preacher of good sense will commit. Besides, in this case it is oftener pedantry than learning, that is displayed. One of those venerable men, who assisted in forming this version, being afterwards on a journey, heard its defects. pointed out, to an illiterate congregation, by a very young preacher, who, in one instance assigned three reasons why a word should have been differently translated. In the evening, the learned divine said to the young man, 'You might have preached a more useful sermon to these poor hearers. The king's translators considered well the three reasons which you have suggested for another rendering of that word; but they were induced by thirteen weightier reasons to prefer the rendering that was adopted.'

On this point, I am happy to express my own views in the language of Dr. Campbell, who was at once an enlightened scholar and a judicious preacher. Particular care,' says he, ought to be taken, in expounding the Scriptures, not to appear over-learned and overcritical. There is no occasion to obtrude on an audience, as some do, all the jarring interpretations given by different commentators; for this knowledge can serve no other purpose than to distract their thoughts. 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, which was not in his way, and could not have obstructed his work, that he might have the pleasure and merit of removing it. And do the fantastic and absurd glosses of commentators deserve a better name than rubbish? They are even worse than useless: where a false gloss cannot be reasonably sup posed 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 erroneous gloss or comment.'

We must always remember too, the difference between a church and a college. In most Christian congregations there are very few, if any linguists. I do not say that we ought never to mention the original. Justice to the passage we explain, may sometimes require it. Nor is it necessary that our translators should be deemed infallible. But then, on the other hand, it is neither modest nor prudent in the preacher, especially if a young man, to be at every turn censuring the translators, and pretending to mend their version. It is not modest; as they over whom the corrector assumes a superiority, are allowed on all hands to have been men of eminent talents and erudition. And it is not prudent, as this practice never fails to produce, in the minds of the people, a want of confidence in their Bible. Indeed, in regard to every thing which may be introduced, either in the way of criticism or comment, it is not enough that such an observation is just, that such an interpretation has been actually given, or that such an opinion has been maintained; 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. 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 to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace to the hearers.'

On the literary vanity which employs an excess of criticism in the pulpit, I add one more remark, that it has no countenance from the highest of all examples, that of our Lord and his Apostles. The great body of primitive Christians had access to the Hebrew Scriptures

chiefly through a translation; and one less perfect, unquestionably, than the common version in our language. Yet the first preachers of Christianity, qualified as they certainly were, to correct all mistakes, by gifts more adequate than those of scholarship, never perplexed their hearers with various readings and various renderings.'

You may say perhaps, of what value to me as a Christian teacher, or to my hearers, is my critical knowledge, if I am not to use it? I answer, of the same value with any other knowledge, if you have not discretion to use it aright; that is, of no value at all. You may have a knowledge of grammar, and make it subservient to the great business of the pulpit, without giving your hearers in every sermon, a disquisition upon etymology and syntax. Your logic may be made the instrument of instruction and conviction to sinners, without acquainting them with the ten categories of Aristotle, or the difference between abstract and concrete terms. Your eloquence may melt your hearers, while they know not that you have read Quinctilian or Longinus; and care not whether the figure that thrilled their bosoms, has been called metonymy or apostrophe, in technical rhetoric. Just so you may use your knowledge of sacred criticism, without abusing it. From its stores, humility and good sense may draw the richest instruction for your hearers, without ostentation on your part, or perplexity on theirs.

Having remarked at so much length on the practical principles to be observed by the preacher in explaining a text, when its meaning is doubtful, I shall be brief in noticing the other topic, which belongs to this lecture; namely, the proposition of the subject.

The term proposition, as used in logic, is applicable only to an assemblage of words, in which something is

affirmed. As used by writers on oratory, it is not restricted to this sense, but applies to any form of expression, in which the subject of a discourse is announced. Thus, if my text were, "There is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good and sinneth not," I might say, we are called to consider as the subject of this discourse, the universal sinfulness of man:' or, I might reduce it to a logical affirmation, and say,-the doctrine of the text is, "that all men are sinners." Either form amounts to what rhetoricians mean by a proposition of the subject; though I would not say that in all circumstances, either form is equally good. If you take the former method, you have indeed a subject before you, but you feel at liberty to treat it in the way of discursive remarks. If you take the logical proposition, you are pledged to one course you must prove the thing affirmed, before you make it the subject of inference or exhortation. A sermon written under such a necessity, is more likely to possess unity, and to combine to the best advantage, instruction with impression.

For reasons that are obvious to every mind, the doctrine or duty to be discussed in the sermon, should be announced in the proposition, with as much brevity and clearness as possible.

Two circumstances, in this connexion, deserve some regard. One is, that when you are prepared to state your subject, the form of expression employed, should be such, as to give the hearers a momentary premonition that you are about to do it.

For example, The doctrine which is taught in the text, and which I shall endeavour to establish in the following discourse, is this, that the only possibility of human salvation, consistent with the character and government of God, is suspended on the atonement of

Christ.' Now, if language like this is employed, every intelligent hearer will perceive that you are about to announce your subject before you have done it; and accordingly that sentence of your sermon, which it is more important for him to remember than any other, he will be more likely to remember. But many preachers would reverse the order of members, in the example given above, and consequently the hearers, being told in the end of a complex sentence, that the subject of the sermon was stated at the beginning of it, may recall the statement, if they can.

The other circumstance is, that the terms employed in stating the subject, should be such, if possible, as not to call for explanation after the proposition is announced.