He then proceeds to quote a passage from the paper of the Churchman, (p. 274, col. 1), substituting only the term evangelical in the place of the word extemporaneous. The passage then stands as follows: "I know there are persons who think that evangelical sermons are more useful than any others-I am confident that such sermons have supported the cause of Dissenters. By far the greater part of dissenting ministers preach evangelical sermons; but the number of clergymen who do so, is comparatively small: there is, therefore, a very great probability that, when an evangelical preacher in the Church of England is removed from his present situation, he will be succeeded by a man who preaches only moral sermons. This change is disliked by many persons; and to some weak minds it is an insupportable evil, and is considered as a grand mark, distinguishing one who fully preaches the gospel of Christ, from another who declares only a part of the will of God, or who is a mere hireling that careth not for the sheep.' And we cannot altogether wonder that such sentiments are entertained by such congregations, &c." I think that I am rendering no more than justice to Churchman, by pointing out the extreme unfairness of this remark. I have already observed to you, that the Churchman professes to enumerate only those means of preventing the increase of Dissenters, which a minister of the church may adopt consistently with ministerial fidelity. His object is to suggest to his brethren certain things which ought to be done, and which, according to his judgment, will conduce at once to the prevention of a defection from the Church of England, and also to the greater edification of its members. He does not mention, indeed he was not bound to mention, those means which ought not to be taken, such as to cease from preaching evangelically, because evangelical preaching in the church may tend to the ultimate increase of Dissenters: for the remedy would be worse than the disease. His opponent, nevertheless, seems to consider the Churchman as bound, on principles of consistency, to recommend the disuse no less of evangelical than of extemporaneous preaching. "Your Leader's (says he) no doubt will feel the full weight of your correspondent's argument, which has precisely the same force in the one case as in the other." Naux forgets that this observation can be admitted to have "force" only by those who think that extemporaneous preaching is more edifying than written sermons. Now Churchman is not of this sentiment. He conceives written sermons to be more useful. The argument, therefore, as applied to Churchman, and to all who think with him, contains a petitio principii. It supposes him to admit, that just as evangelical discourses tend more to edification than merely moral ones, so extemporaneous sermons tend more to edification than those which are written; the very sentiment which Churchman's opponent rebukes him at great length for controverting, But I should not have troubled you with these remarks, if I had not thought that Naux, in many parts of his letter, expresses himself in a manner which tends to restrain that fair and open investigation of questionable points, which I have already intimated that I wish to see encouraged, in a work entitling itself The Christian Observer. "The generality of your readers" (says this writer, among other things equally objectionable), "like your correspondent and myself, have already formed their attachments and made up their minds. Neither of us will, in all probability be able to make a single proselyte. We may sit down to admire each his own production*, and this will be our reward.” I profess to you, Mr. Editor, that, even without any great exertion of that charity which hopeth all things, I can believe that many of the writers in the Christian Observer, and Churchman among the rest, (and I will not except either of his answerers), have much higher ends in view than that of admiring, each of them, their own productions. Indeed I can hardly conceive, that men of a humble, teachable, and christian spirit, and such I trust are many writers in your useful Miscellany, as well as many readers of it, can have so entirely made up their minds on the subject of the comparative advantages and disadvantages of what is called extem *I do not quote in this place all the words of your correspondent, and I beg leave to express a wish that you had your self altered the passage as I have done. poraneous preaching, and on many of the other topics started by Churchman, as to render all discussion of them impertinent. What is this, indeed, but to acknowledge, that we who profess a stricter christianity are nor impressible by argument; that we have minds less open to conviction than other men; that prejudice and bigotry, the very characteristics of the Pharisees, belong also to the professors of the gospel; and that these determine our belief at least so far as secondary points are concerned? An admission which our enemies, I fear, may convert into an argument, that the same prejudice and bigotry will account for that confidence with which we assert the evangelical doctrines of religion. For my own part, Mr. Editor, I profess not altogether to have made up my mind on many points on which these correspondents differ. Iincline to think, that the question between extemporaneous and