvertists, systematistg,
and in short, everything to yourselves. Without these helps, you
are but bewildered and lost in the chaos of contradictory comments
and opposite opinions. On the contrary, overlooking all cavils
for a time, pursue the track now pointed out, and as the light from
its genuine sources above mentioned breaks in upon you, the ob
jections, like the shades of night, will vanish of themselves. Many
of those objections you will discover to be founded in an ignorance
of human nature and of the nature of evidence, many in an igno
rance of that which is the subject of debate, the genius, the doe-
trine, the precepts of revelation. You will find, that many doughty
combatants, who have iraagined they bave been performing won
ders for the subversion of the cause of Christ, have been wasting
all their ammunition against the traditions and inventions of men,
and that the pure institution of Jesus is not one jot affected by their
argument. Patience therefore we would recoraraend to the young
student in regard to particular cavils against religion, till once he
is provided of a fund of his own from which he may be enabled to
perceive their futility and to refute them. The only just exceptions
to this rule are those already mentioned. When objections are
obtruded on him, which tend to unsettle his own mind, or which,
if he is incapable of answering or eluding, may afford matter of
triumph to infidelity, then it is proper to recur to the nearest meth
ods of removing them.
But some perhaps will be ready to urge, Is not this method of
yours rather preposterous ? Ought we not first to be satisfied of
the truth of revelation, and then enter on the examination of its
contents ? Its divine origin therefore is doubtless the first question,
its particular doctrines come next. This, to a superficial inquirer,
must appear plausible, but it is by no means just. It was observed,
already, that one principal source of evidence, either in fiivor of
revelation or against it, is its own character, and this we call the
intrinsic evidence. To take the most effectual methods therefore
of coming at the knowledge of its character, that is, of discovering
what it contains, is in fact to take tbe most effectual method of
studying one principal fund of evidence, either for or against it.
Again, in regard to the attacks that are made upon Christianity, it
•is impossible we should judge, whether they be just or unjust, till
we have gotten some notion of what Christianity is. This is the
more necessary as we see under this identical name, things in many
respects widely different, are in different places attacked. Th<^

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 3l
infidel has not quite the same object in England as in Spain, nor in
Sweden as iu either, nor in Switzerland as in any of the three.
The case is, every assailant attaches to the name all the religious
opinions generally received in the place where he resides. But if
it is the institution of Christ, of the truth of which we are anxious
to be ascertained, and not the glosses of our rabbles ; if it is the
comraandments ofGod which e.xcite our zeal, and notthe traditions
of the elders or the establishment of our legislators, it is necessary
we should know before we enter on the controversy, how to make
the distinction between the one and the other. This is not the
only cause, though indeed it is the chief one, wherein a great deal
of lime and pains is worse than idly wasted, which would have been
spared, if the parties had understood sufficiently the subject in de
bate. I shall illustrate this by a familiar example. Suppose one
should undertake to prove to you, that the constitution of Great Brit
ain is a very bad constitution in every respect. Could you imagine
yourselves qualified for judging of the validity of his arguments, if
you were yourselves quite ignorant, what that constitution is? You
might be liable to be imposed upon by the grossest falsehoods and
the vilest misrepresentations, which the bare study of that constitu
tion itself might be sufficient to detect, and might serve abundantly
to supply the place of every refutation. The method I recommend,
therefore, is in fact the simplest and the most natural. It will at
once, and by the same exertion on your part, instruct you in the
contents and in some of the principal evidences of revelation, and
thus it will both facilitate and shorten your inquiries.
To this let me add, it is the method which I have, in my own
experience, found to answer best. I very early endeavored to be
come acquainted with the scriptures, which, from ray first perusal,
I saw merited a very close attention, though viewed in no higher
light than as buman compositions, but much more, as claiming the
character of divine revelation. As I became acquainted with the
original languages, and with ancient oriental usages and manners,
I applied my knowledge in these, for removing obscurities and
doubts, where they occurred in scripture. In some cases, I thought
I succeeded, in others not. As to the last, I was not impatient,
not doubting, but as the light of knowledge advanced, I should see
farther and more distinctly. I can say with truth, I was not entire
ly disappointed. I soon after attempted the reading of controver
sial writers, and first those which regard the general controversy,
whether the scriptures contain a revelation from God, or, which

o2 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
amounts to the same, whether Christianity be a divine communica
tion to mankind, or a mere human figment. I began with the
attacks made upon our religion, as I made it a rule to hear the plea
of a party first in his own language, and not in the words of an an
gry and perhaps uncandid antagonist. After reading an attack, if
there was any thing specious in it, I considered with myself, how I
should answer the principal arguments, if urged upon me by an ad
versary with a view to discredit religion, or if they were proposed
as difficulties by a friend, vvho intended only the removal of his
own doubts. If I found myself puzzled by the arguments, not be
ing satisfied with any answer which occurred to myself, I had re
course, as soon as possible, to the best I could hear of from oth
ers. But it sometimes happened, on the contrary, that, on a little
reflection, I thought myself able to refute the antagonist's argu
ments, in which case I never inquired about any answers that
might have been published. In consequence of this method, I have
read many more attacks upon revelation than defences of it. I
carried this so far once, as to set about the publication of an an
swer* to a very subtle attack on fhe Christian religion by a late
celebrated raetaphysician, before I had an opportunity of perusing
the work of any former answerer ; a conduct which T would not
recommend to any body's imitation, as it exposes one to mistakes
and misrepresentations, which may easily be avoided. 1 shall fur
ther add on this article, that the only species of assault made
against revelation, which is totally independent of its contents and
history, and therefore may be previously studied and understood, is
that which is aimed against the possibility of all its miraculous facts.
This question is purely abstract and metaphysical, and would be
the same, it must be owned, whatever the history, character or
genius of our religion were.
So much for the subject in general, the different kinds of proof
of which it is susceptible, and the different sorts of objections to
which it is exposed. So much also for the best method of prepar
ing ourselves for understanding the subject, with its evidence, and
for refuting the objections. I shall in ray next discourse consider,
how we may most profitably pursue our inquiries into the different
parts of'the subject, and exainine the controversies' which these
have given rise to.
* The Dissertation on Miracles in answer to Mr. Hume.

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 33

LECTURE II.
Of the Christian System — llie Scriptures ought to be tho first study — after
wards Systems and Commentaries may be occasionally consulted — bad con
sequence of beginning the study of Theology with Systems and Com
mentaries. I NOW proceed to the consideration ofthe parts ofthe Christian
system, and the controversies that have been carried on concern
ing the explication of these by difi'.'.ent sects of Christians. As
method tends both to accelerate and to facilitate our progress in
every discussion, it will naturally occur to every considerate per
son, that some methodical digest of the tenets and precepts con
tained in our Bible vvould be at least a matter of great conveniency.
That it is not of absolute necessity we may warrantably conclude
from this undeniable fact, that there neither is any such digest in
scripture, nor was there in the church in the earliest and purest
times. But on the other hand these considerations are no argu
ments against its utility. God, in the economy of grace, as iri'the
economy of nature, supplies man with all the materials necessary for
his support and well being, but at the same time requires the exer
cise of those faculties with vvhich he hath endowed him, for turning
those materials tothe best account. Thus much may be said in apol
ogy for system makers of different denominations, many of whora I
doubt not have intended well, whose success in this departraent we
cannot at all adraire. So it is, however, that we have great plenty
of systeras in many things flatly contradicting one another, all
pretending to be founded on, or at least conformable to, the doc
trine of holy writ. Amid such variety how is the young student to
proceed? Musthe begin with adopting implicitly one of these pre
tended treasuries of Christian doctrine, studying assiduously both
the theoretic part and the practical as the standard of truth, as the
very quintessence of our divine institution ; must he learn from it
and frora such coramentators as are coincident in their religious
sentiments, to understand the scriptures, to ascertain the sense of
every thing that appears ambiguous, to solve every thing that is
difficult, and J.0 enlighten every thing that is obscure ? On the oth
er hand, what security shall our young pupil have, that the guide
who has been assigned to him is equal to the office ? How shall he
know that he is not following the train of a mere ignis fatuus, in
stead ofthe direction of a heavenly luminary ? You cannot say, he
may arrive at this khowledge from scripture, for by the hypothesis.

34 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
which is indeed conformable to the general practice almost every
where, the young student is from this teacher to learn to under
stand the scripture, not from scripture to learn tojudge of this teach
er ; for w|ere this last to be the case, he must be previously ac
quainted with the mind ofthe spirit as manifested in the scriptures,
and not take the mind ofthe spirit on the word ofhis teacher.
Ay, but the teacher we assign him, say they, is celebrated for
knowledge and piety, and is of great reputation among the orthodox
as an orthodox divine. As to his ktiowledge and piety, are we to sus
tain ourselves perfect judges of these accomplishments, or have not
pedantry and hypocrisy soraetimes imposed even upon the generality
of men ? But admitting that the character you give him were in both
respects perfectly just, do even these qualifications, however valua
ble, secure a man against error either in doctrine or practice 1
Have not several, vvhom in charity we are bound to think both
knowing and pious, maintained in many instances opposite opin
ions, each extreraely positive as to his own, and extremely zealous
in defence of it ? And as to orthodox, I should be glad to know the
meaning of the epithet. Nothing, you say, can be plainer. The
orthodox are those who in religious matters entertain right opin
ions ; be it so. How then is it possible I should know who they are
that entertain right opinions, before I know what opinions are
right ? I must therefore unquestionably know orthodoxy, before I
can know or judge who are orthodox. Now to know the truths of
religion, which you call orthodox, is the very end of my inquiries,
and am I to begin' these inquiries on the presumptiori, that with
out any inquiry I know it already ? Besides, is this thing which
you call orthodoxy, a thing in which mankind are universally agreed
insomuch that it would seera to be entitled to the privilege of an
axiom or first principle to be assumed without proof? duite the re
verse. There is nothing about which men have been, and still are,
more divided. Jt has been accounted orthodox divinity in one age,
which hath been branded as ridiculous fanatacism in the next.
It is at this day deemed the perfection of orthodoxy in one coun
try, which in an adjacent country is looked upon as daranable her
esy. Nay in the same country hath not every sect a standard of
their own ? Accordingly when any person seriously uses the word,
before we can understand his meaning, we must know to what
communion he belongs. When that is known, we comprehend
him perfectly. By the orthodox he means always those who agree
in opinion with hira and his party, and by the heterodox those who
differ from him. When one says then, of any teacher whatever,

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 35
that all the orthodox acknowledge his orthodoxy, he says neither
more nor less than this, " all who are of the same opinion with
him,of which number I am one, believe him to be in the right."
And is this any thing more, than , what may be asserted by some
person or other, of every teacher that ever did or ever will exist ?
" Words," it was well said by a philosopher of the last age, " are
the counters of wise men and the money of fools." And when
they are contrived on purpose to render persons , parties or opin
ions the objects of admiration or of abhorrence, the multitude are
very susceptible of the impression intended to be conveyed by
thera, without entering at all, or ever inquiring into the meaning
of the words. And to say the truth, we have but too many ec
clesiastic terms and phrases, which savour grossly of the arts of a
crafty priesthood, who meant to keep the world in ignorance, to
secure an iraplicit faith in their own dogmas, and to intimidate
men from an impartial inquiry into holy writ.
But would you then lay aside systems altogether, as useless or
even dangerous ? By no means. But I am not for beginning witb
them. I am even not for entering ou their examination, till one
has become in the way formerly recommended, if not a critic, at
least a considerable proficient in the scripture. 'Tis only thus,
we can establish to ourselves a rule by which we are to judge of
the truth or falsehood of what they affirm. 'Tis only thus, that
we bring systems to be tried at the bar of scripture, and not scrip
ture to be tried at theirs. 'Tis only thus we can be qualified to
follow the advice of the prophet in regard to all the teachers with
ont exception, " To the law and to the testimony, if they speak not
according to this word, they have no truth in them." 'Tis only
thus, we can imitate the noble example set us by the wise Bereans„
in exact conformity to the prophet's order, of whom we learn, that
they did not admit the truth of Christ's doctrine even on the testi
mony of his apostles, but having candidly heard what they said,
" searched the scriptures daily to see if these things were so."
'Tis only thus, we can avoid the reproach of calling other men
jM^iryjTTat masters, leaders, dictators, to the manifest derogation
of the honor due to our only raaster, leader and dictator, Christ.
'Tis only thus, we can avoid incurring the reproach thrown upon
the Pharisees, concerning whom God says, "tbeir fear towards me
is taught by the precepts of men."
But then it will be said, if the scriptures are to be our first study,
will it not be necessary, that, even in reading them, we take the

36 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
aid of some able commentator? Perhaps I shall appear somewhat
singular in my way of thinking, when I tell you in reply, that I
would not have you at first recur to any of them. Do not mistake
me, as though I meant .to signify, that there is no good fo be had
frora commentaries. I am far from judging thus of commentaries
in general, any more than of systems. But neither are proper for
the beginner, whose object it is impartially to search out the mind
ofthe spirit, and not to imbibe the scheme of any dogmatist. A1-.
most every commentator hath his favorite system, which occupies
his imagination, biasseshis understanding, and more or less tinge?
all his comments. The only assistances which I would recom
mend, are those in which there can be no tendency to warp ycir
judgment. It is the serious and frequent reading of the^divine or»
acles, accompanied with fervent prayer; it is the comparing of
scripture with scripture ; it is the diligent study of the languages
in which they are written ; it is the knowledge of those histories
and antiquities to which they allude. These indeed will not tell
you what you are to judge of every passage, and so much the bet
ter. God hath given you judgment, and requires you to exercise
it. " And why even of yourseUes judge ye not what is right ?"
If sufficient light is brought to you, and if you have eyes wherewith
to see, will you not take the trouble to use them, and observe what
is before you ; must you be told every thing as though you were
blind or in utter darkness? The helps, therefore, which I recom
mend, are such as pronounce nothing concerning the import of holy
writ, but only increase the light by means of which the sense may be
discovered. The student I would have 'm\ great measure to be self
taught, a well 'conducted attempt at whreh', is, in my opinion, the
true way of preparing himself for being taught of God. Whoever
thinks that this method will not do, ought openly and honestly to dis
claim the principle, that " the scriptures are able to make the man
of God perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." Such a
one on the contrary hath in effect, whatever he may imagine, aban
doned the protestant doctrine of the perspicuity and absolute suf
ficiency of scripture. He hath not entirely purged out the old
leaven, but retains a hankering after some human and unerring
interpreter. Ifhe differs with Rome, it is not really aboutthe
needfulness of the office, but about the person or persons who
shall fill it.
Let us consider a little the consequences of the other method
vvhich indeed is by far the most comraon, not only with papists but

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 37
even with Protestants of all denominations, and which I would call
beginning our theological studies where they should end, with
systems and commentaries. To what other cause can we justly
impute it, that so much of implicit faith, so much of unrelenting big
otry, and so many divisions prevail in the Christian world, espe
cially among the pastors themselves, those who ought to be the
foremost in propagating more liberal sentiments of the Gospel of
Christ? The young student, new come from college, where he was
taken up with other matters, enters on the study of theology quite
raw and unexperienced. He is told, ifa Protestant, that the whole
of his religion is contained in the Bible ; and even, if a Romanist, he
is informed that the scriptures are inspired and consequently true,
and that they contain many at least of the christian doctrines. The
foundation is laid by sorae favourite system of the party to which
he belongs, which is warmly recoraraended by hira who has the di
rection of his studies. When that is done, be is desirous to com
mence the study of holy writ. He begins, and as may be naturally
expected, being quite a stranger to the character of the nation to
whom the sacred writers belonged and of whom they write, knowing
nothing of their polity, laws, customs, manners, ceremonies, to
which there are so frequent allusions, and baving but a smattering
ofthe sacred languages, and nothing ofthe idiom, he is often puz
zled to find out the sense. If his former reading do him no prej
udice, it is well; much good is not to be expected frora it. Im
patient to get rid of his perplexity, and to know every thing as he
proceeds, some expositor must be consulted. An expositor will be
got that shall corroborate the effect produced by the system. If
the place of his residence be Rorae, one interpreter is put into
his hands; if it happen to be Moscow, another; if Oxford, a third ;
if London, a fourth ; and if Geneva, very probably one who differs
in his sentiments frora all the four. Having no criterion of his
own, whereby he can form a judgraent of tbe justness of their in
terpretation, and having an unbounded trust in the wisdom of his
tutor, and the penetration of the authors he has recoraraended, he
easily adopts in every thing their explications and solutions. His
vacant raind, like what the lawyers call a derelictum, is claimed in
property by the first occupant. That author, and others of the
same party, commonly keep possession ever after. To the stand
ard set up by them, every passage in scripture raust by all the arts
of distorting, mutilating, torturing, be made conformable, and by
5

38 . CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
the same standard all other authors and interpreters must be pro
nounced good or bad, orthodox or heretical. This is the true ori
gin of bigotry, and that bitterness of spirit with which it is invaria
bly accompanied. I do not deny, that there are other causes, sec
ular views for instance which co-operate with those prepossessions
and prejudices in supporting such a variety of opinions among
Christians. But I affirra, that it is chiefly imputable to this prepos
terous method of imbibing opinions implicitly, before we are capa
ble to form a judgment. For when we have no principles of critical
knowledge, we have no rule by which to choose, but mustbe atthe
mercy ofthe first interpreter who falls in our way. And ofthe tenets,
which he has dictated, we soon come to think ourselves bound, in
honor and conscience, to be the zealous defenders ever after.
But what would you have us to do ? Must we give up with all
systeras, coraraentaries, paraphrases, and the like 1 I say not so
entirely, though I by no means think the regular study of them
ought to be begun with.- When we have made sorae progress in
the scriptural science, we may consult them occasionally, we have
then provided ourselves in some principles, by which we may ex
amine them. And let us not confine ourselves to tbose ofone side
only, but freely consult those of every side. This we must do, if
we. would constitute scripture the umpire in the controversy, and
not bring it to be tried at the bar of some System maker or com
mentator. The young student ought habitually to remember, that
every man is fallible in judgment, as well as in conduct, and that no
man can any more pretend to an exemption from error, than to an im
munity fro 11 sin. And in this respect, as well as in others, we may
well apply the admonition of the psalmist. " Trust not in princes,
even chief men," as the word imports in point of erudition as well
as authority, " nor in the sons ofmen. It is better to trust in the
Lord, than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the
Lord, than to put confidence in princes." When a Romanist tells
me, " The method you recommend is extremely dangerous ; the
scriptures are even in the most iraportant articles obscure and am
biguous ; you are therefore in the most imminent danger of being
misled by them, unless you are first provided in a sound and ap
proved guide ;" when, I say, a person of the Romish communion
addresseth himself to me in this manner, however much I differ
from hira in judginent, truth compels me to acknowledge, that he
speaks in character and maintains a perfect consistency with the
avowed principles of his sect. But when a Protestant holds the

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 39
same language, I raust pronounce him the most inconsistent creature
upon earth. He deserts all those principles ofthe perspicuity and suf
ficiency of scripture in things essential to salvation, and ofthe right
of private judgment, which served as the great foundation ofhis dis
sent from Rome. The confidence, which Rome requires that you
should put in the dictates of a church, which she believes, or pro
fesses to believe to be infallible, this raan, much more absurdly, re
quires you to put iu those men of whom he owns, that they had no
more security against error than you have yourself
But in reading the scripture, when difficulties occur, what are
we to do, or what can we do better, than immediately recur to some
eminent interpreter 1 Perhaps the answer I am going to give, will
appear astonishing, as I know it is unusual. If you are not able
with the strictest altention and reflection to solve the difficulty
yourself, do not make it a rule to seek an immediate solution of it
from some other quarter. Have patience, and as you grow acquaint
ed with the scope of the whole by frequent and attentive reading,
you will daily find fewer difficulties ; they will vanish of themselves.
The more perspicuous parts will insensibly reflect a light on the
raore obscure. If you had the helps to be obtained from history,
geography, the knowledge of the manners and polity of the people,
which in effect are perfectly coincident with the study of the
language, and whicb mayall be coraprehended in these two sources,
sacred history and biblical philology, you will be daily fitter, as I
said before, for being interpreters for yourselves. And I will take
upon me to say, that if this method were universally pursued, and
all temporal interests were out of the question, the differences in
opinion about the sense of scripture would be inconsiderable. In
that case, there would not be one controversy among the disciples
of Jesus, where at present there are fifty. And there would be no
such thing as classing ourselves under different leaders, which has
been so long the disgrace of the christian name. We can read the
rebuke which Paul gives to the Corinthians, for distinguishing
themselves thus in the true spirit of sectarism, one saying, " I am of
Paul, another I ara of Apollos, a third I am of Cephas," and we
remain insensible all the while, that the rebuke strikes much raore
severely against us, than it did against them. Has not this been
universally the method in the Christian world for many ages ? I
am an adherent ofthe Roraan pontiff, says one, and I of the patri
arch of Constantinople, says another. And among Protestants one
says, I am of Luther, another I am of Calvin, a third I am of Ar-

40 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
minius. Ay, but were not some of these, men ofthe most respect
able characters ? None is more ready to acknowledge it. But
were not Paul and Peter and Apollos, the apostles and first minis
ters of Christ, also men of the most respectable characters ? Yet
with what warmth and indignation do we see one of theraselves
disclaiming a distinction, which he accounts injurious to the honor
of his Master, and subversive of his cause. But to proceed. The
disciple in each sect is first instructed in the principles or system
oftheir respective leader, and afterwards with the assistance of
what they call an orthodox commentator, that is a zealous partisan
ofthe sect, he is sent to the study of scripture. The first objectis
manifestly to make him of the party, the second to make him a
Christian, or corapounding both views together, to raake hira just
such a Christian, and so far only, as is compatible with the princi
ples ofthe party. The effect sufficiently demonstrates the absurdi
ty of the raethod. All of them alraost, without exception, of the
most opposite sects and most discordant principles, when thus pre
pared, find without difficulty their several systems supported
in scripture, and every ofher systera but their own condemned.
How unsafe then raust it be to trust in men ! When we thus im
plicitly follow a guide before inquiry, if we should even happen to
be in the right, it is, with regard to us, a matter purely accidental.
No Protestant dares advance the same thing with regard to search
ing the scriptures, because in doing this we obey the express com
mand of Him, whose authority, in profession at least, all Pro
testants hold to be more venerable, that even that ofthe founders
oftheir several sects.
But when is it, then, that you would think it proper to recur to
systems and commentators ? The answer is plain. After you have
acquired such an insight into the spirit and sentiments of sacred
writ, that you are capable of forraing some judgment ofthe confor
mity or contrariety ofthe doctrine of these authors to that infallible
standard. With the examination of such buman compositions, the
studies ofthe theologian ought, in my judgraent, to be concluded
and not begun. \The disciple of the Son ofGod ought, above all
men, to be able with regard to merely human teachers to apply to
himself the words of the poet,
Nullius addictus juraie in verba magistri.^
* Sworn to no master.

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 41
I shall even suppose, that we couldput an interpreter into your
hands, who would always guide you right, and this is more than
any man, that does not claim infallibility, can pretend to do. Yet
even in that case, I am not satisfied, that this would be the best
method for the young student to take, in order to arrive at the un
derstanding of the scriptures. To learn, seems, with many, to im
ply no more than a bare exercise of memory. To read, and to re
member is, they imagine, all they have to do. I affirm, on the con
trary, that a great deal more is necessary, as to exercise the judg
ment and the discursive faculty. I shall put the case, that one
were employed to teach you algebra ; and instead of instructing
you in the manner of stating and resolving algebraic equations, he
should think it incumbent on him, only fo inform you of all the
principal probleras, that had at any time exercised the art of the
most faraous algebraists, and the solutions they had given ; and be
ing possessed of a retentive memory, I shall suppose, you have a
distinct remembrance both ofthe questions and the answers ; could
you, for this, be said to have learnt algebra ? No, surely. To
teach you that ingenious and useful art, is to instruct you in those
principles, by the proper application of which, you shall be enabled
to solve the questions for yourselves. In like manner, to teach you
to understand the scriptures, is to initiate you into those general prin
ciples, which will gradually enable you of yourselves, to enter into
their sense and spirit. It is not to make you repeat by rote the
judgments of others, but to bring you to form judgments of your
own ; to see witb your own eyes, and not with other people's. I
shall conclude this prelection with the translation of a short pas
sage from the Persian letters, which falls in entirely with my pres
ent subject. Rica having been to visit the library of a French con
vent, writes thus to his friend in Persia concerning what had pass
ed. Father, said I to the librarian, what are these huge voluraes
which fill the whole side of the library ? These, said he, are the In
terpreters of the scriptures. There is a prodigious number of them,
replied I ; the scriptures must have been very dark formerly and
very clear at present. Do there remain still any doubts ? Are there
now any points contested ? Are there, answered he with surprise.
Are there ? There are alraost as raany as there are lines. You
astonish rae, said I, what then have all these authors been doing ?
These authors, returned he, never searched the scriptures, for what
ought to be believed, but for what they did believe theraselves. They
did not consider them as a book, wherein were contained the doc-

42 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
trines which they ought to receive, but as a work which might be
made to authorize their own ideas. For this reason, they have
corrupted all the meanings, and have put every passage to the tor
ture, to make it speak their own sense. 'Tis a country where
on people of all sects make invasions, and go for pillage ; it
is a field of battle, where when hostile nations meet, they engage,
attack and skirmish in a thousand different ways.
My next discourse will relate chiefly to the advantages resulting
from a proper study of holy writ, the manner of conducting it,
particularly with this view, that the student may form to himself a
digest of its doctrine.

LECTURE III.

How the Student ought to set aboutthe Examination of tbe Seiipfures — Direc
tions for forming an Abstract of the Doctrine of Holy Writ. '
In my last discourse I purposed to show, that if it was our chief
aim, in spiritual matters, to be fed with the sincere milk of the
word, to be instructed in the unadulterated doctrine of Christ, we
must have recourse to the fountain itself, the sacred scriptures, and
begin our studies there. If, on the contrary, like the Pharisees in
our Saviour's time, we place unbounded confidence in our several
rabbles, the founders of sects and builders of systems; if we are
desirous of seeing only with their eyes, that is, in other words, if we
are more solicitous to be their followers than the followers of Christ,
and think ourselves safer under their guidance, though acknowl
edged to be merely human and fallible, than under that ofthe infalli
ble spirit of truth ; if this, Isay, be our principal purpose, we ought
doubtless to pursue the contrary method, and make it our first care
to be thoroughly instructed in the traditionary dogmas, glosses,
coraraents of that particular champion under whose banners we
choose to enlist ourselves, and by whose name we are carnal and
mean enough to glory in being distinguished. And after we have
sufficiently imbibed all his sublimated theories and subtile ratio
cinations, we may venture safely on the study of scripture; we are
in no danger of being disturbed by it. Sufficient care will have
been taken to prevent our receiving any light from that quarter,
that shall serve to undeceive us, and we are as secure as any Phar
isee whatever, that if the word of God should contradict our tradi-

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 43
tions, the former shall give place to the latter, and be rendered of
no effect. I believe there are few, who will in so many words avow
this to be their plan. IBut that it is, in fact, the plan of by far the
greater number in every region of the Christian world, the effect
but too plainly demonstrates. It is wonderful, that the consequen
ces of this method in fixing people unalterably in the opinions good
or bad which were first infused into them, and in making them
view every thing in that light only which will favour their ovvn pre
possessions, have not opened the eyes of mankind as to its improprie
ty. Can that method be esteemed a good one, which all the world
sees, or may see, if they will, is equally adapted to promote truth or
error, sense or nonsense ; which raakes a man to the full as te
nacious of positions the most absurd, as of those that are most
reasonable, and serves to pervert the only rule, acknowledged by
all sides to be unerring, into a mere engine for giving authority to
the visions and theories of any dogmatist, who has gotten the first
possession of our heads? Is it not in consequence of this, that
those of other denominations are astonished to find, that we can
not discover their principles in scripture, and that we are just as
much astonished to find, that they cannot there discover ours ?
But I am aware of one objection my doctrine is exposed to,
which mustJt least be owned to be specious. If so many men of
distinguished learning and abilities have failed in the attempt of
explaining scripture, and forming systems of the Christian revela
tion, how can I (may our young student argue) who, in comparison
of these, must acknowledge myself to be both illiterate and weak,
hope to succeed in reaching the sense of holy writ, and forming to
myself a digest of its doctrine 1 That many such, as are now men
tioned, have failed in the attempt, is manifest from this, the innu
merable systems and commentaries extant, which in many things
flatly contradict one another, whilst each author supports his own
side with great appearance of subtlety and display of erudition.
Were this objection to be admitted in all its force, I know not by
what kind of logic any person could conclude from it, that it were
better to choose without examining, than to examine before we
'choose. The latter may be right, the former must be wrong. That
men of great literary fame have failed, can never be a good reason
for trusting implicitly to such.
But I insist upon it, that when examined to the bottom, there
will not be found so much in the objection, as is supposed. The
usefulness of some branches of learning for the more perfect under-

44 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
standing of scripture is indeed undeniable. Is it because the doc
trine of revelation is abstruse and metaphysical, and therefore not
to be apprehended by any, who have not been accustomed to the
most profound and abstract researches ? By no means. The
character, which holy writ gives of its own docfrine, is the very
reverse of this. It is pure and plain, such as " enlighteneth the
eyes and maketh wise the simple." The institution to be given
by the Messiah, is represented by the prophets, as " a hignway so
patent that the way-faring men though fools should not mistake it,"
and as an intimation written in so large and legible a character
" that he who runs may read." And Paul, in order to signify to us,
that there was nothing of difficult investigation in this doctrine,
and that the knowledge of it was easily attainable by those who
were willing to hear and learn it from the apostles of Christ, says
concerning it, " The righteousness which is of faith speaketh on
this wise. Say not in thine heart who shall ascend into heaven,
(that is, to bring Christ down from above) or, who shall descend
into the deep ? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)
But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and
in thy heart ; that is, the word of faith which we preach." And in
deed the apostle doth in this, but apply to the new dispensation the
same character of plainness and perspicuity, which Moses had for
merly affirmed of the old. " This comraandment," said he," which
I coraraand thee, this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is
it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldst say. Who shall
go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it
and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldst say,
"VVho shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may
hear it and doit? Butthe word is very nigh unto thee, in thy
raouth, and in thy heart, that thou raayest do it." Nor indeed
would it be one jot less absurd, to suppose, that in order to attain
this divine instruction we should be under the necessity of diving
into the depths of human systems, rummaging the recesses of volu
minous com mentators, or exploring the fine spun speculations of idle
theorists, than that we should be obliged to scale the heavens or to
cross the seas. It is not therefore on account of any thing abstruse
or difficult in the matter itself, that learning is of importance ; nor
is it for the acquisition of the most essential truths, which are ever
the most perspicuous. But its importance to the theologian ariseth
from these two considerations; first, that he may be qualified for
the defence of religion against the assaralts, to which, either in

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 45
whole or in part, it is exposed from its adversaries ; secondly, that
he may become more and more a proficient in the sacred style and
idiom, and be thereby enabled to enter with greater quickness into
all the sentiments of the inspired writers. The languages of holy
writ are now dead languages. Learning of one kind is necessary to
attain an acquaintance with them, and consequently with those
things which they contain, however perspicuously expressed. In
the infant state of the church, miraculous gifts, especially the gift
of tongues, and that of prophecy, superseded the necessity of hu
man learning altogether. Now that these are withdrawn, we can
not hope to be perfectly acquainted with the mind ofthe Spirit, till
by the use of the ordinary means, which God hath put in our power
and requires us to employ, we come to understand the language
which he speaks. And, as hath been observed already, the history
and criticism, which we have recommended, are nothing else, but
the natural aids towards such a proficiency in the sacred tongues.
This however is a species of knovvledge, which it requires no ex
traordinary genius or talents to enable us to attain. Comraon sense,
time, and application, will do the business. Eminent talents, if they
get a wrong direction, will raake us err more widely than we should
have done with moderate abilities. In travelling, if we happen to
mistake our road, the swifter our raotion is, we sball in equal tirae
go so rauch fhe farther wrong. But as there is a kind of learning,
that is solid and useful to the theologian, there is a kind also, which
is visionary and hurtful to him. Of this sort are the abstract philos
ophy, the ancient dialectic and ontology, which universally for a suc
cession of ages reigned in the schools as the perfection of science,
the summit of human wisdora ; to whose usurped authority even
the Christian theology itself hath been most unnaturally subjected,
and with whose chains and fetters she still appears more or less en
cumbered in all the most celebrated systems of our different sects.
Disregarding the apostles' warning, raen, however they differed in
other things, seera to have agreed in this, in " spoiling the doctrine
oftheir raaster, with philosophy and vain deceit after the traditions
of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
This artificial logic or science of disputation was at bottora no
other than a mere playing with hard words, used indeed grammati
cally and according to certain rules established in the schools, but
quite insignificant, and therefore incapable of conveying knowledge.
'Tis in the language of our poet.
Vain wisdom all, and false philosophy,
6

46 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
andin the still more emphatic language of our apostle, "vain
janglings and oppositions of science falsely so called, which minister
strife and contention, but tend not in the least to godly edifying."
Thus much I thought it necessary to observe in order to prevent
our thinking of men above what we ought to think, and particularly
Ho prevent our valuing them for those acquisitions which were in
act an obstruction to their advancement in spiritual knowledge, and
not a furtherance.
But it will be asked, and the question is extremely pertinent. In
what manner and with what frame of spirit ought we to set about
the examination of the scriptures? An attention to this is of so
much the greater consequence, that if many have failed in this
undertaking, we have the strongest reason to believe, that the fail
ure is more justly chargeable on the heart than on the head, on the
want of that disposition, which if it invariably accompany our in
quiries, we have the greatest reason to hope they shall be crowned
with success. The first thing, then, I would here take notice of as
an indispensable requisite, is sincerity. By this I mean, an habitual
and predominant desire in the inquirer to discover in scripture not
what may serve to authorize his own ideas, and give a sanction to
the cobwebs of his own fancy, or of the fancy of others which he
has adopted, but what is the genuine mind and will of God, how
ever unacceptable it may prove to flesh and blood, in order that he
may believe and practise it. It is this which our Lord hath termed
" a single eye," opposing it to an eye that is vitiated and diseased,
concerning which he hath assured us, that "if our eye be single,
our whole body shall be full of light." And to the same purpose
it is, that he elsewhere affirms that " if any man will do the will of
God, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God." If this
be tbe real, the primary purpose ofthe student's inquiries, he shall
have no reason to dread success. " For the secret of the Lord is
with them that fear him, and he will show them hiiS covenant." It
isin the same way we must interpret the words of the prophet,
"None of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall under
stand." The term, the wise, as opposed to the wicked, it is well
known, doth in the scripture idiom always denote, they who sincere
ly serve and honour God ; " for to man he said. Behold the fear
of the Lord, that is wisdom, and to depart from evil is under
standing." The second quality requisite in the examiner of sacred writ, is
humility. This is to be understood as opposed to pride and an

CAMPBELL'S LECTURKS. 47
overweening conceit of our own discernment and acuteness, than
which 1 know not a more unteachable quality in any pupil. "Seest
thou a man wise in his own conceit ; there is more hope of a fool
than of him." As this disposition of humbleness of mind leads to
a modest diffidence of oneself, it powerfully inclines on the other
hand to recur frequently to the Father of lights, by fervent prayer
and supplication, for light and guidance in his way. Those pos
sessed of this engaging frame of spirit, are characterized in holy
writ under the several epithets of the meek, the humble, and the
lowly. As when we are told, that " God will guide the meek in
judgment, and the meek he will teach his way." God resisteth
"the proud, but giveth grace to the humble." And though the
Lord be " high, yet he hath respect to the lowly." And in order to
inculcate the necessity of this temper in every genuine disciple, our
Lord hath said, " Whosoever will not receive the kingdom ofGod
as a little child, shall not enter therein." The apostle employs a
still bolder figure, where he says, " If any raan among you seemeth
to be wise in this world, let hira become a fool, that he may be
wise." The third and last quality I shall mention, is patience. Nothing
can more endanger our forming false conclusions in any study,
which we are prosecuting, than impatience and precipitancy in our
advances. Our very zeal and ardour itself, which is a coraraenda
ble quality in every laudable pursuit, is apt to mislead us, unless
checked by this virtue as a bridle. In spiritual, as in secular mat
ters, God requires of us the use of those means, which he hath put
in our power ; and to serve as a motive to our obedience in this,
he hath given us the promise of his Spirit to assist us. Now all
means operate gradually ; tirae therefore is necessary, which re
quires patient and repeated application. And as to the promises
which God hath graciously given for our encouragement, it is our
duty in regard to this, as well as in regard to every other promise,
to wait patiently on hira, in the persuasion, that he will not with
hold what instruction is requisite, any raore than other good things
from thera who seek hira. It was said by an heathen poet, (Pfonn
oV ra^cu; ax ctii-(p»Mig, Those who are in haste to know, seldom take
the surest road. If this may be asserted in general, much more
may it in the present case. The young student is so much exposed,
both from what he hath occasion to see, and from what he hath
occasion to hear, to have the opinions ofothers obtruded upon him,
before he is in a capacity to decide, that it is not easy to resist

48 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
giving perhaps too hasty an assent, when these opinions shall appear
to be plausibly supported. Nay sometiraes his good qualities them
selves, his candour, his confidence in the judgment of those who
are older and wiser than himself, may betray hira into this fault.
But he ought to reraeraber, that till he have acquired the first prin
ciples ofthe critical knowledge of the sacred idiom, he is not, in
dubious matters, a corapetent judge either of plausibility or truth.
The dogmatism of others, instead of engaging an easier assent,
ought to render their opinions the more suspected. This patient
cautiousness in judging will be also an excellent guard against his
being seduced by an iraraoderate attachraent either to antiquity or
to novelty ; extreraes which are differently affected by different
tempers. Sorae are raore ready to adopt an opinion implicitly, be'
cause it is ancient, others, because it is new. Both are faulty,
though in my judgraent the latter is the greater fault of the two.
Errors may doubtless be very old, that there are many such we
know; but truths in religion natural or revealed cannot be entirely
new. And even with regard to the explications that raay be given
of particular passages of scripture, it is always a shrewd presurap
tion against thera, if there is reason to believe that, in the course of
so many centuries, they never occurred before. At the same time
it must be owned on the other hand, that no prescription can be
pleaded for any tenets whatever, in opposition to reason and to
common sense. The great aim of scriptural knowledge is to clear
the truth from that load of rubbish, with which in the track of ages
it hath been in a great measure overwhelmed, through the continued
decline of piety and good sense, and through the increase of barbar
ism, and the gradual introduction of a monstrous species of super
stition, a heterogeneous and motley raixture of something of the
form of Christianity (whose name it dishonoured) with the beggarly
elements of the Jews, and the idolatrous fopperies of the Pagans,
whence hath resulted a-general character of more inveterate malig
nity, than either Judaisra or Paganism of any form ever manifested.
And notwithstanding the inestimable advantages which we derive
frora the reforraation, and the revival of letters in Europe, we have
reason still to talk ofthe state of religion in our day, and the tincture
it retains of Romish corruption and the Romish spirit, in much the
same way as Horace did of the state of civilization in his.
In longum tamen sevum
Manserunt, hodieque manent vestigia Romas.*
* The vestiges of Rome long remained ; and they still remain.

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 49
So much for the most essential characters of upright intention,
modest diffidence, and patient perseverance, with which our study
of holy writ ought to be accompanied.
The next thing I should consider is, the manner in which we
ought to prosecute this study, that we may most effectually attain the
end. When I was on the subject of the Jewish history, I observ
ed the propiiety of accompanying the reading of this, as we have
it in the Old Testament, with the perusal of those uninspired wri
ters of antiquity, whose subject bore any relation to that recorded
in the sacred text; and particularly I recommended the careful
reading of Josephus, the Jewish historian. I observed the propri
ety of parcelling out tbe history into periods, and accustoming your
selves to compose abstracts ofthem severally as you proceed,
which will tend at once greatly to increase your knowledge of
scripture, to improve your memory, and to produce very useful
habits both of reflection and of coraposition. I must now add, that
as one great view is to habituate you to the scripture idiom, you
ought not to satisfy yourselves with reading the Bible in the vul
gar translation, but ought regularly to have recourse to the original.
Though you should prescribe yourselves but a small portion every
day, if you can but persevere in the practice, you will improve very
sensibly, and find the task at last grow very easy. The portion of the
Old Testaraent which you first read in Hebrew, I would have you next
carefully peruse in Greek in the septuagint translation. Nothing can
be of greater consequence for forming the young student to a thor
ough apprehension of the style ofthe New Testament. And it may
be worth his while to reraark the raost considerable differences in
these two principal examplars ofthe Old. When he is puzzled as to
the literal or grammatical sense, he may recur to some other trans
lation either into Latin or any raodern language which he happens to
understand. This, for the beginper, is a rauch better method, than
to recur to coramentators. To canvass the reasonings of the latter
belongs to maturer age, and is proper only for those, who, to ^dopt the
style ofthe apostle, have, by reason of use, their senses exercised to
discern both good and evil. • A point of great moment, in my eyes,
and which I cannot sufficiently ii^culcate, is ever to give scope to
the student's own reflections, an^ not (as is the too common raeth
od (to preclude all reflections of his own, by perpetually obtruding
upon him the reflections ofothers. He must not conceive study to
be purely the furnishing of his raemory, but much more the sharp
ening ofhis attention, the exercising ofhis judgment, and the acqui-

50 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
ing a habit of considering every subject that comes under his review
carefully and impartially on every side. When the young student
is possessed of a natural good taste and quickness of discernment,
it were a pity, not to put hira into that track, which might qualify
him in time for being an expositor to himself, and to leave hira in
the power of the first he happens to meet with, or at least of that
commentator who has the knack of setting off his opinions in the
most plausible manner.*
But left to himself in this way, will he not be liable often to commit
mistakes ? 'Tis probable he will, and what then ? Can you insure
him against them, by the assistance of any author you can assign
him ? Besides, the mistakes he coramits through the exercise of his
own judgment when imperfect, he will correct as his judgment
improves ; whereas the errors he falls into through an iraplicit faith
in the judgment of others, are confirmed by habit, a lazy habit,
which effectually prevents that improvement ofthe judging faculty,
which would correct them. Would you never trust a child to his
own legs, would you alvvays carry him for fear he should fall ? If
you shall use him thus, till he arrive at manhood, 'tis a thousand to
one he shall never be able to walk in his life time. And had it
not been better, that he had caught a thousand falls, and been al
lowed to recover himself again the best way he could, than that he
should never acquire the right use of his limbs ? And is not the
exercise ofthe mental faculties, as necessary to their iraproveraent,
as ofthe corporeal ?
But to return ; another method I would recoraraend to our young
student when difficulties occur about the literal sense of any text,
for it is here that his inquiries should begin, let him consult the
parallel places in scripture, that is, those passages wherein the
same subject is treated, or those at least, wherein there is some al
lusion or reference to it. Another useful expedient for bringing
him acquainted with the idiom of the sacred writers, and for habit
uating him to read with attention, and to judge with proper cir
cumspection is, as he proceeds in his study, to mark the different
senses in which some of the principal words occur in scripture, and
the particular circumstances in the context, which serve to deter
mine the sense. For assisting him in acquiring a raore perfect
knowledge of the Jewish polity and custoras, there are several
pieces which will be of use, besides those I have had occasion for
merly to mention. Such are Vitringa De Synagoga vetere, Re-
* See note at the end of this lecture, p. 54.

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 51
land de rebus sacris Judeorum, Lewis' Antiquities of the Hebrew
Republic, Godwin's 31oses and Aaron, Cunaius de republica He-
rmrum, Bertram de republica Judaica, Buxtorf s Lexicon talmudi-
cum, which may be consulted occasionally where it can be had,
and for their modern customs, the last menfioned Author's Synago
ga Judaica. As greater proficiency is made, recourse may be had
to Selden and Spencer. Afterwards the scholia on the New Testa
ment of such a writer as Lightfoot may be consulted, who has par
ticularly applied himself to turn his Hebrew and Rabbinical learn
ing to the enlightening of the sacred scriptures, and which he has
for that reason naraed Horas Hebraicae et Talraudicee. I do not
name so many authors, as thinking it of importance that you should
see and read them all, but because it may fall in the way of some
of you to light on one of thera, and others on another, that you might
take the opportunity when you can. For if you should not hap
pen to meet with any of these for some time, I am far from thinking
that great progress may not be made by your own application only,
with the assistance of the original languages, and the translation of
the Septuagint above mentioned. I would never have any young
man, who has a tolerable capacity, and is willing to use it, to be
discouraged for want of books.
I put you upon a method formerly of making an abstract of the
sacred history, as you advance in your reading; I come now to
suggest what may be of use for forming to yourselves an abstract of
the doctrine of holy writ. This task indeed requires much greater
proficiency than the former, and therefore ought by no means to be
so early undertaken. The former may be executed gradually as
you proceed in reading ; by composing a narrative of the principal
events in each period immediately after you have read the history
ofit in the Bible, and before you begin to peruse the account of
the succeeding. But as to a sumraary of doctrine, one ought tobe
pretty well versed in the whole scriptures both of Old and New
Testaments, before he attempt it. When the student sets about a
design of this kind, he may pursue some such method as the fol
lowing. As God is the great object of religious worship and ser
vice, it is proper to begin with inquiring, what is the doctrine of
sacred writ concerning ihe divine nature and perfections. Let him
take the assistance of a concordance when his memory fails, and
carefully collate all the clearest and most explicit passages on eve
ry several topic, extracting from the whole a brief summary of
what relates both to the natural and moral attributes of the Deity,

52 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
as they are commonly, though not so properly, distinguished, such
as the spirituality, unity, eternity, immutability, and sovereignty of
God, bis omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, his wisdom,
justice, truth, and goodness. In expressing what relates to each of
these, let him adhere as close as possible to the style of scripture,
only avoiding metaphorical and figurative expressions, and render
ing these, where he meets with them, by the plainest and simplest
terms which can convey the sense. Let him next proceed to the
doctrine of holy writ, concerning the creation ofthe world aud the
divine providence. Let him still in the same manner, and with the
scriptures alone for his rule and guide, consider in the third place
human nature, particularly noting what is delivered concerning
these three articles, the state of man iraraediately after the creation,
the fall, and its consequences. The fourth point will be the doc
trine concerning the Messiah, or Son of God, all which may be com
prised under these articles, his pre-existence and divinity, his state
of suffering, including his incarnation, his character, his ministry
on earth, his death and burial, and thirdly, his succeeding state of
glory, including his resurrection, ascension, exaltation, and second
coming, together with the purposes which the several particulars
were intended lo answer. The fifth point will be the doctrine con
cerning the Holy Spirit, which may be all comprised in tvvo arti
cles, what he is, and what he does. The sixth point, which in the
order of nature should immediately follow the mediation ofthe Son
and ministration of the Spirit, is that gtteat end to which both are di
rected, the regeneration or recovery of man. On this head may be
considered, the external means, their use, their difference under
different dispensations, and their connexion with the effect produ
ced. The seventh point will be the doctrine concerning ihe world
to come. This may be subdivided into five articles, the intermedi
ate state between death and the resurrection, the general resurrec
tion, the future judgment, heaven and hell. The eighth and last
point, the doctrine which scripture gives concerning itself, compre
hending two articles, first whai is scripture, secondly, what is its
authority. The eighth general heads (which for memory's sake I
shall repeat) are the following, God, the creation, man, the Son of
God, the Holy Spirit, the regeneration, the'world to come, the
scriptures. In framing the compendious digest above proposed, there are
some things, which I would have the student particularly careful
of. The first is, not to have recourse to any human, that is to say

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 53
any foreign aid whatever, but to confine hiraself entirely to the re
vealed word. He must have it deeply rooted in his mind, that the
question, he is concerned in resolving, is not what is the doctrine of
this or the other learned man, of this or the other sect or party, but
what, to the best of his judgment, is the doctrine ofthe sacred vol
ume. What have I to do, should he say, to ttfke this doctrine up
on trust and at second hand, when I have access to the fountain it
self? If this book was given ofGod as a rule to all men, it must be
in things essential, level to the capacity of all. Shall I take the
mind ofthe Creator on the report of the creature, when, if I will
I have the opportunity of hearing the voice ofthe Creator himself?
The second thing is, not to indulge a disposition to speculate on
points, which cannot with any propriety be said to be revealed.
Sometiraes events are mentioned, and a profound silence is observ
ed as to the cause. Soraetimes we are told of operations, but not a
word of the raanner of conducting them. Our information goes
just so far and no farther. It is of the nature of our present state,
and coincides with the design of our author, that here we should
know in part only, that here we should see darkly as through a
glass. Let us not vainly seek to be wise in divine things, above
what is written. Let us ever stop where revelation stops; and not
pretend to move one single inch beyond it. It is chiefly by indulg
ing the contrary practice, and giving way to the airy excursions of
an inventive imagination, that all our system-builders, without ex
ception, have more or less wandered from the mark. The question
which I have to resolve (the student ought thus to argue with hira
self) is not what doctrine I should think reasonable or probable,
but what is the doctrine contained in this book ? However differ
ent therefore in other respects, it is as much a question of fact, what
is the doctrine of the Bible, as it would be, if I were to be interro
gated concerningthe doctrine of Mahomet's Alcoran or Zoroaster's
Zend. Nor can I ever think myself more at liberty, by philosophiz
ing after my manner, to adulterate with ray reveries the doctrine of
Jesus Christ, than I should think myself at liberty to treat thus the
system either of the military prophet of the Musselmans, or of the
Persian sage. It is the contrary practice, which hath so raiserably
sophisticated the Christian scherae, and rendered many of our the
ological controversies mere logomachies, or no other than doting
about questions and strifes of words, in which, if the terms were
properly defined and understood, the difference would vanish.
7

54 CAMPBELLS LECTURES.
There are not a few ofthem in like manner, and those too themost
hotly agitated, of which it may be said with the greatest justice,
that scripture is of neither side, having never so rauch as entered
into the question. The third thing I would have hira attend to, is
to keep as near as possible to scripture style, only preferring prop
er to figurative expressions, and using those words which are the
plainest, and of the raost definite signification. Above all, he
ought to avoid the use of technical terras and phrases, which, it
may be alleged, gives a learned dress to religion ; but it is a dress
that very ill befits an institution intended for the comfort and direc
tion of all even of the lowest ranks. It is besides but too manifest,
that this garb is often no other, than a cloak for ignorance. And
of all kinds of ignorance, learned ignorance is undoubtedly the raost
contemptiblci I shall consider next the raanner in which the student may at
tempt a compend of the Christian ethics ; and consider the advan
tages that will result to him, in being pretty much employed in such
exercises.

NOTE REFERRED TO IN PAGE 50.
As a specimen of the manner of study above recommended, and
as an instance of its advantages, it may not be improper to subjoin
a criticism of Dr. Campbell's, on a passage in the epistle to the He
brews. The investigation is exhibited so clearly and fully, that it
will show by the teacher's own example and success, the benefit
which the student may reasonably expect from an observance of his
rules. Juvat usque' morari et conferre gradum. The passage is
Heb. iii. 5. Moses verily was faithful in all his liouse, as a servant.
When I consider the scope of the apostle in this chapter, I perceive
clearly an intention to compare the two great legislators whom God
had sent into the world, first, Moses, then Jesus Christ, not in respect
of the personal virtues which they exhibited, but in respect of the
dignity of station or rank to which they were raised. In respect of
virtue, there is no contrast at all in the passage ; as indeed in
what regards a trust, nothing greater can be said of any one than
is said of Moses, that he was faithful. And so far is that which fol
lows, to wit, that Moses was only a servant, Jesus Christ the Son and
heir, from giving the superiority in point of merit to the latter ; that,
as is universally allowed, the less a man has of personal interest, in
the subject intrusted him, the greater is the virtue of his fidelity.
But the whole. scope of the apostle sufficiently shows, that in noth
ing are the two great lawgivers above mentioned raeant to be com
pared, but in title, office, and rank. As no doubt can be made ofthe

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 55
entire faithfulness of both, it appears like a deviation from the scope
of the argument, to mention this virtue at all. But can any thing
be clearer or more unexceptionable thau the common version, Moses
was faithful, Marns fS' srira; .' Notwithstanding its clearness, not
withstanding its commonness, I may almost say, its universality, I can
not help entertaining some doubts concerning it, The apostle has, in
treating this topic, a manifest allusion to a passage in the Pentateuch,
in which, on occasion of the sedition of Aaron and Miriam, God
says, Numb. xii. 6, &c. If there be a prophet among you, I the Lord
wUL m,ake myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him
in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine
house. This passage plainly gives i-oom for the same suspicion. The
scope of the place is manifestly to show the superior privileges ,of
Moses, through the favour of God, to those of any other prophet,
and not his superior virtues. The words that follow make this, if
possible, still more glaring, v. 8. With him loill I speak, mouth to
mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches : and the similitude of
the Lord shall he behold. Wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak
against my servant Moses ? Nothing can be plainer, than that the
intention is here to show not the virtue, but the prerogative of Moses,
above all other prophets under that dispensation, as it is the intention
of the writer to the Hebrews to sho\v the prerogative of Jesus Christ
above Moses. And for this reason, I suspect that the word is not
rightly rendered, faithful, in the passage quoted from Numbers.
That I may discover, if possible, whether my suspicion is well
founded, I shall first recur to the place in the vei-sion of the Seventy,
where the expression, about which the doubt arises, is the same as in
the epistle to the Hebrews : i ^ifXTrm fia MauoTi; sv iXa tu omco fits
a-fs-s; £?<». Yet, there is here no comparative view of virtues, but
only of honours and privileges ; nothing is said tending to derogate
from the faithfulness of any other prophet. Nor does m iXa rn oiku
fta make the sraallest addition in this respect ; foi', as our Lord hath
said, " He who is faithful in little will be faithful also in much ;
and he who is unfaithful in httle, will be unfaithful also in much."
Yet, if in our interpretations, we are to be determined solely by the
classical use, it is hardly possible to conceive how s-iro? can be ren
dered otherwise into English than by the term faithful.
I therefore find it necessary, in the last place, to recur to the He
brew. There I find the word rendered Ti^-og, is neeman, which has
not only the signification o£ faithful, but being the passive participle
of the verb, aman, to believe, signifies also, trusted, charged with, and
thence also, firm, stable, &c. Now as the sense of Greek words in
Hellenistic use is often affected by the Hebrew, the word, nros, has
this meaning in several passages of the Septuagint. See for an ex
ample of this 1 Sam. iii. 20, where the words, ert 5r(s-o; Setfiarih it;
vfn^nritv ra xv^ia, are rendered in the English translation, that Samuel
was established, to be a prophet of the Lord. The translators have
made a reference to the margin on the word established, adding there,
or, faithful. The same term both in Hebrew and Greek is rendered
Psalm Ixxxix. 28, by the English word fast. My covenant shaXL

56 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
standfast with him. The expression in Numbers, to which the Apos
tle to the Hebrev/s refers, is thus rightly rendered by Castalio. At cum
Mose meo, non item, cui totius me<z domus fides habetur. And by Hou
bigant, Mm ita servus meus Moyses. Ele universa domus mem minister
ist perpetuus. In bis notes be adds, neeman, stabilis, non autem, fidelis.
" Enimvero hic describitur Moyses ex perpetuitate prophetiae, non
ex morum fidelitate. Ita rem intelligebat Paulus Apost. ubi postquam
testimonie hujus loci usus est, addit continenter, amplioris enim glories
iste pree Moyse dignus habitus est ; gloriam glorise comparans ;
Christi Domini cum Moysis. Et claudicaret similitudo, si gloriam
Christi cum Mosis fidelitate compararet."
In order to give a more distinct view of the light, which the above
mentioned alteration throws upon the passage, 1 shall offer an exact
version of the whole paragraph, being the first six verses of the third
chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. To take such a view of the
whole in connection, is often necessary, as much for the better ex
plaining of the import of a criticism, as for evincing its solidity.
" Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider
the apostle and high priest of our religion, Jesus Christ, who, as well
as Moses, was by him who raised him to that dignity, intrusted with all
his house. But who hath attained honour as far superior to that of
Moses, as the glory of the builder is greater than that of the house. For
every house hath been built by some person ; but he who built all things is
God. And Moses was' indeed trusted as a servant, for publishing t(f
all God's family whatever he had in charge : but Christ is trusted as a
son over his own family ; whose family we are, provided we maintain
our profession and boasted hope, unshaken to the end." Nothing can
be more evident than that it is the sole intention of this writer to
compare the dignities of station, not the virtues, of Moses and Christ,
the two founders of the only divine dispensations of religion, the
Jewish and the Christian. He admits that Moses as well as Christ,
may be justly said to have been intrusted, not with a part only, but
with all God's house ; and that, in this respect Moses had a very groat
pre-eminence above all the other prophets of that dispensation ; but
in regard to Christ, though it might be said his charge was the same
in point of extent — the whole house of God — the trust committed
to him was in its nature greatly superior. Moses was trusted with
the whole, but it was only «5 ^ipetirm, like a steward, who is no more
than an upper servant in the family, but Jesus Christ as a son, who
is the heir of all.
It may not be amiss here to take notice of the circumstances
which first suggested to me the criticism now made, or rather, as I
may justly say, which first occasioned my lighting upon the sense of
this passage. By carefully retracing the steps in consequence where
of we have amved at any discovery, we take the most probable means
of suggesting to others a method by which future discoveries may be
made. The faithfulness of Moses, as mentioned both here and in
the Pentateuch, had often appeared to me foreign from the scope of
the context, which related in both places solely to the excellency of
tho office, not to the worthiness of the officer. At the same time I

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. HH
did not see how «¦(«•«{ could be ti-anslated otherwise than faithful.
I found it so rendered in all the versions of the New Testament I
had consulted, Castalio's not excepted. But theu I had recourse to
Castalio's veraion of the Old Testament, for the intei-pretation of the
passage alluded to, 1 found the rendering totally different, and such as
perfectly suited the scope of the ai-gument. It implied solely, that
to Moses had been committed the charge of all God's house ; a
charge so weighty, eis had never been committed to any prophet be
fore him, nor indeed to any prophet after him under that dispensa-
sion. This led me to look into the Septuagint, where I found the
term mf»s employed, as it was afl;erwards by the apostle, who (as usual)
copied the words ofthat version. My next recourse was to the Hebrew,
where 1 found the origin ofthe error lay in the ambiguity of a Hebrew
participle, which even analogically should signify cuifides habetur, rath-'
er than qui fidelis est. Castaho, though sensible of this in translating the
Hebrew word neeman, did not think he could render in the same man
ner the Greek xfroj. Yet it is one ofthe chief peculiarities ofthe idiom
of the synagogue, thatthe Greek words have in it an extent of significa
tion corresponding to that of the Hebrew words which they ai-e em
ployed to represent. I was not at that time acquainted with the trans
lation of the Old Testament by Houbigant, who has signified in a note
on the passage in the Pentateuch, that the words of the apostle ought
to be understood and intei-preted in the same manner. This, together
'with many other examples which might be brought, serves to confirm
an observation I have made in another place, that to understand per
fectly the language of the New Testament, the knowledge of Hebrew
is almost as necessary as that of Greek.

LECTURE IV.

Directions for forining a System of Christian Morality. Advantages of the
Method recommended.
In my last lecture, I made it my business to point out a proper
raethod for conducting the study ol holy writ, in such a manner,
as that from it the student raay form to hiraself, uninfluenced by
the opinions of fallible raen, a digest ofthe truth, as it is in Jesus.
I purpose in the present discourse, to shew how he may proceed to
form a system of Christian morality. This, though properly first
in intention, (for we seek knowledge to direct our practice) is last
in execution ; it being that, to which every other part in this econ
oray points, as to its ultimate end. The great and primary aim of
the whole is to renew us again after the image of him that created

58 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
us, in righteousness and true holiness ; faith itself, and hope, how
ever important, act in a subserviency to this. It raay indeed be
thought, that as there are much fewer disputes concerning the du
ties required by our religion, than "concerning the doctrines which
it teaches, the examination of the forraer, as the easier task, ought
to precede the examination of the latter. And indeed this reraark
would have so far weighed with rae, that ifl had judged it expedi
ent to begin our inquiries into the Christian theology by the study
of systematic and controversial writers, I should have adopted this
method, on account of its greater simplicity and easiness. But if,
waving for a time all attentions to the coraraents, glosses, traditions,
questions, and refineraents ofmen, recourse is had onFy to the di
vine oracles, there is not the same necessity ; the difference in
point of difficulty, if any, will be found inconsiderable ; on the oth
er hand, the progression from knowledge to faith, from faith to love,
from love to obedience, is more conforraable to the natural influ
ence of things upon the huraan raind. Besides, the subject of
Christian raorals is not without its difficulties nor its controversies,
though they have been neither so great nor so many, as those which
have been raised in relation to several points supposed to belong to
the Christian doctrine. But even this subject is not in all respects
uncontroverted ; witness the raany differences in point of practice
that not only subsist, but are warraly contested by the different
sects in Christendora, one party thinking he doth God good ser
vice, by an action which another looks on with abhorrence, and
justly stigmatizes as at once impious and inhuraan. With how
many still, are matters of full as little account, as tithing mint,
anise and cumrain, exalted above the weightier raatters of the law,
justice, mercy and fidelity ? It is sacrificed with sorae, which with
others is accounted sacrilege ; and in too raany places of what is
called the Christian world, those absurd austerities and self-inflict
ed cruelties, which degrade human nature, dishonor religion, and
could only become the worshippers of dasmons, such as Baal or Mo
loch, are extolled as the sublimity of Christian perfection. I raen
tion these things only by the way, in order to show that the una
niraity araong Christians, in regard to raoral duties, is not so cora
plete, as is commonly imagined. Not that I would have the stu
dent at first to enter into these questions in relation to morality
any more than iuto such as are of a speculative nature and relate
to doctrine. Let it be his first aim in both provinces, to inquire im
partially into the mind of the spirit, as it appears in revelation itself.

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 59
without adraitting any interruption from the visions and specula
tions ofmen. Something of a plan or outline has been suggested,
to assist him in his inquiries into the doctrine of scripture ; it will
not be improper to proceed in the same way in what regards the
system of duty which may be collected from the sarae volurae.
Only it will be proper to premise, that though^the law of the gos
pel be not as was the law of Moses, what the apostle styles a law
of coramandments or a law of ordinances, yet there are sorae things
(as is absolutely necessary in every religious institution calculated
for a creature such as raan) of a ceremonial, and sorae of a mixed
nature partly cereraonial and partly raoral, as well as sorae things
purely moral. Of the first kind are what we now call the Chris
tian sacraraents, baptisra and the Lord's supper ; of the second,
what regards social and public worship and the separation of par
ticular tiraes for the purpose ; and of the third, all the duties di
rectly comprehended under charity or the love of God and man.
As to the doctrine of the New Testament in regard to the two
first, I meant to coraprehend them under the sixth head of the
sketch I>gave in relation to the Christian doctrine, which I term
ed the regeneration or the recovery of raan. Under this was com
prised the consideration of the external means, their use, their dif
ference under different dispensations, and their connection with
the effect to be produced. The subject to which I here confine
myself is Christian morality, or the pure ethics of the gospel. Ev
ery thing that is of a positive nature falls rauch raore properly un
der the former part. In regard to this, it is evident, that different
raethods may be adopted for classing the different branches of duty,
and there raay be a conveniency in viewing the same subject in a
variety of lights.
The only method which I shall take notice of at present, and
which is both the simplest and the most obvious, is that which re
sults from the consideration of the object, God, our neighbour, and
ourselves. This division the apostle Paul has given of our duty in
a passage well deserving the Christian's most serious attention, as
intimating the great and ultimate end of the gospel dispensation :
" The grace of God," says he, " that bringeth salvation, hath ap
peared to all men, teaching us, that denying ungodliness and world
ly lusts, we should live soberly and righteously and godly in this
present world, looking for that blessed hope and the glorious ap
pearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ, who gave
himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and puri-

60 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
fy unto himself a peculiar people zealous of good works." The
whole of Christian morality is here divided into three great branch
es, sobriety, or the duty which every man owes to himself, and
which consists in what we may call self govemment in the largest
acceptation of the word, implying two great articles, a due com
mand, first of appetite, secondly of passion ; which we may distin
guish by the titles of temperance and moderation, the former as it
stands opposed to these vices, intemperance, incontinence, and
sloth, which are different branches of voluptuousness ; the latter as
it stands opposed to pride, anger, avarice, and the love of life, be
ing distinguished by these several names, humility, meekness, con
tentment and fortitude.
Again, the second general branch into which the Christian moral
ity is divided, is righteousness, or that duty which every man owes
to all mankind. This may be subdivided from a regard to what is
implied in the nature of the subject, into these two virtues, justice
and beneficence. The former, that is justice, however highly val
ued and rarely found, is but at best a kind of negative virtue, and
consists in doing no ill to others, in not injuring them in their per
sons, property, virtue or reputation, which is but the lowest effect of
that love, which every man owes to another. " For this," says the
apostle, " thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou
shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not
covet ; and if there be any other comraandment it is briefly com
prehended in this saying, namely, thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour." It proves and ef
fectual check to injury in thought, word and action. But I call it
the lowest attainraent ofthat divine principle, not to injure those,
to whom it obligeth us to do all the good we can. This constitutes
the nature ofthat beneficence, which was mentioned as the second
branch ofthat duty, which we owe to other men. Justice or equi
ty is sufficient to prevent our doing that to another, which on a
change of circumstances we could not approve, or tbink just and
equitable if done to ourselves ; but beneficence goes further and
applies the golden precept of our Lord in its full extent, " Whatso
ever ye would, that men should do unto you, do ye also unto them."
This leads to all the different exertions of love, which the different
situations of the object, or the different relations which the object
bears to us, require at our hands, and which are distinguished by
the names of generosity, benevolence, patriotism, hospitality, friend-

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 61
ship, natural affection, brotherly love, humanity, gratitude, clem
ency, mercy and forgiveness.
The third branch in the general division is godliness or piety ;
which' has the great Author of our being for its iraraediate object.
The duties which we owe to hira, and which constitute that spirit
ual worship which the devout soul habitually at all times and
in all places pays hira, are reverence, love, trust and resigna
tion. The object of the first, which is reverence, is the superem
inent excellency of all the divine attributes, considered in themselves :
that of the second, which is love, is his goodness and mercy, par
ticularly as they appear in his works of creation and redemption ;
the object of the third, which is trust, is in a special manner the
veracity and faithfulness of God, considered in conjunction with
his wisdom and power; and the object ofthe fourth and last, which
is resignation, is providence, that is to say, all the divine perfections
considered as employed in the governraent of the world, and in
oyerrnling all events in such a manner, eis that they shall fulfil the
ends of infinite wisdom and goodness, ahd complete at last the
happiness of God's people. This view of the Christiaii plan of mor
als is the more agreeable, that it exhibits to us our duty in a kind
of scale or climax, not unlike the ladder which Jacob saw in his
dream, whose foot was fixed upon the earth, and whose top reached
the heaven. It begins at self, at the regulation of the inferior ap
petites and passions, the great hinderances to spiritual illumination,
and to all moral improvement, and at the acquisition of those vir
tues which are in effect little other in themselves than the negation
of vices; and from these, it rises and expands itself so as to em
brace the human race, thence again it ascends even to the throne
of the most high God.
The end of the Christian religion is often represented as being
the assimilation of the soul to God, by which alone we can be quali
fied for the enjoyment of him. Now as virtue in man, so the raoral
perfections of God have been represented as concentering in the
single character of love. " Love is ofGod," says the apostle John,
" and God is love." Agreeably to this doctrine, the acquisition of
this quality is represented eis the end of the whole Christian dispen
sation, which our apostle styles " the commandment," by way of
eminence. "Now the end of the commandraent is charity," (or
love, for the word in the original is the same) " out of a pure heart,
and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned." To the same
8

62 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
purpose we are told that it is " the bond of perfectness," or that
which must consummate the Christian character. You need not
be told, that in the love of God and the love of our neighbour, our
duty to both is in the New Testament commonly comprehended,
and these two constitute the second and third classes of duty in
the gospel systera above enumerated.
With regard to the virtues of the first class, which have self for
the object, and which consist in temperance with regard to bodily
appetite, and moderation in what concerns the passions ofthe soul,
these cannot be considered as bearing in themselves a direct re
serablance to any thing in the divine mind. They result purely
frorn the peculiarities of our nature and circumstances; at the same
time, they are absolutely prerequisite to the acquisition of that re
semblance. They prepare the heart for its reception, by the exciu-
cion of whatever might fend lo obstruct its access. Nor can any
thing more effectually block up the avenues ofthe heart to prevent
the entrance of the celestial guest, Christian love, than sensuality
and inordinate affection. Thus 1 have given you a kind of skele
ton of the ethics of the gospel, not to preclude your own assiduous
endeavours on this most important topic, but to serve on the con
trary as hints to promote them. In forming a digest upon such a
plan, it would be proper to observe carefully the sarae things, which
were pointed out as meriting your attention on the former head.
They were principally three ; To make scripture serve as its ovvn
interpreter ; not to indulge a spirit of philosophizing, or disposition
to refine upon the several articles; and lastly, to adopt as nearly as
possible the scripture language, only preferiing the plainest and
simplest expressions to those which are figurative, or may be thought
in any respect ambiguous or obscure.
It will not be improper in such a system to attend a little to what
may be called the order of subordination in duties, and to point out
in cases wherein there may be an interfering, which ought to give
place to the other. I do not mean, that he should enter into all
the curious discussions of casuistry, an art, which when all things
are duly considered, will be found, I fear, to have done more dis
service to religion and morals than benefit. In matters of right
and wrong, it has been observed with reason, that our first thoughts
are commonly the best. God hath not left the discovery of practi
cal truths, or what regards onr duty, in the same way, as those
truths that are of a theoretic nature, to the slow and precarious de
ductions of the rational faculty ; but has ia our consciences given

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 63
such clear intimations of what is right and araiable in conduct, that
where there have been no prejudices to occupy the mind, and per
vert the natural sense of things, it commands an immediate and in
stinctive approbation. Recourse is rarely had to the casuist for the
sake of discovering what is our duty, but very often that we raay
find a plausible pretext for eluding its coraraands. The Christian
scheme in this particular will be found, it is hoped, exactly con
formable to the purest dictates ofthe unprejudiced mind, to be truly
perfective of our nature, which it evidently tends to purify, expand,
aud raise, from every thing that is sordid, contracted, or low. The
casuistic art, as it is commonly managed, is in fact but a child ofthe
metaphysical theology ofthe schools, and has taken a considerable
tincture from the .secular considerations which have influenced the
parent. Hence the terra casuistical reasoning has, with judicious
people, fallen very much into disgrace, and is considered at, present
as very nearly synonymous with sophistical and Jesuitical reasoning.
I do not say indeed, that there may not soraetimes happen compli
cated cases, in which even a sensible and good man might be per
plexed on which side he ought to determine. But these do not
frequently occur ; and to employ oneself in imagining them before
hand, and in devising the various possible circumstances in which
transgression may be either extenuated or excused, will, I am
afraid, be found a more effectual expedient for insinuating vice,
than it is for making us understand the just limits of virtue.
I corae now to point out the advantages, which will redound to
the student ftom his employing so much of his time and labour on
the scriptures, as the exercises, which I have enjoined, will neces
sarily require. The first and most raanifest advantage is a knowl
edge ofthe scriptures. If any thing whatever can contribute to this
end, the method I have proposed must certainly do it. Every thing
that is reraarkable in the sacred volurae raay almost be comprised
in these three particulars, the history it contains, the scheme of
doctrine, and the -system of precepts. In order to raake a proper
abstract of each, it is necessary that we should be attentive to, and
get acquainted with every part. Some parts indeed are more es
sential for one of these purposes, and other parts for another ; but
there is no portion of sacred writ, of which we may not say with
justice, that it is conducive for our improvement, either in the bib
lical history, doctrine, or morals, if not in more than one of them,
or even in all the three.
Another advantage well deserving the student's serious attention

64 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
is this. It puts him upon a method, by means of which he can
hardly be in a situation wherein he may not have it in his power to
employ his time profitably in the acquisition of useful knowledge, and
in forraing habits of coraposition. I can easily conceive, and I believe
raany of you, gentleraen, raay have experienced what I ara going
to mention, I say, I can easily conceive that the situation, in which
you raay soraetiraes find yourselves, raay be such as affords very
little advantage for study, on any plan of reading that could well be
proposed. The books which I raight recoraraend raay not be found
in the places to which your circurastances raay lead you, and even
the raost ordinary helps raay not be at hand. On the plan I pro
pose, a great deal raay be done with no other book but the Bible,
and a concordance, which are to be found every where. Such of
you as can read Hebrew, and it is what you all ought to read, should
never be without a Hebrew Bible ofyour own, and let rae add to this,
a copy ofthe Septuagint and the Greek New Testament. And if you
have these, which are neither cumbersorae or expensive, you are so
richly provided, that it is your own fault, wherever you are, if you are
not iraproving daily.' The other books, which I have recoraraended
for your advanceraent in the knowledge of sacred history, and for
farailiaiizing you to the Jewish raanners, cereraonies, polity, idiom,
you ought to use when you have the opportunity of such assistan
ces, but ought always to remember that the want of them needs nev
er impede your progress, and consequently is no excuse for your be
ing idle. It is a point of the utraost consequence to young raen,
that we lay down to thera a proper method of employing their time,
not in a certain iraaginary situation which one might devise or'wish,
but in those actual situations, in which the greater part of you have
a probability of being. I have Icnown directions given to students,
which seeraed to proceed on the hypothesis, that they were to live
all their days in the midst of a library, where no literary production
of any name was wanting. The consequence of this was, that the
impracticability of the execution raade all the sage directions they
received, to be almost as soon forgotten as given ; and even if they
were not forgotten, as they could not be put in practice, for want
ofthe necessary implements recommended, they would serve only
as an excuse for idleness. I would, as much as possible, supply
this defect; and allow rae to add, I would deprive every one of you,
if 1 can, of that silly pretext for doing nothing, that you have not
books. I insist upon it, that the young student, wbile he has the
Bible, may still be usefully employed.

