========================================================================
  THE ART OF PREACHING IN LIGHT OF ITS HISTORY
  by Edwin C. Dargin
========================================================================

Dargan's survey of the history of preaching from the apostolic era to the modern
day, examining how the art and practice of proclamation has developed across
different periods, cultures, and theological traditions.

  Chapters: 8

------------------------------------------------------------------------
  TABLE OF CONTENTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. 01 - Chapter 1
    2. 02 - Chapter 2
    3. 03 - Chapter 3
    4. 04 - Chapter 4
    5. 05 - Chapter 5
    6. 06 - Chapter 6
    7. 07 - Chapter 7
    8. 08 - Chapter 8

========================================================================
  CHAPTER 1: 01 - CHAPTER 1
========================================================================

THE ART OF PREACHING IN THE LIGHT OF ITS HISTORY LECTURE I BIBLICAL, AND
CLASSICAL BASES OF PREACHING AS AN ART WHEN your honored President gave me the
invitation on behalf of the Faculty of this Seminary to deliver a course of
lectures on the Holland foundation my first feeling was that of gratification at
receiving this honor and opportunity. My second thought was what theme should be
chosen for a series of addresses intended mainly for preachers and those who are
deeply interested in preaching.

Since many years of my life were given to the study and teaching both of the
theory and the history of preaching it was not hard for me to believe that I
might hope to bring to you something of interest and profit in a brief historic
survey of the main features of the art or theory of preaching as it has been
taught and practiced in the course of the Christian centuries. We have come,
after an easily understood analogy, to call the subject Homiletics, and to
provide for the teaching of it in our seminaries for the training of preachers.

Homiletics needs and deserves a new appraisement. It is worthy of a more
scientific study and treatment than it usually finds among those who teach and
learn it, and it is entitled to far more respectful consideration than it ever
has received from thinkers in the wider ranges of general science. The
importance of preaching in history and in existing social conditions would seem
to justify, if not demand, a better attitude toward the theory of preaching.
Whether regarded merely as an accepted discipline of the theological schools, or
more justly as a body of long and carefully tested principles for guidance in
the performance of a great social task, homiletical theory has a claim to
scientific recognition and treatment.

Along with the other Christian institutions, preaching has a notable history as
one of the great forces which have made for human culture. If there is a history
of art, of science, of philosophy, of literature, of music, of worship, of
doctrine, of hermeneutics, of criticism, is there not also a history of
preaching and of its theory? And are not these histories worth research and
record? As in other great departments of knowledge a double process of
development may be traced; that of action and that of thought practice and
theory.

All along they have reacted on each other; practice has developed theory and
theory has in turn guided and improved yes, sometimes refined and weakened
practice. The question is, Is preaching an art? If our notion of art is
hopelessly vitiated by thoughts of unreality and mere artifice, we ought not to
think of preaching as an art. But if we have the proper conception of art we
need not fear the term. If any sustained action and product of the human mind
and body working together to effect impression through expression may be called
an art, preaching certainly falls under that definition. This is the practical
side.

Then is Homiletics an art? That which teaches how an art may be learned and
practiced may itself be called an art. This is the theoretical side. The total
concept of an art then lies in the cooperation of theory and practice to the end
of expression in a product which shall in its turn produce impression. Art is
social or nothing. An observer or observers must be either real or imagined.
Even the pseudo-critical phrase, “art for art’s sake,” carries this implication,
for it sup poses an uncritical or undeveloped taste which must be cultivated;
and this, of course, necessitates those in whom the faulty taste resides.

Now the sense-appeal of art is almost exclusively to eye and ear; at least the
other senses may be left out of account, as they must in all cases be either
substitutes or auxiliaries. But it is evident that the primary and simple appeal
of art to sight and hearing is enlarged, complicated and enforced by combination
and derivation. All public speaking, oratory in general, is accordingly a
complicated and highly developed art.

Taking up the group of arts to which preaching and its theory belong, we have no
difficulty in relating them directly to oratory, and more generally to the
language arts. Now the language arts may be distinguished, according to the mode
of expression, as oral and literary. Whoever seeks to express himself in
language so as to produce impression must do so either through signs and
characters which appeal to the eye (written or printed words) or through sounds
and modulations which appeal to the ear (sung or spoken words) or by some
combination of these modes of expression, as where written or printed words may
be spoken or sung, or words that have been spoken or sung may afterwards be
written or printed and read silently. It is easy then to define the place of
preaching among the language arts; if there is written preparation for it, or if
there is written or printed reproduction of it, a place may be given to it among
the literary arts; but if, as its nature requires, we have in mind chiefly
public verbal expression for the sake of impression, then preaching is one
branch of the art of oratory. But it is more than this. Its other connections
and aims forbid that it should be so simply and narrowly defined. It is an
established institution of the Christian religion; as such it is a function of
worship; it is a means of public instruction in religion and morals; it is a
great and worthy social occupation to which some of the best intellects and
characters in human history have been devoted; it is, in the preparation
required for its best exercise and in its actual performance, an individual
function possessing both interest and merit. What is here said is presented from
the practical side, but the theoretical side is necessarily involved, for the
teaching of the art and the principles back of the teaching are wrapped up in
the practice. The historic development of a theory or art of preaching arose and
proceeded from a combined Biblical and classical (Graeco-Roman) initiative. The
Bible furnished the motive, content and inspiration of Christian preaching,
while the classic (Graeco-Roman) oratory (practice) and rhetoric (theory)
supplied forms and rules for public discourse. We are therefore helped to a
better understanding of the historic unfolding of Homiletics by a survey of the
Biblical and classical impulses from which that development started. The
Biblical Impulse

We are ready to ask then, Do we find any traces of rhetorical, or homiletical,
theory in the Scriptures Preaching there is, and of the noblest sort; but along
with the practice is there anything which may fairly be called theory or art? If
this means any set of definite rules for the composing and delivering of
religious discourses we of course must answer in the negative; but if it implies
that certain principles to guide in the practice of preaching may be found in
the Bible, we shall have to say that at least hints and suggestions are given in
both the Old and the New Testaments. As to the Old Testament, granting that the
prophets represent the proclamatory and the scribes the didactic, and both
classes the hortatory, elements of preaching as a practice, are there any
indications of a corresponding theory of religious discourse? Were there any
accepted canons and any definite instruction as to the manner of giving
religious discourses? It must be confessed that the data for forming an opinion
on this point are somewhat scanty; but they are not wholly want ing. A slight
indication is given in the provision for general education among the Hebrews.
Three stages are recognized in the progress of Hebrew education: (1) the early
period when home was the place and parents the teachers; (2) a later period,
after the exile, when to the preceding there were added the scribes and the
synagogue; (3) the last period, that of the rabbis and their schools. In all
these it was incumbent on the learners to read and copy and repeat passages of
the Scriptures. In the later times the public reading and exposition of
Scripture seem to presuppose at least some instruction for the better
performance of the duty. In all periods we know that careful attention was paid
to the very words of the sacred text.

There is a more definite indication in the literature of the Old Testament. Its
general character, especially in the prophetic writings, gives evidence of more
or less of training in the art of expression, both oral and literary. There is
unmistakable indication of care and presumably, therefore, of previous
instruction in oratorical composition. Of course natural ability must be
presupposed, and the divine call and empowering must not be forgotten; but along
with all this one cannot read the remains of Joel, Amos, Micah, Zephaniah, and
others of the minor prophets, and still less the immortal utterances of Isaiah
and Jeremiah, without feeling sure that these men had studied to good effect the
best ways of making their messages impressive to their hearers. They were not
only great orators but trained orators.

They not only knew, but knew how. The case of Amos is of special interest
because in a well-known passage (Amos 7:14-15) he disclaims being a prophet or a
son of a prophet. But this disclaimer seems to refer to his occupation prior to
his call and authorization rather than to lack of technical preparation for his
work. On the contrary Dr. Davidson * speaks of Amos as the “oldest literary
prophet, “ and as having “the prophetic mannerism and technique.” In the books
of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes there are a few striking traces of rhetorical care,
implying at least some rhetorical culture. Wisdom, instruction, and propriety i
Hastings D. B., IV, p. 109. of speech are noted in Proverbs 1:1-4; and in
Proverbs 25:11 we have a rhetorical principle of perennial importance: “A word
fitly spoken is like apples of gold in network of silver/ In the classic
passage, Ecclesiastes 12:9-12, we find a “preacher,” or master of assembly, who
was himself “wise” and “taught the people knowledge,” who “pondered,” “gave
ear,” “sought out proverbs,” sought “ac ceptable words,” or “words of delight”;
there is praise of “the words of the wise” which are as “goads,” or incitements
to action, and as “nails” which hold a structure together; there is mention of
“many books” and of “much study,” with cautionary advices. Certainly from hints
such as these we may infer that in the preparation of men for public duty as
religious teachers, attention was duly paid to the study and selection of the
language and form of discourse.

Further inference as to the existence of rhetorical instruction among the
Hebrews may be drawn from their institutions: the order of Prophets, the order
of Scribes, and the Synagogue. The long continued activity of an order of men
whose chief duty was public religious speech certainly implies not only a body
of traditional principles for the better performance of that duty, but also some
instruction in those principles. The fact that so-called “schools of the
prophets” are known to have existed adds force to this deduction, but too much
force must not be allowed to it. For the school,” as applied to these
communities or bands of prophets, is not itself found in the accounts of them;
and we have no means of knowing how much attention was paid in these guilds or
communities to study and disciplinary training for the exercise of the prophetic
function. We may not, however, resist the conclusion that there was likely to
have been some such instruction; but it would be a violent assumption to
discover in the notices of these “sons of the prophets” a description of a
modern theological seminary with its course in Homiletics! * It is not important
for our present inquiries to determine the time when the order of scribes arose.
We find them well established in New Testament times, and they certainly existed
long before then. Their main business was the interpretation and teaching of the
law, but this was enlarged to mean the whole body of Scripture. So that theirs
was primarily a teaching function. While thus the content of their teaching is
the main thing, yet it is reasonable to infer some attention to the form also of
their discourses. The hortatory or applicatory part of their teaching called
haggada was really preaching. Prof. Eobertson Smith, as quoted in Hastings Bible
Dictionary, says it was “doctrinal and practical admonition, mingled with
parable and legend... It was recognized as a rule of faith and life, and
embraced doctrinal topics, practical exhortation, embellishments and fabulous
developments of Bible narratives.” It is

1 See 1 Samuel 10:5, 1 Samuel 10:10, 1 Samuel 10:12; 2 Kings 2:3, 2 Kings 2:5, 2
Kings 2:7, 2 Kings 2:15; 2 Kings 4:1, 2 Kings 4:38; 2 Kings 6:1. scarcely to be
denied that for instruction in this kind of teaching there must have been
something more than example, though as to the amount and details of such
technical training we are left to conjecture. Yet it is surely not an
unreasonable inference, in view of the evidence which has been presented that
there was some kind and degree of rhetorical or homiletical instruction among
the ancient Hebrews. Can we find any traces of homiletical teaching in the New
Testament? The historic basis of Christian preaching as such, both in its
proelamatory and didactic forms, is of course to be found in the work of Jesus
and his apostles. They preached both in the synagogues and in the open air, in
private houses and other more retired places, as occasion offered or required.
The content of their message is also well understood and need not here be
considered. Among their teachings did they include any instructions which may
fairly be called homiletical? Did Jesus and his apostles teach others how as
well as whet to preach?

First, let us inquire whether the teaching of Jesus shows any attention, either
in his own practice or in his instructions to others, to rhetorical, or
homiletical, principles? x Let us waive the curious question of any instruction,
general or homiletical, which in his human development our Lord i There is a
thorough and able survey of the preaching and methods of Jesus in The Master
Preacher a Study of the letics of Jesus, by Albert R. Bond, D.D. may have
received. It is not improbable that he attended the synagogue school at
Nazareth; but that he owed much if anything, humanly speaking, to the schools,
either as to the contents or the manner of his teaching is exceedingly doubtful.
The astonishment produced by his teaching, its marked contrast to that of the
scribes, and especially the wondering question (John 7:15), “How knoweth this
man letters, having never learned?” all go to show that the traditional lore and
methods of the schools were little or nothing to him. But does his teaching show
any care of form and method, as well as of content? Did he have and practice we
ask with all reverence a homiletical method of his own? In his addresses as we
have them there is wealth and vari ety of what may be called homiletical
material.

Scripture fills an eminent place, being employed as authority, quoted
frequently, often expounded, habitually assumed as revelation, and reverenced as
the word of God. Authoritative assertion, based on his glorious consciousness of
truth, gave power to his speech and impressed his hearers as one of his most
marked qualities. Yet also he frequently used argument with powerful effect, and
that both in its direct and indirect forms; his refutative logic was often
crushing. And what is to be said of his wonderful illustrations? From the more
elaborate parables down to brief mention and passing allusion there was mastery
of this method of preaching. His application of truth to his hearers, both
individual and general, is thorough, appropriate; often final. Thus in the
Master’s own practice we find the indispensable and perennial homiletical
categories of Scripture, Experience, Argument, Illustration, all used with
marvelous skill to the crown of them all; Application. But what of order and
language, or in rhetorical phrase, Arrangement and Style? While we discover no
prominence of logical order or distinctly marked analysis in the recorded
discourses of Jesus, there is yet in most of the longer ones an evident order
and progress of thought, showing that he was not indifferent to this element of
power in public discourse. The fadeless charm of his language scarcely needs
comment; at times sweet simplicity, then suggestive obscurity, poetic grace,
logical strength, fitness to thought and occasion, moving eloquence all were at
his command.

We do not find in our Lord’s sayings or teachings any definite instructions
which could be called homiletical; but his own example of careful speech, his
remarks (Matthew 12:36-37) about the value of words, his teachings on many other
points of detail in regard to hearing and preaching, his instructions in regard
to prayer, and the general command to preach, may be taken as giving some hint
at least that in his unrecorded teachings he may have sometimes touched upon
matters regarding the forms and methods of presenting truth. It may be worth
while to remark that the language of Matthew 10:19-20, cannot be interpreted as
forbidding preparation for preaching; for it distinctly refers to over-anxiety
on the part of the disciples in regard to their defense when they should be
brought before rulers for the gospel’s sake. (See also Luke 12:11-12; Luke
21:15) In the Acts and Epistles there are some data from which we may infer at
least a measure of attention to homiletical theory. The reported addresses of
Peter in the early chapters of Acts show excellent homiletical skill. The
narrative manner of Stephen’s speech (Acts 7:1-60) suggests the synagogue
method, as does also that of Paul in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13:1-52). There is
clear evidence in Paul’s addresses of rhetorical training, both Jewish and
classical. The short report (which most probably was given by himself) of the
notable address on the Areopagus at Athens reveals not only a rare degree of
oratorical skill, but the sure traits of culture. And the same may be said of
the defense before Festus and Agrippa. In 1 Corinthians 1:17; 1 Corinthians
2:1-5, 1 Corinthians 2:13, we have the passages in which Paul depreciates as a
medium of communicating the gospel “the words which man’s wisdom teacheth,”
stating that on coming to Corinth he determined to “know nothing among them but
Christ and him crucified.” These utterances have been unwarrantably pressed in
the interest of discrediting proper study, and also in support of the unfounded
hypothesis that Paul was conscious of bavins: made a failure at Athens when he
attempted to use oratory in its home, and came to Corinth chastened and
determined to discard in the future any attention to rhetoric. All this seems to
me utterly wrong. It is far more likely that Paul would have taken his speech at
Athens as an illustration of the principle here laid down. For when we remember
that the style of popular speaking in that sub-classical age was degenerate and
tawdry, bombastic and extravagant, we must see that the noble restraint, the
sincere dignity, the faultless style of the Athenian address is as far as
possible removed from the prevailing rhetorical fashion. It is good homiletics
at any time and place to discard the meretricious aids of false taste and
exaggerated conceits, and deliver a plain, chaste, straightforward message. This
Paul did and commended. In the Epistles to Timothy several passages contain
excellent homiletical hints, though of course nothing like formal homiletical
instruction. Among the qualifications of the bishop (1 Timothy 3:2) is that he
shall be “apt to teach,” implying skill as well as character and knowledge. In 1
Timothy 4:13-16 Paul urges that Timothy “give attention to the reading, the
exhorting, the teaching”; that he should not neglect his gift, that he should
“meditate on these things,” and that he should “take heed to himself and his
teaching.” In 1 Timothy 5:17 he speaks of the elders “who labor in discourse and
teaching.” In 2 Timothy 1:13 he mentions a “form of sound words” and though this
refers probably to the body of doctrine, yet the phrase is significant. In 2
Timothy 2:2 he exhorts that what Timothy had received he should commit to
“faithful men who should be able to teach others also”; in 2 Timothy 2:15-16 he
urges that Tim othy be diligent to be a good workman, shunning “profane and vain
babblings”; and in 2 Timothy 2:24 again insists on aptness to teach as an
indispensable qualification for the minister. We cannot be wrong in inferring
from these hints that a previous and continued training for the preacher’s task
would, in Paul’s view, include attention to the manner as well as the content of
his message. And on the whole we may say that while nothing like formal
homiletical instruction in the modern sense may be found in the New Testament,
yet there are clear indications that the ability to present the truth of God
effectively in human speech is both exemplified and enjoined by the highest
authority. And this surely is the essence and justification of homiletical
theory.

We come now to see how to some extent parallel with this Biblical teaching there
grew up, espe cially among the ancient Greeks and Eomans, a highly developed
rhetoric, or theory of public speaking which joined with the Biblical principles
to produce in time a theory of preaching, or art of Christian discourse. The
Classical Impulse The splendid oratory of the Greek and Roman peoples during the
flourishing periods of their history is too well known to need more than passing
reference. Along with the practice a theory was also developed, and the
Graeco-Roman rhetoric has been a rich storehouse of principles for all
subsequent times. In deed, there has been little of real value or original
thought added to the ancient treatises.

What has followed has been mostly in the way of necessary development and of
adaptation to later times, languages and conditions. The Greek theory of oratory
received its most scientific and enduring expression in Aristotle’s work on
Rhetoric. Aristotle died in 322 B. C. The Ro-man rhetoric found its best and
completes treatment in the works of Cicero and Quintilian, the former of whom
died B. C. 43, and the latter about A. D. 120, possibly earlier. The Roman
rhetoric was very largely dependent on the Greek as was the case in other
departments of literature though Quintilian *s work is a far more finished and
complete performance than Aristotle s.

We thus see that at the time when the ancient rhetoric came in contact with the
post-biblical preaching the theory of public speaking had reached a high state
of development and needed only adaptation to Christian discourse. And
homiletical theory, both in its origin and in its development, is the
application of accepted principles of public speaking to the particular ends and
demands of the Christian gospel. Our business now is to trace briefly the rise
and perfecting of this ancient classical rhetoric up to its impact upon the even
more ancient though partly parallel development of Biblical prophecy, preaching
and hermeneutics. The origin of the Greek people and their language cannot be
traced, but their history and literature reveal them as a speaking people. In
the Homeric poems the heroes are orators as well as warriors. Herodotus and
Thucydides, as well as other historians, make record of speeches, and even
report or invent them. Thucydides devotes especial attention to the noble
oratory of Pericles. The drama also indicates the sway which oratory held in the
popular esteem and customs. Lastly, oratory itself extended from practice into
literature and theory. Published orations and treatises on the art of speaking
are the latest development of Greek letters. Grote accounts for this oratorical
element of Grecian culture as lying in the genius and language of the Hellenic
peoples, in their love of liberty and their forms of government, in the parallel
and sympathetic development among them of philosophy and art, in their popular
assemblies, and especially in the nature of their law courts and systems of
pleading. Jebb points out two forces in the origin and development of technical
studies of oratory: (1) The impulse given to Greek thought and culture by the
dialectic philosophy of the Ionian schools; and (2) the technical rhetoric of
the Sicilian teachers.

Neither of these movements originated at Athens, but both found early lodgment
and careful attention in the chief seat of Hellenic culture. The dialectic
impulse came chiefly from Protagoras (who taught how to make the weaker cause
appear the stronger), Prodicus (who taught how to distinguish synonyms), and
Empedocles, the philosopher-poet of Sicily. The strictly rhetorical impulse came
from Gorgias (a pupil of Empedocles), Korax, and Tisias (a pupil of Korax), all
of Sicily. Grote was inclined to recognize Empedocles and Gorgias as the
beginners of properly rhetorical instruction among the Greeks, but Jebb, with
apparently better reason, considers Korax of Syracuse (B. C. 466) as the founder
and father of Greek rhetoric, so far as that distinction may be given to any one
man. At any rate it was he that published the first treatise which professed to
give rules for the art of public speaking. In B. C. 466, Thrasybulus, tyrant of
Syracuse, was overthrown and a democracy established. By him and his
predecessors much land had been from time to time confiscated and bestowed on
different ones, so that on the fall of the tyrant numerous claimants for these
lands arose, and there was great confusion as to titles. The causes had to be
tried before the popular courts, and the claim ants were required to present
their arguments in person. Many were timid and unskilled in speaking. So Korax
drew up a system of rules and taught the pleaders how to present their claims.

Cope, in his Introduction to Aristotle’s Rhetoric (p. 28), speaks very
slightingly of this famous treatise, saying that it was occupied wholly with the
argument from probability which was nothing more nor less than to make the worse
appear the better reason, “in other words, to subvert truth and justice.” I have
never seen the treatise nor any analysis of it and cannot therefore uphold or
dispute the fairness of Cope’s criticism; but it seems a little one-sided and
severe though no doubt well founded. Tisias was a pupil of Korax and carried on
the work of his master. Gorgias, a contemporary of these and a pupil of
Empedocles, came to Athens on a political errand and so captivated the Athenians
by his florid style of eloquence that he was (no doubt easily!) induced to
remain and become a teacher of the art of speaking. After him the orator
Antiphon combined theory and practice by being both a pleader in the courts and
an instructor of others. Lysias, as is well known, wrote speeches for his
clients; and Isaeus, the teacher of Demosthenes, did likewise, besides giving
instruction in oratory. The method of these earliest teachers has perpetuated
itself. There was study of treatises, like that of Korax, which was speedily
followed by many others; there was lecture or conversational discussion with the
pupils; there was critical study, under the teacher’s guidance, both of the
poets and orators; and there were models fur nished by the teacher, and
exercises submitted by the pupils. Thus, as often, are we reminded of the famous
saying of Sydney Smith, that “the ancients have stolen all of our best ideas.
“Greek oratory and rhetoric practice and theory came to their culmination in the
same age; the one in Demosthenes and the other in Aristotle, both of whom died
in the year 322 B. C. The immortal treatise of Aristotle was the fruit of his
reflections and teachings during the years of his great career as a teacher at
Athens of all the elements of knowledge current in his day. The limits of this
lecture forbid any study of this mar velous man and his many-sided and lasting
influence upon thought and culture. We have here in view only his rhetorical
theory. Quintilian some where states that Aristotle was accustomed to talk on
rhetoric with his pupils as he walked, on the covered ways (peripatoi, hence
Peripatetic) of his famous Lyceum, in the afternoons. We might infer from the
wretched style and arrangement in which the great treatise reaches us that post
prandial dullness and jog-trot conversation both figured somewhat in its
preparation. Perhaps it is more charitable to assume that the work was not
written by Aristotle at all, but is only the conglomerate notes of his pupils
and taken in after noon walks! At any rate some sort of apology is due to
posterity for the form in which this most interesting and valuable production
has come down to us. A brief synopsis of its contents is all that can be here
presented.

After preliminary definitions and explanations the three main topics treated as
essential to rhetorical theory are Arguments (xforttf). Diction (Ae z), and
Order (ragity and it might be assumed that the treatment would adhere to this
lucid and comprehensive division, but it does so only in a general way. There
are three books and the outline of them is this:

Book I. The Nature of Oratory and Rhetoric.

(Aristotle himself gives no such indication of his matter. This heading is
inferred from the contents.) In chapters 1-3 there are introductory definitions
and explanations: The relation of logic to rhetoric is stated, the utility of
rhetoric defended, and rhetoric is defined as “the faculty of considering in any
subject that which will in duce belief. It is the art of persuasion and there
fore deals mostly with argument. Arguments are classified as (1) Technical
(those which lie in the scope of rhetoric itself, i. e., may be produced or
discovered by the speaker); and (2) Untechnical (those which lie outside of the
speaker’s mind, external, legal, documentary, etc.). The Technical or Rhetorical
Arguments are further explained as being derived (1) from the character of the
speaker, (2) from the disposition of the hearer, and (3) from the speech itself
i. e., the form its argument takes, whether (-1) enthymeme (rhetorical
deduction) or (b) example (rhetorical induction). The three kinds of oratory are
then distinguished: (1) Deliberative (political, legislative); (2) Epideictic
(no good English equivalent; show oratory, declamatory, platform, belonging to
some occasion, memorial, invective, etc., in other words “the big speech”); (3)
Judicial, or Forensic (pertaining to law courts). In chapters 4-15 there follows
a more detailed discussion of these, with suggestion of the topics appropriate
to each. As an appendix to the treatment of judicial oratory Aristotle mentions
and dismisses the untechnical arguments, such as testimony, oaths, deeds, etc.

Book II. Discussion of the Technical Arguments TTiffreis. The threefold
distinction is reduced to two by merging the first two (those relating to
speaker and hearer) into one, which are called ethical arguments, and are
treated at length in chapters 1-18. In this section (2-11) there is an acute
discussion of the feelings and how they are to be reached, such as anger and
placability, love and hatred, confidence and fear, benevolence, pity, etc.
Varieties of character and condition (age and fortune) are also brought under
penetrating review, and the way to deal with them.

Then the logical arguments, i. e., those inhering in the speech itself, are
taken up and discussed in chapters 19-26. First he briefly notices the common
topics (c. 19), i. e., those belonging to all kinds of oratory, such as
possibility, fact (past or future), and degree. Then there is a strong study of
the rhetorical induction and deduction (example and enthymeme). Of the latter
there is an ill-arranged enumeration of twenty-eight varieties.

Then comes a discussion of fallacies and of refu tation.

Book III. Diction (Style,A#tf) and Order (Ar- By way of preliminary in chapter 1
the three fold division into argument, style and arrangement is noted. Then the
matter of delivery and voice is taken up. The subject is dismissed in a very
brief but luminous and suggestive way.

Then follows a disjointed and repetitious discussion of diction or style. It is
full of good things, but does not readily lend itself to brief analysis, and to
enumerate all the points would take too much space. Such matters as faults of
diction and construction, use of words, figures of speech, purity, dignity,
rhythm, etc., are presented with sense and spirit. The four chief “virtues” of
style are held to be: clearness, fitness, impressiveness, and beauty. Lastly and
briefly, chapters 13-19, ar rangement is considered. The necessary parts of a
speech are only two: Proposition and Proof; but Introduction and Conclusion may
be added, making four. The Introduction may be derived from the speaker, the
subject (or occasion), the audience, or the opponent. The Statement, or
Narration varies according to the kind of oratory Epideictic, Forensic, or
Deliberative. The Proof may be either direct (arguments appropriate to the kind
of oratory again) or indirect, as interrogation, reply, ridicule. The Conclusion
has one or more of four aims: (1) To incline the hearer favorably; (2) To
amplify or dimmish for effect; (3) To appeal to feeling; or (4) To recall the
line of thought.

It is a remarkable fact that this, the most suggestive and scientific treatise
on rhetoric which appeared in ancient times, and almost in any time, came not
from a professional rhetorician nor from an orator, but from a great all-round
philosopher who was chiefly intent on other subjects but took this in as an
important element of his teaching. This goes far to explain both the merits and
the glaring defects of the work. It is easy to criticize its faulty arrangement,
its inadequate definition, its dry and difficult style, its vexatious
obscurities, and many other details here and there. But on the whole criticism
is lost in admiration when we consider the ample knowledge, the wealth of
illustration, the penetrating judgment and discrimination, the broad and firm
grasp of fundamental and universal principles, the depth and acuteness of
thought, and the exhaustiveness of suggestion displayed in this brief and
vigorous treatise. How much Aristotle may have owed to his predecessors we may
not say, but probably not much; for he commonly speaks very slightingly of other
works. As it stands Aristotle’s Rhetoric is the supreme achievement of the
Hellenic mind on the subject of which it treats. Besides the Rhetoric Aristotle
wrote a less valuable work, to which he sometimes refers the Topics, or helps to
invention. In the early Roman times there was a developing native oratory, but
the later influence of the Greek practice and theory gave both to speaking and
writing a Grecian method and bent. The lack of originality in the Latin literary
product is notorious. Yet there was some slight theoretical instruction in
public speaking in the early republican days of Rome. The Senate and Forum
taught by example. Cato the Censor spoke contemptuously of rhetorical studies,
and Crassus (himself an orator) when consul warned the people against the
encroachment of Greek studies in this art. But Crassus had himself studied the
Greek rhetoric, and Cato in spite of his growling had drawn up a set of rules
for speaking derived mainly from his studies in Greek literature. One of his
short rules is worth remembering: Rem tene, verba sequentur.

About B. C. 100 formal instruction in both Greek and Latin literature and
rhetoric is said to have begun at Rome. Mommsen (Vol. III., p. 565) mentions an
ancient Latin treatise on rhetoric dating from the time of Sulla as being “
remark able not merely for its close, clear and firm handling of the subject,
but above all for its comparative independence as respects Greek models. “Julius
Caesar wrote a treatise on the art of speaking correctly, and dedicated it to
Cicero a fact which the orator mentions with pride (Brutus, chap. Ixxii), and
proceeds to say that Caesar “laid it down as an axiom that an accurate choice of
words is the foundation of eloquence. “ Cicero’s own rhetorical works are well
known the treatise on Invention (derived almost entirely from Aristotle’s Topics
and claiming no originality), the famous dialogue on the Orator, and the Brutus,
or dialogue on the Celebrated Orators. These were not manuals of instruction,
but literary treatises, very pleasant reading and giving careful discussion from
many points of view of the accepted principles of oratory traditional and
prevalent in Cicero’s time. But the great Latin treatise on rhetoric is the
truly admirable and exhaustive work of Quintilian, the Education of an Orator,
or, as sometimes called, the Institutes of Oratory. In passing from Aristotle to
Quintilian we make a great leap: in time it is nearly four hundred years; in
culture it is from the Greek at its culmination to the Roman in its early
decline; in men it is from a great all-round thinker and genius to a cultivated
specialist of excellent talent but no great depth of thought; in works it is
from the original and suggestive but incomplete and unpolished production of a
master mind chiefly intent and notably great in other departments, to the highly
elaborated single achievement of a sound judgment and well-read intelligence
directed through a long life to this one task.

Little is known of the life of Quintilian. Born, it seems, in Spain he came to
Rome in the brief reign of the emperor Galba, and remained there a teacher of
rhetoric all his long life, dying probably in A. D. 118, or thereabout. He was
highly esteemed both in character and as a highly successful teacher. He was one
of the first of those who received at Vespasian’s order a salary from the public
revenues of the city; and Domitian committed to him the education of his
great-nephews, presumably heirs to the purple. By the same emperor he was
invested with the insignia of the consulship an event which is thought to have
occasioned Juvenal’s sneer: Si fortuna volet fies derketore consul. Quintilian
was incidentally a pleader in the courts, but with all his heart a teacher of
oratory. And the practice and teaching of a lifetime are condensed in his famous
book. This elaborate and satisfying production is wrought out in twelve books.
It was actually written in about two years, though the studies, labors and
reflections of many years lay back of its publication. It covers a wide range as
the course of education was in that age chiefly rhetorical discussing many
subjects which would now be classed in other departments of culture. It is
complete in topics, thorough and discriminating in treatment, and attractive in
style. The first book treats of the primary education of youth preparatory to
oratorical training; the second book discusses the nature and principles of
rhetoric; from the third to the seventh inclusive, the topics of invention and
arrangement are considered; from the eighth to the eleventh, style and delivery
are handled; and in the twelfth there is discussion of some important practical
matters such as the orator’s morals, principles, choice of work, retirement,
etc. The work has always been recognized by competent judges as a masterpiece.
It has, of course, greatly colored and influenced all subsequent teaching and
treatment of rhetoric. It is far superior to Aristotle’s work as a manual, as
well as in the completeness and orderliness of its treatment, though falling
below in originality and power of thought. The two treatises taken together
represent the consummation of the Graeco-Roman rhetoric. A word must be said in
regard to the place of rhetoric in the ancient systems of education. It was a
leading place. The so-called Seven Liberal Arts, as later developed and
correlated, were: Grammar, Dialectic (Logic), Ehetoric the Tri-vium; and
Arithmetic, Geometry, Astronomy, and Music the Quadrivium. The post of honor
belonged to the first three; and as both grammar and logic were closely
connected with rhetoric, they were considered as necessary parts of the
instruction of the orator. For teaching rhetoric, with grammar (or literature)
and dialectic, teachers and schools abounded in all the ages of the Graeco-Roman
education. During the first five centuries of the Christian era rhetoric in the
larger sense, including literature held the chief place in school education.
Vespasian is reported by Suetonius to have ordered that the salaries of teachers
at Rome should be paid out of the municipal treasury, and this is held to be the
beginning of state education. But Julius Caesar is said to have had a similar
scheme in mind; and he actually did establish schools in Gaul. After Vespasian
various emperors added to the dignities and emoluments of teachers, in some
cases making their salaries a charge upon the municipal revenues of the chief
provincial cities. Marcus Aurelius endowed chairs of rhetorical instruction at
Athens. In A. D. 425 Theodosius II established a grand imperial school at
Constantinople, directly under state control and supported by the government. It
had thirty-one professors, most of whom taught rhetoric and the related
subjects. Thus at the time when Christianity ceased to be persecuted and became
a care of government, a great system of education in which the theory of
speaking was a central, and perhaps the leading, element, had come to be
thoroughly wrought out and established. Not only was education in this way
chiefly rhetorical in tone, but a fondness for popular eloquence had also been
developed and maintained, and in some sort a critical (though often vitiated)
taste had been cultivated. It was into a society thus educated and trained that
the longer, though part of the time parallel, stream of Biblical prophecy and
preaching poured its new volume of power. And thus the preaching and homiletics
of patristic and mediaeval times received their classic impulse.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 2: 02 - CHAPTER 2
========================================================================

LECTURE II THE ORIGIN AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF AN ART OF THEORY OF PREACHING A.
D. 100-600 THE period covered in this lecture is that generally known as the
Patristic Age, or the Period of the Fathers. It extends from the beginning of
the second century to the close of the sixth. Writers differ as to the exact
limits, but those adopted here are convenient for our purposes. The end of the
New Testament canon with the first century, and the pontificate of Pope Gregory
I, bishop of Rome (590-604), give suitable turning points for the study of our
subject. For a reason which will soon appear the latter part of the period is
particularly important for us, and so it will be convenient to divide it into an
earlier and a later epoch, the first extending from 100 to 400, and the second
from 400 to 600. During the first of these epochs there was, especially among
the Greek preachers, considerable practice of rhetorical art in discourse, but
it was not until the publication of Augustine’s epoch-making little book On
Christian Teaching (Doctrina Christiana) in 397 and 426 that a definite theory
of preaching was formulated and published. That work, of which the fourth book
was published in 426, has the distinct honor of being the first treatise on the
art or theory of preaching. In the meantime the exposition of Scripture as a
part of Christian worship, which followed the close of the New Testament canon,
began to be influenced more and more by rhetorical teaching and practice, as we
shall now see by a survey of conditions prevalent during the second, third and
fourth centuries. The Earlier Developments, A. D. 100-400

Within this important and fruitful epoch the two lines of development which we
have already traced worked together side by side to produce a real theory of
preaching at its end. The old illustration of two streams coming together is
appo site here. After the junction each in a measure keeps its place till at
last there is fusion. The classical rhetoric and the Biblical principles of
preaching for a time flowed parallel in the same channel and finally mingled.
The dominance of rhetoric in the school education of the time must ever be borne
in mind. This had a double effect on homiletical theory: (1) It secured to the
educated by actual culture, and to the uneducated by imitation and custom, the
application of the common principles of rhetoric to preaching. An educated man
entering the Christian ministry in that age could be safely assumed to know how
to construct and deliver a discourse. We know that this was true of the great
preachers; and what was the case with them was true of others to some degree.

