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 it produce this effect, the will of God.

It remains to be observed, that there are two natural orders, one natural in regard to subjects themselves, the other natural in regard to us. The first considers every thing in its natural situation, as things are in themselves, without any regard to our knowledge of them; the other, which I call natural in regard to us, observes the situation, which things have as they appear in our minds, or enter into our thoughts. For example, in the last-mentioned text, the natural order of things would require the proposition thus: By the will of God the offering of the body of Christ sanctifies us; for, 1. The will of God is the decree of his good pleasure to send his Son into the world. 2. The oblation of Jesus Christ is the first effect of this will. And, 3. Our sanctification is the last effect of his oblation by the will of God. On the contrary, the natural order in regard to us is, 1. The offering. 2. The sanctification, which it produces. And, lastly, The will of God, which gives it this efficacy.

When in any text the natural order of things differs from that which regards our knowledge of them, we may take that way which we like best; however, I believe, it would be best to follow that of our knowledge, because it is easiest, and clearest for the common people.

There are texts, which contain the end and the means; the cause and the effect; the principle, and the conse

flowed Paul's creation preservation, conversion, gifts, graces, use. fulness, &c The second part relates the use that St. Paul made of all these, out of gratitude, and to God's glory. Flech. Ser. tom. i.

quence deduced from the principle; the action, and the principle of the action; the occasion, and the motive of the occasion: in these cases it is arbitrary either to begin with the means, and afterwards treat of the end; with the effect, and proceed to the cause, and so on; or to follow the contrary order. For instance, 2 Tim. ii. 10. Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sake, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ with eternal glory. It is plain, that the text has three parts; the sufferings of the apostle; the end he proposes; and the principle, from which he proposes this end. The order is then arbitrary: you may either speak, first of St. Paul's love to the elect; secondly, of the salvation, which he desired they might obtain in Jesus Christ; and, thirdly, of the sufferings, which he endured in order to their obtaining it; or, first, of his sufferings; secondly, of the end, which he proposed in them, the salvation of the elect with eternal glory; and, thirdly, of his love for the elect, which is the principle.

But though, in general, you may follow which of the two orders you please, yet there are some texts that determine the division; as Phil. ii. 13. It is God who worketh effectually in you, both to will and to do, of his own good pleasure. There are, it is plain, three things to be discussed; the action of God's grace upon men, God worketh effectually in you; the effect of this grace, to will and to do; and the spring or source of the action, according to his good pleasure. I think the division would not be proper if we were to treat, 1. Of God's good pleasure. 2. Of his grace. And, 3. Of the will and works of men. I should rather begin with volition and action, which are the effects of grace; then I should speak of the grace itself, which produces willing and doing in us effectually; and, lastly, of the source of this grace, which is the good pleasure of God. In short, it is always necessary to consult good sense, and never to be so conducted by general rules as not to attend to particular circumstances.

Above all things, in divisions, take care of putting any thing in the first part, which supposes the understanding of the second, or which obliges you to treat of the second to make the first understood; for by these means you will throw yourself into a great confusion, and be obliged to

make many tedious repetitions. You must endeavour to disengage the one from the other as well as you can; and when your parts are too closely connected with each other, place the most detached first, and endeavour to make that serve for a foundation to the explication of the second, and the second to the third; so that at the end of your explication the hearer may with a glance perceive as it were, a perfect body, or a finished building; for one of the greatest excellencies of a sermon is, the harmony of its component parts, that the first leads to the second, the second serves to introduce the third, that they which go before, excite a desire for those which are to follow: and, in a word, that the last has a special relation to all the others, in order to form in the hearers' minds a complete idea of the whole.

This cannot be done with all sorts of texts, but with those only which are proper to form such a design upon. Remember too, it is not enough to form such a plan, it must also be happily executed.