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 65
A third advantage which will redound from a proper application
of the raethod iiow proposed, is, that your style on religious subjects
will be very rauch formed on that ofthe scriptures. And what can
be so proper for conveying the mind of God in the great truths of
revelation, as that which was employed by the Spirit of God, who
speaks to us by the sacred penraen ? One of the raany unhappy
consequences, which have resulted frora the divisions of Christians,
from their classing theraselves under their several captains and
leaders, in manifest derogation from the honor due to their only
head and lord, the Messiah, and in no less manifest contempt of
the apostolical warnings they have received to the contrary, (one, I
,say, of the unhappy consequences of this conduct) is, that each
party hath got a dialect of its own, formed upon the raodel of the
great doctor or rabbi the founder, or, at least, the charapion of the
sect to whora they have implicitly resigned their understandings.
And what is worse, this diversity in the dialects used by the differ
ent parties hath itself becorae the ground of an alienation of heart
frora one another ; and that, even in cases where this difference in
phraseology, is all the difference which a wise raan would be able
to discern between thern. It was the resolution of Paul to speak
the things ofGod, " not in the words which raan's wisdora teach
eth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." The reverse is the prac
tice of all, in whom the true spirit of the sect predominates, of
whatever denoraination the sect be. They are ever for speaking
the things of God, not in the words which the Holy Ghost teach
eth, but which raan's wisdom teacheth. In antediluvian tiraes
when the sons ofGod went in to the daughters of raen, the product
of this unnatural mixture, as the sacred historian informs us, was gi
ants, raen of renown indeed, but renowned only for what is bad,
men hideous both in body and mind, as eminent for their wicked
ness as for their stature. When religion, the daughter of heaven,
hath been at any tirae unhappily forced to adrait an intercourse
with school raetaphysics, a mere son of earth, the fruit of such in
congruous union has been a brood no less monstrous. Or to adopt
an apt similitude of Luther's, " Mixtione quadam ex divinis eloquiis
et pMlosopMcis rationibus, tanquam ex Centaurorum genere biformis
disciplina conftata est."* Hence those absurdities in doctrine,
dressed in technical and barbarous language, by which the truth
as it is in Jesus, hath been so miserably defaced. Nor have these
* From a mixture of the divine oracles and of philosophical reasonings there
has sprung a double shaped form of doctrine, reminding one of the Centaurs.

66 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
last monsters been guilty of fewer or less considerable ravages,
than the first. In proof of this fact, many of the most incontesti
ble evidences frora church history miglit be produced. What the
apostle dreaded vvith regard to the Corinthians, has in less or more
befallen Christians of all denominations, their minds have been
corrupted frora the siraplicity that isin Christ. A more curious, a
more artificial, and a more learned style, was necessary to gratify a
vitiated palate and depraved appetite.
Many are tlie evils which to this day are consequent upon an
immoderate attachment to-scholastic language. One is, a certain
jealousy of temper vvhich it has occasioned. As one principal dis
tinction, especially in those parties or factions which are consider
ed as approaching nearest to one another, is in their style and idi
om, a true sectary gives a particular attention not to the sentiments,
but to the phraseology of any writer or speaker whose performance
falls under his consideration, in order that he may discover wheth
er he be a genuine son ofthe party. For this purpose, he is apt to
scrutinize every word and expression, though in itself the most
harmless and inoffensive, with a kind of malicious severity, and, in
consequence of this habit, acquires a suspicious censoriousness in
his manner of judging, which in every doubtful case leans to the
unfavourable side ; a disposition the most opposite, both to the do
cile and to the charitable teraper of Christianity, that can be well
conceived. Do not raistake rae, as though I meant this charge
against any one sect or party, or those ofone particular persuasion.
I am persuaded, on the contrary, that it may with too great justice
be charged on all. Nay, what is worse, though they are shy to
speak it, the style of scripture itself dqth not altogether escape their
animadversion and dislike. In the various disputes that have been
introduced, as those on each side pretend, that the doctrine of ho
ly writ is conformable to that oftheir party, each has recourse to it
for arguments. Each picks out those expressions and passages
which appear most favourable to its own dogmas, carefully avoiding
those, which seem to lean to the side ofthe adversary, and are most
coraraonly quoted by him. The consequence of this is, that the
various texts of scripture are strangely disunited among theraselves,
range/1 on different sides, and, as it were, raustered among the
forces of the opposite corabatants. One set of,scriptural expressions
and terms becorae the favourites of one party, and are, to say the
least of it, carefully avoided by another ; this latter has also in holy
WUt its darUng terms and phrases, which are no less shunned and

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 67
disliked by the forraer. Thus all have more or less incurred the
reproach which the prophet Malachi threw out against the priests of
his day, " that they had corrnpted the covenant, and were partial
in the law." Part, it would seera, pleased them, and part did
not ; they were careful to cull out those particulars which were
suited to their taste, and not less careful to omit such as were un
palatable. And are not we chargeable with the like partiality in
regard to God's word ? Dotli not one side look with a jealous eye
on the very mention of good works, especially iis that according to
which we must finally be judged, according to which we must be
either rewarded or punished ? Doth not the necessity of obedience,
though delivered in the very words of scripture, the issufficiency
of faith when unfruitful and alone, the danger of apostacy, of mak
ing shipwreck of faith andof a good conscience, and the duty of per
severance, alarm them with the direful apprehensions of arminian
ism, pelagianism, popery, the doctrine of merit, and what not? But
do I accuse those ofone side only? By no raeans ? Under this sin
all sects and parties may with fhe greatest justice be concluded.
Do but consider the matter impartially. How are those of a differ
ent party affected by the mention of our being saved by faith, of the
necessity of divine grace, of election, regeneration, andthe like?
Are not their fears as quickly alarraed? Are they not apt to ex
claim, " rank Galvanism," it is much, if they do not add, " fanatical
and puritanical nonsense?" And is it not evident, that in this man
ner the censures and reproaches of both are levelled in a great
measure against the word ofGod itself, whose language, it is mani
fest, that neither party will adrait in all things to be safe and unex
ceptionable ? It is worth while to observe the different ways of quo
ting adopted by different sides. Each always abounds raost in the
favourite texts of the party ; but when the introduction of a passage,
that has been often strenuously urged by an adversary, seeras una
voidable, what pains do they not take to raend it ? With what cir-
curaspect attention do they intersperse such clauses, and raake such
additions, as raay prevent its being understood in any other sense,
than the sect approves ? Is it possible, in a more glaring manner, to
show their disapprobation ofthe language of the Spirit; and that it
is their opinion, that on sorne points even the Holy Ghost hath ex
pressed himself incautiously, an oversight, which, it would seem, they
think it incumbent on thera, when occasion offers, to correct ? I
know no way to avoid all those evil consequences ofthe spirit of
schism aud rage of dogmatism, that have so long and so universal-

68 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
ly prevailed in the church, but by having recourse directly to the
fountain, before our rainds have been tainted by any party whatever.
This, and nothing but this, will ever bring our judgments into the
right train, and lead us to deterraine concerning the doubtful and
jarring opinions and expressions of men by the infallible word of
God, and not ofthe infallible word ofGod, by tbe doubtful and jar
ring opinions and expressions of men.
The last great advantage I propose to raention as resulting frora
this method, is the preparation it gives for the understanding, both
ofthe general controversy concerning the truth of Christianity, and
in like manner of all the particular disputes that have arisen in the
church. This I shall illustrate in the next lecture.

LECTURE y.

Subject continued — The knowledge of the Scriptures the most essential part of
the Study — How far the Study of Controversy demands our attention.
In my last discourse, I began with giving some hints to aid the
young inquirer into religion, in forraing a kind of systera of Chris
tian raorality, and concluded with pointing out the advantages
which would redound to hira, frora his being frequently eraployed
in the exercises on the scripture which we have recoramended, that
is, in making abstracts, first of the scriptural history, secondly of
the doctrines, and thirdly of the moral precepts. Of these advan
tages, I particularly mentioned and illustrated on the last occasion,
three. The first was, that it is one of the most effectual raethods,
I can conceive, of bringing the student to an intiraate acquaintance
with his Bible. The second was, that it suggests to hira an ex
cellent method of employing his time usefully in alraost any situa
tion wherein he can be placed. Every other method or plan of
study presupposeth so many things, so much leisure, so many con
veniences, and so great a variety of books, that admitting it were
ever so profitable, it can scarcely ever be put in execution ; where
as, on the contrary, if the young divine, however situated, be not in
a condition for executing this, we may say justly, that in ninety-
nine cases out of a hundred, he has hiraself to blame. The third
advantage I mentioned was, that his style in religious matters, in
what regards the great truths of revelation, would by this method

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 69
be formed entirely on the style of holy writ, the great and only
source of our information on this head, a style which in general
terms is admitted by all parties of Christians to be unexceptionable,
a style which no sect dares directly to accuse, and yet with which
no true sectary is altogether satisfied. Nor will this advantage ap
pear inconsiderable to those, who see what it is to be confined and
hampered in the trammels of a faction, and who are duly sensible of
the jealousy and raaligijity of spirit, that have been consequent on
the many discordant Babel dialects, which have been introduced
into the Christian world by our nuraerous and antichristian
divisions. The fourth and last great advantage, which in concluding I just
mentioned, and now intend to illustrate, is, the preparation which
by this method the student will acquire, for the understanding both
ofthe general controversy concerning the truth of Christianity, and
also of the particular disputes that have arisen in the church. As
to the general controversy concerning the truth of revelation, the
objections of the adversaries, as was observed formerly, are mostly
of two kinds. They are either intrinsic, and are levelled against
the contents of scripture, the doctrine it teaches, the morals it in
culcates, or the probability of the history it records; or extrinsic,
and are levelled against the outward evidences which are produced
in its defence, the miracles performed, and the prophecies fulfilled.
Now as to the former species of attack, it is raanifest we are utterly
unfit for judging of the question concerning the quality of the con
tents of revelation, till we have previously studied what the contents
are. If we go to work the other way, which I call preposterous,
we are entirely at the mercy of the antagonist for the most essential
part, the very foundation of his argument, to wit, the reality of the
facts and allegations, on which all his reasonings are built. If we
take things for granted on his bare affirmation, which if he has a
specious manner of writing we shall have a strong propensity to do,,
it is a thousand to one we shall become the dupes of the grossest
misrepresentation. If we have the sense and caution to perceive
that we ought to suspend our judgment, till we have impartially
examined the allegations in point of fact, we shall at best be per
plexed and puzzled, but can never be edified or improved by so
premature a study. The only thing we then can do with propriety,
is to betake ourselves to the study of scripture in sorae such method
as that which has been proposed ; and before we have accomplished
9

70 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
this, 'tis a thousand to one, that all our previous controversial read
ing, when we were nowise prepared to enter into the argument,
will be quite forgotten, so that the least bad consequence of this
perversion of the natural order is the loss of so much time and
labour, and the necessity we are under of beginning the controversy
a second time, if we would become masters ofthe question. Even
in a dispute, which we may happen to hear in company, how little
are we qualified to judge which of the parties hath reason on his
side, if vve are unacquainted with the subject of dispute? We shall
possibly be capable of deciding, which is the ablest disputant ; but
we could not devise a more fallacious rule, though in such circum
stances none is more coraraon^ by which to deterraine the merits of
the cause.
Let it not be pleaded' in answer to this, that without such a course
of study and exercises as hath been proposed, the generality of stu
dents, at least in protestant countries, have sufficient knowledge of
the contents of scripture, to qualify them to judge of such contro
versy ; for have they not had occasion, nay, have they not been
inured to read the sacred books themselves, and to hear them read
by others, even frora their infancy ? But to this I reply, that as
teaching in this manner has always been accompanied more or less
with human explications and glosses, the learner in so early a period
is extreraely ill qualified to distinguish the text from the comment.
Accordingly, do we not see, that with the sarae practice of reading
scripture and hearing it read, the notions of its doctrine, irabibed
by the youth, are different in different countries and in different
sects ? It is of importance, before the student enter on the main
question, the truth of his religion, that he should I^ enabled to dis
tinguish between the commandments of God, and the traditions of
the elders ; between the simple truth, as it is in Jesus, and the
subtleties and refinements of the theorist. These are miserably
blended and confounded in all the attacks that have been made on
the Christian religion. And what is worse, most ofthe answerers,
having been themselves zealous partizans of some sect, have con
tributed to confirm and increase the confusion. The method 1-
have proposed, doth, in my opinion, bid fairest for accomplishing.
the end, and enabling the student, in most cases, to make the dis
tinction. Besides, even the attacks that have been made on the
external evidences, especially in regard to the fulfilment of prophe
cies, when the argument turns on the meaning of the prediction,
we are, by thus familiarizing ourselves to the study of the scripture

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. . 71
idiom, language, and sentiments, prepared for understanding, and
consequently for deciding upon its strength or weakness. And in
deed (if we except only the abstract and metaphysical argument,
t^at has been urged against the possibility of miraculous events as
being preterilatural, which is totally independent on any question of
fact, and may therefore be studied at any time) the best preparation
we can make, for entering into the whole controversy concerning
the truth of Christianity, is a critical knowledge of holy writ, to
gether with some proficiency both in biblical and ecclesiastic his
tory. But further, this will be found the best raethod, not only for
enabling us to understand the controversy, but for abridging it also.
We shall be in a capacity for detecting many fallacies in reasoning,
and many raisrepresentations of fact, which might otherwise stagger
and confound us. When thus prepared, our own penetration will,
in many cases, supersede the necessity of perusing refutations.
But this method will be found not only the best preparation for
understanding the general controversy concerning the truth of our
religion, but also for entering properly into the particular controver
sies that have arisen among Christians concerning articles of faith,
matters of government, worship, discipline, or raorals. When the ad-
Terse parties are both protestants, the point just now affirmed raay
with propriety be called self-evident ; because the only infallible rule
of decision admitted by both parties, is the scripture. And even in
the disputes which subsist between protestants and papists, or Ro
man Catholics as they affect to call themselves, this knowledge of
the sacred volume and history must be of the utmost consequence ;
since, though we do not receive for scripture all that they account
canonical, yet they admit as such all the books that are received by
us ; and though they will not acknowledge scripture to be the only
rule of faith and manners, yet as they own its inspiration, they
avow it to be a rule and an unerring rule too. The exact knowl
edge of its contents must therefore be of the greatest moment to
one who would enter the lists with a Romanist, since those of that
faction cannot, consistently with their own profession,, admit any
thing in religion, which is contradictory to the doctrine or precepts
contained in that book : so that even upon their own principles,
their tenets are liable to be confuted frora scripture, if we can evince
the contrariety. And with regard to all the particular popish con
troversies, next to the knowledge of scripture, a thorough acquain
tance with ecclesiastic history is ofthe greatest iraportance. Unin
terrupted tradition is a much boasted and vei'y powerful plea with

72 CAMPBELLS LECTURES.
them. It is impossible without such an acquaintance with church
history, for any one to conceive how raiserably ill this plea is adapted
to support their cause. The gradual introduction of their many
gross corruptions, both in doctrine and practice, is so extreraely ap
parent to the historic student, that even a person of moderate pen
etration will need no other proof, either of their novelty, or of the
baseness of their extraction. He will thus in the most effectual
manner be convinced of the falseness of all other foundations, tra
dition, popes, and councils, and that the Bible is that alone on
which the religion of Christians can rest imraoveably. He will be
apt to conclude in the words of the excellent Chillingworth, (whose
performance deserves a most serious perusal, not more because it is
a clear detection of papistical sophistry, than because it is an ad
mirable specimen of just and acute reasoning, he will be ready, I
say, to conclude in the words of that author,) " Whatsoever else
they believe besides the Bible, and the plain, irrefragable, indubita
ble consequences of it, well raay they hold it as a raatter of opinion,
but as a raatter of faith and religion neither can they, with cohe
rence to their own grounds, believe it themselves, nor require the
belief of it of others, without most high and most schismatical pre
suraption. I, for ray part, after a long and (as I verily believe and
hope) irapartial search of the true way to eternal happiness, do pro
fess plainly, that I cannot find any rest for the sole of ray foot, but
on this rock only. I see plainly and with ray own eyes, that there
are popes against popes ; councils against councils ; some fathers
against others ; the same fathers against themselves ; a consent of
fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age ; the
church of one age against the church of another age. Tl:aditive
interpretations of scripture are pretended, but there are none to be
found. No tradition, but only of scripture, can derive itself from
the fountain, but may be plainly proved, either to have been brought
in, in such an age after Christ, or that in such an age it was not in.
In a word, there is no sufficient certainty, but of scripture only, for
any considerate man to build upon." Thus far that able advocate,
of Protestantisra. So just will the remark be found upon the trial,
that those branches of knowledge, which we have advised the stu
dent to begin with, holy writ and sacred history, will, beyond his
conception, tend to shorten the study of all religious controversies
both general and particular. The reason is obvious. It will sup
ply him with a fund in himself, whereby he can discover the solidity
or futility of almost every argument that can be advanced.

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 73
O9 the contrary, when one who is quite unprovided in this re
spect, enters on controversy either general or particular, what is the
consequence ? It is, I may say, invariably, one or other of these
two. He is either fixed entirely in his sentiraents by the first author
he reads, so that the clearest proofs from reason or scripture can
never shake him afterwards ; or he is always the dupe of the last
writer he has happened to peruse. The first is commonly the case,
when there is ever so little of a previous bias from education to the
principles, and a favourable opinion of the character of the author.
The second holds more comraonly when the bias frora education, if
any, is inconsiderable, and the authors on both sides ingenious and
artful. Nor does this wavering in the student betray, as is com
monly imagined, a want of understanding. The want it betrays is
of a' very different nature. It is the want of such a stock of knowl
edge, as is necessary to qualify the mind for judging. Or to adopt
an illustration from the body ; it is not the badness of his eyes, but
the want of light which is the cause of his mistaking. And the
best eyes in the world will not distinguish colours in the dark. It
must be owned further, that even this changeableness, when it arises
from'such a cause as we have mentioned, shows commonly a lauda
ble candour Of temper and openness to conviction. In both cases,
however, the effect is a sufficient demonstration, that the study was
¦ premature. Mr. Pope, by his own acknowledgment, was an in
stance of the case last mentioned, as we learn from one of his let
ters to Dr. Atterbury. The prelate, it would appear, had been
using his best endeavours with the poet to induce him to read some
of the most celebrated authors on the popish controversy, in order
to his conversion to the church of England. Mr. Pope, araongst
other things, inforraed the bishop, that he had forraerly, even when
he was but fourteen years old, employed some time in reading the
best writers on both sides the question, and that the consequence
had always been, that he was protestant and papist alternately, ac
cording to the principles of the author, who had last engaged his
attention. He adds very pertinently, " I am afraid most seekers
are in the same case ; and when they stop, they are not so properly
converted, as outwitted." Mr. Pope cannot, I think, be justly
accused even by his enemies of a defect of understanding. In this
particular, he was considerably above the ordinary standard. But
being, in all probability, at that early period totally deficient in
those materials, which could enable him to judge for hiraself in
controversies about the sense of revelation, it was inevitable, that

74 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
he should be swayed by turns by the different representations of
the different champions. In other words, not having in himself
those lights that were necessary, the knowledge of scripture and
the knowledge of history, to enable him to see with his own eyes,
he was forced to see with those of other people ; and his iraparti
ality itself led hira to be influenced most by the nearest, by him
who had made the last irapression. So rauch for the advantages
which will accrue to the student from a proper prosecution of the
plan I have been recommending.
But, it may be said, suppose this knowledge of which you speak,
is once attained. Must he proceed any further ? and if he must. In
what manner ? In answer to these questions, I observe first, that
when once the knowledge I mentioned is attained, he has accora
plished by far the most essential part of the study of Christian the
ology, he hath acquired that which is both in itself most valuable,
and can best prepare him to enter with understanding into the
other, and less essential parts of the study. Things however are
rendered necessary to people in certain stations from certain acci
dental circumstances, which would otherwise be of little conse
quence in themselves. Of this sort are many things which the the
ologian raust not altogether overlook. Some books deserve to be
read on account of the useful instruction they contain ; some again
on account of the vogue they have obtained, and often raerely that
we raay be qualified to say with greater confidence, that they con
tain nothing of any value; some, because they inforra us of what is
done ; others, because they inform us of what is thought. And as
the qualities of different books and the acquisitions we raake by
them are very different, so the motives that influence us are no less
various : sometiraes we read to obtain a supply of knowledge, oftener
to obtain a supply of conversation, and not seldom to pass tolerably
over a vacant hour, which we are at a loss how to spend. In deter
mining the comparative merits of books, there can be no question,
that those which convey useful knowledge and deserve a reading
on their own account, are in a class greatly superior to those .which
afford only matter of conversation, and require a share of our atten
tion on account of the esteem of others ; and which is perhaps
nearly coincident, those which instruct us in permanent truths, and
the actual productions of eventful time, are of a higher order, than
those which entertain us only with the vague opinions and unintel
ligible sophisms of raen. Books of the third class, or pieces of mere
arausement, I throw out of the question altogether. Now as to those

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 75
of the second, if every njan were unconnected with and independent
on his fellows, such reading (farther at least than were necessary to
give us some notion of the wanderings of the human mind) it would
perhaps be better to dispense with entirely. But as that is not the
case, and as our own happiness in a great measure, and the very
end of our being depend on our utility, it is necessary, that in our
studies this should comraand a considerable share of our regard-
It is not by undervaluing their sentiraents, that we can ever hope
to be profitable to others, and to correct what is araiss in thera. It
is necessary that in this respect we should even follow the wanderer
into his devious tracks, that we may be in a condition to lay hold of
hira, and reclaira hira by reconducting him into the right way.
Now to make application of these observations to the present sub
ject, I readily admit, that when once the young divine hath acquired
the knowledge of the scriptures above recoraraended and illustrated,
and hath added to this the history of our religion, he hath obtained
all, or nearly all that is instructive, that is truly valuable on its own
account, but he hath not obtained all that may be necessary to fit
him for instructing others. For this purpose, he must be prepared
to enter the lists with gainsayers on their own ground, and to fight
them at their own weapons. With the fund of substantial knowl
edge above pointed out, he will hardly run the risk of being seduced
bythe sophistry of others, but he may be both surprised and silenced
by it. We may perceive perfectly the inconclusiveness of the ar
gument of an adversary, the moment it is produced, to which how
ever we may not be able on the sudden to give a pertinent and
satisfactory reply. Besides, a deficiency in this secondary kind of
knowledge is perhaps more apt, in the judgment ofthe world, to fix
on a character the stain of ignorance, than a defect in the priraary
kind. And how rauch this stigraa, however unjustly fixed, will, by
prejudicing the minds of men, prevent the success of a teacher,
those who understand any thing of human nature will easily judge.
I will just now put a case, the decision of which will be thought
by several to be problematical, and by many to be extremely cleary
though of these no doubt some would decide one way, and some
another. With the reservation of sacred writ and sacred history,
under which I include all that can serve to enlighten pagan, Jewish
and Christian antiquity, I will suppose that all our theological books,
systems, controversies, commentaries, on all the different sides, were
to be annihilated at once ; the question is, whether the Christian
world and the republic of letters would be a gainer or a loser by

76 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
this extraordinary event. Let it not be imagined, that I mean by
this supposition, to consider all such performances as being on a
level in point of excellency. Nothing can be farther from my view.
I know that the difference among them in respect of merit is ex
ceedingly great. Nor is it my intention to insinuate, that there would
not be a real loss, when considered separately, in the suppression
of many ingenious and many useful observations. But as there
would on the other hand be manifest gain in the extinction of so
much sophistry, the destruction of so many artful snares laid for
seducing, the annihilation of the materials of so rauch contention,
I may say, of the fuel for kindling such terrible conflagrations, my
question regards only the balance upon the whole, and whether the
loss would not be more than corapensated by the profit. Can the
Christian, at least can the Protestant, think, that there would be a
want of any thing essential, whilst the word of God reraained, and
every thing that might be helpful, not to bias men to particular
opinions, but to throw light upon its idiom and language 1 Is it
possible, that any man of common understanding should imagine,
we could ever come to differ so widely about the sense and mean
ing of scripture, if we did not take such different ways of setting
out, and if almost every one were not at pains to get his mind pre
occupied by some human composition or teaching, before he enters
on the examination of that rule ? And would it be a mighty loss to
Christians, that the seeds (I say not oftheir differences in opinion,
but) of such unrelenting prejudices, such implacable aniraosities
against one another, were totally destroyed ? Shall it be regarded
as a formidable dangei> that all, by being thus compelled to a sort
of uniformity in their method of study, should arrive at an unaniraity,
not so much in their tenets as in their dispositions and affections ?
For that this would be the consequence, there is the greatest reason
in the world to believe ; as in nine hundred and ninety-nine instances
out of a thousand, all the differences among Christians are the man
ifest fruit of the different biasses previously given to their minds.
Those who are profoundly read in theological controversy, before
they enter on the critieal examination ofthe divine oracles, if they
have the discernment to discover the right path, which their former
studies have done much to prevent, and if they have the fortitude
to persevere in keeping that path, will quickly be sensible, that they
have more to unlearn than to learn ; and that the acquisition of
truth is not near so difficult a task, as to attain a superiority over
rooted errors and old prejudices. Let it not be imagined from this,

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 77
that I condemn all controversial writing. There are certain cir
cumstances, I am sensible, which render it necessary. Were it
indeed possible, that all controvei'sies in divinity were buried in one
grave without the hope of resurrection, I should think it incompa-
bly better for christendora ; but it would be extremely hard if error
were allowed to attack, and truth not permitted to defend herself.
If there, must be debates, let them be fair and open, let both sides
be heard with candour and impartiality. This is the only sure way
of giving all possible advantage to the truth. It were certainly
better for mankind that no deadly weapons whatever were used or
known among men ; but if villians will use them for the purposes
of mischief, it would be very hard, that honest men should be de
nied the use of them in self defence.
I would not by this be thought to insinuate, that these two cases
are in all respects parallel, or that the patrons of error were always
actuated by villanous designs. God forbid that I were so unchar
itable. Our Lord himself hath assured us that those who would raise
the most cruel persecutions against his disciples, would seriously
think, that in s'o doing they did God service. He hath little knowl
edge of raankind who doth not perceive that raen are often just as
sincere in their intentions in the defence of erroneous, as of true,
opinions. The only purpose of my similitude was to signify, that if
honesty must be allowed to wage at least a defensive war against
villany, the same privilege should be allowed to truth against false
hood. Here indeed it may be justly said, that the greater freedom
ought to be perraitted to both parties, as the distinction is not so
easily made in the latter case, as in the forraer. To distinguish the
just frora the unjust in a quarrel is coraraonly a raatter of rauch
greater facility, than to distinguish the true frora the false in a de
bate. But as it may be justly said, that errors in religion have gen
erally more or less, directly or indirectly, a bad influence on practice,
they ought always to be guarded against with all the precaution of
which we are capable. Nor is there another way of guarding
against them, that I know of, but by an unprejudiced and impartial
scrutiny, into all matters really questionable.
I have observed already, that after such an examination as hath
been recoraraended of the sacred oracles, and of the histories fo
which they relate, and with which they are connected, both Jewish
and Christian, the attentive and judicious student will not probably
find much occasion, for his own sake, to canvass the works of con-
10

78 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
trovertists. It may, however, be of considerable consequence for the
sake of others, that one who is to be vested with a public character
in the church, should not be entirely unacquainted with their writ
ings. The first controversy that clairas our attention is the deistical,
as this strikes directly at the foundation of all. Could one have an
opportunity of studying this at his leisure, in what order he pleased,
and had all the necessary books at his coramand, I should advise
him to begin with those which relate to the intrinsic evidence of
our religion, then to proceed to what regards the extrinsic evidence ;
first prophecy, because most nearly related to the former branch,
then miracles, and lastly, every collateral confirmation that may be
brought from history. But as it rarely happens, that one can pros
ecute a plan of this kind in the order or manner in which it is
proposed, there is no great matter, though you take occasion of pe
rusing the books of the greatest name on the one side or the other
as they fall in your way. The only thing I insist on, is, that this
study ought to be posterior altogether to the study of sacred writ
and sacred history, if you would enter into it with understanding,
if you would not expose yourselves to be misled and imposed on,
mistaking the specious for the solid, not enough enlightened to dis
tinguish the plausible frora the true. As to the particular questions
that have arisen among Christians, those which claim our first
attention are, doubtless, such as subsist between Protestants and
Papists. Next to these the several distinguishing tenets whicb
characterize the various tribes or sects, that come under the cora
mon na!me of Protestant — Lutherans, Socinians, Arminians, Cal-
rinists, Antinoraians ; and to these we may add those questions
which have been for some tirae hotly agitated in this island ;
for though several of them are in themselves apparently of little mo
ment, yet they have been productive of momentous consequences.
Such are the questions in relation to the externals of worship and
forms of government, about cereraonies, sacraments, and ordina
tion, and which constitute the principal matters in dispute between
the church of England and Dissenters, and by which several of our
sects, such as Anabaptists, Nonjurors, and Quakers, are chiefly
discriminated. As to the numerous controversies which have in
former ages made a noise in the church, and are now extinct, or
which are still agitated in distant regions, Greece or Asia for exam
ple, it is enough with regard to these, to know what church history
hath recorded concerning their rise, progress, and decline ; con
cerning the quibbles and phrases (for we can rarely call them prin-

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 79
ciples) which have afforded the chief matter of their altercation.
I do not speak in this manner, as if all our controversies in the
West were of themselves of greater importance than the eastern
disputes, or as if the raodern were superior to the ancient. I am
far frora thinking, that the cavils and logoraachies of our Supralap-
sarians and Sublapsarians, Remonstrants, Antiremonstrants, and
Universahsts of the last age, or of our Seceders — both burgesses
and antiburgesses, Reliefmen, Cameronians, Moravians, and San-
demanians, are one jot more intelligible or more edifying, than
those of the Sabellians, Eutycbians and Nestorians and Monothe
lites and Monophysites, and a thousand other ancient and oriental
distinctions. The only thing that can give superior consequence
to the former with us, is their vicinity in time and place, and the
propriety there is, that for the sake of others, the Christian pastor
should be prepared for warding the blows of those adversaries, to
whom his people may be exposed. I say for the sake of others,
for we may venture to affirra, that no raan of common understand
ing, who hath candidly and assiduously studied holy writ in the raan
ner we have recommended, can find the smallest occasion for his
own sake of entering into such labyrinths of words, such extrava
gant ravings, as would disgrace even the name of sophistry ; for
even that terra, bad as it is, implies art and ingenuity, and at lea&t
an appearance of reason, which their wild declamation can very
rarely boast. I am not of the mind, that the student should think
it necessary to inquire into the several grounds and pleas of all the
above mentioned sects and parties. Sorae of them, as the princi
pal heads of our disputes with Romanists, and thechief questions
that have been started concerning the divinity of Christ, his expia
tion of sin by the sacrifice of himself, and concerning the operation
ofthe Spirit, it will be proper to canvass more thoroughly. As to
those of less note, since it is chiefly for the sake of others our the
ologian studies such questions, he must judge how far it is needful
by the situation in which he finds himself.

80 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.

LECTURE VI.
Method of prosecuting our Inquiries in Polemic Divinity — The use to be
made of Scholia, Paraphrases, and Commentaries — Danger of relying on
human guidance in matters' of ReUgion.
1 NOW come more particularly to the raethod of prosecuting these
inquiries in poleraic divinity. The briefest, and therefore, not the
worst way, is by means of systems. And of these, I own, I gener
ally like the shortest best. My reason is, that all of them, without
exception, have, on certain topics, and in some degree or other, de
parted from the siraplicity of the truth as it is in Jesus. They have
indulged too much to imagination, and fallen at times into the do
tage about questions and strifes of words which minister conten
tion, and not godly edifying, and they have not sufficiently known,
or acknowledged, the liraits on those sublime subjects, which God
hath assigned to the human faculties. It ought never to be forgot
ten by the student, that the Deity hath prescribed bounds to the hu
man mind, as well as the mighty ocean, and in effect tells us in his
word, " Thus far shalt thou corae, and no farther, and here shall
thy airy flights, thy proud excursions, be staid." If the Student
can, let hira provide hiraself in some of the most approved systems
on the different sides. 'Tis error, not truth, vice, not virtue,
that fears the light. You may rest assured of it, that if any teacher
exclaims against such a fair and imparital inquiry, and would limit
you to the works of one side only, the reason is, whatever he may
pretend, and however much he may disguise it even from himself,
he is more solicitous to make you his own follower, than the follow
er of Christ, and a blind retainer to the sect to which he has attach
ed himself, than a well instructed friend of truth, without any par
tial respects to persons or parties. On reading an article in one
system, let him peruse the correspondent article in the others, and
examine irapartially by scripture as he proceeds ; and in this man
ner, let him advance from one article to another, till he hath can
vassed the whole. 'Tis more than probable, that on [some points
he will conclude them all to be in the wrong ; because all rtiay go
farther than holy writ affords a foundation for deciding, a thing by
no raeans uncommon : but in no case, wherein they differ, can
more than one be in the right. If he shall find it expedient after
wards to inquire raore narrowly into some branches of controversy,

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 81
he will have an opportunity of reading books written on purpose on
both sides the question. Ifhe should not have it in his power to con
sult different systeras, he will find a good deal of sorae of our prin
cipal controversies in Burnet's exposition of the articles, and Pear
son on the Creed. When thus far advanced, he raay occasionally,
as he finds a difficulty (and in my opinion he ought not otherwise)
consult scholia and comraentaries. Of these I like the first best,
both because they are briefer, and because they proraise less. The
scholiast proposes only to assist you in interpreting sorae passages,
which, in the course of his study, he has met with things that serve
to illustrate ; whereas the commentator sets out with the express
purpose of explaining every thing. I have the less faith in him on
that account, and am ready to say with Horace, " Quid dignum
tanto feret hic promissor hiatu."*
I own, for I will tell you freely what I think, that of all the kjnds
of expositors, I like least the paraphrast. There is in hira, an ap
pearance of presuraption, both in giving what he seems to imagine
a raore proper style to the inspired writer, and in his manner of in
terweaving his own sentiments indiscriminately with those deliver
ed by unerring wisdom, with which neither the commentator nor
the scholiast is chargeable ; for in these the text and coraraentary
are never confounded by being blended. Another fault in para
phrases, of which few or no coraraentaries, that I know of, can be
accused, is that you have, by way of explanation, in the former, to
wit the paraphrase, the sentiments of the pharaphrast alone ; where
as in the latter, the coraraentary, you have often the opinions of
others also, with their reasons, which, notwithstanding the partial
ity ofthe relater, will to the judicious reader often appear prefera
ble. I do not say, however, that paraphrase can never be a useful
mode of explication, though I own, that the cases wherein it raay
be reckoned not iraproper, nor altogether unuseful, are not nuraer
ous. As the only valuable aira of this species of exposition is to
give greater perspicuity to the text, obscurity is the only reasonable
plea for employing it. When the style is extremely concise or fig
urative, or when there are frequent allusions to customs or inci
dents now not generally known, to add as much as is necessary for
supplying an ellipsis, explaining an unusual figure, or suggesting an
unknown fact or custom alluded to, may serve to render scripture
more inteUigible, without taking much from its energy by the para-
* What will this pretender exhibit worthy of sucb boasting ?
w

82 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
phrastic dress it is put in. But if the use and occasions of
paraphrase be only such, as have been now represented, it is
evident, that there are but a few books of holy writ, and but certain
portions of those few, that require to be treated in this raanner.
No historical piece is written with greater simplicity and perspicuity
than the history contained in the Bible, and both as to facts and
moral instructions, we have not any thing more eminent in this
respect, than the gospels. Yet nothing is more coraraon than the
atterapt of paraphrasing these. And indeed the notions, which the
generality of paraphrasts seem to entertain on this subject are curi
ous. If we judge frora their productions, we raust conclude, that they
have considered such a size of subject raatter (if I may be indulged
in the expression) as affording a proper foundation for a coraposi
tion of such a raagnitude, and have therefore laid it down as a max
im, from which in their practice they do not often depart, that the
most commodious way of giving to the work the proposed extent, is
that equal portions of the text (perspicuous or obscure it matters not)
should be equally protracted.* Thus regarding only quantity, they
view their text, and parcel it, and treat it in much the sarae manner
as gold-beaters and wire drawers do the metals on which their art
is employed. Verbosity is the proper character of this kind of
composition. The professed design of the paraphrast is to say in
many words what his text expresseth in few : accordingly all the
writers of this class must be at pains to provide themselves in a suf
ficient stock of synonyraas, epithets, expletives, circuralocutions and
tautologies, which are in fact the necessary implements of their
craft. A deficiency of words is no doubt oftener than the contra
ry,, the cause of obscurity. Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.t But
this evil raay also be the effect of an exuberance. By a raulti
plicity of words the sentiraent is not set off and accommodated, but
like David equipt in Saul's armour, it is encumbered and opprest.
Yet this is not the only, nor perhaps the worst consequence result
ing from this manner of treating sacred writ. In the very best corapo
sitions of this kind, that can be expected, the gospel raay be cora
pared to a rich wine of a high flavour, diluted in such a quantity of
water, as renders it extreraely vapid. This would be the case if
the paraphrase (which is indeed hardly possible) took no tincture
from the opinions of the paraphrast,'but exhibited faithfully, though
insipidly, the sestiments of the text. Whereas in all those para-
, * See Philosophy of Rhetoric, Book III. Chap. 2.
i I labor to be brief, I become obscure.

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 83
phrases we have seen, the gospel may more justly be compared to
such a wine as hath been mentioned, so much adulterated with a
liquor of a very different taste and quality, that little or nothing of
its original relish and properties can be discovered. Accordingly
in one paraphrase, Jesus Christ appears in the character of a bigot
ted papist, in another of a flaming Protestant ; in one he argues
with all the sophistry of the Jesuit, in another he declaims with all
the fanaticism of the Jansenist ; in one you trace the metaphysical
ratiocinations of Arrainius, in another you recognise the bold con
clusions of Gomarus ; and you hear the language of a man who
has thoroughly imbibed the systera of one or another of our Chris
tian rabbles. So various and so opposite are the characters, which
in those performances our Lord is made to sustain, and the dialects
which he is made to speak. How different is his own character
and dialect ? If we be susceptible of the impartiality, and have at
tained the knowledge requisite to constitute us proper judges in
these raatters, we shall find, in what he says, nothing that can be
thought to favour the subtle disquisitions of a sect. His language
is not, like that of all dogmatists, the language of a bastard philoso
phy, which under the pretence of methodising religion, hath cor
rupted it, and in less or raore tinged all the parties into which chris
tendora is divided. His language is not so much the language of
the head, as ofthe heart ; his object is not science, but wisdora, his
discourses accordingly abound raore in sentiraents, than in opinions.
His diction in general is so plain, and his instructions in the
main are so obvious and striking, that it is scarcely possible to con
ceive another design that any man can have in paraphrasing thera,
than to give what I may call an evangelical dress to his own no
tions, to make the passages of our Lord's history, his sayings and
parables, serve as a kind of vehicle for conveying info the minds of
the readers the opinions ofthe expositor. And is not this actually
the effect they commonly produce in their too iraplicit and habitual
readers ? Are you willing to rtill the ingenious and learned Eras
mus, your father and leader and master in religious truths ? Do you
desire to understand Christianity no otherwise than he is pleased to
exhibit it? Have recourse to his Latin paraphrase ofthe New Tes
tament. Seek the religion of Jesus only there, and your end is
answered. Would you rather pay this homage to some of our En
glish interpreters ? Suppose for exaraple the mild, the dispassionate,
the abstract, 'the rational Dr. Clarke. Let his paraphrase on the
gospel serve you, as all the information needful of the history and

84 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
teaching of Jesus : or if the devout, the warm, the serious Dr. Dod
dridge more engages you, raake his Family Expositor your only
counsellor as to the mind and will of Christ. And these methods,
I'll answer for them, are the surest and most effectual, for making
you becorae in religion the servants and disciples of men. But if,
on the contrary, it is neither the gospel of Erasmus, nor the
gospel of Clarke, nor the gospel of Doddridge, but the gospel of
Jesus Christ, that you want to be acquainted with ; if you would not
that your faith should stand in the wisdom of men, but in the pow
er of God ; if sensible, that you are bought with a price, you are re
solved not to be the servants of men ; if you gratefully and gen
erously purpose to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath
made you free, to call no man father on earth, having one Father
who is in heaven, and to call no man rabbi, leader, head or master on
the earth, knowing that ye yourselves are all brethren, and have one
leader, head and master Christ, who is at the right hand of God ;
if this, I say, is your settled purpose, read, habitually read his his
tory and divine lessons, as they are recorded by those, whom he
himself hath employed, and whom his Spirit hath guided in the
work, the evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
I shall tell you honestly my opinion. I have consulted para
phrases occasionally, and those too, written on different sides. I
have corapared thera carefully with the original work they pretended
to illustrate ; and abstracting frora all other faults and defects, I
have always found thera, upon the whole, rauch inferior to the text
in point of perspicuity. The latter hath ever appeared to me the
more intelligible of the two. I do not say, that you may not con
sult them occasionally, as you would any other kind of exposition or
coraraentary. But 1 repeat it, with regard to all kinds of interpre
tation whatever, that it is only occasionally, as when sorae difficulty
occurs of which one is at the tirae at a loss to think of a satisfac
tory solution, or when one is desirous to examine, on a particular
point, the different hypotheses of (Afferent parties, that we should
have recourse to thera. My idea with regard to coramentators,
scholiasts, paraphrasts, and the whole tribe of expositors, is, that
they are to be consulted in the same way, and no otherwise, than
we do glossaries and dictionaries ; which is only when any thing
perplexeth us, and we think we cannot do easily without them.
But no one of them whatever, ought to be raade our guide and
conductor in carrying us forward through the sacred pages.

, CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 85
Further in the choice of those we should consult ; there can be
no doubt but those who have been most erainent for their critical
knowledge and freedora of spirit (such as becomes raen not servilely
attached to a particular sect or party) are entitled to the preference.
The learning, as well as the critical acuraen and ingenuity of Gro
tius, have stamped a value upon his commentaries, especially on
the gospels, which has hardly been equalled by any that has come
afier him. Yet I am far from saying, he is to be followed iraplicitly.
He has fallen into gross mistakes, which men of much inferior
genius have detected and avoided. Hammond and Whitby, as
coraraentators, have their raerit. Maldonat, though a Roraish cora-
mentator, is not unworthy the attention of the impartial searcher
after truth. But st illit must be remerabered, that they are to be
consulted occasionally only, and we are to exercise our own judg
ments in deciding. In arguraents and objections, as well as in
textuary difficulties, the student's first resource should be his own
reflections ; when the sense of any portion of scripture is concerned,
a critical examination of the passage and other similar passages
shoidd come next, and when these do not answer, the aid of scho
liasts, &c. should be the last resource. Let it be a standing max
im, that the student's business is more an habitual exercise of reflec
tion, than barely of reading and remerabrance. Are we no longer
babes ? Have we arrived at some maturity in Christian knowledge ?
Are our faculties at length enlarged and strengthened by exercise,
and shall we hesitate to employ these faculties, when to leave them
unemployed, is the surest way possible to debilitate them ? When
we may walk like men, shall we require to be carried, or at least to
be led by the hand, or supported by leading-strings like children 1
I know there are many very serious persons, who neverthe- .
less, attached by custom to huraan guidance in raatters of reli
gion, will not be able to relish such an indiscrlrainate rejection
of expositors. One favourite author at least they would have
excepted, and cannot allow themselves to think, that one is not
more secure against error by the help of his direction, than by
the light of holy writ alone. Nothing is more difficult than to
' convince men of the most glaring inconsistencies, to which, prior
to reflection, they have becorae habituated, and which therefore
have acquired an inveteracy hardly to be cured. Scripture, they
readily adrait, to be the ' only divine and infallible rule ; all hu
man interpreters, they will frankly acknowledge, to be fallible,
11

86 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
and yet 'tis manifest that iir human guidance they think there is
greater safety. They will indeed tell you, that it is by the unerring
decision of scripture that all the doctrines of erring men are to be
judged ; and yet what the sense of scripture is, they will Jearn no
otherwise, than frora the doctrines of erring men.. Can any thing
be more manifest, than that it is an erapty corapliraent they pay
the scriptures, and that their only confidence is in man ? Suppose,
for example, that a body politic, or compiunify, were to constitute
certain persons judges of all those who should be impeached before
them in any cause civil or criminal, declaring themselves resolved
to see that the sentences ofthe judges shall be rigorously executed,
but at the same time signifying that they were also resolved to con
stitute the parties the interpreters of the sentences in their own
case, and that according to their interpretation only, the execution
was to proceed ; could any thing be raore absurd, raore selfsub-
versive than such a constitution ? Could any thing be raore nuga
tory than the power they pretended to confer on the judges ? Yet
is not the manner in which scripture is corapliraented, by almost all
sects, at least all sectarists, with an authority merely nominal, ex
actly similar? Shall I be thought to endanger the cause of truth,
the cause of Protestantism and of the reformation, by insisting so
much on what this very cause hath laid down as a fundamental
principle ? Is not scripture, with all Protestants, the only tribunal,
in the last resort, in all questions of faith ? Do they admit an ap
peal from the verdict of this supreme arbitress, either to the judg
ment of individuals, or to that of any societies of men, whatever
denomination you may please to give them, or with whatever juris
diction you may think fit to vest them ? Is not her decision, on
the contrary, admitted on all hands to be final ? Hear the church
of England on this point. Article sixth, entitled, " Of the Suf-
ciency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation. Holy Scripture con
taineth all things necessary to salvation ; so that whatever is not
read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required
of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or
be thought requisite or necessary to salvation." And again, article
twenty-first, entitled, " Of the Authority of General Councils.
When they (general councils) be gathered together (for as much as
they be an assembly of men whereof all be not governed with the
Spirit and word of God) they may err, and sometimes have erred,
even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained
by them as necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor author-

'CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 87
ity, unless it raay be declared, that they be taken out of holy scrip
ture." Hear on the sarae head the avowed sentiraents of the church
of Scotland. Westrainster ConfessioA, first chapter, entitled. Of
the Holy Scripture, sixth paragraph. " The whole counsel of God
concerning all things necessary for his own glory, raan's salvation,
faith and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good
and necessary consequence raay be deduced frora scripture; unto
which nothing at any time is to be added." Again, chapter thirty-
first, entitled. Of Synods and Councils, fourth paragraph. " All
synods or councils, since the apostles' time, whether general or par
ticular, may err, and raany have erred, therefore they are not to be
made the rule of faith or praotice, but to be read as an help in
both." I am aware that an argument may be drawn (which to some will
no doubt appear plausible) from these very declarations. If private
men have erred, if even synods and councils have erred, would it
not be extreme arrogance in me, may one say, unassisted and alone
in my inquiries, to think that I should escape error altogether l
But how easily is this plea retorted. If private persons, if even the
wise and learned have erred, if synods and councils have erred,
what security have I in their direction? Yet that all these have
erred, egregiously erred, appears unquestionably from their mutual
contradictions and jars. On the other side, there is no such ground
of fear from the aforesaid reflection (as one would at first imagine)
that in our inquiries into scripture we shall err materially, even
though alone and unassisted by any human expositor or council. I
have before now assigned the reason, why human interpretations of
scripture, whether private or \Yhat hath been called authoritative,
are, notwithstanding the perspicuity of that book, so infinitely va
rious. The sarae would be the fate of any book whatever that were
treated in the sarae manner. Men begin with deriving their opinions
frora another source, and being perfectly full of these opinions and
wedded to them; they have recourse to scripture, not to discover the-
doctrines contained there, but to discover there their own opinions,.
that is, in other words, to exercise all their art and ingenuity to give
such a turn to the expressions of scripture, as will make them seem
to authorize their favourite notions. Often men's worldly interest
too, which bhndeth even the wise, is concerned on a side. That
scripture should be intelligible, is implied in the very idea of its
being a revelation of the will of God. That this revelation stands
in need of^a revelation in order to be understood, that is, in othet

88 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
words, is itself no revelation at all, is indeed the doctrine of the
Roraanists, and a doctrine of importance with them, inconsistent
as it is, to make room for their infallible interpreter. But the Prot
estant doctrine of the sufficiency of scripture, without any such
interpreter, doth clearly imply, that it is possest of all necessary
perspicuity. How strongly is this affirraed in the first chapter of the
Westminster Confession above quoted, the seventh paragraph?
" All things in scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike
clear unto all ; yet those things which are necessary to be known,
believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and
opened in sorae place of scripture or other, that not only the learned
but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary raeans, may attain
unto a sufficient understanding of them." In the judgraent ofthe
reformed churches therefore, in the judgment of our own in par
ticular, the study of scripture itself is not only the safest, but the
only safe way of arriving at tho knowledge of divine truth, since it
is both the only infallible rule, and in all essential matters suffi
ciently perspicuous. And perrait rae to add, were there greater
risk of error than there is, error itself must be less culpable to those
who enter seriously and irapartially on this examination, and thus
take the best method in their power for avoiding it, than it is to
those, who blindly and lazily admit opinions for no better reason,
than because they are the opinions of the country, or of the sect in
which they have been educated, or of sorae celebrated doctor whom
they have been early taught to revere. Such, it is manifest, have no
better reason for their being Christians, than the Jews have for their
not being Christians, the Turks for their being Mahometans, or
the Tartars for their being pagans ; and whatever apology may be
made for the illiterate, and those whose time is mostly occupied in
earning daily bread, surely there is no excuse for those, who have
had the advantage of a liberal education, and who have the prospect
of serving in the church as lights to others.
But should any be disposed to object. How is it possible to study
by the aid of huraan compositions, and avoid the influence of hu
man teachers ? Though the method you have recommended is by
no means that which is commonly pursued ; yet it requires a good
deal of reading and study, besides that of scripture, as well as the
coramon method. You do not enjoin us to begin with systems and
controversies, and coraraentators, and scholiasts, and paraphrasts ;
on the contrary, with these, you tell us, the study of theology should
be concluded and not commenced : but do you not require us to

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 89
apply directly to certain histories and antiquities, do you not desire
us to betake ourselves to gramraars and lexicons, to have recourse
to the study of languages, particularly the Oriental and the Greek,
to become acquainted with the scriptures in the original tongues,
and with the ancient translation of the seventy? All this is
most certain truth ; but do you observe no difference in the effect
which these different methods may be expected naturally to
produce ? We recommend the study of the scriptures, as contain
ing the whole of Christian theology. But then the scriptures were
written neither in this age, nor in this country, nor in our lan
guage. We have indeed a translation of thera, which is in the
main a good one, but which, though it raay serve the purposes of
the generality of Christians, ought not to satisfy the ministers of
religion, who should be in a capacity of solving the doubts and
reraoving the difficulties of others. We do not ascribe infallibility
to any translator ; and therefore when this term is applied to holy
writ, it is of the original only, that it raust in strictness be under
stood. Had a complete revelation been given at once in our own
age and country, and had been coramitted to writing in our own
tongue, it is manifest that little or no huraan learning would have
been necessary. But in all the respects raentioned the actual case
greatly differed. A long tract of ages is coraprehended between
the commencement and the sealing or conclusion of this revelation,
the languages in which it is written are foreign, the country which
was the scene of those wonderful exhibitions it contains of divine
power and mercy is reraote, and the period, in which that whole
manifestation was closed, is at the distance of raany centuries from
the present. Out of these very circumstances duly attended to,
results the necessity of all those studies we have recoraraended.
If the oracles of God are delivered in foreign languages, it is cer
tain, that unless we are supplied with supernatural means of cora
ing at this knowledge, the study of the languages is-^ the only nat
ural and ordinary means. It were easy to show the necessity of
all the other studies from the same principles. The scriptures were
written in distant ages, and allude to many transactions, then, but
not now, familiarly known in the world, addressed to people who
differed frora us, as much in manners, ceremonies, customs, and
opinions, as in language. An acquaintance with these transactions
atid differences, therefore, as far as we can attain it, is in effect, as
hath been often hinted already, a more thorough acquaintance with
the scriptural idiom and dialect. If after this we proceed to the

90 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
study of systems and commentaries and controversies, we have
acquired a fund of our own, from which we may form a judgment
in regard to their jarring sentiraents. But if without any such fund
for judging, without a competency of knowledge either in scrip
ture language or scripture history, we have immediate recourse to
systera raakers and expositors and controversialists, we are perfectly
bewildered, and must therefore either deliver ourselves up iraplicitly
to the guidance of some one or more whom we pitch upon at
random, or be lost in absolute scepticisra. The study of language
and history doth not indeed present you with particular opinions
forraed upon particular passages of scripture : it is for that very
reason quite above the suspicion of partiality. But it doth what is
much more valuable. It furnishes us with those first principles of
knowledge, from which an attentive and judicious person will be
enabled to draw proper conclusions, and form just opinions for him
self. The other way is indeed better adapted to gratify the laziness
of the sciolist, who would be thought learned, but cannot bear,
even for the sake of learning, to be at the least expense of thought
and reflection.
The man who advises such an easy method, which I acknowledge
is by far the commonest, is like one whotells you, " This writing,
the contents of which you are anxious to be acquainted with, you
need not take the trouble to peruse yourself. It is but dimly writ
ten, and we have now only twilight. 1 have better eyes, and am
acquainted with the character. Do but attend, and I shall read it
distinctly in your hearing." On the other hand, he vvho with me
advises the other method, is like one who says, " Take this writing
into your own hand. I shall procure you a supply of light, and
though the character is rather old, yet with some attention, in com
paring one part with another, you will soon be familiarized to it,
and may then read it for yourself." In a matter of little moment,
and where there can be no danger of deception, it may be said,
and justly said, the first raethod is the best, because the easiest and
quickest. But suppose it is an affair of great iraportance to you,
and that there is real danger of deception ; suppose further, that
your anxiety having led you to employ different readers, the conse
quence hath been, that each reader, to your great astonishment,
discovers things in the writing, which were not discovered by the
rest ; nay more, that the discoveries of the different readers are con
tradictory to one another ; would you not then be satisfied, that the
only part a reasonable raan could take, would be to recur to the

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 91
second method mentioned ? Now this is precisely the case with the
point in hand.
I shall illustrate the difference between these methods by one
other example, and then have done. You intend to travel into a
foreign country, where you propose to transact a great deal of bu
siness with the natives. You go, 1 shall first suppose, without know
ing any thing of the language of the country. In all the affairs
you have to transact with the inhabitants, as you find yourself unable
to convey to them directly your sentiments, or to apprehend theirs, in
the only manner they are able to coramunicate them ; as you daily
receive letters, which you cannot read, or give a return to, in a lan
guage that can be read by them, you are compelled every moraent
to have recourse to interpreters, a method extremely cumbersome
tedious, and dangerous at the best. You are entirely at the mercy
of those interpreters ; their want of knowledge, or their want of
honesty, raay be equally prejudicial to you. A very slight blunder of
theirs arising from an imperfect acquaintance with either language,
may be productive of consequences the most ruinous to your affairs.
Let us now again suppose you take a different method. You
make it your first object to study the language, and are become a
tolerable proficient in it, before you go abroad, or at least before
you enter on any iraportant business with the natives. This,
though a harder task at first setting out, greatly facilitates your in
tercourse with the people afterwards, and gives you a certain secu
rity and independence in all your transactions with thera, which it
is irapossible you could ever have otherwise enjoyed. You raay then
occasionally and safely, where any doubt ariseth, consult an in
terpreter ; the resources in point of knowledge, which you have
provided for yourself, will prove a sufficient check on hira, to pre
vent his having it in his power to deceive you in a raatter of mo
ment. I shall leave you, gentlemen, to make the application of
these two suppositions at your leisure.

ON PULPIT ELOaUENCE.

LECTURE I.

Importance of the Study, Eind Objections against it answered — Helps for the
Attainment of the Art.
IT is not enough for the Christian rainister, that he be instructed
in the science of theology, unless he has the skill to apply his
knowledge, to answer the different purposes of the pastoral charge.
And the first thing, that on this article seems to merit our atten
tion, is the consideration of the minister, in the character of a pub
lic speaker ; and that, both in his addresses to God on, the part of
the people in worship, and his addresses to the people on the part
of God in preaching. Of the iraportance of this last part of the
character, as a public teacher, no one can reasonably doubt,
who considers that it was one great part, if not the principal part
of the charge which the apostles received from our Lord, Matt.
xxviii. 19, 20, "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing
them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost ; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com
manded you." And again, Mark xvi. 15, " Go ye into all the
world, and preach the- gospel to every creature." And without
derogating from those solemn institutions of our religion, which in
after times came to be denominated sacraments, preaching may in
one view, at least, be said to be of more consequence than they, in
as much as a suitable discharge of the business of a teacher un
doubtedly requires abilities superior to those requisite for the prop
er performance of the other, a part in comparison raerely ministeri
al or official. It is besides the great means of conversion as well
as of edification. " Faith cometh by hearing," says the apostle.
The ministry of our Lord, to his kinsmen the Jews, consisted chief-
12

94 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
ly in teaching ; for the evangelist, John iv. 2, expressly tells us that
Jesus baptized none ; this, as comparatively an underwork, was
intrusted entirely to his disciples. And the apostle Paul acquaints
the Corinthians i. I, 17, that Christ sent him notto baptize, but to
preach the gospel ; that the latter and not the former was the princi
pal end ofhis mission. When it pleased God by the conversion of
Cornelius the Roman centurion to open the door of faith to the
Gentiles, no less a person than Peter, the first of the apostolical
college, was selected for announcing to hira and his family the gos
pel of Christ ; but after they were converted by his preaching, the
'apostle did not consider it as any impropriety to comrait the care of
baptizing thera to raeaner hands. " He (that is, Peter,) command
ed them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Acts x. 48.
What hath been said, however, is by no means intended to arraign
the propriety of limiting to a lower number, in churches which are
already constituted, the power of dispensing the sacraments, than is
done in regard to tbe power of preaching. The near connection
which the former has with discipline and order in a Christian soci
ety already established, affords a very good reason for this difference.
But if teaching is a matter of so much consequence, and if the pro
per discharge of thisi duty is a matter of principal difficulty, it ought
doubtless to employ a considerable part of the student's time and
attention that he may be properly prepared for it. Indeed it may
be said, that the study of the science of theology is itself a prepar-
ation, and in part it no doubt is so, as it furnishes him with the
materials ; but the materials alone will not serve his purpose, unless
he has acquired the art of using them. And it is this art in
preaching which I denominate Christian or pulpit eloquence. To
know is one thing ; and to be capable of communicating knowledge
is another.I am sensible, however, that there are many pious Christians, who
are startled at the name of eloquence when applied to the Christian
teacher; they are disposed to consider it as setting an office, which
in its nature is spiritual, and in its origin divine, too much on a
footing with those which are merely human and secular. And this
turn of thinking I have always found to proceed frora one or other
of these two causes ; either from a mistake of what is meant by
eloquence, or from a raisapprehension of some passages of holy writ
in relation to the sacred function. First, it arises from a mistaken
notion of the import of the word. It often happens both among
philosophers and divines that violent and endless disputes are car-

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 95
ried on by adverse parties, which, were they to begin by settling
a deflnition of the term whereon the question turns, would vanish
in an instant. Were these people then, who appear to differ from
.¦IS, on the propriety of employing eloquence, to give an explication
ofthe ideas they comprehend under the term eloquence or oratory,
we should doubtless get from them sorae such account as this, a
knack, or artifice, by which the periods of a discourse are curiously
and harmoniously strung together, decorated with raany flowery
iraages, the whole entirely calculated to set off the speaker's art by
pleasing the ear and amusing the fancy of the hearers, but by no
raeans calculated either to inform their understandings or to engage
their hearts. Perhaps those people will be surprised, when I tell
thera, that commonly no discourses whatever, not even the home
liest, have less of true eloquence, than such frothy harangues, as
perfectly suit their definition. If this, theu, is all they mean to in
veigh against under the name eloquence, I will join issue with them
with all my heart. Nothing can be less worthy the study or atten
tion of a wise man, and much more may this' be said of a Christian
pastor, than such a futile acquisition as that above described. But
if, on the contrary, nothing else is meant by eloquence, in the use
of all the wisest and the best who have written on the subject, but
that art or talent, whereby the speech is adapted to produce in the
hearer the great end which the speaker has, or at least ought to
have principally in vievv, it is impossible to douot the utility of the
study ; unless people will be absurd enough to question, vvhether
there be any difference between speaking to the purpose and speak
ing frora the purpose, expressing one's self intelligibly or unintelli
gibly, reasoning iu a raanner that is conclusive and satisfactory, or
in such a way as can convince nobody, fixing the attention and raov
ing the affections of an audience, or leaving them in a state per
fectly listless and unconcerned.
But, as I signified already, there are prejudices against this stu
dy in the Christian orator, arising from another source, the prom
ises ofthe immediate influence of the divine Spirit, the comraands
of our Lord to his disciples, to avoid all concern and solicitude on
this article, and the exaraple of sorae of the apostle who disclairaed
expressly the advantages resulting from the study of rhetoric, or in
deed of any huraan art, or institute whatever. In answer to
such objections, I must beg leave to ask. Are we not in the prora
ises of our Saviour, to distinguish those, which were made to his
disciples, raerely as Christians, or his followers in the way to the

96 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
kingdom, frora those raade indeed to the sarae persons, but consid
ered in the character of apostles, the promulgators of his doc
trine among Jews and pagans, and' the first founders of his church?
Are we entitled to apply to ourselves those promises raade to the
apostles, or even the first Christians, manifestly for the conviction
and conversion of an infidel world ? " These signs," says Christ,
" shall follow thera that believe : In ray name shall they cast out dev
ils : they shall speak with new tongues ; they shall take up serpents;
and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them ; they shall
lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Do we now expect
such signs to follow upon our faith ? And is not the proraise of im
mediate inspiration on any emergency (which is doubtless a mirac
ulous gift as well as those above enumerated) to be considered as of
the same nature, and given for the same end ? And ought not all these
precepts, to vvhich proraises of this supernatural kind are annexed
as the reason, to be understood with the same restriction ? W^hen
our Lord foretold his disciples, that they should be brought before
kings and rulers for his name's sake, he adds, " Settle it in your
hearts not to meditate before vvhat you shall answer ; for I will give
you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries shall not be
able to gainsay or resist." It is manifest the obligation of the pre
cept can only be explained by a proper apprehension of the extent
ofthe promise. But the truth is, that few or none, in these our
days, would consider premeditation in such circumstauces as eith
er unlawful or improper. Who, even among those who inveigh
raost bitterly against fhe study of eloquence for the pulpit, does
ever so much as pretend that we ought not to meditate, or so much
as think, on any subject before we preach upon it? And. yet the
letter of the precept, nay, and the spirit too, strikes more directly
against particular premeditation, than against the general study of
the art of speaking. It is more a particular application ofthe art, than
the art itself, thatis here pointed at. And as to what the great apos
tle ofthe Gentiles hath said on this article, it will serve, I am per
suaded, to every attentive reader, as a confirmation of what has been
advanced above, in regard to the true meaning of such promises and
precepts, and the limitations with which they ought to be under
stood. Well might he renounce every art which man's wisdom
teacheth, whose speech was accompanied with the demonstration of
the spirit and of power ; that is, with those miraculous gitts, which
were so admirably calculated to silence contradiction, and to convince

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 97
the most incredulous. But the truth is, there is not one argument -
can be taken from those precepts and examples, that will not equally
conclude against all human learning whatsoever, as against the study
of rhetoric. Because the apostles could preach to men of every na
tion without studying their language, in consequence of the gift of
tongues with which they were supernaturally endowed, shall we
think to convert strangers, with whose speech we are totally unac
quainted, and not previously apply to grammars, and lexicons, and
other helps, for attaining the language? Or because Paul, as he
himself expressly tells us, received the knowledge of the gospel by
iraraediate inspiration, shall we neglect the study of the scriptures
and other outward means of instruction ? There have been, I own,
some enthusiasts who have carried the matter as far as this. And
though hardly any person ot the least reflection, would argue in
such a manner now, it must be owned that the very same premises,
by which any human art or institute in itself useful, is excluded,
will equally answer the purposes of such fanatics in excluding all.
And to the utility, and even importance of the rhetorical art,
scripture itself bears testimony. Is it not mentioned by the sacred
historian in recommendation of Apollos, that he was " an eloquent
man," as well as mighty in the scriptures ? And is not his success
manifestly ascribed, under God, to these advantages ? There is no
mention of any supernatural gifts, which he could receive only by
the imposition of the hands of an apostle ; and it appears from the
history, that before he had any interview with the apostles, imrae
diately after his conversion, he mightily convinced the Jews, and
that publicly, shewing frora the scriptures that Jesus was the
Christ. The very words used by the inspired penmen are such as
are familiar with rhetoricians in relation to the forensic eloquence,
^vrcyas y«e Toff la^aioig ^laxamXi'/^ilci, Acriter, vehementer, magna
contentione. Now though it is not permitted to us to reaeh the
celestial heights of a Peter or a Paul, I see nothing to hinder our
aspiring to the humbler attainraents of an Apollos. But enough,
and perhaps too rauch, for obviating objections, which I cannot al
low myself to think, will have great weight with gentleraen, who
have been so long employed in the study of the learned languages,
and of the liberal arts and sciences. However, when one hath oc
casion to hear such arguments (if indeed they deserve to be called
so) advanced by others, it may be of some utility to be provided
with an answer.

98 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
The next point, and which is of the greatest consequence, is, In
what raanner this art or talent may be attained, at least as much of
it as is suited to the business of preaching, and is on raoral and reli
gious subjects best adapted to the ends of instruction and persua
sion ? When I gave you a general sketch of ' my plan, I observed
on this article that in a great raeasure the talents required in the
preacher are such as are necessary to hira in common with every
other public speaker, whatever be the scene of his appearances,
whether it be his lot to deliver his orations in the senate, at the bar,
or from the pulpit. Now what the preacher must have in common
with those of so many other and very different professions, it can
not be expected that here we should treat particularly, especially
when it is considered how raany other things have a preferable ti
tle to our notice. What indeed is peculiar in the eloquence of the
pulpit will deserve a more particular consideration. But though
we do not from this place propose to give an institute of rhetoric, it
will not be improper to give sorae directions in relation to the the
ory of it, and particularly to the reading both of ancient and rapd-
ern authors, whence the general knowledge of the subject, which
is too rauch neglected by theological students, raay be had. When
we consider the nature of this elegant and useful art with any de
gree of attention, we shall soon be convinced, that it is a certain
iraproveraent on the arts of grammar and logic ; on which it
founds, and without which it could have no existence. On the
other hand, without this, these arts would lose much of their utility
and end, for it is by the art of rhetoric, that we are enabled to make
our knowledge in language, and skill in reasoning, turn to the best
account for the instruction and persuasion of others. The wise in
heart," saith Solomon, " shall be called prudent, but the sweetness
of the lips increaseth learning."*
Now the best preparation for an orator, on whatever kind of the
atre he shall be called to act, is to understand thoroughly the dis
cursive art, and to be well acquainted with the words, structure,
and idiom of the language which he is to employ. By skill in the
former, I do not mean being well versed in the artificial dialectic
of the schools, though^this, I ackno'ivledge, doth not want its use, but
being conversant in the natural and genuine principles and grounds
of reasoning, whether derived from sense or raemory, from com
parison of related ideas, from testimony, experience, or analogy.
* See fhe Philosophy of Rhetoric, vol. 1. book I. ch. iv. Of the Relation which
Eloquence bears to Logic and to Grammar.

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 99
School logic, as was well observed by Mr. Locke, is much better
calculated for the detection of sophistry than the discovery of truth.
Its forras of argumentation in mood and figure carry too much ar
tifice, not to say mechanism, in the very front ofthem, to suit the
free and disenga.ged manner of the orator, in whom every thing
ought to appear perfectly natural and easy, and nothing that looks
like contrivance or insidious design. But though the logician's
manner is not to be copied by the public speaker, his art will be of
use, sometimes in furnishing topics of arguraent, often in suggest
ing hints to assist in refutation. But true logic, it raust be ac
knowledged, is best studied not in a scholastic systera, but in the
writings of the raost judicious and best reasoners on the various
subjects supplied by history, science and philosophy. And with re
gard to language, as it is the English alone with which the preach
ers in this country, a very few excepted, are concerned as public
speakers, they ought not only to study its structure and analogy in
our best grararaarians, but endeavour to farailiarize thehaselves to
its idiora, and to acquire a sufficient stock of words and a certain
facility in using thera, by an acquaintance with our best English
authors. We have the greater need of this, as in this part of the
island we labour under some special disadvantages, which, that our
compositions may be more extensively useful, it is our duty to en
deavour to surmount.
As to the rhetorical art itself, in this particular the moderns ap
pear to me to have made hardly any advance or iraproveraent upon
the ancients. I can say, at least, of most of the performances in the
way of institute, which I have had an opportunity of reading on
this subject, either in French or English, every thing valuable is
servilely copied frora Aristotle, Cicero, and duintilian, in whose
writings, especially Q,uintilian's Institutions, and Cicero's books-
de inventione, those called ad Herenium, and his dialogues De ora
tore, every public speaker ought to -be conversant. To these it
will not be amiss to add Longinus on the sublime, Dionysius of Hal
icarnassus, and some others. And as, in every art, the examples
of erainent performers will be found to the full as instructive to the
student, as the precepts laid down by the teacher, antiquity does
here at least furnish us with the best models in the orations of Cic
ero in Latin, and in those of .iEschines and Demosthenes in Greek.
Of raodern authors considered in both views, as teachers ofthe art,
and as perforraers, I would recoraraend what Rollin and Fenelon
have written on the subject, the sermons, and also the lectures on

100 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
eloquence* lately published by the ingenious and truly eloquent Dr.
Blair ; to which give me leave to add the sermons of my amiable
and much lamented friend Mr. Farquhar, which, though no other
than fragments, having been left unfinished by the author, who ap
pears to have had no view to publication, and though consequent
ly less correct in point of language, are, on account of the justness of
of the sentiments, and the affecting warmth with which they are
written, highly admired by persons of taste and discernment.t

LECTURE II.
Of the Sentiment in Pulpit Discourses.
I AMnow to consider the train of sentiment, the elocution, and the
pronunciation, that are best adapted tothe pulpit. Of these things
I only mean at first fo take a more general and cursory sui vey, and
make such reraarks on each, as will hold almost universally of all
the instructions given from the pulpit, whatever the particular sub
ject be. As to those which may suit the different sorts of sermons
and other discourses to be employed by the preacher, I shall have
occasion afterwards to take notice ofthem, when I come to inquire
into the rules of composition, worthy the attention of the Chrisfian
orator, and to mark out the different kinds, whereof this branch of
eloquence is susceptible.
I begin at this time with what regards the sentiments. Let it be
observed, that I here use the term sentiraents in the greatest lati
tude for the sense or thoughts. I raean thereby what raay be con
sidered as the soul ofthe discourse, or all the instruction of what
ever kind, that is intended to be conveyed by means of the expres
sion into the minds of the hearers. Perhaps the iraport of the word
* Dr. Campbell's Lectures on Pulpit Eloquence, were composed and deliv
ered before the publication of Dr. Blair's Lectures on Rhetoric. The rec
ommendation as above was added to the original manuscript after perusing
the lectures of his friend Dr. Blair.
t Here the author introduced for his second lecture the tenth chapter of
the first book of his Philosophy of Rhetoric, entitled "The different kinds of
public speaking in use among the moderns, compared, with a view to their
different advantages in respect of eloquence." In that chapter there are seve
ral things highly worthy of the attention of the preacher.

