defeat the effect, as in a novel.

As for division into Chapters. This was much thought of and desired; but
the nature of the subject presented obstacles that seem insurmountable.
One topic necessarily ran into, or overlapped, another. No chronological
unity, if the work had been thus cut up, could have been preserved; and
much of the ground would have had to be gone over and over again.
Examinations, Trials, Executions were, often, all going on at once.

There is danger of a diminution of the continuous interest of some
works, thus severed into fragments. There are, indeed, animals that will
bear to be chopped up indefinitely, and each parcel retain its life: not
so with others. The most important of all documents have suffered
injury, not to be calculated, in their attractiveness and
impressiveness, by being divided into Chapter and Verse, in many
instances without reference to the unity of topics, or coherence of
passages; dislocating the frame of narratives, and breaking the
structure of sentences. We all know to what a ridiculous extent this
practice was, for a long period, carried in Sermons, which were
"divided" to a degree of artificial and elaborate dissection into
"heads," that tasked to the utmost the ingenuity of the preacher, and
overwhelmed the discernment and memory of the hearer. He, in fact, was
thought the ablest sermonizer, who could stretch the longest string of
divisions, up to the "nineteenthly," and beyond. This fashion has a
prominent place among _The Grounds and Occasions of the Contempt of the
Clergy and Religion_, by John Eachard, D.D., a work published in London,
near the commencement of the last century--one of the few books, like
Calef's, which have turned the tide, and arrested the follies, of their
times. In bold, free, forcible satire, Eachard's book stands alone.
Founded on great learning, inspired by genuine wit, its style is plain
even to homeliness. It struck at the highest, and was felt and
appreciated by the lowest. It reinforced the pulpit, simplified the
literature, eradicated absurdities of diction and construction, and
removed many of the ecclesiastic abuses, of its day. No work of the kind
ever met with a more enthusiastic reception. I quote from the Eleventh
Edition, printed in 1705: "We must observe, that there is a great
difference in texts. For all texts come not asunder, alike; for
sometimes the words naturally fall asunder; sometimes they drop asunder;
sometimes they m