of discipline, without considering, at this stage of the process, the relative value of the knowledge which such study involves in relation to the future occupation of life. This it is, we further shewed, which justifies us in making mathematics, languages, logic, and mental philosophy, a part of the general education of any youth designed for professional life, quite independently of their direct utility in after years, and even upon the supposition that he would forget in advanced age much of what he had acquired in youth. There cannot be a doubt, however, that though discipline is the primary object of a general education, it is eminently desirable that the subjects of study selected to secure it should, as far as possible, involve in the process those species of knowledge which shall be in after life of great and comprehensive utility. We therefore remarked that the second great object to be attained by a prolonged education of our youthful ministry, is to secure that extent and variety of knowledge which shall furnish them with ample sources and the requisite variety of impressive illustration. Thirdly, we pleaded for the same course, that there might be time for the thorough and comprehensive study of theology, the truths of which it will be the minister's lifelong duty to explain, enforce, and illustrate; and fourthly, that he might not enter upon his great work too young; but in the manhood of all his faculties, with something like sobriety of judgment, habits of self control, and some little knowledge, at all events, of himself and of human nature. A boy should no one be who enters upon the duties of an arduous profession; and least of all, he who enters upon the Christian ministry. Such is a brief recapitulation of our former statements and reasonings on this subject. Those who wish to see them treated more in detail can refer to the article in question. In the meantime, we are happy to enforce our own opinions by the authority and sanction of so competent a judge as Mr. Alexander, who has expressed precisely the same views in the following powerful and impressive passage:

"The elements of every system of training, the design of which is to fit men for action, appear to be three: education, instruction, habituation.

"The first of these, which is often confounded with the second, and not unfrequently extended so as to embrace the whole, is, strictly speaking, and as its etymology indicates, appropriate to that process by which the native powers of the mind are nourished or drawn out to their full development. In education, the individual who is the subject of it is viewed simply as an intellectual and moral being, endowed with certain faculties, which existing as yet only in a germinant state, require to be subjected to such treatment as may have been ascertained to be best adapted to their simultaneous and harmonious growth. Confined to its own department, education takes respect

not so much of what its object may be designed to do in the business of life, as of what he may become as a thinking, feeling, and responsible being. Its grand aim is to send him into life with his mental faculties and susceptibilities so disciplined and invigorated, that whatever he may be called to occupy himself with, he may do it easily, virtuously, and well.

But however vigorous and well-disciplined a man's faculties may be, it is seldom safe to entrust to him the management of any important interests unless he be possessed of due information respecting the nature of these interests, the means by which they may be best promoted, and the character of the materials upon which he has to work in seeking to effect their promotion. Hence to simple education must be added instruction, which is, as the etymology of the word again intimates, the storing of the mind with such suitable and wellarranged materials, as shall fit the individual for the department of work on which he may be called to expend his efforts. Here especial respect must be had to the sphere of action in which he is designed to move, and the kind of duties which he will there be called upon to discharge; and such information must be communicated to him as shall best adapt him for the full and facile discharge of those duties, as well as for encountering such difficulties as may peculiarly beset the course he has to pursue.

"To a well-educated and well-instructed mind must be added, in the man who is intended to engage in active work, that facility of action which alone can be acquired from the habit of conducting such exercises as those by which the ends of his profession are to be attained. Where it is practicable, the acquiring of this habit before the individual is plunged amid the actual realities of business, is of immense importance both to himself and others. Without this, his earlier efforts will be always constrained, often distressing, not seldom mischievous. The constant habit of learning, into which, through a long course of general and professional tuition, his mind may have grown, is not easily exchanged for the very different habit of applying his resources to the arrangement of affairs, or to the instruction of others; and the awkwardness which the consciousness of this produces, combined with the anxiety arising from the knowledge that valuable, it may be tremendous, interests are liable to be affected by his agency, is very apt to confuse the clearest intellect, and paralyse the boldest hand. Of every system of training, then, which has for its design the fitting of men for active usefulness in some given sphere, it would seem to form an essential part that the individuals who are the subjects of it should be habituated to such exercises as they must engage in the instant they proceed to the discharge of those functions to which they aspire." -pp. 24, 25.

"In providing for the due cultivation of the intellectual faculties, it is necessary that theological students should be conducted through several departments, which have no close or direct bearing upon the actual work in which, as ministers of the gospel, they are to be engaged. This is to many persons a subject, I believe, of censure; whilst, even with students themselves, it has sometimes been felt to be

a hard and vexatious imposition that they should be required to devote so much time to studies from which, as they think, and are apt to say, they can reap no benefit. The subjects most frequently marked out for vituperation by such persons, in connexion with institutions like this, are, classical literature, mathematics pure and applied, logic and metaphysics, and the natural sciences. Of what use, it is asked, are such studies to the preacher of Christianity? Why not content yourselves with giving him as much Latin and Greek as will suffice for all purely professional purposes, instead of wasting months and years upon the perusal and explanation of heathen classics? Why set him to the study of logic and metaphysics, which will only make his sermons dry and his temper disputatious? And, above all, why occupy him with mathematics and the natural sciences, as if he were to gain the ends of his ministry by measuring heights and distances, making collections of dried plants, or sweltering in a laboratory? Now to all this the reply is simple and obvious. It is not pretended, by such courses of study, to give the student professional instruction, or to furnish him with the materials on which he is subsequently to work; but, as experience has amply shewn that such studies exert a most beneficial influence upon the human faculties, in drawing them forth and endowing them with firmness and vigour, they are imposed upon our students of theology, that from them they may advance to the important studies, and, in due time, to the arduous duties of their profession, with minds that will not bend and totter, like an infant's limbs, but be able, with a firm and manly step, to traverse whatever course is presented to them. If there be any truth in the remarks which I submitted to you in the earlier part of this address, the business of the Christian pastor is to throw his whole soul and being into his official work; and far be it from me to commend any pastor, who should substitute for this, the pursuits of literature, science, or art. But what, sirs, if for this very devotedness to his official functions, there be requisite a mental tone and vigour, which nothing, so much as the discipline supplied by such studies, can produce? In this case, shall we not, as a matter of policy and practical common sense, employ this discipline in the case of every one whose preparatory studies we may have the opportunity of directing, as the surest means of securing, under the Divine blessing, that official devotedness which we desire? To do so is surely not to waste, but to save time; for it is to prepare for the field of spiritual conflict men who, thoroughly disciplined in the use of their weapons, shall be able, in the moment of action, to do their part at once, instead of waiting and considering what to do, or whether they are competent to do it."pp. 26, 27.

