Simplicity in Preaching
by J. C. Ryle
King Solomon says, in the book of Ecclesiastes, "Of
making many books there is no end" (12:12). There are few subjects about
which that saying is more true than that of preaching. The volumes which
have been written in order to show ministers how to preach are enough to
make a small library. In sending forth one more little treatise, I only
propose to touch one branch of the subject. I do not pretend to consider
what should be the substance and matter of a sermon. I purposely leave alone
such points as "gravity, unction, liveliness, warmth," and the like, or the
comparative merits of written or extemporaneous sermons. I wish to confine
myself to one point, which receives far less attention than it deserves.
That point is simplicity in language and style.
I ought to be able to tell my readers something about
"simplicity," if experience will give any help. I began preaching forty-five
years ago, when I first took orders in a poor rural parish, and a great
portion of my ministerial life has been spent in preaching to laborers and
farmers. I know the enormous difficulty of preaching to such hearers, of
making them understand one's meaning, and securing their attention. So far
as concerns language and composition, I deliberately say that I would rather
preach before the University at Oxford or Cambridge, or the Temple, or
Lincoln's Inn, or the Houses of Parliament, than I would address an
agricultural congregation on a fine hot afternoon in the month of August. I
have heard of a laborer who enjoyed Sunday more than any other day in the
week, "Because," he said, "I sit comfortably in church, put up my legs, have
nothing to think about, and just go to sleep." Some of my younger friends in
the ministry may some day be called to preach to such congregations as I
have had, and I shall be glad if they can profit by my experience.
Before entering on the subject, I wish to clear the way
by making four
prefatory remarks.
1. For one thing, I ask all my readers to remember that
to attain simplicity in preaching is of the utmost
importance to every minister who wishes to be useful to souls.
Unless you are simple in your sermons you will never be understood, and
unless you are understood you cannot do good to those who hear you. It was a
true saying of Quintilian, "If you do not wish to be understood, you deserve
to be neglected." Of course the first object of a minister should be to
preach the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but "the truth as it is in
Jesus." But the next thing he ought to aim at is, that his sermon may be
understood; and it will not be understood by most of his hearers if it is
not simple.
2. The next thing I will say, by way of prefatory remark,
is, that to attain simplicity in preaching is by no
means an easy matter. No greater mistake can be made than to
suppose this. "To make hard things seem hard," to use the substance of a
saying of Archbishop Usher's, "is within the reach of all, but to make hard
things seem easy and intelligible is a height attained by very few
speakers." One of the wisest and best of the Puritans said two hundred years
ago, "that the greater part of preachers shoot over the heads of the
people." This is true also in 1837! I fear a vast proportion of what we
preach is not understood by our hearers any more than if it were Greek. When
people hear a simple sermon, or read a simple tract, they are apt to say,
"How true! how plain! how easy to understand!" and to suppose that any one
can write in that style. Allow me to tell my readers that it is an
extremely difficult thing to write simple, clear, perspicuous, and forcible
English. Look at the sermons of Charles Bradley, of Clapham. A sermon of
his reads most beautifully. It is so simple and natural, that anyone feels
at once that the meaning is as clear as the sun at noonday. Every word is
the right word, and every word is in its right place. Yet the labor
those sermons cost Mr. Bradley was very great indeed. Those who have read
Goldsmith's Vicar of Wakefield attentively, can hardly fail to have noticed
the exquisite naturalness, ease, and simplicity of its language. And yet it
is known that the pains and trouble and time bestowed upon that work were
immense. Let the Vicar of Wakefield be compared with Johnson's Rasselas,
which was written off in a few days, it is said, under higher pressure—and
the difference is at once apparent. In fact, to use very long words, to seem
very learned, to make people go away after a sermon saying, "How fine! how
clever! how grand!" all this is very easy work. But to write what will
strike and stick, to speak or to write that which at once pleases and is
understood, and becomes assimilated with a hearer's mind and a thing never
forgotten—that, we may depend upon it, is a very difficult thing and a very
rare attainment.
3. Let me observe, in the next place, that when I talk of
simplicity in preaching, I would not have my
readers suppose I mean childish preaching. If we suppose the poor
like that sort of sermon, we are greatly mistaken. If our hearers once
imagine we consider them a parcel of ignorant folks for whom any kind of
"infant's food" is good enough, our chance of doing good is lost altogether.
