The Homilist: Man and Book

Skeleton is a word wliicli means different things to different people: when a timid lady says it she shudders as if a cold hand had touched her heart j when a needy preacher says it he glows with thankful delight. To him that hideous word means wealthy and the more other people are repelled by it the more he secretly rejoices. You may have heard of a minister who, on being told of a volume of sermons which he had not seen, exclaimed, I have preached three of the volumes, and now that there is a fourth I feel as if I had suddenly fallen on great spoil.-’’ This was candid, if not ingenious and original. Now without for a moment supposing that you will ever be a needy preacher, I may take the liberty of pointing out one or two sources of supply which are nofc unknown to many respectable brethren of large digestive and respiratory power. As the projector of the Pidjnt Analyst, its editor for the first two years, and its most voluminous contributor up to the present moment, I may be permitted to say a word on its behalf. Probably its design surpasses its execution, yet as furnishing variety of preaching it is not unworthy of your attention; I am not aware that any one method predominates J it contains both native and foreign products,

The HGinilist: Man and Booh. 75

and so supplies the most varied illustrations of homiletic treatment.

Do you know David Thomas of Stockwell — editor of the Homilist? If you do not know kim personally you will find it to your advantage to know him editorially. The first time I heard him preach he was in his own pulpit, conducting an ordinary morning service. Immediately on his opening the vestry door I was struck with his noble, animated, and expressive countenance, and felt predisposed towards him. David Thomas is a man, — physically and mentally every inch a man. Beyond many even of his most flourishing brethren, he makes ‘’ a fair show in the flesh -.” his great head is like a rock; his immense black eyes are full of gentle lustre; and his mouth, if not very elaborately chiselled, is not without pleasant lines. There is nothing secret in all the open sunny face j perhaps if anything, it is too open, there are no permanent shadows in which power may be hiding itself, no cavernous marks as if the soul had often been driven back upon itself and compelled to look out upon the world from secret places; the soul rather seems as if it had generally had its own way, — so boldly and shiningly does it express its dominance in the expansive and unsuspecting face. Yet the countenance is not without pensiveness j the eye has occasional shadowings which to me looked as if the soul was not altogether a stranger to melancholy, — as if now and again it saw the corruption, the distress and poverty, which lie under the worlds fairest exterior. I can quite believe this to be the case. David Thomas has not forgotten other peoples darkness in his own sunshine; to him human life is not altogether a wedding festival; he occasionally hears other

76 Ad Clerum: Advices to a Yoimg FreacJier.

sounds than the clash of rejoicing bells and can heave a sigh when other men cannot understand his emotion. Understand? Why, whenever were such men as David Thomas understood? Sparrows cannot understand eagles — can the minnow understand leviathan? David Thomas is intellectually qualified to be at the head of his denomination and if his sectarianism had been equal to his genius he would long before now have been as officially conspicuous as he has been mentally influential, How very hard those excellent servants of the worlds called committee men, must have winked not to have seen David Thomas! They must have blindfolded one another; they must have sealed one another’s eyes; they must have actually put each other’s eyes out! So much the worse for the committee men — not for David Thomas! He has a most cordial dislike of societies resolutions, amendmentSj and those infinite nuisances called sub-committees; and as a reward for his dislike he has been allowed to live without secretarial patronage and official promotion. Happily, the world is the better for this ostracism; David Thomas has exerted a greater influence (often indirect and unacknowledged) upon the British pulpit than any living man with whose name I am acquainted; and his influence will live for good when those who have done their best to keep him in the background are remembered no more for ever.

