The Evening Star MONDAY, MARCH 2, 1874

Evening Star, Issue 3440, 2 March 1874, Page 2

The Evening Star MONDAY, MARCH 2, 1874

We cannot but think that the importance of pulpit oratory has been considered to be much greater than it really is. That in past ages it had very great influence cannot be denied; by means of sermons people in many countries were induced to undertake enterprises, to go on distant journeys, to take part in wars, to do, in short, all sorts of things. The reason of this is perfectly plain; sermons were in those days the only instrumentalities available for stirring up the minds of men. The preachers had, in fact, no compete tion to contend against. People, too, in the old days to which we refer, were incurious to the last degree, and very easily satisfied. It is true that the human mind then, as now, demanded some sort of reason why it should assent to a particular form of belief; but the merest parade of a few logical formulae sufficed to satisfy the men of old that they ought to believe such and such a dogma. In those days it was a rare thing to find a man who had the boldness to examine the premises from which a preacher reasoned, to see whether they were true or not. All lie required was rhat the conclusion should follow more or less certainly from the premises. If a mail could be satisfied that the doctrine that unbaptized children must spend eternity in the torments of hell followed from the particular articles of his creed, he was prepared to receive that doctrine, and it was seldom that a man could be found who had the courage to ask himself whether it was not possible that the documents and creed which had led him to such a fear* ful and horrible conclusion might not possibly be more or less untrustworthy. In those days, we say, preachers had a real power, and could manage the understandings and consciences of men with very considerable ease. All that sort of thing is now changed, however, or is fast changing, and in a few years the old, old fashion of being contented with anything in the shape of premises will almost have died out, even among people far down the scale of society. The fact is that people are beginning to see that premises are the all-impor-tant thing in religion as well as in science; that sound and useful con-, elusions are easily arrived at by immediate inference from just premises ; and that, as a rule, it is only doctrines of the most doubtful and shady nature that require to be supported by long and intricate trains of deductive reasoning. To take a somewhat trite example: it used to be assumed that when epidemic disease came upon men it was a token of God’s wrath. Of course it could be made to follow by a long chain of argument that no practical good could result from any efforts that might be made to war’d off such a visitation, because the sender of the disease was so powerful: such a disease was, therefore, allowed to do its worst. Now, men have established by diligent scientific observation the premise that epidemic diseases are fostered by filth and vice and misery, and it follows immediately that the spread of such diseases can be prevented by cleanliness, foresight, and attention to the wants of the distressed. The fact is that we have changed pur method. Formerly they used to say what things must necessarily be, and then by reasoning deduce consequences from these creations of their own imaginings; now we try to find out what is, and having found this, we believe in the results which immediately follow from such a reality. The former is the old scholastic method, the latter the modern scientific. It is the latter which has an influence on the thoughts and beliefs of men in the present day; the other is about worn out. The place, therefore, of Luther, Knox, Calvin, is now occupied by Tyndall, Proctor, Huxley, Stewart, /sg. These are the reasons which induce ns 1 to believe that mere pulpit eloqiience is at present of very little importance one way or the other. Men have chosen

their intellectual leaders, and will abide by the choice. Bub still the clergy have very important work to do, and we conscientiously believe they are doing it, and doing it well. What this work is can hardly be better described than in almost the very words of Dr Stuart — “ They visit the sick and dying ; they comfort the sorrowful; they guide the inexperienced, and they conduct public worship.” If they continue to do this, they will deserve and obtain our lasting gratitude and esteem ; but if they arrogate to themselves the position of intellectual leaders and masters, tl)ey will find their claims ever more and more emphatically disallowed.

In what we have said above, we, of course, do not mean to imply that good preaching is altogether useless. We maintain only that it is of quite secondary importance. Every sect has certain tenets, and it is well that the expounders of those tenets should be able to lay them before their hearers as clearly and distinctly as possible. But, as we have said, the dogmatic method —that is, the method of assuming certain postulates, rightly or wrongly, to be true, and arguing from them—has now lost a very great deal of its power; the scientific method, or the one which assumes nothing that has not been established by rigorous induction, alone having much real influence over the minds of educated men. It follows, then, that a preacher, whatever his ability, being by seemingly unalterable custom bound to make use of the dogmatic method only, can really exert but little influence, and therefore preaching is at present of much less importance than the other duties which we have before alluded to.