CAMPBELLS LECTURES 101
will be more exactly ascertained by saying, it is that in any orig
inal performance, which it behooves a translator to retain in his ver
sion into another language, whilst the expression is totally changed.
Thus (to preserve the metaphor of soul and body already adopted)
we may say, that a discourse in being translated undergoes a sort
of transmigration. The same soul passes into a different body.
For if the ideas, the sense, the information, conveyed to the hearers
or readers be not the same in the version, as in the original per
formance, the translation is not faithful. Novv all that regards the
soul or sense may be distributed into these four different forms of
communication, namely, narration, explanation, reasoning, and mor
al reflection. This last is soraetimes, by way of eminence, called
sentiment. To the first of these, narration, there will be pretty frequent oc
casion of recourse, both for tbe illustration of any point of doctrine
or portion of scripture wherewith the subject happens to be con
nected, and also for affecting the hearers in a way suitable to the
particular aim of the discourse. And indeed it often happens, that
nothing is better adapted to this end, than an apposite passage of
history properly related. But what are the rules, it will be asked, by
the due observance ofwhich propriety in this matter may be attain
ed ? One of those raost commonly recoramended is, to be brief
But this rule needs explanation, as there is nothing we ought more
carefully to avoid than a cold uninteresting conciseness, which is
sometimes the consequence of an excessive desire of brevity. Brev
ity in relating, as in every thing else, is only so far commendable,
as it is rendered compatible with answering all the ends ofthe re
lation. Where these are not answered, through an affectation of be
ing very nervous and laconic, comprehending much in little, the
narration ought not to be styled brief, but defective. In strictness,
the relation ought to contain enough, and neither more nor less.
But what is enough 1 That can be determined only by a proper at
tention to the end for which the narration was introduced. A nar
rative raay contain enough to render tbe story and its connection
intelligible to the hearer, yet not enough to fix his attention and en
gage his heart, and may therefore be justly chargeable with a faul
ty conciseness. But if this extrerae ought to be carefully guarded
against, it well deserves your notice, that the contrary, and no less
dangerous, exfreme of prolixity, by entering into a detail too minute
and circumstantial, ought with equal care to be avoided. If, in con-
13

102 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
sequence ofthe first error, the hearer's mind remains unsatisfied, in
consequence ofthe second, it is cloyed. Both faults can be avoid
ed only by such a judicious selection of circumstances, as at once
excludes nothing essential to the purposes of peispicuity and con
nection, or conducive to the principal scope of fhe narration, and
includes nothing, that in the respects aforesaid can be deemed su
perfluous. Such is every circumstance that can be denorainated
remote, trivial, or necessarily implied in the other circumstances
mentioned. But to assist the preacher in conducting such narra
tives, when pertinent, nothing will serve so well for a model, as the
historical part of sacred writ. No where else will he find such
simplicity, as brings what is said to the level of the raeanest capac
ity, united with such dignity, as is sufficient to engage the atten
tion of the highest. Passages of scripture history, when they hap
pen to coincide with the speaker's view, are rauch preferable to
tbose which may be taken from any other source; and that on a
double account. First, it may be supposed, that not only all the
serious part, but even the much greater part ofthe audience, being
better acquainted with these, will both more readily perceive and
more strongly feel the application which the preacher makes of
them ; and secondly, the authority of holy writ gives an additional
weight to that which is the intent of the narrative. I do not say,
however, that a preacher, in quoting instances, exaraples and au
thorities, ought to confine himself entirely to the sacred history.
Our blessed Lord, though addressing himself only to Jews, did
not hesitate to lay the foundation of some of his parables in those
customs which had arisen solely from their intercourse with the
Romans. Of this the parable you have, Luke xix. 12, &c. of the
nobleman who travelled into a distant land, in order that he might
obtain the royal power, and return king over his countrymen, is
an evident instance. Such was become the general practice in all
the provinces and states dependent upon Rome. The royalty was
often not to be attained without applications to the Roman senate
and these were often thwarted, as in the parable, by counter appli
cations, either frora the people, or from sorae rival for power.
Nay, there is very probably in that parable an allusion to some things
which had actually happened in regard to the succession of Arche
laus, son of Herod, king of Judea, with which many of his hearers
conld not fail to be acquainted, the thing having happened but re
cently and in their own time. Nor was the apostle Paul at all

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES 103
scrupulous in illustrating the sublimest truths of the gospel, by the
exercises and diversions which obtained at that time among the
idolatrous Greeks. But even in those cases wherein scripture doth
not furnish the facts, it supplies us with an excellent pattern of a
natural, siraple and interesting manner in which the relation ought to
be conducted. I shall only add on this article that the different
circumstances ought to be so fitly and so naturally connected, that
those which precede may easily introduce those which follow, and
those which follow may appear necessarily to arise out of those
which precede. This, by adding to the credibility and verisim
ilitude, greatly increases the effect of the whole. I shall not at this
time say any thing of those qualities vvhich more regard the expres
sion than the thought, as there will be scope for this afterwards.
The second thing comprised under the terra thought, or senti
ment, was explication, in which I include also description and defi
nition. And on this, the rules laid dovvn upon the former article
will equally hold good. The same care and attention vvill be requi
site, both in culling and disposing the particulars, that the whole
may be neither tedious nor unsatisfactory. In regard to disposition
and arrangement, there is rather more art necessary in this case
than in the former. In the former, to wit, narrative, all the mate
rial circumstances are successive, and the order of introducing them
must in a great raeasure be determined by the order of tirae. But
in explication, they are simultaneous, and therefore require the ex
ercise of judgment and reflection, in assigning to each its proper
place and order in the discourse. Need it be added, that in all
descriptive enumerations particular care ought to be taken, that
nothing foreign be comprehended, and that nothing which proper
ly belongs to the subject be omitted. The logical rules in regard
to definition are sufficiently known, and therefore shall not here be
repeated. On the whole, in regard to both the preceding, articles,
a certain justness of apprehension is of all things the most impor
tant in a speaker. If he has not a clear conception of the matter
biraself, it can never be expected he should convey if to others.
The third thing raentioned as belonging to the thought, was rea
soning. When itis considered, what a mixed society a Christian as
sembly for the most part is, and hovv little fhe far greater number,
even of what are called the politest congregations, is accustora
ed to the exercise of the discursive faculty, it will be evident that
any thing in the way of argument would need to be extremely
siraple, consisting of but a very fevv steps, and extremely clear.

104 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
having nothing in that is of an abstract nature, and so not easily
comprehended by them, and nothing that alludes to facts which do
not fall within ordinary observation. If the argument is not de
duced from experience, or the comraon principles of the un
derstanding, but from the iraport of the words of scripture, one
would need to be particularly distinct in setting fhe sacred text be
fore them, avoiding as much as possible, every thing that savours of
subtlety, conceit, or learned criticism. Something indeed of criti-
cism,^when the point to be proved, is a point merely of revelation,
cannot always be avoided. In general, however, we are warranted
to say, it ought to be avoided as much as possible. The passages
of holy writ, therefore, which you make choice of, in support of
your doctrine, ought to be always the plainest and the raost direct.
Though you should perhaps find other passages, in which to a man
of letters, there might appear equal or even stronger evidence, yet if
such passages would require a commentary or elaborate disquisition
to elucidate them, they are not so convincing to the people, and
should, therefore, be let alone.
It may not be improper here, however, before we dismiss this
article, to exaraine a little what the occasions are which require
reasoning from the pulpit, and what are the different topics of ar
gument adapted to the different natures ofthe subject. These last
are very properly divided into practical and speculative. In the
former, the preacher argues to enforce the practice of a duty recom
mended by hira; in the latter, to gain the belief of his hearers to a
tenet he thinks fit to defend. In the former case, it is his aim to
evince the beauty, the propriety, the equity, the pleasantness, or the
utility of such a conduct both for time and for eternity. His
topics therefore are all drawn from comraon life and experience,
from the common sense of mankind and the most explicit declar
ations of holy writ, topics in a great measure the same with those
on which men of all conditions are wont to argue with one another,
in regard to what is right and prudent in the management of their
ordinary secular affairs. Such were the topics, to which our Lord
himself had recourse in his parables, always iUustrating the reasons
and motives which ought to influence in the things of eternity,
by the reasons and motives which do comraonly influence us in
the things of tirae. Such topics are consequently, if properly con
ducted, level to the capacities of all. Whereas in the latter case,
when the subject is of doctrinal points, or points of speculation, the re
sources ofthe preacher are extremely different. His reasoning must
then be drawn from the essential natures and differences of things.

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 105
and the comparison of abstract qualities, or perhaps from abstruse and
critical disquisitions of the import of sorae dark and controverted
passages of scripture, which it must be owned, are beyond the sphere
of the illiterate. I would not by this be understood to mean, that
controversy should never be admitted into the pulpit. We are exhort
ed by the apostle Jude " earnestly to contend for the faith, which was
once delivered to the saints." And Paul in his epistles hath given
us an excellent example of this laudable zeal in suppoit ofthe fun
daraental doctrines of our religion, against those who denied or
doubted them. This he shews, as on several other occasions, so in
particular in the defence ofthe doctrine of the resurrection, and in
opposition to that false dogma of the Judaizing teachers of his time,
that the observance of circumcision and of the other ceremonies of
the law is necessary to salvation. And indeed from the reason of
the thing it is raanifest, that in a religious institution founded on
certain iraportant truths or principles, through the belief of which
only it can operate on the hearts and influence the lives of raen, it
raust be of the utmost consequence to refute the contrary errors,
when they appear to be creeping in or gaining ground among the
people. But before the preacher attempt a refutation of this kind,
there are two things he ought impartially and carefully to inquire
into. First, he ought to inquire, whether the tenet he means to
support be one ofthe great truths of religion or not. It raay be a
prevalent opinion, it may have a reference to the common salvation,
nay raore, it raay be a true opinion, and yet no article ofthe faith
which was once delivered to the saints. These articles are neither
numerous nor abstruse. We cannot say so much in regard to the
comments and glosses of men. Yet it is an undoubted fact, that
where the former have excited one controversy in the church, the
latter have produced fifty. It must therefore be of importance to
him, to be well assured that he is vindicating the great oracles of
unerring wisdora, and not the precarious interpretations and
glosses of fallible men ; that he acts the part of the genuine disciple
of Christ, and not the blind follower of a merely human guide. In
the forraer case only, he defends the cause of Christianity ; in the
latter, he but supports the interest of a sect or faction. In that, he
contends for the faith ; in this, "he dotes about questions and
strifes of words, vain janglings, perverse disputings ofmen of cor
rupt minds, and involving hiraself in oppositions of science falsely
so called." And that under this last class, the far greater part of
our theological disputes are coraprehended, even such as have been

106 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
too often and too hotly agitated in the pulpit, is not to be denied.
Such in particular are a great many of the doctrinal controversies,
which different parties of protestants have with one another.
They raay with great propriety be styled Xoycfitt^tat, (strifes of
words, 1 Tim. vi. 4.) an emphatic term of the apostle Paul ; for
they are not only wars with words, but wars merely about words and
phrases, where there is no discernible, or at least, no material differ
ence in the sense ; and which agreeably to the character he gives of
thera, " gender strifes, and minister idle disputes rather than godly
edifying." The second thing which the preacher ought to inquire
into, before he engage in preaching controversy, is whether the false
doctrine he means to refute has any number of partizans araongst
his hearers ; or whether there be any iraraediate danger of their be
ing seduced to that opinion. If otherwise, the introduction of such
questions raight possibly raise doubts where formerly there were
none, and at any rate, unless managed with uncommon prudence
and teraper, have rather a tendency that is unfavourable-to the Chris
tian spirit, and in narrow minds is apt to beget a sort of bitterness
and uncharitableness, which these dignify in themselves with the
name of zeal, though in their adversaries they can clearly see its
raalignity. At the sarae tirae, that I give these caveats against the
abuse, I by no raeans deny the occasional expediency and use of
controversy. As to the fourth and last species of thought raentioned, moral re
flection, or what is soraetitHfes peculiarly denorainated sentiraent;
there is rauch less hazard that in this we should succeed. Here the
preacher (if he is at all judicious in his choice) runs less risk of ei
ther growing tiresome to the more improved part of his audience,
or unintelligible to those whose understandings have not been cul
tivated. In the former, the rational powers are addressed ; in
this, the heart and the conscience. Indeed, I am far frora think
ing, that these two kinds of addresses raay not often be happily
blended together ; particularly, when the subject relates to moral
conduct, an address ofthe latter kind, if interwoven with a plain
narrative, will frequently prove the most effectual raeans of reraov
ing unfavourable prepossessions, engaging affection as well as
satisfying reason, and bringing her to be of the sarae party. It
was a method often and successfully employed by our blessed Lord,
when attacked by a Jewish bigotry, on the extent that ought to be giv
en to the love of our neighbour. The maxiras of the' Pharisees,
like those of all bigots, of every age, nation and profession, were

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 107
very illiberal, and measuring the goodness ofthe universal Father,
by their own contracted span, could not bear to think that those of
a different nation, and still more those who diflered in religious mat
ters, could be coraprehended under it. When attacked by these
narrow hearted zealots, in what manner, I pray you, doth he silence
contradiction, and gain every susceptible heart over to his side ?
Not by subtle ratiocination on the beauty of virtue, or on the eter
nal and unalterable fitness of things ; but by a simple story, by the
parable ofthe compassionate Samaritan, in the conclusion ofwhich
he shows, that, even their own consciences being judges, to act
agreeably to the raore extensive explanation of the duty, was the
raore amiable part, and consequently more worthy of their esteem
and imitation. Again, when he would show, that even the profli
gate are not to be abandoned to despair, with what an amazing su
periority doth he subdue the most unrelenting pharisaic pride by
the parable of the prodigal ? Who ever could so quickly dissipate
the thickest clouds raised by inveterate prejudices and party-spirit,
and render the only unequivocal standard of raoral truth, the char
acters of the divine law engraven on the human heart, to all who
are not wilfully blind, distinctly legible ? Could any the most acute
and elaborate dissertation on moral rectitude, or the essential quali
ties and relations of things, have produced half the effect, even in
point of conviction, as well as of feeling ? How different his meth
od from that of the ancient sophists ? -But not more different than
their aims. Their aim was to make men talk fluently and plausibly
on every subject : his, to make them think justly, and act up
rightly. So rauch shall suffice for what regards the sentiments or thoughts
in general, that are adapted to the eloquence of the pulpit, whether
narration, explanation, reasoning, or moral reflection. On this
head, we were under a necessity of being briefer and more general,
as it is here that a man's natural talents, genius, taste, and judg
ment, have the greatest sway ; and where nature has denied these
talents, it is in vain to iraagine that the defect can ever be supplied
by art. Whereas the principal scope for the exertions of art and
education is in what regards language, composition and arrange
ment. It is principally in what regards the thought, that we may
say universally, whatever be the species of eloquence a man aims
to attain, every thing that serves to improve his knovvledge, discern
ment and good sense, serves also to improve hira as an orator.
" Scribendi recte sapere est et principium et fons."

108 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
LECTURE III.
Of the Expression.
In my last lecture, I treated in general of the thought or senti
ment ofthe discourse, and laid before you some reflections on the
different sorts into which it is distinguishable, narration, explanation,
arguraentation and raoral reflection, and the raethods whereby each
ought to be conducted by the Christian orator. I proceed now to
consider what raay properly be called the expression of the senti
ments by language. By this word I here mean, all that regards the
enunciation of the thoughts by language. It is by this, as I had
occasion in a forraer discourse to remark to you, that eloquence
holds of grammar, as it is by the other, that she holds of logic.
A few words therefore on what I may call the grararaatical expres
sion, before I enter on the consideration of the rhetorical. The
work ofthe grararaarian serves as a foundation to that of the rhe
torician. The highest aim ofthe former is the lowest aim of the
latter. The one seeks only purity, the other superadds elegance and
energy. Grararaatical purity in any language (suppose English,
that in which every preacher in this country is chiefly interested)
requires a careful observance of these three things ; first, that the
\*ords employed be English words ; secondly, that they be constru
ed in the English idiora ; thirdly, that they be raade to present to
the reader or hearer the precise raeaning, which good use hath af
fixed to thera. A trespass against the first, when the word is not
English, is called a barbarisra ; a trespass against the second, when
the fault lies in the construction, is terraed a solecisra ; a trespass
against the third, when the word, though English, is not used in
its true meaning, is denominated an impropriety. As the founda
tion is necessary to the superstructure, so an attention to grararaat
ical purity is previously necessary to one who would attain the ele
gant, affecting, and energetic expression of the orator. Perrait rae,
therefore, to take this opportunity of recoraraending to you, to be
stow sorae tirae and attention on the perusal of our best English
gramraars, and to farailiarize yourselves to the idiora of our best
and purest writers. It is, I think, a raatter of some consequence,
and therefore ought not to be altogether neglected by the student.
I know it will be said, that when all a man's labour is eraployed in
instructing the people of a country parish, to which there is little

CAMPBELL S LECTURES. 109
or no resort of strangers, propriety of expression is not a raatter of
mighty raoment, provided he speak in such a manner as to be in
telligible to his parishioners. I admit the truth of what is advanc
ed in this objection, but by no means the consequence which the
objectors seem disposed to draw frora it. I raust therefore entreat
that a few things may be considered on the other hand. And first,
you cannot know for certain, vvhere it may please Providence
that your lot should be. If you acquire the knowledge of the lan
guage in the proper acceptation of the word, you acquire a dialect
which will make you understood wherever the language is spoken ;
for as the English translation ofthe Bible, and as all our best writ
ings, are in what I may call the general and pure idiora of the
tongue, that idiom is perfectly well understood even by those, who
do not speak whh propriety themselves. Whereas if you neglect
grammatical accuracy, it is a hundred to one, that many ofyour words
and phrases will be misunderstood in the very neighbouring dis
trict or county. And even though they should be intelligible
enough, they have a coarseness and vulgarity in thera, that cannot
fail to make them appear to men of knowledge and taste ridiculous :
and this doth inexpressible injury to the thought conveyed under
them, how just and important soever it be. You will say, that this
is all the effect of raere prejudice in the hearers, consequently un
reasonable and not to be regarded. Be it, that this is prejudice in
the hearers, and therefore unreasonable. It doth not follow, that
the speaker ought to pay no regard to it. It is the business of the
orator to accoraraodate himself to men, such as he sees they are,
and not such as he imagines, they should be. A certain pliancy of
disposition in regard to innocent prejudices and defects, is what in
our intercourse with the world, good sense necessarily requires of
us, candour requires of us, our religion itself requires of us. It is
this very disposition, which our great apostle recommends by his
own example, where he tells us that he " becarae all things to all
men, that he might by all means save sorne." But upon irapartial
exaraination, the thing perhaps will be found not so unreasonable,
as at first sight it raay appear. A raan of raerit and breeding you
may disguise by putting him in the apparel of a clown, but you can
not justly find fault, that in that garb he raeets not with the sarae
reception in good company, that he would meet with if raore suita
bly habited. The outward appearance is the first thing that strikes
us in a person, the expression is the first thing that strikes us in a
14

110 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
discourse.- Take care at least, that in neither, there Ife any thing to
make an unfavourable impression, which raay preclude all further
inquiry and regard. It was extremely well said by a very popular
preacher in our own days, who when consulted by a friend that had
a mind to publish, whether he thought it befitting a writer on reli
gion to attend to such little raatters as grammatical correctness,' an
swered, " By all raeans. It is much better to write so as to make
a critic turn Christian, than so as to make a Christian turn critic."
The answer was judicious and well expressed. That the thought
may enter deeply into the mind of the reader or hearer, there is need
of all the assistance possible from the expression. Little progress
can it be expected then, that the former shall make, if there be
any thing in the latter, which serves to divert the attention frora it.
And this effect at least of diverting the attention, even raere gram-
raatic blunders, with those who are capable of discerning thera, are
but too apt to produce. The more iramediate object with us is rhet
orical, not grammatical expression, and only that kind ofthe former
which is specially adapted to the Christian oratory. For though
there be not perhaps any qualities requisite here, which may not
with good effect be employed by those whose province it is to har
angue from the bar or in the senate, and though there be very few
ofthe qualities of elocution, which raay not on sorae occasions, with
great propriety, be employed from the pulpit ; yet sorae of thera,
without all question, are raore essential to one species of oratory
than to another, and it is such as are most adapted to the discourses
with which we are here concerned, that I propose now particularly
to consider. Before all things then, in my judgment, the preacher
Xjught to raake it his study that the style of his discourses be both
perspicuous and affecting. I shall raake a few observations to illus
trate each of these particulars, and then conclude this lecture.
First I say, his style ought to he perspicuous. Though it is indeed
a most certain fact, that perspicuity is of the utmost consequence
to every orator (for what valuable end can any oration answer,
which is not understood ?) this quality doubtless ought to be more
a study to the Christian orator than to any other whatever. The
reason is obvious. The more we are in danger of violating any
rule (especially if it be a rule of the last importance,) the more cir
cumspection we ought to eraploy in order to avoid that danger. Now
that the preacher raust be in rauch greater danger in this respect
than any other public speaker, is raanifest from the mixed character
at best, often from the very low character in respect of acquired

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. Ill
knowledge, ofthe audience to whora his speech is addressed. Per
spicuity is in a great measure a relative quality. A speech may
be perspicuous to one, which to another is unintelligible. It is pos
sible indeed to be obscure in pleading before the most learned and
discerning judges, because the pleader's style may be remarkably
perplexed and intricate; but without any peiple.^ity or intricacy of
style, it is even more than possible, that a man of reading and ed
ucation shall speak obscurely when he addresses himself in a set
discourse to simple and illiterate people. There is a cause of dark
ness in this case, totally independent of the grammatical structure
ofthe sentences, and the general character ofthe style. It is, be
sides, of all causes of obscurity, that which is most apt to escape
the notice of a speaker. Nothing is more natural than for a man
to imagine, that what is intelligible to him is so to every body, or
at least that he speaks with sufficient clearness, when he uses the
same language and in equal plainness, with that in which he hath
studied the subject, and been accustomed to read. But however
safe this rule of judging may be in the barrister and the senator,
who generally address their discourses to men of similar education
with themselves, and of equal or nearly equal abilities and learning,
it is by no means a proper rule for the preacher, one destined to be
in spiritual matters a guide tothe blind, a light to them who are in
darkness, an instructer of the foolish, and a teacher of babes.
Therefore, besides the ordinary rules of perspicuity in respect of
diction, which in common with every other public speaker he ought
to attend to, he must advert to this in particular, that fhe terms and
phrases he employs in his discourse be not beyond the reach of the
inferior ranks of people. Otherwise his preaching is, to the bulk of
his audience, but beating the air ; whatever the discourse may be
in itself, the speaker is to them no better than a sounding brass or
a tinkling cymbal. It is reported of Archbishop Tillotson, that he
was wont, before preaching his sermons, to read them privately to
an illiterate old woman of plain sense, who lived in the house with
him, and wherever he found he had employed any word or expres
sion, that she did not understand, he instantly erased it, and sub
stituted a plainer in its place, till he brought the style down to her
level. ' The story is much to the prelate's honour; for however in
competent such judges raight be of the composition, the doctrine,
or the argument, they are certainly the most competent judges of
what terms and phrases fall within the apprehension of the vulgar,
the class to which they belong. But though such an expedient

112 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
would not answer in every situation, we ought at least to supply the
want of it by making it raore an object of attention than is cora
raonly done, to discover what in point of language (alls within and
what without the sphere ofthe common people.
Before I dismiss this article of perspicuity, I shall mention briefly
a few of those faults by which it is most commonly transgressed.
The first is pedantry, or an ostentation of learning, by frequent
recourse to those words and phrases which are called technical, and
which are in use only among the learned. This may justly be de
nominated the worst kind of obscurity, because it is always an in
tentional obscurity. In other cases a man may speak obscurely,
without knowing it ; he may on some subjects speak obscurely, and
though he suspects it, raay not have itin his power to remedy it; but
the pedant affects obscurity. He is dark of purpose, that you may
think him deep. The character of a profound scholar is his priraary
object. Commonly indeed he overshoots the mark, and with all per
sons of discernment loses this character byhis excessive solicitude
to acquire it. The pedant in literature is perfectly analogous to the
hypocrite in religion. As appearance and not reality is the great
study of each, both in mere exteriors far outdo the truly learned and
the pious, with whom the reputation of learning and piety is but a
secondary object at the raost. The shallowness however of such pre
tenders rarely escapes the discovery ofthe judicious. But if false
hood and vanity are justly accounted mean and despicable, wherev
er they are found; when they dare to show themselves in the pulpit,
a place consecrated to truth and purity, they must appear to every
ingenuous mind perfectly detestable. It raust be owned, however,
that the pedantic style is not now so prevalent in preaching, as
it hath been in forraer limes, and therefore needs not to be further
enlarged on. There is indeed a sort of literary diction, which
sometiraes the inexperienced are ready to fall into insensibly, from
their having been rauch raore accustoraed to the school and to the
closet, to the works of some particular schemer in philosophy, than
to the scenes of real life and conversation. This fault, though
akin to the forraer, is not so bad, as it raay be without affectation,
and when there is no special design of catching applause. It is, in
deed, raost commonly the consequence of an immoderate attach
ment to sorae one or other of the various systems of ethics or theol
ogy that have in modern tiraes been published, and obtained a
vogue among their respective partizans. Thus the zealous disciple

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 1 13
of Shaftesbury, Akenside and Hutcheson, is no sooner licensed to
preach the gospel, than with the best intentions in the world, he
harangues the people from the pulpit on the moral sense and uni
versal benevolence — he sets thera to inquire whether there be a per
fect conforraity in their affections to the supreme symmetry estab
lished in the universe — he is full of the sublime and beautiful in
things, the moral objects of right and wrong, and the proportionable
affection of a rational creature towards them. He speaks much of
the inward music of the mind, the harmony and the dissonance of
the passions, and seems, by his way of talking, to imagine, that if
a man have this same moral sense, which he considers as the raen
tal ear, in due perfection, he raay tune his soul with as rauch ease
as a rausician tunes a rausical instruraent. The disciple of Doctor
Clarke, on the contrary, talks to us in somewhat of a soberer strain
and less porapous phrase, but not a jot more edifying, about unal
terable reason and the eternal fitness of things — aboutthe conform
ity of our actions to their immutable relations and essential differ
ences. All the various sects or parties in religion have been often
accused of using a peculiar dialect oftheir own, when speaking on
religious subjects, which though familiar to the votaries of the party,
appears extremely uncouth to others. The charge, I ara sensible
is not without foundation, though all parties are not in this respect
equally guilty. We see, however, that the different systeras of
philosophy, especially that branch which coraes under the denorai
nation of pneuraatology, are equally liable to this imputation with
systeras of theology. I would not be understood, from any thing I
have said, to conderan in the gross either the books or systems al
luded to. They have their excellencies as well as their blemishes ;
and as to many ofthe points in which they seem to differ from one
another, I am satisfied that the difference is, like some of our the
ological disputes, more verbal than real. Let us read even on op
posite sides, but still so as to preserve the freedom of our judgraent
in comparing, weighing and deciding, so that we can wifh justice
apply to ourselves, in regard to all huraan teachers, the declaration
ofthe poet, Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri.*
And even in some cases, wherein we approve the thought in any of
those authors, it may not be proper to adopt the language. The
adage, which enjoins us to think with the learned, but speak with
* Sworn to no master.

114 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
the vulgar, is not tobe understood as enjoining us to dissemble;
but not to make a useless parade of learning, particularly to avoid
every thing in point of language which would put the sentiments
we raean to convey beyond the reach of those with whom we con
verse. It was but just now admitted, that the different sects or de
norainations of Christians had their several and peculiar dialects.
I would advise the young divine, in forraing his style in sacred mat
ters, to avoid as much as possible the peculiarities of each. The
language of holy scripture and of common sense affords him a suffi
cient standard. And with regard to the distinguishing phrases,
which our factions in religion have introduced, though these some
tiraes raay appear to superficial people and half thinkers sufficiently
perspicuous, the appearance is a mere illusion. The generality of
men, little accustomed to reflection, are so constituted, that what
their ears have been long familiarized to, however obscure in it
self, or unmeaning it be, seems perfectly plain to thera. They are
well acquainted with the terms, expressions and customary applica
tion, and they look no farther. A great deal ofthe learning in di
vinity of such of our common people as think themselves, and are
sometiraes thought by others, wonderful scholars, is of this sort. It
is generally the fruit of much application, strong meraory and weak
judgment, and consisting mostly of mere words and phrases, is of
that kind of knowledge which puffeth up, gendereth self-conceit,
that species of it in particular known by the narae of spiritual pride,
captiousness, censoriousness, jealousy, malignity, but by no means
rainistereth to the edifying of fhe hearers in love. This sort of
knowledge I denominate learned ignorance, of all sorts of igno
rance the most difficult to be surmounted, agreeably to the obser
vation of Solomon, " Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit,
there is raore hope of a fool than of him.'' Would you avoid then
feeding the vanity of your hearers, supplying them with words in
stead of sense, amusing them wilh curious questions and verbal
controversies, instead of furnishing them with useful and practical
instruction, detach yourselves from the artificial, ostentatious phra
seology of every scholastic, or system builder in theology, and keep
as close as possible to the pure style of holy writ, which the apostle
calls " the sincere or unadulterated milk of the word." The things,
which the Holy Spirit hath taught by the prophets and apostles,
give not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but in the
words which the Holy Spirit teacheth, a much more natural and
suitable language. But be particularly attentive that the scripture

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 115
expressions employed be both plain and apposite. The word of
God itself raay be, and often is handled unskilfully. Would the
preacher carefully avoid this charge, let him first be sure that he
hath himself a distinct meaning to every thing he advanceth, and
ne.xt examine, whether the expression he intends to use be a clear
and adequate enunciation ofthat meaning. For ifit is true, that a
speaker is sometimes not understood, because he doth not express his
raeaning with sufficient clearness, it is also true that soraetiraes he
is not understood, because he hath rio meaning to express.
The last advice I would give on the head of perspicuity is, in
composing, to aim at a certain simplicity in the structure of your
sentences, avoidirlg long, intricate and complex periods. Reraera
ber always that the bulk of the people are unused to reading and
study. They lose sight of the connection in very long sentences,
and they are quite bewildered, when, for the sake of rounding a
period, and suspending the sense till the concluding clause, you
transgress the customary arrangement of the words. The nearer
therefore your diction coraes to the language of conversation, it wil!
be the more familiar to them, and so the more easily apprehended.
In this too the style of scripture is an excellent model. So much
for perspicuity.
The next quality I raentioned in the style, was, that it be affect
ing. Though this has raore particularly a place in those discourses,
which admit and even require a good deal of the pathetic, yet, in a
certain degree, it ought to accompany every thing that comes from
the pulpit. All from that quarter is conceived to be, mediately or
immediately, connected with the most important interests of man
kind. This gives a propriety to the affecting manner in a certain
degree, whatever be the particular subject. It is this quality in
preaching, to which the French critics have given the name of
onction, and which they explain to be, an affecting sweetness of man
ner which engages the heart. It is indeed that warmth, and gentle
eraotion in the address and language, which serves to show, that the
speaker is rauch in earnest in what he says, and is actuated to say it
frora the tenderest concern for the welfare of his hearers. As this
character, however, can be considered only as a degree of that
which comes under the general denomination of pathetic, we shall
have occasion to consider it raore fully afterwards. It is enough
here to observe, that as the general strain of pulpit expression ought
to be seasoned with this quality, this doth necessarily imply, that
the language be ever grave and serious. The necessity of this re-

116 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
suits frora the consideration of the very raomentous effect which
preaching was intended to produce ; as the necessity of perspicuity,
the first quality mentioned, results from the consideration of the
character sustained by the hearers. That the effect designed by
this institution, naraely the reforraation of raankind, requires a cer
tain seriousness, which though occasionally requisite in other public
speakers, ought uniforraly to be preserved by the preacher, is a
truth that will scarcely be doubted by any person who reflects.
This may be said in some respect to narrow his compass in persua
sion, as it will not permit the same free recourse to humour, wit
and ridicule, which often prove powerful auxiliaries to other orators
at the bar and in the senate, agreeably to the observation of the
poet, Ridiculum acri
Fortius et melius magnas plerumque secat res.*
At the sarae tirae, I ara very sensible that an air of ridicule in disprov
ing or dissuading, by rendering opinions or practices conteraptible,
hath been attempted with approbation by preachers of great narae. I
can only say that when the conteraptuous raanner is employed
(which ought to be very seldora) it requires to be managed with
the greatest delicacy. For time and place and occupation seem
all incorapatible with the levity of ridicule ; they render jesting ira-
pertinence, and laughter madness. Therefore any thing from the
pulpit, which might provoke this eraotion, would now be justly
deemed an unpardonable offence against both piety and decorura.
In order, however, to prevent mistakes, permit me here, in passing,
to make a remark that raay be called a digression, as it immediate
ly concerns my own province only. The reraark is, that in these
prelections, I do not consider myself as limited by the laws of
preaching. There is a difference between a school, even a theolo
gical school and a church, a professor's chair and a pulpit ; there is
a difference between graduates in philosophy and the arts, and a
coramon congregation. And though in some things, not in all,
there be a coincidence in the subject, yet the object is different.
In the former, it is purely the inforraation ofthe hearers, in the lat
ter, it is ultimately their reforraation. I shall not therefore hesitate,
in this place, to borrow aid frora whatever may serve innocently to
illustrate, enliven or enforce any part of my subject, and keep
* Ridicule often decides important matters more readily than acute rea
soning.

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 117
awake the attention of my hearers, which is but too apt to flag at
hearing the most rational discourse, if there be nothing it, which
can either move the passions, or please the iraagination. The na
ture of ray department excludes alraost every thing of the former
kind, or what may be called pathetic. A little ofthe onction ahove
explained is the utmost that here ought to be aspired to. There
is the less need to dispense with what of the latter kind raay be
helpful for rousing attention. I hope, therefore, to be indulged the
liberty, a liberty which I shall use very sparingly, of availing my
self of the plea ofthe satirist,
Ridentem dicere verum
Quid vetat ?
So much for the perspicuous and the affecting raanner, qualities
in the style which ought particularly to predominate in all discourses
frora the pulpit. There are other graces of elocution, which may
occasionally find a place there, such as the nervous, the elegant, and
sorae others ; but the former ought never to be wanting. The for
mer therefore are characteristic qualities. The latter are so far
frora being such, that sometimes they are rather of an opposite ten
dency. The nervous style requires a conciseness, that is often
unfriendly to that perfect perspicuity which ought to predominate
in all that is addressed to the Christian people, and which leads a
speaker rather to be diffuse in his expression, that he may the bet
ter adapt hiraself to ordinary capacities. Elegance too demands a
certain polish, that is not always entirely compatible with that art
less simplicity, with which, when the great truths of religion are
adorned, they appear always to the most advantage, and in
the truest majesty. They are " when unadorn'd, adorn'd the
most." We have now done with what regards in general the sentiment
and the elocution. The next lecture shall be on the pronun
ciation. * Why may not a laughing man speak the truth .'
15

118 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
LECTURE IV.
Of Pronunciation.
I HAVE in the two preceding discourses finished what regards in
general the sentiraents and the elocution proper for the pulpit. I
intend in the present discourse to discuss the article of pronuncia
tion. This adraits the same division, which was observed in the
former branch, into grammatical* and rhetorical. The former was
by the Greeks denominated ixipmtie-is, the latter moxfia-ti^ As it is
ofthe utmost consequence, when we are entering on the examina.
tionof anyatticle, that we form precise ideas ofthe subject of inquiry,
and do not confound things in theraselves distinct, I shall begin this
lecture with a definition of each of these, to which I raust beg leave
to entreat your attention, that so none may be at a loss about the
meaning or application of what shall be advanced in the sequel.
As to the first, then, grammatical pronunciation consisteth in articu-
ktiiig, audibly and distinctly, the letters, whether vowels or conso
nants, assigning to each its appropriated sound, in giving the seve
ral syllables their just quantity, and in placing the accent, or, as
some call it, the syllabic emphasis, in every word on the proper
syllable. As to the second, rhetorical pronunciation consisteth in
giving such an utterance to the several words in a sentence, as
shows in the mind ofthe speaker a strong perception, or as it were
feeling of the truth and justness of the thought conveyed by them,
and in placing the rhetorical eraphasis in every sentence, on the
proper word, that is, on that word which, by being pronounced era
phatically, gives the greatest energy and clearness to the expression.
Under this head is also comprehended gesture ; as both imply a
kind of natural expression, superadded to that conveyed by artificial
signs, or the words of the language. Under the term gesture, I
would be understood to coraprehend not only the action of the eyes
and other features of the countenance, but also that which results
frora the raotion of the hands and carriage of the body. This tO'
gether with the proper management ofthe voice was all coraprised
under the Greek word vZoKiimi, borrowed from the theatre, but
which, for want of a terra of equal extent in our language, we are
forced to include under the name pronunciation. Now these two
^inds of pronunciation, the grararaatical and the rhetorical, are so
* Instead ofthe word grammatical in reference to pronunciation, the word
eoirect is now more commonly employed. Ed.

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 119
perfectly distinct, that each may be found in a very eminent degree
without the other. The first indeed is raerely an effect of educa-
tian ; insorauch that one who has had the good fortune to be
brought up in a place where the language is spoken in purity, and
has been taught to read by a sufficient teacher, must inevitably, if
he labours under no natural defect in the organs of speech, be mas
ter of grammatical pronunciation. The second is more properly, in
its origin, the production of nature, but is capable of being consid
erably improved and polished by education. The natural qualities
which combine in producing it, are an exquisite sensibility joined
with a good ear and a flexible voice. An Englishman, who hath
been properly educated, and alvvays in good company, as the phrase
is, that is, in the company of those who, by a kind of tacit consent,
are allowed to take the lead in language, may pronounce so as to
defy the censure of the most critical grararaarian, and yet be, in the
judgraent of the rhetorician, a most languid and inaniraate speaker,
one who knows nothing at all of the oratorical pronunciation.
Speakers you will ofteh find in the house of coramons, who are
perfect in the one and totally deficient in the other. On the other
hand, you will find speakers of this country who, in respect of the
last, have considerable talents, insomuch that they can excite and
fix attention, that they can both please and move, that their voice
seeras capable alike of being modulated to sooth the passions or to
inflame them, yet in whose pronunciation a gramraarian raay dis
cover innuraerable defects. There is tbis difference, however,
between the two cases, that though the grararaatical pronunciation
may be perfect in its kind without the rhetorical, the last is never
in perfection without the first. The art of the gramraarian in this,
as in the forraer article of expression, serves as a foundation to that
of the orator. It will be proper therefore to begin with a few re
marks upon the former. .^
That a right grammatical pronunciation will deserve some re
gard from us, appears from the same reasons, which evince that
grararaatical expression deserves sorae regard. Those reasons
therefore shall not be now repeated. There is, however, it raust be
acknowledged, a considerable difference between the two cases.
And the former atterapt is rauch raore hazardous than the latter.
If we aim no higher, than that the words we use, the application and
the construction be proper English, (which is all that grararaatical
expression requires) we shall never run the risk of the charge of af
fectation, than which, I know no iraputation that is more preju-

120 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
dicial to the orator. Whereas a forced and unnatural, because
unaccustomed pronunciation, and the awkward mouthing which
the atterapt often occasions, as it falls within the observation
of the generality -of hearers, so it is more disgusting to hearers
of taste and discernment, than perhaps any provincial ac
cent whatsoever. Shall we then give up all attempts this way ?
1 do not say that neither. But let us keep a proper mediura in
our attempts, and never strain beyond what we can effect with ease.
Let us begin by avoiding the most faulty pronunciations we can dis
cover in ourselves, or which have been remarked to us by others;
and let us endeavour to avoid thera not in the pulpit only, but in
common conversation. It would be a matter of considerable conse
quence for this as well as for more material purposes, that young men
ofan ingenuous temper and good sense, who happen to be corapan
ions, should mutually-agree to serve as checks and monitors to one
another. I know not any thing which would contribute more to pre
vent the contracting of ungainly habits, or to correct them tiraely

when contracted. "A friend's eye," says the proverb, " is a good
mirror." And every one must be sensible, that there are several
kinds of faults and improprieties, which totally elude the discovery
ofthe person chargeable with them, but which by no means escape
the notice of the attentive spectator or auditor. I said that when a
faulty manner in pronouncing is discovered, it ought to be avoided
not in the pulpit only, but in conversation. The nearer our manner
of pronouncing in the pulpit is to that we daily use, the raore easy
and the raore natural it will appear. Exaraple, as in every thing,
so here in particular, goes a great way. Let us therefore attend
to the manner of the best speakers, to whose company we have ac
cess, and we shall insensibly conform ourselves to it. It is by such
insensible, more than by any intentional imitation, .that every man
acquires the speech and pronunciation which he uses. And by the
like easy and gradual influence of example, by which a faulty pro
nunciation was contracted, it will best be cured. The only caution
necessary on this article is, that we be very sure as to the
choice we make of patterns, lest unluckily we imitate blemishes for
excellencies, and be at great pains in acquiring, what we ought
rather to be at pains to avoid. Grammars and dictionaries may be
of some use here, but are not sufficient without other aid. Dis
tinctions only discernible by the ear, can never be adequately con
veyed raerely by the eye. There is one part of pronunciation,
however, and a very iinportant part, which may be learnt solely

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 121
by book, that is, the placing of the accent or syllabic emphasis.
So much for grammatical pronunciation.
As to the rhetorical pronunciation, there is not any thing so pe
culiar in the Christian eloquence, as to require that we make
any addition of moment to the rules on this subject laid down in
the best institutes of rhetoric, which I recommend to your serious
perusal. I shall only remark to you a fevv of the chief and most
common faults in this way, observable in preachers, and suggest
some bints, by a due attention to which, one may attain the right
management of the voice, and be enabled to avoid those faults.
The first I shall observe, though not in itself a very great,
yet is ^a very common fault, and often proves the source of
several others ; it is the straining of the voice beyond its natural
key, commonly the effect of a laudable desire to make one's self be
heard in a large congregation. This, however, is one of those ex
pedients, that rarely fail to defeat the purpose which occasioned
thera. What is thus spoken in a forced tone (though the note in
the rausical scale eraitted by the voice be higher) is neither so dis
tinct, nor so audible, as what is spoken in the natural tone of voice.
There is a very great difference between speaking high, and speak
ing loud; though these two are often confounded. Women's voices
are a full octave higher or shriller (for that is all the terra means)
than men's, and yet they are much less fitted for being heard in a
large auditory. In a chime or music bells the bass notes are all
struck on the biggest bells, and the treble notes on the smallest.
Accordingly the former are heard at a distance, which the feeble
sound of the other cannot reach. The same thing may be observed
ofthe pipes in an organ. Besides, it is a much greater stress to the
speaker, to hold out with his voice raised ever so little above its natural
pitch, and it lays him under several disadvantages in respect of pro
nunciation, of which I shall have occasion to take notice afterwards.
A second fault which is very common wilh preachers is too great
rapidity of utterance. This is an ordinary, though not a necessary
consequence of committing a discourse to raemory and repeating it.
A person, without particularly guarding against it, is apt to contract
an impatience to deliver the words, as fast as they occur to his
mind, that so he may give them to the audience, whilst he is sure
he can do it. This also is a great hinderance to the attainraent of
an affecting or energetic pronunciation ; besides that it greatly fa
tigues the attention ofthe hearer, whom, after all, many things must
escape, which otherwise he might have retained.

122 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
A third fault I shall observe is a theatrical and too violent man
ner. This, though it seeras to proceed frora a commendable ar
dour, sins against propriety in many ways. It suits not the gravi
ty ofthe subject; and to appear destitute of all comraand of one's
self doth not befit one who would teach others to obtain a perfect
mastery over their passions. The preacher's manner in general
ought to be modest, at the same time earnest and affecting.
A fourth fault, which is indeed the opposite extreme to that novv
mentioned, is an insipid monotony, by which every thing that is
said, whether narration, explanation, argumentation or address to
the passions, is uniformly and successively articulated in the sarae
listless, lifeless manner. And this is a much greater fault than the
preceding. The former offends only hearers of taste and reflection,
but the latter, all who can either understand or feel. The preach
er, in such a case, exhibits the appearance of a school boy who re*
peats a lesson he hath conned over, but who doth not form a single
idea of what he is saying frora beginning to end.
The fifth, and only other reraarkable fault in pronunciation I
shall mention, is a sing-song manner ; or what we comraonly call
a cant, which is soraething like a measure of a tune,- that the
preacher unintermittedly runs over, 'till he conclude his discourse.
This, as a kind of relief to the lungs, is what a strained voice (the
fault in speaking first raentioned) when it becomes habitual, gener
ally terrainates in, and though it hath not the sarae air of indiffer
ence with the raonotony, is in other respects liable to the same
objections. It marks no difference in the nature of the things said,
and consequently (though the tune itself were not unpleasant) it
may prove a lullaby, and dispose the hearers to sleep, but is quite
unfit for awakening their attention. Both the last mentioned faults
are the too frequent (not the unavoidable) consequence of the com
mon raethod of rehearsing a discourse by rote,which has been verbal
tim comraitted to raeraory. This very naturally leads the speaker to
fix the closest attention on the series of the words prepared, that he
may not lose the thread. And this as naturally carries off his at
tention entirely from the thought.
The consideration of these things hath often led me to doubt,
which of the two methods of delivery, reading or repeating, we
ought to recoraraend to students, or at least which of the two, if
universal, would probably have the best effect, and be attended with
fewest disadvantages. I shall candidly lay before you, what hath
occurred to my thoughts on this subject, and leave it to every one's

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 123
own judgment to decide for hiraself. That a discourse well spoken
hath a stronger effect than one well read, will hardly bear a ques
tion. From this manifest truth I very early concluded, and was
long of the opinion, that the way of reading sermons should be ab
solutely banished from the pulpit. But from farther experience, I
am now disposed to suspect, that this conclusion was rather hasty.
Though by proper culture the powers of oratory may be very much
iraproved, yet by no culture whatever will these powers be created,
where nature hath denied thera. A certain original and natural
talent or genius for art to work upon, is as necessary in the orator,
as in the poet. Now if all, who have the rainistry in view, were
possest of this natural talent, the conclusion we mentioned would
certainly be just. But so far is this frora being the case, that ex
perience plainly teacheth us, it is the portion of very few. But
though there be not raany, who will ever arrive at the pathos, the
irresistible force of argument and the sublimity, in which the glory
of eloquence consists, there are not a few who by a proper applica^
tion of their tirae and study, will be capable of composing justly, of
expressing theraselves not only with perspicuity, but wilh energy,
and of reading, I say not in aproper and inoffensive, but even in an
affecting raanner. So rauch raore common are the talents necessa
ry for the one accoraplishraent, than those requisite for the other.
I have indeed heard this point controverted, and people -maintain,
that it was as easy to acquire the talent of repeating with energy and
propriety, as of reading. But I could hardly ever think them seri
ous who said so, or at least that they had duly examined the subject.
There are, no doubt, degrees of excellence in reading, as well as in
repeating, and they are but few, that attain to the highest degree
in either. But in what raay be regarded as good in its kind, though
not the best — I speak within bounds, when I say, that I have found
six good readers, for one who repeated tolerably. As to my per
sonal experience I shall frankly tell you, what I know to be fact.
1 have tried both ways ; I continued long in the practice of repeat
ing, and was even thought (if people did not very much deceive me)
to succeed in it ; but I am so absolutely certain, that I can give
more energy, and preserve tHe attention of the hearers better, to
what I read than ever it was in my power to do to what I repeated.
Nor is it any wonder. There are difficulties to be surmounted in
the latter case, which have no place at all in the former. The tal
ents in other respects are the same, that fit one to excel in either
way. Now as it will, 1 beliere, be admitted by every body who re-

124 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
fleets, that a discourse well read is much better than one ill spoken,
I should not think it prudent to establish any general rule, which
would probably make bad speakers of raany, who might otherwise
have proved good readers. There is something in charging one's
meraory with a long chain of words and syllables, and this is oneof
the difficulties I hinted at, and then running on, as it were, rae
chanically in the sarae train, the preceding word associating and
drawing in the subsequent, that seems by taking off a raan's atten
tion frora the thought to the expression, to render him insuscepti
ble of the delicate sensibility as to the thought, which is the true
spring of rhetorical pronunciation. That this is not invariably the
effect of getting by heart, the success of some actors on the stage is
an undeniable proof But the comparative facility, arising from
the much greater brevity oftheir speeches, and frora the relief and
eraotion that is given to the player by the action of the other dial-
ogists in the scene, raakes the greatest difference imaginable in the
two cases. A raan, through habit, becoraes so perfectly master of
a speech of thirty or forty lines, which will not take him three rain
utes to repeat, that he hath no anxiety about recollecting the words :
his whole attention is to the sentiraent. The case must be very
different, when the meraory is charged with a discourse which will
take thirty rainutes to deliver.
Besides, it must be observed, there is a great difference between
speaking an oration and repeating it. In the forraer case, the ora
tor raay by premeditation have made hiraself raaster of the argu
ment ; he may have arranged his matter in his own mind, but as
to the expression, trusts to that fluency and command of language
which by application and practice have become habitual to hira. It
is irapossible, that any speech on any raotion in the house of cora
mons, except the first speech, should be gotten by heart. For eve
ry following one, if pertinent, must necessarily have a reference
to what was said on the argument before. In like manner it is on
ly the first pleading in a cause at the bar, which can have the ad
vantage of such preparation. Whether those, who open the cause
or question, always avail themselves of this power, and previously
comrait to meraory every sentence they utter, I know not. But
we do not find, that these speeches have generally a reraarkable
superiority in point of elocution, over those which follow, as itis
certain, they can have no superiority at all in point of pronun
ciation. Several of Cicero's best orations were on the defensive
side, and therefore could not have been coraposed verbatim before

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 125
they were spoken. And the most celebrated oration of Deraostbe
nes, that which at the time had the most wonderful effect upon his
auditory, and raised to the highest pitch the reputation of the speak
er, the oration tts^i s-s?i«»k, (for the crown) was an answer to Ms-
chines's accusation ; and such an answer as it was absolutely im
possible should have been, either in words or method, prepared be
fore hearing his adversary : So close is the respect it has, not only
to the sentiments, but to the very expressions that had been used
against him. And the two parties were at the time such rivals and
enemies as to exclude the most distant suspicion of concert. It de
serves our notice, that instances of all the faults in pronunciation
above enuraerated, except the last, are to be found both in the sen
ate and at the bar ; particularly the two extreraes of violence and
monotony. And these are easily accounted- for. The one is a
common consequence of strong passions, where there is neither
the taste nor the judgment that is necessary for raanaging them.
The other generally prevails where there is a total want both of
taste and of feeling. It is remarkable, that the only other fault
mentioned, the canting pronunciation, is hardly ever found but in
the pulpit. Nay, what would at first appear incredible, I have
known ministers whose sing-song manner in preaching was a per
fect soporific to the audience, pronounce their speeches in the gen
eral assembly with great propriety and energy. The only account
I can made of this difference is, that in the two former cases, in
the senate and at the bar, the speeches are almost always spoken.
Comraitting the whole, word for word, to meraory, is, I believe,
very rarely attempted. Now the general assembly partakes of the
nature both of a senate and court of judicature. Sermons, on the
contrary, are more generally repeated. They are very few who
trust to a talent of speaking extempore in the pulpit. Now when
once the attention, as was hinted already, loses hold of the thought,
and is wbolly occupied in tracing the series of the words, the speak
er insensibly, to relieve hiraself frora the difficulty of keeping up his
voice at the sarae stretch, falls into a kind of tune, which, without
any regard to the sense of what is said, returns as regularly, as ifit
were played on an instruraent. One thing further raay be urged
in favour of reading, and it is of some consequence, that it always
requires some preparation. A discourse raust be written before it
can be read. When a man who does not read, gets over, through
custom, all apprehension about the opinion of his hearers, or re-
16

136 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
spect for their judgraent, there is sorae danger, that laziness may
prompt him to speak without any preparation, and consequently to
become careless what he says. But to return, the sum of what has
been offered, is not that reading a discourse is universally prefera
ble to repeating it. By no means. But only that if the latter way
adraits of higher excellence, the forraer is raore attainable and less
hazardous.* It is to be regretted that the training of young ra en, who are in
tended for public speakers, to read and speak properly and grace
fully is so much and so universally neglected in latter tiraes. The
ancients both of Greece and of Rome, sensible of the importance
of this article in educating their youth for the forum and fof the
senate, were remarkably attentive to it ; and it raust be own
ed their success iu this way was correspondent to their care. For
however much we moderns appear to have surpassed them in sorae,
and equalled thera perhaps in all other arts, our inferiority in re
gard to eloquence will hardly bear a dispute. It is not possible,
however, that so great a defect in raodern education should be sup
plied by a few cursory directions, which is all that your leisure and

* It will be observed that in this paragraph and the preceding, the author
is discussing the question, whether it is better for ministers to read their ser
mons in the pulpit or to deliver them from memorj. To the opinion which
he has expressed, it is presumed there must be a general assent. In addi
tion to his reasons against repeating sermons from meraory, it is worthy of
remark that this method of preaching would require an entirely dispropor
tionate share of time from ministers in general; not to say, that the mental
exhaustion consequent upon it, could not well be sustained year after year.
There is another raode of preaching to which Dr. Campbell makes scarce
ly any reference ; and respecting which it is perhaps to be regretted that he
did not express an opinion. That his opinion respecting it would have been
favourable may be conjectured from his remark in the last paragraph : 'I have
known ministers whose sing-song manner in preaching was a perfect sopori
fic to the audience, pronounce their speeches in the general asserably with
great propriety and energy.' He accounts for this difference in the manner
of pronunciation by the circumstance, that in the general assembly the
speeches are spoken as in the senate and at the bar. Now if those ministers
of whose manner in preaching he complains, had prepared themselves for
preaching in the same manner as they prepared for speaking in the general
assembly, why might they not have acquitted themselves with similar proprie
ty and energy ? What then is the preparation for speaking in the general as
sembly, at the bar, and in the senate ,' Not indeed by committing to memory
word for word a discourse carefully composed, nor yet by carefully writing
a speech with the expectation of reading it; but by acquiring an
intimate acquaintance with a given subject, by making it faiuihar

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 127
the prosecution of the other and still raore important branches of
my plan will here give scope for. To attain a mastery in the att
of speaking would require rauch study improved by exercise and
corrected by conversation. But though we cannot do all that we
would, let us not for this think ourselves excused from doing what
we can.
The first thing then I would advise the young preacher at his
setting out, in regard to the management of his voice, is cautiously
to avoid beginning on too high a clef His natural tone of speak
ing in conversation is that which will always succeed best with
hira, in which, if properly managed, he will be best heard, be able
to hold out longest, and have most coraraand of his voice in pro
nouncing. Let it be observed, that in conversing (according as the
company is large or small) we can speak louder or softer, without
altering the tone. Our aim therefore ought to be, to articulate the
words distinctly, and to give sueh a forcible emission to the breath
in pronouncing, as makes the voice reach farther without raising it
to a higher key. Every man's voice has naturally a certain com
pass, above which it cannot rise, and below which it cannot sink.
The ordinary tone, on which we converse, is nearly about fhe middle

to the mind, and by thoroughly engaging in respect to it the whole heart and
soul. With such preparation, a man of ordinary self-possession vrill deliver
his sentiments without embarrassment and with effect. Would educated
ministers generally adopt such a method, except on subjects requiring pecu
liar nicety of expression, the mode of preaching without fully written dis
courses would soon obtain universal respect, and the pulpit would furnish
strains ofthe highest eloqdence.
The chief objection to this mode of preaching is, that men who are so fre
quently required to speak in public as ministers are, would be very much in
danger of neglecting the pen, and thus of acquiring habits of inaccuracy in
thinking and expression. But this is not a necessary evil. It may be guard
ed against; and they who adopt this mode ought very frequently to employ
their pens in writing essays, parts of sermons, and not unfrequently whole
sermons. Nor ought it to be expected, because the manner of preaching
recommended in this note has decided advantages as a general manner, that
a preacher should never read his sermon whatever be the subject, or that no
one should preach who feels after many trials that he ought fo have his manu
script before him.
On this sabject, it is with much pleasure that I refer the reader to a work •
by the Rev. Henry Ware, Jr. Professor of Pulpit Eloquence and the Pastoral
Care in Harvard University, entitled Hints on Extemporaneous Preaching.
The third edition of this work has lately been given to the public. It is the
most satisfactory work of the kind that can be consulted; and ought by all
means to be read in connection with this Lecture. En.

128 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
of that compass. When we make that, therefore, as it were, the key
note of our discourse, we have the power with ease of both elevating
and depressing the voice, in uttering particular words, just as the
sense requires, that they be uttered emphatically or otherwise.
When we recommend the ordinary tone ofthe voice in conversation,
as that on which we ought in public to attempt'to speak, we would
not be understood to recommend an insipid monotony ; we only
mean to signify, that this should serve as the foundation note on
which the general tenour of the discourse should run. On the con
trary, it being one of the best preservatives against that egregious
fault in speaking, by giving the voice the greatest latitude both in
rising and falling with facility, is one reason that I so earnestly re
coraraend it. Every body raust be sensible, that when the voice is
at an unnatural stretch, it can give no emphasis to any word what
ever without squeaking ; so that the speaker, for the ease of his
own lungs, is forced to take refuge, either in a tiresome monotony
or a drowsy cant Besides, it deserves to be remarked, that raost
raen when earnest in conversation on an affecting subject, naturally
without any study, give their voice the, proper inflections which the
import of what is said requires. When, therefore, we speak in
public, if we ourselves enter seriously into the subject, and are as
it were interested in it, we shall, without any effort, being taught
by nature and assisted by habit, give such an emphasis to the words
which require it, and such-cadence tothe sentences, as in conversing
on serious and raoving subjects vve never fail to employ. Whereas,
if we speak on a forced key, we cannot have the same assistance
either from nature or habit.
A second direction I would give, is to be very careful, in proceed
ing in your discourse, to preserve in the general tenour of it the
same key on which you began. Many, who begiii right, insensibly
raise their voice as they advance, till at last they corae to speak in
a tone that is very painful to themselves, and by necessary conse
quence, grating to their hearers It will require much care, atten
tion, and even practice, to prevent this evil.
It will not a little contribute to this end, that you diligently ob-
, serve the following direction, the third I am to give on this subject,
which is, that you alvvays begin by speaking very deliberately and
rather slowly. Even a drawling pronunciation, in the introduction
of a discourse, is raore pardonable than a rapid one. Most subjects
will require that you grow soraewhat quicker as you advance. But
of all things be careful to avoid that uniform rapidity of utterance.

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 129
which is very unattractive, as having the evident raarks of repeat
ing a lesson by rote, which is so great an eneray to all eraphasis and
distinction in pronouncing, and which, besides, even lo the raost
attentive hearer, throws out the things delivered faster than his
mind is able to receive them. The fourth and last direction I
shall give, is what was hinted already, frequent practising in read
ing, speaking and repeating before one sensible companion at the
least, or more where they may be had, who should be encouraged
to offer with freedom and candour such remarks and censures as
have occurred. So rauch for the general rules of rhetorical pro
nunciation in preaching. A great deal more might be profitably
offered ; but where such a multiplicity of subjects deraand our at
tention and a share of our tirae, a great deal on each must be left
to your own application and diligence.

LECTURE V.
Discourses distributed into various kinds, as addressed to the Understanding,
the Imagination, the Passions, and the Will.
I PROCEED, in the third place, to inquire into the various kinds
of discourses, which the Christian eloquence admits, and the rules
in regard to composition, that ought to he-followed in each. Be
fore I enter on it, I will take the freedora to digress a little, and
give you a brief account of the origin of the plan, that I ara going
to lay before you, which may be regarded as the outline of an in
stitute of pulpit eloquence. When I was myself a student of divin
ity in this place, there were about seven or eight of us fellow stu
dents, wbo, as we lived mostly in the town, forraed ourselves into
a society, the great object of which was our mutual improvement,
both in the knowledge of the theory of theology, and also in what
ever raightbe conducive to qualify us for the practical part or duties
ofthe pastoral function. We added to our original nuraber, as we
found occasion, frora tirae to tirae, for our society subsisted a good
raany years. Several valuable raerabers have already finished the
part assigned thera by Providence on this stage. As to those who
reraain, I shall only say, in general, that they are all men of consid
eration and character in the church. I should not have been so
particular, but that I would gladly by the way recommend the prae-

130 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
tice of forming such small societies, when it can conveniently be
accomplished. I can assure you from my own experience, that
when there is a proper choice of persons, an entire confidence in
one another, and a real disposition to be mutually useful, it is one
of the raost powerful raeans of improvement that I know. Amongsit
other things discussed in this small society, one was, an inquiry in
to the nature of serraons and other discourses proper for the pulpit,
the different kinds into which they raight fitly be distributed, and
the rules of composition that suited each. On this subject we had
several conversations. When these were over, I had the task as
signed rae to raake out a short sketch or abstract of the whole.
This, I the raore readily undertook, as it had been, for some tirae
before, a favourite study of raine, having, when qualifying myself
for another business, given some attention to the forensic oratory of
the ancients, and having afterwards reraarked both the analogies
and differences between it and the Christian eloquence. Of this
abstract, every one who 'chose it took a copy ; and as we had no
object but general usefulness, every one was at liberty to coramuni
cate it to whom he pleased. I have a copy of this still in my pos-
* session, and as in the raain I am at present ofthe same sentiments,
I shall freely use it in the lectures 1 am to give on this subject.
At the same tirae I do not intend servilely to follow it, but shall
make such alterations as 1 shall see cause ; for I acknowledge, that
further experience hath raade rae in sorae particulars change ray
opinion. Besides suggesting to you the advantages that may re
dound from such small societies formed araong students for mutual
improvement, I had another reason for prefacing my prelections on
the coraposition of pulpit discourses with this anecdote, which was,
that I might not appear to arrogate more raerit than truly belonged
to me. To come therefore to the point in hand ; it was observed
in a former lecture that the word eloquence, in its greatest latitude,
denotes that art or talent by which the discourse is adapted to its
end. Now all the legitimate ends of speaking, whatever be the
subject, you will find, if you attend to it, are reducible to these four.
Every speech hath, or ought to have, for its professed aim, either
to enlighten the understanding, to please the iraagination, to raove
the passions, or to influence the will.
The first of these raay be subdivided into two others. When a
speaker addresseth hiraself to the understanding, he proposes the
instruction of his hearers, and that either by explaining some doc
trine unknown or not distinctly comprehended by them, or by

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 131
proving some position disbelieved or doubted by thera. In other
words, he proposeth either to dispel ignorance or to vanquish error.
In the one, his aim is their information, in the other, their convic
tion. Accordingly the predorainant quality ofthe forraer, is perspi
cuity, of the latter, arguraent. By that, we are made to know ; by
this, to believe.
The name of address to the imagination may seera at first, to
some hearers, to convey a notion of too much levity, to be a suita
ble characteristic of any thing which ought to come frora the pulpit.
But this is a mere prejudice, arising from an unfavourable sense
that is sometimes put upon the word imagination, as opposed to
truth and reality. Whereas with us, it only means that faculty of
the mind, whereby it is capable of conceiving and combining
things together, which in that corabination have neither been per
ceived by the senses, nor are remerabered. Now in that accepta
tion ofthe word, let it be observed, that all fables, apologues, para
bles, and allegories, are addressed to the imagination. Poetry, for
the most part, both sacred and profane, is an address of this sort ;
in like manner all prophecy. Indeed in the Jewish idiom poetry
and prophecy were synonymous terms. Hence it is, thatthe apos
tle Paul speaking of the Cretans, does not scruple to call one of
their poets, though a pagan, a prophet of their own. This only by
the way, in order to remove any dislike or unfavourable preposses
sion which may be occasioned by the name.
In regard to preaching, the only subject with which we are at
present concerned, the imagination is addressed, by exhibiting to it
a lively and beautiful representation of a suitable object. As in this
exhibition the task of the orator like that of the painter, consisteth in
iraitation, the merit of the work results entirely from these tvvo
sources, dignity as well in the subject or thing iraitated, as in the
manner of imitation, and resemblance in the performance or picture.
The principal scope for this kind of address is in narration and de
scription, and it attains the summit of perfection in what is called
the sublirae, or those great and noble iraages, which, when in suit
able colouring presented to the raind, do, as it were, distend the
imagination, and delight the soul, as with soraething superlatively
excellent. But it is evident, that to this creative faculty the fancy
frequently lends her aid in proraoting still nobler ends. From her
Exuberant stores, most of those tropes and figures are derived, which
have such a marvellous efficacy in rousing the passions, and by
some secret, sudden and inexplicable association, awaking all the

132 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
tenderest emotions of the heart. In that case, the address ofthe
orator is intended not ultimately, to astonish by the loftiness of the
images, or to charra by the beauteous reserablance, which the
painting bears to nature, nay, it will not permit the hearers even a
moment's leisure for making the comparison, but as by sorae mag
ical spell, hurries them, before they are aware, into love, pity, grief,
terror, aversion or desire. It therefore assumes the denoraination
of pathetic, which is the characteristic of the third species of dis
courses, that are addressed to the passions.
The fourth and last kind, the raost coraplex of all, which is cal
culated to influence the will, and persuade to action, as it is in re
ality an artful mixture of that which proposeth to convince the
judgment, and that which interests the passions, its distinguishing
excellency results from these two, the argumentative and the pathet
ic incorporated together. These acting with united force, consti
tute that veheraence, that warra eviction, that earnest and affecting
contention, which is adrairably fitted for persuasion, and hath al
ways been regarded as the suprerae qualification in an orator. Of
the four sorts of discourses now enumerated, it may be observed in
general, that each preceding species, in the order above exhibited,
is preparatory to the subsequent, that each subsequent species is
founded on the preceding, and that thus they ascend in a regular
progression. Knowledge, the object ofthe understanding, furnish-
eth materials for the fancy ; the fancy culls, compounds, and by her
mimic art disposes these materials so as to affect the passions ; the
passions are the natural spurs to volition or action, and so need on
ly to be rightly directed. So much in general for the different
kinds of discourses on whatever subject, from the bare considera
tion of the object addressed, understanding, imagination, passion,
will, and those fundamental principles of eloquence in the largest
acceptation which result from these. But as the kind addressed to
the understanding has been subdivided into two, that which bare
ly explains, and that which proves, I shall henceforth consider
them as five in number.
I corae now to apply these universal principles to the particular
subject, with which we are iraraediately concerned. It hath been
occasionally observed, oftener than once, that the reforraation of
raankind is the great and ultiraate end of the whole ministerial
function, and especially of this particular branch, preaching or dis
coursing frora the pulpit. But it is not necessary, that the ultiraate
end ofthe whole should be the immediate scope of every part. It

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 133
is enough, that the immediate scope of the part be such, that the
attainment ofit is manifestly a step towards the ultimate end ofthe
whole. In other words, the forraer ought always to serve as a
means for the effecting ofthe latter. Let us proceed in consider
ing the propriety of particular and immediate ends by this rule.
First then, in order to effect the reformation of men, that is, in
order to bring them to a right disposition and practice, there are
some things which of necessity they raust be made to know. No
one will question, that the knowledge of the nature and extent of
the duties which they are required to practise, and of the truths
and doctrines which serve as motives lo practice, is absolutely nec
essary. The explication of these in the pulpit forms a species of
discourses which falls under the first class above mentioned. It is
addressed to the understanding, its aim is information, the only ob
stacle it hath lo remove is ignorance. Sermons of this sort we
shall henceforth distinguish by the term explanatory. Now if
knowledge is the first step in religion, faith is certainly the second,
for the knovvledge of any tenet influenceth our conduct only so far
as it is believed. My knowledge ofthe peculiar doctrines maintain
ed by Mahometans nowise affects my practice. Why ? Because I
do not believe them. When therefore revelation in general, or
any of its fundamental doctrines in particular, are known to be call
ed in question, by a considerable part of the congregation, it is
doubtless incurabent on the preacher earnestly to contend for
the faith which was once delivered to the saints, and conse
quently it raust be a proper subject for the pulpit to defend the
cause of religion by refuting the cavils of gainsayers, and publicly
evincing the truth. Such defence and confutation forra a spe
cies of discourses which falls under the second class above men
tioned, ll is addressed tothe understanding, its aim is conviction ;
the adversaries it encounters are scepticisra and error. Discourses
of this sort we shall distinguish by the narae controversial. Both
the above sorts, the explanaloiy and the controversial, as they co
incide in the object addressed, the understanding of the hearers, go
also under the common name of instructive.
Further, as one way, and indeed a very powerful way, of recom
mending religion is by example, it must be conducive lo the gener
al end of preachipg above mentioned, to make il sometimes the bu
siness of a sermon, to exhibit properly any known good charac
ter, by giving a lively narrative ofthe person's life, or of any signal
period of his life, or of any particular virtue, as illustrated through
17

134 CAMPBELLS LECTURES.
the different periods of his life. For performances of this kind the
history of our Lord Jesus Christ affords the richest fund of raatter.
In like raanner the lives of the saints recorded in scripture, the
prophets, apostles, and martyrs, such at least with which frora the
accounts given in holy writ we have occasion to be acquainted,
raake very proper subjects. Add to these, what are called funeral
sermons, or raerited encoraiuras on the life and actions of deceased
persons, eminent for virtue and piety, whose character is well
known to the people addressed. It raay not want its use, on the
contrary, to delineate sometiraes in proper colours the conduct of
the vicious. To do justice to the respectable qualities and worthy
actions of a good raan is to present an audience with an amiable
and aniraated pattern of Christian excellence, which by opera
ting on their admiration and their love, raiseth in their mind a
pious emulation. That we are, without attending to it, induced
to imitate what we adraire and love, will not adrait a question.
Exhibitions of this kind from the pulpit form a species of discour
ses which falls under the third class above mentioned. They are
addressed to the iraagination, and their scope is to promote virtue
by insinuation ; the view of excellence engages love, love aw,akes
emulation, and that as naturally produces iraitation. In order to
distinguish such discourses, we shall henceforth denominate thera
commendatory. Again, when an audience is abont to be eraployed in any sol
eran office of religion, which, that it may prove edifying to those
engaged in it, requires in them a devout, a recollected, and a be
nevolent disposition of soul, it will doubtless tend to promote the
general end, reformation, to raake it the immediate scope of the
sermon, by working on the affections of the audience, to mould
them into a suitable frarae. Serraons of this sort fall under the
fourth class above raentioned ; they are addressed to the passions,
and their scope is to beget virtuous and devout habits by conforraa
tion. This species of discourses we call pathetic. It deserves,
however, to be reraarked, that the pathos excited by the preacher,
ought ever to be accompanied witb, and chastened by, piety, sub
mission and charity. Al the same time, that it conveys both light
and heat to the soul, it is pure and inoffensive ; like that wherein
God appeared to Moses in the bush whioh burned, but was not con
sumed. It is this kind of pathos in its lowest degree, which the
French devotional writers have distinguished by the name oionction,
but for which we have not a proper term in English. Mr. Gibbon,

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 135
a late celebrated historian, says in one place, after Jortin, that what
the French call onction, the English call cant. This on some occa
sions may be true ; but it is not the constant or even the general
meaningof the word. What the English call cant in preaching,
is no other than a frequent recurrence to certain common words
and phrases, with which the people are delighted merely through
habit, but which convey no sound instruction whatever. That
terraed onction by the French, is such a raanner in the speaker, as
convinces the hearers that he is rauch in earnest, that he speaks
from real affections to thera, and thereby strongly engages their at
tention. That cant wilh ignorant hearers may produce an effect
somewhat sirailar, is not to be denied. But the result upon the
whole cannot he the same. Onction is an excellent vehicle for in
struction ; but where no instruction is conveyed, the hearer can be
rendered neither wiser nor better by mere cant ; he may be hereby
made a greater bigot and a greater fool. The two last kinds of
discourses, it must be owned, are near a-kin to each other, and very
apt to be confounded. The enemies they combat are indifference
and listlessness. If we thought it necessary to observe a scru
pulous exactness in distinguishing, we should rather say (for the
words are not synonymous) that the enemy of the former is indiffer
ence, and of the latter, listlessness. And let rae add, these often
prove more dangerous adversaries to religion, than others of raore
hostile appearance and of raore forraidable naraes.
Finally, it will not be questioned, that it will frequently be prop
er to make it the direct design of a discourse to persuade to a o-ood,
or to dissuade frora a bad life in general, or to engage to the per
formance of any particular duty, or to an abstinence from any par
ticular sin, and that either from all the arguments, or from any one
class of arguraents afforded by the light of nature, or by revelation,
and adapted to the purpose. Discourses of this sort fall under the fifth
and last class* above mentioned. They are addressed to the will ;
their aim is persuasion. The eneraies they combat, are irreligion and
vice. Such sermons we discriminate by the term persuasive..
Let us now, for further illustration of the subject, consider wheth-.
er the different sorts of discourses from the pulpit above enumera
ted bear any analogy to the different sorts of orations treated of by
ancient rhetoricians. These both Greeks and Romans, after Aris
totle, have distributed into three kinds, the judiciary, the demon
strative, and the deliberative. The judiciary , is the narae by which
the Stagyrite has thought fit to distinguish the pleadings of advo-

136 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
cates or counsellors, whether in accusation of an adversary, or in
defence of a client. As in all such pleadings, and indeed in all
litigation whatever, there is soraething affirraed by one of the liti
gants, which is denied by the other, so the aim of each is to con
vince the bench, that his representation is agreeable to truth, and
to refute the arguraents of his antagonist. The point in dispute is
soraetimes a question of fact. Did the defendent do, or not do, the
action, with which he is charged by the plaintiff? Sometimes it is
a question of right. The fact may be undeniable ; and the only
pointin debate. Was it right, wrong, or indifferent? lawful or
crirainal ? Sometimes indeed both points may be contended by the
parties. But it doth not belong to us, to enter into these minutiae,
or consider the different sources of topics, whence the proof must
be derived. Only from what halh been said, it is manifest that
this species, from its very nature, is perfectly analogous to the sec
ond class of sermons, the controversial. Itis directed to the un
derstanding ; its aim is conviction ; the adversaries it professeth lo
combat, are doubtfulness and mistake. The demonstrative, a name
given to those panegyrics or funeral orations, which were some
tiraes by public authority pronounced in honour of departed patri
ots and heroes, must from the design of insinuating the love of
virtue by exhibiting such examples to their iraitation, so exactly
and so evidently coincide in forra and composition, (however dif
ferent in regard to matter or subject) to the third class of ser
mons above mentioned, the commendatory, that I should think it
unnecessary to atterapt any further illustration of it. Only it raay
not be araiss to observe here by the way, that to this political expe
dient araong the ancient Greeks and Romans, of paying such pub
lic honours to their great men departed, perhaps more than to any
other, that love of their country, that contempt of life, and that
thirst of military glory, for which they were so remarkable, is to be
ascribed. The term deliberative is applied to speeches in the senate
or in the assembly of the people, whose express aira is to persuade
the audience to corae to a certain resolution, in regard to their con
duct as a coraraonwealth or state, such as, to declare war, or to
make peace, to enter into an alliance, or the contrary. Discourses
of this sort must evidently be in many respects very similar to the
fifth and last class of sermons above mentioned. They are ad
dressed to the will, their aim is persuasion. The eneraies they
combat are teraerity, iraprudence, and other such vices, consider
ed particularly as political evils, as prejudicial to the interest or

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 137
honour of the state. Nay, there will be often found a pretty consid
erable coincidence in the topics, from which the arguments, in
both these kinds of persuasives, are commonly drawn. The useful,
the honourable, the equitable, are considerations entirely well
adapted lo each. To the first and fourth kinds of serraons men
tioned, there is not found any thing in the institutes of rhetoricians
which can be denorainated analogous. The first, the explanatory,
is indeed, of all kinds, the siraplest, and raay in respect of form be
considered, as bearing a resemblance to the lessons delivered in
the schools ofthe philosophers, in regard to which, no person, as
far as I know, has thought it necessary to lay down rules. The
fourth kind, the pathetic, hath in point of aim more similarity to
the eloquence of the theatre, tragedy in particular, than to that
either ofthe bar or ofthe senate. But the difference in form aris
ing frora the nature ofthe work, between all dramatic compositions,
and the discourses prepared for the pulpit, is so extremely great,
that I have not judged it necessary hitherto so much as to name
this species of oratory.
And as probably I shall not have occasion in these prelections to
mention it hereafter, I shall now take the liberty to give you brief
ly, in passing, my sentiments concerning theatrical performances,
and the use which raay be raade of them by the Christian orator.
As to the drama in general, it is manifestly no more than a partic
ular form, in which a tale or fable is exhibited ; and if the tale it
self be inoral and instructive, it would require no small degree of
fanatacism to make one think, that its being digested into so many
dialogues, and dressed up in the dramatic form, can render it im
moral and pernicious. So mucb for the question of right, as I may
call it. If from this, we proceed to a question of fact, to which the
other very naturally gives occasion, and inquire, whether the great
er number of modern plays, be such tales as we can really denom
inate moral and instructive, or on the contrary, such as have a ten
dency to vitiate the principles and debauch the practice ofthe spec
tators ; to this point, I acknowledge, it is more difficult to give a satis
factory answer. I own, indeed, that in my judgraent the far greater
part of our comedies, I say not all, merit the latter character, rath
er than the forraer. For not to raention the gross indecencies with
which many of thera abound, (and to the reproach of our national
taste, as well as morals, English coraedy perhaps raore than any
other) what is generally the hero of the piece, but a professed rake
or libertine, who is a. man of more spirit, forsooth, than to be check-

138 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
ed in his pursuits by the restraints of religion, the dictates of con
science, the laws of society, or (which were accounted sacred even
araong pagans and barbarians) by the rights of hospitality and of
private friendship ? Such a one, the poet, in order to recommend
him to the special favour ofthe audience, adorns with all the wit
and humour and other talents, ofwhich he hiraself is raaster, and
always crowns with success in the end. Hence it is, that the slage
with us may, without any hyperbole, be defined, the school of gal
lantry and intrigue ; in other words, the school of dissoluteness.
Here the youth of both sexes raay learn to get rid of that trouble
sorae corapanion Modesty, intended by Providence as a guard to
virtue, and a check against licentiousness. Here vice may soon
provide herself in a proper stock of effrontery for effectuating her
designs, and triumphing over innocence. But besides the evil that
too commonly results from the nature and conduct of the fable,
there is another, in the tendency to dissipation and idleness, the
great enemies of sobriety, industry and reflection, which theatrical
amuseraents ordinarily give to tbe younger part of the spectators.
On the other hand, are there no advantages which raay serve as a
counterbalance to these evils? There are sorae advantages ; it
would not be candid to dissemble them, but they can be no coun
terbalance. What is just pronunciation, easy raotion, and graceful
action, corapared wilh virtue ? Those accomplishments are mere
ly superficial, an external polish ; this is internal and essential.
But at the same time that we acknowledge, that the manner and
pronunciation ofthe orator may be improved by that of the actor,
we must also admit, on the other side, that by the same means it
may be injured. And I have known it, in fact, injured in conse
quence of too servile an imitation ofthe stage. I allow, that what
hath been advanced regards only the modern English comedy,
for, though some of our tragedies are also exceptionable in point of
morals, yet they are comparatively but a few, and those by
no raeans faulty in the sarae way, and rauch less to the sarae
degree. And as I would with equal freedora approve, and even
recomraend what I think laudable and useful, as I would censure
what I think blameable and hurtful, I cannot deny, but that
both in regard to the sentiments, and in the wonderful talent
of operating on the passions, the tr.agic poet will often give impor
tant lessons to the preacher. I would be far then from dissuading
you from consulting occasionally whatever may contribute to your
improvement. Our great apostle, as we learn from his history and

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 139
epistles, did not scruple to read the dramatic pieces of heathen po
ets ; nay, he has even thougbt fit sometimes to quote their senti
ments wilh approbation, and to give their very words the sanction of
sacred writ. Where debates arise on any subject, it is almost invari
ably the case, that both sides run to extreraes, alike deserting truth
and raoderation. It is the part of a wise raan, like the bee, to ex
tract from every thing what is good and salutary ; and to guard
against whatever is of a contrary quality. But I ara aware that the
most of what I have said on this subject may be looked on as a di
gression. I acknowledge, it in a great measure is so; but as the
mention of it was perfectly apposite, and as few topics have occasion
ed warmer disputes araong Christians, I did not think it suited that
decorum of characler, which I would wish alvvays to preserve, to ap
pear artfully, when a fair opportunity offers, to avoid telling freely
my opinion.

