which turn inward upon the unhappy subject of them; this he calls the Fanaticism of the ScoURGE: the

Second class embraces that virulent sort of Fanaticism which looks abroad for its victims; this he calls the Fanaticism of the BRAND: the Third class comprehends the combination of intemperate religious zeal with military sentiments, or with national pride and the love of power; this he designates the Fanaticism of the BANNER: the

Fourth class is reserved for instances of intellectual Fanaticism, in opinion and dogma; this he names the Fanaticism of the SYMBOL.

The first sort is austere; the second, cruel; the third, ambitious ; and the fourth, factious.

These several classes of Fanaticism form the respective subjects of Sections V., VI., VII., and VIII. of this able volume. With a short analysis of their several contents we shall proceed to gratify our readers, reminding them that our review is necessarily limited, and entreating them to consult the eloquent pages of our author for themselves, if they would indeed be enabled to appreciate his multifold merits. We leave them with this prayer for the present, and purpose to resume our article next month.

ART. II.-Hora Homiletica: or Discourses (principally in the form of Skeletons) now first digested into one continued Series, and forming a Commentary upon every Book of the Old and New Testament; to which is annexed, an Improved Edition of a Translation of Claude's Essay on the Composition of a Sermon. In Twenty-one Volumes. By the Rev. CHARLES SIMEON, M. A. Senior Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. London: Holdsworth & Ball.

(Continued from p. 77.)

1833. 8vo.

THE plan of our criticism now leads us to consider, III. Mr. Simeon's execution of his design. And this we shall examine in the twofold aspect in which the design itself appears; as, 1. A "help to composition ;" and 2. as an expository comment.

1. The execution of his plan in the first of these respects is Mr. Simeon's great praise, and the especial excellence of his work. This fact must be already so well known to the majority of our readers, that it seems superfluous to mention it. We are far from intending to depreciate Mr. Simeon's other qualifications as a divine or pastor, when we say that, as a composer of sermons, he stands altogether unrivalled. this judgment we mean no commendation of style or manner. In those respects few preachers vary so much; and in the University pulpit, as we have hinted, he almost loses his identity with the Rector of Trinity.

In

But, when we speak of composition, we take the word in its proper etymological meaning of putting together; and, in this particular, his readiness, ingenuity, facility and logical arrangement are quite surprising. On any given text he will readily construct several sermons, essentially different in mode of treatment and argument; yet all closely accordant with the text, and all equally fresh and original. It is an inevitable disadvantage to this part of our criticism that we can but sparingly illustrate by example. To quote the skeletons partially, could give no idea of their merits as entire compositions, and it would be impossible, for want of room, to transcribe many at length: we must therefore content ourselves by informing the reader that he will find, subjoined to Claude's Essay, four independent skeletons on Mark xvi. 15, 16, illustrating Claude's various methods of discussion; by explication, observation, propositions, and perpetual application. Besides these, a sermon on the same text appears in its proper place.

To the student this is

an invaluable exercise; indeed we know nothing that will afford him greater facilities of invention or arrangement, than endeavouring to construct independent skeletons according to these various systems on the basis of one text.

Claude's Essay, as edited by Mr. Simeon, is a most useful and admirable treatise; and the additions are by no means the least valuable part. To enter into a minute review of it would be here impossible; nor would it be necessary, as the work is very generally known. Our notice of it, therefore, will be principally confined to what has been improved, or particularly insisted on. Some of the principles contained in the improved essay are so deeply founded in philosophical truth that to produce them is to speak their commendation. Preachers, and especially juniors, are apt to think that the various parts of a text, discussed in their order, with a due attention to their connexion, adequately elucidate the whole. Thus, in treating Heb. x. 10, they would arrange thus; 1. The will of God. 2. Our sanctification. 3. The cause of our sanctification. But Mr. Simeon, after Claude, judges otherwise, and considers the great essential of pulpit composition to consist in reduction of texts to categorical forms.

Most texts ought to be formally divided; for which purpose you must principally have regard to the order of nature, and put that division, which naturally precedes, in the first place; and the rest must follow, each in its proper order. This may easily be done by reducing the text to a categorical proposition, beginning with the subject, passing to the attribute, and then to the other terms; your judgment will direct you how to place them.