(2) But on the other hand the exaggeration, bombast, unreality, and sophistry
which marked and marred the oratory and rhetoric of the age put many of the
Fathers into a critical and cautionary attitude toward the rhetorical teaching
then cur rent. We have seen already that Paul probably alludes to these
perversions in his remarks to the Corinthians about the “persuasive words of
man’s wisdom.” We find a good deal of this caution in the allusions of the
Fathers, and it was far from unnecessary. So that the attitude of the Christian
teacher toward current rhetorical theory as applied to preaching was eminently a
corrective one. Theory did not so much need to be learned as chastened and
applied to Christian uses. In regard to the working out of Biblical principles
of public speech in the practice and teaching of the Fathers there are four
matters of importance to be remembered: (1) The influence of the noble content
of the gospel message and the Bible morality upon those who would set them
before others must not be forgotten. This was a note which ancient oratory and
the teaching of it never had. (2) More particularly the actual use of the
prophets and apostles as models of effective religious speech, especially as
they were regarded as immediately inspired of God, must not be over looked. (3)
But along with these considerations a most powerful influence in shaping
homiletical theory was the very nature of preaching itself, as being primarily
an interpretation and application of Scripture. As oral tradition declined and
the canon of Scripture was formed and closed, and as the body of disciples grew
and became diversified, the preaching became more and more an exposition and
turning of Scripture to the spiritual and moral profit of the hearers. Thus
arose the “homily,” or talk, and the basis of it was a careful interpretation of
the Bible. And so in all the after history of preaching and its theory the
relation of Homiletics to Hermeneutics has been close and vital. (4) Nor must we
forget that along with the authority of the word that of the teacher was an
important matter. Paul had already recognized this, and with the development of
the episcopate in the patristic age the appointment and authorization of the
presbyters as teachers and preachers become highly important. This tended to
increase the dignity of the preacher and render more needful his attention to
the form of his discourses. And with this the leadership and care of the
congregation had influence in determining the theory of pastoral duty in general
and hence of preaching also. In the writings of even such great preachers as
Gregory, Chrysostom and Ambrose pastoral care receives more attention than
homiletical theory. The writings of the Apostolic Fathers, so far as I have
noticed, do not contain anything of value as to the progress of a theory of
preaching. The discussion of teachers and prophets in the Didache says nothing
on the point; and the Ancient Hom ily, formerly known as the Second Epistle of
Clement, is not a production of special merit as a sermon, nor does it mention
or suggest anything of force as to rhetorical training. With the rise of the
Apologists in the second century we come upon evidences of a more liberal
culture in the Christian writers, and this naturally carried with it more
attention to rhetoric. Tertullian who on some accounts may be classed with the
Apologists was trained as a rhetorician and lawyer, and his writings show the
influence of his training as well as the natural traits of the orator. It is
not, how ever, till we come to Origen in the third century that we can feel at
all sure-footed in dealing with our subject. In the preaching, teaching and
enduring influence of that great scholar and teacher we begin to discover more
distinct traces of a real art of preaching, and of instruction in its
principles. There is no formal treatise on preaching among his works; but
scholars have collected pas sages from his writings which enable us to present
his homiletical teachings in a somewhat orderly way. 1

Origen’s example and teachings encouraged a higher appreciation of the homily as
a studied discourse. Before his time it had been only a loosely iPaniel,
Geschichte der Christlichen Beredsamkeit, SS. 138-149; 153-157; 166-170. Nebe,
Zur Geschichte der Predigt, I, SS. 1-40.

Broadus, Lectures on the History of Preaching, p. 51ff. connected string of
comments on the passage of Scripture selected. Nor does it in fact become much
more than that in his hands; yet there is progress both in preparation and in
form. But he is careful to warn against the abuse of rhetoric.

He compares the prevalent rhetoric, dialectic and grammar to the leaven of the
Pharisees, which the disciple of Christ should avoid, yet says: I i But a lucid
discourse, the splendor of eloquence, and the art of arguing are with propriety
admitted to the service of the word of God.” Thus we see that it was the abuse
and not the use of rhetorical principles that he condemned. In this connection
it is to be remembered that Origen insists upon the preacher’s character as
essential. Indeed both Aristotle and Quintilian urge with all emphasis that the
orator must be a good man; and the Christian teacher could surely do no less.
The preacher, according to Origen, must not be an artificial and ambitious
orator, but a pure and spiritual man, a fit channel and instrument for
communicating the word of God to his hearers. But the main element of Origen’s
homiletics was hermeneutical. He insists that the preacher must get his message
from the word of God; and to this end, of course, study and interpretation are
necessary. Origen did not invent but he did elaborate and practice what is known
as the allegorical method of interpretation. In his time and in his hands there
were three modes of interpreting any given passage of Scripture: (1) the
grammatical and historical, by which the exact meaning of the text was sought
and set forth; (2) the moral or hortatory, whereby the ethical doc trine of the
text was applied to the hearers; and (3) the allegorical, or spiritual, whereby
some mystical or hidden sense beyond the literal meaning and especially suited
to minister to the spiritual life was wrought out and applied to the purpose of
edification. Later the methods were in creased to four by dividing the last into
the tropological and the allegorical, or the figurative and the spiritual. The
example and teaching of Origen did much to establish the allegorical
interpretation as particularly appropriate to preaching, and it is due to him
more than to any other individual, perhaps, that this abuse has been so
persistent in all preaching since his time. The fathers of the Western Church,
notably Ambrose and Augustine, adopted it with enthusiasm and practiced it with
amazing ingenuity and power. But we must do Origen the justice to say that his
motive in adopting and defending this spiritualizing of Scripture was primarily
devotional and practical. He was earnestly intent on making every word of
Scripture count to the “deepening of the spiritual life” to use a modern phrase.
And this purpose, in his mind, was of the utmost importance in preaching. Four
points, then, will summarize Origen’s homiletical theory: (1) The preacher’s
character must be sound and devout; (2) He must get his message from Scripture
by a careful study of all its possible meaning, literal and figurative; (3) He
must faithfully apply this meaning to life; (4) He must take thought for the
form and method of his discourse, using but not abusing the accepted principles
of the art of public speaking. In the earlier Latin fathers not much of
importance for our study is found. As already remarked, Tertullian was a trained
rhetorician, and the gifts of the orator were his also, but nothing is quoted
from him nor have I myself observed anything in such of his writings as I have
read in the way of a theory of preaching. Yet his practice and style were
potent. Cyprian was an ardent admirer and follower of Tertullian, and his
writings likewise show the training and practice of a rhetorician. In his Letter
to Donatus 1 Cyprian speaks as follows of the relations of secular and sacred
speech: “In the courts, in platform addresses let voluble ambition boast a
wealth of elo uence. But when it is speech concerning the Lord God, then pure
sincerity of speech rests for persuasives to faith, not upon the powers of
eloquence, but upon things (i. e., reality). In fine, use not eloquent but
forcible words, not those polished to attract a popular audience by artificial
speech, but simple enough to proclaim with plain truth the divine love.” Surely
this is good enough homiletical theory for any time. Paniel quotes similar
language from Arnobius, who among other good things says: “When things far
removed i Quoted by Paniel, op. cit., S. 230. from show are under discussion,
what may be said is rather to be considered than how pleasingly it may be said.
When we come to the Fathers of the fourth century it is necessary to bear
constantly in mind two most important considerations: (1) The great prevalence
of rhetorical instruction in the schools of the empire; and (2) the toleration
and patron age of Christianity by the state. The educational and social
advantages thus given to preaching profoundly affected both its practice and its
theory. We find toward the middle and end of the fourth century one of the great
historic culminations of preaching; and the five most famous pulpit orators of
the age were, without exception, rhetorically trained. These were Basil, Gregory
Nazianzen, Chrysostom, in the East; and Ambrose and Augustine in the West all of
whom enjoyed in marked degree all that the best rhetorical instruction of the
times could bestow. So also was it with others.

I have not found in my slight reading of Basil anything at all upon the theory
of preaching, but the more exhaustive research of Paniel 1 brings out the
following. He speaks in one of his homilies of the necessity of varying the
style of discourse according to the subject and audience, and says:

“For as a man whose business is war and another who pursues farming do not use
the same implements... so also the preacher cannot use the i Op. tit., S. 341f.
same mode of speech when he exhorts to the acceptance of the faith and when he
opposes adversaries. “ In another homily he urges that the discourse should be
as concise and pointed as is consistent with clearness, “so as to show many
things in few words, and on account of its brevity to be easy for the memory to
carry away. These excerpts can only make us wish that we had more of Basil’s
theory.

There is not much from Gregory Nazianzen, but that little is worth while. In one
of his songs (quoted by Paniel) he stoutly takes issue with the notion (its age
is no recommendation to it!) that it is more pious to be unprepared so as to
give free scope to the Holy Spirit. In one of his homilies also he speaks
similarly and says it is better in an assembly to speak and hear five
intelligible words than to pour forth an inexhaustible speech like a drum, but
without edification. It is evident that this great master of sacred eloquence no
matter what his practice at least in theory had no great respect for the
sky-lark method of preaching “profuse strains of unpremeditated art.” We should
look to find some homiletics in Gregory’s famous oration at Nazianzus on his
return from his retirement to Pontus, 1 in which he discusses with eloquence and
power his conception of the pastoral life and work. But it is mostly devoted i
Translation in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VII, p. 204ff. to the
practical and ethical side of the preacher’s life, with little that even
remotely bears on the theory of preaching. Teaching and preaching are named
among the elder’s duties, and adequate and studious preparation are insisted on,
but character and wisdom rather than rhetoric are the main topics of this
eloquent and thoughtful discourse.

One sentence at least I must quote, where in speaking long and acutely of the
folly of putting unprepared men into the ministry, he says: “And we may rightly,
in my opinion, apply to them the saying of Solomon, * There is an evil which I
have seen under the sun, a man wise in his own conceit; and a still greater evil
is it to charge with the instruction of others a man who is not even aware of
his own ignorance. “ Chrysostom, Am brose, and especially Gregory the Great,
were all deeply indebted to this vigorous oration of the Nazianzen for their
more elaborate treatises on the Pastoral Office. In his practice of eloquence
Gregory was often betrayed into soaring and prolixity. Perhaps his theory was
better. The world-famous preacher, John Chrysostom (347-407) of Antioch and
Constantinople, was carefully educated by Libanius, the best teacher of rhetoric
of the age. His sermons and homilies, of which a great number remain, give
constant evidence both of his native powers and of his excel lent training and
practice. The three parts of the typical preacher’s work are well illustrated in
this ancient prince of the pulpit. He was an admirable pastor, shrewd in his
knowledge of human nature and faithful and loving in service of his flock. He
was a careful and untiring student, especially of the Bible; his principle of
interpretation being that of Antioch rather than of Alexandria; that is, he paid
chief attention to the literal and moral teaching of the word, with little or no
allegorizing. And to crown it all he was a pulpit orator of the first rank. With
him practice is everything, and but little theory is to be found in his works.
Scholars have culled from his sermons here and there passages in which he speaks
of preaching. These set forth his homiletical principles. The preacher must
found his discourse on the word of God, discard ambition for oratorical display
and applause, and seek first of all the spiritual edification of his hearers.
Over and over again these principles are insisted on. More technically, he says
somewhere that an introduction is necessary to a well-ordered discourse, for a
number of reasons. And to this his practice agrees; his introductions are
usually excellent. More than in the homilies we might expect to find
Chrysostom’s theory of preaching set forth in his famous and delightful treatise
On the Priesthood; 1 but he is here chiefly occupied with the pastoral side of
the work, and does not say much about preaching. But that little is well worth
remem bering. In Book IV., 3, Chrysostom asserts that ability i Translation by
B. H. Cowper, London, 1866. to speak well is necessary for a presbyter, and
adduces Paul as an example. In the following chapters he elaborates this and
gives illustrations from Paul’s writings in support of his argument. In Book V.
he urges (c. 1) that to speak well requires much labor and study; (c. 5) that
the learned preacher must labor even more than the unlearned; and (c. 7) that he
should compose his addresses with a view solely to pleasing God and not man. It
is worth quoting what this eminent preacher says as to the need of work: “For
since speaking comes not by nature but by learning, although one may attain to
perfection in it, he who did not cultivate the faculty with constant zeal and
practice would at last turn out destitute of it.” That he conscientiously took
pains himself is beyond doubt.

We must now mention the great Latin father, Ambrose, the eloquent and celebrated
bishop of Milan toward the end of the fourth century. Am brose had the
conventional rhetorical education, and had been trained for the civil service.
His practice was formed on that of the Greek preachers of the Alexandrian method
of interpretation, and his allegorizing is excessive. I have found little if
anything of homiletical value in his writings. * In his treatise on the duties
of the ministry he owes much (by way of adaptation) to Cicero’s De Officiis, and
much (by way of borrowing) to i Works in Migne, Patrologia Latima, torn. 16; and
Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. X.

Gregory Nazianzen, but there is nothing of special interest on the theory of
preaching. In his Epistle to Constantius 1 Ambrose says that a preacher’s
sermons should be flowing, pure and clear, that by his gentle arguing he may
pour sweetness into the ears of the people, and by the graciousness of his
language soften down the crowd that they may willingly follow him.

We see then that in the early Fathers there are only scattered hints and traces
of a homiletical theory, but that it was forming on the combined principles of
the classic rhetoric and of Scripture.

It was getting ready to find formal and enduring expression through the great
mind of Augustine. The Later Developments, 400-600 As was pointed out in the
preceding discussion we have no definite theory of preaching before Augustine.
But in his famous treatise De Doctrina Christiana (On Christian Teaching) 2 we
come at last upon a distinct and worthy effort to formulate the principles of
public discourse as these apply to preaching. Both the title and contents of the
book show that the author had in mind preaching as the function of teaching the
“Word of God in a worshiping assembly of Christians, rather than as the
proclamation at first hand of the gos- 1 Patrologia Latina, torn. 16, col. 918
seq.

2 The Tauchnitz edition of the original. Translation by J. F.

Shaw in Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II. Good studies by Paniel and Nebe in works
previously mentioned. pel to unbelievers. His treatment therefore is a study of
the method of interpreting and publicly teaching the Scriptures. We must keep in
mind in regard to the author these three things: (1) That he was a carefully
trained rhetorician, and had taught rhetoric with success before his conversion
to Christianity; (2) That he was a devout and profound thinker and theologian,
fully committed to the view that the Christian Scriptures are an authoritative
revelation from God; (3) That he was a preacher and prelate of long experience
in the pastoral office when he wrote this treatise. Thus his equipment for his
task was admirable, and as complete as his times and his personal limitations
permitted.

Before taking up in detail the study of this famous treatise, it will be well to
remind ourselves of the main features in the life of its great and useful
author. Aurelius Augustinus (354-430) was born at Tagaste, Numidia, N. Africa,
in the year 354. His father was a Roman citizen of high standing and bore the
name Patricius. His mother, Monica, was a devout Christian and one of the great
women of history. She made her children the object of her prayers, and also by
her devoted Christian life gradually won over her somewhat harsh pagan husband,
so that in his later years he also became a Christian. The boy Augustine was
carefully educated from childhood and youth. He received the best culture which
the schools of the time afforded, and was trained to become a teacher of
rhetoric. That subject then included the study of Latin and Greek literature, as
well as the more distinctive rhetorical principles. As a boy Augustine grew up
very wild and reckless. His conduct was a great grief to his parents, especially
to his patient and lovely Christian mother. In his immortal Confessions
Augustine describes the sins and excesses of his young manhood, and then tells
the beautiful story of his conversion and of his last talk with his mother.

He had gone to Milan to teach rhetoric, and was there brought under the
influence of the famous bishop Ambrose. While there he was gloriously converted,
in 387. He at once devoted himself to Christian work. Soon after his conversion
his mother died, happy in the answer to her prayers.

Augustine was ordained a presbyter in 391 and settled at Hippo in North Africa.
Here he was ordained bishop in 395 and faithfully performed the duties of his
office until his death in 430. He was active and diligent as preacher and
writer.

He was a profound thinker, and has deeply influenced Christian thought for all
time. Many writings came from his hand. In describing his early life he speaks
of himself somewhere as a “seller of rhetoric,” thus somewhat satirizing his
profession. But all the same he had well used his studies in philosophy and
rhetoric and these contributed much to his success as a preacher, theologian and
writer. The treatise, On Christian Teaching, consists of four books, of which
the first three were written in the year 397, the fourth not until 426. The
first three are not strictly homiletical, but hermeneutical. They lay down the
principles of Biblical interpretation as these were conceived by Augustine.

He believes that the first duty of a preacher is to have a clear and correct
understanding of the Word of God; but it is also a rhetorical principle of the
first importance that a speaker should have something to say! Accordingly in the
opening chapter of the first Book he announces his purpose in these words: “
There are two things on which all treatment of the Scriptures depends: the
method of finding what is to be understood, and the method of setting forth what
has been under stood. We shall first discuss finding, then setting forth.” In
the prologue to the fourth Book (published thirty years later) he quotes this
language when taking up the second part of his proposed task. Thus the first
three Books are devoted to invention, and only the fourth, after a long
interval, is given to rhetoric, or homiletics, proper. On this we may remark,
first, that it was a well accepted rhetorical theory from Aristotle down that
the finding (invention) of material was the main thing, the mode of expression
secondary; and in thus giving first and more extended treatment to the materials
of discourse Augustine was but carrying out the rhetorical principles in which
he had been trained. Secondly, this procedure accorded well with the accepted
practice in preaching as it had been developed up to Augustine, namely, making
the careful interpretation of Scripture the principal element of discourse. For
our immediate purposes, however, the first part of the treatise On Christian
Teaching (Books L-III.) may be omitted, and only the fourth Book need be brought
under review. The following brief outline of this justly famous and profoundly
in fluential study of the art of preaching will give some idea of its highly
suggestive and useful contents; but neither outline nor translation can be
anything but a feeble substitute for the vigorous, terse, interesting original.
In chapter 1 the author says it is not his purpose to “lay down any rules of
rhetoric, such as I have learned, and taught, too, in the secular schools. These
are useful, but can be learned else where.” In chapter 2 he shows that “it is
lawful for the Christian teacher to use the art of rhetoric, and says: l Now the
art of rhetoric being available for the enforcing of either truth or falsehood,
who will dare to say that truth in the person of its defenders is to take its
stand unarmed against falsehood? For example, that those who are trying to
persuade men of what is false are to know how to introduce their subject so as
to put the hearer into a friendly or attentive or teachable frame of mind, 1
while the defenders of truth shall be ignorant of that art 7 That the i
Augustine here states the commonly accepted theory of the Introduction as given
by Cicero: reddere auditores benevolos, attentos, dociles. former are to tell
their falsehoods briefly, clearly and plausibly, while the latter shall tell the
truth in such a way that it is tedious to listen to, hard to understand, and in
fine not easy to believe? That the former are to oppose the truth and defend
falsehood with sophistical arguments, while the latter shall be unable either to
defend what is true or refute what is false? That the former while imbuing the
minds of their hearers with erroneous opinions are by their powers of speech to
awe, to melt, to enliven and to arouse them, while the latter shall in defense
of the truth be sluggish and frigid and somnolent? Who is such a fool as to
think this wisdom? Since then the faculty of eloquence is available for both
sides, and is of very great service in enforcing either wrong or right, why do
not good men study to engage it on the side of truth, when bad men use it to
obtain the triumph of wicked and worthless causes, and to further injustice and
error?” In chapter 3, however, Augustine is careful to show that a mastery of
rhetorical rules as such is not necessary to good speaking; that we can learn by
hearing and following eloquent speakers. A wise caution is given in these words:
“Care must be taken indeed lest the things which ought to be said escape from
the mind while attention is being given that they be said by art.” In chapter 5
he says that wisdom is more valuable than eloquence, but both are needed, and
goes on to show in the next chapter how the sacred writers employed both. As
there is an eloquence appropriate to the different ages of men, so there is a
species appro priate to men “who justly claim the highest authority and are
evidently inspired of God. With this eloquence they spoke; no other would have
been suitable to them.” Further on this point he beautifully says: “It was as if
wisdom were walking forth from its home the breast of the wise and eloquence,
like an inseparable attendant, fol lows without being called.” In chapters 7-9
he illustrates the combination of inspired eloquence and wisdom in the cases of
Amos the prophet and Paul the apostle, acutely and interestingly analyzing and
discussing passages from their writings. Of the passage in 2 Corinthians
11:16-30, where Paul speaks of his toils and perils, Augustine says: “The
thoughtful and attentive perceive how much wisdom there is in these words; and
even a man sound asleep must notice what a stream of eloquence flows through
them.” He cautions that the preacher must not imitate the obscurities of the
sacred writers, which, though proper to them, are not so to us. This leads him
in chapter 10 to discuss clearness of style and to say that it must be secured
even at the expense of other things if necessary, saying that it is of no use to
speak at all if our hearers do not understand us. In chap ter 11 he says that a
golden key which will not unlock the door is useless, while a wooden one that
does is better. Yet as even the food necessary to life requires seasoning for
some palates we must not reject elegance of speech where it is appropriate. In
chapters 12 and 13 he develops Cicero’s maxim that an eloquent man must so speak
as “to teach, to please, to move,” showing how the principle applies to the
Christian preacher. This is one expression which he gives to the principle:
Oportet igitur eloquentem ecclesiasticum, qua/ndo suadet aliquid quod agendum
est, non solum docere ut instruat, et delectare ut teneat, verum etiam flectere
ut vincat. This fine saying may be freely rendered thus: “It therefore becomes
the eloquent preacher, when he persuades his hearer in regard to something which
ought to be done, not only to teach that he may instruct him, and to please that
he may hold him, but also to move that he may overcome him.” Chapter 14
discusses beauty of diction and cautions against excess of ornament. In chapters
15 and 16 Augustine wisely and seriously treats of the preacher’s necessary
dependence upon the Holy Spirit and prayer for any true success in his
preaching. Yet he must not neglect a sensible use of proper human helps. In
chapters 17-19 another great dictum of Cicero’s is handled and applied to
preaching. It is the principle of the three different ways of speaking which
grow out of the nature of the things to be discussed: parva submisse, modica
temperate, magna granditer, that is, little things humbly, ordinary things
moderately, great things grandly.

Then in chapters 20-26 he discusses these three styles the humble, the moderate,
the grand giving illustrations from the sacred writers, and also from Cyprian
and Ambrose. In one highly entertaining passage (chapter 24) the author relates
an incident from his own experience, when under an earnest appeal to a rude
people in Mauretania to desist from the bloody feuds to which they had long been
addicted they were led with tears to abandon an inveterate custom.

Chapters 27-29 present with force the great truth that whatever be the style of
the preacher’s speaking his life should enforce what he says; for though truth
is truth and will do good even when spoken by evil men, yet the preacher who
carefully practices what he preaches is sure to do the most good. So in chapter
30 the great duty of prayer for the divine aid and blessing is suitably once
more pressed home. In chapter 31 the author concludes his treatise with an
apology for making it longer than he intended, closing with these words:

“I give thanks to our God that in these four books, with such little skill as I
have been able, I have discussed not such a preacher as I, to whom many things
are lacking, could claim to be, but such an one as he ought to be who in sound,
that is Christian, teaching is diligent to labor not for himself alone but also
for others.

Even so slight a sketch of this notable treatise shows that with a master’s hand
the great thinker has touched the essentials of the art of preaching for all
time. There are three things which stand out preeminently clear in Augustine’s
teaching:

(1) The essential of a right character in the preacher and a proper conception
of his task;

(2) The necessity of a correct interpretation of Scripture and its use as the
authoritative material in preaching; (3) A sane and skillful employment of
accepted rhetorical principles as far as these are available and serviceable to
the preacher of the gospel. Relatively to Homiletics the treatise occupies the
position of Aristotle’s Rhetoric toward the art of speaking in general. Details
of interpretation (especially the allegorical method) and of rhetorical theory
itself are of course open to criticism and dissent, but on the whole this first
treatment of homiletical theory remains one of the most important, not only for
its historic and liter ary interest, but for its grasp of fundamental
principles, its solidity of thought, its charm of style, its devoutness of aim.

After Augustine there is no treatise on preaching for centuries. Though Gregory
the Great (pope from 590 to 604) was a diligent preacher and urged the duty upon
others, he added nothing of importance either to the theory or practice of
preaching. His justly celebrated Pastoral Rule 1 (Regula Pastoralis) is a highly
interesting and important contribution to the literature of Pas toral Theology,
but has little value for Homiletics. The treatise was a great favorite
throughout the

1 The original is found in the Works of Gregory in Migne’s Patrologia Latino,;
and there is a very handy edition containing both the original and a translation
by H. R. Bramley, Oxford, 1874.

Middle Ages. It was paraphrased by Alfred the Great into Anglo-Saxon and its
study enjoined upon the priests. Charlemagne also admired it much and caused
several synods to urge the reading of it upon the clergy. The treatise owes much
to Gregory Nazianzen and Chrysostom, and some thing to Ambrose, but has also an
independent value. Devoted to a discussion of the duties and character proper to
a pastor it gives a few hints here and there on preaching, but no formal
discussion. In the introduction and first chapter Gregory insists that only
suitable and skilled men should be made pastors. In chapter 7 he discusses with
good sense the calls of Isaiah and Jeremiah as well illustrating both the modest
reluctance and the courageous obedience which should characterize one who is
called to the duty of preaching.

Chapter 4 of Part II. opens with the good remark:

“Let the pastor be discreet in silence, useful in speech; that he may neither
declare what ought to be kept, nor keep what ought to be declared. “There is
some discussion of how he may be “useful in speech. The Lord rebukes the pastors
who will not speak, calling them “dumb dogs that can not bark.” He uses the
words of our Lord and of Paul to enforce the duty of preaching; he insists on
careful preparation by the preacher, “lest if he is hurried into speaking
without due order the hearts of the hearers be hurt with the wound of error. “
Again, “Often the value of the things said is lost, when it is made light of to
the hearts of the hearers by a careless or unbecoming manner of speech. “ In
Part III. Gregory discusses (much after Chrysostom and the Nazianzen) the differ
ent kinds of hearers to be addressed, with suggestions as to what is appropriate
to each sort. It may be remarked in passing that the ancient and mediaeval
rhetoric and homiletics both made much more of this topic than is customary in
modern treatises. Gregory uses a curious illustration when he says that as the
cock strikes himself with his wings before crowing in order to awaken him self
and be alert, so the preacher must smite him self before he warns others!
Finally in Part IV. he briefly sets forth how the preacher should be duly on his
guard not to be puffed up either be cause of his good life or his good
preaching.

Thus even the little that bears on preaching in this famous book is not of
special value from the homiletical point of view. In all the patristic period
the two most important names for homiletical purposes -re those of Origen and
Augus tine, and only the latter has given a formal treatise.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 3: 03 - CHAPTER 3
========================================================================

LECTUEE III INSTRUCTION IN THE ART OF PREACHING DURING THE MIDDLE AGES 600-1500
THE long mediaeval age from 600 to 1500, or more exactly from the death of
Gregory I (604) to the beginning of Luther’s Reformation (1517), contained much
of interest for the history of preaching, but little that is of value for the
theory.

It is not until the impulse received from the Revival of Letters and the
Reformation is strongly felt and becomes potent that a true theory of preaching
is developed and established. Yet we find a few specific works and some general
data that bear on the subject of Homiletics, and these have been collected and
discussed for different times and countries by several scholars. But I know of
no comprehensive historical treatise upon mediaeval Homiletics as a whole.

It will help clearness of discussion and comprehension to divide the Middle Ages
into three periods:

(1) The early mediaeval period, 600-1100;

(2) the central or scholastic period, 1100-1300;

(3) the declining mediaeval period, 1300-1500. The Early Medieval Period,
600-1100 The period from the seventh to the eleventh century inclusive is the
darkest in the history of preaching. Ignorance and other unfitness in the
clergy, brutality and illiteracy among the people, and many other hindrances
worked against the preaching of these ages. It is not to be expected that our
research into the state of homiletical theory during such times will be rewarded
with anything of special value. Yet there are a few treatises which present some
degree of interest as filling what would otherwise be a total blank.

Two of these claim notice here, for this and other reasons, and not as having
any intrinsic worth.

These are works of Isidore of Seville and Kabanus Maurus.

Isidore of Seville (d. 636 Y was the younger brother of Leander, whom he
succeeded in the archbishopric of their city. He was a man of won derful
learning, a notable prelate, and an esteemed preacher. He wrote a number of
works on a great variety of subjects. His most remarkable production is the
treatise in twenty books usually called the Etymologies, sometimes the Origins,
in which he briefly discusses all the learning of his time.

Most of it indeed is mere compilation, and he is i See the accounts in Wetzer
and Welte’s Kvrchenlexikon, Hauck-Herzog Realencyclopadie, Schaff’s History of
the Christian Church, Vol. IV., p. 662ff., Montalembert’s Monks of the West,
Vol. I., p. 424ff., and the Works of Isidore in Migne, Pat. Lat., it. 81-84.
said to have quoted 150 authors. The title is quite misleading, as the
discussion of etymology proper is only a small part of the work. Schaff
describes it as “a concise encyclopedia of universal learn ing.” In Book L,
after defining culture (“ discipline “) and describing the Seven Liberal Arts,
he takes up grammar, discussing the alphabet and the grammatical rules of the
schools. In Book II. he proceeds to rhetoric. Here he condenses the accepted
body of doctrine on that subject. There is nothing new or striking in his
treatment, but it shows easy mastery of his matter and power of vigorous and
condensed statement of principles. He defines rhetoric as “the science of
speaking well,” and adopts (without quotation marks) Cato’s famous definition of
the orator as “a good man skilled in speaking” (vir bonus dicendi peritus),
adding that the “good man consists of nature, morals and arts.” One of the best
of the little chapters (Bk. II., Chap. VII.) may be given entire as a sample of
the author’s manner: “Chap. VII. On the Four Parts of an Oration. 1. The parts
of an oration in the art of rhetoric are feur: exordium, narration,
argumentation, conclusion. The first of these arouses the mind of the hearer,
the second explains things that have been done, the third produces confidence in
assertions, the fourth embraces the end of the whole oration.

2. We must begin then in such a way as to make the hearer well disposed,
teachable and attentive: well disposed by beseeching, teachable by instructing,
attentive by exciting. We must so narrate as to speak briefly and clearly. We
must so argue as first to strengthen our own [arguments] and then to crush those
opposed to us. We must so conclude as to stir up the mind of the hearer to do
[lit. to fulfill, implere] what we say.” The whole of the little treatise is
only a condensed rhetoric, with nothing distinctively homiletical. And this is
all that the literature seems to show in the way of homiletical theory up to the
ninth century!

Nearly two hundred years after Isidore lived the famous Rabanus Maurus (d. 856),
archbishop of Mainz. He, too, was a learned and voluminous writer. His complete
works occupy six volumes in Migne’s Latin Patrology. Of these the famous
treatise De Clericorum Institutions (On the In-stitution of the Clergy) contains
what he has to say on homiletical theory. The book was written in the early
years of the author, probably while still a monk at Fulda, though perhaps
already a teacher of others. It is dedicated to the then archbishop of Mainz,
Hais-tulph, and to the author’s fellow-monks at Fulda. The treatise is a sort of
text-book of clerical du ties, and matters pertaining to the clerical office.

