Criticisms on His Sermons; Defence of His Method
My dear Children, — I cannot be ignorant that, besides frequent references to my sermons on public occasions, my preaching has been more expressly criticised in different publications. Six of these have come under my view. A man would not be allowed to be a judge in his own case, or otherwise I could say, that neither the commendations that have been graciously given me, nor the defects which have been noticed, have appeared to myself very appropriate or discriminative; nor has the secret of the degree of impression which I have produced, and which has been rather extensive as well as durable, been very justly explained. If I considered myself competent to supply the deficiency, it would be indelicate to attempt it; though, when this is read, I shall be beyond the reach of human praise or censure.
One thing I cannot help remarking. I never saw any allusion to my preaching as abounding more with images, and facts, and instances of things, than what commonly prevails. If I have not succeeded in this, my practice has not always accorded with my conviction, and aim, and endeavour. Bunyan’s motto, borrowed from Hosea, could never be adopted by some preachers —” I have used But such a usage is sanctioned by the constitution of human nature, and recommended by the
example of Him who “spake as never man spake. ‘^ Dr. Carey is reported to have said to a young minister who had preached before him,” My young friend, I have much approved of your sermon, but it had one deficiency, it had no likes ’ in it.^’ And when asked for an explanation, he added, ^’ Why, when you read our Lords discourses, you constantly meet with the expression. The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, like unto mustard-seed, like unto a net, like unto a marriage, and so on. Now never preach again, my young friend, without some likes ’ in your addresses.^^
God, the only wise God, who, having made us, knows what is in man, and what is necessary to him, has given us the largest proportion of the Old and New Testament in the form of history and biography. Is it not, therefore, strange that public instructors should lose sight of Gods method, and be always getting into the commonness of declamation, or the diyness of speculative discussion? “A story,^^ says Cecil,” will hold a child by the ear for an hour together,^^ and “men are but children of a larger growth.”
Nearly allied to this is another thing, in which the sacred writers (did we deem them worthy our imitation) would usefully guide us. Instead of defining, they describe; and instead of describing, they exemplify. They hold forth all things, not in the nakedness of abstraction, but clothed with their attributes, and palpable in their effects. To show us what the power of religion is, they tell us what it does. The believer comes to Christ. The penitent looks on him whom he has pierced, and mourns. We have not the rules and tactics of the war, but we see the warrior from his arming till he has triumphed. We have not the representation of the pilgrimage, but we have the pilgrim, and follow him step by step from the city of destruction up to the celestial abode.
If I mention some things which have been noticed in my style of preaching, not censoriously, yet rather in a way of complaint, it will not be for the purpose of defence, but explanation. It will then be seen, if I have erred, that it has been more by rule than by thoughtlessness; and the reader will be left at full liberty to judge for himself. I am aware of what has been said of the importance of unity of design in a discourse, especially by Mr. Fuller, who so well exemplified his own advice. With this mode I have not been wanting sometimes to comply, and I have occasionally found great advantage in selecting a single sentiment, and pursuing it through the whole discourse. But I have much more generally followed the textual treatment, deriving the contents of the sermon from the parts and even the terms of the passage, and this unavoidably rather trenches on unity. But may not the want of unity in the subject be compensated, and more than compensated, by variety? In the Drama, much has been written of the unities by the French, who also always boasted of their maintaining them. But has one of their authors anything equal to the mixed productions of Shakspeare, who often violates them all? But in preaching it should be remembered, what diversities of persons and cases there are before us at every service, and how unlikely these diversities are to be reached by the very same thing. We are rightly to divide the word, and give to each a portion of meat in due season. The Day of Judgment admits of many separate views. It may be considered as a day of aggregation — a day of separation — a day of manifestation — a day of retribution. And Bourdaloue or Massillon would confine himself to one of these exclusively. But would this method be likely to be so useful, or to strike various and different minds, as a few bold strokes on all of them?
An American divine was one day endeavouring to account to me for the effect of their revival-preaching. He ascribed much of it to its restriction to one thing, observing, for instance, that though repentance may be considered as including conviction,
contrition, confession, conversion, and, as necessary to the whole, looking on Him whom we have pierced — they should not notice these together, but give each a separate and distinct discourse. But the same individuals may not hear all these distinct discourses; and if other persons drop in and hear only one of them, how defective may their information be! I could not divide in the same sermon the cause and the effect. I could not preach repentance without preaching the Cross. How is the one to be effectively presented without the other? Let us read the Acts and the Epistles.