written sermons is to be determined chiefly by a reference to persons, times, and circumstances; and that no rule about it ought to be laid down so generally as seems to have been done by all your three correspondents. May it not be affirmed, that in this respect every man has his proper gift? Some are naturally bold and ardent in their disposition, fluent and voluble in their speech. Such men, by the grace of God, may become zealous animated preachers of his word; and an extemporaneous discourse may possibly best suit their character. Let them, however, remember, that they are in peculiar danger of becoming rash and violent, of mistaking for grace the gift of a ready tongue; and of overestimating the effect of temporary impressions made on the feelings of their audience. Other men have naturally less powers of speech: their thoughts flow not so quickly as it is necessary that their tongue should speak. Perhaps they are so timid and nervous as to want the self-possession necessary for a public speaker. Possibly their aversion to extemporaneous preaching may be traced in a great measure to the modesty of their disposition, the nicety of their perceptions, the accuracy of their judgment, and the delicacy both of their natural and of their religious taste. They may not equally rouze, agitate, and alarm, but they may still more fully enlighten, edify, and instruct: and among them may be, and I believe are, some of the safest guides to heaven, and of the highest ornaments of the church. Napa does not appear to me to treat this class of pious preachers (a very numerous one, as I conceive) with sufficient respect, when he terms the extemporaneous mode of preaching, "a mode which God has from age to age blessed beyond any other mode which convenience, timidity, trimming compliance, laziness, ignorance, or any other motive or infirmity has more recently invented and adopted." What would Nauz have said had Churchman ventured to insinuate, that some one or more of these motives might influence ministers in adopting the extemporaneous method? I would say to both classes, "Let not him that preacheth in the one manner judge him that preacheth in the other, for God hath received him." Wherefore, "receive ye one another, as Christ hath received us, to the glory of God." I have touched but slightly on this subject: I might go on to remark, that various other circumstances, besides that of the natural gift of the preacher, ought to have a considerable influence in deciding this question: The wish for example of the hearers, the custom of the country, town, or district in which we live. The opinions also of our superiors in the church ought, undoubtedly, to be consulted in this and every other question in which we are not bound by any law of God. And the danger of leading the auditory to form a taste for the dissenting modes of worship, though, as I think, over-rated by Churchman, may fairly be taken into the account. I was much pleased by the piety with which Churchman affirms the importance of prayer, and not a little grieved at the rough manner in which his observations on that subject are treated by his adversary. May I venture to recommend, that you should occasionally use that right which you claim of altering a few expressions in the papers transmitted to you. Perhaps by the qualification of only a few words, of the severity or inaccuracy of which the writer may not be conscious, you may considerably promote the spirit of christian charity and con ciliation. MODERATOR. We thank Moderator for his salu tary counsel. We beg leave to in THE public preaching of the word of God is, confessedly, an ordinance of divine appointment. Preach the gospel to every creature, was the command given to the apostles: preach the word; be instant in season, out of season, is the injunction laid upon all succeeding ministers. The ordinance, which God has been thus pleased to appoint, he has made use of for accomplishing the most important purposes. By this chiefly, if not entirely, he has effected, what no worldly influence or force of arms could effect. By the preaching of men destitute of every mere worldly recommendation, not only without but against the influence of the powers of the carth, he has spread the knowledge of his truth from one kingdom to another, propagating and establishing his gospel through the world-Not to mention the numerous advantages which are thereby derived to society, the everlasting salvation of many thousand souls must be ascribed to the blessing of God upon this ordinance. It has, therefore, appeared in every age to be the instrument by which he displays his power, and carries on the purposes of his grace. For this end he has appointed a gospel-ministry; and is pleased to raise up faithful men for that service, in order that by the foolishness of preaching, (not that which is really foolish, but which will ever appear contemptible to worldly men,) he may save them that believe. Since the consequences, therefore, of preaching the word of God are so important, how much does it become those who are entrusted with the office to use all diligence and circumspection in performing its duties! Surely it is the preacher's province to well to it, that no carelessness or imseek out acceptable words, and to look prudence of his should defeat the end of his ministry, or dishonour the cause for which he pleads. It is granted, that no abilities, natural or acquired, in the preacher, no eloquence of speech, no laboured compositions, can ensure success to his ministry ;-that the excellency of the power is of God and not of man; that neither is he that planteth any thing, nor he that watereth, but God who giveth the increase.