What then, you will say, — is David Thomas without fault, the perfect man and the upright, whom we are called upon by high authority to mark and behold? Probably, seeing that he is only a man, there may be somewhat of inperfection about him; it would not be unnatural, would it? David Thomas is human enough to

The Somilist: Man and Booh. 77

be imperfect, but perfect enough to be above the reproacb. of ruany who are hardly human. Let us allow, for example, that he finds it very difficult to adopt the step of intellectually little men, and that he is impatient of their contradiction, their tardiness, or their timidity, — what then? Undoubtedly all this may be said justly of David Thomas; he cannot dwarf himself to the measure of ordinary society; he delights to take wing for the open firmament of heaven, while others may be content to sit in the window of a select conventicle; he aspires to know the universe, while others spend their lives in studying a footprint. This necessarily removes him from the common courses of the world, — it isolates and individualizes him, and gives him. an appearance of scornful self-sufficiency which is really not in his nature. Let us further allow that when an idea fully lays hold of his mind he cannot accommodate himself to the cautiousness which suggests doubts of its practicability, he condemns it as little, contemptible, puerile, and absurd; he uses hard words about those who do not instantly accept his propositions and work for them with an enthusiasm which ignores all difficulty and danger; let us allow too that in referring to his purposes and enterprises he employs a great many capital letters and a great many notes of admiration; — I grant all this, but what of it? We must get behind it all if we would know the man; we must know how much of it is essence and how much accident, and not commit ourselves to the fooFs error of mistaking a flourish of the hand for a habit of the soul. I have sometimes felt that David Thomas spoke with impetuous unreflecting scorn of a certain class of his brethren; he had no patience with them; he derided them, and did not

78 Ad Clerum: Adcices to a Young Preacher.

always stop to give them their due: on the other hand, he has been most generous in his recognition of incipient power, and done much towards its development; he has sought out the Village Hampdens’ and ^’’mute inglorious Milfcons/^ and encouraged them to put forth their strength; and no man has spoken more stimulatingly to some who have laboured under difficulties which had daunted and unnerved them. Both these considerations must be taken into account in estimating the man;. having looked at them both myself, I give it as my opinion that the generosity of David Thomas far exceeds his severity. In a few rare cases indeed his generosity must have boen regarded as somewhat embarrassing; as for example when he has extemporised a eulogium upon a Welsh minister who may have unexpectedly presented himself in the Stockwell congregation. The Welsh brother has occasionally been pourtrayed as a prodigy, ‘’’ full of poetic fire,^“*” his soul ringing with the music of his native hills ‘/^ the unhappy man has been described as melodious, tuneful, philosophic, and eloquent, overflowing with pathos and burning with zeal, and has then been publicly asked to preach on the spot! The martyr has had no escape, — preach he must! In two cases out of three his sermon has probably been one long stammer, — one continuous grotesque contradiction of every word which the pictorial doctor has said of him! What then? Why, of course, the doctor instantly replied to every disappointed objector that the preacher was all that had been said of him — in Welsh! To this neat answer no Stockwell man could ever return a contradictory reply. On this side of David Thomases character no doubt there is a fault, but let him that is without sin cast the first stone.

Dr. Thomases brain is remarkable for capacity,, quality, and strength. Phrenologists would assign him an extraordinary central brain, giving evidence of unusual analytic and metaphysical power. This would be just, though Dr. Thomas has cultivated his analytic gift more highly than his metaphysical faculty. Probably this has arisen from the necessity which his work has imposed upon him; his thinking power has always been employed in working out results for the pulpit, rather than in abstract metaphysics, though in so working he has often, almost invariably indeed, worked quite as much as a psychologist as a theologian. Possibly Dr. Thomas has not had the advantage of the severest educational drill; possibly also his education has developed his more urgent faculties at the expense of faculties which though latent were neither narrow nor feeble. Circumstances may have compelled him to abandon purely speculative philosophy, and to turn his attention to concrete effects; yet even under such compulsion he has shown that if he had not been the first of textual analysts he would have been amongst the foremost of abstract thinkers. His metaphysics are not scholastic; in fact it may be doubted whether he is more than ordinarily read in formal metaphysics, because he always works from intuition rather than information, and his writings generally convey the impression that he owes less to acquisition than to nature. David Thomas seldom sees truths in their individuality; one truth is related to another; no principle works alone; the many worlds are one universe; the many waters are one sea; and all the lights which brighten the firmament are referable to one central and everlasting splendour: to discover their relations, to set them in order, and to show how they converge in glory upon the throne of God and thence operate for the good of all creatures,, is David Thomases chief joy.