If, for example, I were to preach from Heb. x. 10, "By the which will we are sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all;" I should not think it proper to speak first of the will of God, then of our sanctification, and, lastly, of the cause of our sanctification, which is, the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ: it would be much better to reduce the text to a categorical proposition: thus, The offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once made, sanctifies us by the will of God; for it is more natural to consider, 1. The

nearer and more immediate cause of our acceptance, which is, the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ; 2. Its effect, our sanctification; 3. Its first and more remote cause, which makes its produce this effect, the will of God.

[The Editor wishes the student to pause here, and to avail himself fully of the hint just thrown out, of reducing a subject to a categorical proposition, and then treating it in its natural order.

This is, in fact, the great secret, (so to speak,) of all composition for the pulpit. Every text, whether long or short, must be reduced to a categorical proposition; 1st, In order to preserve a perfect unity in the subject; and, 2dly, in order to take it up, and prosecute it in an orderly manner.— -Pp. 306, 307. Mr. Simeon prosecutes this subject with the following admirable remarks: which we readily copy as a treasure for our clerical friends.

THE RULES WHICH THE EDITOR WOULD GIVE FOR THE COMPOSITION OF A SERMON, ARE THESE.

1. Take for your subject that which you believe to be the mind of God in the passage before you.

(Be careful to understand the passage thoroughly: and regard nothing but the mind of God in it.)

2. Mark the character of the passage.

(It may be more simple, as a declaration, a precept, a promise, a threatening, an invitation, an appeal; or more complex, as a cause and effect; a principle, and a consequence; an action, and a motive to that action, and, whatever be the character of the text, (especially if it be clearly marked) let that direct you in the arrangement of your discourse upon it. (See what Mr. Claude says near the beginning of Chap. V.)

For instance. 1 John iv. 18, "There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear, because fear hath torment. He that feareth, is not made perfect in love."

This passage should not be treated in a common-place way of shewing, 1st. What this love is; 2d. What is the fear which it casts out; and 3d. How it casts out this fear. The passage is intended to shew the influence of the love of God upon the soul, and to set it forth as a test of our attainments in true piety; and therefore the scope and intent of it should be seized as the ground-work of the division. Thus--Consider the love of God: 1. Its influence as a principle (casting out all slavish fear;) and, 2. Its importance as a test; (enabling us, by means of its influence in this respect, to estimate the precise measure of our attainments.) See the arrangement of Rev. xix. 6.

3. Mark the spirit of the passage.

(It may be tender and compassionate, or indignant, or menacing: but whatever it be, let that be the spirit of your discourse. To be tender on an indignant passage, or indignant on one that is tender, would destroy half the force and beauty of the discourse. The soul should be filled with the subject, and breathe out the very spirit of it before the people. As God's ambassadors, we should speak all that he speaks; and as he speaks it. God himself should be heard in us and through us.)

The true meaning of the text should be the warp, which pervades the whole piece and the words should be the woof that is to be interwoven, so as to form one connected and continued whole.

The spirit of the words should pervade the discourse upon them. Whatever peculiarity there be either in the matter or manner of the text, that should be transfused into the discourse, and bear the same measure of prominence in the sermon, as it bears in the text itself.

Take for instance, Ps. cxlvii. 11, "The Lord taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy;" you would give the sense

of the text, if you were to set forth, 1st. The characters described, and, 2d. God's favour towards them: but if you were to shew from that text, 1st. How low God descends for the objects of his favour; and, 2d. How high he soars in his regards towards them; you would mark, and every one of your audience would feel, the spirit of them. If the reader consult the discourse on John i. 45, he will find that the spirit of the text, that is, the joy expressed in it, serves as a foundation for one half of the discourse. So also if he will consult the discourse on Jer. v. 23, 24, he will find that the spirit of that text gives the entire tone to the subject. The common way of treating that text would be to consider, 1. The mercies which God has vouchsafed to us, and, 2. The effect which they ought to produce upon us. But with such a division of the subject, the vituperative spirit of it would be comparatively lost.*

If these few hints be thoroughly understood and duly attended to, the composition of a sermon, which is supposed to be so difficult, will become extremely easy. And the Editor cannot render the student a greater service, than by entreating him to fix these short rules deeply in his mind, and when studying for the pulpit, carefully to seize the sense, the character, and the spirit of his text.]-Pp. 307--309.

