SQLite format 3@  ii!%%atableTopicsTopicsCREATE TABLE Topics (Title NVARCHAR(100), Notes TEXT) ˜˜‰ˆ=’ The Art of Preaching in Light of Its History{\rtf1\ansi\deff0{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Georgia;}} {\colortbl ;\red0\green0\blue0;} {\*\generator Riched20 5.40.11.2210;}\viewkind4\uc1\pard\sl240\slmult1\lang2058\f0\fs24 THE ART OF PREACHING \par \par IN THE LIGHT OF \par \par ITS HISTORY \par \par EDWIN CHARLES DARGAN \par \par The Holland Lectures Given at the \par Southwestern Baptist Theological Semi \par nary in Texas, October, 1921. \par \par \par \par THE ART OF PREACHING \par \par IN THE LIGHT OF \par \par ITS HISTORY \par \par \par \par BY \par \par \par \par EDWIN CHARLES DARGAN \par \par ME PROFESSOR OP HOMILETICS IN THE SOUTHERN \par THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY. \par \par Author of "A History of Preaching " etc. \par \par \par \par \par NEW ^VS4r YORK \par GEORGE H. DORAN COMPANY \par \par \par \par UNION \par \par I THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE \par TORONTO, \par \par \par \par 8V \par \par \par \par D25 \par 1322. \par \par \par \par COPYRIGHT, 1922, \par \par BY SUNDAY SCHOOL BOARD \par \par OF THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION \par \par \par \par THE ART OP PREACHING \par IN THE LIGHT OF ITS HISTORY. II \par \par PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OP AMERICA \par \par \par \par IN MEMORY OF \par JAMES BRUTON GAMBRELL \par \par FRIEND, SAGE, LEADER \par \par \par \par PREFACE \par \par MOST of the material in these lectures was gath \par ered during a service of fifteen years in teaching \par Homiletics in the Southern Baptist Theological \par Seminary and in the writing of a History of \par Preaching. Nearly all of the first four lectures \par and a great deal of the fifth appeared in a series \par of articles in the Review and Expositor (Louis \par ville, Ky.) during the year 1908. Thanks are due \par and hereby rendered to the managers of that mag \par azine for their kind permission to use the material \par in this form. \par \par The lectures were given on the Holland Founda \par tion at the Southwestern Baptist Theological Sem \par inary near Ft. Worth, Texas, October 25-28, 1921. \par In the delivery there were necessarily some con \par densations and omissions for the sake of brevity, \par and some verbal changes here and there in order \par to make the lecture more acceptable to a popular \par audience. \par \par The author greatly valued the privilege of ad \par dressing a fine body of young ministers, together \par with other listeners, in a series of addresses upon \par the great work of the ministry as unfolded in the \par story of homiletical teaching. He trusts that \par others who are interested in the work of preach- \par \par vii \par \par \par \par PREFACE \par \par ing may find some help and profit in the use of \par this volume. It is sent forth with the prayer that \par it may be a help to many whose glorious privilege \par and exalted duty it is to preach Christ and him \par crucified. \par \par E. C. D. \par \par Nashville, Tennessee. \par \par \par \par CONTENTS \par \par LICTTTRE PAG* \par \par I BIBLICAL AND CLASSICAL BASES OF PREACH \par ING AS AN ART 13 \par \par II THE ORIGIN AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF \par \par AN ART OR THEORY OF PREACHING . . 42 \par \par III INSTRUCTION IN THE ART OF PREACHING \par \par DURING THE M IDDLE AGES ... 67 \par \par IV THE ART OF PREACHING AS INFLUENCED BY \par \par THE REVIVAL OF LETTERS IN THE FIF \par TEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURIES . 93 \par \par V THE THEORY OF PREACHING AS AFFECTED BY \par THE REFORMATION IN THE SIXTEENTH \par CENTURY 122 \par \par VI THE THEORY OF PREACHING AS TAUGHT \par DURING THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHT \par EENTH CENTURIES 146 \par \par VII MODERN HOMILETICS EUROPE . . . 179 \par \par VIII MODERN HOMILETICS AMERICA . . .213 \par \par INDEX 243 \p ar \par \par \par THE ART OF PREACHING \par IN THE LIGHT OF ITS HISTORY \par \par \par \par THE ART OF PREACHING \par \par IN THE LIGHT OF \par \par ITS HISTORY \par \par LECTURE I \par \par BIBLICAL, AND CLASSICAL BASES OF PREACHING \par \par AS AN ART \par \par WHEN your honored President gave me the invi \par tation on behalf of the Faculty of this Seminary \par to deliver a course of lectures on the Holland foun \par dation my first feeling was that of gratification at \par re ceiving this honor and opportunity. My second \par thought was what theme should be chosen for a \par series of addresses intended mainly for preachers \par