This truth has been partially demonstrated in the course of the foregoing remarks. It follows, moreover, as a consequence from the nature and design of the Gospel. The religious discourse which is not plain is neither Christian nor French. The Divine word should be understood by all, even by the poor woman who crouches into a corner of the church; for she too has a soul to save, and her soul is as precious in the sight of God as the soul of a rich or learned man: perhaps more. This is one of the glories of Christianity. Human lore is only within the reach of those who are able to comprehend it, or who have money enough to pay for it. {161} The word of God is for all; and none can be deprived of it, as far as the preacher is concerned, without a grave dereliction of duty on his part. Severe censure is passed upon those professors who, to further their own ambitious views, take great pains with some of their pupils and neglect others. This is called a crying injustice, plundering the parents, and so forth. But the matter under consideration involves something far more serious than a pecuniary robbery. We are all bound to preach the Gospel. Now, the Gospel is remarkably plain. When it was first announced, or while the facts which it narrates were extant or palpable, it must have been surpassingly so. Hence it is not surprising that the multitude upon whom our blessed Lord had been pouring forth the torrents of His Divine eloquence, exclaimed:--"Never man spake like this man!" Further: he who does not use plain speech does not speak French; for the French language is naturally plain, limpid, and simple, insomuch that obscure speech is not really French: it is Teutonic, a jargon, or a patois; but it is by no means the language of the great Frank people. All our most celebrated and popular writers and orators had a clear and impressive style. Their weakest passages are those which are most obscure. {162} Voltaire possessed this perspicuity in a high degree; and it was partly on that account that he acquired so much influence and popularized so many errors. His speech was true French, both in expression and conception; but there was no heart in it. He had perfectly mastered his own tongue, and had equally learned to know the people with whom he had to deal. He who does not use plain speech proves that he possesses neither a knowledge of men nor a knowledge of the Gospel; nor even of his primary duties. But it will be said:--Is it not occasionally allowable that one should clothe his thoughts in language above the common, in order thereby to raise religion and the preacher in the eyes of the people, who admire what they do not understand?