LECTURE YI.
On the Composition of Lectures.
In my last lecture on the subject of pulpit eloquence I told you,
that every discourse was addressed either to the understanding of
the hearers, to their iraagination, to their passions, or to their will.
As those addressed to the understanding raay be intended either
for explaining soraething unknown to them, or for proving sorae
thing disbelieved or doubted by them, serraons in the largest accep
tation ofthe word may be distributed inlo five classes, the explana
tory, the argumentative or controversial, the demonstrative or com
mendatory, the pathetic, and the persuasive. It will not be amiss
here, in order to prevent mistakes, to take notice of the particular
import which I mean to give to some terms, as often as I eraploy
thera on this subject. The first I shall raention is the term dem
onstrative, which in the application usual with rhetoricians, hath
no relation to the sense of the word as used by mathematicians.
Here it hath no concern with proof or argument of any kind, but
relates solely to the strength and distinctness wilh which an object
is exhibited, so as to render the conceptions of the iraagination al
raost equal in vivacity and vigour wilh the perceptions of sense.
This IS entirely agreeable to the use, both of the Latin word dtm-

140 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
onstrativus, and of the Greek ciTn^uxrtKiis among critics, orators
and poets. Another difference I beg you will remark, is between
conviction and persuasion, which, in coraraon language, are fre
quently confounded. To speculative truth, the terra, conviction,
only with its conjugates, ought to be applied. Thus. we say prop
erly, I ara convinced of the being of a God, In popular language,
we should sometiraes in this case say persuaded, but this applica
tion ofthe terra is evidently inaccurate. Thus also, he hath prov
ed the truth of revelation to my full conviction, or, I attempted to
convince him of his error. And even in regard to raoral truth,
when no more is denoted but the assent of the understanding, the
proper term is to convince. I am convinced it is my duty, yet I
cannot prevail on myself to do it. This is well illustrated by that
of the poet. Video meliora proboque,
Deteriora sequor.*
I am convinced, but not persuaded : My understanding is subdued,
but not my will : the first term always and solely relates to opinion,
the second to practice. The operation of conviction is merely on
the understanding, that of persuasion, is on the will and resolution.
Indeed the Latin word persuadeo is susceptible of precisely the
sarae arabiguity with the English. It is this double meaning
which gave occasion to that play upon the word used by Augustine,
when he said, " Non persuadebis, etiarasi persuaseris." The ira
port of which in plain English raanifestly is. Though your argu
raents may convince my reason, they shall not determine ray resolu
tion : Or, you may convince, but shall not persuade me. The
first of the distinctions now mentioned will serve to discriminate the
aro-umentative or controversial, frora the deraonstrative or cora
raendatory, the other distinguishes the controversial frora the per
suasive. I would further observe, that [though any one discourse admits
only one ofthe ends above enumerated as the principal, neverthe
less in the progress of a discourse, many things raay be advanced,
which are more immediately and apparently directed to some of
the other ends of speaking. But then it ought always to appear,
that such ends are introduced as means, and rendered conducive to
that which is the primary intention. Accordingly the propriety of
* I see the right, and I approve it tro,
1 hale the wrong, and yet the wrong pursue.

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 141
these secondary ends will always be inferred from their subserviency
-to the principal design. For example, a sermon ofthe first or sec
ond kind, the explanatory or the controversial, addressed to the un
derstanding and calculated to illustrate or evince some point of
docfrine, may borrow aid from the imagination, and admit metaphor
and comparison. But not the bolder and more striking figures, as
that called phantasia, prosopopeia, and the like, which are not so
much intended to throw light on a subject as to excite admiration ;
much less will it admit an address to the passions, which never
fails to disturb the operation of the intellectual faculty. Either of
these, it is obvious, far from being subservient to the main design,
simple explanation or proof, would distract the attention from it.
Such arts, however, I cannot call them legitimate, have sometiraes
been successfully used ; but in such cases, if impartially exarained,
the scope of the speaker will be found lo have been more to cloud
than to enlighten the understandings of his hearers, and to de
ceive rather than to edify. They are of those unlucjiy arts, jvhich
are naturally fitted raore for serving a bad cause, than a good one,
and by consequence, when used in a good cause, .rather hurt it with
the judicious, by rendering it suspected.
Now before I proceed to consider the rules which ought to be
observed in these different sorts of composition resulting from their
respective natures, I shall raake a fevv remarks on a kind of dis
courses very comraon in this country, which corae not under the
general narae of serraons, and follow rules peculiar to themselves.
As the Bible is wilh us Protestants acknowledged to be the reposi
tory, and indeed the only original, full, and untainted repository of
Christian knowledge ; aad as the study of it is maintained to be a
duty incumbent on every disciple of Christ, that kind of discourses
with us commonly called lectures, have been devised as means of
facilitating to the people the profitable reading of holy writ. liiVe
acknowledge, indeed, that in all things essential to salvation, fcrip
ture is sufficiently perspicuous even to the vulgar ; and that, |n
such important matters, if any man err, it will be.found more t^e
fault of the heart than of the head. But this acknowledgraent is
nowise inconsistent with the avowal, that there are in this reposito
ry many things highly useful and instructive, which do not ipime-
diately appear upon the surface, which require raore tirae and ap
plication to enable us to discover, and in which in particular it is tl;ie
province of the pastor to lend his assistance to the illiterate and tlje
18

142 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
weak. That people may be put in a capacity of reading with judg
ment and without difficulty, those parts of scripture which are
most closely connected with the Christian faith and practice, lec
turing, or as it is called in sorae places expounding, hath been first
prescribed by our church rulers. The end or design of a lecture,
therefore, is to explain the train of reasoning contained, or the se
ries of events related, in a certain portion ofthe sacred text, and to
make suitable observations from it, in regard either to the doctrines,
or tothe duties of our religion. As all discourses of this kind con
sist of two principal parts, the explication, and the remarks or in
ferences, so they may be distributed into two classes, according as
the one or the other constitutes the principal object ofthe expoun
der. In discourses of the first class, il is the chief design of the
speaker to explain the import of a portion of scripture, which rnay
not be perfectly clear to Christians of all denominations. In the
second, it is his great scope to deduce from a passage, whose gen
eral or literal raeaning is sufficiently perspicuous, useful reflections
concerning providence, the economy of grace, or the conduct of hu
raan life. Were we nicely to distinguish the two kinds, I should
say that the ultimate end of the former is to teach the people to
read the scriptures wilh understanding, and ofthe latter to accustom
them to read them with reflection. The former therefore may raore
properly (according to the current import of the words) be termed an
exposition, and the latter a lecture. And in this manner we shall
afterwards distinguish them. Both are properly of the explanato
ry kind, though from the complex nature ofthe subject, the form of
coraposition wifl be very different from that of the first class of ser
mons raentioned above. Indeed several English sermons, for in
stance those on the compassionate Samaritan, the prodigal son, or
any other of our Lord's parables, raay strictly be denorainated lec
tures in the sense to which we just now appropriated the ferm.
Andof this sort also are several of the homilies of the ancient
fathers. Nay there are some discourses, that go under the gen
eral appellation of serraons, particularly of Bishop Hoadley and Doc
tor Clarke, that properly belong to that class we distinguished by
the narae exposition, being no other than a sort of farailiar com
mentary on some of the most difficult passages in the epistolary
writings of the apostle Paul. They differ from us in Scotland, only
in the manner in which the explication is introduced from the pul
pit. We take the whole portion of scripture for a text ; they, com
monly a single verse in the end of it, by means of which all the

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 143
other verses as connected, are more awkwardly ushered into the
discourse; for as all these share equally in the explication, soin
most cases the remarks bear no more relation to the te.\t, than to
any other sentence in the context. The relation is commonly to
the whole taken together, and nol to a part considered separately.
That it raay not be necessary to return afterwards to the considera
tion of these two classes of discourses, which I denominate exposi.
tions and lectures, I shall now raake a fevv observations in regard
to their composition, and so dismiss this article.
And first, as to the subject to be chosen, care should be taken,
that as much as posible it may be one, that is, one distinct passage
of history, (if taken from any of the historical books of scripture)
one parable, one similitude, one chain of reasoning, or the illustra
tion of one point of doctrine or of duty. When a minister pur
poses in a course of teaching to give the exposition of a whole book
of scripture, it is of much greater moment, and unspeakably more
conducive to the edification ofthe hearers, that in the distribution
of the parts, more regard be had to the natural connection, that
may subsist between the sentiments, than lo the artificial division
ofthe words into chapters and verses. For it is manifest, that in
making this distribution of the sacred books, which by the way is
an invention merely human and not very ancient, there hath- often
been very little attention given to the sense. You will easily con
ceive, that it raust be still a greater fault in expounding, to confine
one's self regularly, as some do, to the sarae or nearly the same
nuraber of verses. Nothing can tend more effectually to injure the
sense, andto darken (instead of enlightening) the subject. Noth
ing would less fall under the description, vvhich the apostle gives of
the manner of the workman that hath no reason to be ashamed,
" his rightly dividing the word of truth." To merit this praise, one
must, like a skilful anatomist, chiefly attend, in the division, to the
distinctive characters and limits, which nature hath assigned
to the several parts ; and not, like a carver for the table, merely to
the size and form.
The second reraark I shall make, is that if the portion of scrip
ture be, as to the sense, not so independent of the words iramedi
ately preceding, but that some attention lo these will throw light
upon the sacred lesson, the preacher may very properly introduce
himself to his subject by pointing outin a few words the connection.
There are cases in which this is necessary ; there are in which we
should say it were improper, and there are no doubt in which it is

144 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
discretionary. Ofthe first kind are many passages in Paul's epis
tles ; for though perhaps you can say of the passage with strict pro
priety, it is one, because it is only one topic that is treated in it, or
at least the argument is considered in one particular point of view,
yet it makes, as it were, a raember of a train of reasoning which
runs through several chapters ; and^of this series it may be requisite
to take a cursory review, in order to obtain a more distinct appre
hension of the import of the passage read. It is improper,^ when
there is no connection at all with the words preceding, as in the
relation given us of several ofthe miracles performed by our Lord,
which have no other connection in the history than that the one in
fact preceded the other ; or il may be only, that the one is first re
lated, and fhe other immediately after. The same may be said of
several ofthe parables. Sorae of these indeed have a natural con
nection with a preceding passage, having been pronounced by oUr
Lord in the illustration of some point which he had been just incul
cating. In such cases, when the design of the parable is sufficient
ly clear of itself, to trace the connection is not absolutely necessary.
As good use, however, may be made of it, il cannot be called im-
'proper. This therefore is an example of those cases wherein itis
discretionary. There are several other instances whichthe intelli-
'gent hearer will easily distinguish for hiraself. I shall mention only
one. Were it the design of a preacher lo expound to a congrega
tion the Lord's prayer, as recorded in the sixth chapter of Matthew,
he may justly consider it as a matter of mere choice, whether he
shall take 'any notice ofthe words preceding or of the subsequent,
because though his text be connected with both, it is so independ
ently intelligible, and so completely one in itself, that he is
under no necessity to recur to these for the illustration of his
subject. 'My third observation shall be, that his exposition ofthe portion of
scripture read, rnay either be, verse by verse, paragraph by para
graph, sentence by sentence, where there is any obscurity or diffi
culty in the verse, sentence or paragraph, that seems to require it ;
or it may be, by a kind of paraphrase of the whole passage. I have
bbserved already that there are two kinds of discourses, the exposi
tion, and the lecture, into which this class may be distributed ; the
former of these' raethods, by verses or sentences, is best suited to
the first, the latter by paraphrase, to the second. In the first, there
are supposed some difficulties to be removed and some darkness to
be dispelled ; in order to this, more minuteness and closer attention

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 145
to the several parts is necessary. In the second, as the scope of
the whole passage is supposed to be abundantly perspicuous, a few
pertinent introductory reraarks may sometimes happily enough su
persede the necessity even of a paraphrase.
The fourth observation shall be in relation to the difficulties,
which, in the first species of lectures mentioned, the expounder
must endeavour to reraove. And they are these — an apparent in
consistency between the import of any verse or expression and the
principles of right reason, or a seeming contradiction to other texts
of scripture, or to any known historical fact ; in like manner if the
words taken literally seera to support any erroneous opinion, or lo
authorize any iraproper practice, or if the preacher is aware that it
consists with the knowledge of a considerable part ofhis audience,
that such uses are raade of the words by some sect or party still
subsisting amongst us. I mention these things with the greater
caution, because if the difficulties are not obvious of themselves, or
are such as can be reasonably thought to have come to the knowl
edge of very few, if any, in the auditory, it is much better they re
main unnoticed by the speaker, lest he should be imagined to have
more the talent of suggesting scruples and raising difficulties than
of removing them. And this will especially hold, in regard to what
hath at any time been pleaded in favour of the errors of ancient or
distant sects, of which the congregation knows little or nothing, and
by whose arts they can be in no hazard of being seduced. If the
subjects were, for example, the parable of the supper, in the Mth
chapter of Luke, it would be very pertinent to show that the ex
pression, "Compel them to corae in," which occurs in that passage,
doth not authorize persecution or force in matters of religion ; be
cause it is notorious, that this absurd use hath been and still is made
of the words. But if the portion of scripture to be explained were
the first chapter ofthe gospel by John, to what Christian congre
gation would it answer any valuable purpose, to make them ac
quainted with the ravings of the Gnostics and their wild extrava
gancies about the Eons ?
I shall add, that particular care ought to be taken in expounding
the scriptures to the people, not to appear over-learned and over-crit
ical in one's explications. There is no occasion to obtrude on an au
dience, as some do, all the jarring interpretations given by different
commentators, of which it is rauch better that the people should
reraain ignorant, than that they should be apprized. For this
knowledge • can serve no other purpose, than to distract their

146 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
thoughts and perplex their judgraent. Before you begin to build,
it is necessary to remove such impediments, as lie directly in your
way ; but you could not account him other than a very foolish
builder, who should first collect a deal of rubbish, vvhich was
not in his way, and consequently could not have obstructed his work,
that he might have the pleasure and merit of removing it. And
do the fantastic, absurd and contradictory glosses of commenta
tors deserve a betier name than rubbish ? No, surely. But if
such absurd glosses are unknown to your congregation, they are
rubbish which lies not in your way. No interpretation therefore
or gloss should ever be mentioned in order to be refuted, unless
it be such as the words themselves, on a superficial view, might
seem to countenance, or such as is generally known to the people
to be put upon them by some interpreters, or sects of Christians.
Where a false gloss cannot be reasonably supposed to be either
known or thought of by the audience, it is in the preacher worse,
than being idly ostentatious of his learning, to introduce such er
roneous gloss or comment. And as to an excess of criticism in
this exercise, it ought also doubtless carefully to be avoided. We
must always remember the difference between a church and a college.
In most Christian congregations there are very few, if any, linguists.
I do not say that in our lectures we ought never lo mention the
original, or recur to it. Justice to the passage we explain may some
times require it. Nor is it necessary, that our translators should be
deemed infallible even by the multitude. It is enough, that we
consider as the pure dictates of the Spirit those intiraations with
which the prophets and apostles were inspired. But then, on the
other hand, il is neither modest nor prudent in the preacher, espe
cially ifa young man, to be at every turn censuring the translators,
and pretending to mend their version. It is not raodest, as they,
over whom the corrector assumes a superiority, are allowed on all
hands to have been raen of eminent talents and erudition. And it
is not prudent, as this practice never fails to produce in the minds
ofthe people a want of confidence in their Bible, which tends great
ly to lessen its authority. Therefore, though I ara by no raeans for
ascribing infallibility to any human expositors, propriety requires,
that we should neither too often, nor too abruptly tax with blunder
ing, before such a promiscuous audience as our congregations
coraraonly are, men of so respectable raeraory. Manly freedora of
inquiry, becoming a Protestant, becoming a Briton, tempered with
that decent reserve which suits the humble Christian, will guard the

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 147
judicious against both extremes, an overwelning conceitof his own ¦
abilities, and an implicit faith in those of others. And indeed in
regard lo every thing, which raay be introduced either in the way
of criticism or corament, il ought ever lo be remembered, that it is
not enough, that such an observation is just, that such an interpre
tation halh actually been given, or that such an opinion hath been
raaintained ; the previous inquiry, which the preacher ought to
make by himself is, whether it be of any consequence to the people
to be informed of the observation, comment, or opinion. This in
quiry impartially made will prove a check against the iraraoderate
indulgence of what is perhaps the natural bent of his own genius,"
whether il be to critical or controversial disquisition, and vvhich it
is not always easy for youth, coraraonly impetuous and opinionative,
duly to restrain. If on other occasions, more especially on this,
the apostolical admonition ought to be sacredly observed, that
" nothing proceed out of the speaker's mouth, but that which is
good lo the use of edifying, that it may rainister grace to the hear
ers." But for our direction in this kind of discernraent, no precepts,
it must be acknowledged, will suffice. A fund of good sense is ab
solutely necessary, enlightened by a knowledge of mankind. In
this, as in every other kind of composition, the maxira of the poet
invariably holds, Scribendi recte sapere est principium et fons.*
I shall just add the fifth and last observation in relation to the re
marks or inferences. These, as was hinted already, in the exposi
tion, whose chief aim is to throw light on the sacred text and re
move the difficulties, are to be considered as only a subordinate
part ofthe discourse ; in the lecture, they are to be considered as the
principal. In the forraer therefore they do not require to be so ful
ly treated, as in the latter. It is enough, that the reraarks are just
in theraselves, pertinent in regard to the subject of discourse, and
expressed with sufficient perspicuity and energy. But in the lec
ture, properly so called, where the observations are the priraary ob
ject of the speaker, and that for which the passage of scripture
was chosen as a text, it is not enough that they be just, pertinent
and perspicuous ; they require besides, to be more copiously treated,
and such of thera as are of a practical nature to be more warraly en
forced. Nay, they admit all that variety in respect of illustration,
* Good sense is the source of good writing.

148 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
proof, and recommendation, which are to found in discourses ex
planatory, controversial, or persuasive. Only for the sake of unity,
it may be proper to add, that all the reraarks corapared among them
selves should be congenial, and tend to illustrate one another, that
is, all doctrinal, or all practical ; and whether the one, or the other,
that they be points nearly and mutually related, that thus the dis
course may, ifl raay so express myself, be ofone colour and tenour
throughout. Quick transitions from the warmth of the pathos, to
coldness of criticism, from the moral and persuasive to the abstract
and arguraentative, or inversely, from the critical to the pathetic,
and from the abstract to the persuasive, are neither natural nor
easy. Now the transitions here, if there be any, raust be quick,
even iramediate, since they result from the different natures of the
-remarks that imraediately succeed one another. In the first kind,
which we distinguished by the name exposition, there is no occa
sion for somuch delicacy in regard tothe inferences deduced ; be
cause in it, they being only of a secondary nature in respect to the
scope of the performance, particular discussions would neither be
-proper nor expected. All that is requisite is that they be true, fair
ly deduced, and properly expressed. Now thus much, whatever be
the nature of the truths remarked, can make no alteration in the
character ofthe performance. In this species, the observations are
properly no raore than inferences, whose evidence, illustration, or
enforceraent, should always be found in the exposition that preceded
thera ; whereas in the lecture properly so called, though the con
nection of the remarks with the portion of scripture previously and
briefly explained, ought to be very clear, they are intioduced with
express view of b^ing supported, illustrated, or enforced in the body
of the discourse, to which the explication of the text serves only as
an introduction. So much shall serve for what we call expositions
or lectures, I shall next proceed to the different sorts of sermons
above defined.

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 149
LECTURE Vll.
Of Explanatory Sermons — The choice of a Subject and of Texts.
In my last prelection on the subject of pulpit eloquence, after
enumerating the different sorts of discourses, from the considera
tion of the faculty addressed, 1 entered particularly into the exam
ination of those, which wilh us are commonly called lectures, and
which we divided inlo tvvo sorts, one, vvhose principal end was to
remove difficulties in a passage not perfectly clear ; the other whose
aim was lo form and enforce useful observations from a passage
naturally fitted to give scope for reflection. The first, we called
exposition; the second, lecture. I now return to the consideration
of those discourses, which come under the general denomination
of sermons, and which were distributed into five orders, the explan
atory, the controversial, the commendatory, the pathetic and the
persuasive. The first and the simplest is the explanatory, which
may be defined a sermon addressed to the understanding of the
hearers, and of which the direct view is to explain sorae doctrine of
our religion, or the nature and extent of some duty. In this species
of discourses, the preacher's antagonist (ifl raay so express rayself)
is ignorance, which it is his business to dispel.
The first thing, that falls under consideration, is the choice of a
subject. And in this, care ought to be taken, that whether it be
raore or less extensive, it raay be strictly and properly one, that it
may neither be imperfect, and consequently afford the audience
but an indistinct apprehension of the raatter discussed, whether it
be the explication of a tenet, or of a precept of Christianity ; nor re
dundant, by being conjoined with other points or topics, which how
ever useful in themselves, are neither immediately connected with,
nor necessary to the elucidation of what is properly the subject.
The rule of the poet.
Sit quod vis simplex duntaxat et unum.**
will be found a good rule, not only in epic and dramatic poetry, but
in every kind of coraposition without exception.' The reason is,
it is founded in nature, and what is adapted to the faculties of a be-
* Let your proposed object be simple and one.
19

150 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
ing such as man. When things are brought together into a dis.
course, between which there is no immediate connection, that
which happens to be last said, goes far to obliterate out of the minds
ofthe hearers all that went before. There being no natural and
raanifest relation between the things theraselves, and no dependence
that the one has on the other, the last mentioned thought or topic
doth as it were exclude its predecessor, by entirely occupying its
place. Whereas in clearing up the several parts ofone entire sub
ject, whatever it be, the explication of every other branch or mem
ber, as you advance, necessarily tends, by the laws of association in
our ideas, to recal to our reflections the account given of those that
preceded, wilh which its several parts are naturally and intimately
connected. That we may form some idea of the influence of connec
tion, simplicity and unify upon the memory, do but consider the ef
fect in point of remembrance, for it is of this only I am now speak
ing, that would be produced upon an audience by one of our Lord's
parables, for example, or by a distinct passage of his history, or of
that ofthe apostles, or by any one speech of Peter or Paul recorded
in the Acts, and compare with it the effect that will be produced
by reading an equal portion of the book of Proverbs, or of the 1 19th
psalra, in neither of which was there any connection of sentiments
proposed, the greater part of the first being intended merely as a
collection of wise observations, but independent one of another,
on the conduct of life ; and the other as a collection of pious ejac
ulations, arranged, not by affinity in tbe sentiments, but by the
letters in the Hebrew alphabet wifh which the several sentences
begin. But what is necessary to constitute this unity of subject
and design, we shall have occasion raore particularly to consider
afterwards. A subject being chosen, the next thing to be sought is the text.
This seems calculated to answer a double purpose. In the first
place, it serves as a raotto to the discourse, notifying to the con
gregation the aim and subject of the preacher ; secondly, being ta
ken from sacred writ, it adds a certain dignity and importance to
the subject, shewing that it hath a foundation in scripture, the only
standard of our religion. Il may nol be amiss here to examine a
little, some objections, that have been thrown out by a celebrated
writer of tbe present century, in his Age of Lewis the 14lh, against
this method so universally practised by preachers of introducing
their subject to the hearers by a text. " Perhaps," says he, " it
were to be wished that in banishing frora the pulpit the bad taste

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. lol
which dishonoured it, this custom of preaching on a text had also
been banished. In fact, to speak long on a quotation of a line or
two, to labour in regulating one's whole discourse by that line,
such a toil appears an amusement scarcely becoming the dignity of
the ministry. The text proves a sort of device, or rather riddle,
which the discourse unravels. The Greeks andthe Roraans never
knew this usage. It was in the decline of letters that it began, and
time hath consecrated it," The author must here doubtless be un
derstood to mean by Greeks and Romans, those nations whilst in a
state of paganism, for that this practice was current among the
Greek and the Latin fathers of the church appears manifestly frora
such oftheir works as are yet extant. And indeed lo acquaint us
gravely, and urge it as an argument, that the pagan priests never
preached upon a 'text, raust appear extraordinary to one who at
tends to this small circumstance, that they never preached at all,
that there was nothing in all their various modes of superstition,
which was analogous to what is called preaching among Christians.
And even if there had been any thing among them that bore an
analogy to preaching, their example could not have had the least
authority with us in this particular, as it is notorious they had
no acknowledged infallible or established standard of doctrine cor
responding to our Bible, whence their texts could have been drawn.
But if our author alludes in this, not to the custoras of the heathen
priests, but to those ofthe demagogues and pleaders, the cases are
so exceedingly dissimilar, that hardly can any comparison with pro
priety be made between them, or any inference drawn, frora the
usage of the one to what is proper in the other. If indeed we
make the pioper allowances for the disparity in the cases, the ex
ample of tbe ancient orators will be found rather to favour than to
discountenance the practice ; because though they had nothing
which could in strict propriety be called a text, theyhad in effect a
subject propounded, to which they were bound in speaking to con
fine themselves. Thus in judiciary or forensic harangues, the
summons or indictment was to all intents a text, and in the deliber
ative orations pronounced in the senate house or in the assembly
of the people, the overture or motion which gave rise to the debate
answered precisely the same purpose. At least one of the designs
above mentioned, which the text with us is calculated to answer,
namely, a notification to the hearers, and a reraerabrancer as to the
subject of discourse, was fully accoraplished, and as to the other
end, the difference in the nature of the thing superseded the use

132 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES
ofit. The only species of discourses wilh them, in which there
was nothing that bore the least analogy to this ^o universal usage
among Christian teachers, was the demonstrative, or their eulogi
ums on the dead. And here doubtless the notoriety of the occa
sion and purpose oftheir meeting, which was commonly at funeral
soleranities, rendered any verbal intimation of the subject less ne
cessary, than in the two others already taken notice of. It may in
deed be urged in answer to what hath been said, that the preacher
hiraself may intimate his subject in as explicit terras as he pleases
before he begin. But to this I would reply, that a bare intiraation
js not enough in a matter of so great consequence, that the effect
ofthe whole discourse in a great measure depends upon the atten
tion given to it, Nothing can serve better to fix their attention
than this solemn raanner of ushering in the discourse, by reading a
passage of sacred writ, in which every person, at least in protestant
congregations, raay satisfy himself by recurring to the passage men
tioned ill his own Bible ; at the same time nothing can serve better
as a monitor of the speaker's view, if the text hath been judiciously
chosen, and the sermon be apposite, since the people, if they please,
may have it constantly in their eye. I acknowledge at the same
tirae that the use of a text, as either a device or an^enigma, is just
ly reprehensible, and that the conceited choice that hath been made
of passages of holy writ for this purpose, and the strange man
ner wherein such passages have been treated in the sermon, as
when the words and phrases are more properly discoursed on than
the sentiment, have given an ample scope for this censure. Only it
ought to be remerabered, thatthe censure strikes solely against
the abuse of this method of notifying, and not against the use ofit.
It may not be amiss here to inquire a lillie by the way into the
origin of this practice. That there is no trace of itin the ordinary
discourses of our Lord and his apostles is freely owned. They
spoke by immediate inspiration. They gave, by the miracles they
wrought, the raost authentic evidences ofthe authority, with which
they were endowed. It did not suit the dignity of their raission,
or of the spirit by which they spoke, to have recourse to any pas
sage as giving a further sanction to their words, or as setting
bounds to what they should declare. Besides, they clairaed to be
the heralds of a new revelation from heaven, which though founded
on the old, superadded a great deal to it. After their time, the
' doctrine they taught having been comraitted to writing in the his
tories of our Lord and his apostles, and in the epistles occasionally
written by some of the latter, the teachers who succeeded them did

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 153
not pretend to any new revelation, but to deliver faithfully that, and
only that, which they had received from their inspired predecessors.
It became accordingly an important part of their public ministry and
service, to read certain portions frora the writings now styled canon
ical, as being the great rule of faith and practice left them by these
founders of the Christian church. The usage Ihey are said lo have
borrowed from the Jews, who since their return frora the Babylon-
ished captivity duly read in their synagogues every Sabbalh portions
ofthe law and ofthe prophets. But indeed the reason of the thing
so strongly indicates the propriety of the practice, that there
is no need of recurring to Jewish example for its origin.
When there was any difficulty in the passage of scripture read,
this gave a natural occasion to the rainister, who was the
teacher of the congregation in raatters of religion, to endeav
our to reraove it ; and even where there was no difficulty, the
words would often furnish a handle for seasonable exhortations
and adraonitions. Occasions of exhorting the people in this way
were soraetimes taken from the weekly lessons in the law or in the
prophets in the Jewish synagogues, as appears occasionally both
from our Lord's history and that of the apostles. (See for this Luke
iv. 16, &c. Acts xiii. 14, &c.) Accordingly it appears that the
earliest discourses from the pulpit were very much ofthe nature of
our expositions and lectures, and that the subject was not at first
arbitrarily chosen by the speaker, but such as came in course of
reading the scriptures. It will easily be conceived how in process
of time the pastors did not alvvays think it necessary to confine them
selves to the portion of reading appointed for the day, especially, as
there could not fail to arise occasions of addressing the people eith
er for warning, consolation or admonition in any particular emer
gency, to which other passages of sacred writ would be more di
rectly adapted. It may also be supposed, that sometimes in their
discourses they would be so much engrossed by one principal point
they then wished to inculcate, as would make them narrow the size
of their compositions, and limit themselves in using no more frora
the sacred page, than was entirely apposite to their subject. A
deference however to antiquity, a veneration for the scriptures, an
avowal that the writings ofthe prophets and apostles were the only
source of all their doctrine, and a desire of supplying the people
with what raight serve as a reraerabrancer ofthe subject of discourse,
would conspire to preserve a custom, which, though nol absolutely
necessary, raust be allowed at least to be both decent and conve
nient. So much for the origin and history of this usage in Christian

154 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
congregations. A usage which in my opinion ought to be the more
sacredly preserved, as it may be justly considered as an ancient
and universal, though implicit testimony, that no doctrine whatever
deserves to be considered as a principle of Christianity, which hath
hot its foundation in holy writ. After this short digression, I shall
now inquire what things they are, which particularly demand our
altention in the choice of a text. And on this topic I shall speak
the more largely, as what is to be offered on it will not regard the
explanatory discourses only, but all the different sorts of sermons
above defined.
And first, doubtless the passage chosen for this purpose ought to
be plain and perspicuous. Without this quality of perspicuity,
neither of the ends of introducing in this manner the subject can
be answered by il. If obscure, and hardly at first hearing intelligi
ble, it cannol be called, a notification ofthe subject ; as little can it
give the sanction of holy writ to a subject which it doth not notify.
One may err against this rule in more wajs than one. First, the
passage may in itself be obscure, and such as no person on a single
reading, not to say the illiterate, can be supposed to divine the sense
of. Such is a passage from Isaiah (xxi. 11, 12) on which I once
heard a sermon. " He calleth to me out of Seir, Watchman, what
ofthe night? Watchman, what ofthe night .? The watchman said,
the morning coraeth, and also the night: if ye will inquire, inquire
ye ; return, corae." Who could pretend to say frora such a text
what the subject of discourse were ? But there are some people of
that strange turn of mind, that obscurity itself is as strong a recora
raendation to thera, as perspicuity would be to others. Not thart
they are influenced in this by the sentiment of the poet,
"Non fumum ex fulgore, sed ex fumo dare lucem ;*
for commonly there is to the full as little light in the performance,
as is discernible to an ordinary understanding in the text, the only
circumstance perhaps in which the choice can be said to be appo
site. The real motive of such almost invariably is, to excite in the
ignorant multitude an admiration of their profound learning and
most amazing penetration, who can discover wonders, where other
people can perceive nothing at all. Nor do they in this particular
lose their aim. But this is one ofthe many lillie arts of attracting
the veneration of the populace, which is totally unworthy, I say not
ofthe Christian pastor, but of every ingenuous mind.
* Not smoke from light, but light from smoke to bring.

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 155
But further, a passage of scripture considered in itself, and its
connection, may be perfectly perspicuous, and yet, as a text, raay be
extremely dark, because nothing that can be called a subject of dis
course is suggested by it. Thus these words, " A bell and a pom
egranate, and a bell and a pomegranate," (Exod. xxxix. 2G,) are
sufficiently intelligible in scripture, as expressing certain ornaments,
with which alternately the border of the pontifical ephod vvas lo be
decorated ; but there is not one of a thousand vvho would conjecture
what the design ofthe preacher were, who should read these words
to his congregation for a text. I have heard of a declaimer, one of
those (and there are several such) that will raiher take the most
inconvenient road in the world, than keep the beaten path, vvho
chose the words above quoted, as the ground of a discourse on this
topic, that faith and holiness in the Christian life do ever accompa
ny each other. It would not be easy to conceive a more extrava
gant flight. But where, you say, is the connection in the subject ?
It requires but a small share of fancy, to make out a figurative con
nection any where. Faith cometh by hearing. And could one de
sire a better reason for making the bell, which is sonorous, an era
blera of faith ? Holiness is fruitful in good vvorks. How can it then be
belter represented than by a pomegranate which is a very pleasant
fruit ? I am not fond of conceits in any serious matter ; they have
something so trivial and playful in them ; but if they are any
where specially unsuitable, it is in the pulpit. I remember lo have
seen announced in the news-papers the text of an anniversary ser
mon, the nature of the occasion I do not know. The text was,
(Jud. iv, 20.) " Thou shalt say no." Here nothing can be clearer
tban the expression or verse, as indeed the whole passage is to
which it belongs ; yet nothing can be darker, than the text, as it
is impossible lo say with truth that it suggests any subject of dis
course whatever. I will add further, that though the text, when in
terpreted agreeably to the meaning of the writer, may be said to
suggest the subject (which cannot be said of any of those above
quoted) yet when it is so figuratively expressed, as that the import
of it is not sufficiently obvious to the bulk of a congregation, some
more explicit proposition ought to be preferred. This observation
is not to be understood as extending to those figures which are so
current in scripture, and now so generally understood by Christians
of all denominations, that they cannol be said to hurt the plainness
of the passage in the least. Of this kind are the putting of a part
of religion, as the love ofGod, or the fear ofGod, for the whole, as-

156 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
scribing passions and bodily members to the Deity, personifying
wisdom and the like, or those ordinary metaphors whereby a reli
gious life is represented by a race, a journey, or a fight. These
cannot be said to give the least obstruction in reading, to those who
are but a very little acquainted with their Bible. In like manner
in the choice of a text, I should think it proper lo avoid passages in
which there is an apparent ambiguity. For though the context
should sufficiently determine the sense, yet if the words taken sep
arately are ambiguous, they do not distinctly answer the purpose of
a notification of the speaker's aim. So much shall serve for the
first article, perspicuity.
The next point to be attended to is, that they be perti
nent. It were belter not to have a text, than one that would
mislead the hearers as to the subject of discourse, and such
would be the case, if tbe text pointed one way and the ser
raon another. And here I cannot help observing the fantastical
choice, that bath been made by sotne English preachers who have
purposely chosen suoh passages as seemingly contradict vvhat they
propose as the scope of their sermon. Two very eminent men in that
church. Doctor Clarke and Bishop Hoadly, in their controversial or
argumentative discourses frequently adopt this method. The latter,
for example, to a sermon whose chief design is to show the absur
dity ofthe opinion that all hope of pardon is cut off in the gospel
from Christians, who have been wilful sinners, halh chosen for his
text Heb. x. 26, 27. " If we sin wilfully, after we have received
the knowledge of the truth, there reraaineth no raore sacrifice for
sin ; but a certain fearful looking for of judgment, and fiery indig
nation which shall devour the adversaries." Andto another, which
he hath titled, the Mistake of relying on Faith considered, he hath
prefixed in the same way, Eph. ii. 8, " By grace are ye saved
through faith." I do not here enter into the consideration of the
justness of his doctrine, but the preposterousness of his choice. I
know his reason was, thus to take an occasion of explaining a pas
sage, that had been much employed on the opposite side of the
controversy, in such a way as to show that though it might appar
ently, it did not really (when properly understood) contradict his
design. But this plea, unless when such explication is made the
sole end ofthe discourse, in which case it falls under that specits
of lecture called exposition, whereof we have given some account
already, otherwise, I say this plea doth by no means vindicate a
choice subversive of all the purposes which a text is intended to

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 157
answer. It is the less vindicable as it is perfectly unnecessary.
The explication of a passage apparently opposing tbe doctrine
maintained in the discourse, it would be much more pertinent to
introduce and obviate in answering the objections and aiguraents
of the antagonists. There appears in both these authors, and in
others misled by their exaraple, a want of taste in this particular, how
ever great their talents in other respects may have been.
The third quality in a proper text is, that it be full; that is, that
it be expressive not of a part, but of the whole scope of the dis
course ; othervvise it imperfectly answers both the ends above
mentioned : and we may say, wilh justice, that part of the sermon is
entirely vvithout a text.
The fourth and last quality is, that it be simple, nowise redun
dant, or expressive of more than the single scope of the sermon.
An instance of a text which in the purport ofit is properly complex
is that above quoted, Eph. ii. 8. " By grace ye are saved through
faith." The first part, "by grace ye are saved," is a full and per
fect text for the discussion of one point of doctrine, which is to show
in what respect the source of our salvation is divine grace. The
other part, " ye are saved through faith, is equafly perfect for the
explication of another point, which is to show, in what respect the
instrument of our salvation is faith. Let it be observed here, to
prevent mistakes, that a sentence may be grammatically coraplex,
which is nevertheless simple in regard to the sentiment conveyed
by it, and therefore sufficiently proper for a text. Such a one is
that in Prov. iii. 17. " Wisdom's ways are ways of pleasantness,
and all her paths are peace." And even that last quoted from the
Hebrews, though consisting of two long verses, is perfectly siraple
in regard to the sense.
I shall make two other observations on the subject of texts, and
so conclude this article. One is, that as a great part of holy writ is
historical, wherein things are simply related as spoken, without any
mark of approbation or blame from the sacred historian ; we ought,
when we can be otherwise well supplied, to avoid such places, since
passages taken thence, though recorded in scripture, have not the
stamp of revelation, and therefore are not fitted for answering the
second purpose of a text above mentioned. I acknowledge, how
ever, that when the sentiraent in itself is manifestly agreeable tothe
dictates of natural or the general tenour of revealed religion, it
would be an excess of scrupulousness to reject it. Should every
20

158 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
thing (for example) said by Job's three friends be avoided, because
we have the best authority to affirra, that in sorae things they did not
speak right ? or should even all that Job hiraself said be set aside,
because he acknowledged that he had uttered what he understood
not, things too wonderful for him which he knew not ? In all such
dubious cases, great regard is to be had to the character of the
speaker, the occasion, the import, and the design of the speech.
On all these accounts, it was a most absurd choice which one made
of a text for a sermon on the future glory of the saints in heaven.
This sublime doctrine he chose to treat from these words of the
serpent to our first mother Eve, Gen. iii. 5. " Ye shall be as gods,
knowing good and evil." For though the words taken abstractly
might be apposite enough, we know that as they stand in scripture,
they have no relation to the heavenly happiness; but what renders
them still more exceptionable, as a text, is, they are the words ofthe
father of lies, and in the sense in which he used them, contain a lie,
and were employed but too successfully for the purpose of seduction.
The only other observation I raean to raake is, as scripture does
not consist of a number of aphorisms, it will soraetiraes be difficult,
if not irapossible, to find texts for sorae very suitable subjects, con
forraable to all the rules above laid down. It raust be owned, that
in such cases, it is far better to deviate from these rules, than to
avoid discussing an edifying and pertinent subject. All that can be
said in that case is, that if the rules be reasonable, the deviation
ought to be as little as possible. Nor let any one think this point a
matter of little or no raoraent. As a good choice may contribute
previously to rouse attention, and even to put the hearers in a proper
frame for the subject to be discoursed on, as well as to keep their
rainds in the tirae of preaching frora wandering from the subject ;
so, on the contrary, an iraproper choice will often serve to dissipate
the thoughts, and put the raind in a frarae nowise suitable. I can
say for myself that I have been witness to instances of both effects.
I have observed sometimes, that the bare reading of the text hath
served to compose the minds of the audience into an earnest and
attentive expectation of whal was to be said. I have seen an ill
adapted text, on the contrary, especially when there was any
thing fantastic in the choice, excite a very different emotion in the
audience, and dispose their minds not to be edified, but araused.

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 159

LECTURE Yin.
Of the Explanatory Sermons— The Introduction—Exposition of the Text-
Par'ition of the Subject. Unity a principal requisite in the Subject — How
thisis to be preserved — Offences against Unity.
In my last discourse on the subject of Christian eloquence, I en
tered on the consideration ol that species of serraons, which we
distinguished by the name of explanatory, whose principal intention
is, agreeably to the narae, to explain the import of any doctrine or
the extent of any precept of our religion. And first, I took
occasion to inquire into the origin and history of that meth
od now so universal in Christendom, of introducing our sub
ject tothe audience, by a portion of sacred writ, called a text. I
inquired into the principal uses which a text is intended to answer,
and frora this was naturally led to deduce the rules, whereby we
ought to be directed in the choice. On this topic I was the more
particular, as the same observations, though introduced merely in
the examination of one species of discourses, would hold equally
with regard to them all. I shall now proceed to consider the
other parts of the explanatory sermon.
The first thing here, that falls under review, is the exordium or
introduction, the great design ofwhich is (agreeably to the rules of
rhetoricians) to awaken and fix the attention of the audience. No
thing can be more obvious, than that if the hearers will not attend,
the preacher addresses them to no purpose, his speaking is no bet
ter than beating the air. The first requisite, therefore, on their
part, is some expectation and consequent desire. This is absolute
ly necessary to render them attentive. A certain degree of curi
osity is natural in an auditory, just at the raoraent that a speaker is
ready to open his raouth. But then it will depend very rauch on
him, either to work up this favourable inclination in people into a
devout and even anxious attention, or to extinguish it altogether,
and not only to extinguish it, but even to create in them the con
trary dispositions of weariness and disgust. Such topics, therefore,
as raanifestly tend to conciliate a favourable hearing frora the con
gregation, as rouse in them the hope of something momentous or
interesting, are especially adapted to the introductory part of th^
discourse. No doubt some regard must be had to this end through
the whole of the perforraance. But it is the direct business of the

160 CAMPBELLS LECTURES.
exordium, to inspire a disposition, which the other parts ofthe ser
mon ought to preserve from expiring. And as to the manner, in
which this purpose raay be best effected, it is evident, that the
preacher's topics should be drawn chiefly or solely from that which
is to be the subject of discourse. The church, in this respect more
delicate than either the tribunal or the senate, doth not so easily
adrait the urging of considerations raerely personal, for winning the
affection ofthe hearers. The venerable aged senator may not un
gracefully preface his harangue with topics taken from his years,
experience, and public services. The hearers, conscious of the
truth, will think him well entitled to avail himself of such a plea ;
and the mention of these particulars will serve to rouse their atten
tion and regard. It is only in extraordinary circumstances, that
this conduct would be tolerable in the preacher. I do not say it
never would. We have excellent patterns in this way in tbe pro
phet Samuel, and inthe apostle Paul. See 1 Sam, xii. 1, &c.
Acts XX. 18, &c. The young barrister will sometimes, just in
opening, plead successfully for some indulgence to his youth and
inexperience. An apology of this kind, if gracefully and naturally
expressed, will be ascribed, not to want of merit, but to raodesty, a
qua' ty very engaging especiallfin youth. The same plea would
be raore hazardous from the pulpit, and therefore can rarely, if ev
er, be atterapted there. Any view that seeras ultimately to point
to self, any thing that may be considered as either directly or indi
rectly courting popular applause, will be stigmatized as vanity, a
disposition which will meet with no quarter in a place consecrated
as it were to the purposes of humbling the pride of man, and ad
vancing the honour of his Maker. Passing therefore some extra
ordinary cases, the only topics which the preacher can safely raake
use of in the introduction, for gaining the devout attention of the
hearers, ought to be drawn from the nature ofthe subject tobe dis
cussed. And these are various in different subjects. But there is
no subject, with wbich our religion presents us, that wil! not afford
some handle by which it raay be recoraraended to the favourable
attention of the hearers. On one subject, the leading principle for
rousing our attention will be its subliraity, on another its irapor
tance, on a third perhaps its pleasantness, and on a fourth its nov
elty. Do not raistake me. I by no means intend to insinuate,
that any tenet or precept of religion can be strictly called new. I
only mean, that when the subject of discourse rarely receives a dis
cussion from the pulpit, the examination of it may be considered as

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 161
n ew to the congregation ; they not having the sarae opportunity of
becoraing thoroughly acquainted with it as with sorae other topics,
which, if raore momentous, are at the sarae tirae more trite. Per
haps the subject is one of those, against which we are sure, from
the known character of the congregation, there are certain preju
dices. A case of this kind requires a peculiar delicacy. A mod
est attempt to remove unfavourable prepossessions is in such a
case extremely proper in the entry. Butler's sermon on the Love
ofGod affords a very suitable example in this way. It deserves al
so to be reraarked, that a preacher ought in the exordiura cautious
ly to shun being so particular as raight anticipate what should be
advanced afterwards ; that he ought here to proceed on such prin
ciples as are generally, if not universally, admitted ; such as ap
proved maxims, incontestible observations ; otherwise its obscurity
will rather avert than attract the attention of the audience. And
if in order to prevent this obscurity, one should fall into a train of
reasoning, or be at particular pains to explain and illustrate the
principles advanced, it is manifest this conduct would convert into
a real discourse, what ought to be no more than a prelude ; it
would extend the introduction to an undue length, and so far from
answering the design of preparing the hearers to receive with atten
tion the discussion of the subject, it would tend to make them lose
sight of it altogether, by engaging them deeply in different, though
related questions. In regard to the language of the introduction,
it ought to be, in a particular manner, perspicuous and distinct.
There is rarely scope in the introductory part of any kind of ser
mons, and much less in that of an explanatory serraon, for rhetori
cal tropes and figures. But as the expression should be plain and
clear, the sentiraents ought to be striking and almost self-evident.
The next part that requires to be considered, alter the exordium,
is the exposition of the text. And here it ought to be observed,
tbat no more ofthe context should come under the notice of the
preacher, than what may serve to corroborate or illustrate the
thoughts advanced in the introduction, or what raay be of use for
throwing light upon the text. It is often necessary to take for
texts, passages wherein the thing spoken of, or what is closely con*
nected with it, is expressed by a relative pronoun, in which there is
a reference to what iramediately preceded. The text in such
cases is not intelligible but as it stands in connection with the fore
going words. Sueh a text, for exaraple, would be that in Psalm xix.
11. " In keeping of them there is great reward," where it is only

162 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
from the context you can learn the import of the pronoun them.
The same raay be said of the possessive his in the^following pas
sage, which may be used as a text, 1 John v. 3. " His comraand
ments are not grievous." But when the text itself is sufficiently
perspicuous, and however closely connected, independently intelligi
ble, and when the sentiments ofthe context do not happen to have
any coincidence with those employed by the preacher for intro
ducing his subject, it is by no means necessary to take any notice
of the context at all. Nay, it often proves in fact rather a digres
sion from the subject, than a constituent part of the discourse. Ira-
memorial custom, I acknowledge, halh wilh us given a kind of
sanction to this practice, as to many other improper ones; but it
belongs to judgment and taste, to distinguish those cases wherein
it is useful, and those wherein it is foreign to the purpose. %¦ And
that is always to be held foreign, which, however just and even pro
fitable abstractly considered, nowise contributes to proraote that
which is the ultimate aim of the discourse. When the text, as in
the two passages last mentioned, has a reference to the context
but atthe sarae time there is nothing in the context, which is not
as to its meaning perfectly obvious to an ordinary capacity, it will
suffice barely to repeat such of the preceding verses as have the
most iraraediate connection with the text. Sometimes indeed it
will do -better to give an abstract ofthe story orof the reasoning, of
which the text is a part, and that, without particularizing any of
the passages. But in the election to be made out of these different
methods, it behovelh us of necessity to leave the preacher to the
guidance of his own judgment. The choice depends on such a va
riety of minute circumstances as renders it insusceptible of rules.
The text itself, if necessary, may be explained, either by a para
phrase or otherwise. If by a paraphrase, it should be simple and
brief, and no raore in effect than a raere explicit declaration of the
subject df discourse. Ifa looser method of expounding the pas
sage is pr.eferred, this exposition ought to terminate in a sentence,
distinctly proposing the doctrine or duty to be explained.
The next thing that comes to be considered is ihe partition,
or, as it is raore commonly terraed, the division ofthe subject into
its constituent branches. And here doubtless the logical rules
ought to be inviolably observed. The partition ought to exhaust the
subject, insomuch that no part be left uncomprehended, and it
ought to extend no farther, so as to coraprehend any thing else.
And as far as is possible in a consistency with these, a natural sira-

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 163
plicity ought to be studied in this part in particular. Nothing ha
rasses the meraory ofthe hearers, more than a multiplicity of, what
is called, the heads or chief topics of discourse. As where there is
any partition of the subject they cannot be fewer than two, they nev
er ought to exceed four or five. These for the most part ought in ex
planatory discourses, which are directed solely to the understanding,
and which should preserve an appearance of accuracy and precision
throughout the whole, to be very explicitly laid before the hearers.
As an instance of a just partition, that given by Dr. Tillotson of the
nature and extent of gospel obedience, may serve for an exaraple.
The properties of such an obedience, he divides into these three,
sincerity, universality and constancy. This division is taken from
the essential qualities of the subject ; it may sometimes be taken
from the component parts. The preacher's design, I shall suppose,
is to explain the duty of prayer, and from the consideration of the
constituent members of his subject, he divides his discourse into
three heads destined severally for the explanation ofthe three parts,
confession, petition and thanksgiving. To these some improperly
add a fourth, adoration, I say improperly, because this, so far from
being a distinct member, is necessarily implied in each ofthe others ;
insomuch that none of thera can be explained or conceived without it.
Each implies the acknowledgment ofthe superintendency and per
fections ofGod, and of our own dependency and obligations. Such
a distribution, therefore, in which adoration were made a separate
member, would be as though one should divide an animal body in
to these four parts, the head, the trunk, the limbs, and the blood,
which last is manifestly essential to all the parts, and does not con
stitute a separate branch or member, as it pervades the whole and
every part. This by the way may serve as a specimen of a faulty di
vision. As to the order, in which tbe different branches ought to
be proposed and treated, that is no doubt soraetimes discretionary,
but more frequently it may be determined by something in the na
ture of the subject. Thatwhich is simplest and plainest ought
generally to be begun with ; and frora this we ought to advance to
that which is less obvious and more complex ; but of this raore af^
terwards. So far I thought it proper to proceed in considering the
general qualities, which affect the introduction, the exposition of
the text and context, where an exposition of either or both is
necessary, and the propounding of the subject and the raethod.
Before we proceed, it will be necessary to consider a little raore
particularly, in what manner the text and the subject ought to be

164 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
adapted to each other. And here the first thing that necessarily
deraands our attention is, that the text ought to be chosen for the
subject, ai)d not the subject for the text. Nor will this observation
be found, upon inquiry, of so little moment as at first sight it may
appear to be. It is manifest, frora the general taste and manner
that has hitherto prevailed in preaching, that the text, raiher indeed
the words of a certain portion of scripture, hath been the primary
consideration, and the subject at best but a secondary one. Or if
it hath happened, that the subject hath been first thought of by the
speaker, he no sooner deviseth a text, than he judges it necessary
to attach to his principal subject certain olher subordinate one's,
suggested not by the sentiment conveyed, but by the expressions
used in the text. The consequence is, that there is hardly one ser
raon in a hundred, wherein that unity of design is observed, which
constitutes one great excellence in every composition.'*
I mentioned in the beginning of my last prelection, that the first
thing that falls under the preacher's consideration is the subject.
Unity I then observed was a principal requisite in the subject ; but
deferred stating the precise notion of it, till we should come lo treat of
that part of the discourse, which includes the declared design of the
performance and the manner in which it is proposed to prosecute
it. This will be soraewhat different in the different kinds of ser
mons : I shall consider the unity of each, at least what is peculiar in
each, in the explication ofthe kind. And as to that kind ofwhich
we are now treating, the explanatory, let us suppose one intending
tp compose a sermon in this way hath chosen for his subject, the
doctrine of the Divine Omniscience. After searching for some
time for a proper text, I suppose he determines to take Heb. iv. 13 ;
ivhich though complex in the terms, is sufficiently simple in the
* In prescribing tasks for trying the abilities of the students of theology, in
instructing and persuading, it is the common practice to assign them a text on
which to prepare a sermon. And this method I followed for some time. The
consequence I found to be, that instead of one subject in a discourse we often
beard discussed in one sermon two or three distinct subjects. I have therefore
resolved instead of a text to prescribe a subject, leaving to the student to find
out a proper text for himself ; for example, some doctrine or precept of the gos
pel to be defined and illustrated in an explanatory sermon, or some duty to be
inculcated or evil to be warned against in a suasory discourse. As this way of
prescribing a subject gives a greater probability that unity and simpUcity shall
be preserv.ed inthe composition, than thatof assigning a text, and as the
sqhjeict ought always to be first in the intention of the composer, I have thougbt
Ujjg ipetjipd upon the whole greatly preferable.

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 165
sentiment. The words are, " Neither is there any creature that is
not manifest in his sight : but all things are naked and opened un
to the eyes of Him wilh whom we have to do." It is a thousand to
one he would judge it no other than a piece of justice to his text,
to discuss a nuraber of adventitious points, which, if without any
text he had been required to explain the doctrine of the omniscience,
he would never have dreamt to have any connection with his sub
ject. Such as these for instance, to consider what is implied in the
manifestation of a creature, or in its being naked and opened ; in
what respect these phrases may be used relatively, so that a crea
ture may be said to be manifested, naked and opened to the eyes of
one, which is nevertheless undiscovered, clothed and shut to the
eyes of another : again, who is meant by the apostle in that expres
sion. Him vvith whom vve have to do ; and why God is so denomina
ted. Yet will any one say, that these critical inquiries, (which in
a critical exercise on the passage would be very proper,) are I say
nol, necessary, but any wise conducive to the illustration of this
siraple proposition, God knoweth allthings? And if so, there can
be no unity in the subject, nor simplicity in the performance, in
which things so diverse are' jumbled together. The only connec
tion there is among them is not a natural, but an accidental, con
nection arising merely from the terms, in which the sentiment is
expressed. Sometimes it is necessary to recur to such texts, be
cause a simpler expression of the sense, though more eligible, is
not to be found in the words of scripture. But then if there be
any difficulty, it is sufficient to remove it by the way, in showing
the import of the test, or in a brief paraphrase on the words, or
even in a plain synonymous sentence. It must ever be remember
ed, that it is the leading sentiment conveyed in the text, which it
is the preacher's business to illustrate, and notthe terms or phrases
by which it is conveyed. Itis this difference that makes a prin
cipal distinction between every kind of sermons whatever, and that
species of lecture which we called exposition, wherein the text is
itself properly the subject, and not to be considered as a bare ex
pression of the subject. Now it is this false taste in preaching
which hath given rise to the censure forraerly quoted from Voltaire,
in as much as the speaker is not employed in the discussion of any
one subject, but is, as it were, arausing hiraself and his hearers
with a nuraber of little independent dissertations on the different
words, idioms and references which are found in a line or two
21

166 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
of sacred writ. It will perhaps be urged, that there are few pas
sages, which from the turn of the expression would lead the speak
er into such devious tracts, as that above quoted ; but in reality,
where the same notion prevails in regard to pulpit composition,
there can hardly be found a text so siraple, as will not afford sorae
occasion for the same manner of treating the subject. Let us sup
pose that the preacher's subject is to explain this doctrine of reve
lation, that the grace ofGod is the genuine source of man's salva
tion, and let us suppose he chooseth for his text Eph. ii. 8. "By
grace are ye saved." One more simple or more apposite is not
even to be conceived. Yet the most general and approved
way, in which, in many places, this theme at present would
be managed, is the following. First, vvould the speaker say, I
shall explain what is raeant by grace ; secondly, I shall show what
is meant by salvation, or what it is to be saved : thirdly and lastly,
the relation which one of these bears to the other, or the depen
dence of the latter upon the forraer. Methinks I hear it resound
frora every quarter, could there be a juster raethod, or one that
more perfectly exhausts the text ? No indeed if we are barely to
regard the words ; in which case it may be .said to be three texts
more properly than one. My intended subject was only one, but
here we have no less than three. Ay but, say you, are not these
three so intimately connected, that the one cannot be perfectly un
derstood without the other ? That they are indeed connected is
very certain, but so also are all the doctrines and precepts of our
religion. Is it therefore impossible to explain one without explain
ing thera all ? If so, every sermon ought to be a system, both of the
tenets and ofthe duties of Christianity. And as the Christian sys
tem is only one, in this way there should be no more but one ser
mon. And as strange as it raay appear, I have known preachers,
and very popular preachers too, whom I have heard frequently, and
yet can say with truth, I never heard from them but one sermon.
The forra, the raould into which it was cast, was different accord
ing to the different texts, but the matter was altogether the same.
You had invariably the preacher's whole system, original sin, the
incarnation, the satisfaction, election, iraputed righteousness, justi
fication by faith, sanctification by the Spirit, and so forth. As to
the practical part, including the duties which our religion requires,
whether it was, that it appeared raore obvious or of less conse
quence, I cannot say, but it was very rarely and very slightly
touched. The discourses of such people have often put rae in
mind of the clay, with which children sometimes divert themselves.

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 167
The very same mass, they at one tirae raould into the figure of
a man, at another, into that of a beast, at a third into the shape of
a bird, and at a fourth, into the appearance of a table or stool. But
you are sure ofone thing, that vvhatever be the change on its exter
nal form, its substance is unalterably the same. Yet these people ar
gue with an apparent plausibility. Such a one explaining the character
expressed in the words pure in heart, tells us that in order to under
stand it rightly we must consider it in its source, the sanctifying oper
ation of the Holy Spirit. The better to understand this, we ought to
consider our previous natural corruption. This brings us directly to
original sin, which makes it necessary to inquire into that original
righteousness whereof it is the privation. And this being implied in
the expression, image of God, leads us to the examination ofthe di
vine perfections. These again are best illustrated by the effects,
the works of creation and providence, and especially the work of
redemption. This method of arguing puts rae in mind of a story told
by Alembert in an essay on the liberty of rausic. " Dioptrics,''
said a certain profound philosophical professor to his pupils, " is
the science which teaches us the use of spectacles and spy glasses.
Now these are of no value without eyes ; the eyes are the organs of
one of our senses, the existence of our senses supposes the exist'-
ence of God, since it is God who gave us them ; the existence of
God is the foundation ofthe Christian religion — vve purpose there
fore to evince the truth ofthe Christian religion, as the first lesson
in Dioptrics." I shall only say in general of this method, when \n-t^
duced into the pulpit, that however acceptable it may be with the
many, with whom sound always goes rauch farther than sense, and
favourite words and phrases to which their ears have been accus
toraed, than the most judicious sentiment, I know no surer method
of rendering preaching utterly inefficacious and uninstructive. To
attempt every thing is the direct way to effect nothing. If you
will go over every part, you must be superficial in every part ; you
can examine no part to any useful purpose. What would you think
of a professor of anatomy, who should run over all the organs and
lirabs and parts ofthe huraan body external and internal in every lec
ture, and think himself sufficiently excusedby saying that there is a
connection in all the parts ; andthat the treating ofone naturally led
him to say soraething of another ; and so on, till he got through the
whole .'' Or, what would your opinion be of a lecturer in architec
ture, who in every discourse discussed all the five orders, and did
not leave a single member or ornament in any one of them unnam-

168 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
ed ? From such teachers, could a reasonable man expect to learn
any thing but words? The head of the learner would, in conse
quence of this extraordinary manner of teaching, very quickly be
stuffed with technical terms and phrases to which he could affix no
definite signification. He might soon be raade an accomplished
pedant in these arts ; but, to the end of the world, would not in
this way be rendered a proficient. And do we not see among the
coraraon people raany such pedants in divinity, who think them
selves wonderful scholars, because they bave got the knack of ut
tering, with great volubility, all the favourite phrases and often un
meaning cant of a particular sect or faction ? It is indeed solely to
be imputed to that jealousy, which party spirit and our unhappy di
visions in religious raatters have produced, that this futile manner
owes its origin. In consequence of this party spirit, many hearers
whose minds are unhappily poisoned wilh its malignity come to a
new preacher wilh an anxious concern, not to be instructed but to
be satisfied, whether he is what they call orthodox, is a true parti
zan and has the shibboleth of the party in him ; and the preacher,
on the olher hand, either because he hath imbibed the same secta
rian spirit, or because he is tnore ambitious to please than to edify,
takes this way, which is by far the shortest and the easiest, of in
gratiating himself into their favour. But to return to the particu
lar instance which gave rise to these observations, all that in re
gard to the two points grace and salvation is previously necessary
to the explication of the only point, which makes the subject, is to
observe, in so many words, that grace raeans here the unraerited fa
vour ofGod, and salvation deliverance from all that evil which is con
sequent on sin. And this raay be sufficiently effected in the exposi
tion of the text, or in a paraphrase upon it. Nay, whatever further
is of iraportance as to both these points, grace and salvation, will
necessarily and raore naturally occur, without doing any violence
to the unity and simplicity of the discourse, in the illustration of
the subject, which is purely to show in what respect divine grace is
the genuine source of man's salvation. But would you have only
one point ? Where is then the distribution or partition of the sub
ject, ofwhich you spoke before ? I would indeed have but one sub
ject, though, where the nature of the thing will admit it, distributed
for order's and for memory's sake into its different members, and
then the several points in the division must appear as the constituent
parts of one subject and one whole, and not as so many distinct
though related subjects or wholes. Thus the forementioned sub-

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES, 169
ject may be illustrated under these tvvo articles, which will make
the heads of discourse: the plan itself of our redemption bythe
mediation ofthe Son is the result of grace or unmerited favour ; the
corapletion of it in us by the operation of the Spirit also the result
of grace. Both these raanifestly centre in the sarae point; salva
tion springs frora grace. But if you must draw in every thing that
is related you can never have done, till you have made your serraon
a complete system of Christian divinity.
The method in making serraons, which for a long tirae hath car
ried the vogue in this country over every olher, and which is con
sidered as very simple compared with the more laboured and intri
cate methods formerly in use, is a division of every text, into
what the schoolmen call the subject, the predicate and the copula.
Thus, suppose the topic to be discussed were the nature of the di
vine faithfulness, and the text 1 Cor. x. 13. " God is faiihful :"
this most simple and apposite passage would be divided into three
heads. The first would be the divine nature, the second the attri
bute of faithfulness, and the third the connection between the two.
This is uot discoursing on the subject, but cutting the text into
fritters, where if the subject come in for a share, it is rauch : often
it is eluded altogether. Butthe impropriety, and ifit were not for
the commonness, 1 should say the puerility of this raanner will ap
pear better by applying it to other raatters, in which tbe pulpit is
not concerned. I shall suppose one hath it prescribed to him as
the subject of an oration, an inquiry into the antiquity of rhyrae.
Accordingly he goes to work, and having well weighed every word
and syllable of the question, he thus lays down his plan of opera
tions. First, says he, I shall consider what is implied in the word
antiquity, and all the different acceptations of which the term is sus
ceptible ; secondly, I shall consider the nature, import and proper
ties of what is called rhyme ; and thirdly, the relation in which the
one stands to the other, or how far and in what respect the one
may be justly predicated ofthe other. Could any one imagine that
such a disquisitor understood the subject .? Good people are some
times offended at the application of the word eloquence to preach
ing. They think it savours of soraething merely human and too arti
ficial. But the art of preaching, as in fact it hath been long taught
and practised by the men, whora those people generally raost ad
mire, is the genuine offspring of the dialectic of the schools, and
fifty times more artificial, or if you will mechanical, than that
which true rhetoric would inculcate. On the contrary, it is the

170 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
business of the latter to bring raen back from all scholastic pedan
try and jargon, to nature, simplicity and truth. And let rae add,
that discourses on this plan will be found rauch more conforraable,
in raanner and composition, to the simple but excellent raodels to be
found in sacred writ.

LECTURE IX.