Some have complained of my sermons being filled with too much Scripture. If this be an error, it is surely on the right side; and, as Dr. Geddes says,” I love to give Gods children plenty of their own bread.^^ I am sure of this, that I never used quotations from the Scripture merely to fill up or to lengthen out a discourse; and I trust I have never introduced any fancifully, or regardlessly of the mind of the Spirit; yet I own there is here occasionally some excess; and it has probably resulted from my familiarity with the language of the Bible, having, before many other books came in my way, read it much, and committed much to memory.
Am I to allow the charge of too much amplification and diffuseness in my preaching? When Mr. Pitt once received an intimation of this kind, with regard to his speeches, his episcopal biographer tells us he made this reply: “A man who addresses a popular assembly must either use repetition or diffusion; and I prefer the latter.” If he deemed this needful in such an assembly as he addressed, can it be imnecessary in ministers when speaking to a mixed multitude, many of whom have little education or talent, and were never accustomed to any fixed application of mind? We should consider that what either in confirmation or illustration is superfluous for one hearer, is even insufficient for another. We often see as we go on in our dis-
course, from the straining attention of some in the crowd, that we have not yet succeeded in what we have spoken. Are we then to go forward without making another attempt with some change of address, or variation of imagery? The eloquent Isaiah would say, ^’ Precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little,”
Who has entirely escaped the reflection that freedoms degenerate into vulgarity and coarseness? Certainly not a Shakspeare, a Burke, a Hopkins, or a South. Certainly not many of our most forcible writers; and they incurred the accusation because of their force. In aiming at great impression and effect there is always some danger. There is none in tame correctness.
“They who crawl
Can never fall.”
But they who rise and they who run may. Yet is not occasional failure in attempt better than perpetual deficiency and indifference? Have not a thousand beauties been snatched from the very verge of impropriety? May not a man deserve the rebuke of duintUian, who, speaking of a certain author, says, ‘^ His greatest excellence was that he had no fault, and his greatest defect that he had no excellence? ‘^
Give me an impressiveness and an excitement that will not allow a hearer to perceive a fault, or, if he does, leaves him no mind to regard it. And is there nothing, if not to applaud, yet to extenuate, in even a mistake, in endeavouring to do good to those who are destitute of a thousand advantages, and whose condition is such that they must be sought after? We do not admire their low and grovelling taste, yea, we wish to raise and improve it; but how is this to be done if we never approach them? Can you take up a child from the ground without
bending? And when kindness makes you stoop, honour croTvns condescension.
I have found it difficult, if not impossible, to give satisfaction to a certain class of hearers, while wishing to do justice to the Scriptures at large. Some of these objectors (for I could not think so of all) have been good men, but of contracted views. I admired their love of the truth as it is in Jesus, and their peculiarly relishing it when brought forward in a discourse. I acknowledge also that a minister should frequently and largely dwell upon it, and treat everything in connexion with it. But this connexion extends much further than they seem to suppose. It does not follow that, because one point is to be made more prominent in a discourse, all others are to be disregarded. We are io more to abridge than to mangle the Gospel. We must keep back nothing that is profitable, but declare the whole counsel of God. It will be better to be able at last to make the appeal,” I am free from the blood of all men,’^ than to find that we have succeeded in gratifying the taste of a few, whose preference is of little value in the possession, and commonly a snare in the obtaining.
The apostles are our models; in their Epistles we find doctrine and practice, duty and privilege, always blended together. They knew that everything in the Evangelical scheme was not equally important; but they regarded nothing as useless. They took great care to lay the foundation firmly and broadly; but then they omitted nothing in the superstructure that was needful or ornamental. They preached only a crucified Saviour; but “warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that they might present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.^’ They contended that the grace of God alone brings salvation, but showed that it teaches us to” deny ungodliness and worldly lust», and to live soberly, righteously and godly in the present world.’’