It treats of the ranks of the clergy, tonsure, vestments, etc.; of the rites and
ordinances, such as baptism, the Supper, unction, the mass. In the second book
he discusses the sacred seasons, fasting, penance, confession, reading and
singing in worship, the Catholic faith and heresies. In the third book he takes
up preaching and thus describes his purpose: “The third book sets forth how all
things written in the divine books are to be investigated and learned, also
those things in the studies and arts of the heathen which are useful to be
studied by the ecclesiastic man. Lastly also the book shows in what way it
becomes those who bear the office of teaching to address different hearers with
different modes of speech, and in ecclesiastical doctrine faithfully to teach
them.” In the work itself he adheres to this preannounced plan and comes in his
third book to the discussion of the discipline or education of the preacher. In
the first fifteen chapters he treats of the Biblical material and its
interpretation, acknowledging (very justly!) his great indebtedness to Augustine
and referring to that father for fuller treatment. In chapters 16-25 he
discusses the Seven Liberal Arts the trivium and quadrivium in regular form. In
chapters 26, 27 he makes some remarks as to the bearing of the study of
philosophy and morals on preaching. At last, in chapters 28-36, he takes up and
discusses quid debeat doctor catholicus in dicendo agere, that is, how the ortho
dox preacher ought to act in speaking; or, in other words, how the principles
and practice of rhetoric are applicable to preaching. But let not the expectant
reader look for much, now he has come to the main point. For what follows is
only a rehash of Augustine’s Christian Teaching. It is greatly condensed, but
all the ideas are borrowed from that great book. The three ends of speaking to
please, to instruct, to move; the three styles humble, moderate, grand; the
example of Paul (though not of Amos), all are here. Rabanus even reproduces
Augustine’s ingenious and sophistical defense of plagiarism which is surely
quite to the point! The substance of the defense is that when one takes and
commits to memory what another has written, for use in speech, he does no wrong,
provided he puts himself into the feelings of the original author; for he who
steals takes away what is another s, but the word of God is in no such exclusive
sense another s, for it really be longs to him who obeys it! That is, he makes
it his own (no matter who has put it into form) if he lives up to it! In another
passage Rabanus discusses (after the Gregories this time, even using one
Gregory’s acknowledgment of debt to the other!) the three very important matters
of (1) how the preacher should adapt his teaching to the quality of his
audience, (2) how he should be able to distinguish, classify and contrast the
virtues and vices, (3) how he should pray to God for power in speech. In case we
have learned any thing from others we should pray for those from whom we have
received it, and for those to whom we offer it, and give thanks to God who gave
it both to our teachers and to us.

After Rabanus, to the end of this epoch, there does not seem to have been any
author who has dealt with the theory of preaching. If such works exist they have
escaped the notice of scholars.

Still it would not be fair to assume that in the one and one-half centuries from
Eabanus Maurus to the great revival of preaching early in the twelfth century
there was no instruction in homiletical theory and no literary product of such
instruction.

We can only say that there must have been homiletical teaching on the basis of
principles accepted from the past; and there may have been treatises on the
subject which have not been preserved. The Central or Scholastic Mediceval
Period, 1100-1300 The impulse given to preaching by the reforms of Hildebrand
(c. 1050) and the first crusade (c. 1095) naturally first affected practice
rather than theory. But within the flourishing epoch of mediaeval preaching
which reached its height in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, we find that
renewed attention is given to the art as well as the act of preaching.

One of the most important and famous writers of this age was Guibert of Nogent
(1053-1124).

He was born of excellent and wealthy parents at Clermont. His father died while
the boy was yet an infant, but his good mother gave him a careful upbringing, a
service which he has duly and tenderly recognized and eulogized in his
autobiography. 1 Among other educational advantages Guibert enjoyed the
instructions of the noted and beloved Anselm at Bee. He became a preacher of
some note, Abbot of Nogent after 1104, and a writer of many books, among them
the well-known Gesta Dei per Frcmcos, an account of the First Crusade. His
homiletical work comes in the way of a preface to his commentary on the Book of
Genesis (Moralia in Genes vm), under the title Liber Quo Ordine Sermo Fieri
Debeat, or A Treatise on the Method (order) by which a Sermon Ought to be Made.
2 It is by no means a for mal treatise on rhetoric, sacred or secular, but
rather a defense or explanation of the author’s preferred method of interpreting
Scripture, and therefore appropriately prefixed to a commentary on the first
book of the Bible. It was written at the request of a friend. The style is
rather crabbed and involved, but the book is spirited, and shows both vigor and
independence of mind. The treatise does not lend itself to formal analysis, but
is for substance as follows:

It is a perilous thing for one whose function it is to preach to neglect his
business; for if it is blameworthy for one to commit sin, it is likewise so for
one to fail to try to hinder others from sinning, or to help save the sinner.
But preaching is much neglected by some, and that on account of pride; of which
there are two sorts: (1) Distaste, iMigne, Pat. Lat., t. 156, col. 839.

2 The original in Migne, Pat. Lat., t. 156, col. 21 seq.; and a slight account
in Lentz, Geschichte der Homiletik, I., S. 235ff.

(2) Jealousy. Distaste arises from “sermon-izers” who by making a business and
boast of preaching disgust those who do not wish to be reckoned with that class.
Others decline to preach through jealousy, not being willing for others to
profit by their knowledge, or fearing lest they might profit too well and
surpass themselves.

Others still are provoked by envy to only occasional efforts, and these for
vainglory. Yet others are kept from preaching because they are evil men and
naturally do not wish to speak of good things while they themselves are doing
evil things. And still others withhold their services from their brethren
because they have no pastoral charge.

Let us belong to none of these “ orders, “ but the rather be living members of
the church of Christ, clean in heart and earnest in effort to learn and teach
the holy things of Scripture. “Let prayer precede the sermon, that the mind
glowing with divine love may ardently declare the things which it received from
God; that as it glows inwardly it may thus inflame the hearts of the hearers.” A
lukewarm and languid sermon pleases neither preacher nor hearer. When we find
ourselves dull and lifeless it is better to make an end, for if even a good
sermon wearies by excessive length how much more does a dull one! Also a
preacher should consider both elements of his audience, making things plain to
the uncultured and at the same time giving the educated something to stir
thought and kindle aspiration.

There are four well-known methods of interpreting Scripture in sermons: (1)
historical; (2) allegorical; (3) tropological or moral; (4) ana-gogical, or
spiritual. For example, Jerusalem, after the historical method, is the city of
that name; allegorically, the church; tropologically or morally it is “the
believing soul of any one who sighs for the vision of eternal peace “; according
to the anagogical or spiritual method it signifies the life of the heavenly
citizens who see God face to face. Each of these methods has its value, and the
preacher should know how to use them all; but the most useful for edification is
the tropological, the way of moral application. For though allegory be pleasing
to the believer, and may help his faith, moral application is more profitable to
his life. For its effective use the preacher should know both virtue and vice,
that he may persuade to the one and warn against the other. From his own
experience he should know what temptation is and how the Lord delivers from it.
Some allegory intermingled imparts freshness, and the preacher should also know
how to illustrate from nature and life. His sincerity and good intentions should
be not open to question; there should be no ground to suspect him of preaching
either for fame or money. In moral preaching it must be made clear that vice is
punished both in this life and forever in hell, and that virtue is eternally
rewarded in heaven. But the preacher must also remember how God forgives the
penitent and accepts the fruits of genuine contrition. Paul knew how bitterly
vice punishes him who commits it, and St. Gregory says there is nothing happier
than an innocent mind. But a theoretical knowledge of vice and virtue is not
enough. In vain is a soldier armed if he has no mind to fight. “And what profits
it to perceive the virtues contrary to lusts if the reason, torpid and inert,
will not arise to fight with them?” Holding these principles in mind the author
proceeds to comment on the Book of Genesis.

Next after Guibert should be mentioned Alan of Lille (Alanus ab Insulis) who
died about 1203.

There were several influential men of this name, and the tangle of personality
has not been quite satisfactorily worked out by scholars. But this particular
Alan seems to have been a Cistercian abbot at the town later known as Lille in
Flanders.

He is said to have lived to a very great age, and to have been a man of great
learning. He was a voluminous author and his writings were much read. We are
here concerned only with his Summary of the Art of Preaching (Summa de Arte
Praedicatoria), a treatise which shows great acuteness of thought, ample
learning and consid erable homiletical skill. 1 In the preface Alan begins by
saying that the lit may be consulted in Migne, torn. 210, col. 110 seq., and is
noticed by Lentz, op. cit., S. 232ff. by Lecoy de la Marche, La Chaire Francaise
au Hoy en Age., etc., p. 152 seq., by the cyclo pedias, and quite recently in
the new volume of Schaff’s Hist, of the Christian Church, V. 853f. ladder of
Jacob consisted of seven rounds which represent the progress of “the catholic
man” and are these: (1) Confession; (2) prayer; (3) thanksgiving; (4) study
(perscrutatio) of the Scriptures; (5) in doubtful interpretations seeking aid
from older men; (6) exposition of Scrip ture; (7) preaching. Each of these is
elaborated somewhat, and on the last it is remarked: “He ascends the last round
when he publicly proclaims what he has learned from Scripture. “ Alan says that
on the first six steps much has been written, but on the last very little. So
“we have thought it worth our while to compose this treatise for the benefit of
our neighbors. First, then, we must consider what preaching is and of what sort
as regards both the surface matter of words and the weight of opinions, and how
many are its kinds; secondly, who ought to preach; thirdly, to whom it should be
delivered; fourthly, why; fifthly, where.” According to this promised outline
the work proceeds to treat of the first topic, or set of topics, in chapters
1-37. Chapter 38 suffices for the second whose office it is to preach. The third
head, on the different kinds of hearers, occupies chapters 39-48. And here the
book abruptly ends, the last two of the proposed topics being omitted without
explanation. In the opening chapter Alan discusses the nature and qualities of
preaching, giving this definition: “Preaching is open and public instruction in
morals and faith, promoting the information of men, and proceeding from the path
of reasons and the fountain of authorities “ by the last lumbering expression he
means that it is to be supported by arguments addressed to the reason and by the
authority of the Scriptures and of the church or theologians. Developing his
theme he shows that preaching must be open, according to Christ’s command in
Matthew 10:26 f, and as opposed to the secret teaching of heresy; and that it
must be public, that is, addressed to more than one. By morals and faith he
means of course duty and doctrine, and thus explains: “The two parts of theology
are intended, namely, the rational, which pursues knowledge of divine things,
and the moral, which offers instruction in morals. For preaching instructs now
in divine things, now in morals; which is signified by the angels ascending and
descending; for these angels are preachers, who ascend when they preach heavenly
things and descend when through moral teaching they adapt themselves to their
inferiors. Promoting information gives the final cause, or utility, of
preaching. Preaching in ambitious or undignified language for effect is to be
avoided; but we must not be too censorious of those who thus preach, but rather
bear with them, according to the example of Paul who rejoiced in the preaching
of the gospel, even in pretense. The weight of thought in a sermon is the main
thing. As regards form, preaching should first of all rest upon the authority of
Scripture as its own proper foundation, especially the Gospels, the Psalms, the
Epistles of Paul, and the writings of Solomon, from which useful moral
instruction may be derived. But other parts of Scripture should not be
neglected, especially when they can be made to serve the purpose in view in
preaching. In the next place, the preacher should capture the good will of his
hearers alike by his own modest bearing and by the usefulness to them of the
theme which he proposes to discuss. He ought to impress them that he is setting
before them the word of God for their good, and not for any earthly reward to
him self or for applause, for they should be thinking not of the speaker, but of
what he says. “For in a thornbush not the sharpness of the thorn but the beauty
of the rose is to be considered; for even in a frail reed honey is found, and
from a stone a flame is struck. “ Next the preacher should proceed to the
exposition and application of his text.

He should not take too difficult and obscure a text. Nor should he range too
widely from his theme, lest the beginning, middle and end of his discourse
should not agree! He should adduce other authorities to sustain his proposition,
occasionally quoting even secular authors, as did Paul. He should put in moving
speech to soften the minds of his hearers, even to bring tears. When he sees
tears flowing he should pause a little, but not too long, remembering what
Lucretius says: “Nihil citius arescit lacryma” (nothing dries more quickly than
a tear). The sermon should be con-else, “lest prolixity beget disgust.” Finally,
the preacher should use examples to prove his points, for teaching by
illustration is both easy and popu lar. So much for theory.

Alan now proceeds in chapters 2-37 to illustrate his principles by examples. He
takes up a number of different subjects and gives model sketches and outlines
showing how they ought to be treated.

These are more curious than valuable, full of strained interpretations and
applications, but exhibiting not a little homiletical skill and shrewdness in
the outlines and hits. Some of the subjects treated are Contempt of the World,
Contempt of Self, Gluttony, Luxury, Avarice, Pride, Spiritual Grief and Joy,
Talkativeness, Lying, Prayer, Alms, Hospitality, etc. In chapter 38 Alan takes
up his second general topic of discussion, Who should preach? and claims that
the function should be confined to those duly authorized by the church. They
must be sound in doctrine that they may teach others, and pure in life that they
may offer a good example. He condemns unsparingly the lazy, the mercenary, the
unworthy. “To preachers belong knowledge, that they be trained in both
Testaments, discreet in the examination of opinions, skilled in sermons,
circumspect in all their actions, contemners of the world, assiduous in their
duty.” In chapters 39-48 he discusses the matter of audiences the different
kinds of hearers. It is evi dent that he has in mind imperfect believers rather
than unbelievers. Membership in the church is presupposed. Those outside are
rather regarded as swine before whom the pearls of gospel truth must not be
thrown. He instances a great variety of hearers, and shows how the preacher must
adapt his teaching to the different ones as a physician his remedies to
different patients. As be fore, he gives examples of sermons to the different
kinds of hearers, showing how it must be done.

These include sketches of sermons to soldiers, lawyers, princes and judges,
monks, priests, married people, widows, virgins, and the sleepy. With this crack
of the whip our worthy homilist concludes his homily on homiletics. Whether the
remaining two topics proposed in the introduction were purposely dropped, or
postponed and never again taken up, does not appear. But either of these
conjectures is more probable than that this part of the treatise was finished
and lost. This is the most important work on the theory of preaching since
Augustine. It introduces the scholastic method and the more numerous treatises
of the scholastic period. Though incomplete, ill arranged, abounding in strained
conceits and other faults, it has some measure of originality, and a good deal
of shrewdness, good sense and suggestiveness. 1 i The great collection of
mediaeval Latin writers embraced in Migne’s Patrologia Latino, ends with the
twelfth century; I have therefore not had access to the originals of the
treatises men tioned in the remainder of this lecture. But they have been care
fully studied and their substance presented by one or more of the following
scholars from whose works, and some other authorities, In the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries, especially the latter, preaching had a great revival.

Early in the thirteenth century the two great Orders of Preachers (Dominicans
and Franciscans) were founded, and from these proceeded many renowned preachers
and scholastics. In the twelfth century the great preacher and mystic, Bernard
of Clairvaux, flourished, and others with him. In the thirteenth century after
Dominic and Francis came great popular preachers like Anthony of Padua and
Berthold of Eegensburg, and famous theologians like Thomas Aquinas and
Bonaven-tura, who were also known as able preachers. Be sides these leaders
there were a number of others who preached the Word with power and effect. In
the thirteenth century the most important name that comes up in the theory of
preaching is that of the renowned “Seraphic Doctor, “ Bona-ventura (d. 1274),
theologian, mystic, cardinal and saint. Among his numerous writings is one which
bears the title The Art of Preaching (Ars Concionandi). The little work follows
closely the Christian Teaching of Augustine. It discusses as its three main
topics: Division (the general out- the ensuing discussion is chiefly derived.
Lentz, Geschichte der Homiletik, 2 vols., an old work, but still valuable in
many points though incomplete, Lecoy de la Marche, La Chaire Francaise au Moyen
Age, a very able, thorough and satisfying work, a model of its kind; R. Cruel,
Geschichtt dcr Deutschen Predigt im Mit-teldlter, a work as satisfactory for the
German pulpit as the preceding one is for that of France. The thoroughness of
research, candor and critical ability displayed in these latter two great works
would seem to leave little for an independent investigator to do but to verify
their facts and occasionally to differ in judgment as to details. line of the
whole discourse), Distinction (the more minute and logical analysis of the
proposition), and Enlargement (Dilatatio, filling out with illustration,
argument, appeal, etc.)- The book gives sound teaching and useful cautions on
all these points, but seems to pay chief attention to the last.

It is noticeable that this great scholastic gives a sane warning against that
minute and subtle di vision of which he was himself so great a master; which
goes to show that already the doctors of the scholastic method realized how
their weaker pupils were carrying the method to excess. It is at least
refreshing to hear this great doctor say (as quoted by Lentz): “For the more
simple an analysis is, that is by the fewness of its members, so much the
better.” The next treatise of any importance is that of Humbert de Romanis (d.
1277), a Frenchman, educated in Paris, a Dominican monk, and for a long time
general of his order. He is said to have begun his book about the year 1255 and
to have spent several years in writing it. The work is entitled De Eruditione
Praedicatorum (On the Education of Preachers] and has special reference to the
training of preachers for their duties. It consists of two books of a hundred
chapters each. The first book treats of the office of the preacher in a more
general way its requirements, duties, aims, effects, etc. The second book bears
more directly on preaching, and is divided into two parts: (1) The art of
composing sermons for all classes of hearers; and (2) How to compose sermons
promptly (De modo prompte cudendi sermonem).

It seems, from what Lentz and Lecoy have to say of it, to be a dry and wooden
method; a set of detailed rules to be followed in various circumstances, but to
contain some valuable hints and suggestions. Lentz 1 says: “The author appears
in a more engaging light when he criticizes the faults of his contemporaries.
Here he gives warnings which are useful for all times. He blames especially the
hankering after subtleties, in order, by what is novel and paradoxical, to shine
in the pulpit.” He also condemns excessive length of sermons, whimsical choice
and forced interpretations of texts, and other faults common then and always.
One of his sayings worth quoting is: “There are those who are more studious for
ornaments of language than for the views to be expressed; like those who care
more for the beauty of the dish in which they serve the food than for the food
itself. The Declining Medieval Period, 1300-1500

Toward the end of the thirteenth century the great age of preaching which then
came to its height was already declining. This was especially apparent in the
scholastic and popular types of preaching; it was not so manifest in the mystic
type, which rather came to its height in Tauler of Strasburg in the next century
(d. 1361). But the i Op. tit., I, S. 239ff.

Homiletics of the time does not show as much decline as the preaching; and the
reason for this is apparent in that as theory commonly follows practice, the
theory of any epoch is likely to be based more on preceding than on contemporary
practice. This does not hold good entirely, but is sufficiently near the truth
to account for the fact mentioned. But even at best we find that the Homiletics
of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries is marked by many faults of its own
and the preceding age. It cannot be regarded as of the highest sort, but it
affords much of more or less curious interest, both as an evolution from the
past and as an impulse to the future of homiletical theory. The number of
treatises is greater, and they are more elaborate. To the last of the thirteenth
or the early part of the fourteenth century belongs a group of treatises of
uncertain authorship. One of these is as signed to the famous theologian, Thomas
Aquinas, (d. 1274), but is almost certainly not his. It is called A Treatise on
the Art of Preaching (Trac-tatus de Arte Praedicandi), and discusses the nature,
value and effect of preaching; the mode of amplifying the discourse; and certain
points which the preacher must observe, such as, he must not be ashamed to
preach Christ, but must avoid things likely to cause stumbling and be silent
about doubtful things, never raise a question without answering it, speak
clearly, deliberately, and with out unnecessary repetitions; must prepare as
carefully for village folk as for the more cultivated, avoid needless haste,
must not let his looks wander around when preaching, never address a particular
person, nor preach too long, not more than an hour in any case; must carefully
turn his Latin sketch into the common tongue, but studiously avoid all coarse,
undignified and offensive expressions. A later supplement gives some examples of
sermons of different kinds, and distinguishes three different modes of
preaching: (1) The laic or popular mode, like the old homily or running comment
on Scripture; (2) the thematic, or topical form, which derives a status or
proposition from the text and logically unfolds it; (3) the remaining mode is
described rather than named as being the use of the text itself as the
proposition which gives the division, and supporting it with illustrations,
arguments, application. Thus we see that the threefold distinction so familiar
to us expository, topical and textual was already in use and clearly
distinguished. An anonymous treatise belonging to the end of the thirteenth
century or early in the next was found by Lecoy in the Sorbonne and is discussed
by him in the work already noted. 1 Of the two titles given the critic prefers A
Certain Treatise on Amplifying Sermons (Tractatus quidam de dilatatione
sermonum). It is very brief, only a sort of homiletical sketch showing how to
expand a sermon chiefly, it would seem, i La Ohaire Frangaise au Moyen Age, pp.
193, 288, 296. a sketch or outline either made to order or bodily stolen by the
preacher! In several places the treatise seems itself to owe guiltily much to
the sketch of Bonaventura on the same subject. It gives eight ways of amplifying
a discourse:

(1) Putting a proposition for a word by definition, description, explanation;
(2) dividing and analyzing, but not overmuch; (3) reasoning, both direct and
refutative; (4) citation of texts; (5) use of the degrees positive, comparative,
super lative; (6) use of figures of speech; (7) use of allegory, tropology,
anagogy; (8) setting forth of causes and effects.

Along with this may be mentioned a Treatise on the Art of Preaching usually
ascribed to Henry of Hesse (d. 1397), but really of unknown date and authorship.
1 Cruel discusses it, but it seems to be of little or no value except as a
specimen of its kind. It distinguishes four kinds of preach ing: (1) The most
ancient (homily, exposition); (2) the modern (thematic, topical); (3) the
ancient (textual); (4) the subaltern (a kind of mixture of the last two).
Examples of each kind, except the last, are given.

It is a long time before we come to anything else worth mentioning in the way of
the literary treatment of homiletical theory. We find it at the end of the
fifteenth century, just prior to the new era of Humanists and Reformers who
intro-

1 For remarks on this and the two following treatises I am indebted to Cruel,
Oeschichte der aeutschen Predigt im Mit-telalter, SS. 596, 599, 601. duce the
modern epoch. Just about the turn into the sixteenth century there appeared two
treatises which show some advance upon the preceding in fullness and force of
treatment, but little if any in other respects. One of these is a Treatise on
the method of learning and teaching to the people sacred things, or the method
of preaching, as the long title runs. The author calls himself Hierony-mus
(Jerome) Dungersheim of Ochsenfurt, and dedicates his work to Ernst, archbishop
of Magde burg, who died in 1513 but seems to have been still living when the
book was published. This gives us a general but not exact hint as to the date of
the work. Cruel speaks highly of “the vigorous handling and logical division of
the material.” In the preface the author declares the aim of his work to be the
instruction of young preachers for the most important of all tasks, lamenting
that so many are thrust into the work without sufficient preparation. He divides
Homiletics into three parts, after the manner of Aristotle’s Rhetoric:

(1) As it relates to the preacher; (2) the sermon itself; (3) the hearers. In
the first section he gives sensible counsels as to the preacher’s studies,
character and habits of work. One good warning, which it is refreshing at least
to find, is directed against the practice of depending on collections of sermons
prepared for use. And it is interesting to note that the author urges at least
three years of preparatory theological studies before taking up the active
duties of the priesthood. In the second section, which is more definitely
homiletical, the treatise sets forth in chapters 1 and 2 the utility, material,
and composition of sermons. Chapter 3 tells of the differ ent kinds of sermons
and discusses at length the modus communis, or prevalent method of preaching:
First comes the announcement of the text in Latin, then the greeting to the
people, next repetition or paraphrase of the text in the vernacular, with prayer
for divine aid in expounding it, using with this an Ave or a Paternoster or the
Veni’S ancle Spiritus; then comes the introduction which may be derived from
various sources; then the proposition; next the disposition or arrange ment,
which may be either a logical division of the theme or may follow the natural
division of the text. The author then proceeds to specify ten ways in which the
method of treatment may be varied, such as, a running comment on the lesson of
the day (the old homily fashion), division of the passage into several parts,
explanation in the fourfold manner (historical, moral, allegorical, spiritual),
consideration of causes, effects, circumstances, modes, peculiarities of the
text; and so on. Chapters 4-8 discuss amplification, figures of speech, turning
the sermon into German, faults of delivery, and the conclusion. The third
section covers the long familiar ground of the various kinds of hearers and the
preaching adapted to each.

About the same time flourished another homiletician of some note, Ulrich
Surgant, who says that he was a young priest in 1475. The first book of his
treatise is dated 1502, and in the second book 1508 is mentioned as the current
year.

He held important positions as canon and dean in churches at Basel, was a titled
doctor and evidently a man of some culture. His book bears the title A Manual
for Curates (Manuale Curatorum). It is important both in itself and as marking
the transition to the homiletical work of the Humanists of the next period. It
consists of two books, of which the first treats of the theory of preaching, and
the second gives a collection of models, extracts, subjects and examples suited
to all sorts of occasions. The first book is the one of special interest here.
Without a more general classification it discusses the art of preaching in
twenty-five chapters under the following topics: What preaching is, who should
preach, what and how, the fourfold interpretation, the special art or science of
preaching, different kinds, parts of the sermon, rules and authorities, rules
for turning the Latin into German (in the delivery, indicating the use of Latin
notes or ready-made sermons), relation of sacred to secular rhetoric,
memorizing, delivery, adaptation to the intelligence of the audience, faults in
delivery, conclusion of the sermon, homiletical helps especially books. We see
from this enumeration that the treatise covers many points of practical value;
but not having seen the original I cannot give &ny estimate of the comparative
worth of the treatment. On the whole, as we survey the long path through which
we have toiled, we see that Homiletics after Augustine was sadly lacking in
originality and power. The treatment was sapless and mechanical; life and
interest are wanting. I think the little book of Guibert of Nogent prefixed to
his commentary on Genesis shows more liveliness than the more formal treatises,
but it is merely a sketch. We cannot have failed to notice how largely the
matter of adaptation to audiences figures in these works as compared with those
of our times. The general rhetorical principles of division and style and
delivery receive conventional notice, but the reproduction is monotonous and
tame for the most part. One thing we can not fail to commend is the urgent
insistence on fitness in character and culture in the preacher; and, however far
short practice fell, it is gratifying that at least correct theory was set forth
on this vital point. The four modes of interpretation are often explained, but
no particular encouragement is given to the allegorical and spiritual. The
oretically at least the historical and moral seem to be preferred. The faults of
extremists and oddities are reprehended. After the twelfth century the influence
of scholasticism is clearly apparent.

There is great need of new and better treatment, and the time is at hand.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 4: 04 - CHAPTER 4
========================================================================

LECTURE IV THE ART OF PREACHING AS INFLUENCED BY THE REVIVAL. OF LETTERS IN THE
FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES IN 1453 the city of Constantinople fell into
the hands of the Turks. In part due to that fact, but largely to other causes
also, there began about that time a movement westward of Greek scholars and a
consequent revival of interest in the Greek language and literature. Along with
this came naturally an increased interest in the classic Latin literature also.
This movement, commonly known as the Revival of Letters, was in part preceded
and in part accompanied by the Renaissance (or Rebirth) of Art. This double
movement of new life in Art and Literature powerfully stimulated thought, as did
also the discovery of America in 1492. Altogether the epoch lying in the latter
half of the fifteenth and on through the sixteenth century was a time of
tremendous significance in the history and the thought of Western Europe.

All subsequent history, in every sphere of thought and action, has felt the
influence of that mighty era. For some reason this movement, in respect to the
study of Latin and Greek, received the name of Humanism, and its leaders were
called Humanists. For a long time in some of the universities the courses of
study in the ancient classics (especially Latin) were called the Humanities.

Humanist Homiletics The contribution of Humanism, or the Revival of Learning, to
homiletical theory may be best exhibited by considering first the general
influence of that great movement on Homiletics, and then the definite
homiletical work of two great Humanists Reuchlin and Erasmus. In the most
general aspects of the matter we may observe several lines of humanistic
influence upon the development of Homiletics. (1) The gen eral and widespread
quickening of thought, which partly produced and fruitfully accompanied and
characterized the Revival of Letters, inevitably worked its effects in the
department of preaching and its theory. (2) The more accurate scholar ship which
came in with the movement, with its enthusiastic attention to the details of
literary acquisition and expression, was a force of no little importance in the
same way. (3) The improvement of literary taste, which naturally went along with
the rest, must also be recognized as having important general influence in the
improvement of homiletical theory. But while these general forces must be taken
into the account a more direct and powerful influence is to be noted in the
revived study of the “classical rhetoric. Along with the other great classical
writings those which deal especially with the principles of rhetoric came up for
fresh and first hand study. Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian and others were read
anew and with greater zest. The time for dry compilations and reproductions, for
sapless imitations and barren rehashings of patristic and scholastic theories of
public speaking had passed away. Men were going back to those original sources
of higher rhetorical art which had given law to the classic periods of
literature. Such study inevitably brought forth sharp and intelligent humanistic
criticism upon the prevailing methods of preaching, the inheritance of
scholasticism and its popular abuses. Among the many things which invited the
satirical wit of humanist reformers the homiletical methods and principles of
the clergy did not escape. Chief among those who gave special attention to
rhetorical and homiletical matters were Keuchlin and Erasmus.

John Keuchlin (1455-1522) was born at Pforzheim in Baden and educated at
Schlettstadt, Freiburg, Paris, Basel and Orleans. He studied both law and
literature, became an adept in classical and Hebrew scholarship, and taught in a
number of universities, including those at Tubingen and Ingolstadt. Perhaps his
especial significance in the world of letters is the start he gave to Hebrew
studies. He became involved in a celebrated controversy with the Dominicans of
Cologne. His cause was taken up by Ulrich von Hutten and others, especially by
the authors of the famous budget of satirical letters called Epistolae
Obscu-rorum Virorum. He was acquitted of heresy, but some of his writings and
utterances were after wards condemned. He lived and died a Catholic, though his
work and writings gave great impulse to the cause of reform.

Among his many writings is one published in 1504 under the title: Liber
congestorum de arte praedicandi, which means a collection of rules, etc., on the
art of preaching. Thus the title itself in dicates the want of originality and
the lack of thoroughness in the treatment. I have not seen the original and
therefore cannot speak from personal study of either its merits or defects.
Christ-lieb in Herzog, and others do not give a high idea of its value. It seems
to be a brief and ill-arranged treatise, but it had the excellent design of
awakening a new interest in preaching on a more evangelical basis than the
prevalent one. It owed much to Augustine, but went back to the classic rhetoric
for its leading principles. It urged upon preachers to have a proper conception
of the dignity of their calling and to observe a suitable delivery and demeanor.
The work treats briefly and in the given order the following homiletical topics:

Invention, Introduction, Beading (the Scriptures), Division, Proof, Refutation,
Conclusion, Common places (i. e., usual subjects of discourse), Memory (i. e.,
memorizing either the material or form of discourse for delivery).

Greatest among the Humanists and also most important for our present studies was
the famous scholar Desiderius Erasmus (1457-1536). The life of Erasmus has been
recently and ably presented by Professor Ephraim Emerton * and of course there
is frequent mention in church histories, histories of literature, etc. His life
and character present many difficulties to the historian and critic as well as
to the moralist and psychologist. He was a man of remarkable intellect,
wonderful acquirements, notable achievement, puzzling personality and extensive
and enduring influence.

Born out of wedlock at Rotterdam, probably in 1467, Erasmus was acknowledged and
cared for by his parents during his infancy and childhood. His schooling began
early, under an uncle at Utrecht, where he also served as choir boy in the
cathedral. At nine he went to a famous school at Deventer where he remained four
years. About this time his parents died, but had provided for his guardianship
and further education. After spending several years in an establishment of the
Brethren of the Common Life, he finally, and, as it appears, reluctantly and on
the persuasion of friends and kindred, entered a monastery at Steyn near Gouda.
The advantages of his school and monastic life were diligently improved and he
well laid the foundation for that liberal culture which ever afterwards
distinguished him. By i Desiderius Erasmus (Heroes of the Reformation series).
permission of the ecclesiastical authorities he accepted a position as literary
secretary to the Bishop of Cambrai, with whom he traveled and studied for some
years. He never reentered the monastery; and years later received tardy
permission from the pope to lay aside his monastic habit. We cannot follow here
his strange long life of many changes of residence, intense scholarly activity,
much writing, editing, teaching, correspondence and social intercourse with
scholars and other notable men in many lands. We find him in England several
times, in Italy, in France, at Louvain, in the Netherlands, at Basel, at
Freiburg, and last of all at Basel again where he died an old man in 1536. His
way of supporting him self differed according to circumstances. He was
disinclined to holding permanent professorships, though these were at his
disposal all over Europe.

Yet he resided at intervals at several of the universities, including Oxford and
Cambridge, though the nature of his services and emoluments is in some doubt.
Sometimes he seems to have received a fee for teaching, sometimes pay from
publishers for proof-reading or other literary service, some thing from his
books, sometimes he filled a church or college sinecure, and often (to his shame
be it said) he derived his support from gifts and unblushing begging! He was
fond of ease and luxury and made no bones of wheedling and cajoling his friends
to help him find them. His vanity was abnormal, his grumbling continual and
contemptible. He was double-minded, time-serving and timid on the great
religious question of the age a great mind and a small character. But withal he
was an eminent scholar, whose poorly requited services to letters might well
excuse to some extent the patronage of the liberal and wealthy. He was a genial
and witty talker, an admirable stylist, a sharp satirist, and on occasion a sane
and judicious writer on moral and religious subjects.

Among them Rhetoric and Homiletics.

Several things of a general sort are to be noted in regard to Erasmus 7
rhetorical and homiletical work. His own (Latin) style was admirable, its chief
fault being verbosity. During his residence in Italy it is known that he gave
instruction in rhetoric to a young illegitimate son of James IV. of Scotland,
who held the appointment of arch bishop of St. Andrews. Besides this instance of
special teaching of the subject there may have been others. That he was deeply
interested in general rhetoric and thoroughly versed in it as well, appears from
the publication in 1511 of his book De duplici copia verb or um et rerum, or
more commonly briefly called his Copia. It is a text-book on rhetoric intended
to aid, as the title indicates, in the finding of both words and material. It
was a very popular work, passing through nearly sixty editions during the
lifetime of the author. In his famous satire The Praise of Folly (Encomium
Moriae, or Laus Stultitiae) and in other writings Erasmus frequently and sharply
criticizes the faults of the preaching of the day and inculcates sound
homiletical principles. All this was excel lent preparation for the production
of his monu mental work on Homiletics, to which we must now give attention. The
most important work on the theory of preaching since Augustine, and one of the
most important of all times, is this long and labored treatise of Erasmus. It
bears the title, Ecclesi-astes, sive Concionator Evangelicus (Gospel Preacher),
and was published at Basel during the last year of the author’s life the
dedication being dated Aug., 1535, and his death occurring in Feb., 1536. 1 In
the dedicatory preface Erasmus names four of his friends, including the Bishop
of Augsburg, Christopher a Stadio, and the noted Antwerp banker, Antony Fugger,
whom he styles “most kind cherisher of studies.” He declares that the writing of
the book was a reluctant service, performed in fulfillment of a promise made
years before. He had long been gathering the material, but had from time to time
delayed the execution of his task. And now that it is done he finds much to make
him dissatisfied with his work. It seems to him at last to be only a sylva a
forest of material, from which others may obtain that which can be worked out
into better form. There is i The edition which I have used is that of the Works
of Erasmus published at Leyden in 1704 by Peter vander Aa; and for the loan of
it I am*indebted to the Library of Princeton Theo logical Seminary. undoubted
justice in this self-criticism. The book shows some weariness of mind, the
material is not reduced to orderly and compact shape; but it does contain a
wealth of thought, information, illustration and suggestion on the subject of
preaching which is all but exhaustive for the age in which the work was
prepared. The general plan, as announced in the preface and adhered to in the
treatment, is simple enough: He will treat the subject in four books. The first
will discuss the dignity of the preaching office and the virtues and character
appropriate to the office. The second and third books will consist of doc trines
and precepts on the art of preaching derived from rhetoricians, logicians, and
theologians. The fourth book will be devoted to the suggestion of particular
subjects for pulpit treatment and the best ways of handling them.

