partes, should never repeat but mutually exclude each other; and there should be no mingling of their various classes, no arranging of the species and proper subdivisions in the same rank with the genus and the proper divisions. This is the general rule; but when the proper subdivisions are of great practical importance, they may, by rhetorical license, be elevated to the same rank with the proper divisions. For example, The conscious effort to live a holy life benefits the soul; first, by revealing to it its moral imperfections and thus assuaging its restlessness; secondly, by comforting it amid the trials of life and at the hour of death; thirdly, by securing treasures for it in the life to come. Now the logical partition of this theme would be: The conscious effort for holiness benefits the soul, first in this life, secondly in the life to come. But the blessings of this life are divided, in the rhetorical arrangement, into two species, constituting the first and second heads, and these are arranged in the same class with the genus, comprising the blessings of the future state, and constituting the third head. The practical importance of considering, with marked attention, these two species, is a valid reason for giving them this illogical prominence.

In order to promote the perspicuity and strength of a discourse, it is necessary that its parts be so arranged as to make the preceding prepare the way for the succeeding, and the whole discourse rise in a gradation, from the less important to the more important. The topics which interest the intellect alone, should precede those which excite the imagination also and the feelings; and those which animate the lower sensibilities, should come before those which stimulate the higher. So the least cogent arguments should precede the more forcible, and thus allow the latter to exert an influence which no subsequent considerations will diminish. If the weaker arguments come last, they will efface somewhat of the impression produced by the stronger. It was recommended by the ancient rhetoricians, that one part of the arguments be placed at the beginning of the discourse, so as to make the first impression a strong one; that another part be placed at the close, so as to make the final impression strong also; and hence that the weaker arguments be placed in the middle, where they will be in some measure hidden from view. This arrangement was compared to the disposing of the forces of an army, so as to place the most inefficient troops in the centre, and to surround them with the bravest: Iliad, Book IV. v. 297 seq. But Quinctilian justly doubts the uniform propriety of this rule, and prefers that the arguments be arranged according to circumstances, but always ne a potentissimis ad levissima decrescat oratio. The secular eloquence of Greece and Rome allowed

1848.]

Simplicity of the Partition.

745

the introduction of reasoning processes which were designed merely to deceive, and therefore were to be so placed as to elude the scrutiny of the judges. But sacred eloquence, excluding all proofs which are merely apparent and deceptive, requires that the thoughts which make the deepest impression on the mind of the speaker, and which will therefore be uttered with the greatest earnestness and listened to with the most profound attention, be so placed as to cause the hearers to rise, with the preacher, in a regular climax. Hence the arguments from reason should precede those from Scripture. On the same principle, the objections against the proposition are to be introduced before the direct proof of it. Else they will confuse the mind, diminish its interest in the discussion, and prevent the due influence of the positive argument. First, the hearers are to be convinced that the proposition can be true, and this is done by removing their previous objections; secondly, they are to be convinced that it must be true, and this is effected by the positive proof. In the arrangement of the objections, the strongest should be placed first, and the gradation should be regular from them to the weakest, and thus the way is prepared for the direct arguments. The same principle is to be observed in the arrangement of the explanatory heads. The most remote explanations should be placed first, and there should be a gradual progress, nearer and nearer to the full statement thus progressively explained. Hence negative heads are proper in a discourse, and should precede the positive.

It is an important rule that the partition be simple, that is, contain as few parts as the clearness of the investigation will allow. It can, however, be made too simple. Particulars may be reduced to such general propositions, that the whole discourse will be too abstract for the common mind; often, then, should the individual and concrete statement be preferred to a more comprehensive one, because it is better adapted to the imagination and the feelings. Reinhard has a sermon on the duty of those who are called to severe and mysterious afflictions. He might have adopted the simple division into the outward and inward duty, but he prefers a less general classification, and makes prominent the following obligations: first, such mourners should be earnest in thought; secondly, modest in their judgments; thirdly, submissive in their feelings; fourthly, conscientious in their actions; fifthly, cheerful in hope; and sixthly, holding fast upon him who, through the suffering of death, has been crowned of God with glory and honor. Such a plan is far more vivid, and leads to a more impassioned peroration than the simple and comprehensive one first mentioned.

In the search for the simplicity of a partition, writers are tempted to express their theme in a style so general as to require too great a number of subordinate heads. A sermon will not allow such a multiplicity of subdivisions as is proper for a scientific treatise. The evil of this extended dissection is not always removed by what is called the symmetry of a plan. This consists in making all the parts of the discourse equal to each other in length; each of the principal heads correspondent with every other in the number of its subordinate heads; and each class of the subordinate parts correspondent in its style and significancy with every other class. One partition, for example, may detail a certain number of the causes of a certain fault, and another partition the same number of the remedies for it, each remedy being applicable to the cause which numerically corresponds with it. This symmetry is made the more conspicuous by an exact resemblance or contrast in the phraseology of the partitions. The pulpit affords far more license for such symmetrical arrangements, than was offered by the secular eloquence of antiquity, the latter being unequal to the former in subjecting the plan of the discourse to the choice of the orator. There is great danger, however, of making a sermon artificial by this search for evenly balanced partitions. The thought is often distorted for the sake of regularity in the style. The charm of variety is sacrificed to the uniform measure of the divisions and subdivisions. This measure may be allowed when and only when the true, harmonious presentation of the thought requires it. We should study the demands of the subject, and should comply with them rather than the stiff rules of rhetoricians. Quinctilian censures those, qui partitionem vetant ultra tres proposi tiones; and says, Hoc aut alio tamen numero velut lege non est alliganda (partitio), cum possit causa plures desiderare.3

