ust consider, not which has most
excellencies when it is found in perfection, but which has excellencies
attainable by the largest number of preachers; not which is first in
theory or most beautiful as an art, but which has been and is likely to
be most successful in practice. These are questions not easily answered.
Each mode has its advocates and its opponents. In the English church
there is nothing but reading, and we hear from every quarter complaints
of it. In Scotland the custom of recitation prevails, but multitudes
besides Dr. Campbell[4] condemn it. In many parts of the continent of
Europe no method is known, but that of a brief preparation and
unpremeditated language; but that it should be universally approved by
those who use it, is more than we can suppose.

[4] See his fourth Lecture on Pulpit Eloquence.

The truth is, that either method may fail in the hands of incompetent or
indolent men, and either may be thought to succeed by those whose taste
or prejudices are obstinate in its favor. All that I contend for, in
advocating unwritten discourse, is, that this method claims a decided
superiority over the others in some of the most important particulars.
That the others have their own advantages, I do not deny, nor that this
is subject to disadvantages from which they are free. But whatever these
may be I hope to show that they are susceptible of a remedy; that they
are not greater than those which attend other modes; that they are
balanced by equal advantages, and that therefore this art deserves to be
cultivated by all who would do their utmost to render their ministry
useful. There can be no good reason why the preacher should confine
himself to either mode. It might be most beneficial to cultivate and
practise all. By this means he might impart something of the advantages
of each to each, and correct the faults of all by mingling them with the
excellencies of all. He would learn to read with more of the natural
accent of the speaker, and to speak with more of the precision of the
writer.

The remarks already made have been designed to point out some of the
general advantages attending the use of unprepared language. Some others
remain to be noticed, which have more particular reference to the
preacher individually.

It is no unimportant consideration to a minister of the gospel, that
this is a talent held in high estimation among men, and that it gives
additional influence to him who possesses it