People do not like even the appearance of 'condescending preaching'. They
feel we are not treating them as equals, but inferiors. Human nature always
dislikes that. They will at once put up their backs, stop their ears, and
take offence—and then we might as well preach to the winds.
4. Finally, let me observe, that
it is not coarse or vulgar preaching that is needed. It is
quite possible to be simple, and yet to speak like a gentleman, and with the
demeanor of a courteous and refined person. It is an utter mistake to
imagine that uneducated and illiterate men and women prefer to be spoken to
in an illiterate way, and by an uneducated person. To suppose that a
lay-evangelist or Scripture-reader, who knows nothing of Latin or Greek, and
is only familiar with his Bible, is more acceptable than an Oxford
first-class man, or a Cambridge wrangler (if that first-class man knows how
to preach), is a complete error. People only tolerate vulgarity and
coarseness, as a rule, when they can get nothing else.
Having made these prefatory remarks in order to clear the
way, I will now proceed to give my readers five
brief hints as to what seems to me the best method of attaining simplicity
in preaching.
1. My first hint is this—If you want to attain simplicity
in preaching, take care that you have a clear view
of the subject upon which you are going to preach. I ask your
special attention to this. Of all the five hints I am about to give, this is
the most important. Mind, then, when your text is chosen, that you
understand it and see right through it; that you know precisely what you
want to prove, what you want to teach, what you want to establish, and what
you want people's minds to carry away. If you yourself begin in a fog,
you may depend upon it you will leave your people in darkness. Cicero,
one of the greatest ancient orators, said long ago, "No one can possibly
speak clearly and eloquently about a subject which he does not
understand"—and I am satisfied that he spoke the truth. Archbishop Whately
was a very shrewd observer of human nature, and he said rightly of a vast
number of preachers, that "they aimed at nothing, and they hit nothing. Like
men landing on an unknown island, and setting out on a journey of
exploration, they set out in ignorance, and traveled on in ignorance all the
day long."
I ask all young ministers especially, to remember this
first hint. I repeat most emphatically—"Take care you thoroughly understand
your subject. Never choose a text of which you do not quite know what it
means." Beware of taking obscure passages such as those which are to be
found in unfulfilled and emblematic prophecies. If a man will continually
preach to an ordinary congregation about the seals and vials and trumpets in
Revelation, or about Ezekiel's temple, or about predestination, free will,
and the eternal purposes of God—it will not be at all surprising to any
reasonable mind if he fails to attain simplicity. I do not mean that these
subjects ought not to be handled occasionally, at fit times, and before a
suitable audience. All I say is, that they are very deep subjects, about
which wise Christians often disagree, and it is almost impossible to make
them very simple. We ought to see our subjects plainly, if we wish to
make them simple, and there are hundreds of plain subjects to be found in
God's Word.
Beware, for the same reason, of taking up what I call
"fanciful subjects" and "spiritualizing texts"—and then dragging out
of them meanings which the Holy Spirit never intended to put into them.
There is no subject needful for the soul's health which is not to be found
plainly taught and set forth in Scripture. This being the case, I think a
preacher should never take a text and extract from it, as a dentist would a
tooth from the jaw, something which, however true in itself, is not the
plain literal meaning of the inspired words. The sermon may seem very
glittering and ingenious, and his people may go away saying, "What a clever
parson we have got!" But if, on examination, they can neither find the
sermon in the text, nor the text in the sermon, their minds are perplexed,
and they begin to think the Bible is a deep book which cannot be understood.
If you want to attain simplicity, beware of spiritualizing texts.
When I speak of spiritualizing texts, let me explain what
I mean. I remember hearing of a minister in a northern town, who was famous
for preaching in this style. Once he gave out for his text, "He who is so
impoverished that he has no oblation, chooses unto him a tree that will not
rot" (Isa. 40:20). "Here," said he, "is man by nature impoverished and
undone. He has nothing to offer, in order to make satisfaction for his soul.
And what ought he to do? He ought to choose a tree which cannot rot—even the
cross of our Lord Jesus Christ."