-But yet it were presumption for any to expect the divine blessing, except in the use of holy diligence. While we depend entirely on the influence of God's spirit to make our preaching effectual, we are yet to exert every faculty which he has given us, and vigorously to pursue those means which appear most likely to promote the interest of the gospel. Thus it becomes all who preach the word to prove that they are labourers, not loiterers, in God's vineyard, and to determine with David, not to offer unto the Lord of that which cost them nothing. But while all serious ministers agree in these general principles, many dif fer as to what is the best mode of preaching, some pleading for composed or written addresses, others for speaking freely or extempore, without a previous preparation in writing.-It may be proper to enquire which of these is the most useful method.-Each has had its advocates, and we find examples of each among very pious men. Perhaps it would be foreign to the purpose to ask, what was the practice of the apostles, unless it could be proved that they should be proposed as patterns for our imitation in every instance. But it is acknowledged on all hands, that the practice of speaking without a written compo sition has most generally prevailed in the Christian Church; and that "the practice of reading sermons to a public assembly has been hitherto peculiar to the English nation." Bishop Burnet observes, that it took its rise soon after the dawn of the reformation amongst us. But though one side may boast of a greater antiquity than the other, perhaps it were difficult to determine, which is the most useful; since many instances might be produced in which it has pleased God to give success, in an eminent degree to both practices. Perhaps neither can be generally recommended to all. A variety of cases and circumstances may render that which is proper for one individual, or for one situation, highly inexpedient for another. Each mode of address has its peculiar advantages. It may appear adviseable for ministers to compose their sermons, First, in order to prevent or obviate prejudice. It is evident that in many places the prejudice against extempore preaching is so great, that any attempt to introduce it, at least hastily, might probably excite opposition, and effectually hinder a minister's usefulness. A considerable number of persons might at once withdraw themselves from the ministry of one who should attempt to preach without a book. "They would require little more proof of his being unworthy of their notice, than to be told, that he is an extempore speaker." However absurd these prejudices are, yet a minister should pay some regard to them, if he wishes to gain an attentive hearing from all around him. And if by composing his sermons, he can conciliate their esteem, and gain their attention to the truths of the gospel, he may gradually dispose them to listen with candour to the same truths, even when delivered without a written preparation. At least he has answered an important purpose, by declaring the counsel of God to them, and if they reject it, it will more clearly appear, that the sin lieth at their own door. It may be proper for ministers to compose their sermons, in the second place, to improve their own stock of knowledge, and to gain a greater variety of matter and of language. It is incumbent upon them to be men of study and great industry, and to seek for every qualification which may render them able as well as faithful ministers of the new testament. It is, thereCHRIST. OBSERV. No. 33. fore, very lamentable to observe a carelessness or a negligence in any. And it seems highly expedient that all should endeavour to improve their understanding, and to digest a plan of divine truths, so as to be able to express their sentiments with clearness and solidity, as well as with a propriety and copiousness of language, upon every important subject of divinity. But the practice of composing sermons seems best calculated to promote this end; and from the utter neglect of it some have appeared very deficient, except upon common topics, both for matter and for words. This reason, it is confessed, is particularly applicable to the case of young ministers, til, by study and much writing, they have thoroughly digested their sentiments, formed their stile, and attained a facility of expressing themselves upon all the great truths of the gospel. For surely it were presumptuous in them to expect to speak with the same readiness as those experienced ministers who for years have employed their thoughts, their pens, and their tongues, upon these subjects. Hence, also, it may appear expedient to compose sermons, in order to preserve connection and a closeness of argument. Though it is by no means necessary or expedient, that the preaching of the gospel be dry and systematical, and quite conformed to the rules of logical exactness; yet surely it will admit of much solid reasoning and strength of argument. It becomes ministers to endeavour