According to this previously announced plan Erasmus discusses in his first book
the dignity, purity, prudence and other virtues of the preacher.

He distinguishes preaching from other oratory as to its contents and aim, and
this leads to a consideration of the dignity of the work of the preacher. This
greater dignity requires a corresponding elevation and purity of character. As
the preacher is the dispenser of the divine word he should be like to him who is
the Word, and should like him be filled and led by the Holy Spirit.

He who would teach others must himself be di vinely taught. The preacher is in
peril on the one hand from the Scylla of pride and on the other from the
Charybdis of despair. “I know not whether he has most to fear from those
temptations which flatter or those which terrify.” Courage and fortitude are
necessary virtues to the preacher even the actor has something to fear from
failure to please his audiences, and preachers must often face those whom they
must, if faithful, displease. Again, it is not enough that a preacher should
know (scire), he must also be wise (sapere).

Further, and of course, he must be a man of prayer, and that from no double
heart. Faults and sins weaken his message and his power. He must be above
suspicion and live prudently as well as purely. He must remember that he is a
steward, and be faithful to his trust, but he should also be prudent in adapting
his message to the people and occasion. He must be abundant in good works of
both kinds ceremonial and benevolent, neglecting neither the ritual nor the
moral. He must love what he persuades to. His highest business is to teach, and
he must neither be a “dumb dog” nor an unfaithful shepherd.

He must be patient in view of the inevitable opposition of the world and
worldlings. Considering the greatness of his reward he must endure poverty and
be content with little. Yet he must not be a beggar, people will take care of a
really deserving and self-sacrificing preacher. Here he digresses to insist that
it is the duty of the church authorities to induct into the ministerial office
only those who are worthy of it. In conclusion he dwells again on the dignity of
the office, its functions, its difficulties, yet insisting that by a suitably
unselfish and modest demeanor the preacher can win a hearing for his message. In
the Second and Third Books of his treatise Erasmus comes to the main portion of
his work:

Precepts and teachings of Rhetoricians, Logicians and Theologians as to the
things required in preaching. The disclaimer of originality involved in this way
of stating the case is honest and just, but so great and acute a mind as that of
Erasmus could not content itself with mere compilation, or with jejune
reproduction of the commonplaces of rhetorical science. The treatment shows wide
reading and masterly learning; it is judicious enough to hold and unfold the
well-wrought developments of the past; but there is enough of the author’s own
work, in the way of observation, reflection, application, illustration, to give
this great treatise an assured place of its own in the literature of Homiletics.
Yet that place now is only that of historical and critical interest. One need
not (happily!) go to Erasmus to learn Homiletics. I confess I found it a
wearisome task to toil through these lengthened and repetitious pages, and I do
not profess to have read every one of them with close attention. Erasmus is as
vexatious as Aristotle in his involved order of discussion. He adopts an order
of treatment, and before the reader is aware he shunts off on another line. Then
somewhere else he will take up what he left behind or thinks he has and say
something more about it! Moreover there is a deal of wordiness and refining
which produces satiety. All that is really worth while in the book can be now
more easily gotten elsewhere. But it contains a wealth of material, an acuteness
of thought, and a wisdom of application which stamp it as one of the great
contributions to homiletical thought and treatment. A survey of the principal
teachings of the Sec ond and Third Books is all that can be attempted here.
Their general theme is the acquisition of skill in preaching through the
training of faculty. In the First Book the introduction discusses the need of
training natural gifts and a good character in the preacher being presupposed.
Rhetoric is art in the good sense of the term, not artifice. As related to logic
it suggests that if one should train his reasoning powers why not also his
faculty of speech! The importance of the preacher’s work makes it imperative
that he should be highly trained for his business. Yet he must not be
artificial. The highest art is not to conceal but to use art, and be unconscious
of so doing. 1 Erasmus first takes up Grammar as the neces- i Here is a fine
saying which looks better untranslated:

“Necesse est enim lit priiis sit judicium quam eloquium, prius eapere quam
dicere; quemadmodum in natura prior est fons quam fluvius, et in artibus prior
est delineatio quam pictura.” (Op. cit., col. 851). sary precedent of Rhetoric.
This is the order of the Liberal Arts in the trivium; and by grammar of course
he understands more than is meant in the modern restricted use of the term.
Grammar, or Letters, as then understood, included the elements of all linguistic
and literary studies, both as taught in the preparatory (grammar) schools, and
as pursued in the universities. Accordingly Erasmus recommends the careful study
of language and literature as essential to the preacher.

He is careful to urge the importance of a knowledge of Hebrew, Greek and Latin,
but does not fail to say that the preacher should also have a good knowledge of
the vernacular so as to speak both clearly and elegantly in the popular tongue.

He urges the careful study of the classic authors, the Fathers, theologians, and
other literature. He also advises the reading of sermons, past and contemporary.

All these preliminaries being now disposed of, Erasmus comes to the heart of his
subject and proceeds to discuss such of the precepts of rhetoric as seem to be
of special value to the preacher.

Some of these precepts and principles evidently do not apply to preaching, and
some are unsound in themselves; but many are of service, and the Holy Spirit
does not disdain to use them in fur therance of the gospel. In regard to the
three kinds of rhetoric judicial, deliberative, epideictic (which he calls genus
encomiasticum) Erasmus remarks that the first only applies to preaching so far
as general precepts pertaining to all public speaking are common to both
species. Deliberative, or persuasive, rhetoric, however, gives many important
hints to the preacher, especially in regard to the formulation and statement of
propositions. Epideictic, or laudatory, rhetoric may be of help in the matter of
praise and thanksgiving to God in sermons, and in funeral or memorial addresses.
This leads Erasmus to digress here into a discussion of hymns. He dismisses for
the present the materials of discourse, to be treated fully further on.

He proceeds to a discussion of what he calls the office, or as we may more
clearly conceive it, the strictly rhetorical duties, of the preacher. In the
general consideration his first duty is to teach, to please, to move. Here we
have the Ciceronian dictum as applied by Augustine: doceat, delectet, flectet*
Of these offices, teaching comes first and is very important. As to pleasing
there is first a sort of diffused pleasantness in the speech as a whole. Some
preachers, as Bernard and others, were highly gifted in this way. Then there is
a pleasure to be produced by reasoning, as when one tries to prove the felicity
of the angels and saints.

There is also a third kind which seeks to please by pleasantries and jests. It
is questionable whether this kind properly belongs to preaching at all.
Certainly no case of it occurs in Scripture, unless the ridicule of Elijah at
Carmel and the i Let him teach, please, bend. occasional sarcasm of our Lord may
be held as such. Yet in the practice of many preachers the element of pleasantry
has had effective place, and may be defended; but of course it is to be
sparingly used, in subordination to higher ends, and in good taste. Vulgarities
and scurrilities are inexcusable. As to moving, this is the main end of
preaching for the preacher to carry his hearers with him.

More will be said on this matter when the feelings come to be considered.

Another way of considering the rhetorical functions of the preacher comes to
light in the accepted divisions of Rhetoric. First comes that into Invention,
Arrangement, Style, Memory, Delivery (inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria,
pronun-ciatio). Erasmus compares invention to the bones, arrangement to the
nerves, style to the flesh and skin, memory to vitality, and delivery to action
or motion. These are the essential things in preaching, and they underlie the
other mode of presenting rhetorical theory, i. e., according to the parts of the
speech: Exordium, Narration, Division, Confirmation, Confutation, Conclusion. In
the discussion of these the author treats introduction and narration together,
distinguishes with out separating positive and refutative argument, and omits to
treat the conclusion; so that now he presents the three very important topics of
Introduction, Division and Argument. These are discussed at length.

Under Exordium he treats also the theme, or statement of the proposition, and
brings in his few remarks on narration. An introduction is proper, but it must
not be too remote from the theme. There is much affectation of this sort. It is
well to derive the introduction from Scripture, and not always the text itself.
Various ways of so using Scripture are suggested. Narration (Scriptural or
other) often forms a suitable introduction. This should be probable, vivid,
preserving the proprieties of place, occasion, etc. The narrative should not
present fictitious things as true, but should appear in its true light. Coming
back to the exordium proper the author shows how it often arises from a wise or
clever use of the occasion, instancing Paul’s address at Athens. From secular
oratory he tells this good story: An ambassador once came from Byzantium to
Athens to secure concord after some interruption of good relations between the
cities. He happened to be a very fat man and when he arose to speak the
light-minded Athenians greeted him with roars of laughter. Instead of taking
offense or being embarrassed he said: “Why do you laugh? My wife is fatter than
I; and yet when we are at peace one couch suffices for us both, but when we
disagree the whole house is not large enough for us.” A number of other counsels
on the introduction are given; the last one being that the introduction may
often simply be a statement of the proposition and its divisions. It is
customary with some before passing to the discussion of the theme to pause and
bring in an invocation. [It may be remarked that this custom still prevails in
many German churches, perhaps elsewhere also.] This probably arose from the
usage of the poets in invoking the muses, and has no Scriptural or even
patristic authority. It may be easily abused, and may do harm. The next topic is
Division. This may be under stood in two ways: (1) It is a certain part of the
speech or sermon which has the twofold function of calling the hearer’s
attention to the points which he should specially keep in mind, and of promising
on the speaker’s part the order and number of the matters to be discussed. (2)
Division may also be understood in the more general sense of the order or
arrangement of the matter in the sermon as a whole the course of discussion. It
is here considered in the restricted sense of a statement of the theme and its
outline. The discussion implies announcement, but proceeds mainly on the finding
and unfolding of the theme and its divisions. Division helps the memory of the
hearer, aids in holding the speaker to his subject, but sometimes confines
thought. To avoid the embarrassment of slips in memory it is well to have notes
of the outline. Some topics are not readily thus analyzed, and when this is so
do not try to force divisions. “When the argument is obscure or involved it is
well to have very clearly marked division to aid the hearer in comprehension.

Faulty divisions are those which have too many points and thus becloud the mind
of the listener a great fault of the scholastic. Again, it is a fault to
announce as one head a statement which really includes the others merely
re-stating the theme as a division of itself, or giving a division which renders
others superfluous. Another fault is where the parts of the division are not
coherent, but merely state points not logically connected. On the whole division
is very important, but is difficult, and requires much thought and care.

Before passing to his next topic Erasmus digresses at length to consider the
invention of propositions and heads of discourse. He seems to have been led to
this by his mention of the difficulty of division. The digression goes over some
ground already covered, but with some new matter. It makes suggestions as to
finding themes of the various sorts, such as those which fall under the genera
Suasory (Deliberative), Laudatory (Demonstrative), Hortatory, Consolatory, and
Admonitory. Under each he gives some sage advices to the preacher on the
division and presentation of his themes. He then takes up the status, or
Statement of the Case, the Proposition.

Illustrations here are chiefly from forensic oratory where the statement of the
case is often of supreme importance but the preacher can learn something from
this practice; since it is important that both he and his hearers should have
clearly before tjiem just w’T hat he is proposing to discuss. This leads him to
“add a little more” on the invention and division of propositions, and the order
of statement. At last Erasmus takes up Argument, or Proof, as one of the
essentials of sermon material. But his discussion of the subject has little of
originality or value. He follows the Aristotelian categories and distinctions as
to the nature and kinds of arguments, and shows how they may be derived from a
variety of sources, such as the consideration of times, places, persons and
things. He of course distinguishes proof and refutation, and gives general
counsels as to their employment and order. He advocates the climactic order in
presenting arguments. He advises vividness in the presentation, with occasional
interjections to arouse and hold attention; speaks of recapitulation in the
conclusion and the best way of managing that. Thus concludes the Second Book. In
the Third Book Erasmus begins by recalling his enumeration of the five
“offices,” or rhetorical functions of the preacher: Invention, Arrangement,
Style (elocutio), Memory, and Delivery (pronunciatio). Of these he has shown
that invention belongs to the whole discourse. Style (or expression, elocutio)
has been treated in Book L, under the preacher’s needs, and in Book II. under
Grammar. Order or Arrangement (dispositio) has also been discussed and here only
a few things are added, or repeated, on that topic. It there fore remains to
consider Memory and Delivery (pronunciatio). In regard to Memory dependence on
artificial mnemonic aids is really harmful. It is better to trust and train the
memory. If long passages are to be quoted, or other cases of special difficulty
be encountered let notes be used. A clean life is an aid to memory. Dissipations
weaken it. Cares and the reading of many books weaken the memory. This is why
old men forget so readily they have so much on their minds! In regard to
delivery, which after the older rhetoricians he usually calls “ pronunciation,
“sometimes “ action/ Erasmus defines it as “apta ad rem vocis, vultus ac totius
corporis moderatio,” i. e., the management, in a way suited to the matter in
hand, of the voice, the expression of countenance, and the whole body. Nature
itself teaches us to use differences of voice, look and gesture toward different
people and under different circumstances; but nature needs to be taught and also
to be corrected, especially when led astray by imitation of the faults of
others. We often fail to observe our own faults, and so are some times pleasing
to ourselves in the very things in which we displease others. In which case it
is well to have a good friend as monitor. Erasmus proceeds then to give sound
and judicious counsels on the several topics of voice, face and gesture. On the
last he remarks (col. 964): “In gestibus corporis loquacissimae sunt manus,” in
the movements of the body the hands are most talkative. In the whole matter of
delivery decorum, propriety and suitableness to occasion and subject must be
observed. A long and very important part of the work follows, which must be
noticed with greater brevity. It is devoted to certain “deferred matters,”
suggested or only slightly touched in the preceding treatment. They are
concerned with making the address “forcible, pleasing and copious. “The topics
presented are five: Force (vehemen-tia), Amplification, Appeal to the Feelings,
Figures of Speech (including a discussion of the allegorical interpretation of
Scripture), and Judgment or Good Sense. Some of the best work of the author
appears in this lengthy section. Under Force he treats of how to dwell on a
topic so as to make it impressive. Under Amplification (including Diminution by
way of contrast) he shows how the preacher must enlarge or diminish for effect,
but always strictly within the bounds of truth and propriety. Among the ways of
doing this he mentions change of terms, correction, hyperbole, increment,
comparison, and emphasis. The discussion of the Feelings has much of in terest;
and judicious advices are given in regard to restraint, reality, etc. The more
vehement emotions it is not often well for the preacher to stir. To awaken
feeling he must feel. It has been well said, Nihil incendere nisi ignem (nothing
kindles but fire). And he adds a phrase of his own worth quoting: Mens ignea
linguam facit igneam (a flaming mind makes a flaming tongue). He gives hints and
illustrations as to the best means of exciting the feelings, giving sound
cautions on the subject, and earnestly urging the preacher to prayer for wisdom
in this most important matter. In regard to Figures a long discussion ensues.
The use of figures is required by the “ virtues” of a speech, and the principal
virtues are: probability, perspicuity, vividness (evidentia), pleasantness,
force, and splendor or sublimity. He discusses the figures which tend to these
ends, and brings in a consideration of maxims and proverbs which aid in the same
way. Recurring to figures, he gives a long and for the most part judicious
consideration to the use of figures and figurative language in Scripture, in the
course of which he condemns the excesses of the allegorical interpretation. In
regard to the Good Judgment of the preacher in dealing with his themes and
audiences a number of good things are said. He must avoid giving offense, but
not compromise with evil, must mitigate blame as far as is right, and be
fatherly and sympathetic in administering it; must not preach the atonement so
as to give excuse for sin, remembering that those who continue in sin have no
justifying faith. So in all things the preacher must be circumspect and avoid
doing harm while seeking to do good. The Fourth Book is of little or no value.
It consists of a long collection of subjects and suggestions of how to treat
them. This was a feature of the mediaeval and to some extent of the reformatory
homiletics which most modern treatises have wisely abandoned. On the whole this
labored, diffuse, ill-arranged and long-drawn-out treatise could never have had
many readers, but it must have proved, as its author hoped it would, a thesaurus
from which many teachers of rhetoric and homiletics drew material for the
instruction of their pupils and the composition of briefer treatises.

Catholic Homiletics Our survey could not be complete without some mention of the
state of homiletical theory among the Catholics of the period, though their
contributions are not so important for the general subject as those previously
considered. In Homiletics as well as in other spheres of reform, they owed much
to both the Humanists and the Protestants.

Though it is natural for Protestants to exaggerate and for Catholics to minimize
this influence, it must be recognized as important. It was felt both in the
theory and the practice of preaching. Yet of course the improvement due to
reforms within the Catholic church must not be denied. Of these may be recalled
the work of the humanistic reformers who remained in the Catholic fold. Be sides
Reuchlin and Erasmus, who never separated from the Catholic church, there were
many scholars of the time who were warmer partisans of the ancient order. There
were a considerable number of these, especially in Italy, and the work of these
scholarly leaders was felt in every sphere of Catholic thought, including
preaching. Prominent here was Charles Borromeo, the famous arch bishop of Milan,
cardinal and later saint. He not only took a deep personal interest in the
improvement of preaching, wrote a little book on pastoral duties in which he
touched on the matter, perhaps influenced if he did not directly frame the
action of the Council of Trent on this subject, but he induced Valerio to write
a book on preaching. The Council of Trent, among its other stupendous labors,
gave active and decisive attention to reforms in preaching, and sought to
correct some of the more flagrant abuses both in practice and theory.

Among Catholic writers of the time a few deserve notice. Augustine Valerio, at
the request of Cardinal Borromeo, published in 1575 a Rhetoric Ecclesiastical.
He groups and discusses the materials of preaching under the heads of things to
be believed, hoped for, feared, avoided, done.

He insists on maintaining a distinction between sacred and common rhetoric. He
urges that the two chief duties of the preacher are to teach and to move his
hearers. In 1565 the Spanish court preacher, Lorenzo Villavicentio, published a
treatise on preaching which seems (from the title and some indication of the
treatment as given by Kep-pler in Wetzer and Welte), to have been directly
borrowed from the great Protestant homiletician Hyperius with such changes as
the situation demanded. It has the same title as the work of Hyperius De
formandis concionibus sacris, etc., and adopts his classification of the kinds
of preaching as distinguished from secular oratory. The work is divided into
three books, however, instead of two, and the author pays much attention to
argument and the refutation of heresy. In his History of Spanish Literature *
Ticknor mentions several works of homiletical interest.

“Juan de Guzman in 1589 published a formal treatise on Rhetoric, in the seventh
dialogue of which he makes an ingenious application of the rules of the Greek
and Roman masters to the demands of modern sermonizing in Spanish. “...

“Paton, the author of several works of little value, published in 1604 a crude
treatise on “The Art of Spanish Eloquence/ founded on the rules of the ancients.
The critic adds in a footnote: * The extracts from old Spanish books and hints
about their authors in this treatise are often valuable, but how wise its
practical suggestions are may be inferred from the fact that it recommends an
ora tor to strengthen his memory by anointing his head with a compound made
chiefly of bears grease and white wax.” But among Catholic writers on Homiletics
of this period the palm undoubtedly belongs to the eminent Spanish preacher,
bishop and devotional writer, Luiz of Granada (1504-1588). 2 His Rhetor- iVol.
III., pp. 187, 188.

2 See my History of Preaching, L, 547. ica Ecclesiastica, or Six Books on the
Method of Preaching, is a work of real value alike for its contents and its
style and its place in the literature and history of Homiletics. I had the
pleasure of reading it in a fine old edition at the Bibliotheque Nationale in
Paris some years ago. After a dedication to his alma mater, the University of
Valencia, and a preface giving his reasons for writing, he proceeds to discuss
his subject in six books.

Book I. sets forth the origin of rhetoric in the nature of men and things as
providentially ordered. Nature is helped and trained by art.

Cicero and Aristotle were the ancient masters of rhetoric. The utility and
necessity of rhetorical art are argued. Its principles are naturally and easily
turned to account by the preacher, just as other natural and necessary things
may be turned to the service of God. Chrysostom so used oratory, and Augustine
ably treated it in his De Doctrina Christiana. The dignity and difficulty of the
preacher’s office are great, and he must be a man of purity of character and
rectitude of intention, pious in spirit and having in mind the glory of God. Let
him remember the calls of Jeremiah and Isaiah, and the descent of the Holy
Spirit on the Apostles. The preacher must also be zealous in charity, in
prayers, in meditation.

Book II. takes up rhetoric proper and shows how it differs from logic. Every
discourse may be divided into the three parts of Exposition, Argumentation,
Amplification. The division of the question and the sources of arguments are
considered; also the forms of argument, induction, syllogism, dilemma, etc.;
then the order of arguments; then adornment, accommodation, etc.

Book III. is largely devoted to Amplification its nature as different from
argument, its kinds, such as description and others. Book IV. recurs to
Arrangement and goes more fully into the discussion of it. The three kinds of
oratory are considered and it is urged that a fourth, the genus didascdH-cum,
must be added. The preacher will employ all except the judicial, and mainly the
didactic. The parts of a speech are six: Exordium, Narration, Proposition,
Proof, Confutation, Conclusion.

Recurring to the kinds of preaching the author discusses (1) the suasory,
corresponding to the deliberative oratory; (2) the demonstrative (pane gyrical),
as applied to the saints and angels; (3) the narrative (i. e., the gospel, or
reading and exposition of Scripture); (4) a mixture of these; and (5) the
didactic proper, which is more given to doctrine than to persuasion or appeal.
Book V. treats of Style (elocutio), where four essentials are enforced: (1)
Purity and correctness of language; (2) Perspicuity; (3) Adornment, including a
good discussion of tropes and figures; (4) the avoidance of faults of language
and expression.

Book VI. treats of Delivery (pronunciatio), where again four things are
discussed: (1) Correction of faults; (2) Clearness of utterance; (3) Elegance of
manner; (4) Fitness, i. e., to subject, occasion, etc. Gesture and movement
should be appropriate. In conclusion the author reverts to a number of things
necessary to the preacher’s highest success. Again he insists on a good life as
fundamental. Then the preacher must have due regard to times, occasions, and
subjects for fitting speech. Night or early morning is the best time for study.
Prayer and meditation are very necessary. Both in preparation and in preaching
the thoughts must be directed to Christ alone. A certain Armenian lady was
returning with her husband and others from the court of Cyrus, when the
conversation turned upon the beauty and grace of the king. This lady being
silent, her husband asked what she thought of Cyrus, and she replied with loving
modesty, “I was keeping my eyes on thee, my husband, and do not know how other
men looked.” Our survey of the development of homiletical theory from its
beginning and up to the Reforma-tion has shown us how that theory is both
historically and naturally related to general Rhetoric as the art or science of
oratory. But it has also shown how impossible it is to consider preaching, with
its artistic or theoretical expression, as merely one of the forms of public
address. Three great elements of preaching give to it and its theoretical
unfolding a distinction which marks off Homiletics from general Rhetoric. These
are the origin of preaching in the distinctively religious aims of the Hebrew
prophets and of Jesus and his apostles, the historic unfolding of preaching as a
fixed and characteristic element in the worship and work of the Christian
religion, and the unique relation of preaching to the Bible considered as the
revelation of the mind and will of God for all time. We have seen how these
conceptions of preaching gave impulse to the masterly work of Origen as a
teacher of the Bible, to the splendid oratory of Chrysostom and other preachers
of the fourth century, and to the creative studies of Augustine who first
formulated these principles into a system of instruction for preaching as a
distinctive work. The earlier Middle Ages added nothing to Augustine’s
presentation of the theory of preaching. But the rise and dominance of
Scholasticism brought in the analytical method. Excess and misuse of this method
have at various times demanded reform, but its value is indisputable as an aid
to the clear and convincing presentation of truth. In the epoch of the Revival
of Learning and the Reformation Humanists, Catholics and Protestants attacked
previous errors of homiletical conception and method, and advanced the treatment
of homiletical theory to a much higher plane than it had ever occupied. The
modern development of Homiletics as a discipline of theological schools is due
to the Reformation. The influence of that great movement upon Homiletics
requires special treatment, which will be given in the next lecture.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 5: 05 - CHAPTER 5
========================================================================

LECTURE V THE THEORY OF PREACHING AS AFFECTED BY THE REFORMATION IN THE
SIXTEENTH CENTURY

WE considered in the last lecture the influence of the Revival of Learning on
the theory and practice of preaching. The close connection of that great
movement with the Reformation is matter of common knowledge. Coming a little
later than the Renaissance of Art and the Revival of Letters, the Reformation
owed something to both of those mighty forces in accomplishing its own purposes
and working out its own results. These purposes and results covered the whole
sphere of Christian thought, worship and action, of course including preaching
in all its aspects. For preaching is an essential part of worship, is profoundly
conversant with religious thought, and proposes as one of its chief ends the
effective and practical guidance of Christian character and conduct. Modern
preaching, both in practice and theory, received its most powerful and salutary
influence from the Protestant Reformation. We are to consider in this lecture
how that influence exerted itself in a general way, was revealed in the example
and practice of some of the leaders, and expressed itself in a few treatises on
preaching which were produced during the era of the Eef or-mation.

General Influence on Preaching and Its Theory

One of the immediate and lasting effects of the Reformation was that it induced
and confirmed a greater respect for preaching as a divinely appointed means of
instruction in Christian doctrine and conduct. The relative importance of
preaching to the other elements of worship was greatly enhanced. This heightened
respect naturally produced a demand for a higher type of pulpit work and this
reacted powerfully and favorably on the art and labor of making sermons. In any
art aim affects method. In preaching, the higher the aim is conceived to be the
better the method must be come, and for a better method there must be better
training as well as practice. It is true that the Reformation impulse was felt
more in the contents than in the form of sermons, but contents also reacted upon
form and back of that upon theory, as we shall now see.

One of the most significant, far-reaching and abiding effects of the Reformation
on preaching was that it brought in and established a better interpretation and
application of Scripture in sermons. On this point I venture to quote at length
a paragraph from Lectures on the History of Preaching by Dr. John A. Broadus,
where, speaking of the Reformation and preaching, he says (p. 114): “It was a
revival of Biblical preaching.

Instead of long and often fabulous stories about saints and martyrs, and
accounts of miracles, in stead of passages from Aristotle and Seneca, and
fine-spun subtleties of the Schoolmen, these men preached the Bible. The
question was not what the Pope said; and even the Fathers, however highly
esteemed, were not decisive authority it was the Bible. The preacher’s one great
task was to set forth the doctrinal and moral teachings of the Word of God. And
the greater part of their preaching was expository. Once more, after long ]
centuries, people were reading the Scriptures in I their own tongue; and
preachers, studying the original Greek and Hebrew, were carefully explaining to
the people the connected teachings of passage after passage and book after book.
For example, Zwingli, when first beginning his minis try at Zurich, announced
his intention to preach, not simply upon the church lessons, but upon the whole
Gospel of Matthew, chapter after chapter.

Some friends objected that it would be an innovation, and injurious; but he
justly said, It is the old custom. Call to mind the homilies of Chrysostom on
Matthew, and of Augustine on John. And these sermons of Zwingli’s made a great
impression. There was also at the basis of this expository preaching by the
Reformers a much more strict and reasonable exegesis than had ever been common
since the days of Chrysostom. Luther retained something of the love of
allegorizing, as many Lutherans have done to the present day. But Calvin gave
the ablest, soundest, clearest expositions of Scripture that had been seen for a
thousand years, and most of the other great Re formers worked in the same
direction. Such careful and continued exposition of the Bible, based in the main
upon sound exegesis, and pursued with loving zeal, could not fail of great
results, especially at a time when direct and exact knowledge of Scripture was a
most attractive and refreshing novelty. The same sort of effect is to some
extent seen in the case of certain useful laborers in our own day, who
accomplish so much by Bible readings and highly Biblical preaching. The
expository sermons of the Reformers, while in general free, are yet much more
orderly than those of the Fathers. They have themselves studied the great
scholastic works, and been trained in analysis and arrangement, and the minds of
all their cultivated hearers have received a similar bent. And so *hey easily,
and almost spontaneously, give their discourses something of plan.”

What has been said involves a point which must be emphasized again. It is that
the Reformation exemplified and expressed in its preaching a 1 deeper interest
in the spiritual life of the people, I both as regards doctrine and conduct. The
good of the hearers was its predominant aim, it must therefore be adapted in
form and language to the hearers. This gave it, when combined with its Biblical
content, a decidedly instructive character.

It was more didactic than evangelistic. Naturally this reacted strongly upon the
form of preaching, and the reaction was not entirely wholesome, tending to
produce a scholastic style of preaching rather than that which was evangelistic
and popular. In the homiletics of the Reformation and of the following period
this tendency to scholastic treatment of sermon-making shows itself. Among some
of the Germans it went to ridiculous extremes, as we shall see in a later
lecture.

Practice and Teaching of the Leaders

None of the great outstanding leaders of the Reformation Luther, Zwingli,
Calvin, Knox left any treatise or definite instruction on the art of preaching.
But all of them had something to say about the practice of preaching, and so
their example and instructions had much to do in helping others to formulate
principles into theory.

Careful and admiring students of Luther have collected and put together a number
of the sayings of the great reformer which show that on homiletical subjects as
on others he did not lack clear and strong convictions nor the faculty of giving
them vigorous expression. These utterances are gathered from Luther’s sermons,
from his Table Talk, and a few from his correspondence. Following chiefly the
discussion of Dr. A. Nebe * I offer the following brief summary as presenting at
least some of Luther’s teachings on Homiletics. i Zur Geschichte der Predigt,
von Dr. A. Nebe, Bd. II., S. Iff.

(1) Luther held it as a fundamental conception that preaching must have the
central place in worship as being the veritable and living Word of God coming
through the preacher. It must be, there fore, an exposition and application of
the written Word of God as contained in Holy Scripture. In his Table Talk, as
quoted by Nebe, he says: “I am sure and certain, when I go up to the pulpit to
preach or read, that it is not my word I speak, but that my tongue is the pen of
a ready writer, as the Psalmist has it. God speaks in the prophets, and men of
God, as St. Peter in his epistle says: The holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost. Therefore, we must not separate or part God and man,
according to our natural rea son or understanding. In like manner every hearer
must say: I hear not St. Paul, St. Peter, or a man speak, but God Himself.”

(2) In regard to the training and skill of the preacher as speaker he should be
master of the art of public address. In several places Luther declares that the
preacher should be master of both logic and rhetoric. Thus again in the Table
Talk he says: “A preacher should be a logician and a rhetorician; that is, he
must be able to teach and to admonish. When he preaches touching an article he
must, first, distinguish it. Secondly, he must define, describe and show what it
is. Thirdly, he must produce sentences out of Scriptures, therewith to prove and
strengthen it. Fourthly, he must with examples explain and declare it.

Fifthly, he must adorn it with similitudes; and, lastly, he must admonish and
rouse up the lazy, earnestly reprove all the disobedient, all false doc trine,
and the authors thereof.” And in one of his House-postils (as quoted by Nebe) he
declares:

“Dialectic is the body, rhetoric is the dress with which the body is adorned.”
These quotations show that Luther deemed it highly important, if not essential,
that the preacher should be well grounded in the accepted rules of reasoning and
expression. The application and use of these principles in preaching are defined
and ennobled by the nature of preaching itself as a message from God and
consisting chiefly of the exposition and enforcement of His Word.

(3) Luther repeatedly teaches that the aim of spirifrml The preacher therefore
must reach his hearers witE~hTs message. His art ancT sEll must be such as to
enlighten and persuade those who listen. He must use words which they can
understand; a method of speech adapted to the particular audience and occasion,
as these may vary. He must have a deliberate utterance, so as to give the hearer
time to catch what is said. Yet the preacher should not draw out his discourse
to such length as to weary his hearers. He must speak with authority, yet not
sharply nor angrily; with courage, yet not boastfully; cheerfully, not gloomily.

(4) In regard to the general form of discourse the main thing in Luther’s esteem
was the subject, or proposition. This should of course be Biblical in substance
and definite in the preacher’s own mind. The elaboration of it, as already said,
should be chiefly in the way of interpretation and application of Scripture.
Introductions and conclusions should not be too elaborate, but brief and
pointed.

(5) As to preparation and delivery Luther’s own practice varied, and his
suggestions to others seem to have been in line with his own methods.

Two things, however, stand out clearly: There must be careful preparation of
some sort; and there must be freedom in delivery. A few of his sermons were
written out beforehand, many were spoken from more or less full notes, but all
(it ap pears) were spoken and not read. Luther held that a well-trained preacher
should out of a full mind and heart be able to speak clearly and instructively
on the basis of the Word of God. In brief and in general, according to Luther, a
preacher should be able to preach. In his case it is not right that there should
be viel Reden und nichts reden much speech and nothing to speak! In the case of
Calvin we have less information on the point of his homiletical opinions and
teachingsthan in that of Luther. In the long lists of Calvin’s works I have not
found any titles to indicate that he wrote definitely on the art of preaching or
gave it special attention in his writings on other subjects. Nor have I found
that any of his many students and admirers have culled out from his works and
put together, as in Luther’s case, any summary of his views on the theory of
preaching. But Calvin’s practice was a living and powerful example to the
students at Geneva and to his followers everywhere, and it is hardly to be
doubted that in his instructions some were included which bore, at least
indirectly, upon the homiletical side of the training of ministers for their
work.

Calvin’s own views and practice in regard to preaching are easily discovered and
well known.

