who frequent popular
assemblies, and, beginning at the wrong end, attempt to speak before
they have studied the art of oratory, or even duly stored their minds
with the treasures of thought and language, which can only be drawn from
assiduous intercourse with the ancient and modern classics."

[9] No. LXXI. p. 82.

These are the prominent objections which have been made to the practice
in question. Without denying that they have weight, I think it may be
made to appear that they have not the unquestionable preponderance,
which is assumed for them. They will be found, on examination, to be the
objections of a cultivated taste, and to be drawn from the examples of
undisciplined men, who ought to be left entirely out of the question.

1. The objection most urged is that which relates to style. It is said,
the expression will be poor, inelegant, inaccurate, and offensive to
hearers of taste.

To those who urge this it may be replied, that the reason why style is
an important consideration in the pulpit, is, not that the taste of the
hearers may be gratified, for but a small part of any congregation is
capable of taking cognizance of this matter;--but solely for the purpose
of presenting the speaker's thoughts, reasonings, and expostulations
distinctly and forcibly to the minds of his hearers. If this be
effected, it is all which can reasonably be demanded. And I ask if it be
not notorious, that an earnest and appropriate elocution will give this
effect to a poor style, and that poor speaking will take it away from
the most exact and emphatic style? Is it not also notorious that the
peculiar earnestness of spontaneous speech, is, above all others, suited
to arrest the attention, and engage the feelings of an audience? and
that the mere reading of a piece of fine composition, under the notion
that careful thought and finished diction are the only things needful,
leaves the majority uninterested in the discourse, and free to think of
any thing they please? "It is a poor compliment," says Blair, "that one
is an accurate reasoner, if he be not a persuasive speaker also." It is
a small matter that the style is poor, so long as it answers the great
purpose of instructing and affecting men. So that, as I have more fully
shown in a former place, the objection lies on an erroneous foundation.

Besides, if it were not so, it will be found quite as strong against the
_writing_ of sermons. For how large a proportion of sermon w