Of Explanatory Sermons — How the branches should be arranged and treated
— Ofthe Style — Technical Language to be avoided and that of Scripture
preferred — Abuse of Scripture Style — Ofthe Conclusion.
In my last discourse on Christian eloquence, I considered part
ofthe explanatory sermon, which was begun with, as the simplest,
to wit, the exordium or introduction, the proposing of the design
wilh the explication of the text and context, where such explication
is necessary, and the division of the subject. I should now pro
ceed to consider in what raethod the branches ofthe division should
be ranged, how they should be treated, and the properest way of
forming the conclusion. As to the first, the order in which the
principal heads of a discourse ought to be arranged, this is some
tiraes of considerable consequence, soraetimes it is a matter mere
ly discretionary. It is of consequence, when the knowledge ofone
part is, in its nature, pre-requisite to the right understanding of
another part; it is also of consequence, when in the order of time
or of nature, the one part is conceived as preceding the other. The
arrangement may be said to be discretionary, when neither of the
above mentioned cases lakes place. Suppose, for instance, the
preacher's subject were the nature of evangelical repentance, andhe
were disposed to coraprehend the whole under the three following
heads, a proper sense and conviction of sin, pious and suitable res
olutions from an apprehension of divine mercy through the raedia
tion of Jesus Christ our Lord, and a real conversion Por change to
the obedience ofGod. The order, in which these topics have just
now been mentioned, is the only order in which the subject could
properly be discussed. The right understanding of every previous
member is preparatory to the right understanding ofthat which fol
lows. This 'arrangement will perhaps be considered also as fixed
by the order of nature and of time. I shall for another instance

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 171
recur to that mentioned in a former lecture. Suppose then the
preacher's subject is to illustrate this important evangelical truth,
that grace or the unmerited favour of God is the genuine source of
man's salvation ; suppose further, that one chooses for the illustration
ofit the two topics also above mentioned ; the plan of our redemption
by Jesus Christ is purely the result of grace or unraerited favour,
the corapletion of this plan in us by the operation ofthe Spirit is al
so the result of grace. It is evident, that the order in which these
two topics are now laid down, is the only natural order in which
they could be treated. The plan is ever conceived as previous to
the execution. But in another exaraple of distribution taken from
Tillotson, ofthe characters of gospel obedience into sincerity, uni
versality and constancy, it is nol perhaps material in vvhat order
you explain these particulars. As there are few cases, however, in
which even this circumstance, when attentively considered, will ap
pear perfectly indifferent, I should like best the order wherein I
have just uow named them, though I could not deny, that in any
order they might be treated with sufficient perspicuity. Indeed in
the other instance also above mentioned ofprayer, as divided into
its constituent parts, petition, confession and thanksgiving, the or
der is perhaps as much discretionary, as in any example that could
be produced. Again, as in the explication of the principal heads
or topics, there may be scope for a subdivision, the same remarks
will hold with regard to the arrangement of the constituent raera
bers ofthat subdivision. But as it is impossible, thatonewho hira
self understands the subject that he treats, should not perceive the
dependance ofthe parts and consequently the natural order, where
the subject gives scope for it, I should think it losing time to enter
more minutely into the discussion of this point. I shall only fur
ther remark on the article of arrangement, that as a multiplicity of
divisions and subdivisions is not only cumbersorae to the raemory,
but savours too much of artifice and a kind of minute and finical
precision, a speaker ought carefully to avoid it. Do not iraagine,
that by this I raean to recoraraend a rarabling and desultory raan
ner of treating a subject. Nothing can be farther from my inten
tion. I know well the power of raethod for assisting both the un
derstanding and the raemory, and with how much justice Horace
hath styled it lucidus ordo, (lucid order) as being that, which, of all
qualities, tends most to throw light upon a subject. But though a
just and natural order ought ever to be preserved in the disposition
of the sentiments in a serraon, the formality of always proposing or

172 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
laying down that order, especially in the subordinate paits or in
ferior branches of a discourse, is rarely the most eligible meth
od for recomraending what you say to the attention of the hearers.
Need I add, that in general in this kind of discourses the style
should be remarkably simple and perspicuous. The iraraediate
end is distinct apprehension. It therefore adraits but few orna
ments, sometimes indeed it will receive very properly a sort of
painting or imagery, which seems more immediately intended to
delight the fancy, but which seasonably enough relieves the rainds
ofthe hearers frora too intense an application of thought, to what in
itself raay be called a sort of abstract truth, an application, of
which the generality of hearers are very little capable ; al the same
time that it fixes their attention, and even conveys to them more
distinct conceptions by a happy illustration of things less known by
things familiar to thera. Thus the great truihs in relation to the
kingdora of heaven were ever illustrated to the people by Him,
whom we ought to regard as our pattern in teaching as well as in
life and practice, by the common incidents and affairs of this world,
with which they had occasion to be well acquainted. 1 would not,
however, by this be understood to recommend so close an imita
tion of our Lord's manner, as to endeavour to convey every thing
in parables and allegories. I ara afraid, this raight give scope for
too close a coraparison, which would redound greatly to the disad
vantage of any modern speaker; besides, I raust acknowledge that
though in what concerns the matter, the great trutbs of religion re
main invariably the same, yet in what regards the general manner
of communicating them, the mode or custom of the country where
we live, ought not altogether to be overlooked. Ina remarkable
deviation from it, there is always the disagreeable appearance of af
fectation. The warraer and livelier manner of the orientals never
fails to please us exceedingly in their writings ; at the same tirae
that it appears to sit very awkwardly on a modern European. It
suggests the idea rather of mimicry, or a servile copying, than of a
liberal imitation. Certain things in the manner of conveying in
struction, as well as the words and phrases of the language that we
employ, are in every age and nation dependent upon use, from
which we' cannot deviate far without becoming ridiculous. But
there is sufficient scope for imitating the manner of our Lord, by a
proper choice of similes and examples borrowed from things hu
man, for assisting the apprehension of the people in things divine.

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 173
In regard to the manner of treating the different branches of the
subject, I shall only further add, that if there occur, on any of them,
any difficulty arising either from the nature of the point to be dis
cussed, or from misconceptions of the subject comraonly entertain
ed, or from any customary but wrong way of explaining it, such
difficulties will generally be best obviated in the entry ; I say, gen
erally, because sometimes a simple and distinct explanation will
make the difficulty entirely vanish, and at raost it will require only
one's reraarking, as it were by the way, the misrepresentation that
has been given, or the misconception that has been entertained of
such a part ofthe subject. Let it serve also as a general rule in this
kind of discourses, to avoid loo great subtlety and depth in your ex
planations. The many controversies that have arisen in the Chris
tian church, and the parties and factions into which Christendom is
unhappily divided, have amongst all of them, in less or more, given
rise to a scholastic manner of treating alraost every question in di
vinity, a manner extremely unsuitable to the siraplicity of the sa
cred idiom, and the purpose of edifying a Christian congregation.
The same thing has also given rise to a sort of technical language
in those matters, which is somewhat different, indeed, in every
different sect, and too much savouring in all of the cobweb distinc
tions of schoolmen and metaphysicians, but very little of the wisdom
which is from above. It is this which hath made preaching in ma
ny places degenerate into what the apostle terras, " doting about
questions and strifes of words, whereof coraeth envy, strife, railings,
evil surmisings, perverse disputings of raen of corrupt rainds and
destitute of the truth." I have often recommended, and can
scarce sufficiently inculcate on all students in theology, to be
more conversant with their Bible, than with the writings of any of
the most celebrated divines, to whatever sect or party they belong,
and to farailiarize themselves to the style and sentiments of the
forraer rauch raore than to those ofthe latter. I am far from think
ing, that we ought to reject the use of the latter altogether ; but
ara clearly of opinion that the raore assiduous and unintermitted
study ofthe former should give an ascendent in our rainds to the
sentiraents, to the turn of thinking, and even tothe forms of expres-
oion when we learn them, and should serve as a proper check, to
prevent our imbibing and adopting too implicitly, either in tenets or
in style, the peculiarities of a sect.
22

174 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
Before I leave this article, I would also warn you against another
fault, which is sometimes to be met with, and that is, using the
scripture style itself in an unraeaning manner. There are, espe
cially in the prophets, it must be acknowledged, several pas
sages, aboutthe sense of whichthe raost learned and judicious
interpreters are divided ; there are many raore expressions, which
are not intelligible at least to the common people ; and even of raany
that are quite perspicuous when considered as standing in connec
tion with the context, such applications are often made, as convey
either no meaning at all, or a very different raeaning from that which
is suggested by the sarae words as they are situated in scripture. This
is turning the language of the Spirit itself, if not lo a bad use, at
least into mere cant and jargon, a practice exceedingly coramon in
the theological writings ofthe last century intended for the use ofthe
people, but not so often to be met with in the present age ; except
amongst a few, on whom the dregs of the fanaticism, conceited ig
norance and factious spirit of the former seera entirely to have set
tled. The true origin of this abuse is an excessive tendency lo the
use of scripture phraseology, raerely in the way of allusion. Let it
be observed, that I do by no ineans conderan in the gross an allu
sive application of scripture phrases, when clear, when apposite,
and when emphatical, as they often are, although we be sensible
that the meaning, in which we employ thera, does not coincide
with that whicb tbey have in the sacred volume. Where they are
not quoted in the way of proof, but raanifestly adopted in the way
of illustration, they produce nearly the effect of similitude, contain
ing an implicit comparison between the event to which they origi
nally referred, and that lo which they are applied by the preacher.
Besides, this method of applying, by way of allusion, passages of the
Old Testament we find also frequently adopted by the writers of
the New. Such an use, therefore, we raust declare in general, is
not only allowable, but often energetic. It requires, however, to be
managed with the utmost discretion. Corruptio optimi pessima
(a corruption of the best thing is the worst sort of corruption) is
even grown into a proverb.
There are two dangers, in particular, which here ought to be
carefully guarded against. One is, that whilst we mean only to
make an allusive application, we raay not express ourselves in such
a manner, as might seem to fix a sense on holy writ different from
that of the inspired penmen. The other is, that we do not run in
to the obscure and enigmatic style, as is sometimes done through an

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 175
excessive inclination to hunt after scripture phrases, tropes and fig
ures, or after figurative applications of what perhaps was sufficiently
plain in the literal and original use. Nothing can be more op
posite to the nature and intention ofthe explanatory discourse than
such a method. For however emphatical a clear and apposite al
lusion may be, nothing can have a worse effect, when the resem
blance is but faint and scarcely discernible, for then the way of
applying the sacred words inevitably appears, to the raore judicious
hearers, affected and far-fetched ; and though the "raaginations of
the raore ignorant raay be pleased, and their ears as it were tick
led by the use of phrases, for which through habit they have ac
quired a veneration, their understandings are not at all enlightened.
On the contrary, the subject, (though they may not be sensible of
it ; for those of this class are very prone to mistake words for
things, and mere sound for sense) is more veiled and darkened to
them, than it was before. A preacher who is ever on the scent
(and such preachers I have sometimes heard) for allusive scripture
phrases, can express nothing in a simple, natural and perspicuous
raanner. He will exhibit to you the mental blindness of the unre
generate, by telling you, that they " see men as trees walking ;"¦
spiritual and temporal mercies he rarely fails to denominate, " the
blessings of the upper and the nether springs ;" in order to denote
the assurance, which the church or Christian coraraunity have of a
triuraph over all their enemies, he will tell us, " The shout oP a
king is araong thera, and he hath as it were the strength ofan uni
corn ;" and to express I know not whal, (but I bave myself heard
the phrase adopted by preachers of this stamp) he tells us very
pompously, "The king's goings are always to be seen in the sanc,-
tuary." Nay, what is worse, (but I remark it here only by the
way) sometiraes dark and indefinite expressions, like these, are
converted into petitions and adopted in public prayer. Such will
say, "may the shout of a king be araongst us; may his goings be.
seen in the sanctuary ;" and many other such indefinite and dark
expressions one has sometimes occasion to hear, where they are ex
ceedingly unsuitable, in the public devotions ; for though the speak
er may himself affix some meaning to them, it is impossible they
should be understood or applied aright by the much greater part of
the audience. With respect to thera, therefore, he aets rauch the
same part, as if he prayed in an unknown tongue. So much for
the manner and the style in which the doctrines and the duties of
our religion ought to be explained to the people. I shall only add

176 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
upon the whole of this branch of the subject, as a general position
that will never fail to hold, that the surest expedient, that any per
son can devise, for preventing his explanation of his subject frora
being unintelligible to the hearers, is to be careful, in the first place,
that he distinctly understand it hiraself It was well said by a raas
ter in this valuable art, " Si rera potenter conceperis, nec aniraus,
nec facundia in concione defutura sunt ;"* or in the words of Je
rom, " Quia firmiter concepimus bene loquimur," (we speak well,
because we ha'^e firmly grasped the subject.") We may safelypro-
nounce, that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, where we find,
in any writing, the thoughts to be darkly and confusedly expressed,
the true reason has been, the dark and confused conceptions of the
author. One ought, therefore, before all things, to endeavour to be
master of the subject which he explains, to range his thoughts
properly and naturally, to hav^ a distinct meaning to every expres
sion that he uses, and to employ only such as he has reason to be
lieve will be generally intelligible.
It remains only now, that in this species of discourse we consid
er the conclusion. And here, if not always, it will very generally
be proper, to begin with a brief recapitulation of the articles dis
cussed. This is of iraportance both for the better understanding of
the subject, and for fixing it more firmly in the raemory, and is al
most indispensable when the subject happens to be complex. But
this is the smallest and the easiest part of what in such discourses
should constitute the conclusion. As in religion, the ultimate end
bbth of knowledge and faith is practice, or, in other words-, the
real improvement of the heart and life, so every doctrine whatever is
of use, either as a direction in the perforraance of duty, or as a rao
tive to it. And the knowledge and belief of hearers are no farther
salutary to them, than this great end is reached. On the contrary,
where it is not reached, where the heart is not bettered and the life
reforraed, they prove only the raeans of aggravating their guilt and
heightening their conderanation. The doctrines of the unity and
spirituality of the Godhead serve to point out the proper object of
religious worship, and the nature of that worship which raust be ac
ceptable to God. The other doctrines concerning the divine at
tributes serve both for our direction in regard to the adoration and
horaage which we owe to Him, and also as motives to the duties of
* If you thoroughly understand a subject, there will be no want of suitable
exprebions.

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 177
reverence, trust, love and obedience. The scripture doctrine, in
recrard to the positive institutions of religion, serves chiefly to diiect
us as to the manner and disposition in which these institutions
ouoht to be celebrated. The other doctrines of Christianity are
manifestly intended to be used, and are employed by the sacred
writers as motives to a pious and Christian life. How strongly does
the doctrine ofthe mediation enforce the calls given in scripture to
sinners to repentance? Hovv powerfully does the doctrine of the in
fluences ofthe Holy Spirit, rightly understood, tend both to excite
us to assiduity and fervour in our devotions, and to animale our en
deavours after moral perfection in the persuasion of this almighty
aid ? Need I suggest the practical use to which the doctrines of
the resurrection, ofthe future judgment, of the final retribution, of
heaven, hell and eternity so manifestly point? Nor can any thing
appear more proper and natural, than such a manner of ending a
discourse which, as to the substance of il, was addressed purely to
the understanding ofthe hearers ; in as much as it is incontrovert
ible, that the revelation of these important truths delivered in the
gospel was never intended to terrainate in being understdodand as
sented to, but in having a happy influence on the disposition of
mind and whole behaviour. It was nol given to gratify our curios
ity, but to regulate our lives. Hence it is, that we find it so fre
quently in scripture joined with epithets and attributes expressive
of this quality, a most holy faith, a doctrine according to godliness,
and sound doctrine, vyiatvim-iic ^i^curxaXta wholesome instruction, not
(as the expression has been sometimes perverted by the bigoted re
tainers to a party) a precise conforraity in phraseology and opinion
to all the little captious particularities ofthe sect. It is impossible
to conceive any thing more remote frora the original signification
ofthe word, sound. It is a terrn, which raarks not the logical just
ness of a theory, but its beneficial tendency ; it is not the truth of
any notion which can denorainate it sound, but the salutary influ
ence it hath on huraan life, that which makes it serve as food and
medicine to the soul. Whatever in divinity is void of such influ
ence, like the far greater number ofthe raetaphysical questions ag
itated among controvertists, whether true or false, is hollow and
unsound, a barren insignificant speculation : whatever hath an op
posite influence, (and such doctrines also have been broached) and
tends to subvert tbe foundation of mutual love and obligations to
the practice of virtue, is more properly termed poisonous. Nay the
pure unadulterated tenets of the gospel have so direct and manifest

178 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
atendency to enforce sanctity of life and manners, that when any
of them are treated of by the inspired writers of the New^ Testa
ment, the subject is almost invariably concluded by such a practi
cal application. Thus the apostle Peter, (2 Peter iii.) after treat
ing ofthe general conflagration, very naturally concludes, "Seeing
then that all these things shall be dissolved, what raanner of "per
sons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness ;'' and
after taking notice of the new heavens and new earth, that shall
succeed the present, he adds, " Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye
look for such things, be diligent that ye raay be found of him in
peace without spot and blameless." In like manner, the apostle
Paul, after treating at some length ofthe resurrection, concludes
the whole with this earnest exhortation, (1 Cor. xv. 58.) " There
fore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, immoveable, always
abounding in the work ofthe Lord, for as rauch as ye know that
your labour is not in vain in the Lord." It is almost only this part
which in explanatory discourses admits of warrath, and what raay
be called an addresls to the affections. A deep sense in the preach
er ofthe iraportance of this improveraentof every instruction which
he gives, an affectionate desire of promoting the good ofthe peo
ple, and a zeal for the interests of religion and virtue are the only
sure methods I know of, for qualifying him to address them suita
bly and efficaciously.

LECTURE X.
Of Controversial Discourses — Candour and Simplicity ever to be studied in the
Defence of Truth.
I HAVE now finished the consideration ofthe explanatory serraon,
which is of all the kinds mentioned the simplest, and approaches
nearest to what in the primitive church was called homily. The
end of it, as was observed, is to dispel ignorance and to comrauni
cate knowledge, and for this purpose it addresses the understanding
of the hearers. The next in order is the controversial, addressed
also to the understanding, its end being to conquer doubt and er
ror, and to produce belief ''In other words, by the first it is pro
posed to inforra the hearers, by the second to convince thera. It
is the second kind, which I now intend to consider, and shall en-

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 179
deavour to despatch, what I have to offer upon it in the present lec
ture. There are many observations, such as those regarding the
unity of the subject, the choice of a text, the topics proper for the
fxordium, the explication of text and context, where necessary,
which hold equally in all the kinds, and therefore need not be re
peated in the exaraination of each different kind.
In regard to the unity of the subject, I shall only observe, that
bere it admits rather a clearer definition or description, than per
haps in any of the others. A controversial sermon is then strictly
one, when there is only one thesis, as I may call it, that is, one
proposition, whether affirmative or negative, the truth of which it is
the scope of the whole discourse to evince. Suppose a preacher
should (in order to guard his people against some apparent danger
of seduction; for, without some special reason of this sort contro
versy is not eligible in the pulpit,) judge it necessary to raaintain
the lawfulness of infant-baptism ; that which would constitute his
performance one, is, that the aira of the whole, and of every part,
should unite in supporting this position, that it is agreeable to the gos
pel dispensation, that infants should be baptized. The thing might
be illustrated by a thousand other examples ; but it is really so plain
in itself, that I could not consider it, as any other, than losing time
to produce more instances.
In regard lo the text, the sarae qualities are required here as in
the former species, naraely appositeness, simplicity and perspicuity.
In regard to the first of these, the appositeness, let it be reraarked
here by the way, that it is not possible to find, on every subject, a
text that has this quality in an equal degree. On sorae articles the
declarations of scripture are more explicit and direct ; on others,
not less certain even from scripture, the evidences at least in regard
to the mode of expression are more implicit and indirect. I may
observe also that we are not to understand this quality of apposite
so strictly, as to suppose, that by the text we should discover wheth
er the intended sermon is to be explanatory or controversial. This
is hardly ever to be expected. The text John iv. 24, " God is a
spirit,'' is siraple, perspicuous and apposite, either for an explana
tory discourse on the nature ofthe Divine spirituality, or for a con
troversial discourse, whose aim is to evince the spirituality of God.
Nay, in a course of preaching on points, which raay be controvert
ed, this raethod, especially by a pastor in his own parish, is some
tiraes not iraproperly adopted. His division of the subject accord
ingly, when he first enters on it, may be this, first to explain the

180 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
doctrine of his text whatever it be; secondly, to evince the truth of
that doclrine. As, however, the tenour of these tvvo different parts,
from the nature of the coraposition fitted to each, is very different
it is' commonly belter to disjoin thera, so far as to make separate
discourses of them, though from the sarae passage of sacred writ,
the explanation being the subject of the first, and the proof of the
subject ofthat which iraraediately succeeds the other. But when
the explanatory part raay with sufficient distinctness be despatched
in a few sentences, 1 should adrait that both parts may conveniently
enough, and without violating the unity of design, be comprised in
the same discourse. Something extremely similar we find to have
taken place sometiraes in the judiciary pleadings of the ancients,
which I observed to have an analogy, in point of forra, to controver
sial serraons. When the law was either obscure or complex, a sep
arate explanation of the statute was rnade to precede the arguments
either for, or against the accused. And we can easily perceive the
expediency of this method for throwing light upon the proof, and
assisting the hearers in discerning the justness ofthe reasoning. A
similar manner we find recommended by the exaraple of sorae of
the best preachers, both in French and in English.
In the controversial serraon after the exordiura, and brief expla
nation of the text and context where necessary ; the point of doc
trine to be either supported or refuted, ought to be as distinctly, per
spicuously and briefly as possible proposed, and then the method
ought to be laid down in which you intend to manage the argument.
This method on different questions will be very different. When a
controverted point is simple iu its nature, and when there is only one
opposing sentiment, which the preacher has to refute, the most com
mon, and indeed the most natural method he can take will be, first, to
refute the arguraents of the adversary ; and secondly, to support his
own doctrine by proper proofs. On the first, his acquaintance with
the adversary's plea raust serve for a directory as to the raethod where
in he should proceed. Only let it be observed in general, that where
one means honestly to defend truth and to detect error, he will
ever find his account in employing the most plain and unequivocal
expressions, and in exposing the ambiguities and indefinite terms,
in which, it often happens, that the sophistry of the adverse party
lies concealed. Sorae of our theological disputes, and even some
of those which have created the greatest ferments and most lasting
animosities among Christians, are merely verbal. These, as much
as possible, ought to be avoided. Others, in which there is a real
difference in opinion, as well as in expression, in the different sides,

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 181
have nevertheless given rise to a deal of logomachy in the manner
wherein they have been managed. In most questions, what is of
real weight in the way of argument on the opposite sides might be
reduced to a very small compass. It will well becorae the assertor of
truth, whose cause has the greater advantage, the stronger the
light be, into which he brings il, to endeavour, by clearing off the
rubbish of raere cavils, ambiguous and indefinite words and phrases,
to convey plain and determinate ideas to the hearers, and thus as
much as possible to simplify the question. Then let him discuss
severally, what is thought to be of most moment on the adverse
side, avoiding to tire his hearers with too curious a minuteness of
investigation, or to perplex himself with a needless multiplicity of
topics. Another error in disputation, which is by far too common,
is, when one will admit nothing in the plea or arguments of an ad
versary to be of the smallest weight. That they have no weight
may be the case sometiraes, but it is not always so. And this ex
treme will ever, with the more judicious, savour either of blind zeal
in the preacher, or of a total want of candour, which will rather
create a prejudice against fhe speaker, in the minds of those who
are intelligent and sensible, tbat he does not justice to the other
side, than incline them to give a favourable reception to his argu
ments. It gives, besides, an appearance to the debate wbich sa
vours much more of proceeding fiom a mind ambitious of the glory
of victory, than concerned for the interests of truth. I have heard
a disputant of this starap, in defiance of etymology and use, raain
tain that the word rendered in the New Testament baptize, raeans
more properly to sprinkle than to plunge, and, in defiance of all
antiquity, that the former method was the earliest, and, for many
centuries, the most general practice in baptizing. One, who ar
gues in this manner, never fails, with persons of knovvledge, to be
tray the cause he would defend ; and though wilh respect to the
vulgar, bold assertions generally succeed, as well as arguments,
soraetiraes better ; yet a candid raind will disdain to take the help
of a falsehood, even in support ofthe truth.
After discussing the adversary's plea, it will be proper in the sec
ond place to enter on the proofs. If the point under examination,
is knowable by the light of nature, as if it regard the being and per
fections of God, or the great obligations of morality, one topic of ar
gument may not improperly be taken from the discoveries of natu
ral reason, and on some points, like thatof a future state of retribu
tion, even the universal consent of mankind, and the earliest tradi-
23

182 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.'
tions, that have as yet been traced in Etny country, may not implau
sibly be pleaded. Sometimes ecclesiastical history will furnish a
head of argument. This happens especially when the question re
lates to any usages or cereraonies that have obtained, or lo the
manner of celebrating any of the positive institutions. But the
principal foundation of argument for the preacher will always be
the sacred scripture. This is true whatever be the controverted
doctrine, since in order to entitle il to a discussion from the pulpit,
it ought to be a doctrine in which the faith or morals of a Christian
are concerned. If the tenet maintained be purely a point of reve
lation, the scripture is in a manner the preacher's only ground, on
which his reasonings can be built. From this also different topics
of arguraent may be raised, either frora different passages, or frora
the different lights in which it is in holy writ exhibited, as suhs the
nature ofthe subject.
In arguing frora the divine oracles, great care ought to be taken
that we quote and interpret thera candidly ; in other words, that we
give always what, according to the best of our judgment, is the real
sense of the sacred author. Preachers, I know, will sometimes
make a very plausible appearance of supporting their side of the
question by a passage of scripture, which in the detached way
wherein they quote it, appears very favourable, but which, taken in
connection wilh its context, means something totally distinct. For
my own part, were the doctrine meant to be defended ever so truly
a scriptural doclrine, I could not approve an attempt to support it
by such a misapplication of holy writ, and consequently by mislead
ing the hearers in regard to the sense of particular portions of scrip
ture. This is like bringing people to submission lo magistracy, by
perverting the senseof the law ; and though a person may be fight
ing in a good cause, one, who takes this method, fights with illicit
weapons. If it be safer to be under God's direction, than under
any man's, it must be safer to exhibit to the people the sense of the
sacred oracles purely and candidly, leaving it to them to forra the
conclusions and raake the application. This I take lo be preach
ing not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves the peo
ple's servants for Jesus's sake. The contrary raethod is indeed
preaching ourselves, it is abounding in our own sense, and even
wresting the word of Christ to render it subservient to our opinions.
I would not by any means, however, be understood to pass so severe
a censure on the misapplication of a passage of scripture arising
from a mistake of the sense, a thing to which the wisest and the

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 183
best are liable, but only on an intended misrepresentation of the
true meaning, in order to make it serve as evidence of a point we
are maintaining. That I raay be better understood in the aira of
this remark, I shall produce an example in the way of illustration.
In support of this doclrine, that whatever is done by unbelievers,
even those actions which are commonly accounted most laudable
and virtuous, are of the nature of sin ; it has been sometimes very
gravely and very confidently urged, that the apostle says expressly
(Rom. xiv. 23) " Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." Yet this ex
pression (however apposite it may appear, when cut off from the
passage wilh which it stands connected) has not the remotest rela
tion lo that famous question. When recourse is had lo the apostle
himself, and the occasion ofthe affirmation, we find it is brought in
the conclusion ofhis reasoning, in regard to a point rauch disputed
in that early age of the church, the observance of a distinction in
raeats and days. And though the apostle explicitly declares his
ovvn conviction, that no kind of meat is in a religious view unclean
of itself, yet he is equally clear, that to him who esteemeth any
thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean, because he believes it to
be so. Hence he justly concludes, that he who doubteth is liable
to condemnation, ifhe eat; because he acts against the dictates of
his conscience, even though a raisinforraed conscience, he himself
not believing that he does right, " for," he adds, " whatever is not
of faith is sin ;" whatever action is not accompanied with a belief
of its lawfulness, is so far criminal, as it shows in him, whocomraits
it, a presuraptuous disposition to violate the rights of conscience.
But this has not the least reference to the belief of the principles,
tenets, or doctrines of Christianity, but merely ofthe lawfulness or
unlawfulness of certain actions. It deserves also to be remarked,
that, in the matter discussed by the apostle, it is of no consequence,
for rendering the action virtuous or vicious, whether the things be
lieved be true or false ; but barely tbat they be believed, and that
our practice be conforraable to our belief To act against convic
tion or belief, he tells us, is a sin, to forbear acting in such a case
is a duty, even though the thing believed be a falsehood. Nay it
is, in fact, against what he himself acknowledgeth to be an errone
ous faith, that he declares the raan justly conderanable who acts.
Now when such a perversion of the sacred text, as I have been il
lustrating, is made knowingly by the speaker against his better
judgment, it is without doubt what the apostle calls " handling the
word of God deceitfully," even though the sentiment, in support of

184 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
which it is produced, be a true sentiment, and conformable to the
doctrine of Holy Writ. There is a candour and siraplicity, which
ought ever to attend the rainistry of religion, not only in regard to
the ends pursued, but in regard to the raeans eraployed for the at
tainraent of the ends. Castalio in the defence of his Latin transla
tion ofthe Bible against Beza, who had attacked hira with a viru
lence which savours too rauch of what, not greatly to the honour of
polemic divinity, has been called the odium theologicum (theological
hatred,) amongst other things mentions an accusation, for trans
lating the third verse ofthe first chapter of Genesis in this raannerj
" Jussit Deus ut existeret lux et extitit lux, God coraraanded that
light should be, and light was." And the reason of Beza's ani
madversion is, that in his opinion, Castalio had, by so doing, sup
pressed an important argument for the trinity. " Moses,'' says Be
za, " purposely used the verb amar, said, that be might indicate
another person in the Godhead distinct from the person of the
Father, and from the person of the Holy Ghost, namely, the Son of
God, by whom the whole series of creation was enunciated. The
evangelist John, taking occasion hence, calls him >,oiyo; the word,
and proves him to be God, and to bave been in the beginning with
God. But this man, (meaning Castalio) excluding the verb said,
in which the greatest moraent and principal weight is placed, ex
presses only in his version the signification of the verb ihi, fiat."
Thus far Beza; in which remark, if he was sincere, as we are
bound in charity to believe, it is impossible, whatever his erudition
and other talents might be, to think otherwise than meanly of his
skill in criticisra. I ovvn at the sarae time that I like the comraon
translation. Dixit Deus, Fiat lux, et facta est lux, (God said, Let
there be light, and there was light) rauch better than Castalio's,
and that, not indeed for Beza's reason, which is no reason at all,
but raerely, because it is more conforraable to the simplicity and
dignity of the original. Castalio's answer to the above ch'arge,
though it would perhaps be thought too ludicrous for the serious
ness of the subject, justly exposes the absurdity of his antagonist.
" Hsec sunt iflius verba, quibus nihilo aptius arguraentatur, quara
si quis ita dicat ; Moses in illis verbis. Dixit serpens feminm, cur
vobis dixit Deus, Sj-c. data opera usus est verbo amar, dixit, ut al-
terara in diabolo personam distinctara a persona patris, et a perso
na spiritus impuri, nempe filium diaboli insigniret; nam certe sim-
illiraa est locutio.* He subjoins this sentiment, in which every
* He argues with no more propriety than if one should say, Moses, in these
words, ' Thejerpent said to the woman, Hath Goi said,' &c. purposely em-

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 185
lover of truth will cordially agree with him. " Ego veritatem velim
veris argumentis defendi, non ila ridiculis, quibus deridenda pro-
pinetur adversariis.* How rauch more modest, in this respect, was
Calvin, whese zeal forthe doclrine will not be questioned, than eith
er Beza or Luther? This last had exclaimed with great veheraence
against both Jews and antitrinitarians, for not adraitling that in
these words, in the first verse of Genesis, God created, bara Elo
him, there is contained a proof of the trinity, because the noun, sig
nifying God, in the Hebrew has a plural form, though joined to a
verb in the singular. Calvin on the contrary refutes this argument,
or quibble rather, at some length, and adds judiciously, speaking of
this expression, " Monendi sunt leclores ul sibi a violentis ejusmo
di glossis caveant." (Readers should be on their guard against
such forced glosses.) I remember once to have heard a sort of lec
ture, on tbe miraculous cure of Bartimeus's blindness from perhaps
the most popular preacher, I cannot add the raost judicious, that
has appeared in this island in the present century. From these
words of the blind man, addressed to Jesus, who had asked him,
what he would have done for him? " Lord, that I may receive my
sight," the preacher inferred not only the divinity of Jesus Christ,
but Bartimeus's faith in this article. " He could not," said he,
" have given him the appellation Lord Kvfn, had he not believed
hira to be God." And yet Mary gave the same appellation Ktipie
to Jesus, when she took him for no higher person than a gardener.
The same appellation was given by the jailer to Paul and Silas, the
prisoners under his care, TUvfut. In the first of these places our
translators have rightly rendered it Sir — in the second, Sirs. Indeed
it is notorious, that both in the Greek version of the Old Testament
and in the New, the word like Dominus in Latin, or Signore, in
Italian, is applied indiscrirainately, as a terra of respect to God or
to raan. I own I could not help concluding in my ovvn mind from
the remark. Either you raust be exceedingly ignorant in regard to
the book you pretend to explain, or you treat sacred writ with a
freedom and artifice, that suit better the subtlety of the Jesuit, than
the sincerity of the Christian divine. If a man wanted to render
ployed the word amar, said, that he might point out another person in the
devil distinct from the person of the father and from the person of the un
clean spirit, namely, the son ofthe devil. For certainly the form of expres
sion is very similar.
* I wish the truth to be defended with sound arguments ; not with such ri
diculous ones as will bring it into contempt with adversaries.

186 CAMPBELLS LECTURES.
truth suspicious to people of discernment, I know no better way he
could take, than to recur to such cavils in order to support it.
But to return to the method of treating the proofs, from which, I
am afraid, I shall be Ihought to have digressed too long. I observ
ed on entering on this article, that when the controversy is reduci
ble to one simple point, and when there is only one opposing senti
ment to be refuted, the preacher might make the refutation of ob
jections the first head of discourse, and the defence of the doclrine
proposed the second. And if nothing can be said, in refutation,
but what will naturally find a place in treating his argument, there
is no necessity that the discourse should be divided into separate
heads. One conclusive argument in many cases, is as good as a
great number ; for every part does not admit variety. Nor ought a
division into different heads to be considered as a thing indispensa
ble. Sometimes indeed when there is but one argument, it will
very properly admit a division, as the conclusion rests on two prop
ositions called premises ; when neither of these can be said to be
self-evident, it may be raade the subject of the first head, lo support
one ofthe premises, and ofthe second, to support the other. I shall
borrow an instance frora a late attempt of my own in this way, as
no other at present occurs to my 'memory. The design was to
evince the divinity of our religion from the success of its first pub
lishers. The argument stood thus. " First, the natural means
originally employed in propagating the gospel were utterly inade
quate, and raust have proved ineffectual, if unaccompanied with
the divine interposition. Secondly, the means employed were how
ever, erainently effectual beyond all example before or since. Con
sequently they were accompanied with a divine interposition, and
our religion is of God." But every argument does not admit this
division ; for often one of the preraises is either self-evident, or
which amounts to the sarae, received by those against whom we
argue. On the contrary, when the subject is complex and the
opinions of the adversaries various, it will be better not to raake a
separate head of refutation, for where there are many jarring senti
ments to be set aside there is a danger of distracting the mind by
multiplicity. Let the truth be defended by arguments distinctly
explained, and enforced, and in doing this, especially when the
topics are drawn from holy writ, occasion may be taken of refuting
the contradictory glosses or expositions of the opponents as you pro
ceed. In this the preacher ought to consult carefully, what will
give most simplicity and perspicuity to his reasoning. Further, a

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 187
question is sometimes capable of being divided into tvvo, or more,
distinct though intimately related questions. In that case the
heads of discourse may be the examination of each. When the ar
guments are numerous, it is better to class thera under a few gener
al heads or topics for the sake of memory, as those from i eason,
those from scripture, and the like.
As to the arrangement ofthe arguments, there may sometimes be
in them a natural order, as when a right apprehension of one is
previously necessary to the full conception of another. When they
are not of this kind, the speaker ought to consider the disposition
of his hearers. If their prejudices rather oppose his doclrine, he
would need to begin with what he thinks will have the greatest
weight with them, lest otherwise, by introducing the debate with
what they shall think frivolous, he should disgust them in the entry,
and avert their attention from what he has further to offer. In gen
eral, rhetoricians have recommended to begin and end with the
strongest arguments, and throw the weakest into the middle. It is
as important, that you should leave a good impression on their minds
in ending the debate, as that you should bespeak their favourable
attention by what isof consequence inthe beginning. They would
have the orator act, in this respect, like the experienced commander,
who puts his weakest troops inlo the middle ; for though he has not
the same dependance on them, as on those in the front and the rear,
he knows they are of some use by their number, and add to the
forraidable appearance of his array.
The conclusion here may very properly be introduced by an ab
stract or recapitulation of the argument, followed wilh a suitable
improvement of the doctrine proved. There does not seem to be
any material difference, in what constitutes a fit conclusion to an
explanatory discourse, from what would suit a controversial one.
Doctrine is the general subject of both discourses. In the one it
is explained, in the other it is proved. The direct aim of the first
is knowledge, but then the conviction or belief is taken for granted.
The direct aim of the second is conviction. In both, the proper
application is the influence which the knowledge and belief of such a
truth ought lo have on our dispositions, and on our practice. Perhaps
inthe conclusion of controversial discussions, it might not be amiss
to offer some observations with a view to moderate the unchristian
animosities, which differences on these articles sometimes occasion
araong those, who all profess themselves to be the disciples of the
same Master, and to shew in general that error is more properly a
_ground of pity than of indignation.

1^8 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
LECTURE XI.
Of Commendatory Discourses, or those addressed to the Imagination.
We have now discussed the discourses addressed to the under
standing, those two especially, the explanatory, whose end is infor
mation, by dispelling ignorance, and the controversial, whose end
is conviction, by vanquishing doubt or error. I corae now to that
species which is addressed lo the imagination. For as one way,
and indeed a very powerful way, of recommending religion is by
example, it must be conducive to the general end of preaching above
raentioned, to make il sometimes the scope of a sermon, to exhibit
properly any known good character of a person now deceased by
giving a lively narrative of his life, or of any signal period of his life,
or an account of any particular virtue, as illustrated through the dif
ferent periods of his life. For performances of this kind, the history
of our Lord affords the richest fund of matter. In like manner, the
lives ofthe saints recorded in scripture, the patriarchs, the prophets,
the apostles and the martyrs, such at least with which, from the ac
counts given in holy writ, we have itin our power to be acquainted,
raake very proper subjects. Add lo these, deceased persons eminent
for virtue and piely, whose characters are well known to the people
addressed. Panegyrics of this kind on departed friends were more
in use forraerly, and commonly distinguished by the name of funer
al orations. As praise ofthis kind was however sometiraes prostitut
ed, and as the usage itself in certain circurastances exposed the
preacher to the temptation of making a sacrifice of truth from raotives
of interest, it is perhaps, upon the whole, no disadvantage to the min
isterial character, that the practice is, in this country, almost entirely
laid aside, and that we are now very rauch confined in this respect
to the examples which the sacred canon presents us with. Now to
do justice to the respectable qualities and worthy actions ofthe good,
is lo present the audience with a beauteous and animated pattern, of
Christian excellence, which, by operating on their admiration and
love, raiseth in their minds a pious emulation. That we are, with
out attending to il, induced to imitate what we admire and love,
will not admit a question. It might not want its use, tbough scrip
ture hath not afforded here so large foundation or so ample materi
als, to delineate sometimes, in proper colours, the conduct of the
vicious, with its natural consequences, in order to excite a proper

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 189
degree of horror and detestation against vice. But this, it must be
owned, would require to be handled still more tenderly. It is our
duty to love and esteem the virtuous, but not to hate and abhor the
vicious. Our hatred and abhorrence ought to be pointed only
acrainst vice, but not against the persons addicted to it ; whom, in
pity, we ought rather to study to reclaim. And though the indi
viduals themselves should be dead, and consequently in this respect
beyond our power, whatever bears the odious appearance of calum
ny and personal invective is quite unbecoming the pulpit. Exhi
bitions in either vvay frora the pulpit form that species of discourses,
which falls under the third class above enumerated. They are ad
dressed lo the fancy, and their scope is to promote piely and virtue
by insinuation, that is, by the gentle but efficacious influence of ex
ample. Discourses of this kind were distinguished araong the an
cients by the name demonstrative ; but as that word in our language
is rather equivocal, I have chosen to denominate thera, commen
datory, from the purpose to which they are raost commonly ap
plied. In regard to the choice of a text, as there is here soraetimes great
er difficulty of uniting all the qualities, which were formerly men
tioned, as characteristical of a proper text, greater indulgence must
be given. At any rate, let it be perspicuous and expressive of the
happiness or amiableness of a well spent life, or of those virtues
which the discourse itself will give principal scope for extolling.
An appositeness to the individual person, who is the subject ofthe
serraon, when it is a funeral oration, cannot be had, and therefore,
an appositeness to the character is all that can be sought. When
the person, who is the subject, is one of the scripture saints, it is
better to choose for a text some passage, wherein he in particularis
spoken of As to the introduction or exordium, there does not seem
to be any thing very special requisite in this kind. The coramon
qualities that ought to affect introductions in general have equally
place here. They should be calculated to render the hearers at
tentive, docile and benevolent.
With regard to the explanation of the text and context, unless
they could in some way contribute to the illustration of the charac
ter, which is the subject ofthe eulogy, it were better notto attempt
it. If the text be sufficiently perspicuous and apposite, there can
be no necessity ; and there is no sort of discourse to which any
thing, that has the remotest appearance of verbal criticism is worse
24

190 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
adapted than to this. The design ofthe sermon should be propos
ed with simplicity and distinctness. One may add the mention of
the method, in which it may be thought proper to prosecute the sub
ject, unless it shall appear to be so simple and natural, as to render
even the bare intimation ofit superfluous.
As to the method in which the different parts should be digested
and arranged, that may be different as suits the partiiular taste and
talents ofthe speaker, or as suits best the materials he hath lowork
upon. All the methods that occur to me for treating subjects of
this kind, may be reduced to the three following. First, the order
of time may be followed. This method I shall call the /Msioma/.
If this be the disposition adopted, there can be no question as to
what should precede and what should succeed in the discourse. If
there be much ground to go upon, it may not be amiss, for the ease
ofthe memory, to divide the life you are to recommend as a pattern,
into certain distinct periods, proposing to consider each severally
in its order, if the materials you are supplied with for this purpose
are not very plentiful, or if, whatever has been remarkable in the
person's life which cau be of any service to you, is comprised with
in a narrow compass of time, it will be better to foflow the natural
order, without using the formality of proposing it lo the hearers,
or dividing the discourse into separate heads, for this ought
never to be considered as absolutely necessary. The second meth
od of arrangeraent is, by considering separately the most emi
nent virtues displayed in the life you propose lo recommend to fhe
admiration of your hearers. Thisi shall call the logical method.
Suppose the subject, for example, were the life of Jesus Christ, and
one were inclined to divide the virtues thereby illustrated into three
classes, those which have self for the immediale'objecl, those which
have other raen, and those which have God. The greatest objec
tion I know of, that lies againstthis raethod, is, that it generally oc
casions frequent recurring to the sarae actions and events, in which
different virtues raay have been illustrated. This, unless managed
very dexterously, will have the appearance of tiresome repetitions.
But to return to the example given of the life of Christ. Each of
the heads above naraed raay be illustrated through all the different
periods of his life, or they raay be subdivided into inferior branches.
For example, the first of these, the duties a man owes to hiraself, may
be understood to iraply the virtues of humility, temperance and forti
tude ; humility or a superiority to pride and vanity ; temperance or a
superiority to appetite; and fortitude or a superiority to fear. But

CAMPBELL'S LECTURKS. 191
such subdivisions are not often convenient, in as rauch as they com
raonly tend more to burden than to assisi the memory. If the preacher
were lo make one of the general heads only, the whole subject of one
discourse such a division of that head vvould he very proper. But if
the whole example of Christ is the subject of a single discourse, the
case is'very different. Subdivisions for the greater part ought to be
avoided. Thesortof discourse, to which they seem most adapted, is
the explanatory, whose principal excellence appears to be in perspi
cuity and precision. Let il be observed, however, that the method
implied iin a subdivision may often be conveniently followed, vvhen it
is not in so many words proposed. A third method, that raay be
employed in panegyrical discourses, as when two or three memora
ble events or actions are the sole fund, from which all the raaterials
employed by the encomiast must be derived, is to illustrate the vir
tues displayed in the person's conduct, on these several occasions,
as the separate heads of discourse. And this raethod raay, for dis
tinction's sake, be denorainated, the dramatical. As to the raan
ner of prosecuting the design through all its different branches, I do
not intend to enter into particulars. It is not my purpose to give a
full institute of eloquence, but only to apply lo the pulpit, as far as
they are applicable, the general rules laid down by the ancients, re
ferring you lo their writings for the illustration, and particularly to
remark lo you the differences which the very different nature ofthe
subject, of the occasion, ofthe end, ofthe character, to be support
ed by the speaker, and of the characler of the audience, should
give rise to. Now it must be acknowledged, that no sort of dis
course from the pulpit hath so close a resemblance in respect both
ofthe subject and of the end, and sometimes also of the occasion to
the judicial and deliberative orations, as this sort of encomiums hath
to the demonstrative orations of the ancients. To their institutes
therefore, I must refer you for more particular information. It is
not my intention by these lectures to supersede the study of an
cient critics and orators, but only to assist you in applying their
rules and examples to cases so different from those with which alone
they were concerned. I shall, therefore, in these discourses
insist chiefly on what is different and peculiar in the eloquence of
the pulpit.
And here, one of the first differences that offers itself to our ob
servation, is, that the ancients had a much wider range in what
might properly be made the subject of their praises. Pedigree, in
tellectual abilities, even qualities merely corporeal, such as beauty,

192 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
health, strength, agility, nay those commonly called the goods of
fortune, as riches, friends, rank, all came in for a share in the en
coraium. I do not deny that any of these raay passingly be men
tioned in a sermon, but it would ill become the dignify of the sa
cred function, to enlarge on these qualities in such a manner, as to
seem to place a merit in things, which are totally independent of
our will, and ofwhich therefore the commendation in another can
be of no service lo a hearer in the way of example ; but may, on
the contrary, very readily do hurt in teaching him to place an un
due value on things not in his power, and about which, as a Chris
tian, he ought not lo have the least anxiety. Nothing, therefore,
must appear to be tbe subject of panegyric to the preacher, but
moral excellence. Nothing ought to be enlarged on as a topic of
discourse, but what can properly be held up to the audience as a
subject, which it is encumbent on them to imitate ; in other
words, as the object of a noble emulation. I acknowledge, that
those other qualities, accidental in respect of us, as 1 may call them,
which have no necessary connection with virtue or religion, and
are only physically good, may find a place in a discourse of this kind,
when they are introduced not for their own sakes, but, as it were,
in passing, and in order to set off real virtues. Thus the high birth
of the person you extol, may be mentioned in order to add the
greater lustre to his humility ; his riches raay be taken notice of
by the way, in order to shew how well he understood the proper
use of wealth, and in order lo set off to the greater advantage how
moderate he was in regard to gratifications merely personal, and
how liberal and charitable in supplying the wants and contributing
to the accommodation and comfort of others. It will be easily iln-
derstood, that iu the same way, almost every such advantage of
person or fortune raay be introduced. This would not be to ex
hibit wealth or nobleness of birth, as an object calculated to excite
the ambition ofthe hearers, a thing exceedingly absurd in any, but
more especially in the preacher of the humble religion of Jesus ;
but it would be to give an instructive lesson to the rich and noble,
in regard to the use they ought to make of these advantages. It
must be owned, on the other hand, that qualities physically bad may
be rendered instrumental for the same purpose of giving higher re
lief to the virtues of the character. Thus the poverty ofthe person
may serve greatly to enhance and recomraend his patience, his con
tentraent, his resignation, his prudence, his econoray, nay even his
charity and beneficence. In like manner, low birth and want of

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 193
education raay be raade subservient to display to raore advantage
the industry and application of raind, vvhich could surmount these
signal disadvantages so perfectly, that the defect could never have
been discovered from his behaviour and conversation. And of
this kind, we should say, as of the former, it is not recomraending
poverty and inferiority in point of birth to our estiraation, but it is
exhibiting a pattern to the poor and ignoble, whereby they raay be
instructed, how to convert such apparent evils into real occasions of
improving their virtues, and of rendering these more than a suffi
cient compensation for every want. The ancient rhetoricians,
though not so delicate on this point as Christian teachers ought to
be, were yet sensible, that this was the hest use that could be made
of fortuitous advantages or disadvantages. Thus Quintilian, " Et
corporis quidem, fortuitorumque, cum levior, tura non uno raodo
tractanda laus est. Interim confert admiration! multum eliam in
firmltas, ut cura Homerus, Tydea parvum sed bellatorem dicit
fuisse. Fortuna vero cum dignitatem affert (namque est haec ma
teria ostendendse virtutis uberior) tum quo minores opes fuerunt,
eo majorem benefactis gloriam parit."* The following sentiment is
indeed excellent, and well deserves our attention. " Sed omnia
quee extra nos bona sunt, quEeque hominibus forte obtigerunt, non
ideo laudantur, quod habuerit qui eas, sed quod his honeste sit
usus. Nam divitia? et potentia et gratia, cum plurimum veriuin
dent in utramque partem, certissimum faciunt morum experimen-
tura : aut enim rteliores propter haec, aul bejores sumus."t
In regard tothis species of discourse, as the iraraediate object is
to please by presenting to the imagination a beautiful and finished
picture in suitable colouring, it admits, from the nature of it, more
of ornament, than any olher kind delivered from the pulpit. There
are few of the tropes and figures of eloquence, that may not proper
ly find admission here. This is a kind of moral painting : and
* Of the body also andof adventitious circumstances the commendation is
both lighter, and is not to be treated in an uniform manner. Sometimes even
the mention of an infirmity may add much to our admiration ofthe character •
as when Homer says of Tydcus, thathe was small of stature, but of great
bravery. Fortune too may confer dignity ; but the smaller a person's means
are, the greater the praise for the benefits he bestows.
t For all those advantages which are external and which are fortuitous, a
person is not praised because he possessed thera, but because he rightly em
ployed them. For riches, and power, and reputation, while they very much
increase our ability either for good or for evil, prove a most certain trial of our
moral quahties; since by their means we either become better or worse.

194 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
greater allowance is raade for introducing things which serve mere
ly the purpose of decoration, when the immediate object is to de
light. Here too there is generally more indulgence in point of
style, that can be admitted in any other species of sermon. In re
spect of flowers and harmony, this kind borders even on the poeti
cal. Yet still it must be remembered, that this indulgence hath its
bound. Whatever soars above the reach of the congregation, what
ever appears either unintelligible or affected, is still faulty and of
fensive. I observe further that in regard to the very ornaments,
ofwhich the different sorts of discourses are susceptible, such as
metaphors, comparisons, examples, these in the thoughts, as well
as in the language, should be different in the different kinds. In
the expkinatory, all the borrowed illustrations and similitudes ought
to be from things familiar and simple, as well as exhibited in a dis
tinct and easy manner. In the controversial kind the simplicity
and perspicuity of the decorations, though still of consequence, are
not so much regarded, as a certain forcible manner of impressing
the imagination, so as to carry conviction along wilh them. The
similes here ought to be all a kind of analogical argument. Again,
in the commendatory discourses, whose end is neither to inform
nor to convince, but to please, the principal quality in the fund of
the imagery to be employed is its beauty. No metaphor, however
like or apposite, ought ever to be admitted here, that is not taken
frora an agreeable object. Under the general terra agreeable, I
must be understood to comprehend, not only the beautiful, strictly
so called, but also the grand, the sublime, the wonderful and the
new if with these qualities there be not connected any thing that
is disagreeable, mean, ugly or deformed.
As to the raanner of concluding discourses of this kind, any one,
or two, or even all of the three following raay be adopted, accord
ing as the preacher shall judge raost suitable, to the time, the sub
ject and the occasion. First, you may make out, from the actions
and behaviour you have been delineating, a clear and distinct
character of the person. Or, Secondly, you may introduce a con
trast between the conduct of the person commended in sorae of
the raost raeraorable instances, and that which there is reason to
believe would be followed, or which comraonly is followed by the
generality, even of professing Christians, in the like circumstances.
Or, thirdly, you may conclude with a more direct application to
the passions of the hearers, in order to excite in them a generous
ardour to be theraselves, what they cannot contemplate or behold

CAMPBELLS LECTURES.

195

witbout admiring. The first of these methods is far the most dif
ficult. To draw a character, which shall be at once both just and
striking, which shall sel the different features in the most conspic
uous point of view, that shall mark not only the exact turn of each,
but the manner wherein fhey lirait and setoff one another, requires
indeed the delicate hand of a master in the rhetorical art. Il is
attempted by every dabbler in historiography ; but it is not one of a
hundred that succeeds. Let it be observed, that a characler thus
introduced in the conclusion of a sermon ofthis kind, ought in ev
ery part of it to be manifestly supported bythe particular actions,
and conduct delineated in the discourse, and should serve to recal
to the memory and impress on it more strongly those particulars.
As to the manner, a good deal of care and altention is necessary.
The prevailing taste at present seems to be, lo give the whole in a
string of antitheses, the great dexterity ofwhich consists in this, to
make the contrasted raembers come as near as possible con
tradicting one another, aud yet escape being really contradictory.
Very often they do nol escape this. But though I do by no means
blame the use of antithesis in drawing characters, a matter of par
ticular nicety, in as much as in this way, when well executed, the
precise boundaries of the different traits are raore precisely ascer
tained, yet a continued train of this figure through successive sen
tences, however well it raay pass in history, has by far too artificial
and elaborate an appearance to suit the seriousness and the sira
plicity of the pulpit diction. As much conciseness, as can
be rendered consistent with perspicuity, is very suitable here.
The second kind of conclusion mentioned, by a contrast between
the conduct delineated and that ofothers, is often a very pertinent
application of the subject, in as much as it makes the virtues of
another serve as a rairror to the hearers wherein they may discover
their own vices and defects. Il deserves only to be observed fur
ther on this article, thai it is not necessary, that this part should be
confined to the conclusion. When any thing noble, generous, hu
mane or pious is illustrated in the discourse, as displayed on any
signal occasion, it may very properly be contrasted with the conduct,
either of any real character on record, or of what we know frora ex
perience to be the conduct of the majority of Christians. And
this may be done in any part ofthe discourse. It is only when the
narrative is both very affecting, and excites such an anxiety in the
hearer for obtaining the sequel of the story and knowing the issue,
that it is better not to interrupt the thread of the narration, but to

196 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
reserve any intended contrast to the conclusion. When a con
trast can be found in true history, it generally answers belter,
than when it is merely hypothetical, founded in conimon ex
perience. The third raethod of concluding, by an address to the passions
ofthe hearers, is the raost comraon. This may be either general
and have a relation to the whole, or it may consist of two or more
particular addressess, referring respectively to the different virtues
celebrated, or to some ofthe raost raeraorable actions related in the
discourse. Thus much may be said in general of all these differ
ent kinds, that no observation made, or raotive urged here can be
called apposite, unless it have a raanifest reference io, and be found
ed in the facts related and the virtues celebrated in sorae part or
other ofthe body ofthe discourse.
I raust further observe, that the pathetic is raore easily attained,
and that the transition to it appears more natural in the conclusion
of a commendatory sermon, that in that, either of an explanatory dis
course, or of a controversial. In these tvvo kinds, during the
whole tenour ofthe discourse, which is of a nature raerely specula
tive, the understanding and raemory only are exerted, as the whole
consists either in explanations or in reasonings. This is rather un
favourable for emotion, and it requires a good deal of address to
pass successfully from the one to the other. The raind cannot all
at once frora a state of perfect coolness, enter with warrath and
keenness into the views ofthe speaker. It behoves him, therefore,
in beginning such an address, to take up the point on the key, if I
may so express myself, to which he knows their souls are at the
time attuned, and gradually to work them up to that pitch to which
he wants to bring them. If he act a contrary part, and break out
all at once, with heat and violence, when they are perfectly cool,
so far from operating on their affections, or influencing their will,
he will appear to them like one distracted, who flies into rage for he
knows not vvhat. No axiom is more important for bringing us to
succeed in the pathetic, than this, that in addressing the hearers,
we must enter with them on the subject in the same tone to which
their minds are predisposed at the time to take it up in, and then
insensibly work them up to ours. A prudent speaker, who per
ceives a coldness or indifference in his audience, will judge it neces
sary to disguise his own warmth, and to appear willing to canvass
the matter as coolly as they can desire. If he succeeds thus in en
tering on it, and has the address for a little while to manage thera.

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 197
he raay carry them at last, to what pitch he will. We have an
excellent example ofthis kind of address, in the funeral panegyric,
which Shakspeare puts into the mouth of Antony, on his friend
Julius Caesar, imraediately after his raurder in the senate house.
But to return, I repeat the sentiment, as an important one, that
nothing tends more strongly to raake us deaf to what another says,
than if he appear to be in a passion, when we are quite tranquil.
Now tbe panegyrical discourses rauch raore easily pass into the pa
thetic, than either the explanatory or the controversial. There is a
near affinity between the moral sentiments, wilh the emotions they
occasion, and the passions and affections ofthe mind. The grada
tion is perfectly smooth and natural from approbation lo admiration,
from admiration lo esteem and love, from esteem and love of the
virtuous and praiseworthy, to detestation and abhorrence of the
contrary dispositions, and frora these to corresponding desires and
aversions. The orator has only to take the advantage of this gra
dation, and that frarae of spirit which the whole scope of the dis
course was calculated to produce.

LECTURE XII.

Of Pathetic Discourses, or, those addressed to the Passions. Of Persuasive
Discourses, or sueh as are intended to operate on the Will.
I HAVE now gone through the explanation of the principal parts
of the three first kinds of pulpit discourses, the explanatory, the con
troversial, and the commendatory, and the rules lo be severally ob
served in composing each. I como now to the fourth kind, the pa
thetic, or that which is addressed immediately to the passions, and
which is specially intended to rouse the mind frora a state of lan
guor and indifference lo the impressions of fervour and affection.
The occasion of discourses for this kind with us, it mustbe owned,
are not very frequent. For though in some ofthe olher kinds, par
ticularly in the persuasive, a great deal is addressed to the passions,
yet these are, in that species of sermon, only employed as raeans to
persuade to the particular practice or duly recommended. Where
as in the pathetic, properly so called, the rousing of suitable affec
tions is apparently the ultimate end. I acknowledge, that the
whole of preaching either directly or indirectly points to persuasion.
25

198 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
But I denominate that only, the end of any species of discourse,
which is the declared and apparent end of the speaker. I have ob
served, that the occasions of discourses ofthis kind are few ; there
are however some. None is more remarkable or occurs oftener,
than those calculated for disposing a congregation to a suitable
commemoration of the sufferings of our Lord, in the sacrament of
the supper, or Eucharist, as it is commonly named in Ecclesiastical
History. I do not say, however, that this is the only kind of dis
course that is adapted to such occasions. By no means. If that
were the case, as the subject of exciting the affections on such oc
casions is always the same, it would lay a minister in his own par
ish under the necessity of recurring so offen to the sarae topics, as
could not fail to prove tiresome to the majority of the hearers, and
that though the things advanced by hira were ever so good. An
explanatory, a commendatory, or a persuasive discourse, may also at
such times be very pertinent. A liltle of the grace of novelty in
form and manner, is exceedingly necessary for commanding the at
tention of the greater part of audiences. The only kind that I
think ought to be excluded entirely from occasions ofthis nature,
is the controversial. When the pathetic at such a time is made
choice of, the preacher's aim is not to persuade the people to cora
municate. He supposes, that they have come lo church with that
intention. It is not to persuade thera to the performance of any
preparatory duty ; all thisbe supposes to have been performed al
ready. But it is to operate on all the grateful and devout affections
of the heart, and to put his hearers, I may say, in a proper frame of
spirit for discharging tbe duly for which they are assembled, in
such a reverend and pious manner, as may produce the best effect
upon their minds, and tend most to the edification and confirmation
of themselves and others. The subject for this purpose may be
more or less comprehensive, as the preacher shall judge convenient.
Indeed, for the sake of giving a little variety to what does not,
from its nature, admit a great deal, it may not be improper at dif
ferent times to follow different raethods; at one time, for instance,
the subject may be the love of Christ as manifested in the whole
scherne of redemption ; at another, the same thing, as manifested
in his sufferings and death. It is discourses ofthe last kind, which
are commonly called passion-sermons.
In regard to the exordiura or introduction, there will be less oc
casion for rauch art, when the soleranity ofthe tirae or the purpose
oftheir raeeting tends itself to rouse the attention of the hearer

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 199
and to supersede the address ofthe speaker. The topics for intro
ducing the subject raay then very pertinently be raised either from
the intention for which the day was sel apart, or from the nature
and importance of the raatter to be treated in the sermon. There
is nothing peculiar to be observed in regard lo the explanation of
the text and context. If the discourse is intended merely to dis
play the sufferings of our Lord, from his being betrayed inlo the
hands of his enemies, to his death, the cruelly vvhich vvas exercised
upon him, and the meekness, piety aud patience with which he
bore it, it does not appear lo be necessary, formally to lay down a
method. It is enough in your narrative to follow the order of the
history. In the manner of the exhibition, there will not be here a
very material difference betvveen that ofthe commendatory or pan
egyrical discourse and this ofthe pathetic. Only the latter admits
less show and ornament, and requires that we dwell longer on the
most affecting circumstances. When the preacher's subject is
such as doth not confine him within so narrow a compass, but af
fords an opportunily of expatiating on topics in themselves very
distinct, but as it were concentrating in the tendency they all have
to kindle the same affection in the breast ; this common tendency
gives a sufficient unity in discourses of this kind. The reason is
obvious. It may be reraarked, that in this sort of discourses, raore of the
common textuary method may sometimes be followed, than any
other species of sermon will properly admit. Thus suppose the text
to be 2 Cor. viii. 9. " Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye,
through his poverty, might be rich." The whole intention of the
discourse being to stir up grateful and devout affection, these topics
may severally and very pertinently be touched as tending all to the
same important point. First, the consideration ofthe person, whose
grace the apostle here celebrated, the Lord Jesus Cbrist wbo was
rich. Secondly, the consideration of the persons, on whom this
grace was bestowed, you (it was for your sakes) the posterity of
fallen Adam, poor and helpless. Thirdly, the evidence and effect
of his grace, " he became poor." Fourthly, the happy fruits and
purchase of his grace, " that ye, through his poverty, raight be rich."
It is raanifest, that each of these considerations, as it were, assists
the other, all conspiring to kindle the warmest return of graiitude
and love. Thus all pointing to one end, a grateful commemoration,
gives unity to the discourse. Another instance of atext, which on

200 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
such an occasion, and for such a purpose, raay very properly be di
vided in a sirailar manner, is that in 1 Pet. iii. 18. " Christ also
hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might
bring us to God." This is all of the verse, that, in a consistency with
the unity of scope and design, should be taken inlo the text. The
subject in effect, perfectly coincides wilh the forraer ; and the dis
tribution may be in olher words the sarae. First, Christ the just.
Secondly, us the unjust. Thirdly, " he suffered for sins." Fourthly,
" that he might bring us to God." Each consideralion severally en
hances the obligation, and consequently the graiitude. In the man
ner of treating the different topics, one ought carefully to avoid
all dry, minute, abstract and raetaphysical explanations, as well as
every thing, that raay savour too rauch of argumentation and dis
pute. We are to reraeraber, that this kind of discourse is very dif
ferent in its nature and complexion, both from the explanatory and
from the controversial. These are intended only to enlighten, but
the other to warm. The view of the speaker, in these several top
ics in a pathetic discourse, is not to inform the hearers of what they
did not know before, it is not to convince them of what they did
not believe before ; but it is to bring to their remembrance, truths
which, though both known and believed, require often to be depict
ed in the most striking colours, that they may produce their con
genial effect on the susceptible heart ofthe Christian. Tt is mani
fest, therefore, that cold and formal explanations, critical discussions,
and abstract ratiocinations are here carefully to be avoided. A few
lively strictures on the several heads, exhibiting all the principal
considerations in the most glowing colours, are the surest way of
raising such images in the fancy, as not only will give a greater
permanency to the perception of the truths themselves, but will
make thera raore effectually operate on the passions. In discourses
of this kind, there is less occasion also for a forraal peroration or
conclusion than in any other. The reason is, that whereas a cer
tain application in the other kinds, of the points discussed in the
body ofthe discourse, requires a particular address to the passions,
there cannot be the same propriety of ending in this manner here,
where the whole discourse is addressed to the passions. Something
therefore, which in few words may serve to set the whole object
full in view, to recal and infix the impressions already made, is all
that is necessary in discourses ofthis nature.
I shall now, in the last place, consider the fifth species of dis
course mentioned, that which was intended to operate upon the

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 201
will, and which was denominated persi/as/i'c Under this I include
not only those sermons, whose end is to persuade to good, but those
also which are calculated to dissuade from evil ; for the structure
and the rules of composition in both kinds are much the sarae.
Here the distinguishing excellence results frora a proper raixture of
the argumentative and the pathetic, as it were, incorporated togeth'er.
Let it be observed, that I use the word pathetic, in the largest ac
ceptation, for whatever is fitted for exciting passion, affection or
desire. The argumentative is necessary, because the intention of
the speaker compriseth in it to convince the judgraent, that is, for
example, to satisfy me, that the conduct vvhich you recommend, is
agreeable to my duty, that it serves lo promote my true interest, or
is conducive to ray honour or my peace. The pathetic is also ne
cessary, because the speaker's intention does not terminate in the
conviction of the judgment ; he intends also, and principally, by
means of the judgment, to influence the will. To make me be
lieve, it is enough to shew me that ihings are so ; to raake me act,
it is necessary to shew that the action will answer some end. That
can never be an end to me, which gratifies no passion or affection
in my nature. In order to persuade, it is alvvays necessary to
move the passions. Passion is the mover to action, reason is the
guide. Good is the object of the will, truth is the object of the un
derstanding. It is only through the passions, affections and senti
ments of the heart, that the will is to be reached. It is not less
necessary, therefore, in the orator to awaken those affections in the
hearers, which can be made raost easily to co-operate with his view ;
than it is to satisfy their understandings that the conduct to which
he would persuade them, tends to the gratification of the affections
raised. But though both are really purposed by the speaker, it is
the last only, that is formally presented lo them, as entering inlo
his plan. To express a formed purpose to work upon their passions,
would be like giving them warning to be upon their guard, for that
he has a design upon thera. Artis est celare artem. (It is the busi
ness of art to conceal art.) Such a method, on the contrary,
would be to lay the artifice quite naked, and thereby totally to de
feat its end. The emotion with which they perceive him agitated,
and tbe animation of his language, far frora being the result of a
deliberate settled purpose, ought to appear in him, the necessary,
the unavoidable consequences of the sense that he has of the un
speakable iraportance of the truths he utters, joined with an ardent
desire of promoting the eternal happiness of them who hear him.

202 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
It is not, therefore, here one part that is pathetic, and another argu
mentative ; but these two are interwoven. The most cogent argu
ments are earnestly urged and pathetically expressed.
With regard to the whole of the introductory part, and explana
tion in this sort of discourses, I have nothing peculiar to remark.
I shall only observe, that as to the text, it suits this kind better than
any olher, that it be in the form of a precept. I do not say, how
ever, that this form is absolutely necessary. The end of the speak
er may be, either to persuade to a Christian life in general, or to
the performance of any Christian duty in particular. On the other
hand, it may be to dissuade from a vicious course in general, or
from the practice of any sin in particular. Nay further, it raay be
a persuasive or a dissuasive general or particular, either from all
the motives that the nature of the subject will afford, or from one
class of motives only. There is such a richness and variety in the
motives, that may be urged, where religion is in the question, that
in order to avoid being superficial, il may be very proper for a pas
tor amongst his own flock, as he has frequent opportunities of ad
dressing them, sometimes to enforce the sarae duty from one set of
motives, and sometimes from another. If the speaker's design be
to coraprehend in the sarae discourse, all the arguments which the
nature of the subject admits, his text should be either a simple pre
cept, wherein the duly is enjoined, or the sin prohibited, but no mo
tive urged ; or perhaps a simple proposition, wherein such a prac
tice is barely pronounced right or wrong. If the intention is to
persuade from one class of motives only, there should be sorae
thing in the text, that points to these raotives.
Thus in the first case, suppose the speaker's intention be to per
suade to repentance frora every motive which either reason or
scripture affords, his text may be the simple command Repent,
which occurs in several places ofthe gospel; or ifhe does not like
one so brief, he may take these words of the apostle Paul, Acts
xvii. 30. "God now comraandeth all raen every where to repent."
But if he would persuade to repentance frora the single consideration
of its connection with the remission of sins, these words of Peter
(Acts iii. 19. ) will do better, " Repent ye therefore and be con
verted, that your sins may be blotted out ;" for the words be convert
ed are raerely explanatory, and therefore do not render the senti
raent complex, whatever may be said ofthe expression. Or, if the
speaker's intention (which is near of kin to the forraer) be to per
suade to repentance frora this confjideration, that future misery is

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 203
the inevitable consequence of final impenitence, he may take these
words of our Lord (Luke xiii. 15.) " Except ye repent, ye shall all
perish." To a Christian life in general one may persuade from
various motives. Suppose from the native excellence of genuine
virtue or true righteousness, the text in that case raay be Prov. xii.
26. " The righteous is more excellent than his neighbour ;" or from
the present felicity to be found in the ways of religion, these words,
Ps. xix. 11. "In keeping of them there is great reward," may
serve as a text. Let il be observed, that such a text as this requires
some explanation ofthe context, without which the subject is not to
be understood, the matter spoken of being expressed by a pronoun.
When this is not the case, and when the passage adopted appears in
dependent and perfectly intelligible by itself, it may stand for a gen
eral rule, that such explanations are better let alone, and deserve to
be considered,but as a sort of digressions at the best. If the intention
were 10 persuade lo a good life from the consideralion of the comfort it
brings in trouble, and especially in the views of death, this passage
raight answer, Ps. xxxvii. 37. " Mark tbe perfect man and behold
the upright, for the end of that man is peace." Bourdaloue, a cele
brated French preacher of the last century, persuades to the same
thing frora the consideration of the future happiness of the saints
from these words of our Saviour, Luke vi. 23. " Behold your re
ward is great in heaven.'' It deserves to be remarked, that there
is here not only a reference to the context for the character or con
duct to which the revvard is promised, but that when you recur to
the preceding words, they seem rather to refer to this in particular,
the suffering of persecution and reproach for righteousness' sake.
Yet as this itself is one ofthe noblest fruits and surest evidences
of real sanctity, the choice cannot justly be deemed an inexcusable
liberty. The reward is very properly considered, as ultimately to
be attributed to that principle, from which tbe conduct flows. In
persuading to particular duties, or dissuading from particular vices
or temptations lo vice, when the speaker intends (as it is not in
deed so common here to confine one's self to one class of motives)
to employ every argument of weight, which the subject presents to
iim, a single precept, briefly and plainly expressed, seems the most
convenient choice for a text. If the design is to persuade to the
love ofGod, these words are proper. Matt. xxii. 37. "Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God wilh all thy soul, and wilh all thy soul, and
with all thy raind." If to the love of men, verse 39. '.' Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself." These passages may, in like manner,

204 CAMPBELLS LECTURES.
serve as foundations for discourses explanatory of these duties. And
as was remarked on the controversial sermon, we may observe here,
that the minister in his own parish may, if he thinks it necessary, be
gin wifh a discourse explaining the duty enjoined or the vice pro
hibited, (if the text contains a prohibition,) and in his next dis
course from the same words make it his business to persuade
thera to the one, or dissuade them from the other. But in many
cases it raust be acknowledged, that such previous explanatory dis
course is not necessary ; the full import of the precept being per
fectly level to every ordinary capacity. Thus if the subject were
to dissuade from the vice of lying, a proper text would be these
words of Paul, Col. iii. 9. " Lie not to one another." If against
detraction, James iv. 11. "Speak not evil one of another." In
such plain cases, it must be owned, there would be little occasion
for many words, and much less for a separate discourse, in order to
explain the import and extent of the prohibition.
In regard to the method, however different the matter be, as
soraething ofthe arguraentative forra raust be preserved, the rules
laid down in the controversial discourse may be of sorae use. One
may begin, with showing the weakness of those pleas or arguments
by which the dissolute, the vicious or the profane commonly defend
their own conduct, and seduce others into the sarae track ; and
then produce positive arguments or raotives to influence his hear
ers to that conduct which he recommends. Or it raay not be
necessary, to make a separate article of the adversary's plea ; a
place, for whatever is requisite in this way, may be found by the
preacher, as he proceeds in the support of his own cause. In this
case the different topics of argument may constitute the heads of
discourse. Bourdaloue, on the text above raentioned, proposed to
persuade his hearers lo a pious and virtuous life frorn the consider
ation ofthe recompense that awaits the just in fhe world to come.
And from these three different qualities ofthat recompense, its cer
tainty, its greatness, its eternity, finds topics of arguraent for influ
encing his hearers to a proper regard lo it. And these three topics
divide the discourse. In treating each, he contrasts that quality he
is illustrating with soraething ofan opposite nature ever to be found
in the rewards or pleasures of sin, their precariousness in opposi
tion to its certainly, their insignificancy in opposition to its great
ness, and their transitoriness in opposition to its eternity. As to
the raethod, in which the different topics are to be arranged, the
same observations will hold that were made on the controversial

CAMPBELL'S LECTURES. 205
discourse, and therefore shall not be repeated. The arrangement
above mentioned seeras to be the best in that particular subject,
yet I could not say, il were absolutely necessary. You may begin
perhaps wilh equal propriety with the greatness of the reward, as
with its certainty ; but in any case, it seems most fit, that you
should conclude with the eternity. When the different motives are
mentioned in the text, the preacher may very properly take notice
of the different clauses, as the foundations of his different heads.
But when they are not explicitly mentioned, it savours of conceit
and puerility to make them out by straining the words. This is a
fault, into which the last mentioned orator, misled by the taste of
the age and nation, frequently falls. Ofthe three topics aforesaid,
only one can properly be said lo be expressed in the text, namely,
the greatness : yet he finds something in the words to serve as sep
arate foundations to the several heads. First, says be, I shall con
sider the certainty pointed out in the emphatic term with which the
the sentence is introduced, Ecce, behold. Secondly, the greatness,
merces vestra mulla est, your reward is great. Thirdly, the eterni
ty, in calo, in heaven. It may not be amiss to observe, that in
making the transition from one topic or head of discourse to another,
it will often prove very helpful to the memory, to point out in brief
how much you have already evinced, and what you are in the next
place proceeding to evince.
As lo the conclusion, it is very proper, first, to give a sum of the
arguraent, in order to infix the whole more effectually on the minds
ofthe hearers, and then more warmly to address the passions. If
the preceding part has been suitably conducted, the people will be
prepared for entering into the subject, with all the warmth that the
speaker can desire. The way of practical inferences or specula
tive corollaries is not well suited to this kind of discourse. With
regard to the first, the whole tenour ofthe sermon is practical, and
therefore needs not a formal application ofthis kind ; besides, that
to enforce any thi.'jg else, than what was the direct aira ofthe whole,
is really diverting the hearers' attention, and in sprae degree undo
ing the effect of wbat was said. Still more unsuitable are inferen
ces, relating merely to the truth or the falsehood of certain tenets.
Wheiithe discourse is a persuasive to the Christian life in general,
or to some necessary and important duty imraediately connected
with the whole, as to repentance ; in the peroration, one raay very
pertinently urge sorae motives to induce the hearers to enter with~
26

206 CAMPBELL'S LECTURES.
out loss of tirae on doing that which they must be sensible, it -is
both their duty and their interesl to do. This is no other than ad
vancing the aim and effect of the whole. In this part, however, he
ought carefully to avoid the forrpality of proposing and arranging
his topics. For this would give the appearance of a new and a
separate discourse, to what was intended only as corrobative of the
discourse preceding.