On another occasion, being anxious to preach on the
doctrine of indwelling sin, he chose his text out of the history of Joseph
and his brethren, and gave out the words, "The old man of whom you spoke, is
he yet alive?" (Gen. 43:27). Out of this question he ingeniously twisted a
discourse about the infection of nature remaining in the believer—a grand
truth, no doubt, but certainly not the truth of the passage. Such instances
will, I trust, be a warning to all my younger brethren. If you want to
preach about the indwelling corruption of human nature, or about Christ
crucified, you need not seek for such far-fetched texts as those I have
named. If you want to be simple, mind you choose plain simple texts!
Furthermore, if you wish to see through your subjects
thoroughly, and so to attain the foundation of simplicity, do not be ashamed
of dividing your sermons and stating your divisions. I need hardly
say this is a very vexed question. There is a morbid dread of "firstly,
secondly, and thirdly" in many quarters. The stream of 'fashion' runs
strongly against divisions, and I must frankly confess that a lively
undivided sermon is much better than one divided in a dull, stupid,
illogical way. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He who can
preach sermons which strike and stick without divisions, by all means let
him hold on his way and persevere. But let him not despise his neighbor who
divides. All I say is—if we would be simple, there must be ORDER in a sermon
as there is in an army. What wise general would mix up artillery, infantry,
and cavalry in one confused mass in the day of battle? What giver of a
banquet or dinner would dream of putting on the table the whole of the
viands at once—the soup, the fish, the entrees, the meat, the salads, the
sweets, the dessert, in one huge dish? Such a host would hardly be thought
to serve his dinner well. Just so I say it is with sermons. By all means let
there be order—order, whether you bring out your "firstly, secondly,
or thirdly," or not—order, whether your divisions are concealed or
expressed—order so carefully arranged that your points and ideas shall
follow one another in beautiful regularity, like regiments marching past
before the Queen on a review day in Windsor Park.
For my own part, I honestly confess that I do not think I
have preached two sermons in my life without divisions. I find it of the
utmost importance to make people understand, remember, and carry away what I
say—and I am certain that divisions help me to do so. They are, in fact,
like hooks and pegs and shelves in the mind. If you study the sermons of men
who have been and are successful preachers, you will always find order, and
often divisions, in their sermons. I am not a bit ashamed to say that I
often read the sermons of Mr. Spurgeon. I like to gather hints about
preaching from all quarters. David did not ask about the sword of
Goliath—"Who made it? who polished it? what blacksmith forged it?" He said,
"There is nothing like it"—for he had once used it to cut off its owner's
head. Mr. Spurgeon can preach most ably, and he proves it by keeping his
enormous congregation together. We ought always to examine and analyze
sermons which draw people together. Now when you read Mr. Spurgeon's
sermons, note how clearly and perspicuously he divides a sermon, and fills
each division with beautiful and simple ideas. How easily you grasp his
meaning! How thoroughly he brings before you certain great truths, that hang
to you like hooks of steel, and which, once planted in your memory, you
never forget!
My first point, then, if you would be simple in your
preaching, is, that you must thoroughly understand your subject, and if you
want to know whether you understand it, try to divide and arrange it. I can
only say for myself; that I have done this ever since I have been a
minister. For forty-five years I have kept note books in which I write down
texts and heads of sermons for use when require. Whenever I get hold of a
text, and see my way through it, I put it down and make a note of it. If I
do not see my way through a text, I cannot preach on it, because I know I
cannot be simple; and if I cannot be simple, I know I had better not preach
at all
2. The second hint I would give is this—Try to use in
all your sermons, as far as you can—simple WORDS.
In saying this, however, I must explain myself. When I talk of simple words,
I do not mean words of only one syllable, or words which are purely Saxon. I
cannot in this matter agree with Archbishop Whately. I think he goes too far
in his recommendation of Saxon, though there is much truth in what he says
about it. I rather prefer the saying of that wise old heathen Cicero, when
he said, that orators should try to use words which are "in daily common
use" among the people. Whether the words are Saxon or not—or of two or three
syllables. It does not matter so long as they are words commonly used and
understood by the people. Only, whatever you do, beware of what the poor
shrewdly call "dictionary" words, that is, of words which are abstract, or
scientific, or pedantic, or complicated, or vague, or very long. They may
seem very fine, and sound very grand, but they are rarely of any use. The
most powerful and forcible words, as a rule, are very short.