Yet David Thomas cannot be justly described as imaginative. I have spoken of him taking wing for the open firmament of heaven and the figure is not exaggerated; yet while he is on the wing he is rather looking at the relations and proportions of things than singing songs without words -/’ when he does sing, it is at the end of an argument; when he dreams, it is after the fashion of a syllogism. It may be doubted whether in the proper sense of the term he has much fancy; there is a finality about most of his statements which shows that he has reached his limit; there is no coloured haze beyond, which may be concealing continents or seas; the reader feels that he can go all the way without ever losing sight of clear blue sky; David Thomas never ascends alone, striking with strong wing into circles inaccessible to every visitant except dreaming and contemplative fancy; he is often above, but always on well-known highways; the cloud never receives him out of our sight, nor does he ever hear things which it is not lawful to utter; he utters all that he hears, — in inspiring and tuneful language indeed, yet capable of being written in common ink. It may be want of expression rather than want of thought, but certainly David Thomas, from the one cause or the other, though fond of poetic language, is never absolutely carried away by poetic inspiration. He cannot poise himself on his wings and linger long in the light, as if detained by sights which held him by some subtle enchantment; we can hear the flapping of his wings, and see him hurrying along the courses of the wind; and

The Eomilist: Man and Boole. 81

while we admire his strength we cannot but feel that lie has not trespassed upon the highest fields of poetry. David Thomas is characterized by ideality rather than by pure imagination; many of his homilies indeed are flecked with choice colourings of quoted poetry but his own writing was never dictated by visions of the night; he would cross-examine the spirit of dreams, and know how far the stranger could justify himself by valid human reasoning. Nor is all this to be regretted. The servant of Jesus Christ should bear a plain message to the world; he has to confront the fact of sin with the fact of salvation; he has to answer the questionings of the heart with the revelations of God. In doing this work Dr. Thomas speaks with the most modern accent, and never with ‘^ the holy tone ‘’ which the Scotch desiderated in the preaching of Whitefield. His preaching is the New Testament translated into the language of to-day, — choice enough for the scholar, robust enough for the man of common business.

David Thomas will be known to a remote posterity by his great work — The Eomilist. To that work he has been faithful through many years of hard toil and anxious care. The slovenly man (for he is slovenly in some things, notwithstanding his supposed liking for good tailoring) issued the first seven volumes without any date, — no date on the title-page, — no date at the end of the preface! The thing is so unbusiness-like as to be almost incredible, yet it is a fact. That David Thomas of Stockwell should never have thought of putting a date to his work is quite conceivable by all who know him; that the somnolent house of Ward & Co. should have omitted the date is not surprising j but how the printer’s came to oPiit the usual MDCCC.^ etc., is not easy of explanation. The omission is of great consequence, and will be increasingly so with the lapse of time. Suppose that a minister shall fifty years hence take up a volume of the HomiUst, wishing to know when it was written, that he may compare it with the current literature of its own day, — how perplexed he will be! He will not know from the volume itself whether it was written ten years ago, twenty, or fifty. This is to be regretted, for it is one of the little wheels on which good machinery so much depends.

