manuscript. But, if it is vital that every word should be so precise, the style

so polished, and the thoughts so logical, that the preacher must write the

sermon entire, is not the message important enough to warrant extra effort in

perfecting its delivery? It is an insult to a congregation and disrespectful to

Almighty God to put the phrasing of a message above the message itself. To reach

the hearts of the hearers the sermon must be delivered--it is only half

delivered when the speaker cannot utter it with original fire and force, when he

merely repeats words that were conceived hours or weeks before and hence are

like champagne that has lost its fizz. The reading preacher's eyes are tied down

to his manuscript; he cannot give the audience the benefit of his expression.

How long would a play fill a theater if the actors held their cue-books in hand

and read their parts? Imagine Patrick Henry reading his famous speech;

Peter-the-Hermit, manuscript in hand, exhorting the crusaders; Napoleon,

constantly looking at his papers, addressing the army at the Pyramids; or Jesus

reading the Sermon on the Mount! These speakers were so full of their subjects,

their general preparation had been so richly adequate, that there was no

necessity for a manuscript, either to refer to or to serve as "an outward and

visible sign" of their preparedness. No event was ever so dignified that it

required an _artificial_ attempt at speech making. Call an essay by its right

name, but never call it a speech. Perhaps the most dignified of events is a

supplication to the Creator. If you ever listened to the reading of an original

prayer you must have felt its superficiality.

 

Regardless of what the theories may be about manuscript delivery, the fact

remains that it does not work out with efficiency. _Avoid it whenever at all