DIALOGUES

CONCERNING

ELOQUENCE IN GENERAL;

AND

PARTICULARLY THAT KIND WHICH IS PROPJER
FOR THE PULPIT.
BY M. DE FENELON,
ARCHBISHOP OF CAUBRAY,

TRANSLATED FROM THE FRENCH, AND ILLUSTRATED
WITH NOTES AND QUOTATIONS.

BY WILLIAIH STEVENSON, M. A.
Ill
RECTOR OF MORNIBCTHOBF IH NORFOLK.

BOSTON:
LINCOLN AND EDMANDS.
1832.

PREFACE.

BY THE CHEVALIER RAMSAY.

Both the ancients and the moderns have treated of eloquence,
with different views, and in different ways — as logicians, as grara
raarians, and as critics : but we still wanted an author who should
handle this delicate subject as a philosopher, and a Christian : and
this the late Archbishop of Cambray has done in the following
Dialogues. In the ancient writers we find many solid precepts of rhetoric,
and very just rules laid down with great exactness : but they are
ofttimes too numerous, too dry ; and, in fine, rather curious than
useful. Our author reduces the essential rules of this wonderful
art, to these three points; proving, painting, and moving the pas
sions. To qualify his orator for proving, or establishing any truth, he
would bave him a philosopher ; who knows how to enlighten the
understanding, wbile he moves the passions ; and to act at once
upon all the powers of the mind ; not only by placing the truth in
so clear a light as to gain attention and assent ; but likewise by
moving all the secret springs of the soul, to make it love that truth
it is convinced of. In one word, our author would have his orator's
mind filled with bright, useful truihs, and the raost exalted views.
That he may be able to paint, or describe well, he should have
a poetic kind of enthusiasm ; and know how to employ beautiful
figures, lively images, and bold touches, when the subject requires
them. But this art ought to be entirely concealed : or, if it must
appear, it should seem to be a just copy of nature. Wherefore our

IV PREFACE.
author rejects all such false ornaments as serve only to please the
ear with harmonious sounds ; and the imagination, with ideas that
are raore gay and sparkling, than just and solid.
To move the passions he would have an orator set every truth in
its proper place ; and so connect them that the first raay raake way
for the second ; and the next support the former : so that the dis
course shall gradually advance in strength and clearness, till the
hearers perceive the whole weight and force of the truth. And
then he ought to display it in the liveliest images ; and both in his
words and gesture use all those affecting movements that are
proper to express the passions he would excite.
It is by reading the ancients that we must form our taste, and
learn the art of eloquence in all its extent. But seeing that sorae
of the ancients themselves have their defects, we must read thera
with caution and judgraent. Our learned author distinguishes the
genuine beauties of the purest antiquity, frora the false ornaraents
used in after ages ; he points out what is excellent, and what is
faulty, both in sacred and profane authors ; and shows us that the
eloquence of the Holy Scripture, in raany places, surpasses that of
the Greeks and Roraans, in native siraplicity, liveliness, grandeur,
and in every thing that can recoraraend truth to our assent and
adrairation.

DIALOGUES
CONCERNING ELOQUENCE.

THE FIRST DL'VLOGUE, BETWEEN A. AND B. AND C.
A. Well, Sir, I suppose you have been hearing the sermon lo
which you would have carried me. I have but very little curiosity
that way, and am content with our parish minister.
B. I was charmed with my preacher. You had a great loss.
Sir, in not hearing him. I have hired a pew, that I may not miss
one of his Lent sermons. O ! he is a wonderful man. If you did
but once hear hira, you could never bear any olher.
A. Ifit be so, I ara resolved never to hear hira. I would not
have any one preacher give me a distaste of all others; on the con
trary, I should choose one that will give me a relish and respect
for the word ofGod, as may dispose me the more to hear it preach
ed every where. But since I have lost so much by not hearing
this fine discourse you are so pleased wilh, you may make up part
of that loss, if you will be so kind as to communicate to us what
you remeraber ofit.
B. I should only mangle the sermon, by endeavouring to re
peat any part of it. There were an hundred beauties in it that
one cannot recollect, and which none but the preacher himself
could display.
A. Well ; but let us at least know something of his design, his
proofs, his doctrine, and the chief truihs he enlarged on. Do you
remember nothing? Was you unattentive ?
B. Far from it : I never listened with more attention and
pleasure. C. What is the matter then, do you want to be entreated ?

FENELON'S DIALOGUES
B. No : but the preacher's thoughts were so refined, and de
pended so much on the turn and delicacy of his expressions, that
though they charmed rae while I heard them, they cannot be easi
ly recollected ; and though one could remember them, if they be
expressed in other words, they would not seem to be the same
thoughts ; but lose all their grace and force.
A. Surely, Sir, these beauties must be very fading, if they
vanish tbus upon the touch, and will not bear a review. I should
be much better pleased with a discourse which has more body in
it, and less spirit ; that things might make a deeper impression on
the mind, and be more easily remerabered. What is the end of
speaking but to persuade people, and to instruct thera in such
truths as they can retain ?
C. Now you have begun. Sir, I hope you will go on with this
useful subject.
A. I wish I could prevail with you. Sir, to give us some gener
al notion of the elegant harangue you heard.
B. Since you are so very urgent, I will tell you what I can
recollect of it. The text was this,* ' I have eaten ashes like
bread.' Now could any one make a happier choice of a text for
Ash-wednesday 1 He shewed us that, according to this passage,
ashes ought this day to be the food of our souls ; then in his pre
amble he ingeniously interwove the story of Artemesia, with re
gard to her husband's ashes. Hist transition to his Ave Maria was
very artful ; and his division was extremely ingenious : you shall
judge of il. 1. ' Though this dust, said be, be a sign of repentance,
it is a principle of felicity : 2. Though it seems to humble us, it is
really a source of glory ; 3. And though it represents death, it is
a reraedy that gives immortal life.' He turned this division vari-
* Psalm cii. 9.
t Th^ Romish preachers, in the preamble of their sermons, address them
selves to the Virgin Mary; aud are ofttimes very artful in their transi
tion to it, as our author observes. We have a remarkable example of this
in one of the greatest French orators, M . L' Esprit Flechier, bishop of Nis
mes, who seeins to be oftener than once alluded to in these dialogues. In
his panegyric on S. Joseph he introduces his Ave Maria thus, — Every thing
seems to concur to the glory of my subject ; the Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ,
and Mary, are concerned in it; why may I not hope for the assistance ofone
of them, the grace of the other, and the intercessions ofthe Virgin .' To whom
we will address ourselves in those words that the angel said to her, and
which S. Joseph no doubt often repeated ; Hail 1 Mary, &c, Panegyriques,
vol. 1. p. 71.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 7
ous ways, and every time he gave it a new lustre by his antitheses.
The rest of his discourse was not less bright and elegant ; the lan
guage was polite ; the thoughts new ; the periods were harmoni
ous ; and each of them concluded wilh some surprising turn. He
gave such just characters of common life, that his hearers found
their various pictures faithfully drawn : and his exact anatomy of
all the passions equalled the maxiras of fhe great Rochefoucault ;
in short, I think it was a raaster-piece. But, Sir, I shall be glad to
know your opinion of il.
A. I ara unwilling to tell you ray thoughts, or to lessen your
esteem, of it. We ought to reverence the word of God ; to im
prove ourselves by all the truths that a preacher explains ; and
avoid a critical humour, lest we should lessen the authority of the
sacred function.
J3. You have nothing to fear. Sir, at present. It is not out of
curiosity that I ask your opinion ; but because I would have clear
notions of it; and such solid instructions as may not only satisfy
myself, but be of use to others ; for you know my profession obliges
me to preach. Give us your thoughts, therefore, without any re
serve ; and do not be afraid either of contradicting or offending
me. A. Since you vvill have it so, I must obey your comraands.
To be free then ; I conclude, from your own account of this serraon,
that it was a very sorry one.
B. Why so 1.
A. Why ; can a sermon in which the scripture is falsely ap
plied ; a scrap of profane history is told after a dry, childish man
ner ; and vain affectation of wit runs throughout the whole ; can
such a sermon be good ?
B. By no means : but I do not think that the serraon 1 heard
is of that sort.
A. Have patience, and I doubt not but you and 1 shall agree.
When the preacher chose these words for his text, ' I have eaten
ashes like bread,' ought he to have amused his audience with ob
serving some kind of relation between the mere sound of his text,
and the ceremony ofthe day ? Should he not first have explained
the true sense of the words, before he applied them to the present
occasion ?
B. It had been better. 27

8 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
A. Ougbt he not therefore to have traced the subject a little
higher, by entering inlo the true occasion and design of the
Psalra ; and explaining the context ? Was it not proper for him to
inquire whether the interpretation he gave of the words was agree
able to the true raeaning of them, before he delivered his own
sense to the people, as if it were the word of God 1
B. He ought to have done so : but what fault was there in his
interpretation ?
A. Why, I will tell you. David (who was the author ofthe cii.
Psalra, speaks of his own raisfortunes : he tells us, that his eneraies
insulted him cruelly, when they saw hira in the dust, hurabled at their
feet, and reduced (as he poetically expresses it) to ' eat ashes like
bread,' and ' to mingle his drink with weeping.' Now what relation
is there betweenthecomplaintsof David, driven frora his throne, and
persecuted by his son Absalora ; and the humiliation of a Christian,
who puts ashes on his forehead to reraind hira of his raortality, and
disengage him from sinful pleasures ? Could the preacher find no
other text in scripture ? Did Christ and his apostles, or the pro
phets, never speak of death, and the dust of the grave, to which all
our pride and vanity must be reduced ? Does not the scripture con
tain many affecting images of this important truth? Might he not
have been content with the words of Genesis,* which are so natu
ral and proper for this cereraony, and chosen by the church itself?
Should a vain delicacy make hira afraid of too often repeating a
text that the Holy Spirit has dictated, and which the church ap
points to be used every year ? Why should he neglect such a per
tinent passage, and many other places of scripture, to pitch on one
that is not proper? This must flow frora a depraved taste, and a
fond inclination to say something that is new.
B. You grow too warm. Sir : supposing the literal sense of the
text not to be the true meaning of it, the preacher's remarks might
however be very fine and solid.
C As for my part, I do not care whether a preacher's thoughts
be fine or not, till I am first satisfied of their being true. But, Sir,
what say you to the rest of the sermon ?
A. It was exactly of a piece with the text. How could the
preacher give such misplaced ornaments to a subject in itself so
terrifying ; and amuse his hearers wilh an idle story of Arlemesia's
sorrow ; when he ought to have alarraed them, and given thera the
raost terrible iraages of death ?
* Gen. iii. 19.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 9
B. I perceive then you do not love turns of wit, on such occa
sions. But what would become of eloquence if it were stript of
such ornaments? Would you confine every body to the plainness
of country preachers 1 Such men are useful araong the coraraon
people ; but persons of distinction have raore dehcate ears ; and
we raust adapt our discourses to their polite taste.
A. You are now leading rae off frora the point. I was endeav
ouring to convince you, that the plan of the sermon was ill laid ;
and I was just going to touch upon the division of it ; but I
suppose you already perceive the reason why I dislike il : for, the
preacher lays down three quaint conceits for the subject of his
whole discourse. When one chooses to divide a sermon, he should
do it plainly, and give such a division as naturally arises from the
subject itself, and gives a light and just order to the several parts ;
such a division as may be easily reraerabered, and at the sarae
time help to connect and retain the whole ; in fine, a division that
shows at once the extent of the subject and of all its parts. But,
on the contrary, here is a man who endeavours to dazzle his hear
ers, and puts thera off with three points of wit, or puzzling riddles,
which he turns and plies so dexterously, that they raust fancy they
saw some tricks of legerdemain. Did this preacher use such a
serious, grave manner of address as might raake you hope for sorae
thing useful and iraportant from him ? But, to return to the point
you proposed : Did you not ask rae whether I raeant to banish elo
quence from the pulpit ?
B. Yes. I fancy that is your drift.
A. Think you so ? pray what do you mean by eloquence ?
B. It is the art of speaking well.
A. Has this art no other end, besides that of speaking well 1
Have not raen sorae design in speaking 1 Or do they only talk for
the sake of talking ?
B. Thej speak to please, and to persuade others.
A. Pray let us carefully distinguish these two things. Men talk
in order to persuade ; that is certain ; and too often they speak like
wise to please others. But while one endeavours to please, he has
another view; which, though more distant, ought to be his chief
aim. A man of probity has no other design in pleasing others,
than that he may the more effectually inspire thera with the love of
justice, and other virtues, by representing thera as most amiable.
He who seeks to advance his own interest, his reputation, or his
fortune, strives to please, only that he may gain the affection and

10 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
esteem of such as can gratify his ambition, or his avarice ; so that
this very design of pleasing is still but a different manner of per
suasion that the orator airas at ; for he pleases others lo inveigle
their affection, that he may thereby persuade them to what advances
his interest.
B. You cannot but own, then, that men often speak to please.
The most ancient orators had this view. Cicero's orations plainly
show that he laboured hard for reputation — and who will not believe
the same of Isocrates, and Demosthenes too ? All the panegyrists
were more solicitous for their own honour, than for the farae of their
heroes ; and they extolled a prince's glory to the skies, chiefly be
cause they hoped to be adraired for their ingenious raanner of
praising him. This ambition seems to have been always reckoned
commendable, both among the Greeks and the Romans; and such
eraulation brought eloquence to its perfection ; il inspired men with
noble thoughts and generous sentiments, by which the ancient re
publics were made to flourish. The advantageous light in which
eloquence appeared in great assemblies, and the ascendant it gave
the orator over the people, made it to be adraired, and helped to
spread polite learning. I cannot see indeed why such an emula
tion should be blamed even araong Christian orators ; provided
they did not show an indecent affectation in their discourses, nor in
the least enervate the precepts of the gospel. We ought not to
censure what animates young people, and forms our greatest
preachers. A. You have here put several ihings together, which, if you
please, Sir, we will consider separately ; and observe some method
in inquiring whal we ought to conclude from them. But let us
above all things avoid a wrangling humour ; and examine the sub
ject with calmness and temper, like persons who are afraid of noth
ing so much as of error ; and let us place the true point of honour
in a candid acknowledgment of our mistakes, whenever we per
ceive them.
B. That is the exact state of ray raind, or at least I judge it to
be so; and I entreat you to tell me when you find me transgressing
this equitable rule.
A. We will not as yet talk of what relates to preachers ; for
that point may be more seasonably considered afterwards. Let us
begin with those orators whose examples you vouched. By men
tioning Demosthenes and Isocrates together, you disparage the
forraer ; for the latter was a lifeless declaimer, that busied himself

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. H
in polishing his thoughts, and giving an harmonious cadence to his
periods. He had a very* low and vulgar notion of eloquence ; and
placed almost the whole of it in a nice disposal of his words. A
raan who eraployed ten or (as others say) fifteen years, in smoothing
the periods of a panegyric, which was a discourse concerning the
necessities of Greece, could give but a very small and slow relief
to the republic, against the enterprises of the Persian king. De
mosthenes spoke against Philip in a quite different manner. You
may read the comparison that Dionysius Halicarnassius has made
of these two orators, and see there the chief faults he observed in
Isocrates, whose discourses are vainly gay and florid, and his peri
ods adjusted with incredible pains, merely to please the ear ; while
on the contrary ,+ Demosthenes moves, warms, and captivates the
heart. He was too sensibly touched wilh the interest of his country,
to mind the little glittering fancies that amused Isocrates. Every
oration of Demosthenes is a close chain of reasoning, that repre
sents the generous notions of a soul who disdains any thought that
is not great. His discourses gradually increase in force by greater
light and new reasons ; which are always illustrated by bold figures
and lively images. One cannot but see that he has the good of the
republic entirely at heart ; and that nature itself speaks in all his
transports ; for his artful address is so masterly, that it never ap
pears. Nothing ever equalled the force and veheraence of his dis
courses. Have you never read the reraarks that Longinus raade
on them, in his treatise of the Sublirae ?
B. No : is not that the treatise that Mr. Boileau translated ?
Do you think it fine ?
A. I am not afraid to tell you that I think it surpasses Aristotle's
* In the introduction ofthis very panegyric, that our author mentions, Iso
crates says. Such is the nature of eloquence, that it makes great things appear
little, and small things to seem great : it can represent old things as new, and
new things as if they were old ; and that therefore ho would not decline a
subject that others had handled before him, but would endeavour to declaim
better than they. Upon which Longinus (§38.) makes this judicious remark.
That by giving such a character of eloquence, in the beginning of his pane
gyric, the orator in effect cautioned his hearers not to believe his discourse.
+ In oratoribus vero, Graecis quidem, admirabile est quantum inter omnes
unus excellat. Attamen cum esset Demosthenes, multi oratores magni, et
clari fuerunt, et antea, fuerant, nec postea defecerunt. Cic. Orat. § 2.
Qnid denique Demosthenes ? non cunctos illos tenues et circumspectos
[oratores] vi, sublimltate, impetu, cultu, compositione superavit ? non insur-
git locis .' non figuris gaudet ? non translationibus nitet .' non oratione ficta
dat carentibus vocem ? Q,uintil. lib. xii. cap. 10.

12 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
Rhetoric ; which, though it be a very solid tract, is yet clogged with
many dry precepts that are rather curious than fit for practice ; so
that it is more proper to point out the rules of art to such as are
already eloquent, than to give us a just taste of rhetoric, and to
form true orators. But Longinus, in his discourse of the Sublirae,
intersperses araong his precepts raany fine examples from the
greatest authors, to illustrate thera. He* treats of the Sublirae in
a lofty manner, as bis translator has judiciously observed. He
warms our fancy, and exalts our mind ; he forras our laste ; and
teaches us to distinguish what is either fine or faulty, in the most
famous ancient writers.
B. Is Longinus such a wonderful author ? Did he not live in
the days of Zenobia, and the emperor Aurelian ?
A. Yes ; you cannot but know their history.
B. Did not those days fall vastly short of the politeness of for
mer ages ? and can you imagine that an author who flourished in
the declension of learning and eloquence had a better taste than
Isocrates ? I cannot believe it.
A. I was surprised myself, to find it so ; but you need only
read him, to be convinced of it. Though he lived in a very cor
rupted age, he forraed his judgraent upon the ancient raodels ; and
has avoided almost all the reigning faults of his own tirae ; I say
alraost all, for I raust own, he studied rather what is admirable,
than what is useful ; and did not consider eloquence as subservient
to raorality, nor apply it to direct the conduct of life. And in this
he does not seem to have had such solid views as the ancient
Greeks, and especially some of their philosophers. But we ought
to forgive him a failing, for which Isocrates was far more remark
able, though he Jived in a more refined age. And this defect ought
the rather to be overlooked in a particular discourse, where Lon
ginus does not treat of what is proper to instruct men, but of what
is apt to move and seize their passions. I choose to recoraraend
this author, Sir, because he will help to explain my raeaning to you.
You will see what a glorious character he gives of Demosthenes,
* Thee, bold Longinus ! all the nine inspire.
And bless their critic with a poet's iire :
An ardent judge, who, zealous in his trust,
With warmth gives sentence, yet is always jast;
Whose own example strengthens all his laws.
And is himself that great Sublime he draws.
Mr. Pope's Essay on Criticism, p. 45.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 13
frora whom he quotes several passages that are raost sublime ; he
will likewise show you those faults of Isocrates that I mentioned.
If you be unwilling to take the trouble of becoming acquainted
with these authors, by reading their works, you raay get a very
just notion of them by consulting Longinus. Let us now leave
Isocrates, and talk of Demosthenes and Cicero.
B. You are for leaving Isocrates, because he is not for your
purpose. A. Let us go on then with Isocrates, since you are not yet con
vinced ; and let us judge of his rhetoric by the rules of eloquence
itself; and by the sentiments of Plato, the most* eloquent writer
among the ancients. Will you be determined by him ?
B. I will be determined by him, if he be in the right : but I
never resign my judgment implicitly to any author.
A. Remember this rule; it is all that I ask of you. Andif
you do not let some fashionable prejudices bias your judgment, rea
son will soon convince you of the truth. I would therefore have
you believe neither Isocrates nor Plato; but judge of them both by
clear principles. Now I suppose you will grant that the chief end
of eloquence is to persuade men to embrace truth and virtue.
B. I am not of your mind ; this is what I have already denied.
A. I will endeavour to prove it then. Eloquence, if I mistake
not, may be considered in three respects ; as the art of enforcing
truth on people's minds, and of making them better ; as an art in
different in itself, which wicked men may use as well as good, and
which may be applied to recomraend injustice and error as well as
probity and truth ; and, as an art which selfish men may use to in
gratiate themselves with others, to raise their reputation, and make
their fortune. Which of these ends do you admit of ?
B. I allow of them all. What do you infer from this conces
sion ?
A. The inference will afterwards appear. Have patience a
* Sed ego neque illis assentiebar, neque haruni disputationum inventori, et
principi longe omnium in dicendo gravissimo, et Eloquentissimo Platoni, c ujus
tum Athenis cum Carneade diligentius legi Georgium quo in libro, hoc max
ime admirabar Platonem, quod mihi in oratoribus irridendis, ipse esse Orator
Summus videbatur. Cic. de Oral. lib. 1. § 2.
Quid denique Demosthenes .' — non illud jusjuranduta per caesos in Mara-
thone ac Salamine propugnalores reipublicae, satis manifesto docet praeeepto
rem ejus Platonem fuisse .' quem ipsum num Asianum appelabimus plerum
que instinctis divino spiritu vatibus comparandum .'
Quint, lib. xii. cap. 10. See Longinus, § xiii.

14

FENELON'S DIALOGUES

little ; and be satisfied, if I say nothing but what is evidently true,
till by gradual advances I lead you to the right conclusion. Of the
three ends of eloquence, I now mentioned, you will undoubtedly
prefer the first.
B. Yes : it is the best.
A. What think you of the second ?
B. I see what you aira at ; you are going into a fallacy. The
second sort is faulty, because of the ill use the orator raakes of his
eloquence, to enforce error and vice. But still the rhetoric of a
wicked raan may be good in itself, though the use he makes of it
be pernicious. Now we are talking ofthe nature and rules of elo
quence ; not of the uses it should be applied to. Let us keep to
the true state of the question.
A. If you will do me the favour to hear me a little, you will
find that I have the point in dispute always in view. You seem
then to condemn the second sort of eloquence : or, to speak with
out ambiguity, you conderan the* abuse of rhetoric.
B. Right. You now speak correctly, so far then we are
agreed. A. What say you of the third end of eloquence ; I raean the
orator's endeavouring to please others by talking ; that he raay
raise his reputation or his fortune.
B. You know ray opinion already. I reckon such an use of
eloquence very fair and allowable ; seeing it excites a laudable em
ulation and helps to improve men's talents.
A. What kind of talents would you have chiefly improved ?
Suppose you had some new slate, or commonwealth, to model, in
what kinds of knowledge would you have the subjects trained up
and instructed 1
B. In every kind that could raake them better. I would en
deavour to make them good subjects, peaceable, obedient, and
zealous for the public welfare. I would have them fit to defend
* When I consider the means of happy living (says an eloquent writer)
and the causes oftheir corruption, I can hardly forbear recanting what I said
before ; and concluding, that eloquence ought to be banished out of all civil
societies as a thing fatal to peace and good manners. To this opinion I
should wholly incline, if I did not find, that it is a weapon which raay be
as easily procured by bad men, as by good : and that if these only should
cast it away, and those retain it ; the naked innocence of virtue would be
upon all occasions exposed to the armed malice of the wicked.
Bishop Sprat's Hist, of the Royal Society, p. iii.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 15
their country in case of war; and in peace to observe and support
the laws, to govern their families, cultivate their lands, train up
their children to the practice of virtue, and inspire them with a
strong and just sense of religion. I would have them carry on sucjh
a trade as the state, and necessities of the country might require,
and apply themselves to such arts and sciences as are useful in
comraon life. These I think ought to be the chief aims of a law
giver. A. Your views are very just and solid. You would then have
subjects averse to laziness ; and employed about such useful things
as should tend some way cr other to advance the public good.
B. Certainly.
A. And would you exclude all useless professions .'
B. Yes.
A. You would allow only of such bodily exercises as conduced
to people's health and strength. I do nol mention the beauly of
the body, for that is a natural consequence of health and vigour, in
bodies that are duly forraed. '
B. I would suffer no other exercises.
A. Would you not therefore banish all those that serve only to
arause people, and cannot render them fitter to bear either the
constant labours and employraents of peace, or the fatigues of
war ?
B. Yes ; I should follow that rule.
A. I suppose you would do it for the sarae reason that you
would likewise conderan (as you already granted,) all those exer
cises of the mind which do not conduce to render it more strong,
sound, and beautiful ; by making it more virtuous.
B. It is so. What do you infer from that ? I do not yet see
you drift : your windings are very long.
A. Why ; I would argue from the plainest principles ; and not
advance the least step, without carrying light and certainty along
wilh us. Answer me then, if you please.
B. Seeing we lay down the rule you last mentioned, for the
raanagement of the body, there is certainly greater reason to follow
it in the conduct and improvement ofthe mind.
A. Would you permit such arts as are only subservient to plea
sure, amusement, and vain curiosity ; and have no relation either
to the duties of domestic life, or the coraraon ofBces of society 1
B. I would banish all such from my commonwealth.
28

16 FENELON'S DIALOGUES.
A. If you allowed of mathematicians, then, it would be for the
sake of mechanics, navigation, surveying of land, the fortification
of places, and such calculations as are useful in practice, &c. So
that it is the usefulness of the mathematics that would recomraend
them to your patronage. And if you tolerated physicians and law
yers, it would be for the preservation of health, and the support of
justice. B. Right.
A. And with the sarae view of usefulness you would admit of
all other serviceable professions.
B. Certainly.
A. But how would you treat the musicians ?
B. I would encourage thera.
A. Would you not lay them under sorae proper restraint, ac
cording to the judgraent and practice of the ancient Greeks, who
always joined pleasure and usefulness together ?
B. Explain yourself a little.
A. Though they joined music and poetry together, and carried
both these arts to the greatest perfection ; they applied them to in
spire people's minds with fortitude, and noble thoughts. They
used poetry and music to prepare them for battle, and carried
musicians and their various instruments to war. Hence carae
druras and trurapets, which raised in thera a spirit of enthusiasm,
and a sort of fury that they call divine. It was by music, and the
charms ot .verse, that they softened savage nations ; and by the
sarae harraony, they sweetly instilled wisdora into tbeir children.
They raade thera sing Homer's verses to inspire their minds with
the love of glory, liberty, and their native country ; and with a con
terapt of death, and riches, and efferainate pleasure. They gave
their very dances a grave and serious turn ; for it is certain they
danced not merely for the sake of pleasure. We see, by David's
example,t that the eastern people reckoned dancing a serious kind
of employraent, like music, and poetry. The mysterious dances of
the priests were adopted by the heathens among their ceremonies,
on solemn festivals, in honour of their gods. There were a thou
sand instructions couched under their poems, and their fables;
nay, their most grave and austere philosophy always appear
ed with an air of gaiety and good huraour. All those arts that
consisted either in melodious sounds, regular motions of the body,
or the use of words ; music, dancing, eloquence, and poetry, were
*2Sam.>i. 5, 14.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 17
invented to express the passions ; and, by that means, to corarauni
cate these passions to others. Thus did they endeavour to convey
noble sentiments to people's minds, and give them lively, affecting
views ofthe beauty of virtue, and the deforraity of vice. So that
all these arts, under the show of pleasure, favoured the most seri
ous designs of the ancients, and were used to promote morality and
religion. Even the diversion of hunting was encouraged to train
up the youth for war. Their strongest pleasures contained always
sorae solid instruction : Frora which source flowed those many he
roic virtues in Greece, which all ages have since adraired. It is
true, this first kind of instruction was afterwards changed, and of
itself was accompanied with reraarkable defects. Thechief fault
of it was its being founded on a false and pernicious scheme of re
ligion, in which the Greeks, and all the ancient sages of the heath
en world were strangely deceived, being plunged into gross idola
try. But notwithstanding this fundamental mistake, they chose a
very proper way of inspiring men with religion and virtue ; their
method was wise, agreeable, and apt to make a lively, lasting im
pression. C. You said that this first institution was afterwards changed :
pray, how did it happen ?j
A. Though virtue gives men the true politeness ; if great care
be not taken, politeness gradually degenerates into an unmanly
softness. The Asiatic Greeks fell first into this corruption. The
lonians grew efferainate, and all that coast of Asia was a theatre of
luxury. The Cretans too becarae corrupted, notwithstanding the
wise laws of Minos. You know the* verse that St. Paul quotes
from, one of their own poets. Corinth was remarkable for its ex
cessive riot and dissoluteness. The Roraans, as yet unpolished,
began to fall into such practices as quite relaxed their rustic vir
tue. Athens was not free frora the general contagion, with which
Greece was all over infected. Pleasure, which was used at first as
the means to convey wisdom into people's rainds, usurped the
place of wisdora itself; and in vain did the philosophers reraon
strate against this disorder. Socrates arose, and showed his de
luded fellow citizens that the pleasure, about which they were
entirely employed, ought only to be used as the vehicle of wisdom,
* Kg»T£s »ii ipivixt, KXKoi Qtigin, yasspss «fyf«. Tit. i. 12.

18 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
and an incentive to virtue. Plato, his disciple, (who was not
asharaed to compose his dialogues on the plan and subject of his
master's discourses,) banished from his republic all such musical
notes, scenes of tragedy, and poetical corapositions, (even such parts
of Homer himself,) as did not incline people to love order and
wise laws. This, Sir, was the judgment of Socrates and Plato con
cerning poets and musicians : do you approve ofit?
B. I am entirely of their mind ; and would allow of nothing
that is useless. Since we may find pleasure enough in solid and
valuable things, we ought not to seek for it elsevvhere. In order
to recommend virtue lo men's esteem and practice, we must show
them that it is consistent with pleasure; and, on the contrary, if
we separate pleasure from virtue, people will be strongly tempted to
forsake a virtuous course. Besides, that which gives pleasure only,
without instruction, can at best but amuse and soften the mind.
Do not you see. Sir, how much a philosopher I ara become by hear
ing you ? But let us go on to the end : for we are not yet perfectly
agreed. .B. I hope we shall be very quickly. And since you have grown
so much a philosopher, give me leave to ask you one question more.
We have obliged musicians and poets to employ their art only for
promoting virtue ; and the subjects of your new republic are de
barred frora all such spectacles as can only please and not instruct
thera. But what would you do wilh conjurers?
B. They are irapostors that ought to be banished from all so
cieties. A. They do no harm. You cannot think they are sorcerers ;
so that you have no reason to be afraid of their praptising any dia
bolical art.
B. No, I do not fear that ; nor should I give the least credit to
any oftheir senseless stories. But they do harm enough by araus
ing the comraon people. I will not suffer such idle persons in my
coraraonwealth, as divert others frora their business, and have no
other eraployraent but to amuse people wilh foolish talk.
A. But, perhaps, they get a livelihood that way, and lay up
wealth for theraselves, and their families.
J3. ]No matter; they must find out some honest Way of living.
It is not enough that they seek a livelihood ; they must gain il by
sorae eraployraent that is useful to the public. I say the sarae of
all those strolling vagabonds who amuse crowds with silly prattle
and foolish songs. For though they should never lie, nor say any

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 19
thing that is immodest, their being useless to the public is guilt
enough. So that they ought either lo be excluded from soci
ety, or compelled to follow some useful occupation.
A. Would you nol at least tolerate tragedians, provided they
represent no scenes of iraraodesty or extravagant love ? I do not
ask you this question as a Chrisiian ; auswer only as a lawgiver,
and a philosopher.
J5. If tragedies did not conduce to instruction as well as to
pleasure, 1 should conderan thera.
A. Right. In that you are exactly of Plato's opinion ; forhe
would not allow of any poems or tragedies in his republic, that
should not first be exarained by the guardians of the laws ; that so
the people might neither hear nor see any thing but what should
tend to strengthen the laws and proraote virtue. In this you like
wise fall in with the sentiments of other ancient authors, who judg
ed that tragedy ought to turn chiefly upon two passions ; either the
terror that arises frora a view of the fatal effects of vice, or that
compassion which accorapanies the representation of an oppressed
and steady virtue. Sophocles and Euripides wrote with these views,
and always endeavoured to excite either pity or terror.
B. I reraember I have met with this last rule in Mr. Boileau's
Art of Poetry.
A. You are right. He is a raan that knows perfectly well not
only the foundation of poetry, but likewise the solid aira to which
philosophy — superior to all arts — ought to direct the poet.
B. But whither are you leading rae all this while ?
A. 1 lead you no farther ; you guide yourself now, and are
happily corae to the conclusion I first proposed. Have you not
said, that in your republic, you would not suffer idle people who
amuse others, and have no other business but merely to talk ? Is
it not upon this principle that you would exclude all such tragedies
as do not convey instruction as well as pleasure ? Now, will you
suffer that to be done in prose, that you will not tolerate in verse ?
After such a just rigour against useless poetry, how can you show
any favour to those* declaimers who talk only to show their parts ?
* Who can behold, without indignation, how many mists and uncertainties
these specious tropes and figures have brought on our knowledge .' how many
rewards, that are due to more profitable and difiicult aris, have been still
snatched away by the easy vanity of fine speaking ; for now I am warmed
with this just anger, I cannot withhold myself from betraying the shallow
ness of all those seeming mysteries, upon which we writers and speakers

20 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
B. But these orators we were speaking of, have two designs
that are coraraendable.
A. What are they ?
B. The first is to maintain themselves ; for, by their profession,
they procure a subsistence. Their rhetoric gets them repute ; and
this brings along with it that wealth they stand in need of.
A. You yourself have already answered this pretence ; for, did
you not say that it is not enough that one gains a livelihood, unless
he gel it by some employment that is useful to the public ? He who
should represent tragedies that give no instruction, raight get his
bread by thera ; but this would not hinder you from driving him
out of your comraonwealth. You would say to him, 'Go choose
some regular, useful employraent ; and do not divert your neigh
bours from their business. If you would have a lawful gain frora
thera, apply yourself to do them some real service, or to make them
more wise and virtuous.' Now why should you not say the sarae
to the rhetoricians 1
B. But I have a second reason to offer for tolerating them.
A. Pray, let us hear it.
B. Why, the orator serves the public.
A. In what?
B. He improves people's minds, and teaches them eloquence.
A. Suppose I should invent sorae fantastic art, or imaginary
language, that could not be of any use ; could I serve the public
by teaching such a senseless language, or silly art ?
B. No ; because one cannot serve others as a master, unless he
could teach thera something that is useful.
A. You cannot prove then that an orator serves the public, by
his teaching eloquence, unless you could first show that it is an
useful art. Of what use are a raan's fine thoughts if they do not
advance the public good ? I ara very sensible that they are advan
tageous to himself, for they dazzle his hearers, who have so bad a
taste that they will applaud his skill, and even reward him for his
useless talk. But ought you to suffer such a raercenary, fruitless
look so big. And in few words, I dare say, that of all the studies of men,
nothing may be sooner obtained, than this vicious abundance of phrase, this
trick of metaphors, this volubility of tongue, which makes so great noise in
the world. But I spend words in vain ; for the evil is now so inveterate, that
it is bard to know whom to blame, or where lo begin to reform. We all
value one another so muoh upon this beautiful deceit, and labour so long
after it, in the years of our education, that we cannot but ever think kinder
of it than it deserves. Bishop Sprat's Hist, ofthe Royal Sooiety, p. 112.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 21
eloquence in the government you have to model ? A shoemaker is
serviceable in his way, and maintains his family with what he gains
by supplying other people's necessities. So that you see the most
ordinary employraents tend to some useful purpose ; and there is
no other art but the rhetorician's that serves only to amuse people
with talking. In fine, such eloquence can only, on the one hand,
satisfy the vain curiosity of tbe hearers, and encourage their idle
ness ; and, on the other, gratify the declaimer's pride and arabition.
But, for the honour of your republic, Sir, do not tolerate such an
abuse. B. I must grant that an orator's aim should be to make people
more wise and virtuous.
A. Do not forget this ; you shall see the consequences of it by
and by.
7?. Notwithstanding this concession, he who is employed in
instructing others, may at the same time endeavour to acquire rep
utation and wealth for himself.
A. I told you before, that we are not now handling the point
as Christians ; I need only use philosophy against you. Let me
put you in mind that you grant an orator is obliged to instruct oth
ers with a design to improve them in virtue. Thus we get rid of
all useless declairaers. We ought not even to suffer panegyrists
any farther than they render true wisdora and probity raore araiable
by their praises ; and propose models of virtue* and valour that are
worthy of imitation.
B. What, then, is a panegyric good for nothing, unless it be
full of morality 1
A. Have you not granted this already ? Instruction is the proper
end of speech ; and the only good reason for praising any hero, is
that we raay represent his worth to others, in order to excite their
eraulation, and to show thera that virtue and true glory are insepa
rable. Therefore a panegyric should be kept free frora all general,
excessive, flattering praises ; and such barren thoughts as do not
afford the least instruction. Every thing should tend to make the
hearers in love with what is truly great and good. But we find
* Perspicuum est igitur alia esse in homine optanda, alia lau danda. Genus,
forma, vires, opes, divitiae, ceteraque quae fortuna det, aul extrinsecus, aut
corpori, non habent in se veram laudem, quae deberi Virtuti iini putatur. Vir
tus autem quae est per se ipsa laudabilis, etsine qua nihil laudari potest, tamen
habet plures partes, quarum alia est ad laudationem aptior. Cic. de Orat. lib. ii.

22 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
that most panegyrists seem to magnify particular virtues, only that
they may the more effectually praise those that practised them, and
set off their heroes to greater advantage. When they have any one
to praise, they exalt his peculiar virtues far above all others. But
every thing has its turn ; and, on another occasion, those very
qualities, which they preferred before, must now give place to some
other virtues, that come in course to be extolled to tbe highest
pitch. In this respect, I think Pliny is to be blamed. If he had
praised Trajan as a fit model for other heroes to copy after, this
would have been a design worthy of an orator. But the praise of
that prince (however deserving he was) ought not to have been
Pliny's chief aim. Trajan should only have been proposed to man
kind as an imitable example, to allure thera to virtue. When a
panegyrist has such a raean view, as to praise the person, rather
than the virtues that render hira conspicuous, this is only flattery
addressed to pride.
B. What think you then of those poeras that were made in
praise of ancient heroes? Homer has his Achilles, and Virgil his
iEneas. Will you conderan these two poets ?
A. By no means. Sir ; do but examine the design of their
works. In the Iliad, Achilles is the chief hero ; but his praise is
not the main end of the poem. His character is faithfully drawn
wilh all its defects ; nay, these very defects are a part of that in
struction which the poet designed to convey to posterity. The
great design of this work was to inspire the Greeks with the love
of warlike glory ; and a dread of discord, as the greatest obstacle
to success. This moral instruction is plainly interwoven through
out the poem. The Odyssey indeed represents, in Ulysses, a hero
more regular and raore accomplished ; but this is still natural.
For, of course, a man, like Ulysses, whose chief character is wisdom,
must be more wary, and uniform inhis conduct, that such a rough,
warm, forward youth as Achilles. So that in drawing both these
heroes, Horaer seems only to have copied nature. In fine, through
out the Odyssey we find innumerable instructions for the whole
conduct of life ; and one cannot but observe that the poet's
design, in describing a prudent raan, whose wisdom raakes him
always successful, was to show posterity what good effects might be
'expected from prudent piety, and a regular life. Virgil, in his
iEneid, has imitated the Odyssey in his hero's character ; and has
drawn him brave, moderate, pious, and steady. But it is evident that
the praise of vEtieas was not the poet's principal aim. That hero

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE, 23
was designed to represent the Roraan people, who descended from
him ; and Virgil meant to show them that their extraction was di
vine ; that the gods had destined thera to govern the world ; and
by this he animated them to the practice of such heroic virtues as
might support the glory designed for them. Now a heathen could
not possibly devise a nobler moral than this. Tbe only fault of
which Virgil can be suspected, is his having had his private inter
est too rauch in view ; and his turning his excellent poem to the
praise of Augustus, and his family, wilh too great an air of flat
tery. But we ought not to criticise any author too severely.
B. But will you not allow a poet, or an orator, to seek his for
tune in an honourable way ?
A. After this useful digression concerning panegyrics, we now
return to the difficulty you proposed. The question is, whether an
orator ought to be entirely disinterested ?
B. I do not think that he ought : for this would overturn the
most common maxims.
A. In your republic, would you not have orators obliged to the
strictest rules of truth ? Do you not own that they ought never to
speak in public, but in order to instruct people, to reform their con
duct, and strengthen the laws ?
B. Yes.
A. An orator then should have nothing either to hope or fear
from his hearers, with regard to his own interest. If you allowed
of arabitious* mercenary declairaers, do you think they would op
pose all the foolish, unruly passions ofmen? If they themselves be
subject to avarice, ambition, luxury, and such sharaeful disorders,
will they be able to cure others ? If they seek after wealth, can
they be fit to disengage others from that mean pursuit ? I grant,
that a virtuous and disinterested orator ought always to be supplied
wilh the conveniences of life , nor can he ever want them, if he be
a true philosopher ; I mean, such a wise and worthy person as is
fit to reform the manners of men ; for then he will live after a plain,
modest, frugal, laborious manner : he will have occasion but for
* Jam hoc quis non videt, maximam partem orationis in tractatu aequi
bonique consistere ? dicetne de his secundum dibitam rerum dignitatem
malus atque iniquus ' denique — demus id quod nullo modo fieri potest, idim
ingenii, studii, doctrine, pessimo, atque oplimo viro, utei melior dicetur ora
tor ? nimirum qui homo quoque melior. Non igitur unquam malus idera
homo, et perfectus orator. Quint, lib. xiii. c. 1.
29

24 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
little, and that Httle he will never want; though, he should earn it
with his own hands. Now, what is superfluous ought not to be of
fered hira, as the recorapense of his public services, and indeed it
is not worthy of his acceptance. He may have honour and author
ity conferred on him ; but if he be master of his passions, as we
suppose, and above selfish Views, he will use this authority only for
the public good ; and be ready to resign it, when he can no longer
enjoy it without flattery or dissiraulation. In short, an orator can
not be fit to persuade people, unless he be inflexibly upright ; for,
without this steady virtue, his talents and address would, like a
mortal poison, infect and destroy the body politic. For tbis reason,
Cicero* thought that virtue is the chief and most essential quality
of an orator, and that he should be a person of such unspotted pro
bity as to be a pattern to his fellow-citizens ; without which he
cannot even seera to be convinced himself of what he says; and
consequently, he cannot persuade others.
B. I am sensible there is a great deal of weight in what you
say ; but after all, may not a man fairly eraploy his talents to raise
hiraself in the world ?
A. Let us look back always to the principles we laid down.
We have agreed that eloquence, and the profession of an orator,
should be devoted to the instruction of the people, and the refor
raation of their practice. Novv, to do this wilh freedom and suc
cess, a man must be disinterested, and must teach others to con
temn death, and riches, and unraanly pleasure. He raust infuse
into their minds the love of raoderation, frugality, a generous con
cern for the public good, and an inviolable regard to the laws and
constitution : and the orator's zeal for all these must appear in his
conduct, as well as in his discourses. But will he who strives to
please others, that he may make his fortune, and who therefore
* Est enim eloquentia una quaedam de summis virtutibus — quae quo major
est vis, hoc est magis probitate jungenda, summaque prudentia ; quarum vir
tutum expertibus si dicendi copiam tradiderimus, non eos quidem oratores
efiecerimus ; sed furentibus quaedam arma dederimns. De Orat. 1. iii. § 14.
Set ergo nobis orator quem instituimus is, qui a M. Cicerone finitur, vir
bonus dicendi peritus — Adde quod ne studio quidem operis pulcherrimi va
care mens, nisi omnibus vitiis libera, potest — Quid putamus facturas cupidi
tatem, avaritiam, invidiam.'' quarum impotentissimae cogitationes, somnos
etiam ipsos, et ilia per quietem visa, perturbent. Nihil est enim tam occupa-
tum, tam multiforme, tot ac tam variis affectibus concisum atque laceratum,
quam mala mens. Quint, lib. xii. cap. 1.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 25
avoids disobliging, any body ; I say, will such an artful, selfish per
son, inculcate unacceptable truths with boldness and authority ?
Or, if he should, will any one believe a man who does not seem
to beheve himself?
B. But supposing him to be in narrow circurastances, he does
no harra, I hope, by endeavouring to iraprove them.
A. If he be pinched, let him try to mend his condition some
other way. There are other professions that will easily set him
above want. But if he be in such extreme distress as to depend
on relief from the public, he is not yet fit to be an orator. Would
you choose raen that are indigent, and alraost starving, to be judges
in your coraraonwealth ? Would you not be afraid that their wants
raight expose them to corruption, or betray them into some dishon
ourable corapliance? Would you not rather choose persons of note
and distinction, who are above necessity, and out of the reach of
its temptations ?
B. I believe I should.
A. For the sarae reason, if you wanted orators, that i.s, public
masters to instruct, reclaira, and forra the minds and manners of
the people, would you not choose such men as wanted nothing, and
are far above little selfish aims ? And if there were others who had
proper talents for this superior office, but were clogged with their
personal concerns, and narrow views of private interests ; would
•you not excuse thera from showing their eloquence till they were
more easy and disengaged in their circumstances ; and could
speak in public without being suspected of any mean design ?
B. It would be better. But does not the experience of our
own age plainly show, that an orator may make his fortune by
preaching rigid virtue with great vehemence ? Where can we find
keener satires against the prevailing corruptions of the age, and
severer moral characters than those which corae frora the pulpit ?
Yet people are not disturbed at thera : nay, they are pleased with
thera : and the ingenious preacher gets preferment by them.
A. It is very true : but moral instructions have no weight nor
influence, when they are neither supported by clear principles, nor
good examples. Whora do you see converted by them ? People
are accustomed to hear such harangues, and are amused by them,
as with so many fine scenes passing before their eyes. They
hearken to such lectures just as they would read a satire, and they
look on the speaker as one that acts his part well. They believe

26 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
his* life, more than his talk : and when they know him to be self
ish, ambitious, vain, given up to sloth and luxury ; and see that he
parts wilh none of tbose enjoyments which he exhorts others to
forsake ; though, for the sake of custom and ceremony, they hear
him declaim, they believe and act as he does. But what is
worst of all, people are too apt to conclude, that men of this pro
fession do not believe what they teach — this disparages their func
tion ; and when others preach with a sincere zeal, people will
scarcely believe this zeal to be sincere.
B. I cannot but own that your notions hang well together ; and
that they are very convincing when one considers them attentively.
But tell rae freely, does not all you have said on this subject flow
frora a pure zeal for christian piety ?
A. No : if an unbeliever reason justly, he raust fall into the
same train of thoughts ; but indeed one must have a Christian
* The clergy have one great advantage beyond all the rest of the world in
this respect, besides all others, that whereas the particular callings of other
men prove to them great distractions, and lay many temptations in their way,
to divert them from minding their high and holy calling, of being Christians ;
it is quite otherwise with the clergy : the more they follow their proper call
ings, they do the more certainly advance their general one ; the better priests
they are, they become also the better Christians. Every part of their call
ing, when well performed, raises good thoughts, and brings good ideas into
their minds; and tends both to increase their knowledge, and quicken their
sense of divine matters. A priest then is more accountable to God, and the
world for his deportment, and will be more severefy accounted with, than
any other person whatsoever. He is more watched over and observed than
all others. Very good men will be, even to a censure, jealous of him : very
bad men will wait for his halting, and insult upon it ; and all sorts of per
sons will be willing to defend themselves against the authority of his doc
trine and admonitions, by this — he says, but does not — the world willreverse
this quite, and consider rather how a clerk lives, than what he says. They
see the one, and frora it conclude what he himself thinks of the other : and
will think theraselves not a little justified, if they can' say that they did no
worse than they saw their minister do before them. Therefore a priest must
not only abstain from gross scandals ; but keep at the farthest distance . from
them, — such diversions as his health or the temper of his mind may render
proper for him, ought to be manly, decent, and grave; and such as may
neither possess his mind or time too much, nor give a bad character of him
to his people. He must also avoid too much familiarity with bad people ;
and the squandering away his time in too much vain and idle discourse. His
cheerfulness ought to be frank ; but neither excessive nor licentious. His
friends, and his garden, ought to be his chief diversions ; as his study, and
his parish ought to be his chief employments.
Bp. Burnet's Disc, of the Pastoral Care, ch. viii.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 27
spirit to act up to them ; for it is grace alone that can suppress the
disorderly emotions of selflove. When I pressed you wilh the
authority of Socrates and Plato, you would not resign your judg
ment to theirs ; and now, since reason itself begins to convince
you, and that I need uot enforce the truth from authorities, what
ifl should tell you, after all, that 1 have only used their arguraents
on this subject.
B. Is it possible ? I should be very glad of it.
A. Well then : Plato introduces Socrates discoursing with
Gorgias, a faraous rhetorician, and Callicles, one of his disciples.
This Gorgias was Isocrates' master ; and (as Tully tehs us,) he
was the first raan that boasted of his being able to talk eloquently
on every thing, in which ridiculous vanity he was afterwards iraitat
ed by other Greek declairaers. These two raen, Gorgias and
Callicles, harangued plausibly enough on every subject ; being
wits that shone in conversation, and had no other business but to
talk finely. However, they wanted what* Socrates wished every
man to have, solid principles of morality, and a sedate, just way of
reasoning. Plato therefore having shewn what a ridiculous turn of
mind these men had, he represents Socrates as diverting hiraself
with their folly, and facetiously puzzling the two orators so much,
that they could not tell him what eloquence is. Then he proves
that rhetoric, (which was the profession of these declaimers) is
not truly an art : for, according to him, ' an art is a regular disci
pline, which teaches men to do something that will help to make
them wiser, or better than they are.' So that he allows of no other
arts but the liberal ones : and he shows that even these are per
verted, when they are applied to any other end besides training up
men to virtue. He proves that this was not the aim of the rheto
ricians : that even Themistocles and Pericles had quite other views ;
and that therefore they were not truly orators. He says, those
faraous men only persuaded the Athenians to make harbours, and
* — Inventl sunt qui, cum ipsi doctrina, et ingeniis abundarent, a re autem
civili et negotiis, animi quodam judicio abhorerent, hanc dicendi exeroitati-
onem exagitarent, atque contemnerent. Quorum princeps Socrates fuit, is
qui omnium eruditorum testimonio, totiusque judicio Graicioe, cura prudentia,
et acuraine, et venustate, et subtilitate, tum vero eloquentia, varietate, copia,
quamcumque in partem dedisset, omnium fuit facile princeps — cujus ingeni
um varjosque sermones iramortalitati scriptis suis Plato tradidit.
Cicero de Orat. lib. 1. § 16.

28 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
build walls, and obtain victories ; they only made their chizens
wealthy, warlike, and powerful ; and were afterwards ill-treated for
it; which was really no raore than they raight have expected. If
they had rendered the people good and virtuous by their rhetoric,
they would have been sure of a just recorapense : for, he who raakes
men upright, and good,_cannot lose the reward of his labour ; see
ing virtue and ingratitude are inconsistent. I need not tell you all
the arguments he uses to show how useless such false rhetoric is ;
for, all that I have said hitherto on this point, in my own name, is
really taken from him. It will be raore proper to represent to you
what he says of the evils that these vain haranguers occasion in
the republic.
B. It is evident that such rhetoricians were dangerous in the
Grecian coramonweallhs, where they could mislead the people ; and
usurp the government.
A. That is the chief danger that Socrates apprehended frora
thera. But the principles he lays down, on this occasion, reaeh a
great deal further. In fine, though you and I speak now of or
dering a coraraonwealth, our inquiry and conclusions are not
applicable to deraocracy alone ; but to every kind of government,
whether it be strictly a republic, an aristocracy, or a monarchy.
So that the particular form of governraent does not enter into the
present question. For in all countries, the rules of Socrates are
equally useful.
C. I wish you would explain thera to us.
A. He says that seeing a man is composed of a raind and a body,
he ought to iraprove thera both. Now there are two arts that con
cern the raind ; and two others, that relate to the body. The
two that belong to tbe raind, are raoral philosophy, and the
knowledge ofthe national laws. Under the head of moral philoso
phy he coraprehends the laws of nature and nations ; and all those
dictates of philosophy that are proper to govern the inclinations and
manners ofthe whole republic, as well as of every individual mem
ber ofit. He considered the second art, as a remedy that is to be
used to suppress falsehood, injustice, and the like disorders araong
the citizens : for, by it lawsuits are deterrained, and crimes are
punished. So that moral philosophy serves to prevent Jevil, and the
knowledge ofthe laws and constitution, to punish it. There are
likewise two arts for managing the body ; the gymnastic art, which
by due exercise and temperance, renders it healthy, active, vigorous,
and graceful ; (for, you know. Sir, the ancients made a wonderful

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 29
use ofthis art ; which we have now quite lost ;) arid the knowledge
of physic which cures the body when its health is lost, or im
paired. The gymnastic art assists the body, as raoral philosophy
doth the soul ; namely, to form and iraprove it : and skill in raedi
cine is helpful to the body — as the knowledge of the laws is to tbe
raind — for correcting and curing disorders. But this wise institu
tion was altered, says Socrates : instead of a solid, practical philos
ophy, we have only the vain subtilty of wrangling sophists : a set
of spurious philosophers who abuse reason : and, having no sense
of public good, aim only at promoting their own selfish ends. In
stead of attaining a thorough insight into the national laws, people
are amused and misled by vain-glorious ostentation of these rheto
ricians, wbo endeavour only to please and dazzle the mind : and
instead of recommending the knowledge of the public constitution,
and the administration of justice, (which being the raedicine ofthe
soul, should be applied to cure its disorderly passions,) these false
orators think of nothing but how to spread their own reputation.
And with regard to the body, says Socrates, the gyranastic art be
gins to be exchanged for skill in dress ; which gives the body but
false, deceitful ornaraents. Whereas we ought to desire only such a
natural coraeliness as results frora health of body, and due proportion
of its members, which mustbe acquired and preserved by temperance
and exercise. The proper and seasonable use of raedicine is like
wise laid aside to make roora for delicious dishes, and such palata
ble things as raise and ensnare the appetite. And instead of car
rying off gross huraours frora the body by proper evacuations, to re
store its health, nature is clogged and overcharged, and a false ap
petite is excited by all the various ways of luxury and intemperance-
He farther observes, that those orators, who in order to cure raen,
should have given them bitter physic, and, with authority, have in
culcated the most disagreeable truths, have on the contrary done for
the miud what cooks do for the body : their rhetoric is only an
art of dressing up delicacies to gratify the corrupted taste ofthe
people. All their concern is to please and sooth thera, by raising
their curiosity and adrairation. For, these declaimers harangue
only for themselves. He concludes his remarks with asking, where
are those citizens whom the rhetoricians have cured of their vicious
habits ? Whom have they made sober and virtuous ? Thus Soc
rates describes the general disorders, and corruption of manners

30 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
that prevailed in his time. But does he not talk like* one ofthe
present age, who observes what passes among us; and speaks of
the abuses that reign in our own days ' Now you have heard the
sentiments ofthis wise heathen : what do you say ofthat eloquence
which tends only to please, and give pretty descriptions ; when (as
he says) we ougbt to cauterize and cut to the quick : and earnestly
endeavour to cure people's rainds by the bitterness of reraedies, and
the severity of an abstemious diet ? I appeal to your own judgment
in this case : if you were sick, would you be pleased wilh a physi
cian, who in the extremity of your illness should waste his time,
and arause you with explaining to you sorae fine hypothesis in an
elegant style ; instead of raaking pertinent inquiries into the cause
and syraptoras of your distempers, and prescribing suitable reme
dies ? Or, in a trial at law, where your estate or your life was at
stake, what would you think of your lawyer, if he should play the
wit in your defence, and fill his pleading with flowers of rhetoric
and quaint turns, instead of arguing with gravity, strength of reason,
and earnestness, to gain your cause ? Our natural love of life and
well being, shows us plainly the absurdity of false oratory, and of
the unseasonable ostentation of it, in such cases as I have now
mentioned : but we are so strangely unconcerned about religion,
and the raoral conduct of life, that we do not observe the sarae rid
icule in careless, vain-glorious orators ; who yet ought to be the
spiritual physicians and censors of the people. Indeed the senti
ments of Socrates on this subject ought to make us ashamed.
B. I perceive clearly enough that, according to your reasoning,
orators ought to be the defenders of the laws, and instructers of
the people to teach them true wisdora and virtue. But araong the
Romans the rhetoric ofthe bar was otherwise employed.
A. That was certainly the end of it. For, when orators had
not occasion to represent in their discourses, the general wants of
f>
* The ornaments of speaking are much degenerated from their original
usefulness. They were at first, no doubt, an admirable instrument in the
hands of wise men, when they were only employed to describe goodness,
honesty, obedience, in larger, fairer, and more moving images ; to represent
truth clothed with bodies ; and to bring knowledge back again to our very
senses, whence it was at first derived to our understanding. But now they
are generally changed to worse uses : fhey make the fancy disgust the best
things, if they corae sound and unadorned : they are in open defiance against
reason, professing not to hold much correspondence with that ; but with its
slaves, the passions ; they give the raind a motion too changeable and be
witching, to consist with right practice. Bishop Sprats Hist, of R. S. p. Ill, 112.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 31
the republic, they were obliged to protect innocence, and the rights
of particular persons. And it was on this account that their profession
was so much honoured ; and that Tully gives us such a* lofty char
acter of a true orator.
B. Let us hear then how orators ought to speak. I long to
know your thoughts on this point ; seeing you deny the finical, florid
manner of Isocrates, which is so much admired and imitated by
others. A. Instead of giving you my opinion, I shall go on to lay be
fore you the rules that the ancients give us ; but I shall only touch
upon the chief points ; for, I suppose, you do not expect that I
should enter into an endless detail of the precepts of rhetoric.
There are but too rnany useless ones; which you must have read in
those books where they are copiously explained. It will be enough
if we consider the most important rules. Plato in his Phsedrus
shows us, that the greatest fault of rhetoricians is their studying the
art of persuasion, before they have learned, (from the principles of
true philosophy,) what those things are of which they ought to per*
suade raen. He would have orators begin with the study of raan
kind in general, and then apply theraselves to the knowledge of
the particular genius and raanners of those whora they may have
occasion to instruct and persuade. So that they ought first of al]
to know the nature of man, his chief end, and his true interest;
the parts of which he is composed, his mind, and bis hody ; and
the true way to make him happy. They ought likewise to under«
stand his passions, the disorders they are subject to, and the art oi
governing them ; how they may be usefully raised, and employed
on what is truly good ; and, in fine, the proper rules to make him
live in peace, and become entirely sociable. After this general
* Neque vero mihi quidquara prsestabilius videtur, quam posse dicendo tenec«
hominum ccptus, mentes allicere, voluntates compellere quo velitj unde
autem velit, deducere. Haec una res in orani libero populo, raaximeque in
pacatistranquillisque civitatibus praecipue semper floruit, semperque domioata
est. Quid enim est aut tara admirabile, quam ex infinita raultitudine homi
num existere unum, qui id quod omnibus natura sit datum, vel solus, vel cum
paucis facere possit ? — aut tam potens, taraque magnificnm, quam populi mo
tus, judicum religiones, senatus gravilatem, unius oratione converti ?-^ac ne
pluia, quae sunt pene innuraerabilia, coDsecter, comprehendam brevi ; sic
enim statuo, perfecti oratoris moderatione, et sapientia, non solum ipsius dig
nitatem. Bed et privaloruin plurimorum, et universse reipublicss salutem max
ime contineri. Cic- de Orat. lib. i. § 8.
30

33 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
Study, comes that which is particular. Orators ought to know the
laws and customs of their country ; and how far they are agreeable
to the genius and temper of the people ; what are the raanners of
the several ranks and conditions among them ; their different ways
of education; the coinmon prejudices and separate interests that
prevail inthe present age ; and the most proper way to instruct and
reform the people. You see. Sir, this knowledge coraprehends all
the solid parts of philosophy and politics. So that Plato raeant to
show us that none but a philosopher can be a true orator. And itis in
this sense we raust understand all he says in his Gorgias against
the rhetoricians ; I mean, that set of men who raade profession of
talking finely and persuading others, without endeavouring to
know, frora solid philosophy, what one ought to teach them. In
short, according to Plato, the true art of oratory consists in under
standing those useful trutbs ofwhich we ought to convince people ;
and the art of moving their passions, in order to persuasion.
Cicero* says almost the very same things. He seems, at first, to
think that an orator should know every thing ; because that he
may have occasion to speak on all sorts of subjects ; and (as Soc
rates observed before him^t a raan can never talk well on a point
of which he is not entirely master. But afterwards, because of the
pressing necessities and shortness of life, Tully insists only upon
those parts of knowledge that he thinks the most necessary for an
orator. He would have hira at least well instructed in all that part
of J philosophy which relates to the conduct and affairs of social
* Ac mea quidem sententia nemo poterit esse omni laude cumulatus orator,
nisi erit omnium rerum magnarum, atque artium scientiam consecutus. De
orat lib, 1. §. 6. Oratorem plenum atque perfectum esse eum dicam, qui de
omnibus rebus possit varie copioseque dicere. Ibid. §. 13. verum enim orato-
ri quas sunt in hominum vita, quandoquidera in ea versetur orator, atque ea
est ei subjecta materies, omnia quaesita, audita, lecta, disputata, tractata, agi
tata esse debent. Lib. iii. §. 14.
t Etenim exerura cognitione efflorescat, ct redundet oportet oratio : quoe,
nisi subest res ab oratore percepta, et cognita, inanem quandam habet elecu
tionem, et pene puerilem. De Orat, lib. i. § 6.
t Positum sit igitur in primis  sine philosophia non posse efiici, quem
qnserimns eloquentem — neo vero sine philosophorum disciplina, genus, et
speciem cujusque rei cernere, neque eam definiendo explicare, nec tribuere
in partes possumus: nec judicare qusevera, quae falsa sint; neque cernere
consequentia, repugnantia videre, arabigua distingure. Quid dicara de na
tura rerum cujus cognitio magnam orationis suppeditat copiam ? De vita, de
ofEciis, de virtute, de moribus .'' Orat. §. 4.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 33
life. But above all things he would have an orator* know the frame
of man, both with regard to his soul and body, and the natural ten
dency and force of his passions ; because the great end of eloquence
is to move the secret springs of them. He reckons thet knowledge
of the laws and constitution, to be the foundation of all public dis
courses : but he does not think a thorough insight into all the partic
ular cases and questions in law to be necessary; because, upon occa
sion, one may have recourse to experienced lawyers, whose peculiar
profession it is to understand and disentangle such intricate points.
He thinks, with Plato, that an orator should be a| raaster of reason
ing ; and know how to define, and argue, and unravel the raost spe
cious sophisms. He says we destroy eloquence, if we should sepa
rate it from philosophy ; for then, instead of wise orators, we should
have only trifling, injudicious declaimers. He further requires not
only an exact knowledge of all the principles of ethics ; but like
wise that the orator be fully acquainted with'§ antiquity. He re-
* Omnes animorum motus, quos hominum generi reruin natura tribuit, pen
itus pernoscendi. — De Orat. lib. i. §. 5. — Num admoveri possit oratio ad sen
sus animorum, atque motus vel inflammandos, vel etiam exlinguendos (quod
unura in oratore dominatur,) sine diligentissima pervestigatione earum omni
um rationum quae de naturis humani generis, ac moribus, a philosophis ex
plicantur. — De Orat. lib. i. §. 14. Quare hic locus de vita et moribus, totus
est oratori perdiscendus. Ibid. § . 15.
t Bibliothecas meherciile omnium philosophorum unus mihi videtur duode
cim tabularum libellus, si quis legum fontes, et capita viderit, et auctoritatis
pondere et utilitatis ubertate superare. Ac ci nos, id quod maxime debet,
nostra patria delectat. — Cujus primum nobis mens, mos, disciplina nota esse
debet : vel quia est patria, parens omnium nostrum, vel quiatanta sapientia
fuisse in jure constituendo putanda est, quanta fuit in his tantis operibus im
perii comparandis. De Orat. lib. i. §. 44,
+ Nec vero dialecticis modo sit instructus, sed habeat omnes philosophiae
notos, et tractates locos. Nihil enira de religione, nihil de morte, nihil de
pietate, nihil decaritate patriae ; nihil de bonis rebus, aut malis ; nihil de
virtutibus, aut vitiis — nihil, inquam, sine ea scientia, quam dixi, graviter, am
ple, copiose dici, et explicari potest. Orat. § . 33.
§ Cognoscat etiam rerum gestarum et memoriae veteris ordinem, maxime
scilicet nostrae civitatis ; sed et iraperiosorum populorum et regum illustri
um — nescire enim quid antea, quam natus sis, acciderlt, id est semper esse
puerum — commemoratio autera antiquitatis, exemplorumque prolatio summa
cum deleciatione, et auctoritatem orationi affert, et fidem. Orat. §. 34. — ¦
Apud Graecos autem eloquentissimi horaines remoti a causis forensibus,
cum ad caeteras res illustres, tura ad scribendam historiam maxime se appli
ca verunt. Namque et Herodotus — et post ilium Thucydides omnes dicendi ar.
tificio mea sententia facile vicel — denique etiam a philosophia profectus prin.
ceps Xenophon. De Orat. lib. ii. § . 13, 14,

34 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
commends the careful perusal of the ancient Greek writers, especial
ly the historians ; both for their style, and for the historical facts they
relate. He particularly enjoins* the study of the poets, because of
the great resemblance there is betwixt the figures of poetry, and
those of eloquence. In fine, he often declares that an orator ought
to furnish his mind with a clear, coraprehensive view of things, be
fore he attempt to speak in public. I fancy I could almost repeat
some ofhis words on this subject, so often have I read them, and
so strong an impression did they make on my thoughts. You will
be suprised to see bow much knowledge, and how manyf qualities
he requires. ' An orator,' says he, ' ought to have acuteness of
logicians, the knowledge of philosophers, the style alraost of the
poets ; the elocution and gesture of the finest actors.' Consider
now how much application raust be necessary to attain all this.
C. I have observed indeed, on several occasions, that sorae or
ators, tbough they have good natural parts, want a fund of solid
knowledge. Their heads seem unfurnished : and one cannot but
perceive they labour hard for matier lofill up their discourses. They
do not seem to speak from the abundance oftheir hearts, as if they
were full of useful truths : but they talk as if they were at a loss for
the very next thing they are to say.
A. Cicero takes notice of this kind of people ; who live al
ways, as it were, from hand to raouth, without laying up any stock
of provision. But the discourses of such declaimers appear always
thin and half-starved, whatever pains they take about them. Though
these men could afford three months for studying a public harangue,
such particular preparations, however troublesome, must needs be
very imperfect, and any judicious hearer will easily discern their
* Legendi etiam poetae, cognoscenda historia, omnium bonarum artium
BCriptores.-TJe Orat. lib. i. § . 34. Est enira finitiraus oratori poeta, numeris
adslrictior paulo, verborum autem licentia Uberior; muitia vero ornandi gen
eribus socius ac pene par ; in hoc quidem certe prope idem, nullis ut termi-
nis circurascribataut definiat jus suura, quo minus ei liceat eadem ilia facul
tate, et copia vagari qua velit. Jl^^ r Jg
f Non quffiritur mobilitas linguae, non celeritas verborum, non denique ea
quae nobis non possumus fingere, facies, vultus, sonus. In oratore autem
acumen dialecticorum, sententiae philosophorum, verba prope pcetarum, me
moria juris consultorum, vox tragiedorum, gestus pene summorum actorum
est requirendus. Quamobrem nihil in hominum genere rarias perfecto ora-
tore inveniri potest : qu^ enim singularura rerura artifices, singula si medioc-
liter adept, sunt, probantur, ea nUi omnia summa sunt in oratore, probari non
P°''""'- i?eOr««.lib.i.§.28.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 35
defects. They ought to have employed several years in laying up
a plentiful store of solid notions, and then after such a general prep
aration, their particular discourses would cost them but little pains.
Whereas if a man, without this preparatory study, lay out all his
application upon particular subjects, he is forced to put off his hear
ers with* florid expressions, gaudy metaphors, and jingling antithe
ses. He delivers nothing but indeterminate comraonplace notions ;
and patches together shreds of learning and rhetoric which any one
may see were not made one for another. He never goes to the
bottom of things, but stops in superficial remarks, and oft-times in
false ones. He is not able to shew truths in their proper light and
full extent ; because all general truths are necessarily connected
among themselves : so that one must understand almost all of
them, before be can treat judiciously of any one.
C. However, many of our public speakers get repute by those
slight attainments you so much despise.
A. It is true, they are applauded by women and the undiscern
ing multitude, who are easily dazzled and imposed on : but this re
pute is very precarious, and could not subsist long if it were not
supported by a cabal of acquaintance, and the zeal or humour of a
party. They who know the true end andt rules of eloquence, ean-
* There are two extremes to be avoided with the utmost care, the frigid
style, and the boyish. The former renders a discourse dry and insipid, by a
languor and flatness of expression : the latter renders it ungrateful and shock
ing, ^y * swelling loftiness, and affected amplification. Those who use the
frigid style, employ pompous expressions when the sirbject requires plain
ones : and they who effect the boyish style, make use of low expressions
when the matter requires the loftiest. But our language is become so mod
est, so reserved, and so scrupulous, that the frigid style includes all such ex
pressions as are too strong, or too sparkling ; too bold and hardy metaphors,
and frequent turns of wit. And the boyish style comprehends strokes of hu
mour, and quaint conceits upon serious subjects ; too loose and heavy repeti
tions in those parts of a discourse that ought to be close and concise ; too vi
olent exaggerations, and too laborious figures.
Rapin. Reflections sur I'Eloquence,
+ Expression is the dress of thought, and still
Appears more decent, as more suitable :
A low conceit, ia pompous words exprest.
Is like a clown in regal purple drest.
For different styles wifh different subjects sort,
As several garbs with country, town and court.
Some by old words to fame have made pretence :
Ancients in phrase, mere moderns in their sense !
Such labour'd nothings, in so strange a style.
Amaze th' unlearn'd, and make the learned smile. — Pope.

