from its long eclipse, at the Reformation, there were few things more remarkable than the universal return of evangelical preachers to the expository method. Book after book of the Bible was publicly expounded by Luther, and the almost daily sermons of Calvin were, with scarcely any exceptions, founded on passages taken in regular course as he proceeded through the sacred canon. The same is true of the other reformers, particularly in England and Scotland." In the times of the Nonconformists the textual method came into practice again; but, notwithstanding, exposition was considered a necessary part of ministerial labour. Matthew Henry is a conspicuous example of this, who, although he frequently preached from single texts, yet "on every Lord's day morning expounded a part of the Old Testament, and in the evening a part of the New, in both instances proceeding in regular order."

[Sidenote: Modern Examples]

In modern times Charles H. Spurgeon has followed the example of Matthew Henry to a great extent. He preached topically, with great interest and power, but at almost every service the exposition of Scripture was made a distinctive, and always popular, feature of the exercises. The late Dr. Howard Crosby was heard to say that, in the course of his pastorate in New York, he had thus given instruction to his people on every verse in the Bible. The writer, also, can add his testimony to the fact that this method of preaching is delightful both to pastor and people. Both need training for it, but when once the taste has been acquired it demands constant gratification.

Let me now supplement these observations on the nature and history of expository preaching with some remarks upon its practicality and value.

[Sidenote: The Easy Way]

In the first place, when the art is learned, it is the easiest form of preaching; and this is saying a good deal in an era of the conservation of energy. The other day my attention was called to an announcement of a series of Sunday evening discourses by a city pastor, on "The Gospel in Recent Fiction," in the course of which he proposed to speak of the spiritual and ethical teaching of some half-dozen of the popular novels of the day. I could not but think if he had put the same time and interest into the reading and analysis of as many books of the Bible, he would have worked less and accomplished more. It might be said he would not get as many people to hear him, but I doubt the truth of that statement, if it were known what he was going to do, and if he did it well. Moreover, there is another side to the question. The Watchman says: "Time and again we have seen Sunday congregations increased greatly under the stimulus of what is called 'up-to-date' preaching, but the church as a spiritual body, effective for achieving the true ends of a church, became progressively weaker. The outsiders said that it was doing a tremendous work, but really it was not doing anything like the work it did in the days of its comparative obscurity."

At the risk of enlarging upon this idea beyond its due proportion, it is difficult to resist the temptation to quote a further paragraph from the Interior, to the effect that "nothing is of less value to the church than a full house—except an empty one. We happened the other morning," says the editor, "—it was Monday—to meet the treasurer of an important city church whose doors had been crowded the night before. We congratulated him upon the success of his pastor in 'filling the pews.' 'Yes,' was the hesitating reply, 'he has filled the pews, and filled the vestibule, and filled the pulpit steps—but he has emptied the collection baskets. We have the biggest audience in the city, and will soon have the biggest debt.' In another city two thousand miles distant, and in another denomination, we came upon a church from whose doors hundreds were turned nightly away. Three years later we asked the principal layman how the church was doing now, and he replied, with a tinge of sadness, 'We had a grand debauch under Brother X., and we haven't quite recovered from it yet.'"

[Sidenote: The Proper Way]

It is not only the easiest but the most appropriate form of preaching, i.e. it assumes and compels on the part of the preacher a large knowledge of the Word of God and aptness in imparting it. As was remarked in part, before, in another connection, where no extended exposition is attempted the preacher is naturally induced to draw upon systematic treatises, philosophical theories, works of mere literature, or his own ingenuity of invention and fertility of imagination; with the result that the rhetorical aspect of preaching attracts undue attention, and the desire to be original, striking, ingenious and elegant supersedes the earnest endeavour to be biblical. There are few ministers, honest with their own souls, who will not admit the truth and the seriousness of this implication. Here, too, is how heresy comes to raise its head and grow apace. The biblical preacher is always orthodox and evangelical, and has no trouble in remaining so.

And this is the same with his congregation, for here we have a rule that works both ways. A biblical preacher comes, in time, to make a biblical church, and should that not be the aim of every minister? Should not his example be that of Paul, "teaching every man in all wisdom, that he may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus"? The truth, however, is, as the authority quoted above says, that "the scriptural knowledge possessed by our ordinary congregations, amidst all our boasted light and improvement, bears no comparison with that of the Scottish peasantry of the last generation, who, from very infancy, were taught to follow the preacher, in their little Bibles, as he expounded in regular course." Why hear we so much in these days of Bible Training Schools and Bible Conventions, and Union Bible Classes and the like? They are good signs of the times, and bad signs. They demonstrate a hunger on the part of some of the people of God for His Word, and an inability to have it satisfied in the place where they naturally belong. Every church should be more or less truly a Bible Training School, and the pastor the head of it.

It is the most useful form of preaching. Dr. Alexander has some excellent observations that fit in under this head, every one of which I have experienced to be true in my own ministry, and earnestly recommend to the prayerful consideration of my brethren.

[Sidenote: The Useful Way]

For example, expository preaching affords inducement and occasion to the preacher to declare the whole counsel of God. It keeps him from neglecting many important doctrines and duties which otherwise would almost necessarily be overlooked. It gives a symmetry and completeness to his pulpit efforts. It promotes variety and enables him to escape ruts. To how many people are such biblical truths as predestination and election unwelcome! Yet, how important they are, how necessary to be discussed and explained by the minister of the Gospel, and how likely to be avoided nonetheless! But let him be expounding Romans, and he must deal with those difficulties, and glorify God in the doing of it. I say glorify God; for the reason that those doctrines, and some others, are abhorrent to the popular mind, is chiefly that they are usually set forth in their "naked theological form," and not in their scriptural connection.

And then, too, there are certain sins which every pastor feels he ought to inveigh against once in a while, but from which he is prevented either from delicacy, or through fear of being considered personal in his remarks. Let him adopt the expository method of preaching, however, and his hesitation in these respects will be removed as he comes across the very themes that should thus be touched upon, in