Yet I could never have felt at liberty to preach a series of sermons on a number of evil characters such as the apostle mentions as abounding in the last days: “Lovers of their own selves; covetous; boasters; proud; blasphemers; disobedient to parents; unthankful; unholy; without natural affection; trucebreakers; false accusers; incontinent; fierce; despisers of those that are good; traitors; heady; high-minded; lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof;^’ yet I knew a pastor who edified his people for nineteen Sabbaths following, with a separate discourse on each of these. I also knew another, not green in age, who was three years in going through the ten commandments. I could hardly consider myself justified in preaching a whole sermon before a multitude of perishing sinners from the words of Solomon,” He that hateth suretyship is sure.^^ Not that such intimations and cautions are to be Overlooked; but it is better to strike at the thing with a remark or two as we go on. It should also be remembered that we may often insinuate moral hints while we are illustrating some Christian principle. By teaching the children of God what they ought to be, I teach other children their obligations; and by holding forth the character of God as a Father, I instruct and admonish other fathers in the duties which lie upon them.
It should, however, never be forgotten that ^’we are the servants of the Most High God, who show unto men the way of salvation -’* that the Gospel is good news for perishing sinners; and that this is to be preached to every creature; and “there are some doctrines,” says Mr. Venn, “that should not only be always implied and referred to in our sermons, but should be distinctly and fully treated, several times in the course of every year.”
A few observations may here be made on Pastoral Visitation. You probably have heard more than myself of the complaints which have been made of your father with regard to the article of visiting. ..
I can truly say, it affords me no satisfaction to find similar complaints very prevalent wherever I have gone. Nor do I, in this case, wish to attempt wholly to justify myself — far from it. 1 might have done more, especially in some cases, than I have done, by more decision, arrangement, and diligence. Who can look back on any department of duty and usefulness, and not have reason to exclaim, “If thou. Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?’^ Yet I would remark a few things, by way, at least, of explanation, rather than of excuse.
No little of this censured neglect was voluntary with me, and, therefore, it did not aggrieve my mind. I saw that much of what was commonly expected was unreasonable, and that it was consequence rather than improvement that was affected by disappointment.
I saw several kinds of visitants whom I did not think I was called to follow.
First. The smokers, furnished with a pretty pipe, and its usual concomitant, at every house of call;
Secondly, The listless and self-indulgent, who found that diligent study was much less inviting than lounging from one company to another, and hearing the news of the neighbourhood;
Thirdly. The truly pious, who are really concerned to do good, but were often less useful than they meant or imagined. Many of these have not the oily slang of religious phrases; they are not apt at free and appropriate address, or turning all incidents, to profitable account; yet they might preach to advantage, had they time and leisure for reading and meditation.
I saw also that their calls were not always acceptable or convenient: this was the case with mechanics and men in business, and still more so with females in ordinary life, who were commonly taken up with their domestic cares.
I saw also that the whole congregation must be visited, in which case, if it were a large one, the whole of a preachers time would be occupied, or the minister would be deemed a respecter of persons, giving as much pain as pleasure; flattering the pride of one, and gendering the envy of another, by supposed partiality.
I also could not but see how little profit resulted from more set visits, of longer continuance, and including table and teaentertainments. In these meetings how nearly impossible is it to commence or maintain discourse by which you can either gain or do good!
I am aware that there must be interviews and intercourses, when they are of no particular character or utility. They contribute to good neighbourhood and social pleasure; but I am now speaking of things in reference to their ecclesiastical relation, and the importance of their bearing on ministerial duty and excellence.
If familiarity does not breed contempt, it reduces reverence; and too much intimacy has often lowered the impression and influence of many a minister; for there are but few who have the same presence and address in the parlour as in the pulpit.
I have no opinion of a pastor that is not very studious. But study demands leisure and retirement, and ‘’ through desire, a man, having separated himself, seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom.^^ He should, therefore, as much as possible, avoid publicity, and be covetous and niggardly of every fragment of time. A man who has some degree of talent, especially an easiness and fluency of speech, may do for an itinerant or an occasional preacher, by his brisk superficialities; but let him become stationary, and have to preach three or four times a week to the same people, and he will soon abound with sameness, and become sapless and unedifying; the young will feel little attraction; the intelligent will be tempted to withdraw; the dull will become drowsy; and the ignorant that remain will be ignorant still.
People for their own sakes should do all they can to promote a habit of mental application in their ministers, and be concerned to allow them every opportunity within their reach for exerting it, especially their mornings and evenings. Of course, if they love their pastors, they will feel pleasure in their company, nor will that company be unreasonably refused; but let them, as much as possible, choose the time of intercourse, and not accuse them of indolence, or self-indulgence, if it be not so frequent as they could wish. Perhaps at the very moment of their hearers complaint they are in their retirement praying for them, or studying to comfort or profit them, if not with the sweat of the brow, with the sweat of the brain; for much study is a weariness of the flesh.^^
I, therefore, never felt anything like self-reproach when conscious of being fully employed; and I am persuaded that I was better subserving, not only my own welfare, but that of my people and of the public, in my study, than in gadding about without an aim, wasting time in idle interviews and nursery talk.