to convince the judgments as well as to affect the passions of their hearers; that they may recommend the gospel to persons of understanding, as well as to those of meaner capacities. And have we not reason to lament that many, by their unconnected, loose, and desultory, manner of address, have brought the gospel into contempt, and have given occasion to the reproach, that none but fools, or weak and illiterate persons would attend to it? Now, if it is of any importance to avoid incoherence, the expediency of written compositions may be pleaded for. For however many things may be spoken very forcibly in an extempore address, it is in vain to expect the same degree of compactness and solidity as in a previously composed discourse. There are especial occasions of 4 A preaching, such as assize or visitation sermons, and certain situations, where men of discernment or learning are expected to make a part of the congregation, where, as it is peculiarly necessary to attend to connection and argument, a neglect of writing would be highly imprudent. It should also be considered, that all serious and godly ministers are not possessed of equal abilities, and that the faculty of speaking freely, without a written preparation, with any tolerable degree of readiness and exactness, is what some do not, perhaps cannot, attain to. Others feel such a trepidation of spirits as would utterly unfit them for preaching extempore with a proper degree of recollection and composure. For such, therefore, to attempt what they are not fitted for, and to neglect that which might tend to procure them a favourable acceptance, and render them more extensively useful, is a degree of unfaithfulness and presumption. But as preaching extempore may plead antiquity in its defence, we may enquire, also, whether it has not some peculiar excellencies and advantages to recommend it. And, first, by an extempore address a minister may speak more plainly and familiarly to his audience. The great end of speaking is to be understood; and as the message of the gospel is equally important to all, ministers are concerned that all, even the meanest and most illiterate, should understand them. There is a powerful efficacy in the simple preaching of the gospel superior to all the force of oratory. It can receive no assistance from the laboured ornaments of language; for God vouchsafes not his blessing to the excellency of speech, and the enticing words of man's wisdom, lest the praise should be given to the wisdom of men and not to the power of God. A plainness and simplicity of stile, and manner of address, is not only peculiarly becoming those who are not seeking the applause and admiration of men, but is absolutely necessary for such as wish to be understood. It is almost inconceivable by those who have not examined, how many of our hearers are dull of hearing and slow of conception; to whom, even in the plainest and most familiar discourses, many expressions are unintelligible; while elegant compositions are entirely beyond their comprehension. But is so considerable a part of our congregations to be disregarded? Except ye utter by the tongue words casy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. A rash, wild, careless manner of speaking is not here pleaded for: this ought to be guarded against by those who would not bring the gospel into contempt. But the sensible and the discerning will not be offended by that simplicity which is necessary for the instruction of the ignorant. Still it is asked, Cannot this plainness of speech be consulted as well in written as in extempore discourses? Without doubt it may: but, perhaps, the chief difficulty of ministers, either in writing or speaking, is to be intelligible: and in composed addresses there is something of a stile and a turning of periods, which renders what is read from a book less familiar, and therefore more difficult to be understood. In extempore speaking the ornaments of speech cannot be so much regarded; and while meannes and vulgarity are carefully avoided, which ought ever to be the case, there is yet a degree of familiarity in it, approaching to the ease of conversation, which is particularly suited to common hearers. An extempore address seems, in the second place, best calculated to excite and keep up the attention of the audience. This will be allowed to be a consideration of importance. For except the congregation lend an ear to what is spoken, the most excellent addresses will be entirely without effect. Now, the countenances of the audience being generally turned towards the preacher, if they observe that his eyes are confined to his book, his address will appear much less animated, and will be less interesting to them, than if his eyes were constantly upon them, and they should see him to be directing his discourse immediately to them. It is allowed, that some, who can read their sermons with an occasional glance of the eye, and are therefore at liberty to look round upon their congregation, in great measure obviate this objection. But an extempore speaker seems still more likely to command attention, not only by his looks and attitude, but by his manner of address, which will appear more direct and personal, and will leave him at liberty to introduce an occasional hint, calculated to rouze the attention of his careless hearers. Thus he may, |