8. Conclusion.

Cicero says of Pericles," tantam in eo vim fuisse, ut in eorum mentibus qui audissent, quasi aculeos quosdam relinqueret."3 True elo

'Dräseke has a sermon with the following interrogative proposition : “Does not the religion of Jesus require too much of us?" and with the following responsive division: 1. It seems, indeed, to require too much, (a) when we consider its commands according to their letter and not according to their spirit; (b) when we make the conduct of the masses our standard of the capabilities of the race; (c) when our own failings cause us to distrust our moral faculties. 2. It does not seem to require too much, (a) when we consider the spirit of the commands; it cannot seem to require too much, for, (b) if so, it is not for man; and, (c) if so, it is not from God.

2 Inst. Orat. L. IV. c. 5.

* Cic. De Oratore, L. 3. c. 34.

1848.]

The Recapitulation.

747

qence has its triumph in the epilogue or peroration. The total impression of the discourse does not, indeed, exclusively depend on the manner of ending it; for the power of the conclusion must be derived, in great measure, from the substance of what has preceded. All parts of the discourse should converge to the final impression; all should conspire to the end. Still, the mode of collecting the means of this final impression, and of bringing them to their designed result, has been considered by all rhetoricians as preeminently important. A failure here is an essential evil to the whole. If the conclusion be not intimately connected with the parts which have gone before it, the discourse will be offensive through want of an unbending adherence to one purpose. If the conclusion be deficient in liveliness and strength, the discourse offends against the law of gradation, which requires the preacher to ascend; and, as far as he is able, to take his hearers with him from one stage to a higher, until he reach the most elevated point in the peroration.

There are different methods in which he may gather up the influences of his discourse, and combine them in one predominant impression. Among these methods, the ancient orators attached a high value to the recapitulation. The Greek rhetoricians termed it araxeqahaíwais or inávodos. Cicero calls it "enumeratio, per quam res disperse et diffuse dictae unum in locum coguntur, et reminiscendi causa unum sub adspectum subjiciuntur." It is not to be denied that an animated, compressed, forcible repetition of the most important parts of the discourse, such a repetition as will give to the hearer an instantaneous, a comprehensive, and an affecting view of the entire theme, such as shall present this theme in its just proportions, and give the needed prominence to its most essential parts; such as shall combine in itself all the power which has pervaded the preceding divisions, and unite in one focus their enlightening and warming rays, is an essential aid to the hearer's intellect, in particular to his memory, and is also a persuasive appeal to his will. Nothing can be more appropriate as the finale of a sermon. But when the recapitulation is introduced abruptly, without seeming to grow out of the body of the sermon, when it is loose instead of precise, diffuse instead of condensed, when it is dry, stiff, lifeless, calmly didactic rather than energetically persuasive, a mere and a cold repetition of preceding topics rather than a vital concentration of them, when it is uniformly introduced in the same style and wants that variety and versatility which the excited minds of the hearers require, then it defeats its own end, and is more proper for any other part of the sermon than

1 De Inventione, L. 1. c. 52.

for the final part. When an orator aims to control the immediate action of his auditors, he may apply the most powerful stimulus by condensing all that he has said into a brief peroration, and thus bringing down his whole address suddenly and with its accumulated, compressed force upon their minds. What can exceed the effectiveness of Cicero's final summary in his orations for Archias, Cornelius Balbus, and Aulus Caecinas, and of the recapitulation of Demosthenes contra Leptinen.

Although the usages of the German pulpit make the recapitulation a regular, they do not make it a necessary mode of concluding a sermon. It is better fitted for the logical and systematic discourse than for the free homily, especially when this homily is upon an historical text or a parable. The more numerous and the more diversified are the topics of remark in a sermon, so much the more inappropriate is the recapitulation; for it becomes so much the more deficient in unity and in brevity. Often it is requisite that the conclusion spring from the last head in the body of the discourse; that the former be a fervid continuation of the latter, and of course that there be no part intervening like a recapitulation. The last topic in the body of such discourses is the result of all that has gone before, it renews and enlivens the impression of all, and renders any further repetition unnecessary. Sermons which pursue the regressive method,1 often end their discussion with a topic which of itself involves the preceding heads, and cannot be wisely separated from the concluding appeal. It is a mistake to suppose that the main influence of a sermon as a whole, depends upon the final repeating of its leading ideas and the orderly arrangement of them in the hearer's memory. These ideas may have stamped their indelible impress on his mind, even if he cannot recollect them in their exact method. He may be affected by their substance, while he cannot recall them in their precise form. Their impression may have been already made upon his feelings, and his present state of emotion may be the whole result which the sermon was intended to produce. This result will not be increased, it may be diminished, by the formal recapitulation. Accordingly, the ancient orators do not uniformly repeat their leading ideas in their perorations: see Cicero, pro Ligario and pro Lege Manilia, and Demosthenes contra Midiam. Tzschirner has objected to Reinhard's sermons, because

1 The regressive (analytic) method in a discourse, is that which goes backward from the sentiment of the text to the considerations which sustain or illustrate it; the progressive (synthetic) method is that which goes forward from the proofs or illustrations to the sentiment of the text; the apagogic, is that which proves the doctrine indirectly by showing the impossibility or absurdity of its opposite (reductio ad absurdum, or ad impossibile); the ostensive, is that which proves the doctrine directly by its appropriate arguments.