ering the depravity of human nature, and the example of the most successful preachers. Still, there is truth in the following remarks of an anonymous writer: "Many preachers appeal too largely to the principle of fear. It is not to be relied upon for the production of moral changes, to the same extent as those motives which appeal to the hopes and desires of intelligent creatures. More will be effected ordinarily by making invitations to heaven, the burden of the preacher's message, while the subject of future punishment is a subsidiary topic. The general strain of the bible is on this plan. The gospel is good news, and the preacher's chief business is to be its bearer. The ambassador for Christ should have his eye stedfastly fixed on the glories of heaven, and beckon rather than drive his hearers."* It was the remark of St. Chrysostom, that a minister should be not merely as the father of his people, but that he should also treat them with the tenderness of a mother. But it is difficult to preserve the proper medium between indulgence and severity. And both the parent and minister are liable to error in this respect. It is said, that when the apostle John was too old to preach, he would sometimes address the congregation in these few emphatic words, "Little children love one another." Dr. Dehon often remarked, that St. John was, in his estimation, the most perfect of mortals, and there is no doubt that he imitated him in the character of his preaching. All his discourses exhibit his mild temper, and affectionate disposition. In his sermon on the character of St. John, he says: "If it were permitted us to desire the felicity in which another better than ourselves was made happy, the Christian might, perhaps, with more propriety envy, than any other being of the human race, 'the disciple whom Jesus loved." " The minister who is frequently called on to prepare sermons, is apt to fall into an uniformity of method, and to repeat his topics and illustrations. His hearers, there

* "C. S. A." in Episcopal Recorder.

fore, though they may have different texts, often hear the same sermon. But he endeavoured to give his discourses that interest which is founded in novelty and variety. On the return of the annual festivals, he would vary the subject of his sermon as much as possible. He wrote according to all the different methods. Sometimes his sermons were textual, or employed in unfolding the truths contained in a particular text. This method carries the attention of the hearer to different points, without detaining it long on any one subject, and enables the preacher to adapt his remarks to the various classes of his hearers. He was successful in selecting such texts as were calculated to awaken attention, and suitable to the circumstances of his hearers. In illustrating the mixture of evil with good, in the allotment of man, his text was this: "There was a garden, and in it a sepulchre." On a charitable occasion, his text was, "Behold, the babe wept;" to enforce the obligation of religious education, he selected these words, "Take this child and nurse it for me, and I will give thee thy wages;" and before the Convention, "Go thy way forth by the footsteps of the flock, and feed thy kids beside the Shepherd's tents." But he preferred, in general, topical sermons, or such as treat of a single subject, on account of their superior effect on the mind of the hearer, making one distinct impression. He would sometimes devote two or three discourses to a single subject, and indeed generally wished to exhaust it. He was content, however, to bring the strong points before his hearers, and avoided the error of mingling, indiscriminately, weak and strong arguments, and of saying all that could possibly be said on the subject. He discoursed, as far as was practicable, on the great truths of religion, in a connected order, that they might illustrate each other, and be considered by the people as parts of a great whole, as links of the same chain descending from heaven to earth. His series of discourses "on the public means of grace," will be valued for tracing a connexion between them, which