Like all the great reformers he gave to preaching the central place in worship
and taught that it must be in spirit and in fact an exposition and application
of the Word of God. His sermons were chiefly expository, and his exposition was
wonder fully acute, clear, reasoned and sound. In form his sermons are like the
ancient homily, consisting of verse by verse comment, but his logical and
trained intellect gave both unity of theme and connection of thought to his
discourses. In style Calvin was later criticized by some famous French man
Bossuet, I think as triste, that is, so serious as to be heavy, wanting in charm
and cheerfulness. The point is probably well taken, but other critics have much
to say in commendation of the clearness, force and power of Calvin’s style. His
main object was to explain and convince, and his manner of speaking was
eminently suited to this purpose. He does not seem to have written his sermons
before or after delivery, but they were taken down by reporters and preserved in
that way. His delivery has been described as deliberate and forcible, not
glowing but earnest and impressive. As to the Swiss Reformers, I do not recall
any definite homiletical teaching from my slight reading in the works of Zwingli
or Bullinger. Yet it cannot be supposed that Bullinger could wholly have
neglected this element of teaching in his work with the young preachers at
Zurich. And both of them agreed with the other reformers in their estimate of
preaching as being the main element in worship, and as consisting chiefly of
explanation and enforcement of Scripture.

Among the English Reformers the subject received some attention, for as early as
1613 we find a translation into English of a Latin treatise on “The Art of
Prophecying, “ which was of course written earlier and shows a good grasp of the
matter. The book was written by William Perkins, and appears to have been the
first homiletical treatise by an English author. It will receive fuller notice
further on. Here it is sufficient to remark in general terms that the leaders of
the Reformation in England were in accord with their brethren on the Continent
in their foundation principle as to what true Christian preaching ought to be. I
venture to quote here words of my own in another place: x “In 1534 a set of
instructions was drawn up (probably by Cranmer him- i History of Preaching, Vol.
I., 378. self) and sent to all the bishops for the guidance of the clergy. One
of the items is as follows: That from henceforth all preachers shall purely,
sincerely, and justly preach the Scripture and Word of Christ, and not mix them
up with man’s institutions, nor make them believe that the force of God’s law
and man’s law is like; nor that any man is able or hath power to dispense with
God’s law. Latimer, in his third sermon on the Lord’s Prayer, thus speaks: And
because the Word of God is the instrument and fountain of all good things, we
pray to God for the continuance of His word; that He will send godly and well
learned men amongst us, which may be able to declare us His will and pleasure;
so that we may glorify Him in the hour of our visitation, when God shall visit
us, and reward every one according unto his desert. “In general we may remark
that while the reformers laid more stress on the content and aim of preaching
than on its form and method, they did not wholly neglect these either in their
example or their teaching. They seemed to take it for granted that in requiring
skill and training for a proper study and proclamation of the Word of God they
were demanding that the preacher should both know and know how to use the
accepted and tested principles of rhetoric as these were applicable to the
preparation and delivery of sermons. Nor was the formal discussion of the
subject wholly neglected, as we shall now see.

Treatises on the Art of Preaching In studying the homiletical teaching of the
Reformation we come first upon two little works of Philip Melanchthon
(1497-1560), written in Latin under the titles Elementorwm Rhetorices Libri Duo,
and Ratio Brevissima Concionandi. The theologian of the Reformation and friend
of Luther was born and educated in South Germany.

He was kinsman and pupil of Reuchlin, received excellent education, had the
scholar’s bent, be came the distinguished professor at Wittenberg, and the
teacher of multitudes of Protestant preachers and teachers. In his subjects of
instruction at Wittenberg rhetoric was included of course with application to
preaching. Among his writings there exists in several editions, and with some
variation of title, the compendious treatise on rhetoric mentioned above. 1 Some
of the editions give it in two and some in three books. It contains nothing
original or profound. It follows the accepted canons of the classical rhetoric,
of course with application to preaching. It discusses, in its three general
divisions, Invention, Arrangement (Dispositio), and Style (Elocutio). In the
introduction the author adds the other two “offices”: Memory and Delivery
(Pronunciatio), but does not enlarge upon them in the treatment.

Under Invention he treats the three kinds of ora- i By courtesy of the Library
of Princeton Theological Seminary I was enabled to read the original in Vol.
XIII of Bretschneider’s Corpus Reformatory, Halle, 1846. tor> forensic,
deliberative, demonstrative (or epideictic), and insists that there must be
added the genus didascalicum, which embraces preaching. Under Disposition (which
is necessary for victory and clearness) he gives examples from Demosthenes and
Cicero, and from the Epistle to the Romans. He insists that the arrangement
should be logical. Under Style (Elocutio) Me-lanchthon considers the three
topics of Grammar, Figures (to which he devotes a very good discussion), and
Amplification where he refers with appreciation to the Copia of Erasmus. The
work is of trifling importance in itself, but shows that the Reformers gave
attention in their education of preachers to the principles of homiletics as
based on rhetoric.

Besides this treatise on rhetoric mention is made of a smaller work by
Melanchthon more definitely homiletical in character. Translated the title runs
A Very Brief Method of Preaching; and the contents are summarized by Kidder 1 as
fol lows: I. The different parts of a discourse:

(1) Exordium; (2) Narration; (3) Proposition; (4) Arguments; (5) Confirmation;
(6) Ornaments; (7) Amplification; (8) Confutation; (9) Epilogue; (10)
Peroration. II. Simple themes with examples. III. Complex themes. IV.
Explanation of different meanings. V. An example of deliberative discourse.
Remarks: 1. The principal work of the preacher is to instruct. i Homiletics, p.
438.

2. There are two kinds of sermons: (1) Didactic; (2) Demonstrative. 3. Of the
four senses of Scripture. 4. On method.

Neither of these works has any other than a historic value or interest. They are
dry compends, without originality or warmth, ill arranged in form, and
scholastic in style. By far the most original and significant work by any early
Protestant writer on homiletics is that of Andrew Hyperius (1511-1564). x Andrew
Gerard (Andreas Gerardus), better known as Hyperius from his birth-place, was
born at Ypres in Flanders, May 16, 1511, to a lawyer of learning and
distinction, whose name he inherited. His mother was of an excellent family of
Ghent. The boy enjoyed the best early advantages of education, worked for awhile
in his father’s office, and then took his degree at the University of Paris,
where rhetoric and logic were among his favorite studies. After taking his
degree he took post graduate work in theology at the Sorbonne, in tending to
enter the church. But he had become touched with the ideas of the Reformation,
and the archbishop of Louvain refused to confirm his appointment to a
professorship at the University. On this Hyperius went to England and taught
there for four years. As yet Henry VIII. had not i Andreas Hyperius, voornamelik
als Homileet; door P. Bieater-veld, Kampen, 1805. An excellent study of Hyperius
in form of an inaugural address (expanded for publication) by the author on
becoming Rector of the School of the Reformed Church in Holland. broken with
Rome, and the young Hollander’s infection with Luther’s doctrines being
suspected he was required to leave England. In some way he was led to Marburg in
Hesse, where an old friend of his, Geldenhauer, was one of the leading teachers
in the Protestant school. Here Hyperius was welcomed, and found his life-work.
On Gel denhauer’s death he succeeded to the principal-ship, and remained at
Marburg during the rest of his life, a beloved teacher and preacher and leader
in the religious affairs of Hesse. His type of theology was more Calvinistic
than Lutheran, and he was therefore somewhat underestimated among the rigid
Protestants, but he was much beloved and very influential in the church life of
the principality.

Hyperius was an all-round scholar. His lectures and works in exegetical,
systematic and practical theology were useful and justly noted.

He wrote two homiletical books: (1) De Forman-dis Concionibus Sacris, seu de
interpretatione sacrae scripturae populari libri duo; and (2) Top-ica
Tlieologica. The second is really an appendix to the first and contains, after
the manner of the older Homiletics, a list of subjects for preaching with
suggestions for their suitable treatment. This has no permanent value, and by
his making it into a separate treatise it is possible that Hyperius was already
beginning to feel the drift away from this as a necessary part of homiletical
instruction. But the earlier treatise, On the Making of Sacred Discourses, was
and remains a work of the first importance in the development of Homiletics.
Writers like Christlieb, Th. Harnack, and others, do not hesitate to pronounce
this work of Hyperius as the first really “scientific” treatise on the theory of
preaching. In the preface (dated Oct., 1552) the author says that the book was
writ ten at the request of many candidates for the ministry who had heard him
lecture and preach at Marburg. The work consists of two books of sixteen
chapters each. The First Book treats of the general principles of the art of
preaching; the Second Book of the particular parts of the art. Certainly this
division of the matter is not very “ scientific” or logical. It reminds us of
the course adopted by Erasmus in the two principal Books of his treatise, and
may indeed have simply followed that work.

Also the exact subdivision of the two Books into sixteen smaller divisions each
smacks rather of artifice than art; but surely we can do nothing else than
follow the division which the author himself lays down.

Book I. Here without a heading the general principles of Homiletics are
presented. Chapter 1 sets forth the distinction between the “popular”
interpretation of Scripture and the “scholastic.” The latter has place in the
schools, as academic discussion for students and teachers. The popular method is
for the instruction of the common people and has place in the pulpit and must be
adapted to its end. The author has treated the academic method in other works
this is given to the popular. But before going into the discussion he proceeds
(after Erasmus) to consider the dignity and value of the preacher’s office.
Chapter 2 takes up this topic and points out three requisites in the preacher:
(1) Knowledge (doctrina), and not only of Scripture and theology, but of all
truth and current affairs. (2) Purity of morals. His life must be a seal to his
teaching. (3) Ability to teach power to set forth sound doctrine clearly and
attractively. Chapter 3 takes up the aim of preaching, which is none other than
to labor with all zeal and energy for the salvation of sinners and their
reconciliation to God. Chapter 4 discusses the points which the preacher has in
common with other public speakers. The author refers to Augustine’s treatment
and names the five elements (inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria,
pronunciatio), the three aims of discourse (docere, delectere, flectere), and
the three kinds of eloquence (sublime, humble, medium). These gen eral
principles of discourse must be wisely applied to the peculiar needs of
preaching. Chapter 5 tells of the choice of texts. The servant of the word is
compared by Christ to a wise householder, and by Paul to a steward of divine
mysteries. Hence the main principle in his choice of Scriptural themes must be
what is useful, easy and necessary. These points, with their necessary
qualifications, are sensibly discussed.

Chapter 6 treats judiciously the form of sermons, and points out that they
should be (1) short, (2) clear in language, (3) well outlined. Hard study and
careful previous preparation are needed. Chapter 7 discourses of the kinds of
sermons, of propositions, of the forms of themes.

Hyperius rejects, as unmeaning for the preacher, the accepted division of
rhetoric into judicial, deliberative, and demonstrative, and seeks to found his
division upon Scripture as given in 2 Timothy 3:16 and Romans 15:4. From these
passages he works out a scheme of the kinds of pulpit discourse into five, which
he gives in both Greek and Latin terms, but which we may translate as follows:

Doctrinal (or Didactic), Argumentative, Institutive, 1 Corrective, and
Consolatory. These may be reduced to three, which he names in Greek terms as
they relate to Knowledge, Practice and Comfort; but it is better for clearness
to retain the five as pointed out, and even to add a sixth, the Mixed, according
as two or more of these may be combined in one discourse. Proceeding to discuss
propositions and their statement he shows that these are merely brief statements
of the whole matter to be discussed, and that their kinds necessarily correspond
to the kinds of discourses just considered. Themes may in their statement be
either “ simple” or “ composite,” according as they are put in one or more
dictiones or terms. i Not a happy term, he afterwards explains that it includes
both the deliberative and demonstrative genera of the secular rhetoric so far as
available for preaching.

Chapters 8 and 9 treat of the parts of sermons, or rather of the sermon service,
since he includes the reading of the Scripture and the invocation.

After these come the exordium, the proposition or division, proof (confirmatio),
refutation, and conclusion. Chapters 10 to 14 discuss these in the or der given.
The discussion is judicious and excel lent, but need not be detailed, as it
gives nothing especially new or profound. Chapter 15 treats of amplification.
Hyperius does not highly regard the rhetorical devices usually practiced here,
since the preacher must not exaggerate nor diminish the truth for effect. But
amplification for emphasis, for getting things in their right proportion, for
impressing the importance of neglected truth, etc., is highly important and
should be care fully studied and practiced. With caution the usual rhetorical
methods may then be employed.

Chapter 16 gives careful and admirable treatment to the matter of moving the
feelings in preaching. The aim of the preacher should of course be not mere
excitement, but the production of spiritual fruit and the awakening and
improvement of the spiritual life. He gives an enumeration of the feelings
usually sought to be aroused by orators.

Some of these the preacher should leave alone. He is naturally concerned chiefly
with those which stand in closest relations with the subjects which he
discusses. The preacher must keep close to life. He has more freedom than the
advocate. He must himself feel what he urges, getting in full touch with his
subject. His manner must be controlled and appropriate. Hyperius shows how the
various kinds of feeling may be properly approached and aroused. The preacher
must be master in the use of the various figures of speech, which help in this
matter. Many examples are given from Scripture of proper appeal to feeling.

Book II. takes up the subject of Particular Ap plication of General Principles.
Really this is a discussion of the various kinds of sermons, as pointed out
before, and the best methods of com-posingand delivering them. Chapter 1 treats
of the importance of having clear ideas of which kind the particular sermon
belongs to. Chapter 2 teaches that in each genus one must seek the things
peculiar to that genus, finding the appropriate arguments, illustrations, etc.
Chapter 3 shows how the various kinds of sermons may be preached from the same
passage of Scripture, using Mark 8:1-38 as an example. Chapters 4 to 7 give a
number of excel lent hints on the interpretation and handling of Scripture
themes and texts. “One of the chief virtues of the preacher is to explain the
Scripture with his eye on the circumstances of the times.”

Thus the allegorical interpretation is discredited.

He must be sure that the theme is really derived from the text, and that its
lessons are correctly ap plied. Chapter 8 exemplifies how a “simple” theme of
the “didactic” sort may be handled.

Chapter 9 does the like for a “complex” theme.

Chapter 10 discusses at length and with excellent judgment how a preacher should
apply Scripture themes and texts to his own times. This is really his main
business. He must avoid far-fetched and strained applications, and deal honestly
both with the word of God and his audience. The author also takes occasion to
give a sharp and deserved rebuke to plagiarism. Chapters 11 to 14 treat with
care and sense examples of preaching under the genera Argumentative,
Institutive, Corrective and Consolatory. Chapter 15 treats of the genus
mix-turn, where two or more of these kinds are exemplified as must often happen
in one sermon.

Chapter 16 closes the work in emphasizing three very necessary things which the
preacher must ever have in mind: (1) The needs of his hearers; (2) decorum in
speech and conduct; (3) the peace and unity of the church. The earnest prayers
of both preachers and hearers for God’s blessing on the work are urged. This
truly great work of Hyperius marks an epoch in homiletical writing. As a fact
the book does not seem to have had as wide use as its merits demanded. Yet there
are traces of its influence upon other writers, and no doubt its principles
found some dissemination in the teaching of the schools. The Humanists,
including Melanchthon, had criticized and rejected the errors and extremes of
the scholastic homiletics, but they had taught rhetoric as applied to preaching.
Hyperius went further and taught preaching only as related to rhetoric.

After him, especially in the seventeenth century, Protestant Homiletics fell
into the slough of scho lasticism. Cold and minute analysis and refine ment,
with little adaptation to life and need, was the order of the time. Traces of
this degeneracy appear already in some of the books of the latter part of our
period. Christlieb, Lentz, Biesterveld and others mention various works (which I
have not seen) as having some vogue in the latter part of the sixteenth century.
Among them those of Hieronymus Weller (1562), Nic. Hemming (1556), Andrew
Pancratius (1574), L. Osiander (1582), Jac. Andreae (1595), Aegidius Hunnius
(1604). Of these one of the most important was that of Pancratius, who taught
the distinction of “textual” and “thematic” sermons, and seems to have given
start and vogue to the scholastic tendency which reigned soon after him. Next in
value was the work of Hunnius, who set himself against this trend, and taught a
more reasonable and Scriptural method of making sermons. But none of these
treatises can be compared in value with that of Hyperius. In England, as we have
already seen, the theory of preaching received some notice at the hands of the
reformers, and there was at least one treatise devoted to the subject. It was
written in Latin and early in the seventeenth century done into English. But
because of its date and the fact that Latin was deemed the suitable language for
its promulgation it clearly belongs to the reformatory period. The author,
William Perkins (1558-1602), was an eminent scholar and divine of the English
Church. He had been wild in youth, but was a brilliant student and received his
university training at Cambridge. He was thoroughly converted while at the
University and gave himself to the ministry, receiving ordination at the age of
twenty-four. He became rector of the parish of St. Andrews at Cambridge and was
recognized and esteemed as a devoted pastor and faithful preacher of the Word.
It was said of him that “while his discourses were suited to the capacity of the
common people, the pious scholar could not but admire them. Certainly this was
no slight qualification for writing a book on the art of preaching.

I have seen neither the Latin original nor the English translation, and am
indebted to Kidder 1 for what is here stated. It appears that the book is now
very rare even in its English dress. The full title page is: “Arte of
Prophecying, or a treatise concerning the sacred and only true manner and method
of preaching; first written in Latin by Mr. William Perkins, and now faithfully
translated into English (for that it containeth many worthy things fit for the
knowledge of men of all degrees) by Thomas Tuke. Motto, Nehemiah 8:4-6.
Cambridge, 1613.” In the dedication the author thus speaks of the “Science” of
preaching: l The dignitie thereof appeareth in that like i Homiletics, p. 440. a
Ladie it is highly mounted and carried aloft in a chariot; whereas all other
gifts, both of tongues and arts, attend on this like handmaides aloofe off.
There are eleven chapters, of which the subjects are as follows: The Art or
faculty of prophcying is a sacred doctrine of exercising Prophecie rightly; Of
the Preaching of the Word; of the Word of God; Of the Interpretation of the
Scriptures; Of the waies of expounding; Of the right dividing of the Word; Of
the waies how to use and apply doctrines; Of the kinds of application, either
mental or practical; Of memorie in preach ing; Promulgation or uttering of the
Sermon; Of conceiving of prayer. From this list w’T e judge that the book treats
more of the interpretation and use of Scripture than of the rules and principles
of sermon composition and delivery. But it must be said that the author’s
interest in the subject was rather practical than academic, and that his book,
though now valuable only as a historic relic, no doubt served useful purposes in
its day.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 6: 06 - CHAPTER 6
========================================================================

LECTURE VI THE THEORY OF PREACHING AS TAUGHT DURING THE SEVENTEENTH AND
EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES

JUDGING by the volume and character of the literature devoted to it, the modern
development of homiletical theory is by far the most important of all. In modern
times Homiletics has come to be recognized as one of the greater departments of
accepted theological discipline. It is no longer an incidental and subordinate
part of Practical Theology. This result is not an accident, but the inevitable
outcome of the movements and forces which we have been discussing in the
previous lectures, especially those of the Reformation period. The highest point
of this progress in homiletical teaching was reached in the nineteenth century
(especially its latter part), but before that there was a gradual and notable
development during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries which we are to
sketch in this lecture. The Seventeenth Century The conditions of thought and of
preaching during this century varied much with the different countries. There
was not much worth noting in Spain. In Italy the elder Segneri introduced a new
mode of preaching, after the French models.

Germany was desolated by the Thirty Years War, and yet Pietism arose with its
new impulse upon Christian life and preaching. Holland showed activity in
theological thought, but not remarkable results in preaching. In England it was
the turbulent era of the Stuarts and the Common wealth, and yet of the great
classic preachers among Churchmen, Puritans and Dissenters. In France the Edict
of Nantes gave impulse to Protestant preaching, and this stimulated the Catholic
pulpit which reached its classic glory in the age of Louis XIV. Among all these
peoples there was development of theory as well as practice in the art of
preaching, as we shall now see. In neither Spain nor Italy was there any work of
especial importance, but several, either in Latin or the vernaculars, of Spanish
or Italian author ship are mentioned by the authorities * as falling within the
seventeenth century. One of these was by Joseph of Segovia (date unknown), On
Evangelical Preaching, and one by F. B. Ferrario of Milan (1620), On the Rite of
Sacred Discourse.

Mention is also made of an Apparatus Conciona-

1 The authorities mainly consulted for this lecture are: Daniel P. Kidder,
Treatise on Homiletics, Appendix B, p. 430ff.; Herzog’s Real-encyclopadie,
article on Homiletics by Christlieb; Wetzer and Welte, Kirchenlexikon, article
on Homiletics; J. J. Van Oosterzee, Practical Theology, p. 114ff.; Lentz,
Geschichte der Homiletik; Hering, Geschichte der Predigt. These will be referred
to simply by name when necessary. Others will be named when used. torum by
Labata Francesco, a notable Spanish preacher, who died in 1621. Besides these,
several works with Italian titles are mentioned by Kidder and others as having
appeared during the seven teenth century.

It thus appears that the Catholics of Spain and Italy during this period did not
wholly neglect homiletical writing, but as their treatises were few and have
never become distinguished we may safely infer that they were of no great value
or originality. In France the case is quite different; for while the number of
treatises is not great there are several of exceptional value. Etienne Gaussen,
a no table Keformed theologian and professor at Sau-mur (died 1675), published
among other valuable theological works a treatise in Latin, De Ratione
Concionandi, which has been highly praised for good sense and sound principles.
The famous and beloved Protestant preacher, Jean Claude, produced an Essay on
the Composition of a Sermon, which was first published after his death in 1688,
and has been much used and translated. Claude (1619-1687) was one of the
greatest and best of the early French Protestants. His father before him was a
Protestant. The young man was care fully educated, and after his first pastorate
he was called, in 1654, to Nismes, where he served with fidelity for a number of
years. In 1666 he served at Paris and was the leading man among the Protestants.
It was during this time that he had his famous controversy with Bossuet, the
great Catholic orator. At the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685 Claude
was banished. He lived in exile in Holland two years more. He was a great man
and a noble character. His Essay on the Composition of a Sermon, in spite of
some faults, had a great vogue in its time and for many years afterward. It was
translated into English by Robert Robinson, the famous Cambridge preacher, and
has been widely influential in both England and America. While he was pastor at
Nismes he instructed a class of candidates for the ministry, and it is probable
that at this time his ideas on preaching were wrought out. These were not
reduced to writing until near the end of his life. The work remained in
manuscript and was published after the author’s death. Several English editions
appeared. The one here quoted is an abridgement from Robinson’s translation in a
little volume by Edward Williams, called The Christian Preacher. The substance
of the work is as follows: There are three principal parts of discourse
exordium, discussion and application. To these should be added connection and
division, making five in all.

Some preliminary words are spoken on the choice of a text: “ (1) It must have a
complete sense; (2) the sermon should stop with this; both too much and too
little are to be avoided; (3) it should be suitable to the occasion. “ On this
last point the preacher should consider times and places, and for the latter
should not choose odd texts for display, nor too profound ones, nor those which
imply censure. Then follow some general rules as to explanation of Scripture.
Next he says: “One of the most important precepts for the discussion of a text
and the composition of a sermon is above all things to avoid excesses/ He goes
on to specify that there must not be too much genius, that is, of intellectual
display. The sermon must not be overcharged with doctrine, nor strained on
particular points. Figures must not be overstrained, nor should reasoning be
carried too far. Neither should there be too much of the minutiae of gram mar,
criticism, language, etc., for this makes sermons pedantic and tiresome. As to
divisions Claude teaches that there should not be too many. They should never
exceed four or five; two or three are best. They may come either from the text
or from the subject suggested by the text. “As to the division of the text
itself sometimes the order of the words is so clear and natural that no division
is necessary; you need only follow simply the order of the words. “ Suggestions
follow as to the management of division and subdivisions. Then comes a long
discussion of particular rules growing out of these general principles. These
are grouped under the general heads of Explication and Observation. Explication
is the unfolding of the meaning of the text, both its terms and its thought. As
to observation, the meaning of the text is often clear, and observation then is
the only way of treatment, especially in case of historical texts. Some texts
require both explication and observation in different degrees.

Observations for the most part ought to be theoretical, that is, doctrinal. But
they should not be scholastic on the one hand nor too commonplace on the other.
These principles are illustrated at length by many examples showing how to carry
out the principles in practice. Following this there is some repetition of
thoughts already given, with added notice of making application and of stating
propositions.

Claude briefly treats of exordium and conclusion. The principal use of an
exordium is to prepare the hearer’s mind for the particular matters you have to
treat of, and insensibly to conduct him to them.” Sensible suggestions are
offered as to the brevity, clearness and attractiveness of introductions. As to
the conclusion he says: “The conclusion should be lively and animating, full of
great and beautiful figures, aiming to move Christian affections.” He discusses
these suggestions and in conclusion makes some general remarks on the need of
variety, soberness and other qualities of good preaching. The work of Claude is
very judicially appraised by Vinet, 1 who says that it has both a practical and
a historic interest because it not only offers many valuable hints, but shows
the ideas of preaching held at the time. He justly criticized Claude’s *
Histoire de la Predication parmi les R6form6s, p. 344ff. ideas of invention both
in the long and elaborate principles which he lays down, and the numerous
examples given of how to compose sermons. Vinet wisely observes that this method
hinders rather than helps invention, especially in young preachers, who should
learn to think for themselves and work out their own methods and outlines. He
sums up by saying: “Claude’s book has without doubt had a great influence and
one may in part attribute to it those preachings of commonplace form and facile
method which are all alike in their tastelessness and nullity; yet with these
reserves made we can recommend the reading of it. One will find in it many
important observations, many just and sagacious ideas which one would not find
in a rhetorician, and which are the fruit of experience. “

Among French Catholics in the earlier part of the century there were found
homiletical teachings in the works of St. Vincent de Paul (died 1660) and St.
Francis de Sales (1622), but no technical works are mentioned by the authors
whom I have studied.

Almost at the end of the century the celebrated Archbishop of Cambrai, Fenelon,
wrote his famous and valuable Dialogues on Eloquence. 1 Fenelon was himself a
preacher of great eloquence and unction, and a man of saintly character. He did
not write out his sermons, but the accounts of his i Dialogues sur VEloquence.
There are various editions and translations. eloquence are full of recognition
of his unusual powers in the pulpit. His little work on Elo quence, particularly
referring to the eloquence of the pulpit, has a deserved fame and is still read
and highly esteemed by students of the subject. A brief summary of the little
book is here given.

There are three interlocutors. A represents the views of the author; B is the
learner, with many wrong views but willing to be taught and finally agreeing
with his teacher; C is the interested third party who puts in occasionally a
side remark, but in the main coincides with A. The work thus openly follows the
classical style as shown in many well-known writings.

There are three Dialogues. The first discredits the eloquence which is mainly
for show and pleasure, and defends the view that the true aim of eloquence is to
instruct the intelligence and improve the morals of the hearers. This of course
is preeminently the aim of preaching. The author shows that this was the better
theory and practice of the ancients, and sustains his argument by reference to
Isocrates and Demosthenes as orators and to the writings of Plato, Aristotle and
Cicero. The second Dialogue shows that in order to reach this end the orator
must prove, picture and move. That is, he must appeal to the reason, the
imagination and the feelings. This leads to the discussion of divisions and
delivery. In regard to the latter and in accord with his own practice, Fenelon
prefers the extemporaneous method after careful preparation. This conduces best
to the true ends of eloquence. Also one should avoid use less and catchy
ornaments. He should also avoid an extravagant overwrought delivery. On this
point the author well says: “ Nothing appears to me so shocking and so absurd as
to see a man who torments himself to tell me cold things. While he is perspiring
he is freezing my blood.” The third Dialogue takes up the matter of interpreting
Scripture. The author shows that the Scripture itself presents models of
eloquence.

Much of this is plainly derived from Augustine. But the author discards and
discredits the allegoric method of interpretation and commends Chrysostom’s
manner of using Scripture, though criticizing him for diffuseness and other
faults.

He follows Augustine in discussing the prophets (especially Amos) and the
apostle Paul. He shows how the Fathers practiced or fell short of the true
principles. At the end the author discusses panegyrics, which should conform to
the principles laid down, and concludes with a quotation from Jerome: “Be not a
declaimer, but a true teacher of the mysteries of God.” In Germany, though the
times were distressing, there was among all three of the leading branches of
Christian opinion Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed a good deal of homiletical
teaching and writing. 1 A few of the more important works may be mentioned. The
way was led by Felix i Mentioned by Lentz, Christlieb and others.

Bidenbach in 1603 with a Manual for Ministers.

Chr. Sehleupner (died 1634) followed with a Treatise Concerning the Four-Fold
Method of Preaching. The book was written in Latin. He names the four methods as
follows: The heroic or theandric, the textual or periphrastic, the local or
articulate, and the thematic or Pancratian, after Pancratius, whose name was
mentioned in the previous lecture. This mechanical scholastic method was pushed
to extremes by several writers who followed. Lentz gives an interesting and
amusing outline and criticism of the treatise of one Foerster, who enumerates
and describes twenty-five different ways of preaching as follows: prosopopic,
historic, topic, gnomic, periphrastic, peristatic, catechetic, syncretic,
aetiologic, iatric, rhematic, textual, canonic (or aphoristic), allegoric,
disputatory, dialogic, of terms, toposynoptic, zetematic, lexipractic,
parallelitic, scenic, didascalic, mixed, and paradeigmatic! This learned foolery
was carried still further by J. B. Carpzov, the elder who thought out and named
in his treatise published at Leipzig in 1656, one hundred ways of preaching like
unto these. Later the younger Carpzov revised and abbreviated this book. A
better and more evangelical tendency was represented in Keckermann, a Reformed
preacher, who published in 1614 a much used Ecclesiastical Rhetoric. Others
among the Lutherans wrote treatises with more of practical and religious value,
of whom Lentz mentions Balduin (1621), Chemnitz (1666), Goebel (1672), and Baier
(1677). Among these authors the term homiletics came more and more into use to
designate the art of preaching. A few German Catholic authors also belonged to
this period, but none of their works appears to have gained distinction. In
Holland * John Hoornbeek published in 1645 a Treatise on the Method of
Preaching, which Van Oosterzee characterizes as the first original work on
Homiletics published on Dutch soil. It, how ever, as was usual in that time, was
written in Latin. This work was based chiefly on the principles of Gisbert
Voetius (died 1676), and the dry scholastic method which it expounds is called
Voetian. A better method was introduced and furthered by the celebrated
theologian, Cocceius (died 1669), but its development belongs rather to the next
century. In these German and Dutch treatises of the period under review there
are two distinct homiletic tendencies: (1) The scholastic, which was mechanical,
artificial, academic, tedious and dry; and (2) the more Scriptural and
evangelical, which showed greater reality and spiritual power. But even this did
not free itself wholly from the dry method and spirit of the age. Nothing of any
value was added in this mass of writing to the theory and practice of preaching.
It merely continued the principles of the past and prepared for a reaction
toward more wholesome and sound iVan Oosterzee, p. 146. modes of treatment. As
already pointed out one surviving point of interest is the use of the term
Homiletics. In England, as we saw in the last lecture, what appears to have been
the first treatise on the art of preaching was that of William Perkins, which
was originally written in Latin but translated into English and published in
1613 by Thomas Tuke.

Several other works of less interest followed this, and in 1667 there was
published a work which bore the title, Ecdesiastes, or a Discourse on the Gift
of Preaching as It Falls Under the Rules of Art, by John Wilkins, D.D., Lord
Bishop of Chester. 1 Bishop Wilkins (1614-1672) was a notable man.

He entered Oxford at the age of thirteen, and took his M.A. degree in regular
course. In the great struggle between king and parliament he sided against the
king and married a sister of Cromwell, by whom he was restored to his position
in the Church of England. At the restoration he was ejected, but later
reinstated and made Bishop of Chester in 1668. His merits and not political
influence brought him his appointments. He was a friend of Tillotson, at whose
house he died. He was highly esteemed and praised by Bishop Bur-net as: “A man
of as great a mind, as true a judg ment, as eminent virtues, and of as good a
soul as any he ever knew. He was a lover of mankind and delighted in doing good.
He wrote and pub- i See The Christian Preacher, a collection by Ed. Williams,
London, 1800 and 1843. lished a number of works of practical value in every
time, not the least important or useful of which was this work on preaching.
Though naturally written in the dry scholastic manner and running to minute
analysis and subdivisions, the book is one of real interest and value. Some quo
tations and condensations will give a taste of its quality.

/* Bishop Wilkins begins by saying: “It is the end of all sciences and arts to
direct men by certain rules to the most compendious ways of knowledge and
practice... Amongst all other callings, therefore, this of preaching, being in
many respects one of the most weighty and solemn, should have its rules whereby
we may be directed to the easiest and readiest way for the perfection of it.

... There are two qualities requisite in every preacher a right understanding of
sound doc trine, and an ablTI^tcj3rojHfl^ ap-ffly^rf to. the.edificaton^ of
others... This serv-icVofpreaching may be considered under a double notion as a
duty, and a gift. It is here insisted upon only in the second sense... It
requires both spiritual and artificial abilities: (1) Such spiritual abilities
as must be infused from above.

... (2) Such artificial abilities as are to be acquired by our own industry; and
these are either more general, as skill in all those arts and languages which
are required as prerequisites, or more particular and important for the art of
preaching, to which the general helps are these three: “ Method, Matter, and
Expression. These contribute mutual assistance to one another. A good method
will direct to proper matter, and suitable matter will invite good expression.”
On the basis of this clear statement the author proceeds to discuss with
excellent judgment the three topics of his treatise. As to method he describes
it as: “An art of contriving our discourses on such a regular plan that every
part may have its due place and dependence. This will be a great advantage both
to ourselves and our hearers. “ He discusses these advantages briefly, and under
the second says: “An immethodical discourse, though the materials of it may be
precious, is but as a heap, full of confusion and deformity; the other as a
fabric or building much more excellent both for beauty and use.” Further, on
method he says:

* The principal scope of a divine orator should be to teach clearly, convince
strongly and persuade powerfully; and suitable to these are the chief parts of a
sermon: explication, confirmation and application. Besides these more essential
parts which belong to the very nature and substance of a sermon there are less
principal parts not to be included, which concern the external form of it such
as the preface, transitions, and conclusion.” The author has some wise things to
say about these, and then takes up and discusses with sound judgment and very
clearly the main points of Explication (or interpretation of Scripture),
Confirmation (or argument), and Application, which he declares to be: “The life
and soul of a sermon; whereby these sacred truths are brought home to a man’s
consciousness and particular occasions, And the affections engaged in favor of
any truth for duty.” He distinguishes applications as doctrinal and practical
and gives a few good precepts on the Conclusion. As to Matter the good bishop
says the preacher must consider the conditions of his people and give himself to
prayer, reading, meditation and study. As to Expression he says: “There are two
things to be considered phrase and elocution,” by which, of course, he means
style and delivery.