The Homilist did not enjoy a very flourishing beginning. On the cover of one of the early numbers the despondent editor announced that it did not pay,^^ and that unless the circulation increased it must be given up. Happily the circulation did increase, and the Homilist has since, as a class magazine, commanded unexampled success. In my opinion this success has been honestly and most fully deserved. Nothing is due to trickery, sensationalism, or denominational prestige; all credit is due to perseverance, ability, and a happy adaptation of means to ends. Never was the saying “the labourer is worthy of his hire ‘’ more faithfully fulfilled than in the brightening and expanding history of the Homilist; nor has the saying ‘perseverance conquers obstacles” been more honourably exemplified than in the steadiness of its indomitable and fertile editor. When the Homilist made its appearance men were becoming tired of dividing everything in heaven and on earth into first, second, and third, with three subdivisions under each head, three points of application, and with ^’ finally, one word more, and lastly’^ for a melancholy peroration. At that dark time any brother who could make a suggestion bordering upon

The Romidst: Man and Booh. 83

novelty was privily called for by the wise men, and diligently inquired of concerning the birth of the child. Under the old sermonic form scores of healthy congregations had languished and died; deacons had dropped into syncope, and treasurers had been found again and again with both hands in a state of catalepsy. The triangular division of the intellectual universe had thus been most ruinous in its effects, and the church sighed for a variation of the geometrical form. No doubt great boldness was required to beard the tyranny of traditionalism; the man who profanely declared that any text could be viewed in four aspects, and discussedwithout a single subdivision, would have been in peril of an attack from the very men who had been sighing for a change: what then would be thought of the adventurous young minister at Stockwell who began his new magazine with ‘^ A Homily on the Wants oj the World, and the Weakness of the Church,’’ and concluded the first number with ‘^ Healthful Rays of Genius ‘’ from Plato, and Garlyle? What could be thought of such a man but that he was dying of some heretical pest, and corrupting the morals of the rising ministry? Elderly ministers bought the magazine as it were under protest, on the principle of the pious Quaker who went to the races “just to see if any of our people were there f’ college professors slily hid it in their desks, and peeped at it stealthily while the students were (mistakenly) supposed to be absorbed in gerund-grinding, — yes, quite mistakenly, for the students themselves had put their pence together, after the fashion of a copper round robin, so that no one could tell who began it, and procured a copy of the dangerous magazine, which they read with most immoral avidity. ‘^ That was the sort of thing,”*^ they impetuously declared, without

G 2

84 Ad Clerum: Advices to tt Young Preacher.

waiting for the soberer judgment of the college committee or of a sub-committee appointed to “report on the whole case/^ and fortbwitli every man of them threw his triangular “skeletons” into the fire, and began the higher geometry. The awakening churches said they were startled; the elder orthodoxy was ‘pamed; and the men who had comfortably slept for years through “first the fact stated, second the doctrine implied, and third the lessons which may be inferred/^ adopted a tone which in general terms may be described as threatening. This resentment was neither unaccountable nor unpardonable: it was not unaccountable, for masculine pewholders like to know that their own sentiments are being promulgated from the pulpit in the very words which they have used to their wives and children ^’ many and many a time -/’ it is both comfortable and complimentary, as well as indicative of theological stability: in the next place, the resentment was not altogether unpardonable, for sentimental pewholders who have shed rivers of tears over the tender words, ‘■’’How doth the little busy bee,” and ‘’^Twinkle, twinkle, little star,” naturally shudder at the paganism of “instinctive beliefs,” ‘^ moral intuitions,” and ‘“‘’ the empirical conscience.” Such shuddering is in no wise to be wondered at; it is the protest of outraged nature against all new ideas and novel words, and on that account is to be highly esteemed.