36 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
not hear such erapty, vain harangues without satiety, disgust and
conlempt. C, It seems then you would have a man wait several years be
fore he atterapt to speak in public ; for the flower of his age raust
be spent in attaining that vast fund of knowledge you reckon ne
cessary to an orator, and then he raust be so far advanced in
years, that he will have but little time to exert his talents.
A. I would have him begin to exert them betiraes : for I know
very well how great the power of action is. But under the pretence
of exercising his parts, I would not have him imraediately engage
himself in any kind of employment that will take off his raind frora
his studies. A youth raay try his skill, frora tirae to time : but for
several years, a careful perusal of the best authors ought to be his
main business.
C. Your judicious observation puts me in mind of a preacher I
am acquainted with, who lives, as you say, from hand to mouth ;
and never thinks of any subject till he be obliged to treat of it ;
and then he shuts himself up in his closet, turns over his concor
dance, combefix, and polyanthea, his collections of sermons, and
common-place book of separate sentences and quotations that he
has gathered together.
A. You cannot but perceive. Sir, that this method will never
make hira an able, judicious preacher. In such cases, a man can
not talk with strength and clearness ; he is not sure of any thing
he says, nor doth any thing flow easily from hira. His whole dis
course has a borrowed air, and looks like an awkward piece of
patchwork. Certainly those are rauch to be blaraed, who are so
impatiently fond of showing their parts.
B. Before you leave us. Sir, pray tell us what you reckon the
chief effect of eloquence.
A. Plato says an oration is so far eloquent as it effects the hear
er's mind. By this rule you may judge certainly of any discourse
you hear;. if an harangue leave you cold and languid, and only
arauses your raind, instead of enlightening it, if it does not move
your heart and passions, however florid and pompous it may be, it
is not truly eloquent. Tully approves of Plato's sentiments on this
point ; and tells us* that the whole drift and force of a discourse
should tend to move those secret springs of action that nature has
placed in the hearts of men. Would you then consult your own
*Lib. i. §.5. lib. ii. §.82.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 37
raind to know whether those you hear be truly eloquent ? If they
raake a lively irapression upon you, and gain your attention and as
sent to what they say; if they move and animate your passions, so
as to* raise you above yourself, you may be assured they are true
orators. But if instead of affecting you thus, they only please or
divert you, and raake you adraire the brightness of their thoughts,
or the beauty and propriety of their language, you may freely pro
nounce them to be mere declairaers.
B. Stay a little. Sir, if you please, till I ask you a few raore
questions. A. I wish I could stay longer, gentleraen, for your conversation
is very engaging : but I have an affair to despatch which will not
admit of a delay. To-raorrow I will wait on you again ; and then
we shall finish this subject at our leisure.
B. Adieu, then. Sir, till to-raorrow.

THE SECOND DIALOGUE.
B. You are extreraely kind. Sir, in coming so punctually.
Your conversation yesterday was so agreeably instructive, that
we longed impatiently to bear you again upon the same subject.
C. For my part, I made what haste I could, lest I should have
come too late ; for I was unwilling to lose any part of your dis
course. A. Such conferences are very useful, among those who really
love truth, and talk with teraper ; for then they exchange their best
thoughts, and express them as clearly as they can. As for myself,
gentlemen, I find an advantage in conversing with you ; seeing you
are not displeased at the freedom I take.
B. Let us leave off compliments. Sir, 1 know best how to judge
of myself ; and I perceive clearly that without your assistance I
should have continued in several errors. I entreat you. Sir, to
go on, and set me entirely right in my notions of eloquence.
A. Your mistakes, (if you will allow me to call them so,) pre
vail among most people of worth and learning who have not exam
ined this matter to the bottom. * See Longinus. § . vii.

38 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
B. Let us lose no time in prearable : we shall have a thousand
things to say. Proceed therefore. Sir, to rectify my raistakes, and
begin at the point where we left off yesterday.
A. Of what point were we talking, when we parted ? I have
really forgot.
C. You were speaking of that kind of eloquence which consists
entirely in raoving the passions.
B. Yes : but I conld not well coraprehend that the whole
design of rhetoric is to raove the passions. Is that your opinion,
Sir? A. By no means.
C. It seems then I raistook you yesterday.
A. What would you say of a raan who should persuade without
any proof, and affect his hearers, without enlightening them ? You
could not reckon him a true orator. He inight seduce people by
this art of persuading thera to what he would, without showing
thera that what he recoraraends is right. Such a person raust
prove very dangerous in the coraraonwealth : as we have seen be
fore frora the reasoning of Socrates.
B. It is very true.
A. But on the other hand, what would you think of a man, who
in his public discourses should demonstrate the truth, in a plain,
dry, exact, methodical manner ; or make use of the geometrical
way of reasoning, without adding any thing to adorn or enliven his
discourse ? Would you reckon him an orator ?
B, No : I should think him a philosopher only.
A. To make a complete orator then, we must find a philosopher
who knows both how to deraonstrate any truth ; and at the sarae
time, to give his accurate reasoning all the natural beauty and ve
hemence of an agreeable, moving discourse, to render Jt entirely
eloquent. And herein lies the difference betwixt the clear, con
vincing method of pbilosophy ; and the affecting, persuasive art of
eloquence. C. What do you say is the difference 1
A. I say a philosopher's aim is merely to deraonstrate the truth,
and gain your assent ; while the orator not only convinces your
judgraent, but comraands your passions.
C. I do not take your raeaning exactly yet. When a hearer is
fully convinced, what is there raore to be done ?
A. There is still wanting what an orator would do more than
a metaphysician, in proving the existence of a God. The metaphy-

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE.

39

sician would give you a plain demonstration of it ; aud stop at the
speculative view ofthat important truth. But the orator would fur
ther add whatever is proper to excite the most affecting sentiments
in your raind : and make you love that glorious Being whose exist
ence he had proved. And this is what we call persuasion.
C. Now I understand you perfectly well.
.S. You see then whal reason Cicero had to say, that we must
never separate philosophy from eloquence. For, the art of per
suading without wisdom, and previous instruction, must be perni
cious: and wisdom aione, without the art of persuasion, can never
have a sufficient influence on the niinds of men, nor allure thera
to the love and practice of virtue. I thought it proper to observe
this by the by, to show you how much those of the last age were
mistaken in tbeir notions of this matter. For, on the one hand
there were some men of polite learning, who valued nothing but
the purity of languages, and books elegantly written : but having no
solid principles of knowledge, with their politeness and erudition,
they were generally libertines. On the other hand, they were a set
of dry, formal scholars, who delivered their instructions in such a
perplexed, dogmatical, unaffecting manner, as disgusted every body.
Excuse this digression. I return now to the point; and must re-
mind you that persuasion has this advantage beyond mere conviC'
tion or demonstration ; that it not only sels truth in the ful
lest light, but represents it as amiable ; and engages men
to love and pursue it.* The whole art of eloquence, therefore,
consists in enforcing the clearest proofs of any truth, with
such powerful motives as may affect the hearers, and employ their
passions to just and worthy ends, to raise their indignation at in
gratitude, their horror against cruelty, their compassion for the
miserable, their love of virtue ; and to direct every other passion to
its proper objects. This is what Plato calls affecting the minds of
an audience, and moving their bowels. Do you understand me. Sir 1
B. Very plainly : and I see too that eloquence is not a trifling
invention to amuse and dazzle people wilh pompous language ; but
that it is a very serious art, and serviceable to raorality.
* — Omnes animorum motus, quos hominum generi rerum natura tribuit,
penitus pernoscendi ; quod omnis vis ratioque dicendi in eorum qui audiunt,
mentibus aut sedandis, aut excitandis, exprimenda est. de. De Orat. lib. i.
§.5. Maximaque pars orationis admovenda est ad animorum motus non
nunquam aut'cohortatione, aut commeraoratione, aliqua, aut in spem, autin
metum, aut ad cupiditatem, aut ad gloriam eoncitandos : saepe etiam a teme
ritate, iracundia, spe, injuria, etedulitate revocandos, Jbid. Ub. ii. §. 8S.
31

40 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
A. It is both a serious and a difficult art. For which reason
Tully said he had heard several persons declaim in an elegant, en
gaging raanner ; but that there were but very few complete orators,
who knew how to seize and captivate the heart.
C. I ara not surprised at that ; for I see but very few who aim
at it : nay, I freely own that Cicero himself who lays down this
rule, seems oftentimes to forget it. Whal do you think of those
rhetorical flowers with which he embellished his harangues ? They
raight arause the fancy, but could not touch the heart.
A. We must distinguish, Sir, betwixt TuUy's orations. Those
he coraposed in his youth (when he chiefly airaed at establishing
his character,) have oft-times the gay defect you speak of. He was
then full of ambition, and far more concerned for his own fame,
than for the justice of his cause. And this will always be the
case when people employ one to plead for them, who regards their
business no farther than as it gives him an opportunity of distin
guishing himself, and of shining in his profession. Thus we find
that among the Roraans their pleading at the bar was oft-times
nothing else but a pompous declamation. After all, we must own
that TuUy's* youthful and most elaborate orations show a great deal
ofhis moving and persuasive art. But to forra a just notion of it,
we raust observe the harangues he made in his raore advanced age
* Nunc causa perorata, res ipsa et periculi magnitudo, C. Aquilli, cogere
videtur, ut te, atque eos, qui tibi in consilio sunt, obsecret, obteslelurque P.
Quintius per senectutem ac solitudinem suam, nihil aliud, nisi ut vestrae na
turae, bonltatique obsequamini : ut, cum Veritas hsc faciat, plus hujus inopia
possit ad misericordian quam illius opes ad crudelitatem — si quae pudore or
namenta sibi peperit, Nsevi, ea potest contra petulantiam, te defendente, obti
nere : spes est et hunc miserum atque infelicem aliquando tandera posse con
sistere. Sin et poterit Naevius id quod libet ; et ei libebit, quod non licet ;
quid agendum est .' Qui Deus appellandus est .' Cujus hominis fides implo-
randa .' — Ab ipso [Naevio] repudiatus, ab amicis ejus non sublevatus ; ab
omni manistratu agitatus alque perterritus, quem praeter te appellet, [C.
Aquilli] habet neminem ; tibi see, tibi suas omnes opes fortunasque commen
dat: tibi committit existiinationem ac spera reliquae vitae. Multis vexatus
contumeliis, plurimis jactatus injuriis non tur-pis ad te, sed miser confugit ; e
fundo ornalissimo dejectus, ignominiis omnibus appetitus — itaque te hoc ob-
secrat, C. Aquilli, ut quam existimationem, quam honestatem injudicium
tuum, prope acta jam aetate decursaque attulit, eam liceat ei secum ex hoc
loco efferre ; ne is, de cujus ofiicio nemo unquam dubitavit, sexagesirao de
nique anno, dedecore, macula, turpissimaque ignominia noletur ; ne orna
mentis ejus omnibus. Sex. Naevius pro speliis abutatur : ne per te feral, quo
minus, quae eziatimatio P. Quintium, usque ad senectutem perduxit, eadem
usque ad togum prosequajur. Cic. Orat. pro. P. Quintio.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 41
for the necessities of the republic. For then, the experience he
had in the weiohtiest affairs, the love of liberty, and the fear of
those calamities that hung over his head, made him display the ut
most efforts of his eloquence. When he endeavoured lo support
and revive expiring liberty, and to animale the commonwealth
against Antony his eneniy, you do not see him use points of wit
and quaint aniilheses ; he is then truly eloquent. Every thing
seems artless, as it ought to be when one is vehement. With a
negligent air he delivers the most natural and affecting sentiments,
and says every tning that can move and animate the passions.
C. You have often spoke of witty conceits and quaint turns.
Pray, what do you mean by these expressions ? For I can scarce
distinguish those witty turns from the olher ornaments of discourse.
In ray opinion, all the embellishments of speech flow from wit, and
a vigorous fancy.
A. But Tully thinks, there are many expressions that owe all
their beauly and ornament to their force and propriety ; and to the
nature ofthe subject they are applied to.
C I do not exactly understand these terras : be pleased to show
me in a familiar way, how I may readily distinguish betwixt a flash
of wit, or (quaint turn,) and a solid ornament, or* noble, delicate
thought. A. Reading and observation will teach you best ; there are a
hundred different sorts of witty conceits.
C. But pray, Sir, tell me at least some general mark by which
I may know them : is it affectation ?
A. Not every kind of affectation : but a fond desire to please,
and show one's wit.
C. This gives me some little light ; but I want still some dis
tinguishing marks, to direct my judgraent.
A. I will give you one then, which perbaps will satisfy you.
We have seen that eloquence consists not only in giving clear, con
vincing proofs ; but likewise in the art of raoving the passions. Now
* True wit is nature lo advantage dress'd.
What oft was thought, but ne'er so well express'd ;
Something, whose trvth convinc'd at sight we find.
That gives us back the image of our mind.
As shades more sweetly recommend the light :
So modest plainness sets off sprightly tint.
For works may have more wit than does them good.
As bodies perish through excess of blood. ¦Essay on Criticism.

42 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
in order to move them, we must be able to paint them well, with their
various objects and effects. So that I think the whole art of oratory
may be reduced to proving, painting, and raising the passions. Now
all those pretty, sparkling, quaint thoughts, that do not tend to one
of these ends, are only witty conceits.
C What do you mean by painting ? I never heard tbat term
applied to rhetoric.
A. To* paint, is not only to describe things, but to represent
the circurastances ofthem, in such at lively, sensible manner, that
the hearer shall fancy he almost sees them with his eyes. For in
stance, ifa dry historian were to give an account of Dido's death,
he would only say, she was overwhelmed with sorrow after the de
parture of ./Eneas ; and that she grew weary of her life, so went up
to the top of her palace, and lying down on her funeral pile, she
stabbed herself. Now these words would inform you of the fact :
but you do not see it. When you read the story in Virgil, he sels
it before your eyes. When he represents all the circunistances of
Dido's despair, describes her wild rage, and death already staring
in her aspect ; when he makes her speak at the sight of the pic
ture and sword that iEneas left, your imagination transports you to
Carthage, where you see the Trojan fleet leaving the shore, and the
queen quite inconsolable. You enter inlo all her passions, and in
to the sentiments ofthe supposed spectators. It is nol Virgil you
then hear ; you are too attentive to the last words of unhappy Dido,
to think of him. The poet disappears : and we see only what he
describes ; and hear those only whom he makes to speak. Such is
the force of a natural imitation, and of painting in language. Hence
it comes that the painters and the poets are so nearly related ; the
one paints for the eyes, and the olher for the ears ; but both of
ihem ought to convey the liveliest pictures to peoples' iraagination.
1 have taken an example from a poet to give you a livelier image of
what I mean by painting in eloquence, for poets paint in a stronger
manner than orators. Indeed the main thing in which poetry dif-
* See Longinus § . xv. *
t Plus est evidentia, vel ut alii dicunt, repraesentatio, quam perspicuitaa :
et illnd quidem patet : haec se quodammodo ostendit — magna virtus est, res
de quibus loquimur, clare atque ut cerni videantur, ennnciare. Non enim
satis efficit, neque ut debet plene dominatur oratio, si usque ad aures volet,
alque ea sibi judex de quibus cognoscit, narrari credit, non exprimi, et oculis
mentis ostendi — atque hujus summae, judicio quidem meo, virtutis &cillima
est via. Jfaturam intueamur, hanc sequamur. Quintil. lib. viii. c. 3.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 43
fers from eloquence is, that the poet paints with enthusiasm and
gives bolder touches than the orator. But prose allows of painting
in a moderate degree ; for, without lively descriptions it is irapossi>-
bfe to warra the hearer's fancy, or to stir his passions. A plain
narrative does not raove people ; we must not only inform them of
facts, but* strike their senses, by a lively, moving representation of
the raanner and circurastances ofthe facts we relate.
C I never reflected on this before. But seeing what you call
painting is essential to oratory ; does it not follow that there can be
no true eloquence, without a due raixture of poetry i
A. You are right : only we raust exclude versification ; thatis,
a strict regard to the quantity of syllables, and the order of words
in whicb the poet is obliged to express his thoughts, accorrling to
the measure or verse he writes in. Versification, indeed, if it be
in rhyme, is what injudicious people reckon to be the whole of
poetry. Sume fancy themselves to be poets, because they have
spoken or writ in measured words : but there are many who make
verses without poetry, and others are veryt poetical without makinc
verses. If therefore we set versifying aside, poetry in other respects
is only a lively fiction that paints nature. And if one has not this
genius for painting, he will never be able to imprint things on the
hearer's mind ; but his discourse will be flat, languid and weari
sorae. Ever since the fall of Adara, raen's thoughts have been so
low and grovelling, that they are unattentive to raoral truths and
can scarce conceive any thing biit what affects their senses. In
* Tii5 Se furtfixtif <p«»T«5-i'«5 xcAAtrov «« ro ifiTrficiclitt xxt ImXtihf.—
V.aXetra.t fih y«p xoivSj (parrctirU irat 'amivfta hiya yirniTtxiii i'n-anvn
vafteeLftzitr iit'ui S' ivi riran xixfdriiixi rtsmifist, eray a Aeyjif ijro 'tvlevriarfcS
xai Wtes /i?\iaHi ooxjfs, x»i vtt oi^jn riSjif rti% OTcaaitti — T/ at i hrtctxi
(fairairiiit ^itecmti ; vcXXa ftly (Vai; xai 'aXha rtis >i.ifci; tvayana xai iftiraiii
srf»«*r^5p«»" xaiaxt^tafiivnfiiSloi ra7s Tt^ayfiarixali 'tnix/^^tiniriy, a reiln
rii ax^earif fuyoi, a)i)M xai ^ett)\.Srai. Longinus, § xv.
t The adventures of Telemachus, composed by our ingenious author, are in
tirely written in that poetic prose he here speaks of. M. Bossu, tbe greatest
modern critic, does not think that work can be called a poem : but he owns
the distinction thAt our author here takes notice of. < There is good reason
(says he,) fo distinguish such artless composures (fumed into verse) from true
poefry, by giving them the narae of versification ; and to make of versification
and poetry, as it were, two different arts. And indeed, is there a greater dif
ference betwixt grammar and rhetoric, than betwixt the art of making verses,
and that of inventing a poem .'" Traite du poeme epigue. liv. i. ch. 6.

44 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
this consists the degeneracy of human nature. People grow soon
weary ot contemijlation ; intellectual ideas do not sfrike their im
agination, so that we must use sensible and* familiar images to
support their attention, and convey abstracted truihs lo their minds.
Hence it came, that, soon after fbe fall, the religion of all the ancients
consisted of poetry and idolatry ; which were always joined together
in their various schemes of superstition. But let us not wander too
far — you see plainly that poetry, I mean, the lively painting of
things, is, as it were, the very soul of eloquence.
C. But if true orators be poets, I should think that poets are
orators too : for poetry is very proper to persuade.
A. Yes: they have the very same end. All the difference be
twixt them consists in what- 1 have told you. Orators are not pos
sessed with that enthusiasm which files the poet's breast, and ren
ders him more lively, more sublime, and bolder in expression. You
remember the passage I quoted from Cicero.
C. Which f is il not —
A. That an orator ought to have the style almost of a poet ;
that almost points out the difference between thera.
C. I understand you. But you do not come to the point you
proposed to explain to us.
A. Which ?
C. The rule for distinguishing betwixt witty turns and solid or
naraents. A. You will soon comprehend that. For of what use in dis-
CQurse can any ornament be, that does not tend either to prove, to
paint, or to affect ?
C. It may serve to please.
A. We raust distinguish here between such ornaments as only
please, and those that both please and persuade. That which serves
to please in order to persuade, is good and solid ; thus we are
pleased with strong and clear arguments. The just and natural
emotions of an orator have rauch grace and beauly in them; and
his exact and lively painting charms us. So that all the necessary
parts of eloquente are apt to please, but yet pleasing is not their
true aira. The question is, whether we shall approve such thoughts
and expressions as may perhaps give an arausing delight ; but in
other respects, are altogether useless : and these I, call quaint turns,
and points of wit. You must jeraeraber now that I allow all those
* Respicere exemplar vitae moruinque jubebo
Doctum imilatorem, el veras hinc ducere voces. Hor. de A. P.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 46
graces of style, and delicate thoughts that tend to persuasion ; I
only reject those vain, affected ornaments that the self-conceited
author uses, lo paint his own charaiter, and amuse others with his
wit, instead of filling their iniiids entirely with his subject. In fine,
1 think we ought lo condemn nol only all jingle and playing with
words, as a thing extremely mean and boyish ; but even all willy
conceits, and fanciful turns ; I mean, such thoughts as only flash
and glitter upon the fancy, but contain nolbing that is solid, and
conducive to persuasion.
C. I could agree lo that, but that I am afraid such severity
would retrench the chief beauties of discourse.
A. Do not you reckon Homer and Virgil very agreeable au
thors ? Are they not the most delicate you ever read ? And yet in
thera you do not find what we call points of wit. Their poems are
full of noble simplicity; their art is entirely concealed;* nature it
self appears in all that they say. We do not find a single word
that seems purposely designed loshow the poet's wit. They thought
it their greatest glory never to appear, but to employ our attention
on the objects they describe ; as a painter endeavours to set before
your eyes wide forests, mountains, rivers, distant views, and build
ings ; or the adventures, actions, and different passions of men, in
such a lively manner, that you cannot trace the masterly strokes of
his pencil ; for art looks raean and coarse when it is perceived.
Plato (who had examined this matter raore thoroughly than any
other orator, or critic,) assures us that in coraposing, the poet
should always keep out of sight, make himself be quite forgot by
his readers, and represent only those things and persons which he
would set before their eyes. You see how much the ancients ex
celled us in just and lofty sentiments.
B. I see the use and neces.sity of painting, in eloquence ; let
us next know the nature and use of those affecting movements you
spoke of.
A. They serve to raise in the hearer's mind, sUch emotions as
answer the orator's purpose.
* When first young Maro sung of kings and wars,
'Ere warning Phoebus touch'd his trembling ears.
Perhaps he seem'd above the criUc's law.
And but from nature's fountains scorn'd to draw :
But when t' examine every part he came,
JVature and Homer, were, he found, the sarae.
Learn Ijence for ancient rules a just esteem ;
To copy nature is to copy them. Pope.

46 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
C But in what do these raovements ofan orator consist I
A. In his words, and in the actions of his body.
B. What raoveraent can there be in words ?
A. A great deal. Tully tells us, that the very eneraies of
Gracchus could not forbear weeping when* he pronounced these
words — ' Miserable man that I ara I Whither shall I turn myself?
Where can I go? to the Capitol? It swims with my brother's
blood. Shall I go to my own house? There see my unhappy raother
dissolved in tears, and oppressed with sorrow ?' This is moving
language. But now if one were to say the sarae things in a cold
manner, they would lose all their force.
B. Think you so?
A. Let us try. ' I kno.w not where to go, nor whither I should
turn myself, amidst my raisfortunes. The Capitol is the place vvhere
my brother's blood was shed ; and at home, I shall see my unhappy
mother lamenting her condition, with the utraost grief This is
the same thing that was said before : but what has become of that
force and vivacity we then perceived ? Where is thatt vehement
manner, and abrupt language which so justly describes nature in
the transports of grief? The manner of saying a thing shows us
how it affects the mind : and that is what most effectually
touches the hearer. In such passages, one ought studiously to
avoid all refined, uncommon thoughts ; and even neglect connexion
and order : otherwise the passion described has no appearance of
truth, or nature, in it. Nothing is more shocking than a passion
expressed in beautiful figures, pompous language, and well turned
periods. On this head I musl recommend| Longinus to you,
who quotes raany sublime examples from Demosthenes and others.
C. Besides the movements that attend an affecting, vehement
style, you raentioned others that flow frora the orator's gesture and
action : which I must entreat you to explain.
A. I cannol pretend lo give you a complete system of rhetoric.
It is a task I ara not fit for. However, I shall give you some re-
* Quid fuit in Graccho, quem tu, Catule, melius meministi, quod me puero
tantopere ferretur .' quo me miser conf eram ? quo vertam? in Capitoliumne ?
at fratris sanguine redundat. Jin domum ? matremne ut miseram lamen-
tantemque videam, et abjectam ? quae sic ab illo acta esse constabat occulis,
voce, gestu, inimici ut lachrymas tenere non possent. Hiec eo dico pluribus,
quod genus hoc totum oratores, qui sunt veritatis ipsiis actores reliquerunt; im
itatores autem veritiitis, histriones, occupaverunt. Cic. de Orat. lib. iii. § . 56.
) See Longinus, §. xviii. ,} See Longinus, §. xviii, xix, xx, xxi.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 47
marks I have made on the point of gesture, we find in Tully and*
Quintilian that the action of the Greeks and Romans was far more ,
violent than ours. They stamped on the ground, and even beat
their forehead. Tully mentions an orator, who in his pleading laid
hold ofhis client, and tore open his clothes, to show the judges the
wounds he had received in the service of the republic. This was
a vehement kind of action indeed ; but such as is reserved for ex
traordinary occasions, and doth not fall within the comraon rules
of gesture. I think it is not natural to be always raoving one's arra
in talking ; thatt motion is proper enough when the orator is very
veheraent : but he ought not to raove his arm in order to appear ve
hement. Nay there are many things that ought to be pronounced
calmly, and without any motion.
B. Would you have a preacher, for instance, use no gesture af
all on sorae occasions 1 that would look very strange indeed.
A. I know tbat most people lay it d'owA for a rule, (or a custom
at least,) that a preacher should be always in motion, whatever the
subject be that he treats of But it might be easily shown that our
[French] preachers usually have too much gesture, and sometimes
too little.
jB. I wish you would state this manner clearly. For I alvvays
believed, from the exaraple of *** that there are not above two or
three motions of the hands to be used in a whole sermon.
A. Let us then lay down some principle to argue upon. Now of
what use is the| action of the body in speaking T Is it not to ex
press the sentiments and passions of the mind ?
B. I think so.
* Femur ferire, quod Athenis primus fecisse creditur Cleon, el usitatum est,
et indignatos decet, et excitat auditorem. Idque in Callidio Cicero desiderat.
JVon frons, inquit, percussa ? non femur ? pedum nulla supplosio 7 Quird'.
t Brachii moderata projectio remissis humeris, atque explicantibus se in pro-
ferenda manu digitis, continues etdecurrentes locos maxime decet. Ibid.
i Actio inquam in dicendo una dominatur : sine hac summus orator esse in
numero nullo potest : .mediocris, hac instructus summos saepe superare. Huic
primas dedisse Demosthenes dicitur, quum rogaretur quid in dicendo esset pri
mum ; huic secundas; huic tertias. De Orat. lib. iii. § 56. Est enim ociio
quasi sermo corporis; quo magis menti congrua esse debet — atqUe in iis omni
bus quae sunt actionis, inest quaedam vis a natura data ; quare etiam hac impe-
liti, hac vulgus, hac denique barbari maxime commoventur — iisdem enitrt
omnium animi motibus concintantur, et eos iisdera notis, et in aliis agnos-
cnnt, et in se ipsi indicant. Jiid. § 54.
32

48 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
A . The motion of the body then should help to paint the thoughts
of the soul.
B. Yes.
A. And that painting ought to be exact and* faithful. Every
look and motion should, in an easy, natural manner, represent the
speaker's sentiments, and the nature of the things he says; but so
as to avoid all raean and theatrical gestures.
B. I think I understand your notion exactly. Let me interrupt
you then a little, that you may see hovv far I enter into the conse
quences that flow from the principle you laid down. Yout would
have an orator use such a lively, natural, becoraing action, as will
help to point out distinctly what his words alone could express only
in a flat and languid raanner. So that you reckon his very action a
sort of painting.
A. Right. But we must farther conclude that to paint well,
we must iraitate nature ; and observe what she does when she is
left to herself; and is not constrained by art.
B. That is plain.
A. Now doth a raan naturally use many gestures when he says
coraraon things, without veheraence, or the least raixture of any
sort of passion ?
B. No.
A. On such coraraon subjects, then, we ought not to use any
action in public discourses, or at least but little ; for there we ought
always to| follow nature ; nay, there are sorae occasions where an
orator might best express his thoughts by silence. For, if, being
full of some great sentiment, he continued iraraoveable for a mo-
* Omnis enim motus animi suum quendam a natura habet vultum et sonum,
et gestum ; totumque corpus hominis, et ejus omnis vultus omnesque vosces, ut
nervi in fidibus, ita sonant, ut a motu animi quaque sint pulsae. Cicero.
f Gestus quantum habeat in oratore momenti, satis vel ex eo patet quod ple
raque etiam citra verba significat. Quippe non raanus solum, sed nutus etiam
declarant nostram voluntatem ; et in mutus pro sermone sunt — contra si gestus
ac vultus ab oratione dissentiat, tristia dicamus hilares, afErinemus aliqua
renuentes, non auctoritas modo verbis, sed etiam fides desit. Quint, lib. xi. c. 3.
% Unum jam his adjiciendum est, cum praecipue in actione spectetur decorum,
saepe aliud alios decere. Est enim latens quaedam in hoc ratio, el inenarrabilis ;
et ut vere hoc dictum est caput esse artis, decere quod facias — quare norit se
quisque ; nec tantum ex communibus praeceptis, sed eliam ex natura sua capiat
consilium formande actionis. Q;u,int. lib. xi. c. 3.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 49
ment, this surprising pause would keep the rainds of the audience
in suspense, and express an eraotion too big for words to utter.
B. I doubt not but such unexpected pauses seasonably eraployed,
would be very significant, and powerfully affect the hearers. But,
Sir, you seem to think that one who speaks in public ought to use
no other action than what is proper for ordinary conversation.
A. You mistake me. Sir ; I think the sight of a great assembly,
and the importance of the subject an orator treats of, ought to ani
mate him far more than if he were talking familiarly with his
friends. But both in private and in public, he ought always to act
naturally. He should use sorae action when his words are moving;
but when his expressions are quite calm and simple, there is no
occasion to move the body : except it be in the gentlest raanner.
Nothiug appears raore shocking and absurd, than to see a raan
very warra and active, when he is saying the driest, coldest things.
Though he sweats hiraself, he chills the blood of his audience.
Sometime ago, I happened to fall asleep at a serraon ; *****
but I soon waked and found the preacher in a very violent agita
tion, so that I fancied, at first, that he was pressing some important
point of raorality —
B. What was the matter then 1
A. He was only giving notice that on the Sunday following he
would preach upon repentance. I was extreraely surprised to hear
such an indifferent thing uttered with so much veheraence. *****
The pronunciation of these declairaers is exactly like their gesture ;
for as their voice is a perpetual raonotony, so there is an* unifor
mity in their gesture that is no less nauseous and unnatural ; and
* In the deUvering of serraons, a great composure of gesture and behaviour
is necessary to give them weight and authority. Extremes are bad here, as in
every thing else. Some affect a light and flippant behaviour ; and others think
that wry faces, and a tone in the voice will set off' the matter. Grave and com
posed looks, and a natural, but distinct pronunciation, will always have the
best effects. Thegreat rule which the masters of rhetoric press much, can
never be enough remembered, that to make a man speak well, and pronounce
with a right emphasis, he ought thoroughly to understand all that he says, be
- fully persuaded of it, and bring himself to h&ve those affections which he
desires to infuse into others. He that is persuaded of the truth of what' he
says, and has a concern about it in his mind, will pronounce with a natural ve
hemence that is far more lively than all the .strains that art can lead him to. An
orator, (if we hearken lo them) must be an honest man, and speak always on
the side of truth ; and study to feel all that he says ; and then he will speak il
so as to make others feel it likewise. Discourse ofthe Pastoral Care. c. ix.

50 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
equally contrary to the good effect that one might expect from de
cent action.
B. You said that sometimes they have not action enough.
A. We cannot wonder at that. For they do not discern the
I things that require warmth and earnestness. Thpy waste their I
spirits in saying the plainest things ; and so are forced to utter
thpse things faintly which ought to be delivered with a vehement
action. I must own indeed that the French are not very capable
of this veheraence ; for, they are too airy, and do not conceive
things with sufficient strength ; and therefore they do not speak
with a proper energy. The Roraans had a wonderful talent this
way, and the Greeks a greater. The eastern nations excelled in
it; and particularly the Hebrews. Nothing can equal the strength
and vivacity of the figures they eraployed in their discourse ; and
the very actions they used to express their septiraents ; such as
putting ashes on their heads, and fearing their garraents, and cov
ering theraselves with sackcloth, under any deep distress and sor
row of raind. I do not speak of what the prophets did to give a
raore lively representation ofthe things they foretold, because such
figurative actions were the effect of divine inspiration. But even
in other cases, we find that those people understood rauch better
than we do, how to express their grief, and fear, and other passions.
And hence, no doubt, arose those surprising effects of eloquence,
whicb we never experience now.
B. You approve then of raany different gestures, and* various
inflections of the voice ?
A. It is that variety which gives so much grace and force to
the action of an orator ; and made Demosthenes far excel all others.
The more easy and farailiar tbat the voice and action appear, when
the speaker only narrates, explains, or instructs, the raore apt he
will be to surprise and raove the audience in those parts of his
discourse, where he grows suddenly veheraent, and enforces lofty,
affecting sentiraents by a suitable energy of voice and action.
* In omni voce, ?st quiddam medium ; sed suum cuique ; hinc gradatim
adscendere vocem utile, el suave est ; (nam a principio clamare agreste quid
dam est:) et illud idem ad formandum est vocem salutare ; delude est quiddam
contentius extremum — est item contra quiddam in remissione gravissimum,
quoque tamquam sonorum gradibus descenditur. Haec varietas, et hic per
omnes spnos vocis cursus, et se tuebifur, el actioni afferet suavitatem.
Cic. de Orat. lib. iii. § 61.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 51
This due* pronunciation is a kind of music ; whose beauty con
sists in the variety of proper tones and inflections of the voice,
which ought to rise or fall vvith a just and easy cadence, according
to the nature of the things we express. It gives a light as well as
a grace to language ; and is the very life and ispirit of discourse.
B. According to your notions of elocution, it is an art unknown
to our greatest orators. The preacher that you and I heard, about
fortnight ago, did not observe your rule ; nor even seem to endeav
our it. Except the first thirty words of his serraon, he spake
always in the same tone ; and the only sign I could perceive of his
being more vehement in some parts of his discourse, than in others,
was, that when he seemed earnest, he spoke faster than at other
times. A. To me. Sir, his voice seeraed to have tvvo tones ; though
they were well adapted to his words. You observed justly enough
that he did not follow the rules of pronunciation ; and I believe he
did not perceive the need of them. His voice is naturally melodious;
and though it be ill raanaged, it is however pleasing enough. But
you see plainly that it does not make those sfrong, affecting impres
sions on the mind that it would produce, if it had such various in
flections as are proper to express the speaker's sentiments. Such
preachers are like fine clocks, that give a clear, full, soft, agreeable
sound ; but after all they are clocks only, of no significancy ; and
having no variety of notes, they are incapable of harmony or elO'
quence. B. But were there not many graces in the rapidity of his dis
course ?
* Ornata est pronuntiatio, cui suffragatur vox facilis, magna, beata, flexibilis,
firma, dulcis, durabilis, clara, pura, secans ara, auribus sedens. Est enim
quasdam ad auditum accommodota, non magnitudine sed proprietate, ad hoc
velul tractabilis ; utique habens onfnes in se qui desiderantur sonos intention.
esque, et toto ut aiunt organo instructa — illud vero',raaximura, quod secundum
rationem rerum de quibus dicimus, animorumque habitus, conformanda vox
fst, ne ab oratione discordet. Viteraus igitur illam quae Greece fttvcrtna,
vocatur, una quaedam spiritus ac soni intentio : non solum ne dicamus clamose,
quod insanum est ; aut intra loquendi modum, quod motu caret ; aut suramisso
murmure, qiio etiam debilitatur omnis intentio : sed ut in iisdem partibus,
iisdemque affectibus, sint tamen quiedam non ifa magnae vocis declinationes,
prout aut verborum dignitas, aul sententiarum natura, aut depositio, aut inceptio,
Jiut transitus postulabit ; ut qui singulis pinxerunt coloribus, alia tamen cmin-
enliora, ^liareductiora fecerunt; sine quo ne membris quidem suas lineas de-
dissent. Qwint. lib. xi. e. 3.

52 rENELON'S DIALOGUES
A. Yes J and I grant that in some afiecting, lively passages one
ought to speak faster tban usual. But it is a great fault to speak
with so much precipitation that one cannot stop himself, nor be
distinctly understood. The voice and action bear some resem
blance to verse. Sometimes we must use such a slow, and grave
measure, as is fit to describe things of that character; and some
times a short impetuous one, to express what is quick and ardent.
To use always the sarae degree of action, and the same tone of
voice, is like prescribing one remedy for all distempers. But we
ought to excuse the uniformity of that preacher's voice and action.
For, besides his possessing many excellent qualities, the fault we
complain of, is the natural effect of his style. We have already
agreed that the modulation of the voice should be exactly suited to
the words. Now his style is even, and uniform, without the least
variety. On the one hand, it is not familiar, insinuating, and pop
ular; and, on the other, it has nothing in it that is lively, figurative,
and sublirae ; but it consists of a constant flow of words, that press
one after the other ; containing a close and well-connected chain
of reasoning, on clear ideas. In a word, he is a man that talks
good sense very correctly. Nay, we must acknowledge that he has
done great service to the pulpit; he has rescued it from the servi
tude of vain declairaers, and filled it hiraself vvith much strength
and dignity. He is very capable of convincing people ; but I know
few preachers who persuade and move thera less than he doth. If
you observe carefully, you will even find that his way of preaching is
not very instructive, for besides his not having a farailiar, engaging,
pathetic raanner of talking, (as I observed before,) his discourse
does not in the least* strike the iraagination, but is addressed to
* The senses and the imagination are fruitful and inexhaustible sources of
mistakes and delusion ; but the understandfhg or mind acting by itself, is not so
subject to error — we cannot always speak so as to affect the senses and imag
ination of others; noi ought we always to endeavour it. When a subject is
abstracted, we can seldom render it sensible (or apt to strike the imagination,)
without making it obscure ; it is enough if it be made intelligible. Nothing
cari be more unjust than the usual complaints of those who would know every
thing, and yet will not apply themselves to any thing. They take it amiss
when we require their attention ; and expect that we should always strike their
fancy, and continually please their senses, and their passions. But il is not in
our power to gratify them. The authors of romances and comedies are obliged
thus to please and amuse them ; but as for us, it is enough if we can instruct
those who are truly attentive. P. Malbranche's recherche de la verite. liv. iii. c. 1.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 53
the understanding only. It is a thread of reasoning that cannot
be comprehended without the closest attention. And seeing there
are but few hearers capable of such a constant application of mind,
they retain little or nothing of his discourse. It is like a torrent
that hurries along at once, and leaves its channel dry. In order to
make a lasting irapression on people's minds, we must support their
altention, by raoving their passions ; for dry instructions can have
but little influence. But the thing that I reckon least natural in
this preacher, is the continual raotion he gives his arras, while there
is nothing figurative, nor moving in his words. The action used
in ordinary conversation, would suit his style best; or his impetuous
gesture would require a style full of sallies and vehemence ; and
even then he behoved to manage his warmth better, and render it
less uniforra. In fine, I think he is a great raan — but not an orator.
A country preacher who can alarra his hearers, and draw tears
frora thera, answers the end of eloquence better than he.
B. But how shall we know the particular gestures, and the in
flections of voice that are agreeable lo nature ?
A. I told you before that the whole art of good orators consists
in observing vvhat nature does when unconstrained. You ought
not to iraitate those haranguers who choose alvvays to dedaira ; but
will never talk to their hearers. On the contrary, you should ad
dress yourself to an audience in such a raodest, respectful, engag
ing manner, that each ofthem shall think you are speaking to him
in particular. And this is the use and advantage of natural, famil
iar, insinuating tones of voice. They ought always to be grave
and becoming ; and even strong and pathetic, when the subject
requires it. But you must not fancy that you can express the pas
sions by the mere strength of voice ; like those noisy speakers who
by bawling and tossing themselves about, stun their hearers, instead
of affecting them. If we would succeed in painting and raising
the passions, we must know exactly what movements they inspire.
For instance, observe vvhat is the posture, aud what the voice of
one whose heart is pierced with sorrow, or surprised at the sight of
an astonishing object ; remark the natural action ofthe eyes; what
the hands do ; and what the whole body. On such occasions
nature appears; and you need only follow it; if you must employ*
lirt, conceal it so well under an exact imitation, that it may pass
* Tots y«g « ri^iiri riXHH, ¦i"'"' an (pwiris eivat aoxjf' { 5' av ^tiris
'iTc-tlviffii, orav ^.avidiiaira TTifiix'/i rh ts^vjjv. Longinus, § xxii.

54 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
for nature itself. But to speak the truth, orators in such cases are
like poets who write elegies or olher passionate verses ; they musl*
feel the passion they describe, else they can never paint it well.
The greatest art imaginable can never speak liket true passion and
undisguised nature. So that you will always be but an imperfect
orator, if you be not thoroughly moved with those sentiments tbat
you paint, and would infuse into otbers. Nor do I say this from
a pious motive : I speak now only asf an orator.
B. Tbe case, I think, is abundantly plain : but you spoke to us
of the eyes : have they tbeir rhetoric too ?
A. Yes; if you will believe§ Tully, and other ancient oratorsi
Nothing is more intelligible than the aspect : it expresses every pas
sion of the soul. And in the aspect, the eyes are most active and
significant. One well-timed look will pierce to the bottom of the
heart. B. The preacher we were speaking of, has usually bis eyes shut.
When we observe him near, it is very shocking.
* Ut rrdentibus arridenl, ita flentibus adsunt
Huraani vultus. Si vis mo Here, dolendum est
Primum ipsi tibi 
 male si mandata loqueris,
Aut dorniitabo, aut ridebo. Tristia moestum
Vultum verba decent ; iratum plena minarum.
Format enim natura prius nos intus ad omnem
Fortunarura habitum ; juvat, aut impellit ad iram,
Aut ad humum mcerore gravi deducit, et angil ;
Post efFert animi motus interprete lingua. Hor. de A. P.
t GuffSv y«p apofin-aifii))! «» a; bSjd sVaif a; to yinaiot Tedies hia ^gii
fbV^aMyeijdy, aa-Trtf vtch fiaviai rivos, xai Trnvftaro; inairia^ixa ix.'itnei, xai
t'loya ^otZd^oy rag Xoyag. Longinus, § viii.
i Neque fieri potest, ut doleat is qui audit, ut oderit. ut invideat, ut perfi-
mescat aliquid, nisi onmes ii motus quos orator adhibere volet judici, in ipso
oratore impressi, atque inusti videbuntur — ut enira nulla materies tara facilis
ad exardescendum est, quse nisi admoto igni ignem concipere possit : sic nulla
mens est tam ad coraprehendendam vim oratoris parata, quae possit incendi, nisi
inflammatus ipse ad eam et ardens accesseris. Cic. de Orat, lib. ii. § 45.
§ Sed in ore sunt omnia. Inn eo autem ipso dominatus est omnis oculorum —
animi enim est omnis actio ; et imago animi vultus est, indices oculi. Nam haec
est una pars corporis quse quot animi motus sunt, tot significationes, et commu-
tationes possit efficere — oculi sunt quorum turn intentione, turn remissione, tum
conjectu, tum hilaritate motus animorum significemus apte cum genere ipso
orationis ; est enini actio quasi sermo corporis ; quo magis menli congruens esse
debet. — Quare in hac nostra actione secundum vocem vultus valet : is autem
oculis gubernatur. Cic. de Orat. lib. iii. § 59.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 55
A. It is disagreeable because vve perceive that he wants one of
the chief things that ought to enliven his discourse.
B. But why does he so ?
A. He makes haste to pronounce his words ; and shuts his eyes,
because it helps his labouring meraory.
B. I observed indeed that it vvas very much burdened : some
tiraes he repeated several words to find out the thread of his dis
course. Such repetitions make one look like a careless school .boy
that has forgot his lesson. They are very disagreeable ; and would
not be easily excused in a preacher of less note.
A. It is not so much the preacher's fault as the defect of the
method he follows, after many others. So long as raen preach by
heart, and often, they vvill be apt to fall into this perplexity.
B. How do you mean ? Would you have us not to preach by
heart? Without doing so, one could not make an exact, pithy dis
course. A. I am not against a preacher's getting some particular ser
mons by heart. They may always have time enough to prepare
themselves for extraordinary occasions. And they might even
acquit themselves handsoraely without such great preparation.
B. How ? This seeras incredible.
A. If I be raistaken, I shall readily own it. Let us only ex
araine the point without prepossession. What is the chief aim of
an orator ? Is it not to persuade ? And in order to this, ought he
not to affect his hearers, by raoving their passions?
B. I grant it.
A. The raost lively and moving way of preaching is therefore
the best.
B. True ; what do you conclude from that ?
A. Which of two orators will have the most powerful and
affecting manner, he who learns his discourse by heart, or he who
speaks without reciting word for word what he had studied ?
B. He, I think, who has got his discourse by heart.
A. Have patience — and let us slate the question right. On the
one hand, I suppose a man prepares his discourse exactly, and learns
it by heart to the least syllable. On the other hand, I suppose anoth
er person who fills his mind with the subject he is to talk of; who
speaks with great ease ; (for, you would not have any body* attempt
* -:^ — Ego nec studium sine divite vena,
Nec rude quid prosit video ingenium. Hor. de A. P.
33

56 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
to speak in public, without having proper talents for it :) in short, a
man who has attentively considered all the principles and parts of
the subject he is to handle, and has a comprehensive view ofthem in
all their extent ; who has reduced his thoughts into a proper method,
and prepared the strongest expressions to explain and enforce them
in a sensible manner ; who ranges all his arguments, and has a
suflicient number of affecting figures : such a man certainly knows
every thing that he ought to say, and the order in which the whole
should be placed ;* to succeed therefore in his delivery, he wants
nothing but those common expressions that must hnake the bulk of
his discourse. But do you believe now that such a person would
have any difiiculty in finding easy, familiar expressions ?
B. He could not find such just and handsorae ones as he
raight have hit on, if he had sought thera leisurely in his closet.
A. I own that. But according to you, he would lose only a few
ornaments ; and you know how to rate that loss according to the
principles we laid down before. On the other side, what advantage
must he not have in the fi-eedom and force of his action ; which is
the main thing. Supposing that he has applied himself much to
coraposing, (ast Cicero requires of an orator,) tbat he has read all
the best models ; and has a natural or acquired easiness of style
and speech ; that he has abundance of solid knowledge and learn
ing ; that he understands his s*ibject perfectly well ; and has ranged
* He then thaf would prepare himself fo be a preacher in this method, must
accustom himself to talk freely to himself, to let his thoughts flow from him ;
especially when he feels an edge find heat upon his mind ; for then happy ex
pressions will come in his mouth — he must also be writing essays upon all
sorts of subjects ; for by writing he will bring himself to a correctness both in
thinking and in speaking ; and thus by a hard practice for two or three years,
a man may render himself such a master in this way, that he can never be
surprised ; nor will new thoughts ever dry up upon him. He must talk over
himself tbe whole &0f2^ of divinity; and accustom himself to explain and prove,
to clear objections, and to apply every part of il to some practical use — and if
in these his meditations, happy thoughts, and noble, tender expressions, do at
any time offer themselves, he must not lose them, but write them down. By
a very few years' practice of two or three of such soliloquies aday, chiefly in fhe
morning, when the head is clearest, and the spirits are liveliest, a man will
contract a great easiness both in thinking and speaking.
Bishop Burnet's Discourse on the Pastoral Care, p. 210, 211.
t Caput autem est, quod (ut vere dicam) minime facimus, (est enim magni
laboris, quem plerique fugimus) quam plurimum scribere — stilus optimus, et
prsestantissimus dicendi effector, ac magister ; neque injuria: nam si subitam et
forfuitam orationem, commentatio, et cogitatio facile viucil; hanc ipsara pro
fecto assidua ac diligens scriptura superabit. De Orat. lib. i. § 33.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 57
all the parts and proofs of it in his head; in such a case we must
conclude that he will speak wilh force, and* order, and readiness.
His periods perhaps will not sooth the ear so rauch as the others;
and for that reason he must be the better orator. His transitions
may not be so fine ; it is no great matter — though these he might
have prepared without getting them by heart; besides, these little
omissions were coramon to the most eloquent orators among the
ancients. They thought such negligence was very natural, and
ought even to be imitated, to avoid the appearance of too great
preparation. What then could our orator want ? He might make
some little repetition ; but that too must have its use. Not only
will the judicious hearer take a pleasure in observing nature here,
which leads one often to resurae whatever view of the subject strikes
strongest upon the raind ; but likewise this repetition imprints
the truth more deeply ; which is the best manner of instruction.
At the worst, one might find in his discourse some inaccuracy of
construction, some obsolete word that has been censured by the
academy ; something that is irregular ; or, if you will, sorae weak
or misapplied expression that he may happen to drop in the warmth
of action. But surely they must have narrow souls who can think
such little escapes worth any one's notice. There is an abundance
of these to be raet wilh in the mostt excellent originals. The
greatest orators among the ancients neglected them ; and if our
views were as noble as theirs, we should not so much regard thosei
trifles, which can arause none but such as are not able to discern
*  cui lecta potenter erit res.

Nec facundia deferit hunc, nec lucidus ordo.
Verbaque provisam rein non invita sequentur. Hor. de A. P.
t Tlafari^iuiyo; a kx oXiya xai airof aftafriifiara, xai OfinPH, xai rat
aXXay oiroi ftiyifoi, xai Dxira roli •AaiTft.airiy afij^ofuyog, oftag ti k^
aiiafrifiola ftaXXoy aira iaiiria xaXSy, ij TrafofUftara J; aftiXfiav, hkH ms
xai Ui irvj^iy vtto fnyaXo^vias asiTriirrarini Trafiyittiyftiya' Longinus, § xxxiii.
X Sunt delicfa tamen, quibus ignovisse velimus :
Nam neque chorda sonum reddit quem vult manus et mens ;
Poscendque gravem perstepe remittit acutum :
Nec semper feriet quodcunque minabitur arcus.
Verum ubi plura nitent in carmine, non ego paucis
Oifendar maculis, quas aut incuria fudit,
Aut humana parum cavit natura  Hor. de A. P.

58 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
and pursue what is truly great. Excuse my freedom, Sir ; if I did
not think you had a genius very different from these little cavilling
critics I conderan, I should speak of them with greater caution.
B. You may always speak your mind, Sir, without any reserve
on my account. Be pleased therefore to go on with your com
parison. A, Consider then, in the next place, the advantages tbat a
preacher must have who does not get his sermon by heart. He is
entirely master of himself; he speaks in an easy, unaffected way,
and not like a formal declaimer. Things flow then from their
proper source. If he bas a natural talent for eloquence, his lan
guage must be lively and moving; even* the warmth that animates
him, raust lead him to such pertinent expressions and figures, as he
could not have found out by study.
B. Why? Surely a man may enliven his fancy, and compose
very sprightly discourses in his closet.
A. I own that ; but a just elocution and gesture must still give
them a greater life and spirit. Besides, what one says in the ardour
of action is far more natural and affecting ; it has a negligent air,
and discovers none of that art which is visible in all elaborate com
posures. We may add farther, that a skilful expeiienced oratort
adapts things to the capacity of his hearers, and varies his discourse
'* But the rule 1 have observed last, is the most necessary of all ; and with
out it all the rest will never do the business : it is this, — that a man must have
in himself a deep sense of the truth and power of religion; he must have a life
and flame in his thoughts with relation to these subjects ; he musl have felt
himself those things whieh he intends to explain and recommend to others.
He must observe narrowly the motions of his own mind, that so he may bave
a lively heat in himself when he speaks of them ; and that he may speak in
so sensible a manner, that it may be almost felt that he speaks from his heart.
There is an authority in the simplest things that can be said, when they carry
visible characters of genuineness in them. Now if a man can carry on this
method, and by much meditation aod prayer, draw down divine influences,
which are always to be expected when a man puts himself in the way of tliem ,
and prepares himself for them, he will always feel that while he is musing, d
fire is kindled within him ; and then he will speak with authority, aod with
out constraint ; his thoughts will be frue, and his expressions free and easy.
Discourse of the Pastoral Care, p. Ill, 112.
t Erit igitur hsec facultas in eo quera volumus esse eloquentera, ut definire
rem possit; neque id faciat tara presse et anguste, quam in illis erudiUssimis
disputationibus fieri solet, sed cum explanatius, tum etiam uberius, et ad com
mune judicium, popularemque intelligentiam accommodatius. Cic. Orat. § 33.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 59
according to the impression he sees it makes upon their minds.
For he easily perceives whether they understand him or not ; and
whether he gains their attention, and moves their hearts ; and if it
be needful, he resuraes the same things in a different manner,
and sets them in another light; he clothes them in raore
familiar iraages and coraparisons ; or he goes back to the
plainest principles, from which he gradually deduces the truths
he iirould enforce; or he endeavours to cure those passions,
that hinder the truth frora making a due impression. This
is the true art of instruction and persuasion ; and without this ad
dress and presence of mind, vve can only raake roving and fruitless
declamations. Observe now how far the orator who gets every
thing by heart, falls short of the other's success. If we suppose
then a man to preach who depends entirely on his memory, and
dares not pronounce a word different frora his lesson, his style will
be very exact; but, as Dionysius Halicarnassius observes of Isocra
tes, his coraposition raust please raore when it is read., than when it
is pronounced. Besides, let hira take what pains he will, the in
flexions of his voice will be too uniform, and always a little con
strained. He is not like a raan that speaks to an audience ; but
like a rhetorician who recites or declaims. His action must be
awkward and forced ; by fixing his eyes too much, he shows how
much his meraory labours in his delivery ; and he is afraid to give
way to an unusual emotion, lest he should lose the thread of his
discourse. Now the hearer perceiving such an undisguised art, is
so far from being touched and captivated, as he ought to be, that
he observes the speaker's artifice with coldness and neglect.
B. But did not the ancient orators do what you condemn 1
A. I believe not.
B. What ! do you think that Demosthenes and Tully did not
learn by heart those finished orations they have left us ?
A. We know very well that they coraposed and wrote their
harangues, before they spake in public ; but we have several reasons
to believe that they did not get them by heart, word for word. Even
the orations of Demosthenes, as we have thera, show rather the
sublimity and vehemence of a great genius that was accustoraed to
speak powerfully of public affairs, than the accuracy and politeness
of an author. As for Cicero, in several places of his harangues,
we find things spoken on sudden eraergencies, that he could not
possibly have foreseen. And if we take his opinion of this mat-

60 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
ter ;* he thinks an' orator ought to have a great memory ; and
he even speaks of an artificial kind of memory as an useful
invention ; but all he says on this point does not imply that we
ougbt to learn every word by heart. On the contrary, he seeras
only to require, that we should range all the parts of a discourse
exactly in our meraory, and prepare the figures and chief expres
sions we are to use ; so as to be ready to add off-hand whatever
may occasionally be suggested from a view of the audience, or
unexpected accidents. And it is for this reason, that he requires
so much application and presence of mind in an orator.
B. You must allow me to tell you. Sir, that all this does not
convince me ; for I cannot believe that one can speak so very well,
without having prepared and adjusted all his expressions.
C The reason why it is so hard to persuade you in this case,
is, because you judge of the matter by conimon experience. If they
who get their sermons by heart, were to preach without that prepa
ration, it is likely they would succeed but very ill, nor am I sur
prised at it; for, they are not accustomed to follow nature; they
have studied only to compose their serraons, and that too wilh af^
fectation. They have never once ihought oft speaking in a noble,
* Sed verborum memoria, quae minus est nobis necessaria, majore imaginum
varietate distinguilur ; multa enim sunt verba. Qua: quasi articuli connectunt
membra orationis, quse formari similitudine nulla possunt ; eorum fingendse
nobis sunt imagines, quibus semper ulamur. Rerum memoria, propria est
oratoris ; eam singulis personis bene positis ootare possumus, ut sententias
Imaginibus, ordinem locis comprchendamus. De Orat, lib. ii. § 88.
t This leads me to consider the difference that is between the reading, and
the speaking of sermons. Reading is peculiar fo this nation, and is endured
in no other. It has indeed made our sermons more exact ; and so has produ
ced fo us many volumes of the best that are extant. But after all, though
some few read so happily, pronounce so truly, and enter so entirely into those
affections which they recomraend, Ihat in them, we see both the correctness
of reading, and the seriousness of speaking sermons ; yet every one is not so
happy. Some by hanging their head perpetually over their notes, by blun
dering as they read, and by a cursory running over them, do so lessen the mat
ter of their sermons, that as they are generally read with very little life or
affection, so they are heard with as little regard or esteem. Those who read,
ought certainly to be at a little more pains, than (for the most part) they are,
to read true, to pronounce with an eraphasis, to raise their head, and to di
rect their eyes to their hearers ; and if they practised raore alone, the just
way of reading, they might deliver their sermons with much more advantage.
Man is a low sort of creature : he does not (nay the greater part cannot,) con
sider things in themselves, without those little seasonings that raust recora
raend them to their affections — ^besides, the people (who are too apt to cen
sure the clergy) are easily carried into an obvious reflection on reading that
it is an effect of laziness. Discourse of the Pastoral Care, ch. ix.

FENELON'S DIALOGUES. 61
strong, and natural manner. Indeed the greatest part of preachers
have not a sufficient fund of solid knowledge to depend on, and are
therefore afraid to trust themselves without the usual preparation.
The raethod of getting serraons by heart, qualifies many, who
have but very scanty and superficial parts, to make a tolerable fig
ure in the pulpit, seeing they need only lay together a certain nura
ber of passages and reraarks ; and however lillie genius or assist
ance a raan has, he raay wilh tirae and application be able to work
up and polish his matter into some form. But to preach with judg
ment and strength requires an attentive meditation upon the first
principles of religion, an exact knowledge of morality, an insight
inlo antiquity, strength of reasoning, and suitable action. Is not
this. Sir, what you require in an orator who does not learn his dis
course by heart .'
A. You have explained my thoughts exactly. Only it may not
be improper to add, tbat though a man should not possess all these
qualities in a reraarkable degree, he raay yet preach very well, if
he has a solid judgraent, a tolerable stock of knowledge, and an
easy way of speaking. For, in this method, as the other, there may
be different degrees of eloquence. You may further observe, that
most of those vvho preach without getting their sermons by heart,
do not prepare themselves enough. They ought to study their sub
ject with the closest attention ; prepare all those moving passages
that should affect the audience ; and give the several parts of their
discourse such an order as will best serve to set the whole in the
raost proper light.
B. You have oftentiraes spoken of this order : do you mean
any thing else by it than a division of the subject ? Perhaps you
have some peculiar notion on this point too.
A. You think that you rally me : but in good earnest, I am as
singular in ray opinion upon this head, as on any other.
B. I easily believe you.
A. It is certainly so : and since we have fallen upon this sub
ject, I will show you how far I think the greater part of orators are
defective in the point qi" order.
B. Since you are so fond of order, I hope you do not dislike
divisions. A. I ara far from approving thera.
B. Why ? Do they not methodise a discourse ?
A. For the most part, divisions give only a seeming order ;
while they really mangle and clog a discourse, by separating it into

62 FENELON'S DIALOGUES.
two or three parts, which must interrupt the orator's action, and
the effect it ought lo produce. There remains no true* unity after
such divisions ; seeing they make two or three different discourses,
which are, joined into one, only by an arbitrary connection. For
three sermons preached at different times, (if they be formed upon
some regular concerted plan, as the serraons in Advent usually are,)
make one piece, or entire discourse, as much, as the three points
of any of these sermons make one whole by being joined and deliv
ered together.
B. ' What is it then that you mean by order ? Plow confused
must a discourse be that is not divided.
.d. Do you think there is more confusion in the orations
of Deraostbenes and Tully, than in the serraons of your parish
preacher ?
B. I do not know — I believe not.
A. You need not be afraid of giving your judgraent too freely.
The harangues of these great raeu are not divided as our sermons
are. Nay, Isocrates (of whom we spake so much before,) and other
ancient orators, did not follow our metbod of dividing. The fathers
of thechurch knew nothing of it. Even S. Bernard, the last of them,
only gives a hint of sorae divisions, and does not pursue thera ; nor
divide his discourses in form. And for a long time after him, ser
mons were not divided : it is a raodern invention which we owe
originally to the scholastic divines.
B. I grant that the schoolraen are a very bad model for elo
quence : but vvhat form did the ancients use to give their dis
courses? A. They did not divide them ; but they pointed out carefully
all those things that ought to be distinguished ; to each of therat
they assigned its proper place, after having attentively considered
where it raight be introduced to tbe best advantage, and be fittest
to raake a due irapression. Ofttiraes that which would seera noth-
* A text heing opened, then the point upon which the sermon is to run is
to be opened ; and it will be the better heard and understood, if there be but
one point in a serraon ; so that one head, and only one, is well stated, and
fully sel out. Discourse ofthe Pastoral Care, p. 249.
t Ordinis hsec virtus erit, et venus, aut ego fallor,
Ut jam nunc dicat, jara nunc debentia dici
Pleraque differat, et prsesens in terapus omittat —
Infelix operis summa, quia ponere totum
Nesciet  Hor. de A. P.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 63
ing to the purpose, by being unseasonably urged, has a very great
Weight when it is reserved for its proper place ; till the audience
be prepared by other things to feel all its force and consequence.
Nay, a single vvord, vvhen happily applied, will set the truth in the
strongest light. Cicero tells us that vve ought sometiraes to delay
giving a full view of the truth, till the very conclusion. But then,
thronghout our discourse, there ought to run such a concatenation
of proofs, as that the first may make way for the second, and the
next always serve to support the former. We ought at first to give
a general view of our subject, and endeavour to gain the favour of
the audience by a* raodest introduction, a respectful address, and
the genuine marks of candour and probity. Then we should es
tablish those principles on which we design lo argue ; and in a
clear, easy, sensible inanner, propose the principal facts we are to
build on ; insisting chiefly on those circumstances, of which we in
tend 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 wo advance, our dis
course 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 moveraents as are proper to
excite the passions. In order to this we must know their various
springs, and the mutual dependence they have one upon another,
which of them we can most easily move and employ to raise the
rest; and which of them, in fine, is able to produce the greatest ef
fects, and must therefore be applied to, in the conclusion of our
discourse. It is ofttiraes proper, at the close, to make a short re
capitulation, in whicb the orator ought to exert all his force and
skill in giving the audience a full, clear, concise view of the chief
topics he has enlarged on. In short, one is not obliged always to
follow this method without any variation. There are exceptions
and allowances to be made for different subjecta and occasions.
And even in this order I have proposed, one may find an endless
variety. But now you raay easily see that this raethod (which is
* Sed hsec adjuvant in oratore, lenitas vocis, vultus, pudoris significatio, ver
borum comitas : si quid persequare aerius, ut invitus, et coactus facere videare.
Facilitatis, liberall latis, mansuetudinis, pietatis, grati animi, non appetentis
non avidi signa proferri perutile est — tantum autem efiicitur sensu quodam
ac ratione dicendi, ut quasi mores oratoris efiingat oratio. Cicero De Orat.
34

64 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
chiefly taken from Tully,) cannot be observed in a discourse that
is divided into three parts, nor can it be followed in each particular
division. We ought therefore to choose some method. Sir, but
such a method as is not discovered and proraised in the beginning
of our discourse. Cicero tells us that the best raethod is generally
to conceal the order we follow, till we lead the bearer to it witbout
his being aware _of it before. I remember, he says, in express
terms, that we ought to conceal even the numberof our arguments;
so that one shall not be able to count them, though they be very
distinct in themselves, and that we ought not plainly to point out
the division of a discourse. But such is the undislinguishing taste
of these latter ages, that an audience cannot perceive any order,
unless the speaker distinctly explain it in the beginning ; and even
intimate to them his gradual advances from the first to tbe second,
and following general heads or subdivisions of his discourse.
C. But do nol divisions help to support the attention, and ease
the meraory of the hearers ? It is for their better instruction that
the speaker divides his discourse.
A. A division chiefly relieves the speaker's memory. And
even this effect might be much better obtained by his following a
natural order without any express division : for the true connexion
of things best directs the mind. Our common divisions are of use
to those only who have studied, and been trained up to this method
in the schools. And if the common people retain the division bet
ter than the rest ofthe serraon, it is only because tbey hear it often
repeated ; but, generally speaking, they best remember prac
tical points, and such things as strike tbeir senses and imagi
nation. B. The order you propose may be proper enough for some sub
jects ; but it cannot be fit for all : for we have not always facts to
lay down.
A. When we have none, we must do without thera ; but there
are very few subjects into which they might nol be aptly introduced.
One of Plato's chief beauties is, that in the beginning of his moral
pieces he usually gives us some fragraent of history, or some tradi
tion that serves as the foundation of his discourse. This method
would far more become those vvho preach religion, which is entire
ly founded upon tradition, history, and the most ancient records.
Indeed, most preachers argue but weakly; and do not instruct peo
ple sufliicienlly, because they do not trace back things to these

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 65
B. We have already given you too much trouble. Sir, and I ara
almost ashamed to detain you longer ; but I wish heartily you
would allow me to ask you a few more questions concerning the
rules of public discourse.
A. With all my heart : I ara not yet weary. You may dispose,
as you please, of the little time I have left.
B. Well, then, you would have all false and trifling ornaments
entirely banished from discourse. Now, though you touched upon
this point before, pray show me by some sensible examples how
to* distinguish such false beauties from those that are solid and
natural. A. Do you love quavering notes in rausic ? Are you not better
pleased with those brisk, significant noles, that describe things, and
express the passions ?
B. Yes, certainly; for quavers are of no use : they only amuse
the ear, and do not affect the mind. Our music was once full of
them ; and was tberefore very weak and confused : but now we
begin to refine our taste, and to come nearer the music of the an
cients, whioh is a kind of passionate declamation that acts power
fully upon the soul.
A. I knew that rausic, of vvhich you are so good a judge, would
serve to raake you understand what concerns eloquence. There
ought to be a kind of eloquence in rausic itself ; and in both these
arts we ought to reject all false and trifling beauties. Do you not
perceive now that by a trilling discourse I mean the humming jin
gle of languid, uniform periods ; a chiming of words that returns
perpetually, like the burden of a song? This is tbe false eloquence
that resembles bad music.
B. I wish, Sir, you could make it a little plainer still.
A. The reading of good and bad orators will more effectually
form your taste, on this poiut, than all the rules in the vvorld. How
ever, it were easy to satisfy you by some pertinent examples. 1
* False eloquence, like the prismatic glass
Its gaudy colours spreads on every place ;
The face of nature we no more survey,
All glares alike without distinction gay.
But true expression, like the unchanging sun.
Clears and improves whate'er it shines upon.
It gilds all objects, but it alters none.
Expression is the dress of thought, and still
Appears more decent, as more suitable. — Essay on Criticism.

66 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
will not raention any modern ones, tbough we abound in false orna
ments. That I may not offend any person, let us return to Iso
crates, who is the standard of those nice and florid harangues that
are now in vogue. Did you ever read his famous panegyric on
Helen ?
B. Yes : I have read il some time ago.
A. How did you like it ?
B. Extremely well. I thought I never saw so much wit, ele
gance, sweetness, invention, and delicacy, in any coraposure. I
own to you that Horaer hiraself (whom I read afterwards,) did not
seem to have so much spirit as he. But now that you have shown
me what ougbt to be the true aira of poets and orators, I see plain
ly that Horaer, who concealed his art, vastly surpasses Isocrates
who took so much pains to display his skill. But I was once charm
ed with that orator, and should have been so still, if you had not
undeceived me. Mr.  is the Isocrates of our days ; and I per
ceive that by showing the defects of that ancient orator, you con
demn all those who imitate his florid, efferainate rhetoric.
A. I ara now speaking of Isocrates only — in the beginning of
his encoraium he magnifies the love that Theseus had for Helen,
and fancied that he should give a lofty idea of her, by describing
the heroic qualities of that great man who fell in love with her : as
if Theseus (whom the ancients always represent as weak and incon
stant in his amours,) could not bave been sraitten wilh a woraan of a
moderate beauty. Then he coraes to the judgment that Paris
formed of her. He says that a dispute having arisen among the
goddesses concerning their beauty, they agreed to make Paris
judge of it ; upon which occasion Juno proffered him the empire of
Asia, Minerva assured him of constant victory in battles, and Venus
tempted him with the beautiful Helen. Now seeing Paris, when
he was to determine this matter could not behold the faces of those
goddesses, because of their dazzling splendour, he could only judge
of the worth of the three things that they offered ; and upon the
comparison he preferred Helen to empire and to victory. Then
the orator praises the judgment of Paris, in whose determination
the goddesses themselves acquiesced, and adds these remarkable
words :* ' I wonder that any one should think Paris indiscreet in
Oavfia^a d' a ri; ohrai xaxZs /i^nXivrSai roy ftda ravrtii ^ijv ixifufcy,
»)5 tnxa xcXXoi rm ifuO'iuy aTroSyiirxay i^ixtiiray. Isocr, Hel. Land.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 67
choosing to live with her, for whora raany derai-gods would have
been willing to die.'
C. This puts me in mind of our preachers who are so full of
antitheses and turns of wit. There are a great raany such orators
as Isocrates.
A. He is their raaster ; all the rest of his panegyric is of the*
same strain. It is founded on the long war of Troy ; the calamities
that the Greeks suffered for the rape of Helen, and the praise of
beauty which has so much power over men. There is nothing in
the whole discourse solidly proved, nor the least point of moral in
struction. He judges of the worth of things only according to
men's extravagant passions. And as his proofs are weak, so his
style is flourished and finical. I quoted this passage, profane as it
is, because it is a very famous one ; and because this affected
manner is very much in fashion. The more grave discourses of
Isocrates are composed in the same spruce, effeminate way ; and
are full of such false beauties as that I now mentioned.
C. I find you like none of those witty turns which have noth<^
ing in them that is either solid, natural or affecting ; and tend
neither to convince, nor paint, nor persuade. The exaraple you
have brought from Isocrates, though it be upon a trifling subject,
is yet very pertinent ; for, all such tinsel-wit must appear still
more ridiculous when it is applied to grave and serious mat
ters. A. But, Sir, as to Isocrates, do not you think I had reason tp
censure him as freely as Tully assures us Aristotle did ?
B. What says Tully '
A. That Aristotlet perceiving Isocrates had perverted elo
quence from its proper use to arausement and ostentation ; and
thereby drawn to hiraself the most considerable disciples, he ap
plied to him a verse of Philoctetes, to show how much he was
ashamed of being silent while that vain declaimer carried all before
him. Bot I have done now : it is tirae for rae to be going.
B. We cannot part with you so soon. Sir : will you then allow
of no antitheses ?
* His very next words are these, — nSs J* k» Sv an ayonra « tjJs Seas
fWas 'Ttifi xaXXts? ^iXoyetxXiras, aurcg xdxXus xari^^iytin, xai fui ravrtiy
iyifiin fteyiVilv a»«i ray dufSy, TTifi ?; xaxHfai eaf» ftdxi^a VTnsia^Biras s —
Ibid.
t Lib. 3. § . 35.

63 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
A. Yes : when the things we speak of are ^naturally opposite
one to another, it may be, proper enough to show their opposition.
Such antitheses are just, and have a solid beauty ; and a right ap
phcation ofthem is often the most easy and concise manner of ex
plaining things. But it is extreraely childish to use artificial turns
and windings to raake words clash and play one against another.
At first, this may happen to dazzle those who have no taste ; but
they soon grow weary of such a silly affectation. Did you ever ob
serve the Gothic architecture of our old churches ?
B. Yes ; it is very common.
A. Did you take notice of the roses, holes, unconnected orna
ments, and disjointed little knacks, that these Gothic buildings are
full of. These odd conceits are just such beauties in architecture
as forced antitheses and quibbles are in eloquence. The Grecian
architecture is far more simple, and admits of none but natural,
solid, and majestic ornaments : we see nothing in it but what is
great, proportioned, and well placed. But the Gothic kind was in
vented by the Arabians ; who, being a people of a quick, sprightly
fancy, and having no rule, nor culture, could scarce avoid falling
into these whimsical niceties. And this vivacity corrupted their
taste in all other things. For they used sophisms in their logic,
they loved little knacks in architecture, and invented witticisms in
poetry and eloquence. All these are of the same kind.
B. This is curious indeed. You think then that a sermon, full
of forced antitheses, and such kind of ornaraents, is like a church
built in the Gothic way.
A. Yes : I tbink the comparison is just.
B. Let rae ask you but one question raore ; and then you shall
go- £. What is it ?
B. It seems very difiicult to give a particular account of facts,
in a noble style ; and yet we ought to do so if we talk solidly as you
require. Pray, what is the proper style for expatiating in such
cases ?
A. We are so much afraid of a low strain, that our expressions
are usually dry, lifeless, and indeterminate. They who praise a saint
pitch on the raost magnificent phrases ;" they tell us he was an
admirable person — that his virtues were celestial — that he was
rather an angel, than a man. And thus the whole encomium is a
mere declaraation without any proof ; and without drawing a just
character. On the contrary, the ancient Greeks made little use of

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE.

