the other assails them with the lightning and thunder of truth. One amuses the fancy; the other agitates the conscience; forces open the eyes of the blind, and storms the citadel of the heart.

The style of declamation may indeed be perspicuous. But its perspicuity differs as much from that of fervid eloquence, as the transparency of ice differs from the glowing transparency of melted glass issuing from the furnace.

LECTURE XVI.

STYLE OF THE PULPIT.-DIRECTIONS IN FORMING A STYLE.

SKILL in writing depends on genius and discipline. Without genius, industry and art can never raise a man's performance above the character of elaborate dulness. Without discipline, the best powers can never be brought to act by any uniform principles, or to any valuable end.

For the benefit of those who are still forming their intellectual habits, expecting to devote all their powers to the holy and exalted work of preaching the gospel, I shall now offer some practical suggestions as to the attainment of a good style.

The FIRST of these is, always remember THAT THE

BASIS OF A GOOD STYLE IS THOUGHT.

To study it object to be

A

Language is but the instrument of mind. on any other principle, is to make the attained subordinate to the means of its attainment. man who would form himself as a writer, must acquire the control of his own intellectual powers. He must be capable of fixing his mind with steady attention to a single point, that he may compare and distinguish the relations of different things. I never thought,' says Baxter, 'that I understood any thing till I could anatomize it, and see the parts distinctly, and the union of the

parts as they make up the whole.' This mental discipline accounts for the clearness and vigour of his style. A writer, who has not established habits of patient exact thinking, will use words with indeterminate meaning, and unskilful arrangement.

But it is not enough for a writer to think clearly on any single subject. He may understand his own meaning, and yet have but little meaning; he may be intelligible to others, and yet be barren. That his style may be interesting, it must be rich in matter. It must exhibit those intellectual qualities in himself, which presuppose good inventive powers, sharpened by much reflection, and patient acquisition of knowledge.

As a result of these principles, it must doubtless follow, that the man who sits down to write as the mere student of style, forgetting that language can be studied with advantage, only as the vehicle of thought, will be very liable to miss his aim. Some object he must have in writing, distinct from the attainment of a good style, or he will not write well. I know not that the style of Blair was formed in the method now condemned; but with all its good qualities, it possesses just those defects which I should expect such a process to produce.

SECONDLY, STUDY YOUR OWN GENIUS.

As in a man's features, and other exterior qualities of person, so in his structure of mind, and habits of thinking, and of course in his style, there is an individuality of character. This appears in what he writes, with more or less distinctness, according to his native temperament, and the influence of circumstances, by which this temperament is strengthened or controlled or transformed. While every writer is bound to observe the established laws of grammar, and of rhetoric too, he is at liberty to consult his own taste, as to the general characteristics

of the style which he shall adopt. Accordingly we find, among authors of the first rank, a considerable diversity. One is terse and sententious; another copious and flowing; another simple; another bold and metaphorical. Now, by losing sight of his own capacities and cast of mind, and attempting to be something altogether different from what his Creator intended, a man may not only fail of excellence, but make himself ridiculous. Plato, in

his younger days, had an inclination to poetry, and made some attempts in tragedy and epic; but finding them unable to bear a comparison with the verses of Homer, he threw them into the fire, and abjured that sort of writing in which he was convinced that he must always remain an inferior.' Next to the necessity of being well acquainted with your subject and yourself, I would say,

THIRDLY,-STUDY THE BEST MODELS.

To what extent the ancient classic writers should be included in this direction, as addressed to theological students, and young ministers, is a question, the formal discussion of which would be inappropriate here. If sober men have good reason to be disgusted at the extravagant claims sometimes advanced in behalf of classical learning, as certainly they have, still there is another extreme. The prevailing tendency of this age doubtless is, to fix a very inadequate estimate on the ancient classics, as models of taste and eloquence. An immense field of knowledge is spread before our young men, in their training for public life; and a rapid, superficial survey of this field is expected of them, rather than the patient, elementary process of study, which is indispensable to thorough scholarship.

Classical learning is important to the preacher, because it gives him access to some of the best examples, which

and oratory.

the world has produced, in the department of taste In all the branches of general knowledge, the writings of Greece and Rome were of course far more restricted, as to range of thought, and richness of matter, than those of modern times. But as models of style and eloquence, no competent judge can doubt, that the ancient classical works still hold a rank pre-eminent above all others. And though the thoughts of their authors may be tolerably learned from a good translation, he who would study these great masters with a view to style, must read them in their own language.

To these considerations may be added another still of a more general character, namely, the wide field of improvement in theology and criticism, which is opened to the Christian student, from familiarity with the labours of the venerable dead.

No wise man now will devote his life, or any large share of it, to searching the endless tomes of antiquity, many of which are nearly worthless. But there is another extreme. Antiquity had a few master spirits, who gave character to their own age, and to ages following. The influence they exerted on public opinion constitutes the chief elements of history. What did such men as Augustine believe?-how did they write?-how did they preach ?- -are questions which deserve at least some regard, in a liberal education for the ministry;-questions on which every Christian scholar must have opinions, either taken up at second hand, or derived from original sources of knowledge.1

In acquiring information of this sort, theological students might perform a service at once important to themselves and the church, by the systematic reading and translation of select passages from the