He

has not been usually noticed. And his illustration of the principles of the gospel, in his sermons adapted to the ecclesiastical year, as its great events and characters, were successively presented to the attention in the public service, was an able defence of the admirable order of our Church in her fasts and festivals. On days of civil appointment, he delighted to trace the resemblance of the dealings of God with Israel and with this nation. never preached on those points which divide parties, for he was aware how useless it is to reason with men under the influence of party excitement, and how necessary it is to husband ministerial influence that it may be used on important occasions. But, above all, he regarded these points, with few exceptions, as utterly unworthy of the dignity of the pulpit. On those questions of morals and religion, which are inseparably blended with politics, he did not scruple to give his opinion in and out of the pulpit, such as the duty of civil rulers to rule in the fear of God, and at least not to profane the institutions of religion by their public acts or private example. Among his most interesting sermons, were those on scripture characters. He had here an excellent opportunity of exhibiting the intricacies of the human heart, and enforcing an abhorrence of vice and a love for moral excellence. With so much variety of subject and method, the discourses were as remarkable for variety of illustration. No writer has less common-place remark. No person could anticipate the beauty and fragrance of the flowers he would scatter over his pages. Similé was the figure which he most delighted in. His illustration was never borrowed from an object below his subject, and it always shed some light. His figures would bear the closest examination. His eloquence never took a flight which it was not able to sustain. It was so much admired, that the hearer wished to have his delight renewed by reading the sermon. This wish his benevolence indulged, until he discovered copies had been made of some of his sermons, which induced the

resolution not to loan them out, but to very particular friends. In some respects, his discourses were uniform. They were uniformly, correct in style, mature in sentiment, and complete in their plan. It has been observed of him, that though others might sometimes preach better, he always preached well. When it is recollected that few preachers repeated their sermons so seldom as he did, and that he was so often called on to preach, the uniform excellence of his sermons is truly remarkable. Few of them can be called hasty compositions. Those which were written in a few hours, were the fruit of much reflection. He prepared his sermon completely in his mind before he committed it to paper. And this was often done in the walk and the journey, which either health or business required. It would seem scarcely necessary to observe, that he, on no occasion, preached the sermon of another. Indeed, few availed themselves less of the thoughts, illustrations, and expressions of others. Undoubtedly it is allowable to quote passages from an author, due credit being given to him. I should even think it proper, when extraordinary duties press upon a minister, or his health is feeble, to use the sermon of another, provided the people be distinctly informed of the fact. But, to preach the sermon of another, as if it were one's own, although some respectable persons may have done so, doubtless, without consideration, is a species of fraud; a fraud on the person whose discourse is borrowed, on the people who are led unduly to estimate the preacher, and on all his brother ministers, who are disparaged by his supposed excellence. It is astonishing, that the indignation of the public, and especially of the clergy, has not put down this practice in the few instances in which it is believed to exist. What would be thought of a lawyer, who was to repeat at the bar one of the speeches of Erskine or Curran-of a civilian, who, in the legislature, was to seek reputation by exhibiting himself in the borrowed plumes of Lord Chatham-or a physician,

whose medical thesis was transcribed from Boerhave or Cullen? If a man is not capable of writing sermons, let him not become a minister; and if he becomes too. imbecile tocontinue to compose, let him candidly acknowledge his infirmity, and own himself a mere reader. If the practice of borrowing sermons were to become prevalent, the consequence would be that persons of slender qualifications would intrude into the sacred ministry, and those who were duly prepared, for want of exercise would gradually become less so. The frequent writing of sermons is one of the best methods a clergyman can adopt to strengthen his understanding, refresh his memory, and secure his theological attainments. Besides, if a man has not sufficient knowledge to write sermons, how can he defend religion, should it be assailed in his presence, or instruct his people, when he visits them in sickness and sorrow, and when they call upon him to solve cases of conscience. It is true, there are published sermons of far greater merit than most clergymen can produce, but even if it were not criminal to use them as our own, it is believed that their effect on a congregation would not be equal to that of an inferior one prepared by the minister, adapted to local circumstances, and delivered with the energy of an honest man.

He had considerable talent for extemporary speaking, but the sacredness of his feelings in relation to every thing connected with religion, would not permit him, except very rarely, to exercise it in the pulpit. And it was the same feeling which occasioned his strict attention to the preparation of his sermons, for with his intellectual resources much less study would have enabled him to discharge his duties. On only one occasion, so far as I know, was he induced to preach extemporaneously. Being in the neighbourhood of the indian village near the Catawba river, in South-Carolina, on the Lord's day, he was invited to preach. He had no discourse suitable to the occasion, and not sufficient time to write one. He,