69

these general terms which prove nothing ; but they insisted much
on facts, and tbe particulars of a character. For instance, Xeno
phon does not once say in all his Cyroptedia, that Cyrus was an
admirable raan ; but throughout the work he makes us really adraire
hira. Thus is it that vve ought to praise holy persons, by entering
into the particular detail oftheir sentiments and actions. But there
prevails an affected politeness among the pedantic and conceited
part of all ranks and professions, who value themselves upon their
wit or learning. They never venture to use any expression but
what they reckon fine and uncoraraon. They talk always in a*
high strain ; and would think it beneath thera to call things by their
proper naraes. Novv in true eloquence almost every thing may be
introduced. The perfection of poetry itself, (which is the loftiest
kind of coraposure) depends on a full and lively description of
tbings in all their circumstances. When Virgil represents the
Trojan fleet leaving the African shore, or arriving on the coast of
Italy, you see every proper circumstance exactly described. But
we must own tbat the Greeks entered still further into the particu
lar detail of things ; and followed nature more closely in represent
ing the smallest circumstances. For which reason, raany people
would be apt, if they dared, to reckon Horaer too plain and simple
in his narrations. In this ancient, beautiful simplicity, (which few
are able to relish,) this poet very much resembles the holy scrip
ture ; but in many places the sacred writing surpass his, as much
as he excels all the other ancients, in a natural and lively repre
sentation of things.
B. In relating facts, then, ought we fo describe" every individual
circumstance that belongs to them?
A. No ; we should represent nothing to the hearers but what
deserves their attention, and helps to give a clear and just idea of
the things we describe; so that it requires great judgraent to
make a rightt choice of circurastances. But we raust not be afraid
of raentioning such as can be any way serviceable; for it is a
false politeness that leads us to suppress sorae useful things, because
we do not think them capable of any ornament. Besides, Homer
* Prima est eloquentia virtus perspicuitas ; el quo quisque ingenio minus
valet, hoc se magis attollere, et dilatare conatur : ut statura breves indigitos
erigunfur ; et plura infirrai minantur. i Nam fumidjos, et corruptos, et tinulos,
et quocumque alio cacozelise genere peccantes, certum habeo, non virium, sed
infirmitatis vitio laborare : ut corpora non robore, sed valetudine, inflantur.
Quint, lib. ii. c. 3.
\ See Longinus, § x.

70 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
has shown ns by his example, that we raight give a* proper grace
and erabellishraent to every subject.
B. Seeing you conderan tbe florid, swelling style, what kind
do you reckon fittest for public use ?
A. There ought to be a variety of style in every discourse.
We should rise in our expression when we speak of lofty subjects ;
and bet farailiar, in common ones, without beijng coarse, or grovel
ling. In most cases, an easy simplicity and exactness Jtre suflicient',
though some things require vehemence and sublimity. If a pain
ter should draw nothing but magnificent palaces, he could not fol
low' truth, buf must paint his own fancies ; and by that means soon
cloy us. He ought to copy nature in its agreeable varieties : and
after drawing a stately city, it raight be proper to represent a desert,
and the huts of shepherds. Most of those vyho aira at making fine
harangues injudiciously labour to clothe all their thoughts in aJ
pompous, gaudy dress ; and they fancy that they have succeeded
happily, when they express some general remarks in a florid, lofty
style. Their only care is to fill their discourse with abundance of
ornaments, to please fhe vitiated taste of their audience ; like ig-
* First follow nature, and your judgment frame
By her just standard, which is still the same :
Unerring nature, still divinely bright.
One clear, unchang'd, and universal light;
Life, force, and beauty, raust to all impart,
Af once the source, and end, and test of art.
Art from that fund each just supply provides.
Works without show ; and without pomp presides.
Those rules of old discover'd, not devis'd,
Are nature still, but nature methodis'd :
Nature like monarchy, is but restrain'd
By the same laws which first herself ordain'd. Essay on Criticism.
t Ef(i' af 0 'iSi^rie'fiOi hion rS xia-fta vafameXv ifi^ayi^ixdriMy
ticlyttdirxiiai yaf avroBiy ix rS xoivS lila. ro ii irvyyi&ii ii'Ji) vi^orsfo 
ravrd yaf iy[ig !r*g»|tia rh iiidrny, dXX' kx i^iartuet rS inifMyr'txS.
Longinus, § xxxi.
t Namque illud genus ostentationi compositum, solum petit audientiam vo-
lUplafeUi: ideoque omnes dicendi artes aperit, ornatumque orationis exponit —
mala afifectatio, pet omne dicendi genus peccat. Nam et tumida, et exilia, et
pt»dulcia, el abundantia, et arcessita, et exultantia Sub idem nomen cadunt.
Dteaique K«««$»l!?iev vocatnr, quicquid est ultra virtutem ; quoties ingenium ju
dicio caret, el specie boni falletur ; omnium in eloquentia vitiorum pessimuto :
nam ealera cum vitentur, hoc petitur. Quint, lib. viii. u. 3.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 71
norant cooks who know not hovv to season dishes, in a proper, nat
ural way ; but fancy they must give them an exquisite relish by
mixing excessive quantities ofthe most seasoning things. But the
style of a true orator has nolbing in it that is swelling or ostenta
tious; he always adapts it to the subjects he treats of, and the per
sons he instructs, and manages it so judiciously that he never aims
at being sublime and lofty, but vvhen he ought to be so.
B. What you said concerning the language of scripture makes
me wish earnestly that you would show us the beauty of it. May
we not see you some tirae to-morrow ?
A. I shall hardly have time to-raorrow : but I will endeavour
to wait on you this evening. And since you seem so desirous of
it, we will talk ofthe word ofGod : for hitherto we have only spok
en ofthe language of men.
C. Farewell, Sir ; I beg of you to be punctual : otherwise we
raust come and find you out.

THE THIRD DIALOGUE.
C I BEGAN to fear. Sir, that you would not come, and was very
near going to see for you at Mr.  .
A. I was detained by a perplexing affair I had upon my hands :
but I have got rid ofit to my satisfaction.
B. 1 am very glad of it : for we wanted you extreraely to finish
the subject we were talking of in the morning.
C. Since I parted with you. Sir, I heard a sermon at  — ,
and I thought of you. The preacher spoke in a very edifying man
ner : but I question whether the common people understood him
or not.
A. It happens but too often (as I beard an ingenious lady ob
serve,) that our preachers speak Latin in English. The most es
sential quality of a good preacher is to be instructive : but he must
have great abilities and experience to make him so. On the one
hand he must be perfectly acquainted wilh the force of scripture
expressions : on the other, he must understand the capacity of those
to whom he preaches, and adapt himself to it.
Now this requires a solid knowledge, and great discernment.
Preachers speak every day to people, of the scripture, the church,
35

72 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
the Mosaic law, the gospel, of sacrifices, of Moses and Aaron, and
Melchisdec, of the prophets and apostles ; but there is not suflicient
care taken to instruct the people in the true meaning of these things
and in the characters of those holy persons. One might follow
sorae preachers twenty years, without getting suflicient knowledge
of religion.
B. Do you think that people are really ignorant of those things
you raentioned ?
C. For ray part, I believe they are : and that few or none under
stand them enough to receive any benefit from sermons.
B. That raay be true ofthe lowest rank of people.
C. Well ; ougbt not they to be instructed as well as others ?
Do not they make up the bulk of mankind ?
A. The truth is, persons of rank and fashion have but little
more knowledge of religion than the common people. There are
always three fourth parts ofan ordinary audience, who do not know
those first principles of religion, in which the preacher supposes ev
ery one to be fully instructed.
B. Would you then have hira explain the catechisra in his ser
raons to a polite congregation ?
A. I grant there is a due regard to be had to an audience, and
discretion to be used in adapting a discourse to their capacity. But
still without giving the least offence, a preacher might reraind the
most discerning hearers of those passages of sacred history, which
explain the origin and institution of holy things. This way of hav
ing recourse to the first foundations of religion, would be so far
frora seeraing low, that it would give raost discourses that force and
beauty which they generally want. This is particularly true with
regard to the raysteries of religion ; for the hearers can never be
instructed, nor persuaded, if you do not trace things back to their
source. For example, how can you make thera understand what
the church says, after* St. Paul, that Jesus Christ is our Passover,
if you do not explain to them the Jewish Passover, which was ap
pointed to be a perpetual raeraorial oftheir deliverance from Egypt,
and to typify a more important redemption that was reserved for the
Messiah. Il is for this reason, I said that almost every thing in re
ligion is historical. And if preachers would have a full knowledge
ofthis truth, they must be very conversant in the scripture.
B. You must excuse my interrupting you on this subject ; Sir,
you told us in the morning that the scriptures are eloquent, and I
• 1 Cor. v. 7.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 73
was glad to hear you say so. Let me entreat you to show us how
we may discern the beauties of scripture, and in what its eloquence
consists. The Latin Bible seems lo me most vulgar and inaccu
rate. I see no delicacy iu it. What is it then that you so much
admire ?
A. The Latin is only a literal version, in which, out of re
spect to the original, there are many Greek and Hebrew phrases
retained. Do you despise Homer because he has been sorrily trans
lated into French ?
B. But the Greek itself (which is the original language of the
New Testament) appears to me very coarse and nnpolile.
A. The apostles were not acquainted with the genuine Greek,
but used that corrupted kind which prevailed araong the Hellenis-
tical Jews. For ibis reason St. Paul says* ' I arn rude in speech,'
but not in knowledge. It is very obvious that the apostle here on
ly meant he was not a master of the Greek tongue, though he sol
idly explained the doctrine of the holy scripture.
C. Had not the apostles the gift of speaking unknown tongues?
A. Undoubtedly : and they even conveyed that gift to great
numbers of their illiterate converts. But as for the languages that
the apostles had learnt in a natural way, we have reason to believe
that the Spirit of God permitted tbem to speak as they did before.
St. Paul, who was a citizen of Tarsus, in Cilicia, naturally spake
the corrupted Greek used among the Jews there : and we find that
this is the language he wrote in. Sl. Luke seems to have un
derstood Greek a little better.
C. But I always thought that in the passage you mentioned, St.
Paul gave up all pretences to oratory, and regarded nothing but the
simplicity ofthe evangelical doctrine. Nay, I have heard several
persons of worth and good judgment aflirra that the holy scripture
is not eloquent. St. Jerom vvas punished for being disgusted at
the simplicity of scripture, and liking Tully better. St. Austin
(in his confessions) seems to have fallen into the same fault. Did
not God intend to try our faith by the obscurity, and even by the
lowness of the scripture style, as well as by the poverty of our
Redeemer ?
JI. You seem. Sir, to carry this point too far. Whether do you
choose to believe St. Jerom when he was punished for having fol
lowed his youthful studies too closely in his retreat ; or when he
•2 Cor. xi. 16.

74 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
had made the greatest progress both in sacred and profane learn
ing ; and, in an epistle to Paulinus, invited him to study the scrip
ture — assuring him that he would find raore charras in the prophets
than he had discovered in the heathen poets ? Or, was St. Austin's
judgment belter in his youth, when the seeming meanness of the
sacred style disgusted him, than when he coraposed his books Of
tbe Chrisiian Doclrine ? There he often says that St. Paul was
powerfully persuasive ; and that the torrent of his eloquence raust
be perceived by the most unattentive reader. He adds, that in the
apostle, wisdom did not seek after the beauty of language ; but that
the beauties of language offered theraselves, and attended his wisdom.
He quotes many lofty passages of his epistles, wherein he shows all
the art and address of the heaihen orators far outdone. St. Austin
excepts only two things in this comparison : he says, that these or
ators studied the ornaments of eloquence ; but that the beauties of
oratory naturally followed St. Paul, and others of the sacred writers.
And then he owns that he did not sufficiently understand the deli
cacies of the Greek tongue, to be a competent judge, whether there
be the same numbers and cadence of periods in the sacred text,
that we meet with in profane authors. I forgot to tell you that he
quotes that passage ofthe prophet Amos which begins thus,* ' wo
to them that are at ease in Zion, and trust in the mountain of Sa
maria  ;' and assures us that in this place the prophet has
surpassed every thing that is sublime in the heathen orators.
C. But how do you understand these words of St. Paul ;t ' my
speech and my preaching was not with the enticing (persuasive)
, words of man's wisdom  ?' Does he not tell the Corinthians that
he came not to preach Christ to thern, with the sublimity of dis
course and of wisdom : that he ' knew nothing among thera but
Jesus, and hira crucified :' that his preaching was founded not up
on the persuasive language of human wisdora and learning, but
upon the sensible effects of the Spirit and the power of God ; to
the end (as he adds) ' that their faith should not depend upon the
wisdora of raen, but on the power ofGod ?' What is the raeaning
of these words. Sir ? What stronger expression could the apostle
use to conderan this art of persuasion that you would establish ?
For ray part, I freely own that at first I was glad when you censur
ed all those affected ornaments of discourse that vain declaimers are
BO fond of; but the sequel of your scheme does not answer the pi-
*Ch. vi. 11 Cor. xi. 4.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 75
ous beginning of it. I find that you would still make preaching a
huinan art, and banish apostolical siraplicity from the pulpit.
A. Though you judge very unfavourably of my esteem for elo
quence, I am not dissatisfied at the zeal with which you censure it.
However, Sir, let us endeavour to understand one another aright.
There are several worthy persons who judge, with you, that elo
quent preaching is repugnant to the simplicity of the gospel. But
when we have mutually explained our sentiments, perhaps they
may be found to agree. What then do you mean by siraplicity?
And what do you call eloquence ?
C By siraplicity, I raean a discourse without any artifice or
magnificence. By eloquence, 1 mean a discourse full of art and
ornaments. A. When you require an artless, simple discourse, would you
have it without order and connexion, without solid and convincing
proofs, and without a proper method for instructing the ignorant ?
Would you have a preacher say nothing that is pathetic ; and never
endeavour to affect the heart ?
C. Far from it : I would have a discourse that both instructs
and moves people.
A. That would make it eloquent : for we have seen before that
eloquence is the art of instructing and persuading men, by moving
their passions.
C. I grant that preachers ought to convince and affect their
hearers ; but I would have them to do it without art, by an apostol
ical simplicity.
.^. The more artless and natural such a convincing, persuasive
eloquence is, it must be the more powerful. But let us inquire
whether tbe art of persuasion be inconsistent with the siraplicity of
the gospel. What mean you by art ?
C. I mean a system of rules that men have invented, and usu
ally observe in their discourses, to raake thera raore beautiful, ele
gant and pleasing.
•5. If by art you only raean this invention to render a discourse
raore handsome and polished in order to please people, I will not
dispute vvith you about words, but will readily acknowledge that
this art ought not to be admitted into sermons : for, (as we agreed
before) this vanity is unworthy of eloquence, and far more unbe
coming the sacred function. This is the very point about which I
reasoned so much with Mr. B. But if by art and eloquence, you

76 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
mean what the most judicious writers among the ancients under
stood, we must then set a just value upon eloquence.
C. What did they understand by it ?
JI. According to thera the art of eloquence coraprehends those
raeans that wise reflection and experience have discovered to ren
der a discourse proper to persuade men of the truth, and to engage
thera to love and obey it. And this is what you think every preach
er should be able to do. For did you not say that you approved of
order, and a right raanner of instruction, solidity of reasoning, and
pathetic raovements ; I mean such as can touch and affect people's
hearts ? Now this is what I call eloquence : you may give it what
name you please.
C Now I coraprehend your notion of eloquence : and I cannot
but acknowledge that such a manly, grave, serious manner of per
suasion, would much become the pulpit ; and that it seems even ne
cessary to instruct people with success. But how do you under
stand those words of Sl. Paul that I quoted before f Do they not
expressly conderan eloquence ?
A. In order to explain the apostle's words, let rae ask you a
few questions.
C. As raany as you please. Sir.
.3. Is it not true that the apostle argues with wonderful strength
in his epistles ? Does he not reason finely against the heathen phi
losophers and the Jews, in his epistle to the Romans ? Is there not
great force, in what he says concerning the inability of the Mosaic
law to justify men ?
C. Certainly.
A. Is there not a chain of solid reasoning in his epistle to the
Hebrews, about the insufficiency of the ancient sacrifices ; the rest
that David promised to the children ofGod, besides that which the
Israelites enjoyed in Palestine after Joshua's days ; concerning the
order of Aaron, and that of Melchisedec, and the spiritual and eter
nal covenant that behooved to succeed the carnal and earthly one
which was established by tbe mediation of Moses, for a tirae only ?
Are not the apostle's arguraents on these several subjects very strong
and conclusive ?
C. I think they are.
S. When St. Paul therefore disclairaed the use of ' the persua
sive words of raan's wisdora,' he did not mean to condemn true
wisdom, and tbe force of reasoning.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 77
C. That appears plainly from his own example.
A. Why then do you think that he meant to conderan solid el
oquence, any raore than true wisdom ?
C. Because he expressly rejects eloquence in that passage whibh
I desired you to explain.
A. But doth he not likewise disclaim wisdom ? The place seems
to be more e.xpress against wisdom, and human reasoning, than
against eloquence. And yet he himself reasoned frequently, and
was very eloquent. You grant that he argued well ; and St. Aus
tin assures you that the apostle was an orator.
C. You plainly point out the difficulty, but you do not answer
it. Pray, show us how it is to be solved.
A. St. Paul reasoned much ; he persuaded effectually ; so that
he was really an excellent philosopher and an orator. But as he
tells us in the place you quoted — his preaching was not founded on
human reasoning, nor on the art of persuasion. It was a ministry
of divine institution, that owed its efficacy to God alone. The con
version of the whole world was, according to the ancient prophecies,
to be the great and standing miracle of the Christian religion. This
was the kingdom of God that came from heaven, and was to con
vert and reduce all the nations of the earth to the worship and ser
vice of the true God. Jesus Christ crucified, by his being declared
to them, was to draw them all to himself merely by the power of
his cross. The philosophers had reasoned and disputed, without
converting either themselves or others. The Jews had been in
trusted with a law tbat showed them their miseries, but could not
relieve thera. All mankind were convinced of the general disorder
and corruption that reigned among them. Jesus Christ came with
his cross ; that is, he came poor, humble, and suffering for us. To
silence our vain, presumptuous reason, he did not argue like the
philosophers, but he determined with authority. By his miracles,
and his grace, he showed that he was above all. That he might
confound the false wisdom ofmen, he sets before them the seeming
folly and scandal of his cross ; that is, the example of his profound
humiliation. That which mankind reckoned* folly, and at which
they were most offended, was the very thing that should convert
and lead them to God. They wanted to be cured of their pride,
and their excessive love of sensible objects ; and to affect them the
more, God showed them his Son crucified. The apostles preached
' 1 Cor. i. 23, 25.

78 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
him, and walked in his steps. They had not recourse to any hu
man means, neither to philosophy, nor rhetoric, nor policy, nor
wealth, nor authority. God would have the sole glory of his work :
andthe success ofit to depend entirely on himself; he therefore
chose what is weak, and rejected what is strong, to display his power
in the raost sensible manner. He brougbt all out of nothing in the
conversion of the world, as well as at the creation of il. That work
therefore had this divine character stamped upon it, that it was not
founded upon any thing that the world admired or valued. It would
only have weakened and frustrated the wonderful power of the cross
(as* St. Paul says) to ground the preaching ofthe gospel upon natural
means. It was necessary that without human help, the gospel
should of itself open people's hearts ; and by that prodigious effica
cy show mankind that it carae frora God. Thus was human wis
dom confounded and rejected. Now what must we conclude from
hence ? This only ; that the conversion of the nations, and the es
tablishraent ofthe Christian Church, was not owing to the learned
reasonings, and persuasive words of man's wisdom. It does not
imply that there was no eloquence nor wisdom in several of those
who first preached the gospel ; but only, that they did not depend
on this eloquent wisdom ; nor did they study it as a thing that was to
give an efficacy to their doctrine. It was founded (as the apostle
tells ust) not upon the persuasive discourses of human philosophy ;
but solely upon tbe effects ofthe Spirit and the power of God ; that
is, upon the miracles that struck the eyes and minds of men, and
upon the inward operation ofthe divine grace.
C. According to your reasoning, tben, they make void the effi
cacy of our Saviour's cross, who ground their preaching upon hu
man wisdom and eloquence.
A. Undoubtedly. The ministry of the word is entirely built
upon faith ; and the preachers of it ought to pray and purify their
hearts, and expect all their success from heaven. They should arra
themselves with ' the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God ;'
and not depend on their own abilities. This is the necessary prep
aration for preaching the gospel. But though the inward fruit and
success of it must be ascribed to grace alone, and the efficacy of
God's word, tbere are yet sorae things that man is to do on his
part.

'ICor. i. ir.
t Ovx a iTiihli ayiguTciiSii c'o^ias Xoyoif-

1 Cor. ii. 4.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 79
C. Hitherto you have talked very solidly : but I see plainly you
are now returning to your first opinion.
A. I did not change it. Do not you believe that the work of
our salvation depends upon God's grace ?
C. Yes: it is an article of faith.
A. You own, however, that vve ought to use great prudence
in choosing a right station and conduct in life, and in avoiding
dangerous teraptations. Now do we raake void the grace of God,
and its efficacy, by watching and prayer, and a prudent circum
spection ? Certainly not. We owe all to God, and yet he obliges
us to comply with an external order of human means. The apos
tles did not study the vain pomp and trifling ornaments of the
heathen oraiors. They did not fall into the subtile reasonings of
the philosophers, who made all to depend upon those airy specula
tions in which they lost themsehes. The apostles only preached
Jesus Christ vvith all the force and magnificent simplicity of the
scripture language. It is true they had no need of any preparation
for their rainistry ; because the Spirit, vvho descended upon them
in a sensible raanner, supplied thera with words in preaching the
gospel. The difference then betwixt the apostles and their suc
cessors in the minisiry, is, that these, not being miraculously in
spired like the apostles, have need to prepare themselves, and to
fill their minds vvith the doctrine and spirit of the scripture, to form
their discourses. But this preparation should never lead thera to
preach in a more artless manner than the apostles. Would you
not be satisfied if preachers used no more ornaments in their ser
mons than St. Peter, St. Paul, St. James, St. Jude, and St. John
did? C. I tbink I ougbt lo require no more. And I must confess
that since (as you say) eloquence consists chiefly in the order, force,
and propriety ofthe words by which men are persuaded and moved,
it does not give me so much offence as it did. I always reckon
ed eloquence to be an art that is inconsistent with the simplicity of
the gospel.
A. There are two sorts of people that have this notion of it ;
the false orators, who are widely mistaken in seeking after elo
quence amidst a vain pomp of words ; and some pious persons wbo
have no great depth of knowledge ; but though out of humility they
avoid that false rhetoric which consists in a gaudy, ostentatious
36

80 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
style, they yet aim at true eloquence, by striving to persuade, and
move their hearers.
C. I novv understand your notions exactly well : let us now re
turn to the eloquence ofthe scripture.
A. In order to perceive il, nothing is more useful than to have
a just taste of ancient siraplicity, and this may best be obtained by
reading the most* ancient Greek authors. I say the most ancient,
for those Greeks whora the Romans so justly despised, and called
Groeculi, were then entirely degenerate. As I told you before, you
ought to be perfectly acquainted with Horaer, Plato, Xenophon,
and the other earliest writers. After that, you will be no more sur
prised at the plainness of the scripture style, for in thera you will
find alraost tbe same kind of customs, the same artless narrations,
the sarae images of great things, and the same moveraents. The
difference betwixt them upon comparison is much to the honour of
the scripture. It surpasses thera vastly in native siraplicity, liveli
ness, and grandeur. Horaer himself never reached the sublimity
of Moses' songs ; especially the last, which all the Israelitish chil
dren were to learn by heart. Never did any ode, either Greek, or
Latin, corae up to the loftiness of the Psalms, particularly that
which begins thus :t ' The mighty God, even the Lord hath spolc-
en,' surpasses the utmost stretch of huraan invention. Neither
Horaer nor any other poet ever equalled| Isaiah describing the
raajesty ofGod, in whose sight the ' nations of the earth are as the
sraall dust ; yea, less than nothing and vanity ;' seeing it is ' He
that stretcheth out the beavens like a curtain, and spreadeth them
out as a tent to dwell in.' Sometimes this prophet has all the
sweetness ofan eclogue, in the smiling images he gives us of peace,
and sometimes he soars so high as to leave every thing below him.
What is there in antiquity that can be corapared to the Lamenta
tions of Jereraiah wben he tenderly deplores the raiseries of his
country ? Or to the prophecy of Nahura when he foresees in spirit
tbe proud Nineveh fall under the rage of an invincible army. We
fancy that we see the array, and hear the noise of arms and chari-
* E»J«»vtPT«( S' iifuy §rog o ayr,f (iTAATIiN) « /inXoi'fii&a [tti
xaroXiyoifiirai, «f xai aXXn ri; Trafci ra etf/ifiiya 0S05 'im ra. v^^nXa Tana.
5r«(cs «2 xai rig avrn ; yi ray ifiTTfoirSiy fciydXay crvy^patfiay xai Ttoinray
fiiftno-ig n xai ^iXao-ig. xai tkts yt, ^I'Xrali, aTsr^i^ 'i^ufiiia tS o-xotix.
Longinus, § . xiii.
t Psal. 1. 1—6. t Isa. xl. 9—28.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 81
ots. Every thing is painted in such a lively raanner as strikes tho
imagination. The prophet far outdoes Homer. Read likewise
Daniel denouncing to Belshazzar the divine vengeance ready to
overwhelra him : and try if you can find any thing in the raost sub
lime originals of antiquity that can be corapared to those passages
of sacred writ. As for the rest of scripture, every portion of it is
umform and consistent, every part bears the peculiar character that
becomes it. The history, the particular detail of laws, the descrip
tions, the vehement and pathetic passages, the mysteries, and pro
phecies, and moral discourses ; in all these there appears a natural
and beautiful variety. In short, there is as great a difference be
twixt the heathen poets and the prophets, as there is betwixt a
false enthusiasra, and the true. The sacred writers, being truly
inspired, do in a sensible manner express something divine ; while
the others, striving to soar above themselves, always show human
weakness in their loftiest flights. The second book of Maccabees;
the book of Wisdom, especially at the end ; and Ecclesiasticus in
the beginning, discover the gaudy, swelling style that the degener
ate Greeks had spread over the east, where there language vvas es
tablished with their dominion. But it would be in vain lo enlarge
upon all these particulars ; it is by reading that you must discover
the truth of thera.
B. I long to set about it : we ought to applyourselves to this
kind of study, more than we do.
C. I easily conceive that the Old Testaraent is written wilh that
magnificence, and those lively images you speak of. But you say
nothing of the simplicity of Christ's words.
A. That simplicity of style is entirely according to the ancient
taste. It is agreeable both to Moses and the prophets, whose ex
pressions Christ often uses. But though his language be plain and
farailiar, it is, however, figurative and sublime in many places. I
could easily show by particular instances, (if we had the books here
to consult,) that we have not a preacher ofthis age who is so figur
ative in his most studied sermons, as Jesus Christ was in his most
popular discourses. I do not mean those that St. John relates,
where almost every thing is sensibly divine ; I speak of his raost
farailiar discourses recorded by the other evangelists. The apos
tles wrote in the same raanner, with this difference ; that Jesus
Christ being raaster of his doctrine, delivers it calmly. He says
just what he pleases ; and speaks, with the utmost easiness, of the

82 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
heavenly kingdom and glory, as of his* father's house. All those
exalted things that astonish us, were natural and familiar to hira ;
he is born there, and only tells us what het saw, as he himself de
clares. On the contrary, the aposlles| sunk under the weight of
the truihs that were revealed to them ; they want words, and are
not able to express their ideas. Hence flow those digressions and
obscure passages in St. Paul's writings, and those transpositions of
his thoughts, which show his mind was transported wilh the abun
dance and greatness ofthe truths that offered themselves to his at
tention. All this irregularity of style shows that the Spirit of God
forcibly guided the minds of the apostles. But notwithstanding
these little disorders oftheir style, every thing in it is noble, lively,
and raoving. As for St. John's Revelation, we find in it the same
grandeur and enthusiasm that there is in the prophets. The ex
pressions are ofttimes the same, and sometiraes this resemblance of
style gives a mutual light to thern both. You see therefore that the
eloquence of scripture is not confined to the books of the Old Tes
taraent, but is likewise to be found in the New.
O. Supposing the scripture to be eloquent, what will you con
clude frora it ?
A. That those who preach it, raay, without scruple, iraitate, or
rather, borrow, its eloquence.
C. We find that preachers do choose those passages they think
most beautiful.
A. But it mangles the scripture thus to show it to Christians
only in separate passages. And however great the beauty of such
passages may be, it can never be fully perceived unless one knows
the connexion of tbem ; for every thing in scripture is connected :
and this coherence is the most great and wonderful thino- to be
seen in the sacred writings. For want of a due knowledge ofit
preachers raistake those beautiful passages, and put upon them
what sense they please. They content theraselves wilh some inge
nious interpretations; which, being arbitrary, have no force to per
suade men, and to reform their manners.
B. What would you have preachers to do ? Must they use on
ly the language of scripture }
A. I would have them at least not think it enough to join to
gether a few passages of scripture that have no real connexion. 1
* John xiv. 2. f Ch. viii. 38. t 2 Cor. xii. 3, 4, 7.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 83
would have them explain the principles, and fhe series of the scrip
ture doctrine ; and take the spirit, the style, and the figures ofit ;
that all their discourses may serve to give people a right understand
ing, and true relish of God's word. There needs no more to make
preachers eloquent ; for by doing this, they vvould imitate the best
model of ancient eloquence.
B. But in this case we behooved (as I said before) to explain the
several parts of scripture as they lie.
A. I would not confine all preachers to this. One might make
sermons upon the scripture without explaining the several parts of
it as they lie. But it must be owned, that preaching would be
quite another thing, if, according to ancient custom, the sacred
books vvere thus explained to the people in a connected, judicious
manner. Consider vvhat authority a man must have who should
say nothing from his ovvn invention ; but only follow and explain the
thoughts and words of God. Besides, he would do two things at
once. By unfolding the truths of scripture, he would explain the
text, and accustom the people to join always the sense and the let
ter together. What advantage raust they not reap if they vvere used
to nourish theraselves with this spiritual bread ? An audience who
had heard the chief points of the Mosaic law explained, would be
able to receive far raore benefit from an explication ofthe truths of
the gospel, than the greatest part of Christians are now. The preach
er we spoke of before, has this failing araong many great qualities,
that his serraons are trains of fine reasoning about religion, but they
are not religion itself. We apply ourselves too much to drawing of
raoral characters, and inveighing against the general disorders of
raankind ; and vve do not sufficiently explain the principles and
precepts ofthe gospel.
C. Preachers choose this way because it is far easier to dedaira
against the follies and disorders of mankind, than to explain the
fundamental truths and duties of religion judiciously. To be able
to describe the corruptions of the age, they need only have sorae
knowledge of raen and things, and proper words to paint thera. But
to set the great duties of the gospel in a just light, requires an at
tentive meditation and study of the holy scriptures. There are but
few preachers who have such a solid, comprehensive knowledge of
Teligion as can enable them to explain it clearly to otheis. Nay,
there are some who make pretty discourses, and yet oould not cat
echise the people, and far less make a good homily.

§4 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
A; Very true ; it is here that our preachers are most defective.
Most of their fine sermons contain only philosophical reasonings.
Sometimes they preposterously quote scripture only for the sake of
decency or ornament : and it is not then regarded as the word of
God, but as the invention of men.
C. You will grant, I hope, that the labours of sucb men tend to
make void the cross of Christ.
A. I give them up ; and contend only for the eloquence of
scripture which evangelical preachers ought to imitate. So that
we are agreed on this point : provided you will nol excuse some
zealous preachers, who, under pretence of apostolical siraplicity, do
not effectually study either the doctrine of scripture or the power
ful manner of persuasion that wo are taught there. They iinagine
that Ihey need only bawl, and speak often of hell and the devil. Now
without doubt a preacher ought to affect people by strong, and
sometimes even by terrible images ; bol it is from the scripture
that he should learn to make powerful impressions. There hemay
clearly discover the way to make sermons plain and popular, with
out losing the force and dignity they ought always to have. For
want of this knowledge a preacher oftentimes doth but stun and
frighten people, so that they remember but few clear notions ; and
even the impressions of terror they received, are not lasting. This
mistaken simplicity that some affect, is too often a cloak for igno
rance ; and at best it is such an unedifying manner of address, as
cannot be acceptable either to God or men. Nothing can excuse
such horaely preachers, but the sincerity of their intentions. They
ought to have studied and meditated much upon the word of God,
before they undertook to preach. A priest who understands the
scripture fully, and has tbe gift of speaking, supported by the au
thority of his function, and of a good life, might make excellent
discourses without great preparation. For one speaks easily of
such truths as make a clear and strong impression on his mind.
Now above all things, such a subject as religion must furnish ex
alted thoughts, and excite the noblest sentiraents ; and this is the
design of eloquence. But a preacher ought to speak to his audi
ence as a father would talk to his children, with an affectionate
tenderness : and not like a declaimer, pronouncing an harangue
with stiffness, and an affected delicacy. It were to be wished in
deed that, generally speaking, none were allowed to feed the Chris
tian flocks but their respective shepherds, who ought best to know
their wants. In order to this, none should be chosen for pastors,

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. £5
but such as have the gift of preaching. The neglect of this occa
sions two evils : one is, that dumb pastors, and such as speak with
out abilities, are liltle esteemed. Another evil is, thatthe function
of voluntary preachers allures many vain ambitious spirits, that en
deavour to distinguish themselves this way. You know that in
former ages the ministry of the word was reserved for the bishops ;
especially in the western church. You must have heard of St.
Austin's case ; that, contrary to the established rule, he was obliged
to preach while he vvas only a presbyter ; because that Valerius, his
bishop and predecessor, was a stranger who could not talk easily:
this vvas tbe beginning of that custom in the western parts. In the
east, priests sooner began to preach, as appears from St. Chrysos
tom's sermons, which he made at Antioch, vvhen he was only a
presbyter. C. 1 grant that generally speaking the office of preaching should
be reserved for the parochial clergy. This would be the way to re
store to the pulpit that simplicity and dignity that ought to adorn
it. For if pastors joined the knowledge of the scriptures to their
experience in the ministerial function, and the conduct of souls,
they would speak in sjich a way as is best adapted to the wants of
their flocks. Whereas those preachers who give up themselves
chiefly to study and speculation, are less able to obviate people's
prejudices and mistakes; they do not suit their discourses to vulgar
capacities; and insist chiefly on sucb general points as do not in
struct nor affect raen ; to say nothing of the weight and influence
that the shepherd's own voice must have among his flock above a
stranger's. These, methinks, are convincing reasons for prefer
ring a pastor's sermons before other people's. Of what use are so
many young preachers, without experience, without knowledge, and
without piety 1 It were better to have fewer sermons, and more judi
cious ones.
B. But there are many priests who are not pastors, and who
preach with great success. Hovv many persons are there of the
religious orders, who fill the pulpit to advantage !
C. I own there are many : and such men ought to be made
pastors of parishes, and even be constrained to undertake the care
of souls. Were not anchorets of old forced from their beloved sol
itude, and raised to public stations, that the light of their piety
might shine in the church and edify the faithful ?
A. But it does not belong to us to regulate the discipline ofthe
church. Every age has its proper customs, as the circumstances

86 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
of things require. Let us show a regard to whatever the church
tolerates ; and vvithout indulging a censorious humour, let us finish
our character of a worthy preacher.
C. What you have said already gives me, I think, an exact idea
ofit. A. Let us hear then what you reckon necessary to make a com
plete preacher.
C. I think that he ought to bave studied solidly, during his
younger days, vvhatever is most useful in tbe poetry and eloquence
of the ancients.*
A. That is not necessary. It is true when one has finished
such studies successfully, they may be of use lo him, even towards
a right understanding of fhe scriptures, as St. Paul has shown in a
treatise he composed on this very subject. But after all, this sort
of study is raiher useful than necessary. In the first ages of the
church, the clergy found a want of this kind of learning. Those
indeed who had applied themselves lo it in their youth, turned it to
the service of religion, when they became pastors; but such as
had neglected these studies before, were not permitted to follow
them, when they had once engaged themselves in the study ofthe
sacred writings, which were then reckoned to be sufficient. Hence
came that passage in thet apostolical constitutions, which exhorts
Christians not to read the heaihen authors. ' If you want history
(says the book,) or laws, or moral precepts, or eloquence, or poetry,
you will find them all in the scriptures.' In effect we have already
seen that il is needless to seek elsewhere for any thing that is
necessary to form our taste and judgment of true eloquence. St.
Austin says that the smaller stock we have of olher learning, we
ought so much the more to enrich ourselves out ofthat sacred trea
sure ; and that seeing our notions are too scanty to express divine
ihings in a proper way, we have need lo exalt and improve our
knowledge, by the authority of Scripture ; and our language, by
tbe dignity of its expressions. But I ask your pardon for interrupt
ing you. Go on. Sir, if you please.
C. Well then ; let us be content witb the sufficiency of Scrip
ture. Butshall we not add the fathers?
* The Greek and Roman authors have a spiritin them, a force, both of thought
and expression, that latter ages have not been able to iiiiitafe, Buchanan only
excepted ; in whom, more particularly in his Psalms, there is a beauty, and
life, an exactness, as well as liberty, that cannot be imitated, and scarce enough
commended. Discourse of the Pastoral Care. Ch. viii.
tB.i. t. 6.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 87
A. Without doubt : they are the channels of fradition. It is
by their writings that we learn the manner in which the chureh in
terpreted the Scripture in all ages.
C. But are preachers obliged lo explain every passage of Scrip-
ure according to the interpretations thatthe fathers have given us?
We find that one father gives a spiritual or mystical sense ; and
another gives a literal one. Now vvhich must we choose? For
there would be no end of mentioning them all.
.S. When I affirm that we ought to interpret the Scriplure'ac-
cording to the doctrine of the fathers, Imean, their constant and
uniform doctrine. They frequently gave pious interpretations that
differed very much frora the literal sense; and were not founded
on the prophetical allusions, and the mysterious doctrines of reli
gion. Now seeing these interpretations are arbitrary, we are not
obliged to follow them ; ' seeing they did not follow one another.'
Butin those places where they explain the sentiments ofthe church
concerning points of faifh or practice, it is not allowable lo explain
the Scripture in a sense contrary to the doctrine of the fathers.
This is the authority that vve ought to ascribe to thera.
C. This seems clear enough. I would therefore have a clergy
man (before he begin to preach) be thoroughly acquainted with
the doctrine of the fathers, that he may follow it. I would even
have him study the principles they laid down for their conduct,
their rules of moderation, and their method of instruction.
A. Right; they are our masters. They had an exalted genius ;
they had great and pious souls, full of heroical sentiraents. They
had a singular knowledge ofthe terapers and raanners ofmen, and
acquired a great repute; and a very easy way of preaching. We
even find that raany of them vvere very polite, and knew whatever
is decent, eitherin writing or speaking in public; and what is
handsorae both in familiar conversation, and in discharging the
comraon duties of life. Doubtless allthis must have conduced to
render thera eloquent, and fit to gain upon people's minds. Ac
cordingly we find in their writings a politeness not only of language
but of .sentiments and manners, which is not to be seen in the
writers of the following ages. This just taste and discernment,
(which agrees perfectly vvell with simplicity, and rendered their
persons acceptable, and their behaviour engaging) was highly ser
viceable to religion. And in this point we can scarcely imitate
39

88 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
thera enough. So that after the Scriptures, the knowledge of the
fathers will help a preacher lo corapose good sermons.
C. When one has laid such a solid foundation, and edified the
church by his exemplary virtues, he would then be fit to explain
the gospel with great authority and good effect. For by familiar
instructions and useful conferences, (to which we suppose hira to
have been accustomed betimes,) he raust haye attained a sufficient
freedom and easiness of speaking. Now if sucb pastors applied
theraselves lo all tbe particular duties oftheir function, as adrainis
tering the sacraments, directing pious souls, and comforting afflict
ed, or dying persons, it is certain they could not bave mucb tirae
to make elaborate sermons, and learn them word for word. ' The
mouth behooved to speak from the abundance of the heart ;'* and
communicate to ' the people the fulness of gospel-knowledge,
and the affecting sentiments ofthe preacher. As for what you said
yesterday, about getting sermons by heart, I had the curiosity to
seek out a passage in Sf. Austin that I had read before ; it is to
this purpose : ' He thinks that a preacher ought to speak in a raore
plain and sensible manner than other people ; for, seeing custom
and decency will not permit his hearers to ask him any questions,
he should be afraid of not adapting his discourse to their capacity.
Wherefore, says he, they who get their sermons by heart, word for
word, and so cannot repeat and explain a truth till they see that
their hearers understand it, must lose one great end and benefit of
preaching.' You see by tbis, Sir, that St. Austin only prepared
his subject, vvithout burdening his memory with all the words of
his sermons. Though the precepts of true eloquence should re
quire more, yet the rules of the gospel ministry will not permit us
to go farther. As for my own part, I have been long ofyour opin
ion concerning this matier, because of the many pressing necessi
ties ill the Christian church, that require a pastor's continual ap
plication. While a priest, who ought to be 'a man ofGod, thor
oughly furnished unto all good vvorks,'t should be diligent in root
ing out ignorance and offences from the field of the churcb ; I think
il unworthy of him to waste his time in his closet, in smoothing
of periods, giving delicate touches to his descriptions, and in
venting quaint divisions. When one falls into the method and
eraployraent of these pretty preachers, he can have no tim,e to do
anything else, he applies hiraself to no other business, or useful
* Mat. xii. 34. t 2 Tim. iii. 17.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 89
kind of study; nay, to refresh hiinself, heis oftentimes forced lo
preach the same sermons over and over again. But whal kind of el
oquence can a preacher attend to, when his hearers know beforehand
allthe expressions and pathetic figures he vvill use ? This is a likely
way indeed to surprise and astonish ; to soften, and move, and
persuade them ! This raust be a strange manner of concealing one's
art, and of letting nature speak. To tell you freely, S ir, this gives
me great offence. What ! shall a dispenser of the divine mysteries
be an idle declairaer, jealous of his reputation, and fond of vain
pomp?* Shall he not dare to speak of Goil to his people, vvillioill
having ranged all his words, and learned his lesson by heart like a
school boy ?
JI. I am very much pleased with your zeal. What you say is
true. But we must nol, however, inveigh against this abuse vvith
too much violence; for we ought to show a regard to persons of
worth and piety, who, o-it of deference lo custom, or being prepos
sessed by example, have, with a good design, fallen into the method
that you justly censure. But I am ashamed to interrupt you so
often. Go on, I beseech you.
C. I would have a preacher explain the whole plan of religion,
and unfold every part of it, in the most intelligible manner, by
showing the primitive institution of things, and pointing out the se
quel and tradition of them ; that by showing the origin and estab
lishment of religion, he might destroy the objections of unbelievers,
without offering to attack them openly; lest he should thereby
lay a stumbling block in the way of illiterate, well meaning Chris
tians. A. That is very right. The best way of proving the truth of
religion, is to explain it justly ; for it carries its ovvn evidence along
with it, when we represent it in its native purity. All other proofs
that are not drawn from the very fouudation of religion itself, and
the manner of its propagation, are but foreign to it. Thus, for in-
* Sed his ornatus (repetam enim) virilis, fortis et sanctus sit— non debet
quisquam ubi maxima rerum momenta versantur, de verbis esse solEcitus 
prima virtus est vitio carere. Igitur ante orania, ne spereraus ornatam ora
tionem fore, qua probabilis non erit. Probabile autera, Cicero id genas dicit,
quod non plus, minusve est quam decet. Non quia comi expolirique non de-
beat; nara et hffic ornatus pars est: sed quia vitium est, ubique quod iiiraium
est. Itaque vult esse autoritatem et pondus in verbis : sententias vel graves,
vel aptas opinionibus hominum ao moribus. Quintil. lib. viii. u. 3.

90 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
stance, the best proof of the creation of the vvorld, of the deluge,
and the miracles of Moses, may be drawn from the nature of those
rairacles; and the artless, impartial manner in which the Mosaic
history is written. A wise, unprejudiced person needs only to
read it, to be fully convinced of i*s truth.
C. I would likewise have a preacher assiduously explain to the
people in a connected train not only all the particular precepts and
mysteries of the gospel ; but likewise the origin and instituiion of
the sacraments ; the traditions, discipline, the liturgy, and ceremonies
ofthe church. By these instructions he would guard the faithful
against the objections of heretics, and enable them lo give an ac
count oftheir faith, and even to affect such heretics as are nol ob
stinate ; he would strengthen people's faith, give them an exalted
notion of religion, and make them receive some edification and
benefit from whal they see in the church. Whereas wilh the su
perficial instruction that is generally given them at present, they
comprehend little or nothing of what they see, and have but a very
confused idea of whal they hear from the preacher. It is chiefly
for the sake ofthis connected scheme of instruction that I would
have fixed persons, such as pastors, to preach in every parish. I
have often observed that there is no art, nor science, that is not
taught coherently by principles and method, in a connected train
of instructions. Religion is the only thing that is not taught thus
to Christians. In their childhood they have a little, dry catechism
put into their hands, which they learn by rote, without understand
ing the sense of it. And after that, they bave no other instruction but
what they can gather from sermons upon unconnected general sub
jects. I would, therefore, (as you said) have preachers teach peo
ple the first principles of their religion ; and, by a due method, lead
them on to the highest mysteries ofit.
A. That was the ancient way. They began with catechizing :
after which, pastors taught their people the several doctrines ofthe
gospel, in a connected train of homilies. This instructed Chris
tians fully in the word of God : you know St. Austin's book, of
' catechizing the ignorant ;' and St. Clement's tract, which he
composed to show the heathen whom he converted what were the
doctrines and manners ofthe Christian philosophy. In those days
the greatest men were eraployed in these catechetical instructions ;
and accordingly they produced such wonderful effects, as seera
quite incredible to us.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. ^1
C. In fine, I would have every preacher make such sermons as
should not be loo troublesome to hira, that so he might be able to
preach often. They ought therefore to be short : that without fa
tiguing hiraself or wearying the people, he inight preach every Sun
day, after the gospel. As far as we can judge, those aged bishops
who lived in former times and had constant labours to employ them,
did not make such a stir as our modern preachers do in talking fo
the people in the midst of divine service; which the bishops them
selves read solemnly every Lord's day.* A preacher now-a-days
gets little credit unless he coines out of the pulpit sweating aud
breathless, aud unable to do any thing the rest of the day. The
bishop's upper vestment (vvhich was not then opened at the shoul
ders as it is now, but hung equally down on all sides,) probably
hindered him from moving his arms, as some preachers do. So
that as their sermons were short, so their action must have been
grave and raoderate. Now, Sir, is not all this agreeable to your
principles .' Is not this the idea you gave us of good preaching?
A. It is not raine : it is the current notion of all antiquity. The
farther I inquire inlo this raatter, the more I am convinced that the
ancient form of sermons wasthe most perfect. The primitive pas
tors were great men : they were not only very holy, but they had a
complete, clear knowledge of religion, and of the best way to per
suade men of its truth : and they took care to regulate all the cir
cumstances of it.' There is a great deal of wisdom hidden under
this air of simplicity i and we ought not to believe that a better
method could have been afterwards found out. You have set
this whole matter in the best light, and have left me nothing to add :
* A clergyman must bring his mind fo an inward and feeling sense of those
things that are prayed for in our offices : this will make him pronounce them
with an equal measure of gravity and affection; aud with a due slowness, and
emphasis. I do not love the theatrical way of fhe church of Rome, in which
if is a great study, and a long practice, to learn in every one of their.offices,
how they ought to compose their looks, gesture, and voice ; yet a lighl wan
dering of the eyes, and a hasty running through the prayers, are things high
ly unbecoming : they very much lessen the majesty of our worship ; and give
our enemies advantage to call it dead and formal; when they see plainly that
he who officiates, is dead and formal in it. A deep sense of the things prayed
for, a true recollection and attention of spirit, and a holy earnestness of soul, will
give a composure to tbe look, and a weight to the pronunciation, that wiil be
tempered between affectation on the one hand, and levity on the other.
Discourse of the Pastoral Cate, ch. viii.

92 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
indeed you have explained my thoughts better than I should have
done rayself
B. You raagnify the eloquence, and the serraons of the fathers
mightily. A. I do not think that I commend thera too rauch.
K. 1 am surprised to see, that after you have been so severe
against those orators who raix turns of wit with their discourses,
you should be so indulgent to the fathers, whose writings are full of
jingling antitheses and quibbles, entirely contrary lo all your rules-
I wish you would be consistent with yourself Pray, Sir, unfold
all this to us. Particularly, vvhat do you think of Tertullian ?
A. There are raany excellent things in him. The loftiness of
his sentiments is ofttimes admirable. Besides, he should be read
for the sake of some principles concerning tradition, some historical
facts, and the discipline of his lime. But as for his style, I do not
pretend to justify it. fle has many false and obscure notions, raa
ny harsh and perplexed raeiaphors : and the generality of readers
are most fond of his faults. He has spoiled many preachers.* For
* One ofthe greatest and most remarkable'proofs of the strong influence that
some imaginations havc over others, is the power that some others have to
persuade, without any proof. For example, the turn of words that we find in
Tertullian, Seneca, Montaigne, and some other authors, has so many charms,
and so much lustre, that they dazzle most readers — their words, however in-
BigniScant, have mote force than the reasons of other people. I protest X have a
great value for some of TertulUan's works ; and chiefly for his Apology against
the Gentiles ; his book o^ prescriptions against heretics ; and for some passages
of Seneca; though I have very little esteem for Montaigne. Tertulliiin was
indeed a man ofgreaf learning : but he had more meraory than judgraent — the
regard he showed to the visions of Montanus, and his prophetesses, is an un
questionable proof of his weak judgment. The disorder of his imagination sen
sibly appears in the heat, the transports, and enthusiastic flights he falls into,
upon trifling subjects, — what could he infer from his pompous descriptions of
the changes that happen in the world ? Or how could they justify his laying
aside his usual dress, to wear the philosophical cloak ? The moon has different
phases; the year has several seasons ; the fields change their appearance in
summer and winter ; whole provinces are drowned by inundations, or swallow
ed up by earthquakes — in fine, all nature is subjeet to changes — therefore he
had reason to wear the cloak rather than the common robe ! — Nothing can ex
cuse the silly arguments and wild fancies of this author, who, in several others
ofhis works, as well as in that de Pallio, says every thing that comes info his
head, if it1)e a far fetched conceit, or a bold expression, by which he hoped to
show the vigour, (we must rather call if, the disorder) of his imagination.
Malebranche's recherche de la verite. Liv. ii. p. 3. t. 3.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 93
the desire of saying soraething that is singular leads thera to study
his works: and his uncommon pompous style dazzles thera. We
raust therefore beware of imitating his thoughts or expressions ;
and only pick out bis noble sentiments, and the knowledge of an
tiquity. B. What say you of St. Cyprian ? Is not his style too swell
ing ?
A. I think it is : and it could scarcely be otherwise in his age
and country. But though his language has a tang of the African
roughness, and the bombast that prevailed in his days, yet there is
great force and eloquence in it. Every vvhere we see a great soul
who expresseth his sentiments in a very noble, moving manner.
In sorae places of his works we find* affected ornaments, especially
in his epistle to Donatus ; which St. Austin quotes, however, as a
letter full of eloquence. He says that God permitted those strokes
of vain oratory to fall from St. Cyprian's pen, to show posterity how
much the spirit of Christian simplicity had, in his following works,
retrenched the superfluous ornaments of his style, and reduced it
within the bounds of a grave and raodest eloquence. This (says
St. Austin) is the distinguishing character of all the letters that St.
Cyprian wrote afterwards, which we raay safely adraire and iraitate,
as being written according to the severest rules of religion ; though
we cannot hope to corae up to thera without a great application.
In fine, though his letter to Donatus (even in St. Austin's opiniou)
be too elaborately adorned, it deserves, however, to be called elo
quent. For notwithstanding its many rhetorical embellishraents,
we cannot but perceive that a great part of the epistle is very seri
ous and lively, and raost proper to give Donatus a noble idea of
Christianity. In those passages where he is very earnest, he neg
lects all turns of wit, and falls into a sublirae and veheraent strain.
' Locus enim cum die convenit ; et mulcendis sensibus, ac fovendis, ad lenes
auras blandientis autumni hortorum fades amoena consentit. Hic jocundum
sermonibus diem ducere, el studentibus fabulis in divina praecepta conscientiam
pectoris erudire. Ac ne colloquium nostrum arbiter piofanus iinpediat, aut
clamor intemperans familis strepentis obtundaf, petamus hanc sedem. Dant
secessum vicina secreta, ubi dum erratici palmitum lapsus nexibus penduiis
per arundines bajulas repunt, viteam porticum frondea tecta fecerunt; bene
hic studia in aures damus ; et dum in arbores, et in vites quas videmus, oblec-
tante prospectu, oculos amcenamus, animum siraul et auditus instruit, et pascit
obtutus. ('Vpr- Ad Donat. Epist. il.

94 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
B. But what do you Ihink of St. Austin ? Is he not the most*
jingling quibbler that ever wrote ? Will you defend him ?
A. No : I cannot vindicate him in that. Il was the reigning
fault ofhis lime ; to which his quick, lively fancy naturally inclined
him. This shows that he was not a perfect orator. But notwith
standing this defect, he had a great talent for persuasion. He rea
soned generally with great force : and he is full of noble notions.
He knew the heart of man entirely well, arid was so polite, that he
carefully observed the strictest decency in all his discourses. In
short, he expressed himself alraost always in a pathetic, gentle, in
sinuating manner. Now ought not the fault we observe in so great
a man to be forgiven 1
C. I must own tbere is one (rhing in hira that I never observed
in any other writer ; I mean, that he has a moving way, even when
he quibbles. None of his works are more full of jingling turns,
than his confessions and soliloquies ; and yet we must own they
are tender,t and apl to affect the reader.
A. It is because he checks the turns of his fancy as rauch as
he can, by the ingenuous simplicity of his pious, affecting senti-
t Missi nuncios meos omnes et sensus inferiores, ut qusererera te, et non
inveni, quia male quserebam. Video enim, lux mea, Deus qui illuminasti
me, quia male te per illos quserebam quia tu es intus, et tamen ipsi, ubi intrave-
ris, nesciverunt — et tamen cum Deum meum quEero, quaero nihilominus quan
dam lucem, quam non capit oculus ; quandam vocem super omnem vocem,
quam non capit auris ; quendam odorem super omnem odorem, quein non ca
pit naris; quendam dulcorem super omnem dulcorem, quem non capit gestus ;
quendam atnplexum super oranem amplexuni, quera non capit tactus. Isla
lux quidem fulget ubi locus non capit ; ista vo.x sonat, ubi spiritus non rapit :
odor iste redolet, ubi flatus, non spargit : sapor iste sapit ubi non estedacitas;
amplexus iste tangitur, ubi non divellilur. Aug. Solil. §. 31.
O dies prasclara et pulchra, nesciens vesperum, non habens occasum — ubi
non erit hostis impugnans, neque ulla illecebra, sed suraraa et certa securitas,
secura tranquillitas, et tranquiUa jocunditas, jocunda felecitas, foelix aeternifas,
aeterna beatitudo, et beata Trinitas, et Trinitatis unitas, et unitatis Deltas, et
Deitatis beata visio, quse est gaudium Domini Dei fui. Aug. Solil. §. 35.
t Quemadmodum des'derat cervus ad fontes aquarum, ila desiderat anima mea
ad te, Deus. Sitivit anima raea ad te Deum, fontem vivum : quando veniam
et apparebo ante faciem tuara ? 0 fons vitae, vena aquarum viventium ; quando
vioiam ad aquas dulcedinis tuas de terre deserta, invia et inaquosa; ut videam
virtutem tuam, et gloriam tuam, et satiem, ex aquis misericordiae tuse sltim
meam ? sitio, Domine, fons vitas es satia rue'. Sitio, Domine, sitio te Deum
vivum : O quando veniam et apparebo, Domine, ante faciem tuam ?
Aug. Solil. cap. xxxv.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 95
ments. All his works plainly show his love of, God. He vvas not
only conscious of it, but knew well hovv to express lo others the
strong sense he had of il. Now this tender, affecting way, is a part
of eloquence. But we see besides that Sl. Austin knew exactly all
the essential rules of it. He tells us* that a persuasive discourse
must be simple and natural ; that art must not appear in it ; and that
if it be too fine and elaborate, it puts the hearers upon their guard
To this purpose he applies these words, vvhich you cannot but re
member, ' qui snphislice loquitur odibilis est.' He talks likewise
very judiciously of the mixing different kinds of style in a discourse ;
of ranging the several parts of it in such a manner as to make it
increase gradually in strength and evidence ; of the necessity of
being plain and familiar, even as to the tones of the voice, and our
action iu particular passages ; ihough every thing we say should
still have a dignity when we preach religion. In fine, he likewise
shows the vvay to enlighten and move people. These are Sl. Aus
tin's noiions of eloquence. But if you vvould see wilh how much
art he actually influenced people's minds, and wilh what address
he moved their passions, according to the true design of eloquence,
ycu must read the account he gives of a discourse he raade to the
people of Csesarea, in Mauritania, in order to abolish a barbarous
practice. It seeras there prevailed among them an ancient custora,
which they had carried to a monstrous pitch of cruelty. His busi
ness therefore was to draw off the people from a spectacle that de
lighted thera extremely. Judge now what a difficult enterprise this
was. However, he tells us that after he had talked to thera for
some time, they spake aloud and applauded hira. But he conclud
ed that his discourse had not persuaded them, seeing they amus
ed themselves in coraraending hira. He thought be had done
nothing while he only raised delight and admiration in his hearers ;
nor did he begin to hope for any good effect from his discourse,
till he saw them weep. ' In effect,' says he, ' the people were at
length prevailed on to give upj this delightful spectacle : nor has
it been renewed these eight years.' Is not St. Austin then a true
orator ? Have we any preachers that are able to talk so powerfully
now ? As for St. Jerora, he has some faults in his style ; but bis
expressions are manly and great. He is not regular ; but he is
far more eloquent than raost of those who value themselves upon
• Dc doct. Chr. 1. 2.
40

96 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
their oratory. We should judge like mere grammarians if we ex
arained only the style and language of the fathers. You know
there is a great difference between eloquence, and what we call
elegance, or purity of style. St. Ambrose likewise fell into the
fashionable defects of his time ; and gives his discourse such orna
raents as were then in vogue. Perhaps these great men (who had
higher views than the common rules of rhetoric,) conformed them
selves to the prevailing taste of the age they lived in, that they
might the belter insinuate the truths of religion upon people's
minds, by engaging them to hear the word of God wilh pleasure.
But notwithstanding the puns and quibbles that St. Ambrose sorae
tiraes uses, we see that he wrote to Theodosius with an inimitable
force and persuasion. How much tenderness does he express
when he speaks ofthe deathof bis brother Satyrus .^ In the Roman
breviary we have a discourse of his, concerning John the Baptist's
head which, he says, Herod respected and dreaded, even after his
death. If you observe that discourse, you will find the end of it
very sublime. St. Leo's style is swelling, but truly noble. Pope'Greg-
ory lived still in a worse age ; and yel he wrote several things wilh
much strength and dignity. We ought to distinguish those failings
into which the degeneracy of arts and learning led these great men,
in coraraon with other writers of tbeir several ages : and at the
sarae time observe what their genius and sentiments furnished thera
wilh, to persuade their hearers.
C. But do you think, then, that the taste of eloquence was quite
lost in those ages that were so happy for religion ?
A. Yes : within a little tirae after the reign of Augustus, elo
quence and the Latin tongue began to decline apace. The fath
ers did not live lill after this corruption : so that we must not look
on them as complete models. We must even acknowledge that most
ofthe sermons they have left us are composed with less skill and
force, than their other works. When I showed you from the testi
mony of the fathers that the scripture is eloquent, (which you
seemed to believe upon their credit,) I knew very well that the or
atory of tbese witnesses is rauch inferior to that of the sacred writ
ings theraselves. But there are sorae persons of such a depraved
taste, that they cannot relish the beauties of Isaiah ; and yet they
will adraire Chrysologus, in whora (notwithstanding his fine narae,)
there is liltle to be found besides abundance of evangelical piety
couched under numberless quibbles and low witticisms. In the

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 97
east, fhe just way of speaking and writing was better preserved ; and
the Greek tongue continued for some time almost in its ancient pu
rity. St. Chrysostom spake il very well. His style, you know, is
copious ; but he did not study false ornaraents. All his discourse
tends to persuasion : he placed every thing with judgraent ; and
was well acquainted with the holy scriptures and the manners of
men. He entered into their hearts, and rendered things familiarly
sensible to them. He had sublirae and solid notions, and is sorae
times very affecting. Upon the whole, we must own he is a great
orator. St. Gregory Nanzianzen is more concise, and more poetical ;
but not quite so persuasive. And yet he has several moving passa
ges ; particularly, in his funeral oration upon his brother St. Basil ;
and in his last discourse at taking leave of Constantinople. St.
Basil is grave, sententious, and rigid, even in his style. He had
meditated profoundly on all the truths of the gospel ; he knew ex
actly all the disorders and weaknesses of human nature ; and he
had a great sagacity in the conduct of souls. There is nothing
more eloquent than his epistle to a Virgin that had fallen ; in my
opinion it is a masterpiece. But now if a preacher should not have
formed his taste in these matters before he studies the fathers, he
will be in danger of copying the most unaccurate parts of their
works, and may perhaps imitate their chief defects in the sermons
he composes.
C. But how long continued this false eloquence which succeed
ed the true kind ?
A. Till now.
C. What do you mean ? Till now ?
A. Yes, till now : for we have not yet corrected our taste of
eloquence, so rauch as we iraagine. You will soon per
ceive the reason of it. The barbarous nations that over
ran the Roraan erapire did spread ignorance and a bad taste
every where. Now we descended from them. And though learn
ing began to revive in the fifteenth century, it recovered then but
slowly. It was with great difficulty that we were brought by de
grees to have any relish of a right raanner ; and even now, how
many there are who have no notion of it ! However, we ought to
show a due respect not only to the fathers, but to other pious au
thors, who wrote during this long interval of ignorance. From
them we learn the traditions of their time, and several other useful
instructions. I am quite ashamed of giving my judgment so freely
on this point ; but, gentlemen, you desired me. And I shall be

98 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
very ready to own my mistakes if any one will undeceive me.
But it is time to put an end to this Conversation.
C. We cannol part wilh you till you give us your opinion about
the raanner of choosing a text.
A. You know very well that the use of texts arose from the an
cient custom that preachers observed in not delivering their own
reflections to the people, but only explaining the words of the sa
cred text. However, by degrees they came lo leave off this way of
expounding the whole words of the gospel that vvas appointed for
the day, and discoursed only upon one part of it, which they called
the text ofthe sermon. Now if the preacher does not make an ex
act explication ofthe whole gospel, or epistle, he ought al least to
choose those words that are most important, and be_st suited to the
wants and capacities of the people. He ought to explain them well,
and lo give a right notion of what is meant by a single word ; it is
ofttiraes necessary lo expound many others in the context. But
there should be nothing refined or far fetched in such instructions.
It raust look very strange and awkward in a preacher to set up for
wit and delicacy of invention, when he ought to speak with the ut
most seriousness and gravity ; out of regard to the authority of
the Holy Spirit whose words he borrows.
C I must confess I always disliked a forced text. Have you
not observed that the preacher draws from a text whatever sermons
he pleases? He insensibly warps and bends his subject lo make
the text fit the sermon that he has occasion to preach. This is
frequently dono in the time of Lent. I cannot approve of it.
B. Before we conclude, I must beg of you to satisfy me as to
one point that still puzzles me ; and after that we will let you go.
A. Come, then, let us hear what it is. I have a great raind to
satisfy you if I can. For I heartily wish you vvould employ your
parts in making plain and persuasive sermons.
B. You would have a preacher explain the holy scriptures with
connexion, according to the obvious sense ofthem.
A. Yes : that would be an excellent raethod.
B. Whence then did it proceed that the fathers interpreted
the scripture quite otherwise ? They usually give a spiritual,
and allegorical meaning to the sacred text. Read St. Aus
tin, St. Ambrose, St. Jerom, Origen, and others of the fathers ;
they find mysteries every where, and seldom regard the letter of
scripture.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. 99
A. The Jews that lived in our Saviour's days abounded in
these mysterious allegorical interpretations. It seems that the The
rapeutae who lived chiefly at Alexandria, (and whom Philo reck
oned to be philosophical Jews, though Eusebius supposes they were
primitive Christians,) were extremely addicted to these mystical in
terpretations. And indeed it vvas in the city of Alexandria that
allegories began to appear vvith credit among Christians. Origen
was the first of the fathers who forsook the literal sense of scrip
ture. You know what disturbance he occasioned in the church.
Piety itself seeraed to recommend these allegorical interpretations.
And besides, there is something in them very agreeable, ingenious,
and edifying. Most of the fathers, to gratify the humour of the
people, (and probably tbeir own too) made great use of them. But
they kept faithfully to the literal, and the prophetical sense (which
in its kind is literal too) in all points where they had occasion to
show the foundations of the Christian doctrine. Wheh the people
were fully instructed in every thing they could learn frora the let
ter of scripture, the fathers gave thera those mystical interpreta
tions to edify and comfort them. These explications were exactly
adapted to the relish of the eastern people, among whom they first
arose ; for they are naturally fond of mysterious and allegorical lan
guage. They were the more delighted with this variety of inter
pretations, because of the frequent preaching, and almost constant
reading of scripture, which was used in the church. But among us
the people are far less instructed : we musl do whal is most necessary,
and begin with the literal sense, without despising the pious expli
cations that the fathers gave. We musl take care of providing our
daily bread, before we seek after delicacies. In interpreting scripture
vve cannot do betier than to imitate the solidity of Sl. Chrysostom.
Most of our modern preachers do not study allegorical meanings,
because they have sufficiently explained the literal sense ; butthey
forsake it because fhey do nol perceive its grandeur, and reckon it
dry and barren incomparison oftheir way of preaching. But we have
all the truths and duties of religion in the letter ofthe scripture, de
livered not only wilh authority, and a singular beauty, but wilh an
inexhaustible variety ; so that, without having recourse to mystical
interpretations, a preacher may always have a great number of new
and noble things fo say. It is a deplorable thing to see how much
this sacred treasure is neglected even by those who have it always
in their hands. If the clergy applied theraselves to the ancient

100 FENELON'S DIALOGUES
way of raaking homilies, we should then have two different sorts of
preachers. They who have no vivacity, or a poetical genius, would
explain fhe scriptures clearly without imitating its lively, noble
manner; and if fhey expounded the word ofGod judiciously, and
supported their doclrine by an exemplary life, they would be very
good preachers. They would have whal Sl. Ambrose requires, a
chaste, simple, clear style, full of weight and gravity ; without af
fecting elegance, or despising the smoothness and graces of lan
guage. The other sort having a poetical turn of mind would ex
plain the scripture in its own style and figures ; and by that means
become accomplished preachers. One sort vvould instruct people
with clearness, force and dignity ; and the other would add to this
powerful instruction, the sublimity, the enthusiasm,* and vehe
mence of scripture: so that it would (if I may so say) be entire,
and living in thera, as much as it can be in men who are not mi
raculously inspired from above.
B. Oh, Sir : I had almost forgot an important article. Have
a moment's patience, I beseech you : a few words will satisfy
me. A. What now? Have you any body else to censure ?
B. Yes : the panegyrists. Do you think that when they praise
a saint, they ought so give his character, as to reduce all his actions
and all his virtues fo one point?
* Inspiration may be justly called divine enthusiasm — for inspiration is a real
feeling of the dirine presence; and enthusiasra a false one.
Characteristics, vol. i. p. 53.
This is what our author advances, when in hehnU of enthusiasm he quotes its
formal enemies, and sliov.'s that ihey are as capable ofit as its greatest confes
sors and martyrs. So far is he from degrading enthusiasm, or disclaiming it in
himself, that he looks on this passion, simply considered, as the most natural ;
and its object, the justest in the world. Even virtue itself he takes to be no
other tban :i noble enthusiasm jusUy directed and regulated by that high stan
dard whieh he supposes in the nature of things — nor is thorough honesty, in his
hypothesis, any other than this zeal, or passion, moving stropgly upon the spe
cies, or vievv of the decorum and sublime of actions. Olhers may pursue differ
ent forras, and fix their eye on different species, (as all men do on one or other:
the real honest Tnan, however plain or simple he appears, has that highest spe
cies, [tlie honestum, pulchrum, ro xaXoy Tr^tTfoy'j honesty itseK in view; and,
instead of outward (ovms orsymmetries, is struck with that ofinward character,
the harmony and numbers of the heart, and beauty of the affections, which
form the manners and conduct of a traly social life  upon the whole, there
fore according to our author, enthusiasm is in itself, a very natural, Aonesi pas
sion, and has properly nothing for its object but what is good and honest.
Char, vol. iii. Miscel. 2. ch. 1.

CONCERNING ELOQUENCE. lOl
A. That shows the orator's invention and refined sense.
B. I understand you. It seems you do not like that
method. A. I think it wrong in most cases. He must put a force upon
things, vvho reduces them all to a single point. Tbere are many
actions of one's life that flow from divers principles, and plainly
show that he possessed very different qualities. The way of refer-
ing all the steps of a raan's conduct lo one cause, is but a scholastic
subtilly, vvhich shows that the orator is far from knowing human
nature. The true vvay to draw a just character, is to paint the tvhole
man, and to set him before the hearer's eye, -speaking and acting.
In describing the course ofhis life, the preacher should chiefly point
out those passages wherein either his natural tem per or bis piety best
appeared. But there should always be something left lo the hear
er's owa observation. The best vvay of praising holy persons is to
recount their laudable actions. This gives a body and force to a
panegyric : this is what instructs people, and makes an impression
upon their minds. But it frequently happens that they return horae
without knowing any thing of a person's life, about whom they
have heard an hour's discourse; or at least they have heard many
reraarks upon a few separate facts, related without any connexion
On the contrary, a preacher ought to paint a person to the life, and
show what he vvas in every period, in every condition, and in the
most remarkable junctures of his life. This could not hinder one
frora forraing a character of him : nay, it might be better collected
from his actions and his words, than from general thoughts and
imaginary designs.
B. You would choose then to give the history of a holy person's
life, and not make a panegyric.
A. No : You mistake me. I would not make a simple narra
tion. I should think it enough lo give a coherent view of the chief
facts in a concise, lively, close, pathetic manner. Every thing
should help to give a just idea of the holy pers6n I praised, and at
the sarae tirae to give proper instruction lo the hearers. To this
I would add such raoral reflections, as I should think raost suitable.
Now do not you think that such a discourse as this would have a
noble and araiable siraplicity ? Do nol you believe that the lives of
holy people would be better understood this way, and an audience
be raore edified, than they generally are ? Do you not think that ac
cording to the rules of eloquence we laid down, such a discourse

102 FENELON'S DIALOGUES.
vvould even be raore eloquent than those overstrained panegyrics
that are commonly made ?
B. I am of opinion that such serraons as you speak of would
be as instructive, as affecting, and as agreeable as any other. I
ara now satisfied. Sir : it is tirae to release you. I hope the pains
you have taken wilh me vvill not be lost, for I have resolved to part
with all my modern collections and Italian wits ; and in a serious
manner lo study the vvhole connexion and principles of religion,
by tracing fhem back to their source.
C. Farewell, Sir : the best acknowledgment I can raake, is, to
assure you, that I vvill have a great regard to whal you have said.
A. Gentlemen, good night. I will leave you with these words
of St. Jerom to Nepotian : 'When you teach in fhe church, do not
endeavour to draw applause, but raiher sighs and groans from the
people; let their tears praise you. The discourses of a clergyman
should be full of the holy scripture. Be not a declaimer, but a
true preacher ofthe mysteries ofGod.'

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08561 4817