Let me say one word more to confirm what I have stated
about that common fallacy of the desirableness of always using Saxon
English. I would remind you that a vast number of words of other than Saxon
origin are used by writers of notorious simplicity. Take, for instance, the
famous work of John Bunyan, and look at the very title of it—The Pilgrim's
Progress. Neither of the leading words in that title is Saxon. Would he have
improved matters if he had called it "The Wayfarer's Walk"? In saying this I
admit freely that words of French and Latin origin are generally inferior to
Saxon; and, as a rule, I would say—use strong pure Saxon words—if you can.
All I mean to say is, that you must not think it a matter of course that
words cannot be good and simple if they are not of Saxon origin. In any
case, beware of long words.
Dr. Gee, in his excellent book, 'Our Sermons', very ably
points out the uselessness of using long words and expressions not in
common use. For example, he says, "Talk of happiness rather than of
felicity; talk of almighty rather than omnipotent; forbidden rather than
proscribed; hateful rather than noxious; afterwards rather than
subsequently; call out and draw forth instead of evoke and educe." We all
need to be pulled up sharply on these points. It is very well to use fine
words at Oxford and Cambridge, before classical hearers, and in preaching
before educated audiences. But depend upon it, when you preach to ordinary
congregations, the sooner you throw overboard this sort of English, and use
plain common words, the better. One thing, at all events, is quite certain,
without simple words you will never attain simplicity in preaching.
3. The third hint I would offer, if you wish to attain
simplicity in preaching, is this—Take care to aim at
a SIMPLE style of composition. I will try
to illustrate what I mean. If you take up the sermons preached by that great
and wonderful man Dr. Chalmers, you can hardly fail to see what an enormous
number of lines you meet with without coming to a full stop. This I regard
as a great mistake. It may suit Scotland, but it will never do for England.
If you would attain a simple style of composition, beware of writing many
lines without coming to a pause, and so allowing the minds of your
hearers to take breath. Beware of colons and semicolons. Stick to commas
and full stops, and take care to write as if you were asthmatical or short
of breath. Never write or speak very long sentences or long paragraphs. Use
stops frequently, and start again—and the oftener you do this, the more
likely you are to attain a simple style of composition. Enormous sentences
full of colons, semicolons, and parentheses, with paragraphs of two or three
pages' length, are utterly fatal to simplicity. We should bear in mind that
preachers have to do with hearers and not readers, and that what will "read"
well will not always "speak" well. A reader of English can always help
himself by looking back a few lines and refreshing his mind. A hearer of
English hears once for all, and if he loses the thread of your sermon in a
long involved sentence, he very likely never finds it again.
Again, simplicity in your style of composition depends
very much upon the proper use of proverbs and pointed sentences. This
is of vast importance. Here, I think, is the value of much that you find in
Matthew Henry's commentary, and Bishop Hall's Contemplations. There are some
good sayings of this sort in a book not known so well as it should be,
called 'Papers on Preaching'. Take a few examples of what I mean: "What we
weave in time—we wear in eternity." "Hell is paved with good intentions."
"Sin forsaken, is one of the best evidences of sin forgiven." "It matters
little how we die—but it matters much how we live." "Meddle with no man's
person—but spare no man's sin." "The street is soon clean when every one
sweeps before his own door." "Lying rides on debt's back—it is hard for an
empty bag to stand upright." "He who begins with prayer—will end with
praise" "All is not gold that glitters." "In religion, as in business—there
are no gains without pains." "In the Bible there are shallows where a lamb
can wade—and depths where an elephant must swim." "One thief on the cross
was saved, that none should despair—and only one, that none should presume."
Proverbial, pointed, and antithetical sayings of this
kind give wonderful perspicuousness and force to a sermon. Labor to store
your minds with them. Use them judiciously, and especially at the end of
paragraphs, and you will find them an immense help to the attainment of a
simple style of composition. But of long, involved, complicated
sentences—always beware!