In issuing the second volume of the HomiUst, the editor felt ‘^ it due to those who take this volume in their hand with the intent to purchase, to declare some of its omissions, that there may be none of the regret of disappointmentafter the bargain.” The “omissions” are thus stated: “First — the book has no finish; secondly — the book has no denominationalism; thii’dly — the book has no polemical theology.” The statement is not properly qualified. As a rule the opening homily of each number has ^’ finish,” it is elaborate continuous, and complete; as to the second omission, it is generally safe to infer that when any man disclaims denominationalism he is about to constitute himself into a denomination, or else he has degenerated into the malevolent sectarianism of no sect; the third omission is stated pretty accurately, though the book is by no means without a controversial tone: the catholic editor does not agree with everybody; he can adopt an attitude either defensive or defiant, though as a general rule he is peacefully disposed towards those who let him alone. David Thomas is a lover of peace; he would knock a man down for peace; he would go to war for peace; no wonder, therefore, he avoids ‘’ polemical theology.’’’ It is a singular fact that the man who has written so many new sermons has never written a new preface! Year by year he has said, “As the old key-note will still rule the melodies of the Eomilist, and no new specific description is requisite, the preface may be again transcribed.’^ I draw your attention to this circumstance, that I may candidly point out that David Thomas’s homiletic method is decidedly wanting in variety. It is perfectly true that one preface will do for ever. First of all, the text is made to yield a subject, thus: take the text,” That which hath been is now “(Eccles. iii. 16), and the sidjject is, ‘’ The impotency of time, or the eternally permanent amidst the constantly fluctuating;” or the text, “Then he which had received the one talent came,’^ etc. (Matt. xxv. 24), and the subject is, ^’ The non-use of power in the feeblest “: this is David Thomas’s method with every text; he does not seem able to move until he has wrought it into a wide generalisation,, and in the great majority of instances the generalisation is not only wide but legitimate and profound. Not only is the text itself a subject but each head even of the most severely analytic division is also a theme; as an illustration take the main outline of the subject;, ‘’ The trial -bearing Force of Spiritual Religion •/’ I. Spiritual religion engages the supreme attention of the soul under trial; II. Spiritual religion recognises God’s superintendence under trial; III. Spiritual religion identifies man’s will with God’s under trial. Or take the main outline of the subject, “The Pool of Siloam, or the world in miniature” (John v. 1-9): I. The human world is greatly afilicted; II. The human world has alleviating elements; III. The human world is preeminently selfish; IV. The human world has a glorious Deliverer. So unvarying is the substance of his method that any careful reader of one volume of his homilies may almost infallibly predict how David Thomas would discuss any text. His homiletic mannerism is unchangeably fixed. He never surprises readers who have familiarised themselves with his style, by sudden variation of method unexpected adventures of fancy, or whimsical adaptations of architecture; everywhere you find order, logic, and proportion; he is never so borne away by his first thought as to forget his second; when he begins his journey all his appointments are complete, and when he returns he has accomplished his whole purpose. The man of whom this can be justly said must have unusual self-control,

and, according to his capacity, must have completeness and equality of mental power. Still, this rigid regularity does become monotonous; mile after mile of unchanging architecture, however massive and stately, wearies the eye, and from this continuity of formal excellence the constant reader of the Somilist undoubtedly suffers. He cannot but wish that a few texts at least should escape the suspicion of being cunning riddles to which David Thomas alone can suggest happy answers; he gets tired of the boundless stretch of small capitals and emphatic italics and almost sighs for a little change in the treatment of subjects. David Thomas deals largely in “germs/^ but the germs are nearly all of one sort; it may be very depraved moral horticulture on my part but I should certainly like to see a few deciduous plants among the evergreens, and even the evergreens themselves might be selected with a view to a vivid and effective interspersion of colouring; — why not mix the peach-coloured flowers of the almond with the splendid golden alder or the purple-leaved Darwinii? Why not alternate the cypress with the cistus? Why this” boundless contiguity ‘’ of cedar?