We are sceptical as to the "extreme ease " of sermon writing, even with the aid of these rules. Mr. Simeon may have a right to talk of such things, as to him this labour does indeed seem to have no existence. But with us "dwindled sons of little men," the composition of a sermon will still be "supposed to be difficult," although the difficulty is undoubtedly diminished, and the structure of the composition unquestionably improved by an attention to Mr. Simeon's observations and rules.

We are decidedly of opinion that this reduction of texts to categorical propositions is founded in truth and nature, and much more likely to produce a good illustrative and applicatory discourse than the ordinary method of divisions, which are often less connected with the sense than with the wording of a passage. It has at least this advantage, that it makes the preacher study the meaning of his text, and confine himself to that meaning. Many texts might be instanced which, according to the ordinary mode of treatment, could never be properly illustrated, and which could only receive their due development from the adoption of this system. We will adduce one example only: Matt. v. 44," Love your enemies." The ordinary method of divisions would treat this text thus: 1. What love is. 2. Who are our enemies. Now this alone, it is obvious, would be wholly inadequate to the illustration or enforcement of the categorical proposition implied in the text, that it is the duty of a Christian to entertain every feeling of kindness and affection towards those who are actuated by the most opposite sentiments towards him. It is true that this method frequently conducts us to the ordinary division of a sermon, for most texts selected for the pulpit are categorical propo

*See on Dan. v. 22. or 1 Thess. iv. 1.

sitions, and in these cases the ordinary division will commonly be the true. But Claude's rule will point out the connexion of the heads, which the common method, independently employed, will not. Mr. Simeon, however, has expressed himself in terms too general to be literally applied. He has not always reduced his own texts to categorical forms; and the reason is that many texts are incapable of it, as historical ones for instance. But even in the handling of these, it will be necessary to deduce propositions. Thus in Gen. vi. 22, " Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he." This is an historical proposition. Still however it is capable of yielding a categorical formula; as thus, the true servants of God exhibit an uniform obedience. This is the doctrine deducible from that text. And that doctrine may be explained in divisions.

Another partial exception to the categorical rule is that of syncategorematica, which Mr. Simeon terms "somewhat curious." Expressions, which, taken by themselves, have little or no meaning, sometimes, by their juxta-position with others, become the most emphatic words in the sentence. Claude and Mr. Simeon have adduced instances. Thus in John iii. 16, “God so loved the world," &c. the subject is the love of God; and the syncategorematicon so, which connects the propositions "God loved the world," and, "God gave his only-begotten Son," is the very soul of the text, as shewing how vast the love of God was. So in Exod. xxxiv. 5 and Deut. xxvii. 26, the syncategorematica "there' and "amen are the most important words respectively. Mr. Simeon has given a skeleton on this text and on John xv. 15, where the emphatic word is henceforth.

To Claude's four modes of discussion we have already adverted. Mr. Simeon has applied them all to the illustration of the same text with a power and freedom truly astonishing. But they are not therefore all equally applicable to that or any other. The first is, in our opinion, the best suited to this particular text; and this opinion is fortified by the circumstance that Mr. Simeon's sermon on that text is composed on that plan. Were we in all cases restricted to one, we should prefer the last; but a text would often be most effectively treated by a combination of two or more.

We have reserved our quotations of entire skeletons for the illustration of the work as a commentary, in which light we now proceed to consider it; and indeed the nature of the skeletons is so well understood, that quotations for the purpose of explaining that, would be entirely superfluous.

2. Mr. Simeon's merits as an expositor and as a commentator differ. Setting aside his Calvinisms, he generally educes from whatever he handles pure and profitable doctrine. He does this, moreover, without straining his texts, and his inferences are the most natural and