to the ground when this statement is made.

Other objections have been founded on the idea, that by _extemporaneous_
is meant, _unpremeditated_. Whereas there is a plain and important
distinction between them, the latter word being applied to the thoughts,
and the former to the language only. To preach without premeditation, is
altogether unjustifiable; although there is no doubt that a man of
habitual readiness of mind, may express himself to the greatest
advantage on a subject with which he is familiar, after very little
meditation.

Many writers on the art of preaching, as well as on eloquence in
general, have given a decided judgment unfavorable to extempore
speaking. There can be no fairer way of answering their objections, than
by examining what they have advanced, and opposing their authority by
that of equal names on the other side.

Gerard, in his Treatise on the Pastoral Charge, has the following
passage on this subject.

"He will run into trite, common-place topics; his compositions will be
loose and unconnected; his language often coarse and confused; and
diffidence, or care to recollect his subject, will destroy the
management of his voice." At the same time, however, he admits that "it
is very proper that a man should be able to preach in this way, when it
is necessary;--but no man ought always to preach in this way." To which
decision I have certainly nothing to object.

Mason, in his Student and Pastor, says to the same effect, that "the
inaccuracy of diction, the inelegance, poverty, and lowness of
expression, which is commonly observed in extempore discourses, will not
fail to offend every hearer of good taste."

Dinouart,[8] who is an advocate for recitation from memory, says that
"experience decides against extemporaneous preaching, though there are
exceptions; but these are very few; and we must not be led astray by the
success of a few first rate orators."

[8] Sur l'Eloquence du Corps, ou l'Action du Predicateur.

Hume, in his Essay upon Eloquence, expresses an opinion that the modern
deficiency in this art is to be attributed to "that extreme affectation
of extempore speaking, which has led to extreme carelessness of method."

The writer of an article, on the Greek Orators, in the Edinburgh
Review,[9] observes, that "among the sources of the corruption of modern
eloquence, may clearly be distinguished as the most fruitful, the habit
of extempore speaking, acquired rapidly by persons