a truth, first in _this_ way, then in _that_, and again
perhaps in quite a different fashion, so that different minds may have
in turn their chance--even this may be needed, and though the
preacher's impatience may find such a method irksome, duty may lie that
way while inclination turns to a more sententious and expeditious mode.
When all has been done that can be done to render every argument and
lesson absolutely transparent there will still be some who will not
have quite understood. The simplest of preachers must some day
encounter the old lady who accosted, so it is said, a former Bishop of
Chester, who, at great pains to be lucid, had unfolded the argument
against the errors of atheism, with the words, "Well, my lord, I must
say as I think there is a God after all you've told us."

Another thing to be remembered is, that much depends upon the order and
arrangement of a sermon whether it is "easy to follow" or not. We are
old-fashioned enough to believe rather strongly in the method according
to which the preacher divided his subject into "heads." We had heard
that this method was falling into disuse, but have been surprised
during recent months to discover how many of the more acceptable and
successful preachers still find it the most effective plan. Of course
there are those who vote the method out of date; and we have listened
to the preaching of some who hold this view and act upon it. Our
experience teaches us that in respect of clearness and, perhaps
especially, of memorability, the method of distinct division has many
advantages. It is easier to the preacher; _much_ easier to the hearer.
Only, let it be remembered that an "introduction" should introduce;
that "divisions" should divide, and sub-divisions sub-divide. Needless
and trifling "majors" or "minors" are irritating and confusing.
"Firstly," "Secondly," "Thirdly," and--under very special
circumstances--even "Fourthly" may contribute to the making of the dark
places plain, but the days have long since passed away in which
"Ninthly" and "Tenthly" could be borne; though there have actually been
such days. We have read, or tried to read, discourses whose major
divisions ran to "eighteenthly" with minor divisions grouped under each
like companies in a regiment. People came to preaching early in those
days and stayed late. Can it be one result of their experiences that
we, their posterity, have inherited that strange weariness which so
frequently