Variety is quite as much wanted in the language as in the planning of the Homilist. As a general rule, the language of the Homilist is specially clear and strong: yet its range is limited; it is local rather than cosmopolitan, certainly not rich in allusion, and seldom equal to the thinking which it is intended to express. We rarely get any idea of the author s reading from the variety of his language; we do not find from the gorgeousness of one homily that the writer began it after a long spell at Burhe, nor from the riotous impetuosity of another that it was written under the inspiration of Macaulaij; we never exclaim,” here is the quaintness of Trapp, the splendour of Hall, the sublimity of Charnock, the delicacy of Taylor -/’ we feel, and feel deeply, that the book wliicli the writer knows most about is the last volume of the Homilist itself! We do not want quotation but inspiration — not garlands and cliaplets, but perfumes gathered from many gardens, the aroma of the worlds genius. We deprecate the absurd criticism wliicli censures one man because lie is not another; but we admire the universality of mind which can never be satisfied with its own resources, but must with selfmisgiving and most emulous determination intermeddle with all wisdom. It may be said, If Burke has a style of his own, and Macaulay, Shakspeare, and Scott, and each of the other immortal writers of English, why not David Thomas? There is no reason why David Thomas should not have his own style, nor is there any reason why he should not be continually enriching and refining his style j moreover, his is not so much a style as a mere habit; in a literary point of view it has more form than life; provided the words will barely cover his idea, he cares nothing for their efflorescence and colouring. This is not altogether to be admired. The careful wiiter will sometimes pause before electing either of two synonyms; he will look at the fine shading, he will study the balance and cadence of the syllables, that his thought may have all the advantage of perfect rhythm: the ireaclier too will seek out acceptable words,^^ remembering that even in his sacred office there are many opportunities of profiting by the canon:

“True wit is nature to advantage dressed, — What oft was thought, but ne’er so well expressed.”

In a standing notice, prefixed to every monthly copy, the editor of the Homilist says, ‘’’We want things not words:’’ the notice is bold, but is it discriminating? Is it not true that in some cases words are things? Is it not also true that there is adaptation between thought and language, as between the king and his chariot?” There would seem at first sight to be no more in Miltons words than in other words. But they are words of enchantment. No sooner are they pronounced, than the past is present and the distant near. New forms of beauty start at once into existence, and all the burial places of the memory give up their dead. Change the structure of the sentence: substitute one synonym for another, and the whole effect is destroyed.^-’* Perhaps in penning this notice the sagacious editor was preparing friends among the critics of unrighteousness, that in the day of his exposure they might receive him into their houses; or perhaps he admired the conciseness without thinking of the justness of his notice.

This you will regard as a candid criticism, not I trust the less valuable because of its discrimination; David Thomas has done a great work, and if there be a fault or a flaw in it here and there who can wonder? We must not forget that if he were to review our work he might be able to show that there is more in it to censure than to admire; it should therefore be under a sense of our own imperfection that we offer an opinion upon the capabilities and services of another man. The name of David Thomas will increase in honour and influence, in proportion as the ministry increases in intelligence and vigour; and long after his noble countenance has ceased to brighten our assemblies, his noble thoughts will

* Macaulay.

90 Ad Clerum: Advices to a Young F readier.

stimulate our minds: there may have been a little envious mist thrown about bis earlier course,, but there is before his name an honoured and a splendid future.

“When first the sun too powerful beams displays,
It draws up vapours which obscure its rays;
But even those clouds at last adorn its way,
Reflect new glories and augment the day.”

In my opinion the time for the completion of the Homilist has fully come; it may now with advantage coalesce with the Pulpit Analyst, — giving it the prestige of a unique history, and leaving it to supply some omissions which mark the service even of the strongest minds.

From all this you will correctly infer that I advise you to procure the entire set of the Homilist, now extending I suppose to something like twenty volumes. This advice I do tender with most cordial urgency, under the assured conviction that no young minister can study its method without gaining very much both in stimulus and instruction.

Since writing this critique I have seen David Thomas, after a lapse of nearly ten years. Some changes have taken place in his appearance; time has just begun to set its mark upon him, and whilst the old contagious buoyancy still abounds there is a tenderer mellowness in many of his observations upon men and things. He is still sermonising, and is still justly proud of his Homilist; with the simplicity of a little child he boldly declares that it is as good as ever; and if for a moment you doubt it he is prepared to give half-a-dozen of its latest outlines which undoubtedly prove that his right hand has not forgotten its cunning. Life and peace be to him in exceeding measure!