He says: The phrase should be plain, full, whole some and affectionate.” By the
last he means full of feeling, and describes it “as proceeding from the heart
and an experimental acquaintance with those truths which we deliver.” As to the
Elocution (or delivery) he cautions that there are two extremes to be avoided
too much bluntness and too much fear. The last important English work of this
century was an Essay Concerning Preaching, written for the direction of a young
divine by Joseph Glanvil Prebendary of Worcester and published in 1678.

Kidder calls it “a plain and sensible treatise,” but gives no particulars. I
have not seen this work.

Besides these few treatises there were other homiletical instructions in English
during the seventeenth century. In their charges to the clergy the bishops gave
general advices on preaching with frequent particular hints, but not properly
technical teaching of Homiletics. Thus Jeremy Tailor in a charge 1 gives such
hints as follow: “Let every minister be careful that what he delivers be the
Word of God; that his sermon be answerable to his text... Do not spend your
sermons in general indefinite things... Let your sermons teach the duty of all
states of men. to whom you speak... and in all things speak usefully and
affectionately... In your sermons and discourses of religion use primitive,
known and accustomed words, and affect not new fantastical or schismatical
terms... Let the preacher be careful that in his sermons he use no light,
immodest or ridiculous expressions, but what is wise, grave, useful and for
edification; that when the preacher brings truth and gravity the people may
attend with fear and reverence.”

Bishop Burnet gives in one of his charges 2 a chapter on Preaching with many
excellent and sensible observations on making sermons. He urges attention to
style. It must not be too pretentious. The preacher should know his Quintilian
and Cicero. The good advice of the famous bishop is sadly marred by suggesting
the use of other men’s sermons when necessary or desirable.

It is not to be wondered at that occasionally among 1 See The Christian
Preacher, a collection by Ed. Williams, Duties), Oxford, 1843, p. 99ff.

2 Id., p. 206ff.

English clergymen this evil practice found vogue, since it was commended by such
high authority.

It appears from the brief discussion that we have been able to give to it that
English homiletical literature in the seventeenth century was of no great value
or originality, but followed rather the traditional rhetorical and sometimes
scholastic methods. Although in some respects the seventeenth century was the
classic age of English preaching, its homiletical literature is scanty and is
not distinctly great. The Eighteenth Century

It was much the custom of nineteenth century critics to speak slightingly of the
literature of the eighteenth. This criticism took in sermons as well as other
literature. Of late some reaction is noticeable, and many have come to speak
more respectfully of the intellectual output in all realms of thought which
comes from the eighteenth century. It is true that there was a let-down from the
high standard of the seventeenth century and nothing like an approach to the
splendid achievements of the nineteenth. Yet there was no utter failure in
literature generally nor in preaching.

Naturally the same sort of generalization applies to the theory of preaching.
There was not much of value produced during the eighteenth century, but yet that
period was not only the historic but the vital connection between those which
preceded and followed it. Thought did not flow over but through this period. So
we have in the eighteenth century some teachings on Homiletics which it is worth
while to investigate and briefly describe. So far as I have been able to make
out there seems to have been nothing in Spain and Italy of any importance in the
way of homiletical development and discussion. Kidder * mentions a few titles of
works, but they do not seem important.

It is said that in the writings and letters of St. Alphonso dei Liguori (died
1787), the founder of the Kedemptorist Fathers, there are hints and instructions
on preaching but no formal treatise. In fact, the writer of the article on
Homiletics in Wetzer and Welte’s Church Lexicon seems to indicate that during
the eighteenth century no contribution of any importance to the art of preaching
was made by any Catholic writer outside of France. In France Fenelon’s
Dialogues, written near the end of the seventeenth century, were much read and
widely useful in the early part of the eighteenth century. In 1710 was published
a treatise by Gaichies, Maxims on the Eloquence of the Pulpit. It had
considerable vogue, but I have not been able to see a copy of it. A little later
(1715) appeared Gisbert’s Christian Eloquence in Idea and in Practice. Kidder 2
speaks very highly of this work as having “the classic eloquence of 1 Op. cit.,
p. 463.

2 Id., p. 458.

Fenelon’s Dialogues, with a greater directness and didactic power. “ The author
opposes with sound sense and good effect the extravagant and artificial style of
preaching then so much affected. Of this work the writer on Homiletics in the
Catholic Encyclopedia says: “The work which comprises twenty-three chapters does
not follow the rigorous order of a didactical treatise and is with out the
dryness of a scholastic manual. It has been rightly called an eloquent book on
eloquence. It contains a series of talks on the faults to be avoided in the
pulpit, on the qualities necessary for the preacher, on the matter and form of
sermons, on oratorical action and decorum. Gisbert’s book suffices to make its
author famous not only among the Catholic clergy, but even among Protestant
pastors.”

Near the end of the eighteenth century, about 1793, Cardinal Maury published his
Principles of Eloquence of the Pulpit and of the Bar. This was rather, as the
title indicates, a general treatise with applications to preaching. The
brilliant author unfolds with force of thought and characteristic excellence of
style the accepted principles of sacred and forensic eloquence. He illustrates
by examples and criticisms of many ancient and mod ern orators. The criticisms
are keen and competent, though not always just. The book is well worth reading.
Of French Protestant treatises the only one of importance appears to be a set of
Lectures on Preaching by J. F. Ostervald 1 (died 1747), the noted professor of
theology at Neuchatel in Swit zerland. It was published from notes taken by stu
dents in his classes and without the author’s consent. Notwithstanding this
defect the matter was so good that it was thought worthy of translation into
English, and was held in esteem both in France and England. In Germany the
varieties of opinion and practice in preaching revealed themselves in the
homi-letical literature of the eighteenth century. Of this there is a
considerable amount, and some of it is of value. Early in the century the
influence of Spener, the eminent Pietist who repudiated the scholasticism of the
preceding epoch, was power fully felt. He himself paid little attention to form
in preaching. Imbued with his ideas one of his followers, Joachim Lange, 2
published in 1707 a treatise whose title (translated from the Latin) indicates
its aim: Sacred Oratory Purged From the Vanity of Homiletical Art. The pious
author criticized very sharply the extremes of the preceding period, but
naturally tended too far the other way in not giving sufficient attention to
rhetorical art in the composition of sermons. Later came a more balanced
presentation of the subject in the Eomiletic Precepts (still in Latin) of J. J.
Kam-bach (1736). While teaching the need of meditation and dependence on the
Holy Spirit he avoided 1 Kidder, p. 458.

2 Harnack, Geschichte und Theoric der Predigt, S. 138. the extremes of Pietism;
and while declaring for a simpler division and discussion he eschewed the
complicated scholastic method. This, however, was not defunct, as is shown by
the appearance in 1720 of E. V. Loescher’s (still in Latin) Homiletic Breviary,
or Summary of Ecclesiastical Oratory* This author at least had the grace to
reduce Carp-zov’s one hundred methods of preaching to twenty-five.

After this time the German treatises were writ ten in that language, which was
at least a point gained in further discrediting the scholastic method. Showing
the influence of the Wolfian philosophy came J. G. Eeinbeck, who published in
1739 a treatise on Homiletics (now in German) with the title, Evangelical
Oratory. 2 Soon after (at the instance of the Koyal Council of Berlin), he put
out a shorter work with the title, Sketch of a Method of Preaching in an Orderly
and Edifying Manner.

More important and valuable than these works was that of J. L. Mosheim, the
famous church his torian and preacher. He lectured on Homiletics at the
University of Gottingen, and is called by Th. Harnack 3 the father of modern
spiritual eloquence.” Himself an admirable preacher, he shunned the faults of
all the other schools and taught a sane, Scriptural and devout homiletical
iLentz, II., SS. 144, 145.

2 Harnack, S. 142; Bering, S. 163. method. His lectures were published after his
death (between 1755 and 1763) by Windheim with the title, Instruction on
Preaching Edifyingly. He gives a brief survey of the history of preaching up to
his own times, a critical outlook on the German pulpit, and on that of other
lands, and then gives sound rules and principles for the right kind of
preaching. He perhaps emphasizes the under standing a little too much, but he
insists on the play of the spiritual feelings and surrender of the will to God.

Some works on preaching came from the ration alistic party among the Germans,
but they were cold, critical and formal with little or no influence upon the
development of homiletical theory or practice.

Near the end of the century F. V. Keinhard, lec turer and preacher at
Wittenberg, and later court preacher at Dresden, exerted both from chair and
pulpit a great homiletical influence. Some of his principles were outlined in
his Confessions. He taught an evangelical Christianity, but did not entirely
escape from a sort of rationalism. At least he emphasized thought and form more
than spirituality. His method was analytical, neat and clear without going too
far into the nicety of scho lastic definition and division. So far as I have
been able to discover German Catholics do not appear to have contributed any
thing of importance to homiletical theory during the eighteenth century. In
Holland 1 the revolt of Cocceius and his fol lowers from the scholastic method
went on in this century. Representing this school is a Rhetorica Ecclesiastica
by F. H. Van der Honert, and an analytical tahle of subjects with Hints on
Preaching by Van der Alphen. A still greater improvement is found in the useful
work of F. A. Lampe (died 1729), with the title (in Latin) A Breviary of
Homiletical Institutions. He taught a more spiritual and evangelical method akin
to that of the better educated Pietists of Germany. The topical and Scriptural
method of preaching employed by Tillotson and other English divines made a great
impression in Holland, and the theory of this mode was expounded in a useful
treatise by E. Hollebeek (died 1796), professor and preacher at Leyden. This
style was furthered and improved by the writings and sermons of Gis-bert Bonnet
(died 1805), professor at Utrecht.

Thus in Germany and Holland the development was from the old, tedious and
academic Homiletics to one that was more Scriptural, evangelical, sim ple and
practical. Yet the development was slow, for the earlier manner still had some
influence. As we have seen, the better method was helped in Holland by the
direct influence of English thought and practice.

“When we come to works on Homiletics in the English tongue during the eighteenth
century it is interesting to find that among the first was one i See Van
Oosterzee, Prae. Theol, p. 146ff. produced in New England. This little work came
from the prolific pen of Cotton Mather, D.D., the famous Puritan preacher of
Massachusetts. The author was the son and grandson of Puritan preachers. He was
one of the most notable char acters in the religious history of colonial New
England. He was a preacher of power, a leader of influence, a writer of
learning, though much given to pedantry. Among his voluminous writingsis a
little book which bears the title Manu-ductio ad Minis terium; Directions for a
Candidate of the Ministry. Kidder * states that the work first appeared about
1710, and intimates that it was first published in England. But the edition here
quoted bears on the title page the words “Boston... printed for Thos. Hancock
and sold at his shop in Ann Street near the Draw-Bridge, 1726.”

After a pretentious Dedication and Introduction in Latin comes a table of
contents giving the subjects discussed. It may be of interest to quote these
entire. “ Death realized, True End of Life answered, Conversion to Piety
accomplished, The right End of studies fixed, Study of Languages directed, Study
of the Sciences, Of Poetry and of Style, Of Natural Philosophy, Of the
Mathe-maticks, Of History, Some useful Proposals to Students, The Sentiments
with which the Evan gelical Ministry is to be undertaken, Of reading the Sacred
Scriptures, Study of Divinity entered upon, The Pulpit and the Work of It,
Employ- iHomiletics, p. 445. ments for a Vigilant Pastor, The Genuine and
Catholic spirit of Christianity described and commended, Eules of Health, Kules
of Prudence.”

These announced subjects are all discussed in the little volume of 151 pages. In
the beginning the title is repeated and an alternative used:

“Manuductio ad Ministerium, or The Angels Pre paring to Soimd the Trumpets.” The
first fifteen sections discuss the subjects named in the table of contents and
only in the sixteenth section does the author come to treat of preaching. Before
that he has many quaint and amusing things to say, of which one may be taken as
a sample. In urging the study of Hebrew he says, “But for the Hebrew I am
importunate with you. And the more so because tis one remarkable instance of the
depraved gust [taste] into which we have of later years degenerated that the
knowledge of the He brew is fallen under so much disrepute as to make a learned
man almost afraid of owning that he has anything of it, lest it should bring him
under suspicion of being an odd, starved, lank sort of a thing who had lived on
Hebrew roots all his days.” In section sixteen Dr. Mather takes up the subject
of preaching. The section contains only eighteen pages and is ill digested and
arranged.

It has no special originality, but is often judicious and quaint. He begins
thus: “After all this preparation for the sanctuary you are now coming to feed
the flocks on the high mountains of Israel; coming into an employment among the
people of God in which I wish you may prove like the angel in the Revelation
that came down from heaven, and the earth was lightened with his glory. I am now
going to bring you into the pulpit. “ Later he says: The first thing which I
have to demand of you is that you entertain the people of God with none but
well-studied sermons, and employ none but well-beaten oil for the lamps of the
golden can dle-stick.”

He has a brave and manly word to say against using other men’s sermons: “Your
sermon must always be such that you may hope to have the blood of your Saviour
sprinkled on it, and his good Spirit breathing in it. A sermon likewise it must
be that shall discover you to be a workman; and be like the peace offerings of
old, an oblation, which as the people of God have their share in it, so tis
presented unto the glorious God Himself, the Great King, whose name is
venerable. How such things as these can be compatible to stolen sermons, or
concomitant with them, I cannot imagine.” After saying a few words full of good
sense on selecting the subjects of sermons, he well says: “Among all the
subjects with which you feed the people of God I beseech you let not the true
Bread of Life be forgotten, but exhibit as much as you can of a glorious Christ
unto them yea, let the motto upon your whole ministry be, Christ is All.” Again,
“Be a star to lead men unto the Saviour, and stop not until you see them there.”

He urges that the preachers should present the doctrines of grace, and to that
end should care fully study theology with the best authors, a num ber of whom he
recommends. He insists that there should be prayerful preparation with pause and
prayer at intervals during the composition. He enjoins a suitable delivery “a
^well-prepared sermon should be a well-pronounced one avoid unbecoming things,
speak deliberately, do not be gin too high, conclude with vigor.” Mather prefers
that there should be no use of notes in the pul pit, but if found necessary they
should be used wisely, not the dull reading of them. What I therefore advise you
to do is, Let your notes be little other than a quiver on which you may cast
your eye now and then to see what arrow is next to be fetched from thence, and
then, with your eye as much as may be on them whom you speak to, let it be shot
away with a vivacity of one in earnest for to have the truth well entertained
with the auditory.” By this last phrase, of course he means “well and profitably
received by the hearers.” With regard to the conclusion he says: “Finally let
your perorations often be lively expostulations with the conscience of the
hearer appeals made and questions put unto the conscience, and consignments of
the work over into the hands of that flaming preacher in the bosom of the
hearer. In such flames may you do wondrously.” The rest of the treatise
discusses pastoral duties and other matters as shown in the table of contents.
Thus we see that in this earliest American book on the subject there is very
little that is strictly homiletical or of any permanent value. But we have here
at least a beginning of homilet ical teaching in our country, and as far as it
goes, and with certain minor criticisms, it is a sound and sensible presentation
of its subjects. Of English books only a few are worthy of men tion. Those of
the early part of the century whose titles are given by Kidder seem not to be of
any importance. He mentions a Methodus Evangelica, or Discourse Upon the
Homiletical, Textual and Occasional Methods of Preaching, by Thos. Black-well
(1712); and Ars Concionandi, by J. Bare-crofts, D.D., London (1715), and The
Accom plished Preacher, by Sir Richard Blackmore, Lon don (1731).

More important than these was Lectures on Preaching and the Several Branches of
the Minis terial Office, by Philip Doddridge, D.D. The copy I have nse^ is found
in Volume V of Doddridge’s Works pvMi^d at Leeds in 1804.

Dr. Doddridge (1702-1751) was one of the wisest, most pious and useful of
dissenting divines of his time. He was tenderly reared, well educated and began
his work as a preacher while still young. It is said that two persons were
converted under the preaching of his first sermon.

He began his work at Kibworth, a small charge which permitted time for study as
well as devoted pastoral labor. In 1729 he joined with other min isters of the
Congregational body in establishing a school for preparing young men for the
ministry.

Soon afterward he moved with his school to Northampton. Here he remained for the
rest of his life as pastor and teacher. During this time he produced his two
most celebrated books, namely, The Else and Progress of Religion in the Soul and
The Family Expositor, an exposition of the New Testament. These books have been
of wide and permanent value. Doddridge’s nu merous labors in teaching,
preaching, pastoral service, and writing, soon wore him out. He died before he
was fifty years of age, but his influence has been great and abiding. His
Lectures on Preaching as published are the result of the editing and comparing
of several copies of pupils notes. They are therefore of the nature of an
outline or syllabus of lectures which were enlarged on in the class. Thus the
work is very imperfect in form and in style, but it is very judicious and full
of common sense and piety. It begins with general admonitions on the ministerial
work and character, discusses and rec ommends a number of practical writers
suitable for young preachers, and in Lecture V takes up Rules for Composing
Sermons. After announcing his subject and method he says: “When we are about
composing a sermon we are to consider (1) What subject is to be chosen; (2) In
what strain it is to be handled; (3) The style of the composition; (4) What
thoughts we are to intro duce; (5) In what order we are to throw them.” To this
he adds: “(6) Some further rules not comprehended under any of these heads.” On
the choice of subjects Doddridge recom mends that the more difficult and
profound themes be touched on in parts of sermons rather than that whole sermons
should be given to them. Of course there are exceptions, but as a rule it is
better not to make long theological discussions in sermons. He advises that the
more practical and easily comprehended gospel themes should be gen erally used.
On the Strains of preaching he explains that he means I c the general manner in
which the whole discourse is composed.” So he discusses the various strains as
argumentative, pa thetic, insinuated (or suggestive), evangelical, spiritual,
experimental, and Scriptural. On Style he teaches that it should be pure,
intelligible and clear, strong and nervous, calm and composed, orthodox, grave
and solemn, plain and unaffected, interspersed with figures, free and easy,
lively, various, harmonious. On the Choice of Thoughts he counsels that they
should be solemn, useful, proper to the subject, such as naturally flow from the
subject, some new in every discourse, popular and select that is, definite. On
the Manner of Ar ranging the Thoughts, or divisions, he gives very sound advice.
“Let the heads be distinct, not only in words but in meaning. Study to express
them clearly, that the distinction may evidently appear. When it is otherwise
the sermon cannot be understood, well received or tolerably remem bered, and the
preacher himself, it will be sup posed, has not fully understood his subject.”
With this good beginning he goes on to teach that there should not be too many
divisions and subdivisions, that they should be expressed in as few words as
possible, come in their natural order, should not be trite, and should be varied
in dif ferent sermons as the subjects may suggest. He advises that the plan be
stated at least twice and reviewed in the conclusion. “Let your hearers always
perceive where you are, and be upon your guard against long digressions. “ In
Lecture X Doddridge gives “more practical rules on the composition of a sermon.”
He urges that time should be taken for devout meditation on the subject, and
that the best frame and time for composing should be chosen. Then he discusses
the process of composition, dealing with the introduction, explication, moving
the feelings, use of Scripture quotations, appeal to conscience, and the
conclusion. On this he remarks: “Do not leave off merely because you have
nothing more to say; be sure to close handsomely.” With regard to Delivery
(Lecture XI) he speaks of its obvious importance and urges that it be grave and
serious, distinct in utterance, and “affectionate.” By this he mentis “full of
feel ing,” and quotes Baxter as saying, “Nothing is more indecent than a dead
preacher speaking to dead hearers the living truths of the Living God.

He proceeds to say that the delivery should be composed and sedate, various,
natural and unaffected, “free,” i. e., above the servile use of notes. “To be
able to preach without notes raises a man’s character. Accustom yourself to look
much upon your auditory.” He then advises on ways to attain a good delivery,
such as guarding against faults, seeking advice of others, and heeding
criticisms. He then makes some general and detached suggestions on various
points and turns from Homiletics proper to consider prayer, the study of the
Scriptures, and pastoral duties.

Two of the most famous and influential works in English were the productions of
Scotchmen.

George Campbell, LL.D, Aberdeen, published in 1775 his well-known Lectures on
Pulpit Eloquence. His other work, the Philosophy of Rhetoric, not withstanding
its faults, is a really great book and had large circulation and use in times
past. The lectures on Pulpit Eloquence are solid, judicious and thoughtful. They
encourage a Scriptural and evangelical use of rhetorical principles, but they
are cold and dry. The subjects discussed will give some idea of the contents of
the work. They are as follows: “Importance of Pulpit Eloquence, Helps for the
Advancement of the Art, Sentiment in Pulpit Discourses, Expression (style),
Pronunciation (delivery), Various Kinds of Dis courses, Lectures, Explanatory
Sermons, Choice of Subject and Text, Introduction, Exposition, Division, Style,
Conclusion, Controversial Dis courses, Discourses Addressed to the Imagination,
to the Passions, to the Will.” The so-called “moderate,” that is, rationalistic
branch of the Scottish Church, is represented by the famous Dr. Hugh Blair of
Edinburgh. In his one-time celebrated Lectures on Rhetoric sev eral are devoted
to the eloquence of the pulpit. The style is elaborate, the sentiment classic,
the ideas and principles good and acceptable; but the spirit is that of the
party to which the author belonged cool, intellectual, formal, lifeless. On the
whole the English treatises on Homiletics during the eighteenth century are
disappointing both as to number and quality. There is good sense for the most
part, but no enthusiasm. The treatment is formed upon the classic principles of
rhetoric with application to preaching rather than upon those of preaching
itself.


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 7: 07 - CHAPTER 7
========================================================================

LECTURE VII MODERN HOMILETICS EUROPE THE place of the nineteenth century in the
intellectual development of Europe is generally recognized as the most important
and valuable of all. There is no need to specify. All spheres of thought and
action were powerfully affected and progress greatly stimulated. The literary
expression of the movements of thought was enormous. Of course this applies to
preaching and its theory, as well as to all the other branches of intellectual
and literary work. The application to modern conditions and the expression in
modern forms of the accepted principles of Homiletics created a large and varied
literature. On this account the study of the subject is greatly facilitated, and
at the same time widely extended, both in scope and complexity. While the
writers on Homiletics during the nineteenth century have found little, if
anything, new to say on their subject, they have said it so finely and
powerfully, and in such a variety of ways that the interest of their readers is
not only held, but quickened and sustained.

General View

It will be proper at the outset to take a general view of European Homiletics
during the nine-teenth century. Christlieb in his article on Homiletics in
Herzog’s Real Encyclopadie, and in his treatise on Homiletics has given an
excellent survey for Germany, and has something to say for other countries. In
the development of theological education there was increasing recognition of
Homiletics as an integral and vital part of the preparation of young men for the
ministry. In the theological departments of the universities, and in special
schools (where these existed) for the training of preachers and pastors, there
were courses of instruction by lecture and text-book in Homiletics. Many of the
lecture courses were developed into books and published. No doubt most of the
literature of Homiletics was produced in this way, but there were also other
treatises by pastors and others, which did not bear the aca demic stamp. Thus,
both in lectures and in books, the value of homiletical instruction was empha
sized, but not always did it receive due recognition.

Christlieb says that in the early part of the century the improvement of
homiletic teaching in Ger many owed much to the spiritual and evangelistic
labors of the pious and eloquent preacher, Glaus Harms. On the scientific side
of its development, Homiletics, in common with every oth^r thpolosri-cal
discipline, was greatly indebted to the srenius and influence of Schleiermacher,
the great theo logian and teacher. Ghristlieb remarks: “We see, as always, first
that the beginning of better practice works toward the regeneration of theory;
and then, that renewed theory works toward the general improvement of practice.
“ This improvement, both in the theory and practice of preach ing, seems to have
held good throughout Europe, and among both Catholics and Protestants. In
England the case was somewhat different. As late as 1864, Dean J. W. Burgon, in
the Preface to his Treatise on the Pastoral Office, complained that at the
English universities no adequate means were found for the training of preachers
for their work, including Homiletics; but says that diocesan colleges had been
founded for this purpose.

He further remarks that, though this complaint had often been made, there was
still no proper provision for teaching the art of preaching. Of course, in the
preparatory schools careful instruction had been given in literary composition,
and university rnon were expected to know how to express them solves in English,
both spoken and writ ten. But practical homiletical instruction was sadly
lacking in schools where preachers received their training. In regard to the
present state of homiletical instruction in England, I wrote to Dr. A. E.
Gar-vie, Principal of New College, London, an author of useful books on
preaching, to which attention is later called. Dr. Garvie’s reply, which I am
permitted to quote, is as follows: “As regards your special subject of inquiry,
it is very difficult to make a brief statement, as there is no uniformity of
practice. In most colleges the Principal has also charge of Pastoral Theology,
including Homiletics. In some colleges this is supplemented by special courses
of lectures by ministers who have made good as preachers or pastors. A ser
mon-class is held, at which the students in turn preach before their teachers
and fellow-students, and criticism follows. Some of the Principals are content
with informal instruction in Homiletics in their remarks in the sermon-class.
Others give lectures on the History of Preaching, or the Theory. Most colleges
provide competent instruction in Voice Production and Elocution. I think it may
be said that the colleges are paying more attention than they did to the whole
subject of practical training, and the churches are becoming very insistent on
that. The students, too, are more eager to develop their powers as preachers.
The tendency in some colleges to regard academic instruction as alone of value
is weakening. I am hopeful of great improvement in the future in this branch of
learning. “

Survey of the Literature A complete detailed study of the literature is neither
possible nor desirable in a lecture like this.

All that is required for our purpose is to select a few of the outstanding works
for such notice as will give a reasonably clear and full conception of the
character and quality of homiletical teaching in Europe during the period under
review, that is, since the beginning of the nineteenth cen tury.

Among the Catholics of Southern Europe the subject was not wholly neglected, but
the books in Spanish and Italian, of which mention is made by various writers,
do not appear to have been of any distinguished or original merit. I have not
made any study of these. 1 It is, however, a matter of deep interest to us to
note that in 1912 there appeared under the auspices of the Baptist Theo logical
School at Borne a treatise in Italian by Prof. N. H. Shaw under the title
(translated) The Pulpit, or Manual of Homiletics. It is a clear and able and
thoroughly modern presentation of the subject, showing both wide study and firm
grasp of the materials, acknowledging indebtedness to many writers, and
especially to Broadus Preparation and Delivery of Sermons. Of this well-known
book he says in the preface: “The most complete treatise on preparation for the
ministry is that of Broadus, of which I have taken the lib erty to translate and
adopt many passages, some times extensive ones. It is encouraging to know that
the preachers in training for evangelical work in Italy are thus furnished with
an excellent manual on the art of preaching.

1 There are, however, at least two valuable works on the His tory of Preaching
which should be mentioned: L Oratoria Sacra Italiana nel Medio Evo, by Luigi
Marenco; and Storia della Predicazione nei Secoli della Letteratura Italiana, by
Francesco Zanotto. In Switzerland and France the production of treatises on
Homiletics was not so large as in some other countries, but the quality of the
works produced is high, and some of them have had extensive influence. 1 First
in order and in importance is Homiletics, or the Theory of Preaching, by
Alexandre Vinet, D.D. This great book was published after the author’s death in
1847 from his manuscripts, with some additions from the note books of students.
It had wide and fruitful use among French Protestants everywhere, and influenced
to some extent German thought and treatment. But it is especially interesting to
Americans to recall that the book was translated and edited by Thos. H. Skinner,
D.D., Professor of Sacred Rhetoric and Pastoral Theology in Union Theological
Seminary, New York, in 1854. It was used as a text-book, or a book of reference,
in many theological seminaries in this country. Dr. Broadus used it thus for a
while in his early work as professor in the Southern Baptist Theological
Seminary. His own thinking and treatment were very greatly guided by Vinet. The
first edition of Broadus book contained several extensive quo- iHere again we
must observe that there were valuable works on the History of Preaching in
addition to those on Homiletics proper. Of these special mention should be
i-iade of La CKaire Franc.aise au Xllme Siecle, by Bourgain; La Chaire Frangaise
au Moyen Age, by Lecoy de la Marche (a masterly work); Leg Libres Predicateurs,
by A. Me”ray; Histoire de la Predication parmi les Reformes, by Alexandre Vinet;
Histoire de la Predication Protestante, by A. Vincent; Le Sermon au XVIIIme
Siecle, by A. Bernard. For fuller bibliography see my History of Preaching, I,
566, and II, 580. tations from Vinet’s treatise. Besides that, there are
references and acknowledgments. Vinet was an eminent scholar and literary
critic, and was professor at Lausanne from 1837-1847. He was descended from
Huguenot parentage, and was thoroughly Protestant, pious and evangelical. On
beginning his work as professor he gave the customary inaugural address. In that
he thus expresses himself as to his view of his work: “I assure you, that I come
in the name and at the call of God, to study with you a human art, which as to
its use, and as to its means, has been rendered divine. In particular, be
content to know, that the man who offers himself, to aid as far as he can, your
meditations and studies in regard to preaching, though firmly resolved to
propose to you all the natural resources which give works of art their relative
perfection, has the fullest conviction that God alone understands art, that his
Spirit alone is eloquent in our discourses.” This promise was fully redeemed,
for both the spirituality and scholarship of the author appear in his excellent
book. It is one of the classic treatises on the subject of Homiletics. Though
published after the author’s death, and therefore without his revision, it
remains a great and noble production. As was natural, it was chiefly and avow
edly adapted to the needs of the author’s own time, country and people. But it
develops and applies the great principles of the art of preaching with keenness
of mind, ample learning, and an earnest spirit. Though sometimes diffuse and
labored, and in some respects incomplete in its treatment, the book remains a
worthy monument of a truly great mind which gave its best strength to the art of
which it treats. In the Introduction (page 28) Vinet defines the sermon as a
“discourse incorporated with public worship, and designed, concurrently or
alternatively, to conduct to Christian truth one who has not yet believed in it,
and to explain and apply it to those who admit it. The Apostles Paul and Peter
give the same idea of preaching. “ Further he says (page 29), “The object of
pulpit eloquence, we are aware, as indeed that of all eloquence, is to determine
the will; but this object is closely combined with that of instruction.
Eloquence is but the form, the edge, so to speak, of instruction. The preacher
is a teacher under the form of an orator/ Again (page 31): “Not only does
teaching predominate in the eloquence of the pulpit; the preacher, we add, has a
document as the basis of his eloquence. As we have before said, he speaks the
Word of God.” He has a long and sensible discussion of preaching as a true art,
and says (page 33), “Art, in effect, which we must not confound with artifice,
is, in all cases, but the serious search for means suited to an end; so that, to
renounce art, we must first prove that, at the first attempt, the whole and the
best possible is found. Till this be done, we ask what harm can art do?”

Coming to the main treatment (page 49) lie defines thus: “The division of a
course upon the art of Oratory, has always been, as it ever must be, Invention,
Disposition, Elocution. Invention, strictly speaking, expands itself over the
whole field of Rhetoric. We invent our plan, we invent our language. The same
faculty is applied to everything; it is the whole talent, it is the whole art.
But if we consider here, not the faculty, the exercise of which is unlimited,
but the object, which is special, we shall find a real difference and
distinction between those three things; the matter or ground (which is to be
invented), the order (which is to be invented), and the style (which is to be
invented), a division which corresponds to the ancient one, and which, perhaps,
we may use to advantage. While, however, we retain the terms, we premise that by
the word invention, we understand only the invention of the ideas, or the
matter, of which the disposition and expression are afterwards to be invented. “
By elocution he means style. In a resume at the end of Part I (page 254), he
clearly sums up by saying: “The whole of art, say the ancient rhetoricians,
consists in inventing, disposing, expressing; this is the whole of art, repeat
the moderns. We pretend to no improvement. These three operations comprise the
whole of art, and they are indeed three operations. We cannot better express
ourselves than in terms borrowed from the art of architecture, matter,
structure, style. “ The book expands these three main topics. It does not treat
of Delivery. Perhaps this was covered in lectures which have not been preserved.
Under the head of Invention, Vinet discusses Subjects, Texts and Matter,
treating the last under the terms Explication and Proof. Under the latter head
he allows considerable latitude, meaning what Aristotle understands by the “
means of persuasion. In Part II, Vinet takes up the subject of Disposition or
Arrangement, which he discusses with great brevity, but with good sense,
pointing out the need and value of an orderly plan, both from the oratorical and
the logical points of view. He then comes to the third general division of
Elocution (Style). That is, the expression of subjects and materials in
discourse, especially written discourse. He. again brings up the subject of
preaching as an art and finally says (page 350), “Neither an anathema on art,
nor art for art’s sake, but art for God’s sake, is what we insist upon. It
results, as it seems to us, from what we have said, that good style is
necessary, and that good style does not come of itself.” In stating the “funda
mental qualities of style, “ he names them (page 367) as “Perspicuity, purity,
correctness, propri ety, precision, order, naturalness, suitableness.”