I mention not this, however, to make those easy who rise not before seven in the morning; hang loose from strenuous improvement all the day; are drawn aside by every trifling excitement; and apply the time they affect to husband from visiting to no equal purpose, or no purpose at all; but for the sake of upright and conscientious men, who are anxious to make full proof of their ministry, but grieve because they cannot do the things that they would.
But is not a minister a pastor, and is not a shepherd to mind and manage the state of all his sheep? He is; and he must peculiarly regard cases of urgency and distress: he is to bind up that which is broken; to bring back that which has wandered, &c.; but he can only feed, and lead, and fold the flock together or collectively.
Cases of affliction have special claims on pastoral attention; and in these, consolation and spiritual profit may be administered by a word in season. But here ministers have sometimes been blamed for remissness, when they have not been made acquainted with the distress. The rule is,” Is any sick among you, let him call for the elders of the church /^ thus at once informing them of his case, and expressing his desire to be visited.
I observe also, that much in this supposed delinquency was with me unavoidable. I began my course under many early disadvantages; for I began young, and nearly from the beginning was thrown into situations and circumstances which had many and exciting demands upon me, without assistance. Though physically incapable of enduring so much confinement and engagement as some of my brethren, I had four services per week at home, besides frequent calls abroad.
Bath, the place of my residence, exposed me to many interruptions; and my own people little knew how much I was necessarily engaged in visiting strangers who came there for health, and were away from their usual pious helps. I might also mention, that I was early unintentionally led to become an author; and God giving me much acceptance, I regarded the press as well as the pulpit, — the one indeed, as to extensiveness and continuance, superior to the other. This also required time and attention, and much more than justice to my subject demanded.
As congregations have grown larger and more respectable; as more preparation for the pulpit is needful now than formerly; as institutions have so much multiplied, and pastors must often be engaged in services added to their home-routine of duty; new and serious difficulties arise in the present discharge of the ministerial function. How are they to be met? It seems now hardly possible to combine equally in the same man the excellences of the pastor and the eminence of the preacher. I have seldom seen an instance of both. Dr. Mason, of New York, in his farewell address to his church, says,” If you would have us
not only to preach Christ publicly, but from house to house, you must put your hands into your pockets, and support a dozen more pastors.^’
If pastors and pastoral assistants cannot be multiplied, may not something be done by an increase of good and efficient deacons and elders? Could not they relieve their ministers from some of their exertions, and allow them the more freedom to give themselves to the word of God and prayer? Is there nothing they can do but serve tables? Could not females be usefully and properly employed? Were they not in the first churches officially engaged, (not indeed in preaching, this was expressly forbidden — and inspiration is only common sense here,) but in cases that did not compromise the duties and decencies of their peculiar sphere and character? Paul says to the Philippians, “Help those women that laboured with me in the gospel.^^ To Timothy he speaks of a ‘^ widow well reported of for good works, if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints feet, if she have relieved the affiicted, if she have diligently followed every good work.^^ “I commend unto you,^’ says he to the Romans,” Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea. For she has been a succourer of many, and of myself also. Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on us.^^
I flatter not, but speak the words of truth and soberness when I say, our churches and ministers sufier no inconsiderable loss by the non-official engagement of the sex, whose taste and talent, piety and goodness and zeal, are now so useful, but which may be rendered much more so than they are.
One thing I did to remedy, in a degree, my deficiency in visiting. For the sake more expressly of the busy, the poor, and the aged, I had a meeting in the vestry on the Monday evening, in which I always sat, and, for near an hour, spoke in a more free and familiar manner than it became me to use in my pulpit. I
considered this like meeting the party in a room for conversation, only I had all the talk to myself. But while I spoke to the whole company, each could hear as well as if I spoke to him only and alone; yet some have grudged that others should partake of the benefit; and would have had it more expressly and distinctively appropriated to themselves alone. What evil often veils itself under religious pretension! What to some is usefulness, compared with selfish gratification!” Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.^’
I am, &c.