4. The fourth hint I will give is this:
If you wish to preach simply—use a DIRECT
style. What do I mean by this? I mean the practice and custom of
saying "I" and "you." When a man takes up this style of preaching, he is
often told that he is conceited and egotistical. The result is that many
preachers are never direct—and always think it very humble and modest and
becoming to say "we." But I remember good Bishop Villiers saying that "we"
was a word kings and corporations should use, and they alone—but that parish
clergymen should always talk of "I" and "you." I endorse that saying with
all my heart. I declare I never can understand what the famous pulpit "we"
means. Does the preacher who all through his sermon keeps saying "we" mean
himself and the bishop? or himself and the Church? or himself and the
congregation? or himself and the early Fathers? or himself and the
Reformers? or himself and all the wise men in the world? or, after all, does
he only mean myself, plain "John Smith" or "Thomas Jones"? If he only means
himself, what earthly reason can he give for using the plural number, and
not saying simply and plainly "I"? When he visits his parishioners, or sits
by a sick-bed, or catechises his school, or orders bread at the baker's, or
meat at the butcher's—he does not say "we," but "I." Why, then, I should
like to know, can he not say "I" in the pulpit? What right has he, as a
modest man, to speak for anyone but himself? Why not stand up on Sunday and
say, "Reading in the Word of God, I have found a text containing such
things as these, and I come to set them before you"?
Many people, I am sure, do not understand what the
preacher's "we" means. The expression leaves them in a kind of fog. If you
say, "I, the pastor of the parish, come here to talk of something
that concerns your soul, something you should believe, something you should
do"—you are at any rate understood. But if you begin to talk in the vague
plural number of what" we" ought to do, many of your hearers do not know
what you are driving at, and whether you are speaking to yourself or them. I
charge and entreat my younger brethren in the ministry not to forget this
point. Do try to be as direct as possible. Never mind what people say
of you. In this particular do not imitate Chalmers, or Melville, or certain
other living pulpit celebrities. Never say "we" when you mean "I." The more
you get into the habit of talking plainly to the people, in the first person
singular, as old Bishop Latimer did—the simpler will your sermon be, and the
more easily understood. The glory of Whitefield's sermons is their
directness. But unhappily they were so badly reported, that we cannot now
appreciate them.
5. The fifth and last hint I wish to give you is this:
If you would attain simplicity in preaching, you must
use plenty of anecdotes and illustrations. You must regard
illustrations as windows through which light is let in upon your subject.
Upon this point a great deal might be said, but the limits of a small
treatise oblige me to touch it very briefly. I need hardly remind you of the
example of Him who "spoke as never any man spoke"—our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ. Study the four Gospels attentively, and mark what a wealth of
illustrations His sermons generally contain. How often you find figure upon
figure, parable upon parable, in His discourses! There was nothing under His
eyes apparently from which He did not draw lessons. The birds of the air,
and the fish in the sea, the sheep, the goats, the cornfield, the vineyard,
the ploughman, the sower, the reaper, the fisherman, the shepherd, the
vinedresser, the woman kneading meal, the flowers, the grass, the bank, the
wedding feast, the sepulcher—all were made vehicles for conveying thoughts
to the minds of hearers. What are such parables as the prodigal son, the
good Samaritan, the ten virgins, the king who made a marriage for his son,
the rich man and Lazarus, the laborers of the vineyard, and others—what are
all these but stirring stories that our Lord tells in order to convey
some great truth to the souls of His hearers? Try to walk in His footsteps
and follow His example.
If you pause in your sermon, and say, "Now I will tell
you a story"—I pledge that all who are not too fast asleep will pick up
their ears and listen. People like similes, illustrations, and well-told
stories—and will listen to them when they will attend to nothing else. And
from what countless sources we can get illustrations! Take all the book of
nature around us. Look at the sky above and the world beneath. Look
at history. Look at all the branches of science, at geology, at
botany, at chemistry, at astronomy. What is there in heaven above or earth
below from which you may not bring illustrations to throw light on the
message of the gospel? Read Bishop Latimer's sermons, the most popular,
perhaps, that were ever preached. Read the works of Brooks, and Watson, and
Swinnock, the Puritans. How full they are of illustrations, figures,
metaphors, and stories! Look at Mr. Moody's sermons. What is one secret of
his popularity? He fills his sermons with pleasing stories. He is the
best speaker, says an Arabian proverb, who can turn the ear into an
eye!