Then he has a chapter on the superior qualities or virtues of style: Strength,
beauty, color, move ment, under the last of which he discusses the use of
figures, dramatism, and elegance. There is an evident incompleteness and
abruptness about the close of the book. The author had not worked it out. To-day
the book is valuable chiefly for what it did. It is too diffuse, and too remote
from the happenings of our day to be of practical importance now. Of other
French treatises, a few are important. The eloquent and saintly Protestant
preacher, Adolphe Monod, published a lecture on the Delivery of Sermons, which
Broadus characterizes as “singularly good.” Growing out of the experience s of
one of the greatest preachers of modern times, it bore the stamp of his fine
intellect and warm heart. The advanced wing of the French Protestant ministry
had also a distinguished representative in the department of Homiletics. This
was the younger Athanase Coquerel, who published about 1860 a brilliant and
delightful little book under the title (translated), Practical Observations on
Preaching. The book is neither in lecture nor text book form, but is readable,
practical and competent. The author treats with fine discrimination, good
judgment, scholarly ability, and excellent style the usual subjects of
Homiletics. He writes of the proper interpretation of the Scripture, the choice
of texts, and of dangers to be avoided, such as taking subjects of relatively
little importance, and going into minute details, which are neither dignified
nor interesting. He discusses courage and reality in preaching. He writes
helpfully of plans and of the modes of delivery, preferring the extemporaneous
method, after careful preparation. He emphasizes the need of hard and continuous
work, and of the moral and artistic points of view in making sermons. He closes
with three chapters devoted to the importance of the sermon in worship, the good
produced by preaching, and the responsibility of the preacher. It was a very
excellent little work in its day, and is worth reading any day. The art of
preaching was not neglected among the Catholics of France. Somewhere about 1870
(exact date not given) the eminent Bishop Dupan-loup put forth a series of
lectures under the title The Ministry of Preaching; an Essay on Pastoral and
Popular Oratory. It was translated into Eng lish by Samuel J. Eales, and
published both in England and in this country. The author was well known as a
devout and excellent prelate, highly esteemed for his work and influence. The
book gives some wise and good counsels especially appropriate to parish priests
on the subject of preaching. It is not a treatise in the technical sense, and of
course presents the matters discussed from the Catholic point of view. But it is
a good book. The author refers much to Augustine and Fenelon. He urges that
preaching should be popular and paternal in tone, looking to the spiritual
instruction and profit of the hearers. He quotes with approval a fine saying of
Augustine: “It is better that the grammarians should criticize us than that the
people should not understand us.” In Germany, during the period we are consider
ing, the literature of Homiletics is very large; of course varied in quality and
in value, but marked by the well-known German qualities. It is scientific and
thorough in treatment, often involved and unattractive in style, and frequently
still laboring under the burden of scholastic analysis and expression. Yet,
there is an evident trend toward a more practical and popular treatment of the
subject. The German treatises naturally adapt themselves to the peculiarities of
the German mind, and to ecclesiastical customs and habits of thought as they
exist in Germany. For example, the German pastor and preacher, much like the
rector of an English parish in the Established Church, must conform to churchly
regulations which do not exist among us. The discussions of Homiletics,
therefore, are usually a part of general instructions on parish or pastoral
duties. The pastor must catechize the children and prepare them for
confirmation. He must, of course, look after the sick in mind and body, who are
under his care. He must conduct the worship according to the prescribed
arrangements. The sacred seasons must be observed, and the Scripture lessons are
appointed for every Sunday of the year. The preaching must fit in with these
established customs. Hence, instructions in Horniletics, likewise, take account
of these requirements of an established church. 1

Early in the century, Rudolf Stier tried to bring in a more Biblical conception
of the theory of preaching, and published a little book called Keryktik. This is
from the Greek kerux, a herald, a word several times found in the New Testament
for preacher. His idea was to try to get this term used instead of Homiletics,
to indicate that the preacher’s main business was to be a herald of the gospel.
The author was rather one-sided in his attack upon the misuse of rhetoric, but
the good point in his treatment of the subject was not with out fruit. In the
same direction, Franz Theremin put out a small volume called Preaching a Virtue,
in which he stresses the moral and spiritual elements of the preacher’s office,
along with other good counsels on preaching. This book also had good influence.
It was translated by Professor Shedd, of Princeton, and was well known in this
country a generation ago.

One of the most important and widely influential German works, about the middle
of the nineteenth century, was the Evangelical Homiletics (title translated), by
Dr. Christian Palmer, published in 1842, and in later editions to the fifth in
1867.

Like most of the German treatises, the book is too exclusively adapted to German
church life and customs to be of special practical value to others

1 There are in German a number of notable works on the His tory of Preaching.
See the bibliographies in my History of Preaching, Vol. I, p. 566, Vol. II, p.
580ff. than students of Homiletics. Much of the book is taken up with the German
ideas of pastoral service, worship, Bible study and interpretation, a subject
suited to the church seasons and other special occasions. When he comes to the
principles of Homiletics as such, Palmer gives a careful and thoughtful
arrangement and study. His general division is peculiar. After some introductory
remarks, he discusses, as the main parts of the book: the Word of God, Churchly
Customs, the Congregation, the Personality of the Preacher. It is under the
general topic of Churchly Custom that the author considers technical Homiletics.
Dis cussing first the sacred seasons and the ordinances, he comes to the Text,
grouping what he has to say on this subject, in reference still to the church
seasons. These, in a general way, must determine the preacher’s choice of his
text and theme. As a rule, the German preacher gets his text from the scripture
adapted for reading on the particular Sunday of the church year. This leaves him
only limited choice. For the evening service and week days he has more liberty
of choice. In these cases, he should wisely and conscientiously select his text
with a view to the spiritual benefit of the congregation. In the more distinctly
homiletical part of his discussion, Palmer treats of the Sermon as a Work of
Art, the Disposition (or Ar rangement), the Theme, the Development, the
Introduction, the Conclusion, with a sort of post script on the liturgical and
hymnological elements of preaching. Under the head of the Congregation, Palmer
considers how the preaching should be adapted to the people’s needs, to the
influences at work among them, and related practical matters. Under the head of
the Personality of the Preacher, the author treats of Delivery. He insists on
what he calls free delivery. That is, unhampered by close dependence upon
manuscript.

If one reads, it must be free reading, not slavish. But Palmer seems to prefer
the method of recitation, provided the memorizing has been so thoroughly done as
to assure both preacher and audience against painful and embarrassing
hesitation.

He admits that many prefer free speech after careful preparation, and grants
that, for those who can do this well, it is an admissible method. The preacher’s
appearance, bearing, manner, and character should, of course, be such as to win
and hold the respect of his hearers. Finally, the personality of the preacher
must be trained and disciplined for the suitable exercise of his great office of
bringing the Word of God to bear upon his hearers.

Much in the same general line as Palmer’s is the treatise of Alexander
Schweitzer, a pastor and teacher in Zurich. His treatise pursues the usual
German method of discussing Homiletics as a part of Practical Theology. He gives
considerable space to discussing the relation of preaching to other parts of the
pastoral office. In the strictly homiletical part of the book, there is not much
that is new, either in arrangement or thought. The author divides Homiletics
proper into Principal, Material, and Formal Homiletics. It is under the last
head that he discusses Theme, Partition, Development (including Grouping and
Style), and Delivery. Under the last he insists, as Palmer does, that the
delivery should be alive and personal, and growing out of what is the preacher’s
own. Whether he should read from manuscript or recite from memory, or speak
freely what has been carefully thought or written out beforehand, must be
decided by each one for him self. Each preacher must pursue the plan which he
can use to best advantage. A number of learned and able treatises in Ger man
appeared from the middle to the end of the nineteenth century. It would be
impossible to describe or analyze them in detail, but at least the names of the
most distinguished authors should be mentioned. Karl Immanuel Nitzsch, the
devoted and beloved preacher, published a volume on Homiletics, which is
mentioned by the authorities as very able, but it has not fallen into my hands
to examine it. Karl F. Gaupp sought a somewhat new method of presenting the
subject of Homiletics. He gave more attention to the Bible itself as affording
proper instructions on the art of preaching, and he held that Homiletics was to
be distinguished from rhetoric, on the ground that preaching, being the delivery
of the Word of God, was in some sense a divine inspiration and not a merely
human art. This view, as we shall see later, was held by one noted American
writer on the subject and by one of the eminent English preachers, who gave one
year the Yale Lectures.

There were notable works on Homiletics by Hagen-bach, Bassermann, Otto,
Christlieb, and others, which rank high in the literature of our subject. The
work of Christlieb was translated into English and was read both in England and
America.

Books of special interest are those of Hettinger, Aphorisms on Preaching and
Preachers a collection of sayings and teachings from many authors; of Bindemann,
who discussed the significance of the Old Testament for Christian preaching; and
Jewish Homiletics, by Rabbi Maybaum, who gives much material of historical and
practical value and interest. The later German writers on Homiletics pay
attention to the history as well as to the art of preaching. Dr. D. Hering, in
his Die Lehre von der Predigt (Instruction on Preaching), devotes the first half
to the history, and the second to the theory of preaching. One of the fullest of
recent German books is the History and Theory of Preaching (title translated),
by Dr. Th. Harnack. Following the German custom, Harnack treats Homiletics as a
division of Practical Theology. He divides his work into three parts:

Foundational, Historical, and Constructive. Under the first the treatise
presents the nature and principles of preaching; under the second its history,
under the third its materials and aims, and the construction of sermons. This
division is thoroughgoing and suggestive, but it obviously covers too much
ground for adequate treatment as a manual; and for practical use as a textbook,
it is too severely philosophical. Harnack distinguishes between what we would
call evangelistic preaching and preaching to a Christian congregation. He treats
Homiletics under the latter point of view. This, of course, is one-sided and
objectionable both in theory and in practice, for preaching includes both
elements, and the laws governing sermon structure could not be essentially
different in the two connections. The author clearly and strongly states that
Homiletics as an art can not give nor take the place of talent and divine grace.
It is only an instrumental helper to these.

He further vindicates the individual homiletics each man must make his own. The
theory can only give general rules. He denies that preaching is only a certain
kind of oratory. He puts it upon the higher plane of differing both in principle
and method from ordinary oratory, and yet does not go so far as to destroy the
natural relationship of the two. Preaching is discourse, and as such is subject
to the recognized laws of discourse. But it is more than this, because of its
relation to the fundamentals of Christianity. Harnack considers Homiletics
according to four fundamental principles: (1) From the standpoint of truth,
especially saving truth. (2) Fellowship and mutuality. (3) Freedom and
individuality. (4)

Order oral. By these he means the Biblical, churchly, personal and rhetorical
character of preaching. He lays down the principle that preaching, as we have
it, is an essential part of Christian worship, so he divides his treatment under
the rather artificial heads: (1) The act of worship considered as discourse; (2)
Discourse considered as an act of worship. Holding this fundamental principle in
view, he divides his treatment into the three parts already indicated:
foundational, historical, constructive. When he comes to the third, or
constructive part, the first half considers preaching as an act of worship in
discourse, where he discusses the conception of preaching, its material, its
relation to the Word of God, the selection and handling of the text, the
application of the text. He also considers the relation of preaching to the life
of the church and congregation. That is, to the church seasons, special
occasions and the like. In the second half of this part of his treatment, he
takes up preaching as the act of discourse in worship. Here he lays down the aim
of preaching as being the edification of the hearers, especially influencing the
will. It is in this part also that he discusses the customary homiletical
subjects of Material, or Invention, Theme, Division, and the rest. On the whole,
as remarked at the outset, the German books are too academic and theoretic. They
show research and mastery, as regards history, depth of thought, and more or
less thoroughness of analysis. Many of them breathe a very devout spirit, and
insist upon character and piety as essential to the right sort of preaching. In
Holland the study and teaching of Homiletics was not neglected. A number of
treatises on the subject appear. 1 The most important of these was Practical
Theology, a Manual for Theological Students, by Prof. J. J. van Oosterzee, D.D.
The original edition in Dutch was published in Utrecht in 1878. The English
translation, by Maurice J. Evans, was published both in England and in this
country, and is therefore well known to English-speaking students. The work
contains a discussion of the general subject of practical theology, which he
divides into the four topics of Homiletics, Liturgies, Catechetics, and
Poimenics. That is, preaching, worship, instruction of children, and pastoral
oversight. We are concerned only with the homiletic part. This is presented in
two general divisions, which he calls, (1) the Preparatory Part, and (2) the
Developing Part. The first part treats of the Idea, Importance, His tory and
Literature, and Present Conditions of Homiletics. The second part takes up
Homiletics proper, which he treats under the three excellent divisions of
Principles, Material, and Form. On Homiletics in relation to its principles, the
author discusses first the nature and character of the sermon, which he defines
(page 166) thus: i On the History of Preaching, besides the sketch in Van Ooster
zee, there is a very able book by J. Hartog, Geschiedenis van dePredikkunde,
etc.

“The Sermon is a concatenated address of Christian-religious contents to be
delivered in an unfettered style by the minister of the gospel at the public
worship of the congregation, in the name and at the command of the Lord, with
the explicit aim that the congregation be thereby edified, and the coming of the
kingdom of God advanced.

He develops these ideas, discusses the personality of the preacher, and then
takes up Material. He rules out certain things from the material of preaching,
such as political partisanry, needless doctrinal disputes, and various other
inappropriate things. We must preach not ourselves, but the gospel. Our
preaching must be thoroughly Biblical, though it should take account of times,
seasons, and occasions. Begarding a particular sermon, he treats of the Text,
Theme, Introduction, Divisions, Application and Conclusion. On Homiletics in
regard to form, which of course is closely related to material, the author
presents the general subject of Arrangement, Style and Delivery. With regard to
Division (page 316) he says, Clearly defined division, far from being an
arbitrary demand, much less an intolerable yoke, is on the contrary the
condition sine qua non of the well-ordered and effective pulpit address.” The
style, he insists, should be clear, dignified and Biblical. With regard to
delivery he has the usual good counsels. The opening sentence of the discussion
(page 330) is as follows: “The Sermon thus carefully prepared ought naturally to
be spoken freely and with dignity; in such wise that neither the ear nor the eye
of the hearer be hurt. But on the contrary, even the outward presentation be
made, as far as possible, subservient to the great end of preaching. “In
England, 1 during the early part of the nineteenth century, the works of
Campbell and Blair, noticed in the preceding lecture, and the translations of
Claude’s Essay on the Composition of a Sermon were still widely read. In 1838
there appeared what Kidder calls 1 1 a voluminous expansion of Claude’s Essay”
in The Preacher’s Manual, by Rev. S. T. Sturtevant. The book was later published
in this country. It consists of more than six hundred closely printed pages,
based somewhat on the teachings of Claude, but with much expansion,
illustration, example and comment. It presents the accepted homiletical
teachings, discussing the usual topics through thirty-two lectures and an
appendix. Authors and readers in those days had plenty of time on their hands!
In his preface the author says (page 6), “The design of this work is to assist
those preachers who are destitute of better help in the preparation of their own
discourses, to furnish them with the means of giving an original cast to the
divisions and discussion, an object to which it is presumed the following pages
are fully adequate, and thus to relieve them from the painful and i For works on
the History see my History of Preaching, II., p.

579f. Worthy of special mention are Ker’s Lectures on the History of Preaching,
and Blaikie’s The Preachers of Scotland, etc. mortifying necessity of adopting
the outlines and skeletons of others, or of preaching printed discourses, which
may be in the possession of some of their hearers, to the discredit of the
preacher, thus convicted of delivering the sermons of an other as his own.” In
carrying out this laudable purpose the author covers the ground from selection
of text, theme, divisions and treatment to style and delivery. The book would
not appeal to readers of our time, but no doubt served a useful purpose in its
day. A much better book for practical purposes is Gresley’s Treatise on
Preaching, which appeared in 1840. The author was a clergyman of the Church of
England and his book was avowedly adapted principally to his brethren of that
communion. Another limitation lies in the fact that in form the book is a series
of letters addressed to a young clergyman. That was a kind of a literary fad
which the good taste of modern times has rejected. Notwithstanding these and
other defects, the treatise had value in its day, and remains a worthy
contribution to the literature of Homiletics. It adopts the four general
divisions of Matter, Style, Method (or Disposition), and Delivery. This
arrangement is open to criticism, but the topics are presented in a clear,
sensible and attractive way. In 1868 the Rev. E. Paxton Hood published a series
of lectures which had been given to the students of Spurgeon’s Pastors College
under the odd title Lamps, Pitchers, and Trumpets. These lectures were later
expanded into two stout volumes, The Throne of Eloquence, and The Vocation of
the Preacher. These works contain much that is of value on the subject of
preaching historical, illustrative and homiletical but they are not formal
treatises. Charles H. Spurgeon him self, the world-renowned pastor and preacher
of London, published three short volumes under the title Lectures to My
Students. Not by any means are these either in form or purpose treatises on
Homiletics, but they are familiar talks to successive groups of students in the
college of which Spurgeon was the founder and president. They grow out of the
experiences and they express the genius of the great popular preacher. They are
pleasant to read, full of practical suggestions, bubbling with quaint humor, but
warm in devotion and strong in common sense. The other great London preacher of
that age, Joseph Parker, published a little volume with the Latin title Ad
Clerum (To the Clergy), which Broadus describes as “a lively and interesting
little book, though not always judicious.” In 1881 was published the Art of
Preaching, by the Rev. Henry Burgess. The book was meant chiefly for theological
students and the younger clergy of the English Church. The author felt, as
others have done before and since, that the subject of Homiletics had been too
much neglected in his church. His book is an earnest and serious one, unstated
for use as a textbook, but interesting, readable, and full of good counsel.
There is a valuable introduction on the state of preaching in the Anglican
Church at the time of writing. The first chapter is devoted to a consideration
of the Moral Preparation for Sermon Writing, and the author begins with the
fervent appeal for a deep and sincere spiritual life on the part of the
preacher. In thirty-five chapters Burgess considers the familiar subjects of
homiletical study: The selection and use of texts, introduction, division,
conclusion, style, and delivery. The treatment is discursive and sometimes
prolix. But the book marked a distinct advance in the consideration and
treatment of Homiletics in the Church of England. In Scotland a valuable
contribution to homiletical literature was made by Dr. W. Garden Blaikie in his
For the Work of the Ministry, which treats briefly and with excellent judgment
both Pastoral Duties and Homiletics. In Ireland the Catholic Church was
represented by two good works in this field. They were written by Thomas J.
Potter, a priest and professor at Dublin. One is entitled Sacred Eloquence, in
which the chief subjects of Homiletics are presented with force and illustrated
by many quotations from Catholic writers. The other is called The Spoken Word,
and deals chiefly with delivery, advocating free speech after suitable
preparation. A number of notable British preachers have been invited to deliver
the Yale Lectures in this country, and their works are a very worthy part of
that series. The lecturers have been E. “W-Dale, James Stalker, A. M. Fairbairn,
E. F. Hor-ton, John Watson, George Adam Smith, John Brown, P. T. Forsyth, H. H.
Henson, J. H. Jowett (then in New York), and C. Silvester Home. In the main
these volumes are not strictly homiletical, and not one of the course is in
textbook form or adapted to teaching purposes. But the series as a whole is a
remarkable, able, and sometimes brilliant discussion of modern pulpit problems
and principles, as understood by men who are fully representative of the finest
British culture and religious thinking of the age. Among the numerous writings
of the Eev. F. B. Meyer, the veteran preacher, pastor and lecturer, is a brief
but useful treatise on Expository Preaching, which contains much that is worth
while on that important subject. A brief but thoughtful little work by the
Bishop of Eipon, Dr. William Boyd Carpenter, Lectures on Preaching, appeared in
1895. It consists of six lectures before the Divinity School of the University
of Cambridge with the titles: The Preacher Himself, The Training of the
Preacher, The Sermon, The Structure of the Sermon, The Preacher and His Age, The
Aim of the Preacher. The book abounds in wise counsel on these themes and is
written in a very clear and attractive style.

It remains to notice two works by Dr. Alfred E. Garvie, Principal of New
College, London, of the Independent or Congregational body, and well known as a
preacher, leader, teacher and writer.

Dr. Garvie has contributed two valuable books to the literature of Homiletics.
The first of these, A Guide to Preachers, appeared in 1906, and consists of a
course of lectures originally given to a class of lay preachers, but afterwards
expanded and published. The book is a very useful, practical, and judicious
manual. The first section is on How to Study the Bible, with good advice on that
subject. The second section discusses How to State the Gospel, and is full of
wise counsel concerning the more important subjects to be dealt with in
preaching. The third section is properly homiletical, and treats of the
personality of the preacher and his preparation, choice and treatment of texts
and subjects, gathering materials, choice of language, use of argument, and
delivery. As to the last, Dr. Garvie condemns recitation from memory and leaves
the preacher to choose between a free reading from manuscript or extemporaneous
speaking after careful preparation, with personal preference for the latter. The
fourth section is on How to Meet the Age, and contains a sane and thoughtful
discussion of the principal and pressing religious problems of the day and their
right treatment in the pulpit.

More recently Dr. Garvie has published a strong and attractive book entitled The
Christian Preacher. It is a volume in the well-known International Theological
Library, and is worthy of a place in that collection of scholarly and able
works. It is a more elaborate and complete discussion than the earlier book.
After an introduction on the importance, the definition, and the characteristics
of Christian preaching, the author proceeds to treat his subject in three main
parts: The History of Preaching; the Credentials, Qualifications and Functions
of the Preacher; the Preparation and the Production of the Sermon.

Dr. Garvie adopts with modification Phillips Brooks famous definition of
preaching as “the communication of truth through personality,” but regards it as
incomplete and modifies it to read “the communication of divine truth through
human personality for eternal life. Dr. Garvie believes that the historical
method is “the best approach to any subject,” and that “the Christian preacher
will be better equipped for his task to day if he has some knowledge of how men
have preached in former days.” Accordingly, more than half of the book is given
to a rapid and condensed, but valuable survey of the History of Preaching from
the days of our Lord and the Apostles down to present times. In Part II the
preacher himself is discussed, and much that is worth while is said about the
preacher as apostle, prophet, scribe, scholar, sage, seer, saint, priest,
teacher, pastor and evangelist. These terms, though exceptions may be taken to
some of them, suggest the many and varied aspects of the preacher’s character
and work which must have a vital and important bearing on his preaching. In Part
III the Preparation and Production of the Sermon, Dr. Garvie reaches the more
distinctly homiletical aspect of his general subject. In the introductory
remarks about preparation, the author well says (pages 344-345): “All that makes
the preacher also makes the sermon. The entire development of the personality as
the channel of Truth may be said to belong to the preparation. As apostle,
prophet and scribe the preacher is get ting the content of his preaching. As
scholar, sage, seer and saint he is fitting himself to convey the message he
receives. As priest, teacher, pastor and evangelist he is fixing the forms of
his preaching by its purposes. It seems necessary to lay stress on the
preparation in the wider sense, as on that will depend the facility and the
excellence of the preparation in the narrower sense.

Each sermon should not in itself be an immense labor and crushing care to the
preacher, who has constantly and diligently been making himself fit and ready
for the task. It should be a free and happy exercise of powers that have been
fully developed by a fruitful self-discipline. It should not be necessary for
him to spend hours in trying to find a text; but he should be so familiar with
the Scriptures that a multitude of texts should be at his command, and that
these texts should suggest their treatment at once because he so thoroughly
knows their contexts. It should not be necessary for him to search high and low
for material for his sermon; but he should be so much at home in Christian
thought and life that he will have abundance to say worth hearing about doc
trine and practice, principle and application alike.

It should not be necessary for him to go in search of illustrations, but his
reading and his experience alike should readily offer him the pictures through
which the truth may shine. It should not be necessary for him to rack his brains
to discover divisions or heads, but his logic should be keen enough, and his
psychology subtle enough, to put him in the way of an arrangement that will be
spontaneous and effective, and not arbitrary and futile. Many preachers find
their preparation so painful and fruitless a toil, because they forget or
neglect the fact that the stream cannot rise higher than its source; the poor
personality will not produce the rich sermon. Here at the outset of the
discussion all emphasis must be put again on the definition of preaching as
truth through personality.” To the familiar topics of homiletical instruction
Dr. Grarvie Drives a fresh, vigorous and modern treatment. He refers to a number
of other writers especially Vinet, Christlieb and Hoyt but the study and
expression are his own. (One may be permitted to wonder why there is no
quotation from Broadus book, or even any discoverable reference to that great
work.) The main lines of study, as conveyed by the chapter titles, are the
character of the sermon, the choice of subjects and text, the contents,
arrangement, disposition, and delivery of the sermon. There must be earnest
study in the gathering of material, careful attention to the tested principles
of composition, including, of course, the cultivation of good style, and a
delivery suitable to convey and impress the preacher’s message.

Summary Our survey of homiletical teaching in Europe since the beginning of the
nineteenth century, hasty and imperfect as it has been, impresses us with
several important facts.

1. Preaching has come to be recognized as, in the highest and best sense, a
function or art, capable of scientific expression and treatment. The study of
Homiletics is fully and decidedly established as a vital and necessary part of
the preparation and practice of the modern preacher. If he would excel in his
work, he must master his art, both in theory and in practice. At the same time
he must recognize that, owing to its origin in a divine commission, and in its
purpose to win and save men spiritually, it is more than an art, even a sacred
vocation.

2. The history of Homiletics shows that the science is a natural development of
certain fundamental principles of public speaking from the very beginning. This
development implies the constant application of these universal principles to
changed conditions. False ideas and useless appendages in the treatment of
Homiletics have been laid aside and the essentials of oratory as applied to
preaching remain. As Aristotle long ago pointed out, the three essential things
are the speaker, the hearer and the speech. In order that public speaking shall
be effective there must be study of each of these elements, according as
conditions require.

3. European Homiletics in modern times strongly and wisely insists upon a better
interpretation and a more vivid and practical application of Scripture. Modern
historical criticism and exegesis have forever discredited the fanciful, forced
and often false interpretation, which was only too easily tolerated in days gone
by. The Bible is still the living Word of God, and as such, its real teachings
must be laid upon the minds, consciences, and social relations of the people of
to day.

4. Modern Homiletics has become less academic and more practical in tone and
style. If it has lost something of scholarly dignity and severity, it has gained
much of practical reality and effect through all modern discussions. The
fundamental ancient principle persists: The object of the preacher is to inform
the understanding, move the feelings, and influence the will of his hearers. The
Latin formula adopted if not coined by Augus tine remains: Docere, mover -e,
flectere. The preacher’s whole study and practice of his divinely given art is
to learn how he can best, for the greater glory of his Lord, do for his hearers
these three things. As Garvie has expressed it, the object of the preacher’s art
is “to bring God in Christ to man, and man through Christ to God.”


========================================================================
  CHAPTER 8: 08 - CHAPTER 8
========================================================================

LECTURE VIII MODERN HOMILETICS AMERICA IN every phase of human thought and its
effective literary expression we of the United States owe a vast debt of
gratitude to Europe. We are indeed “the heir of all the ages,” but we march “in
the foremost files of time,” and with no hesitant or cringing tread. If we owe
much to others we have also achieved much ourselves. This is as true in the
sphere of Homiletics as it is in other departments of education and literary
production. The influence of European upon American Homiletics is recognized in
the two obvious ways of original impulse and continued contact; but no more in
Homiletics than in other lines of movement did this recognized and valued
influence hinder the growth of a distinct, extensive and worthy body of
homiletical teaching and writing peculiarly American and essentially sound,
scientific and practical. In America as elsewhere and al ways, practice and
theory reacted upon each other and out of these reactions has come a great and
valuable product. Of necessity it did not come all at once, and very naturally
it increased in volume and in value in the process of time. The contempt which
certain German and English critics in the early part of the nineteenth century
felt or affected for American literary and scientific achievements is now only
amusing, though at the time a certain boyish awkwardness and sensitiveness may
be recognized in the American response to these strictures. The simple facts are
that early American literature was comparatively little in volume and much of it
was immature and poor, but there was a goodly portion which had in it the
“promise and potency” of a fuller life that was rapidly coming into
consciousness of power and getting ready to command world-wide recognition. This
general trend of things is well exemplified in American preaching, both in
practice and in theory. We are here concerned with the latter, the development
of homiletical teaching and writing in the United States since the beginning of
the nineteenth century. For reasons which will appear later on, a marked
acceleration and improvement may be noted in this movement since about 1870, and
it will therefore be proper to divide our treatment of the subject to correspond
with this turning point in the course of events. The Earlier Developments up to
1870

After the publication of Cotton Mather’s little book noted in a previous
lecture, and itself of little value and limited circulation, there does not seem
to have been in this country any homiletical work worth speaking of during the
whole eighteenth century; but early in the nineteenth a start was made, both in
teaching Homiletics and in writing books on the subject. The movement gained in
power through the century. No doubt the translations of Claude’s Essay, together
with other English publications, were used by some American divines and there
was some homiletical study, traditional and literary, among the preachers. This
at least laid a foundation for the fine developments which have followed. The
first thing to notice is the founding of the earliest of American theological
seminaries at Andover, Massachusetts, in 1807. This parent institution included
in its course of instruction the subject of Pulpit Oratory, as it was first
called.

Among the earliest donors of the seminary was a wealthy New England merchant
named William Bartlet, in whose honor the chair was later named. The first
professor was a Dr. Griffin, but he did not serve long. In 1811 Ebenezer Porter
was ap pointed to the chair and its name was changed to that of Bartlet
Professorship of Sacred Rhetoric.

Dr. Porter served for twenty-three years, very acceptably and ably. He deserves
high honor as the real beginner of homiletical instruction in theological
seminaries in this country. In 1819 Dr. Porter published a book under the title
The Young Preacher’s Manual. 1 It is a collection of treatises on preaching,
including with others of less value Fenelon’s Dialogues, Claude’s Essay, Reybaz
on The Art of Preaching. Dr. Porter * See Kidder’s Homiletics, Appendix. seems
to have used this as the textbook, supplemented by lectures, for a number of
years. In 1834 Dr. Porter published his own volume on Homiletics with the title
Lectures on Homiletics and Preaching and on Public Prayer, Together With Sermons
and Letters. The book went through a number of editions and is still
historically important and full of good and sound teaching on its subject. The
opening words of the preface are well worth quoting:

“In entering on my labors as Bartlet Professor of Sacred Rhetoric in this
Seminary I found the office to be in some respects a new one in the business of
theological instruction. After an examination of many books that have been
written on Rhetoric in general and the comparatively few that have been written
on Sacred Rhetoric, it became manifest that I must be called to traverse a field
to a considerable extent untrodden by any predecessor.” The book contains
twenty-three lectures on Homiletics. Its most important topics are Choice of
Texts and Subjects; Structure of Sermons; Ex ordium; Explication; Unity;
Division; Argument; Conclusion; Style, with several lectures on the General
Characteristics of Sermons. On the Ex ordium he remarks (page 86): “The one
valuable purpose for which any public speaker can address an assembly is to make
them understand and believe and feel the sentiments which he utters. The chief
object of an introduction then is to secure that attention which is most
favorable to the attainment of this purpose; and the obstacles which prevent
this favorable attention are commonly found in the prejudice, the ignorance, or
the indifference of the hearers.” To remove these is the main thing, and rules
follow for the right kinds of introduction. There are good counsels on unity,
divisions, and the conclusion. It is a sensible and clear discussion. The
conclusion should recapitulate and enforce, but should not be too long and
tedious. Style should be simple, serious, earnest. Its usual qualities are
discussed. Good suggestions are made for practice. On the whole, Dr. Porter’s
treatise is a sound and sensible book, well adapted to the age in which it was
published. It was in every way for American Homiletics a good start.

About 1830 Henry Ware, Jr., became Professor of Pulpit Eloquence and Pastoral
Care at Harvard University. A few years later he published his little book Hints
on Extemporaneous Preaching. It is a clearly written and very sensible treatise,
giving cogent reasons for the practice of free delivery after careful
preparation. From now on the theological departments of colleges and the rapidly
increasing theological seminaries all over the land included Homiletics or
Sacred Rhetoric as an established and indispensable part of the curriculum.
Sometimes it was made a department of Practical Theology or Pastoral Duties, and
sometimes it was an independent subject. Yale College and the Prince ton, Union,
Newton, and other theological schools, all fell into line. In 1859 the Southern
Baptist Theological Seminary was opened at Greenville, South Carolina, with John
A. Broadus as Professor of the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, in
connection with his other chair of New Testament Interpretation. His plan for
Homiletics as quoted by his biographer Dr. A. T. Robertson 1 was as follows:

“Homiletics, or Preparation and Delivery of Sermons; Ripley’s Sacred Rhetoric;
Vinet’s Homiletics; numerous lectures; ample exercises information of skeletons,
criticism of printed sermons, general composition, and discussion; opportunities
for students to preach, but no preaching merely for practice.”

We need not trace this line of development further. No seminary or department
for ministerial training in any college could henceforth think of omitting
Homiletics as a definite part of its course of study. Out of this has grown
chiefly, but by no means wholly, the production of the noble body of homiletical
literature which we may now with pardonable pride claim as distinctively
American. A number of able and distinguished professors of Homiletics in the
numerous and well-equipped schools for training preachers have put forth
valuable treatises, many of which have become de- i Life and Letters of John A.
Broadus, by A. T. Robertson, p. 168. servedly famous. Besides this many other
authors have in various ways, by lectures and treatises and articles, given
scholarly and practical attention to the subject. A slight survey of some of the
most important of these works up to 1870 is all that can here be attempted. In
1849 Professor Henry J. Ripley, Professor of Sacred Khetoric and Pastoral Duties
at the Newton Theological Institution, near Boston, published his Sacred,
Rhetoric. It is a brief and sensible, but not particularly able or fresh
treatise. By permission there was published with it Henry Ware’s little book
previously noticed. This volume of Professor Ripley served as a textbook to Dr.
Broadus and other teachers and besides that had a considerable circulation and
usefulness among the ministers. In ten years it had reached its fourth edition.
In 1853 Dr. Thomas H. Skinner, Professor of Sacred Rhetoric and Pastoral Duties
in Union Theological Seminary, New York, rendered a great service to the
teaching of Homiletics in this country by his translation of Vinet’s Homiletics
noticed in the preceding lecture. This translation of Vinet was widely
influential and became the basis of other textbooks. This was notably true in
the case of Dr. Broadus, who in the first edition of his own book had many
quotations from Vinet and rendered to him acknowledgment of indebtedness. The
accomplished professor and devoted pastor and preacher, Dr. James W. Alexander,
for a time taught along with other subjects that of Homiletics at Princeton
Theological Seminary. The fruits of his reading, experience and thinking were
given to the world after his death in a very attractive volume called Thoughts
on Preaching, published in 1860. The editor states that “it had long been the
cherished wish of Dr. Alexander to prepare a volume on Homiletics for which he
had gathered much material in his journals. “These were published in the volume
named. Not withstanding its somewhat disjointed state, the volume is full of
interest and contains many valuable sayings in the way of criticism, suggestion
and illustration. A valuable and important work which appeared in 1864 is that
of Dr. Daniel P. Hidder, Professor first at Garrett Theological Institute,
Evanston, Illinois, and later at Drew Theological Seminary. The title of the
book is A Treatise on Homiletics. The book had several editions. It treats
(Chapter I) of the proper character of Homiletics as a science in its own right,
because of its divine origin. Chapter II treats of the sources and material of
homiletical science which are Biblical in origin and motive. Chapter III is
especially valuable for its survey of the literature of Homiletics from the
beginnings to modern times. This is supplemented in the Appendix by an excellent
bibliography of which frequent use Has been made in these lectures and to which
deep indebtedness is acknowledged. As a treatise the book covers the usual
ground, discussing different kinds of preaching, themes and texts, preparation
of sermons, arrangement, argument, the conclusion, qualities of the sermon,
classification, style, delivery, elocution, habits of preparation, and some
others. The work is not very well arranged and does not seem to have been very
successful as a textbook, but it marks an advance in the treatment of the
subject in America and is on the whole a very competent and worthy performance.
The year 1867 witnessed the appearance of treatises on Homiletics by two eminent
and distinguished Presbyterian preachers and professors. The first of these was
Homiletics and Pastoral Theology by Prof. W. G. T. Shedd of Union Theological
Seminary, New York, in its first edition.

