revision by the preacher, and sometimes without his consent. In this way many homilies transmitted to us, are mere scraps of those which were actually delivered. For example; Chrysostom's first sermon on Lazarus, must have occupied nearly sixty minutes in delivery : Whereas others, as they appear in his printed works, and the same is true, concerning those of Augustine, would have required scarcely a tenth part of this time. On the whole, it is evident that sermons, as delivered by Christ, and the Apostles, and the primitive fathers, varied in length with circumstances:-that after Origen's time, they became longer, less desultory, and more conformed to the rules of Grecian eloquence; but that, in Chrysostom's day, they must have been less than an hour in length, as this was the customary time of the whole religious service.1

EFFECT OF SERMONS.

The silence and order which decency demands in a modern Christian assembly, did not prevail in the ancient church. To prevent passing in and out during sermon, different measures were adopted; such as severe church censures, placing officers at the entrance of the church, and sometimes locking the doors.

The best preachers often reproved their hearers for talking and jesting in time of worship. In imitation of

1 In some cases it would seem that what is given to us as one continued sermon, must have been delivered at several times. The sermon of Erasmus on the Fourth Psalm, is as long as five modern sermons. Editors probably took the same liberty as that by which several discourses of President Edwards have been embodied into a continued treatise.

the pagan theatre, it became an extensive custom for hearers to express their approbation of a sermon, by tumultuous applauses, such as stamping, clapping, waving of handkerchiefs, and loud acclamations. Thus the hearers of Cyril cried out, in the midst of his sermon, orthodox Cyril! And Chrysostom's in another case exclaimed, Thou art the thirteenth Apostle !' These applauses were in many cases, mere matter of form, and were uttered without any intelligent apprehension of what the preacher had delivered. Thus Augustine reproved his hearers, in one instance, for interrupting him with their acclamations, when he had only begun to speak, but had not expressed a single thought. But many other preachers encouraged these disorders, from motives of vain glory. They had their reward,-while the illustrious men whose simple aim was to feed their hearers with the bread of life, saw their faithful ministrations blest, to the saving conversion of many souls.

The sketch which I had designed to give ofthe modern pulpit, in Great Britain, on the continent of Europe, and in the Greek church, must be omitted, except so far as it will be incorporated of course into the various topics of subsequent lectures.

LECTURE IV.

CHOICE OF TEXTS.

THE practice of expounding parts of the sacred Scriptures in public worship, as I have stated in the preceding lectures, was common in the Jewish synagogue, and in the early Christian churches. From this origin is derived the usage, which for ages has prevailed in Christendom, of selecting from the Bible a few words or sentences, called a text, from which the preacher deduces the subject of his discourse. It can be no valid objection to the propriety of this custom in the pulpit, that nothing analogous to it is found in the modern senate or forum, nor among the great fathers of ancient eloquence. It is not the province of secular oratory, as Dr. Campbell has properly remarked, to expound any infallible code of doctrines or laws. But a sermon purports to be a perspicuous and persuasive exhibition of some truth or duty, as taught in the word of God. It is, therefore, with great propriety, founded on some specific passage of this sacred book.

The principles which ought to be observed in the choice of texts may be included, perhaps, in the following

RULES.

1. A text should never be chosen as the mere MOTTO

of a sermon. This is not sufficiently respectful to the Word of God. Our authority to preach at all, is derived from the same sacred book which prescribes what we shall preach. It is not enough that what we speak is truth;-it must be truth taught in the Bible; or else the declaration of it deserves not the name of a Christian sermon. I do not say that an elaborate explication, or any explication is invariably necessary to show that the subject of discourse is contained in the text. When this is so obvious as to be seen by every hearer; especially when it is obvious without recurrence to the connexion of the context, or when there is no such connexion, explanatory remarks are superfluous. This point will be resumed in another place.

But here a question arises which demands some attention, as to the order to be observed in choosing a subject and a text. Dr. Campbell1 lays down the broad position, that the text ought to be chosen for the subject, and not the subject for the text.' His reason is, that in the opposite course, the preacher is tempted to descant upon the words and phrases of a text, while the sentiment becomes only a secondary consideration.

In point of fact, doubtless, every wise preacher often fixes on some prominent doctrine or duty, which he wishes to discuss, and then goes to the Bible to ascertain what it teaches on this subject, selecting some single passage as a text, that is especially pertinent to his purpose. This, I presume, is the common process of preparation, where a sermon is to be adapted to any special circumstance or occasion. The ordination of a minister, for example, requires a discourse on an appropriate subject; and the selection of a text adapted to such a

1 Lectures on Pulpit Eloquence.

subject implies no disrespect to the Bible; for the occasion itself, and all the instructions which it demands, are founded on the authority of this sacred book. Or, when there is some special reason for the preacher to discuss the doctrine of atonement, or of progressive sanctification, he adopts the same process in choosing a text.

But here is a danger to be guarded against, much more serious than the one mentioned by Dr. Campbell, on the other hand. Suppose you fix on your subject, and arrange your matter, and even write your sermon, as has often been done, and then go to the Bible in search of a text. Probably, your text will either not contain your subject; or contain it only by inference or remote analogy; or combine with it other subjects, which must entirely be neglected. I do not say that there can be no case in which it is admissible to arrange the plan of a sermon, and even execute it without having determined on a text. But from the specimens of motto-preaching which have fallen under my observation, I cannot doubt that the tendency of the above process is to sink the reverence due to the Bible; and hence it too often happens in point of fact, that, in what are called polite sermons, there is nothing but the text to remind the hearers that there is a Bible. The text is obviously chosen from respect, rather to the usage of the pulpit, than to the authority of the divine word; and it would better accord with the ends of the preacher in such a case, to choose no text; or, like him whom Melancthon heard preach in Paris, to choose one from the Ethics of Aristotle.

2. In the choice of a text there should be NO AFFECTATION OF PECULIARITY.

Some preachers have endeavoured to awaken the curiosity of their hearers by an artifice of this sort, alto