For my part, I not only try to tell stories, but in
country parishes I have sometimes put before people familiar
illustrations which they can see. For instance—Do I want to show them
that there must have been a first great cause or Being who made this world?
I have sometimes taken out my watch, and have said, "Look at this watch. How
well it is made! Do any of you suppose for a moment that all the screws, all
the wheels, all the pins of that watch came together by accident? Would not
any one say there must have been a watchmaker? And if so, it follows most
surely that there must have been a Maker of the world, whose handiwork we
see engraved on the face of every one of those glorious planets going their
yearly rounds and keeping time to a single second. Look at the world in
which you live, and the wonderful things which it contains. Will you tell me
that there is no God, and that creation is the result of chance?" Or
sometimes I have taken out a bunch of keys and shaken them. The whole
congregation, when they hear the keys, look up. Then I say, "Would there be
need of any keys if all men were perfect and honest? What does this bunch of
keys show? Why, they show that the heart of man is deceitful above all
things, and desperately wicked." Illustration, I confidently assert,
is one of the best receipts for making a sermon simple, clear, perspicuous,
and easily understood. Lay yourselves out for it. Pick up illustrations
wherever you can. Keep your eyes open, and use them well. Happy is that
preacher who has an eye for similitudes, and a memory stored with
well-chosen stories and illustrations. If he is a real man of God,
and knows how to deliver a sermon, he will never preach to bare walls and
empty benches.
But I must add a word of caution. There is a proper way
of telling stories. If a man cannot tell stories naturally—he had better
not tell them at all. Illustration, again, after all I have said in its
favor, may be carried too far. I remember a notable instance of this in the
case of the great Welsh preacher, Christmas Evans. There is in print a
sermon of his about the wonderful miracle that took place in Gadara, when
devils took possession of the swine, and the whole herd ran down violently
into the sea. He paints it so minutely that it really becomes ludicrous by
reason of the words put in the mouth of the swine-herders who told their
master of the loss he had sustained. "Oh! sir," says one, "the pigs have all
gone!" "But," says the master, "where have they gone?" "They have run down
into the sea." "But who drove them down?" "Oh! sir, that wonderful man."
"Well, what sort of a man was he? What did he do?" "Why, sir, he came and
talked such strange things, and the whole herd ran suddenly down the steep
place into the sea." "What, the old black boar and all?" "Yes, sir, the old
black boar has gone too; for as we looked round, we just saw the end of his
tail going over the cliff." Now that is going to an extreme. So, again, Dr.
Guthrie's admirable sermons are occasionally so overlaid with illustrations
as to remind one of cake made almost entirely of plums and containing hardly
any flour. Put plenty of color and picture into your sermon by all means.
Draw sweetness and light from all sources and from all creatures—from the
heavens and the earth, from history, from science. But after all there is a
limit. You must be careful how you use color—lest you do as much harm as
good. Do not put on color by spoonfuls, but with a brush. This
caution remembered, you will find color an immense aid in the attainment of
simplicity and perspicuousness in preaching.
And now bear in mind that my five points are these—
1. If you want to attain simplicity in preaching, you
must have a clear knowledge of what you are going to preach.
2. If you would attain simplicity in preaching, you must
use simple words.
3. If you would attain simplicity in preaching, you must
seek to acquire a simple style of composition, with short sentences
and as few colons and semicolons as possible.
4. If you would attain simplicity in preaching, aim at
directness.
5. If you would attain simplicity in preaching, make
abundant use of illustration and anecdote.
Let me add to all this one plain word of
APPLICATION. You will never attain
simplicity in preaching without plenty of work—pains and
trouble, I say emphatically, pains and trouble. When Turner, the great
painter, was asked by some one how it was he mixed his colors so well, and
what it was that made them so different from those of other artists—"Mix
them? mix them? mix them? Why, with brains, sir." I am persuaded that, in
preaching, little can be done except by trouble and by pains.
I have heard that a young and careless clergyman once
said to Richard Cecil, "I think I need more faith." "No," said the wise old
man—"you need more work. You need more pains. You must not think that God
will do work for you—though He is ready to do it by you." I entreat my
younger brethren to remember this. I beg them to make time for their
composition of sermons, to take trouble and to exercise their brains by
reading. Only mind that you read what is useful.
