his words, height in his expression, force in his reasonings, and, when occasion is, a very artificial and engaging way of insinuating into the minds of his hearers. Witness his speech at Athens on the occasion of the inscription on the altar to the unknown God, and before Agrippa and Festus."

With reference to the expression "plainness of speech" there seems to be more than one mistake. First, it betrays no inconsiderable carelessness to speak of it, (when quoted from 2 Cor. iii. 12,) as opposed to enticing words and excellency of speech, for Tappnoía clearly means in that passage, as it is elsewhere translated, boldness and openness of speech, not homeliness and the absence of ornament. And, secondly, it is equally erroneous to suppose that plainness of speech-meaning thereby, as we have used the term at the beginning of this letter, perspicuity— is inconsistent with ornament and beauty. We often employ metaphors, and similes, and figures, for the very purpose of rendering our speech more plain and forcible. When our Saviour called the Scribes and Pharisees "a generation of vipers," he spoke plainly enough, though he used a figurative expression. Nor do we suppose that St. Paul used more plainness of speech when he said in simple terms, "We are reconciled to God by the death of his Son," than where he bursts forth into that noble strain of eloquence, " For

this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that he would grant you, according to the riches of his grace, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height, and to know the love of God which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled with all the fulness of God 1."

1 Ephes. iii. 14– 19.

LETTER XV.

ON STYLE-AS DEPENDENT ON THE CHOICE OF

WORDS.

WE will proceed to consider style first with reference to the choice of words, secondly their number, thirdly their arrangement.

First, with regard to choice of words. In every sentence you write, several sets of words and phrases will present themselves, by which nearly the same sense may be conveyed to the hearer. The question is, on what principle to exercise your choice. The general rule should be-since clearness is the first requisite to choose such words as stand most precisely and exactly for the idea which you wish to give-words which represent the idea, the whole idea, and nothing but the idea, which it is your object to communicate. These are technically called proper words1.

1 Whately's Rhetoric, 178. Part iii. ch. ii. sec. 1.

The first error against this rule is to substitute words which are positively incorrect and injurious to the sense. For instance, you will sometimes hear doctrine put for precept, fortitude for courage, mutual for common, endurance for duration, and the reverse. Do not think it altogether superfluous to be put on your guard against these mistakes, for instances might be quoted even from clever writers, and heard in the mouth even of good preachers.

But the more frequent deviation from precise language, is the use of general instead of particular terms. Nothing so much impairs the perspicuity and force of language as vagueness. If you fall into the too common habit of preaching, in general terms, on virtue and religion, vice and wickedness, without specifying the particular sins which "do most easily beset" men, and the particular excellences and comforts of the paths of godliness, your hearers will carry away but a vague and transient impression of your meaning. You will never preach effectively without being very careful to select the most specific and appropriate language; and this point should be attended to in every line. There is almost always a choice between a more or less appropriate, a stronger and a weaker term. Open any book,-for instance, the New Testament, at Philippians i. 6.: "Being confident of this very thing," says the Apostle he might have given nearly the same sense if he had merely said "knowing this;" but how much weaker

the expression!

"Abhor that which is evil, cleave to that which is good:" how much stronger than " Cease to do evil, learn to do well."

This, then, is the general rule,-to use specific and appropriate words. There are, however, many occasions on which it is expedient to vary from this preciseness of speech.

Force and vivacity are sometimes gained by particularizing where a general expression would have been equally as correct in point of sense. Every one knows how much the vivacity of an anecdote is increased by the names of the parties, and the circumstances of time and place. Aware of this, determined story-tellers do not always scruple to fill up what is wanting from their invention. Do not be surprised if I recommend you to adopt the same principle1. You have the highest authority: "Consider the lilies of the field," says our Saviour, "how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin; yet I say unto you, that even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these "." In comparison with this beautiful and vivid passage, how poor is the following paraphrase "Consider the flowers how they gradually increase in their size. They do no manner of work, and yet I declare to you that no king whatever in his most splendid habit is dressed like them." The principle on which this sort of language is so

1 See Campbell's Philosophy of Rhetoric, ii. 166; and Whately's