To enter upon another topic. We must be permitted to doubt whether we have ever yet sufficiently instructed our youthful ministry in the true principles which lie at the basis of all public speaking, and that of the pulpit in particular. We should, perhaps, have preferred using, for brevity's sake, the words "art" of pulpit "eloquence," were it not that both these words are so liable to be misapprehended by the unreflecting. We should

66

mean by "art" nothing more than the rules which must be observed to secure the judicious adaptation of the discourse to its true end; and by " eloquence" nothing more than the clear, forcible, impressive exhibition of the truth" to every man's conscience." Whether the one should be called an art," or the other "eloquence," we deem of mighty little consequence. That the true sense of the word "art" implies only the deliberate adaptation of means to ends, there can be no doubt amongst the judicious. But as there are some who never hear the word "art," especially in reference to the pulpit, without straightway associating it with the idea of "artifice," or something, they know not what, unworthy of the dignity of the pulpit, we are quite contented to substitute any other that may please them better. Why should we dispute about words? There can be no doubt, in any rational mind, that there is such a thing as speaking to the purpose, and such a thing as not speaking to the purpose-such a thing as speaking clearly, forcibly, and persuasively, and such a thing as speaking unintelligibly, coldly, and unimpressively; and that he who attains his object by doing the former, must proceed on very different principles and by a very different method from him who fails of it, by doing the latter. All that we mean, then, when we say that we doubt whether the "principles of preaching" have been sufficiently taught to our ministers is, that we doubt whether the conditions on which all conviction and persuasion depend, and the peculiarities of method and of style which they necessitate, have been taught in so extensive and systematic a manner as they ought to have been. We fear, indeed, that the ambiguities in the words "art" and "eloquence" have operated prejudicially on the minds of thousands, and are still operating upon them to such an extent, as to make them doubt or deny the utility of any instructions on the subject. We do not refer to those (happily a daily diminishing number) who doubt the value of any instruction in the principles of public speaking generally, and who strangely think that a man will speak better in proportion to his ignorance of those principles. Paradoxical as such views may be, those who entertain them are, at all events, consistent in applying them to the pulpit as well as to the bar or the senate. But we refer to those who, not denying the utility of such a study to the lawyer or the senator, would, from some unhappy associations with the words "art" and "eloquence," and some other verbal scarecrows, decry, or, at least, distrust, any systematic instructions on the subject in relation to the pulpit, as in some way or other (they would find it difficult to explain how,) unworthy of religion. Some will tell us that religion disdains all "art," by which they mean "artifice" or "trick," in which we fully agree; but how strange would it sound, if the other and truer meaning of the word "art" be taken, and we say, religion disdains all

adaptation of means to ends, or religion disdains all deliberate attempts to speak to the purpose!" Some, again, would perhaps found their contempt of any such instructions on certain irrational views of those promises of Divine aid which scripture undoubtedly supplies, and which are the preacher's most precious consolation. Not that any, probably, would justify the notion that we may expect the extraordinary and supernatural gifts of the apostles, who were even commanded not to premeditate" what they should say, for they were evidently exceptions to all rule. They had the art of speaking with unknown tongues, as well as the endowment of unpremeditated eloquence; we cannot preach to the heathen, without acquiring their languages by a slow and toilsome process. They had the power of working miracles; we are left to the use of an ordinary instrumentality. No man has a right, therefore, to plead their example for contradicting any maxim of common prudence. But while few would pretend that we may literally imitate the apostles, by neglecting all preparation, there are not wanting those who think the Apostle Paul has condemned all study of the arts in question, when he disclaims "the words which man's wisdom teacheth." We answer, all that the apostle here repudiates, so do we. He is simply declaring that the doctrines he delivered were not those of a vain philosophy, but of heavenly wisdom. He may also be consistently supposed to reject the sophistical arts and the futile decorations, with which the vain philosophy he disclaims was sought to be recommended. Even so do we. But that he does not mean that man, in seeking admission for truth into the hearts of his fellows, is to neglect any of the conditions on which conviction and persuasion depend-any of the methods by which it may be rendered more intelligible to the reason, more impressive to the imagination, more welcome to the heart;-that he does not mean that it is of little consequence whether it be stated in accordance with those laws to which our Creator has himself subjected our nature, and the neglect of which will infallibly entail disgrace and failure on him who is guilty of it, the writings of the apostle himself furnish us with ample and illustrious examples.

There is a still larger number who, without justifying their dislike of the studies we are advocating, by any particular passage of scripture, depreciate them, as in some way or other inconsistent with the dignity of religion, and derogatory to those ordinary divine influences with which the preaching of the gospel, it is expressly promised, shall be ever accompanied. But do we believe that those promised influences, of the necessity of which none can be more deeply persuaded than ourselves, are to be connected with a well-adapted agency of ordinary means, or do we not? Do we believe that the Divine Spirit acts only in har