I would not have you spend your time in reading the early
church Fathers in order to help your preaching. They are very useful in
their way, but there are many things more useful in modern writers, if you
choose them discreetly.
Read good models, and become familiar with good specimens
of simplicity in preaching. As your best model, take the English Bible. If
you speak the language in which that is written, you will speak well. Read
John Bunyan's immortal work, the Pilgrim's progress. Read it again and
again, if you wish to attain simplicity in preaching. Do not be above
reading the Puritans. Some of them no doubt are heavy. Goodwin and Owen are
very heavy, though excellent artillery in position. Read such books as
Baxter, and Watson, and Traill, and Flavel, and Charnock, and Hall, and
Henry. They are, to my mind, models of the best simple English spoken in old
times. Remember, however, that language alters with years. They spoke
English, and so do we, but their style was different from ours. Read beside
them the best models of modern English that you can get at. I believe the
best English writer for the last hundred years was William Cobbett, the
political Radical. I think he wrote the finest simple Saxon-English the
world has ever seen. In the present day I do not know a greater master of
tersely spoken Saxon-English than John Bright. Among old political orators,
the speeches of Lord Chatham and Patrick Henry, the American, are models of
good English. Last, but not least, never forget that, next to the Bible,
there is nothing in the English language which, for combined simplicity,
perspicuousness, eloquence, and power, can be compared with some of the
great speeches in Shakespeare. Models of this sort must really be studied,
and studied "with brains," too, if you wish to attain a good style of
composition in preaching. On the other hand, do not be above talking to the
poor, and visiting your people from house to house. Sit down with your
people by the fireside, and exchange thoughts with them on all subjects.
Find out how they think and how they express themselves, if you want them to
understand your sermons. By so doing you will insensibly learn much. You
will be continually picking up modes of thought, and get notions as to what
you should say in your pulpit.
A humble country clergyman was once asked "whether he
studied the fathers." The worthy man replied, that he had little opportunity
of studying the fathers, as they were generally out in the fields when he
called. But he studied the mothers more, because he often found them at
home—and he could talk to them.
Wittingly or unwittingly, the good man hit a nail right
on the head. We must talk to our people when we are out of church—if we
would understand how to preach to them in the church.
1. I will only say, in CONCLUSION, that whatever we
preach, or whatever pulpit we occupy, whether we preach simply or not,
whether we preach written or extempore, we ought to aim not merely at
letting off fireworks, but at preaching that which
will do lasting good to souls! Let us beware of fireworks in our
preaching. "Beautiful" sermons, "brilliant" sermons, "clever" sermons,
"popular" sermons, are often sermons which have no effect on the
congregation, and do not draw men to Jesus Christ. Let us aim so to preach,
that what we say may really come home to men's minds and consciences and
hearts, and make them think and consider.
2. All the simplicity in the world can do no good, unless
you preach the simple gospel of Jesus Christ so
fully and clearly that everybody can understand it. If 'Christ
crucified' has not His rightful place in your sermons, and 'sin' is not
exposed as it should be, and your people are not plainly told what they
ought to believe, and be, and do—your preaching is of no use!
3. All the simplicity in the world, again, is useless
without a good lively delivery. If you
bury your head in your bosom, and mumble over your manuscript in a dull,
monotonous, droning way, like a bee in a bottle, so that people cannot
understand what you are speaking about—your preaching will be in vain.
Depend upon it, delivery is not sufficiently attended to in our Church. In
this, as in everything else connected with the science of preaching, I
consider the Church of England is sadly deficient. I know that I began
preaching alone in the New Forest, and nobody ever told me what was right or
wrong in the pulpit. The result was that the first year of my preaching was
a series of experiments. We get no help in these matters at Oxford and
Cambridge. The utter lack of any proper training for the pulpit is one great
blot and defect in the system of the Church of England.
4. Above all, let us never forget that all the simplicity
in the world is useless without prayer for the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and the grant of God's blessing,
and a life corresponding in some measure to what we preach. Be it ours to
have an earnest desire for the souls of men, while we seek for simplicity in
preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ, and let us never forget to accompany
our sermons by holy living and fervent prayer!