It came to later editions and is one of the out standing works on the subject.
Concerning it Dr. Broadus makes this acute remark: 1

“ Shedd’s Homiletics and Pastoral Duties is an excellent work. It discusses
certain topics with the author’s well-known power of analysis and vigor of
statement. It is an admirable book to be read by those who are acquainted with
the subject in general, or to be studied in connection with some systematic
treatise. “ With this judgment I quite agree. The book is solid in matter,
strong and clear in statement of the usual topics, but is badly arranged.
ifciuiy eiriaiigeu. i Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, p. 547. The other
work is Sacred Rhetoric by K. L.

Dabney, D.D., of the Union Theological Seminary of Virginia. The author wrote a
notable biography of “Stonewall” Jackson and was in other ways a distinguished
and very able man. His treatise on preaching is worthy of his abilities and fame
and reached a third edition in 1881. It is a sound and vigorous discussion of
the accepted principles of Homiletics. The Chair of Homiletics in the Divinity
School of Yale University was worthily and ably filled from 1861 to 1879 by
Professor J. M. Hoppin, D.D.

He published in 1869 his well-known book on the Office and Work of the Christian
Ministry. This included both Homiletics and Pastoral Duties; but later the work
was revised and published in two separate volumes one under the simple title
Homiletics. This is a work of great value in many ways. It is too large and
comprehensive for a textbook, but gives a brief sketch of the history of
preaching and deals with the rhetorical principles of preaching in a very
competent and instructive way Broadus says, “with marked ability and sound
judgment. “ The book is an excellent one to study, as marking the turning point
at which we have arrived in this survey of American Homiletics. It belongs both
to the earlier and later periods which we have marked out. It shows how far we
have come from the best attainments of the past and it introduces a richer and
in some respects a more scientific treatment of the modern period in the history
of Homiletics. In its survey of the history of preaching and the literature of
Homiletics as fundamental to a better and larger grasp of the true theory of
preaching, it strikes a high note. Its mastery and presentation of the topics of
homiletical instruction are thorough. But its analysis and arrangement of these
topics is peculiar and undesirable. A glance at its copious contents will reveal
at once the excellences and defects indicated.

Giving a general introduction on the greatness of the preacher’s work, Dr.
Hoppin divides his treatment into two main parts: I. Homiletics Proper; II.
Rhetoric Applied to Preaching. Here we see at once a want of clear distinction
and the promise of repetition and overlapping. Under Homiletics Proper there is
an introduction in which the literature of Homiletics and Rhetoric is surveyed
and homiletical terms denned. Then comes the first division of this part which
presents a brief but excellent sketch of the history of preaching. The second
division expounds the object of preaching as being the instruction, persuasion
and edification of the hearer. The third division considers the preacher’s
preparation for composing the sermon. And the fourth takes up analysis and
composition of sermons with a discussion of the text, introduction, explanation,
proposition, division, development and conclusion. The fifth division of the
first part treats of the classi fication of sermons (1) according to their treat
merit and form and (2) according to their method of delivery written, memoriter,
and extempore.

Part II (Rhetoric Applied to Preaching) consists of three divisions, the first
presenting the General Principles of Rhetoric, the second Invention and the
third Style. Several definitions of style are given and its qualities are
discriminated as absolute and relative or those which are universal (limited to
language itself), and those which grow out of the relation of speaker to
audience. This last consideration brings the author finally to discuss the
qualities of purity, propriety, precision, perspicuity, energy and elegance. In
range of topics, learning and depth of thought this book takes the highest rank
and marks American homiletical scholarship as having attained to a maturity and
strength of its own. The Later Developments Since 1870 The marking off of
strictly defined historical periods is necessarily more or less artificial, for
history is not a plot of ground to be staked off, but rather a flowing stream
whose progress, direction, tributaries and volume are to be noted as it flows.
Yet, every one knows that there occur certain crises in history when there is
acceleration of movement; when new acquisitions are made in both character and
power on the part of things already existing and striving to realize larger
measures of life. Such a period is noted in the whole of American life since the
Civil War of 1861-65. The New Era was one of immense quick ening and extension
of the forces of the national life political, industrial, commercial,
scientific, artistic and literary. All the departments of intellectual
expression felt the drive of the age, and the increase in volume, range and
excellence was manifest. This is as true for our subject of Homiletics as for
all other branches of theological study and writing.

Several matters of importance are to be noted as belonging to and characterizing
the general development of homiletical thought and product in the new time. The
first of these is the continuance and extension of homiletical instruction in
schools for the training of preachers. Seminaries and theological departments in
colleges, as these were founded or enlarged, provided for instruction in
preaching as one of the accepted and necessary courses. These courses varied in
value and depended much both upon the atmosphere of the institutions and the
personality of the professors; but it is fair to say that judging by results,
both in the training of men and in the production of books, the teaching was
generally sound and good. Always much is to be desired. The teaching was not
universally good, and the results were always more or less disappointing. But on
the whole the work was eminently worthwhile.

One thing to be noticed is the appearance of homiletical suggestion and
instruction in periodical literature. There were journals of theology, some of
which were designed especially as homiletical helps. The chief one of these was
The Homiletic Review which began in 1877 as the Homiletic Monthly. After a while
the scope was enlarged and the name changed. This periodical has had a vast
circulation. It has published sermons by distinguished men, outlines and
homiletical suggestions of various sorts. Many preachers have found it very
useful, but some others have not cared especially for it. Yet, on the whole, it
has helped and taught thousands of preachers. In this connection and before
giving a general account of the literature of Homiletics proper it is right to
say a few words about books on the vitally related subjects. Pastoral Theology
is often treated in the books on Homiletics and in addition a few works are
devoted especially to that subject. Among these is the work of Hoppin in the
later editions, as already mentioned. Then there was a little book, The Pastor,
by Dr. H. Harvey. The most notable of these perhaps is that of Dr. Washington
Gladden on The Christian Pastor, a volume in the International Theological
Library.

Dr. T. H. Pattison and Dr. Arthur S. Hoyt, as well as several others, have
issued works on this subject accompanying their works on Homiletics. On the
History of Preaching not a great deal has been done by American writers, but
something. The subject has received attention in several of the books on
Homiletics, notably in that of Hoppin.

There is an attractive little volume by Dr. Fleming James on The Message and the
Messengers. In 1876 Dr. John A. Broadus published his Lectures on the History of
Preaching which had been given at Newton Theological Institution. This was not
intended to be a complete study of the subject and is somewhat fragmentary in
its discussions; but it is a fine and stimulating little book, full of
suggestion and comment, as well as information. There is also a later volume by
Dr. T. H. Pattison, A History of Christian Preaching, which is brief and
discriminating in thought and very readable and interesting in style. There is
also a more extended work by this lecturer, which he begs pardon for mentioning,
but has to do so for completeness. In addition to these Dr. W. C.

Wilkinson has given to the subject a fine discussion of some great preachers in
his Modern Masters of Pulpit Discourse; and a similar service has been performed
by Dr. L. 0. Brastow in Representative Modern Preachers, and The Modern Pulpit.
On social subjects there has of late been a flood of writings articles and
books. Many of the Yale Lectures, as will be noticed presently, discuss this
part of the preacher’s equipment for his task.

Some attention has been paid to psychology in relation to preaching. In 1901 a
book by Dr. J.

Spencer Kennard was published under the title Psychic Power in Preaching. Dr.
Kennard was a well-known Baptist pastor and evangelist. He had long and deep
interest in his subject. His treatment is based on the older psychology, but is
marked by clearness of thought and force of expression. He has a good discussion
of the psychology of style, and all through his book insists upon the power of
personality in preaching. In 1918 Dr. Charles S. Gardner, Professor of
Homiletics in the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary at Louisville, published
his Psychology and Preaching. This able and thorough discussion is founded on
the newer psychology. The thinking is deep, but usually clear. There are
particularly fine discussions of Belief, Attention, Suggestion, Assemblies. The
book is well worth the careful study of the modern preacher. It closes with an
excellent chapter on The Modern Mind. It is a sane and careful book.

One of the most notable events in regard to our subject was the establishment of
the Yale Lectures on Preaching. The following action was taken by the
Corporation of Yale College, under date of April 12, 1871 1 1 “ Voted to accept
the offer of Mr. Henry N. Sage of Brooklyn of the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars
for the founding of a lectureship in the Theological Department in a branch of
Pastoral Theology, to be designated The Lyman Beecher Lectureship on Preaching,
to be filled from time to time upon the appointment of the Corporation by a
minister of the Gospel of any evangelical denomination who has been mark edly
successful in the special work of the Christian i See A Voice from the Crowd, by
G. W. Pepper, Introductory Note. ministry.” With few exceptions this lectureship
has been filled every year since its foundation by some prominent English or
American preacher.

Mr. George Wharton Pepper, a Philadelphia lawyer, has the distinction of being
the only layman invited to give the lectures. His volume, A Voice from the
Crowd, is useful, not only for its contents, but for an appendix which contains
the full list of all the courses since the foundation of the lectureship. The
Yale Lectures have not been specifically homiletical. They have dealt rather
more with the pastoral and social work of the preacher and with problems of
thought and adjustment connected with his work. Only two of the series have been
distinctly historical, those by Dr. W. M. Taylor on The Scottish Pulpit and by
Dr. John Brown on Puritan Preaching in England. One lecturer, and that a very
brilliant and delightful one, has used some of the greatest preachers in history
as examples for the taking title of his work. The book meant is The Romance of
Preaching, by Charles Silvester Home. Dr. Trumbull gave a very valuable course
on religious pedagogy in his Teaching and Teachers. A number of the volumes have
dealt with the social and reformatory aspects of the preacher’s work and duty.
Of these we may name especially the two series by Dr. Washington Gladden Tools
and the Man (1886) and Social Salvation (1902); and those of Charles H.

Parkhurst, Charles E. Brown and Henry Sloane Coffin. Several of the series were
not published. This was the case with those delivered by Dr. John A. Broadus in
1888. These were given extemporaneously from notes. Dr. Broadus pursued this
plan on purpose to illustrate that the thing could be done. Another reason for
not having them written out was that he desired to use some of the material in
revising his Preparation and De livery of Sermons. At the time of their delivery
this series attracted large and interested audience s and some of the more
important subjects have been retained and briefly discussed in the revised
edition of the author’s well-known book. 1 This brings us back to our proper
subject and also to a man and a book that now claim especial notice. In 1871 Dr.
John A. Broadus, while Professor in the Southern Baptist Theological Semi nary,
then located at Greenville, South Carolina, published his now world-famous
treatise on The Preparation and Delivery of Sermons. The story of its origin is
related by the author himself in his Life of James P. Boyce (page 201). When the
Seminary reopened after the Civil War the at tendance of students was very
small. In the class of Homiletics there was only one student and he was blind.
But the undaunted professor adhered to his resolution to make his subject
worthwhile, and as the brother could not take notes he gave his lectures to him
in a conversational way, but covering with thoughtful care the main subjects of
i Life and Letters, p. 386. homiletical discussion. In his own words, “The
professor tried to lay out a somewhat complete course and give it to him in
lectures to which the brother listened with unfailing manifestations of kindly
interest. “ That was the origin of a book which was published five years later
and has be come the leading text-book on Homiletics in all the world. The
success of the book was immediate. The author had to mortgage some property and
borrow money for the making of the original plates. The first edition was
published by Smith, English & Company of Philadelphia. The book paid for itself
in a year or two. Some years later its publication was taken on by A. C.

Armstrong & Son of New York, and by Hodder & Stoughton in London. It reached in
this country nearly twenty editions before it was revised and at least as many
since then. From the regular publishers alone, therefore, there have been
nearly, if not quite, 40,000 copies printed. Besides this there was a pirated
English edition under a slightly different title, before the laws of
international copyright were well established. More over, the book has been
translated into other languages and has had quite a wide use. Soon after the
revised edition appeared the editor received a letter from a French missionary
in North Africa requesting a copy, and near the same time an inquiry from a
Scotchman who was trying to found missionary work in Chile. Within the last few
months a letter has come from the head of a Presbyterian college in New Zealand
making inquiry concerning the continued publication of the work and stating the
writer’s conviction that it was the best of all books for teaching students the
art of preaching. A number of gratifying and pleasing instances of appreciation
are noticed in Dr. Robertson’s Life and Letters of John A.

Broadus. (See especially pages 254, 286 and 337.)

Dr. W. C. Wilkinson, a very competent critic, describes it as “on the whole the
best single treatise existing on its subject.” The contents and character of
this notable book need detain us but a moment. After a thoughtful introduction,
the general subject is discussed in five parts The Materials of Preaching,
Arrangement, Style, Delivery, and Public Worship. The last was added as a
postscript to the treatment of the special homiletical topics. The Materials of
Preaching especially studied are the Text, Subjects, Particular Occasions, then
the General Materials Explanation, Argument, Illustration and Application. The
second part on the Arrangement of a Sermon discusses its importance, its several
parts, and adds a chapter on the different kinds of sermons. Part third treats
of Style, giving some general observations and especially discussing the
qualities of style, Perspicuity, Energy and Elegance. To this is added a chapter
on Imagination. Part four, The Delivery of Sermons, gives a decided preference
to the method of free speech after careful preparation. Two of the chapters,
those on Voice and Action, as more properly be longing to the subject of
Elocution, the author in his later years as Professor did not usually teach in
his classes.

If we ask what has been the reason for the phenomenal success of this book,
perhaps the readiest answer would be its admirable combination of scholarship
and common sense. This was characteristic of the man. He learned and practiced
all his life the principle of thinking with the cultured and talking to all
people. The book shows an easy mastery of its theme. The literature of the
subject from Aristotle down was laid under tribute; but there was plenty of
individual thought and of freshness of statement concerning the accepted
commonplaces of homiletical theory. In and through all the treatment there is
unobtrusively present a spirit of reverence and devotion which makes itself
felt.

Since the appearance of Dr. Broadus book a great number of valuable practical
works on Homiletics have been published in this country. Reverting to the Yale
Lectures, a number of these are worthy of more extended notice than is possible
within our limits. Some of the most important of the series have dealt with the
modern prob lems of the preacher, as for example Fairbairn’s The Place of Christ
in Modern Theolog?/, Gordon’s Ultimate Conceptions of Faith, Van Dyke’s Gospel
for an Age of Doubt and Forsyth’s Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind. Some
have emphasized the ministerial character, as those by Tucker, Peabody, Faunce
and others. Some have spoken chiefly of the preacher’s church work, as Greer,
Jefferson and others; but a number have addressed themselves especially to the
homiletical aspects of the preacher’s work and have treated of the art of
preaching. Of these the two most important are the first series by Henry Ward
Beecher and the Lectures on Preaching by Phillips Brooks. Beecher discussed
preaching in his characteristic way and the result is a valuable and delightful
book full of his own experience, and rich and suggestive on many points, though
well open to criticism on some. Brooks Lectures constitute one of the most
successful and perhaps the most widely read of the Yale series. It is famous for
its definition of preaching as “the communication of truth through personality.”
This was not in tended as a complete definition, but is a vivid and vigorous
statement of what the eminent preacher conceived to be the essential thing in
preaching.

It was what he himself in his noble ministry exemplified. The book is simply and
delightfully written. Its clear style and earnest spirit make it one of the most
pleasing and helpful volumes on this subject. Other notable volumes in the
course are those of E. W. Dale, Matthew Simpson, John Watson, and others.

Going back to the general course of the production of books on Homiletics in
this country, we should notice the very striking work of G. W. Hervey, Christian
Rhetoric, which appeared about 1870. Of this work Hoppin says (page 3): “This
author deserves notice as having produced an original work quite independent of
Eudolph Stier in his Keryktik and Sikel in his HaKeutik, but building up a
system of Rhetoric on the Biblical side, infusing a new spirit into Sacred
Rhetoric, and seeking for power to work upon the souls of men chiefly in the
divine oracles, and by studying the methods of the prophetic and apostolic
preachers. It is an interesting work, elaborate, but perhaps not too much so for
practical use, and worthy of study. Broadus also * has a good word to say
concerning this book. He thinks the author goes too far in claiming what he
calls a “partial inspiration “ for the modern preacher, but that he is quite
right in urging dependence upon the help of the Holy Spirit in answer to prayer.
My own opinion coincides with that of these eminent authorities. The book is
hardly practical now as a text-book, but for thorough and earnest students of
the subject of preaching it is full of interesting matter and suggestive
teaching.

Another work of primary importance is The Theory of Preaching by Professor
Austin Phelps, D.D., of Andover, which appeared in 1890. In the preface the
author says: “Very soon after I began to lecture in the department I formed the
habit of preserving manuscript notes of the inquiries of students in the lecture
room and in pri- i Preparation and Delivery, p. 547. vate conversation. These
notes soon grew upon my hands immensely. Answers to those inquiries constitute
nine-tenths of this volume. The book discusses The Sermon in three lectures; The
Text in four; The Explanation in five; The Introduction in four; The Proposition
in six; The Division in four; The Development in two; and The Conclusion in
eight. Concerning this work the criticism in Broadus book (page 547) may be
quoted:

“The result is a unique volume, crowded with good thoughts and valuable hints;
but it is not a complete or well-organized treatise. He spends too much time
proportionately on some topics and wholly omits the consideration of others.
Those who are already acquainted with the subject will find here very much that
is fresh and useful. The style is clear, vivid and strong.” Two later books by
Professor Phelps serve to complete in a way his general discussion. These are
Men and Books, and English Style in Public Discourse. In recent times the number
of books about preaching, more or less strictly homiletical in character, has
been poured forth in an ever increasing stream. Most of these works are able and
worth careful study. It is manifestly impossible even to mention them all, much
less to devote any further time to an analysis of their contents. Let it suffice
to name only a few of the most important.

Dr. J. A. Kern, Professor first at Randolph-Macon College in Virginia and later
at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, published in 1897 a very excellent and
valuable book on The Ministry to the Congregation. Dr. T. Harwood Pattison,
Professor of Homiletics at Kochester Seminary, New York, produced several works
on preaching, including one on The Making of the Sermon. These volumes are
sensible, scholarly and practically useful. In 1907 there was published from the
pen of Dr. Herrick Johnson, Professor first at Auburn and then at McCormick
Seminary, a very suggestive and helpful volume on The Ideal Ministry.

More lately Dr. Arthur S. Hoyt, Professor of Homiletics at Auburn Seminary, has
published two works one called The Work of Preaching and the other Vital
Elements in Preaching. These practical and thoroughly modern books are written
in concise and clear style and have been widely read, as they deserve to be.
From two eminent New York pastors there have recently come lectures on preaching
which have been published in book form. One is by the venerable and wise Dr. D.
J. Burrell, who gave a series of lectures at the Union Theological Seminary of
Virginia on The Sermon. As was to be expected the treatment is judicious, strong
and spiritual, drawn from the study, observation and practice of many years. The
other book is a similar series of lectures, given at several different
institutions and then published, by Dr. S. Parkes Cadman under the title
Ambassadors of God. The lectures cover various aspects of preaching, historical,
Scriptural, social, and are only slightly homiletical. They are elevated in
style, show wide reading with thought abreast of the age, and urging with elo
quence and power the preaching of the saving gospel in Christ.

Concluding Reflections Our long survey of the development of the art or theory
of preaching would be in vain unless it left us with some definite idea of how
the great function of preaching the gospel should be suit ably discharged. We
may perhaps gather up in a brief and practical form the main lessons of our
study somewhat as follows:

(1) Preaching is, as it has been from the beginning, an essential part of the
Christian religion.

It means evangelization, the proclaiming and urging of the good news of
salvation from sin through Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord; and the instruction
and edification of believers in Christian doc trine and duty. With this
essential content, preaching rests for its authority upon the Holy Scriptures as
the Word of God, in which the gospel of His grace in Christ and the life growing
out of its right acceptance are included and unfolded. Preaching, therefore,
remains essentially the same as it was in the early Christian centuries, an
exposition and enforcement of the Word of God. Preaching also is an established
and accepted element in the public worship of God. The services of the churches
include a discourse based on the things that have just been said addressed to
the worshipers and any others who may be in attendance. This conception of
preaching in its fullness remains as it has stood out through all the Christian
centuries, a definite and integral part of the ongoing and constant
manifestation of the Kingdom of God on earth.

(2) Eegarding preaching in the highest sense as an art, that is, as a function
of the human individual which may be learned and improved by study and practice,
we find that the fundamental things in that art are practically the same through
all time. The constant problem of the preacher, if he has mastered the technic
of his art, is to adapt these essential and abiding principles to the habits of
thought of his own age and to the particular needs of his own congregation.
Hence, the teaching and study of the art of preaching, in other words,
Homiletics, abides an essential in the proper training of the Christian
minister. Just here it is apposite to remark that the Literary Digest in a
recent number has a brief article with the heading How Not to Train Preachers.
The article opens with the words, “ Pulpit power is one of the most pressing
needs of the clergyman of to-day. “ The article then mentions that the Boston
Transcript, one of the great dailies of our time, criticizes the instruction
offered to preachers in summer schools and mentions some of the topics which are
taught in those schools to the exclusion or disparagement of homiletical
teaching. The Boston paper is then quoted as follows:

“ Whether we like it or not, the pulpit to-day is in a severer competition with
rivals than ever be fore in Christian history. Concerts, magazines, newspapers,
automobiles, outdoor sports, moving-pictures and many other attractions decimate
the church congregations. And the preacher, while he may urge duty as the ground
of church attendance, owes it to his people and to his own ordination vows to
learn how to present his message in the most attractive and persuasive and
compelling way of which he is capable.

“The teaching of pulpit address and homiletical power is far more difficult than
instruction in ecclesiastical history or applied ethics. But it should be
taught. Somehow, probably by the most practical and detailed kind of laboratory
method, of actual demonstration sessions, should the best methods of preaching
be imparted and the efficacy of our preachers be increased. The sermon, in its
preparation and delivery, is far the most important instrument at the minister’s
command.

Therefore any summer school or winter school or divinity school which aims at
preparing devout young men to enter the ministry or helping work ing-ministers
to greater efficiency should give a large place to the instruction, the
development, of the minister as preacher. “

(3) It remains to speak a closing word upon our personal duty as preachers to
acquire and use the best art in the discharge of our great office. We must, of
course, avoid everything that is merely artificial. True art is not artifice. If
our survey of homiletical teaching has not taught this it has not taught us
anything. True art is to know how to do best the thing that is to be done. That
a preacher should be a good preacher, yes, the very best preacher that he can
be, is self-evident. No workman in any art or craft can be excused who does not
know how to do his work. It must be the preacher’s constant aim, as it sometimes
is his most disheartening problem, to preach in the way and with the impression
best possible to himself.

Paul said to Timothy, “Take heed to thyself and to thy teaching.” This was
anticipating in the reverse order the famous saying of Phillips Brooks that
preaching is communication of truth through personality. As a definition that
phrase needs filling out, but it is essentially correct. The personality of the
preacher must be his care.

He must himself be fit in soul, in experience, in mind, in heart, in habits, in
endeavors, and then he must be careful as to the content and form of his
message. He must seek from every source the truth of God and in his public
ministration as an ambassador of God to men he must find the most suitable and
effective means of making his truth known and fruitful in the lives of his
fellowmen. And after all his study and prayer he must ever keep in mind the
great principle of Paul, the apostle, that his speech and his preaching must not
be in the persuasive words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit
and of power.

INDEX Alan of Lille, 77-82.

Alexander, J. W., 220.

Allegorical Interpretation of Blaikie, W. G., Preachers of Scotland, 201n; Work
of the Ministry, 204.

Scripture, 47, 48, 53, 54, 64, Blair, Lectures on Rhetoric,

76, 88, 90, 92.

Ambrose, 45, 47, 50, 52, 54,

55, 63, 65.

American Homiletics, 213ff.

178, 201.

Bonaventura, 83f, 88.

Borromeo, 116.

Bourgain, 184n.

Andover Theological Semi- Brastow, 227. nary, 215.

Andrea, Jac., 143.

Anselm, 74.

Anthony of Padua, 83.

Aquinas, 83, 86 Broadus, John A., 46n, 123, 183, 184, 189, 203, 218, 219, 221,
227; Preparation and Delivery of Sermons, 230-

233, 235, 236.

Aristotle, 28, 32-36, 47, 58, 89, Brooks, Phillips, 207, 234, 241.

95, 103, 118, 153, 211.

Arnobius, 49.

Brown, Chas. R., 229.

Brown, John, 205, 229.

Art, Preaching and Homiletics Burgess, Henry, 203f . as Art, 15ff, 186, 2391
Burgon, J. W., 181.

Augustine, 42, 47, 50, 55-64, Burnet, Bishop, 157, 161.

71, 82, 83, 92, 96, 100, 118, Burrell, D. J., 237.

121, 154, 190, 211.

Cadman, S. P., 237f.

Caesar, Julius, 37, 40.

Calvin, 125, 126, 129, 130.

Campbell, George, Pulpit Elo quence, 177f, 201.

Bartlet, Wm., 215.

Basil, 50.

Bassermann, 196.

Beecher, Henry Ward, 234.

Bernard, A., 184n.

Berthold of Regensburg, 83.

Carpenter, W. B., Lectures on

Preaching, 205.

Bible, Basis of homiletical Carpzov, 155, 166. theory, 17ff.

Bidenbach, 155.

Biesterveld, 135n, 143, Cato, the Censor, 37, 69.

Christlieb, Theodor, 96, 137, 143, 147n, 180, 196.

Chrysostom, 45, 50, 52, 53, 54, Gaichies, Maxims on Elo- 65, 118, 121, 124, 154.
quence, 163.

Cicero, 28, 37f, 59n, 62, 95, Gardner, C. S., Psychology

118, 153, 161. and Preaching, 228.

Claude, Jean, Essay on the Garvie, A. E., 181f, 205-210, Composition of a
Sermon, 212.

Gaupp, 195.

Gaussen, 148.

148-151, 201, 215.

Cocceius, 156, 168.

Coffin, H. S., 230.

Cope, E. D., on Aristotle and 163, 164.

Gisbert, Christian Eloquence,

Korax, 30f.

Gladden, W., 229.

Coquerel, A., Observations on Glanvil, Joseph, 160.

Preaching, 189.

Cranmer, 131.

Cruel, R., Geschichte der deutschen Predigt, 83n, 88.

Cyprian, 49, 63.

Gordon, George A., 233.

Gregory I, 42, 45, 52, 64-66,

72.

Gregory Nazianzen, 50, 51, 52,

55, 65, 72.

Gresley, 202.

Dabney, Sacred Rhetoric, 222. Grote, George, History of Dale, R. W., 205, 234.

Davidson, A. B., 19.

Greece, 29, 30.

Guibert of Nogent, 73-77, 92.

Doddridge, Philip, Lectures Guzman, 117. on Preaching, 173-177.

Dominic, 83.

Dungersheim, Jerome, 89.

Dupauloup, 190.

Emerton, E., Erasmus, 77.

Hagenbach, 196.

Harms, Claus, 180.

Harnack, Th., 137, 165n, 166,

196-199.

Hartog, J., 199n.

Erasmus, Desiderius, 95, 97- Hemming, Nic., 143.

115, 134.

Fairbaim, 205, 233.

Fenelon, Dialogues on Elo Henry of Hesse, 88.

Henson, H. H., 205.

Hering, Geschichte der Pre- digt, 147n, 166n, 196. quence, 152-154, 163, 190,
Hervey, G. W., Christian Rhe-

215.

Ferrario, 147.

Foerster, 155.

Forsyth, 205, 233.

Francesco, L., 148.

Francis of Assisi, 83. toric, 234f.

Hettinger, 196.

Hildebrand, 73.

Ilomiletic Review, 226.

Hoornbeek, John, 156.

Hood, E. P., 202f.

INDEX

245 Hoppin, J. M., 222-224, 235.

Home, C. S., 205, 229.

Horton, R. F., 205.

Hoyt, A. S., 226, 237.

Humanists, 88, 91, 93, 94, 97,

115, 121, 142.

Humbert de Romanis, 84f .

Hunnius, 143.

Frangaise au Moyen Age, 77n, 83n, 85, 87, 184n.

Lentz, Geschichte der Homi- letik, 74n, 77n, 83n, 84, 85, 143, 147n, 155, 166n.

Liguori, 163.

Literary Digest, 239f.

Loescher, 166.

Hyperius, Andrew, 116, 135- Luiz of Granada, 117-120.

142, 143. Luther, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129.

Isidore of Seville, 68ff.

Marenco, L., L Oratoria Sacra,

183n.

Mather, Cotton, Manuductio ad Ministerium, 169-173,

214.

Maury, Cardinal, Principles of

Eloquence, 164.

Maybaum, Judische Homilitik,

196.

Melanchthon, 133-135, 142.

Meray, 184n.

Meyer, F. B., Expository

Preaching, 205.

Monod, Ad., 189.

Kennard, Psychic Power in Preaching, 227. Nebe, Dr. A., Zur Geschichte Ker,
John, History of Preach- der Predigt, 46n, 126, 127, ing, 201n.

Kern, J. A., 236.

Kidder, D. P., Homiletics, 134, 147n, 163, 165n, 169, Nitzsch, K. I., 195.

173, 220f.

Korax, First Treatise on Rhe- Oratory and Rhetoric, Among James, Fleming, 227.

Jebb, R. C., Attic Orators, 29,

30.

Jerome, 154.

Jesus, As Preacher and

Teacher, 22.

Johnson, Herrick, 237.

Joseph of Segovia, 147.

Jowett, 205.

Keckermann, 155.

128.

Newton Theological Institu tion, 218, 219, 227. the Greeks and Romans, toric,
30.

Lampe, 168. Origen, 46-49, 121.

Lange, J., 165. Osiander, L., 143.

Latimer, 132. Ostervald, 165.

Lecoy de la Marche, La Chaire Otto, 196.

246 THE ART OF PREACHING Palmer, C., 192ff.

Pancratius, Andrew, 143, 155.

Paniel, Geschichte der Christ- lichen Beredsamkeit, 46n,

49, 50, 51.

Parker, Joseph, 203.

Parkhurst, 229.

Paton, 117.

Pattison, T. H., 226, 227, 237.

Paul, Teachings about Preach ing, etc., 25ff, 44, 54, 61,

108, 241.

Perkins, William, 131, 144,

145, 157.

Pepper, G. W., 228n, 229.

Phelps, Austin, Theory of Preaching, 235f.

Pietism, 147, 166, 168.

Plagiarism, 72, 161, 171.

Porter, E., 215-217.

Potter, Thos. J., 204.

Princeton Theological Semi nary, 218, 220.

Quintilian, 28, 32, 38-40, 47,

95, 161.

Rabanus Maurus, 70-73.

Rambach, 165.

Reformation, 67, 88, 121, 122,

123, 126.

Reinbeck, 166.

Reinhard, 167.

Renaissance, 93, 122, 123.

Reuchlin, John, 94, 95f, 115.

Revival of Letters, 67, 93, 94,

121, 122, 123.

Ripley, H. J., 218, 219.

Robertson, A. T. 2,18n.

Robinson, Robert, 149.

Saint Francis de Sales, 152.

Saint Vincent de Paul, 152.

Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, 68n, 69,

77n.

Schleiermacher, 180.

Schleupner, 155.

Schweitzer, A., 194f.

Segneri, 147.

Seven Liberal Arts, 40, 69,

71, 105.

Shaw, N. H., II Pergamo, 183.

Shedd, 221.

Simpson, Matthew, 234.

Skinner, Thos. H., 184, 219.

Smith, Geo. Adam, 205.

Smith, Prof. Robertson, 21.

Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 218, 228.

Spener, 165.

Spurgeon, Lectures to My

Students, 203.

Stalker, 205.

Stier, Keryktik, 192, 235.

Sturtevant, 201f.

Surgant, Ulrich, 91.

Tauler, 85.

Taylor, Jeremy, 161.

Taylor, W. M., 229.

Tertullian, 46, 49.

Theremin, Preaching a Virtue,

192.

Theory and Practice, 14, 32.

Ticknor, George, History of Spanish Literature, 117.

Tillotson, 157, 168.

Trumbull, 229.

INDEX

247 Union Theological Seminary, Weller, Hier., 143.

218, 219, 221.

Valerio, 116.

Van Dyke, 233.

Van Oosterzee, 147n, 156,

168n, 199-201.

Villavicentio, 116.

Vincent, A., 184n.

Vinet, Alex., 151, 184-189,

219.

Voetius, G., 156.

Ware, Henry, Jr., 217.

Watson, John, 205, 234.

Wilkins, John, Ecclesiastes r

157-160.

Wilkinson, W. C., 227, 232.

Williams, Edward, The Chris tian Preacher, 149, 157n.

Yale College, 218, 222.

Yale Lectures, 205, 227, 228ff,

233f.

Zanotto, F., Storia della Pre- dicazione, 183n.

Zwingli, 124, 126, 131.


========================================================================
Source: https://sermonindex.net/books/dargin-edwin-c-the-art-of-preaching-in-light-of-its-history/
========================================================================