You will often find it necessary in texts, which you reduce to categorical propositions, to treat of the subject, as well as of the attribute: then you must make of the subject one part. This will always happen, when the subject of the proposition is expressed in terms that want explaining, or which furnish many considerations: For example; He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit. This is a categorical proposition, and you must needs treat of the subject, he who abides in Jesus Christ, and in whom Jesus, Christ abides. So again, He that believeth in me hath everlasting life. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. The two last ought to be reduced to categorical propositions, the subjects of which are, they who are in Christ. In these, and in all others of the same kind, the subject must make one part, and must also be considered first; for it is more natural, as well as most agreeable to the rules of logic, to begin with the subject of a proposition. Sometimes it is necessary not only to make one part of the subject, and another of the attribute; but also to

make a third of the connection of the subject with the attribute. In this case, you may say, after you have observed in the first place the subject, and in the second the attribute, that you will consider in the third the entire sense of the whole proposition: this must be done in these texts; If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. He that believeth in me hath eternal life, &c.

Sometimes there are, in texts reduced to categorical propositions, terms which, in the schools, are called syncategorematica; and they relate sometimes to the subject, and sometimes to the attribute."

When in a text there are several terms, which need a particular explanation, and which cannot be explained without confusion, or without dividing the text into too many parts, then I would not divide the text at all: but I would divide the discourse into two or three parts; and I would propose, first to explain the terms, and then the subject itself. This would be necessary on Acts ii. 27. Thou wilt not leave my soul in the grave, neither wilt thou suffer thy holy One to see corruption. To discuss this text properly, I think, the discourse should be divided into three parts, the first consisting of some general considerations, to prove that the text relates to Jesus Christ, and that Peter alleged it properly: the second, of some particular considerations on the terms; soul, and which signifies life; grave, which also signifies hell; on which the church of Rome grounds her opinion of Christ's descent into, what her divines call, limbus patrum; holy, which in this place signifies immortal, unalterable, indestructible; corruption, which means not the moral corruption of sin, but the natural corruption of the body. Finally, we must examine the subject itself, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There are many texts, in discussing which, it is not necessary to treat of either subject or attribute: but all the discussion depends on the terms syncategorematica. For example, John iii. 16. God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. The categorical propo

■ Syncategorematica. Of this kind are those words, which of themselves signify nothing, but in conjunction with others in a proposition are very significant.

• See page 100.

sition is, God loved the world; yet it is neither necessary to insist much on the term God, nor to speak in a common-place way of the love of God: but divide the text into two parts; first, the gift which God in his love hath made of his Son; secondly, the end for which he gave him, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. In the first, you must shew how Jesus Christ is the gift of God: 1. In that he did not come by principles of nature. 2. Inasmuch as there was nothingamong men to merit it. 3. In that there was nothing among men to excite even the least regard of any kind. 4. There was not the least proportion between us and so great a gift. But, 5. There was, on the contrary, an infinite disproportion; and not only a disproportion, but an opposition and a contrariety. Then pass to the cause of this gift, which is love; and after having observed that it was a love of complacence, for which, on the creature's part, no reason can be rendered, particularly press the term so, and display the greatness of this love by many considerations. Then go to the second point, and examine, 1. The fruit of Christ's mission, the salvation of man, expressed negatively, that he should not perish, and positively, that he should have eternal life. Speak of these one after another. After this observe, 2. For whom the benefit of Christ's mission is ordained, believers. And, lastly, enlarge on the word whosoever, which signifies two things. 1. That no believer is excluded from the benefits of Jesus Christ. And, 2. That no man, as such, is excluded from faith, for all are indifferently called.

In texts of reasoning, the propositions which compose the syllogism must be examined one after another, and each apart.

Sometimes it will be even necessary to consider the force of the reasoning, and to make one part of that also.

Sometimes we shall find a proposition concealed, which it will be proper to supply. You must in such a case consider, whether the hidden proposition be important enough to make a part, which it will sometimes be, as in Rom. iv. 1. What shall we then say that Abraham, our father as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? for if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. Divide this text into two parts. 1. Con