and those who are deeply interested in preaching. \par Since many years of my life were given to the \par study and teaching both of the theory and the his \par tory of preaching it was not hard for me to be \par lieve that I might hope to bring to you something \par of interest and profit in a brief historic survey of \par the main features of the art or theory of preach \par ing as it has been taught and practiced in the \par course of the Christian centuries. We have come, \par \par 13 \par \par \par \par 14 THE ART OF PREACHING \par \par after an easily understood analogy, to call the sub \par ject Homiletics, and to provide for the teaching of \par it in our seminaries for the training of preachers. \par \par Homiletics needs and deserves a new appraise \par ment. It is worthy of a more scientific study and \par treatment than it usually finds among those who \par teach and learn it, and it is entitled to far more \par respectful consideration than it ever has received \par from thinkers in the wider ranges of general sci \par ence. The importance of preaching in history and \par in existing social conditions would seem to justify, \par if not demand, a better attitude toward the theory \par of preaching. Whether regarded merely as an \par accepted discipline of the theological schools, or \par more justly as a body of long and carefully tested \par principles for guidance in the performance of a \par great social task, homiletical theory has a claim to \par scientific recognition and treatment. \par \par Along with the other Christian institutions, \par preaching has a notable history as one of the great \par forces which have made for human culture. If \par there is a history of art, of science, of philosophy, \par of literature, of music, of worship, of doctrine, of \par hermeneutics, of criticism, is there not also a his \par tory of preaching and of its theory? And are not \par these histories worth research and record? As in \par other great departments of knowledge a double \par process of development may be traced; that of \par action and that of thought practice and theory. \par All along they have reacted on each other; prac \par tice has developed theory and theory has in turn \par \par \par \par BIBLICAL AND CLASSICAL BASES 15 \par \par guided and improved yes, sometimes refined and \par weakened practice. The question is, Is preach \par ing an art? If our notion of art is hopelessly \par vitiated by thoughts of unreality and mere arti \par fice, we ought not to think of preaching as an art. \par But if we have the proper conception of art we \par need not fear the term. If any sustained action \par and product of the human mind and body work \par ing together to effect impression through expres \par sion may be called an art, preaching certainly falls \par under that definition. This is the practical side. \par Then is Homiletics an art? That which teaches \par how an art may be learned and practiced may \par itself be called an art. This is the theoretical side. \par The total concept of an art then lies in the co \par operation of theory and practice to the end of ex \par pression in a product which shall in its turn pro \par duce impression. Art is social or nothing. An \par observer or observers must be either real or imag \par ined. Even the pseudo-critical phrase, "art for \par art s sake," carries this implication, for it sup \par poses an uncritical or undeveloped taste which \par must be cultivated; and this, of course, neces \par sitates those in whom the faulty taste resides. \par Now the sense-appeal of art is almost exclusively \par to eye and ear; at least the other senses may be \par left out of account, as they must in all cases be \par either substitutes or auxiliaries. But it is evident \par that the primary and simple appeal of art to sight \par and hearing is enlarged, complicated and enforced \par by combination and derivation. All public speak- \par \par \par \par 16 THE ART OF PREACHING \par \par ing, oratory in general, is accordingly a compli \par cated and highly developed art. \par \par Taking up the group of arts to which preaching \par and its theory belong, we have no difficulty in \par relating them directly to oratory, and more gener \par ally to the language arts. Now the language arts \par may be distinguished, according to the mode of \par expression, as oral and literary. Whoever seeks \par to express himself in language so as to produce \par impression must do so either through signs and \par characters which appeal to the eye (written or \par printed words) or through sounds and modula \par tions which appeal to the ear (sung or spoken \par words) or by some combination of these modes \par of expression, as where written or printed words \par may be spoken or sung, or words that have been \par spoken or sung may afterwards be written or \par printed and read silently. It is easy then to de \par fine the place of preaching among the language \par arts; if there is written preparation for it, or \par if there is written or printed reproduction of it, \par a place may be given to it among the literary arts ; \par but if, as its nature requires, we have in mind \par chiefly public verbal expression for the sake of \par impression, then preaching is one branch of the \par art of oratory. But it is more than this. Its \par other connections and aims forbid that it should \par be so simply and narrowly defined. It is an estab \par lished institution of the Christian religion; as \par such it is a function of worship ; it is a means of \par public instruction in religion and morals; it is \par \par \par \par BIBLICAL AND CLASSICAL BASES 17 \par \par / \par a great and worthy social occupation to which \par \par some of the best intellects and characters in hu \par man history have been devoted ; it is, in the prepa \par ration required for its best exercise and in its \par actual performance, an individual function pos \par sessing both interest and merit. What is here \par said is presented from the practical side, but the \par theoretical side is necessarily involved, for the \par teaching of the art and the principles back of \par the teaching are wrapped up in the practice. \par \par The historic development of a theory or art of \par preaching arose and proceeded from a combined \par Biblical and classical (Graeco-Roman) initiative. \par The Bible furnished the motive, content and in \par spiration of Christian preaching, while the classic \par (Graeco-Roman) oratory (practice) and rhetoric \par (theory) supplied forms and rules for public dis \par course. We are therefore helped to a better un \par derstanding of the historic unfolding of Homi- \par letics by a survey of the Biblical and classical \par impulses from which that development started. \par \par The Biblical Impulse \par \par We are ready to ask then, Do we find any traces \par of rhetorical, or homiletical, theory in the Scrip \par tures T Preaching there is, and of the noblest \par sort ; but along with the practice is there anything \par which may fairly be called theory or art? If this \par means any set of definite rules for the composing \par and delivering of religious discourses we of course \par must answer in the negative; but if it implies \par \par \par \par 18 THE ART OF PREACHING \par \par that certain principles to guide in the practice \par of preaching may be found in the Bible, we shall \par have to say that at least hints and suggestions \par are given in both the Old and the New Testa \par ments. \par \par As to the Old Testament, granting that the \par prophets represent the proclamatory and the \par scribes the didactic, and both classes the hortatory, \par elements of preaching as a practice, are there any \par indications of a corresponding theory of religious \par discourse? Were there any accepted canons and \par any definite instruction as to the manner of giving \par religious discourses? It must be confessed that \par the data for forming an opinion on this point are \par somewhat scanty; but they are not wholly want \par ing. A slight indication is given in the provision \par for general education among the Hebrews. Three \par stages are recognized in the progress of Hebrew \par education: (1) the early period when home was \par the place and parents the teachers; (2) a later \par period, after the exile, when to the preceding \par there were added the scribes and the synagogue; \par (3) the last period, that of the rabbis and their \par schools. In all these it was incumbent on the \par learners to read and copy and repeat passages \par of the Scriptures. In the later times the public \par reading and exposition of Scripture seem to pre \par suppose at least some instruction for the better \par performance of the duty. In all periods we know \par that careful attention was paid to the very words \par of the sacred text. \par \par \par \par BIBLICAL AND CLASSICAL BASES 19 \par \par There is a more definite indication in the liter \par ature of the Old Testament. Its general char \par acter, especially in the prophetic writings, gives \par evidence of more or less of training in the art \par of expression, both oral and literary. There is \par unmistakable indication of care and presumably, \par therefore, of previous instruction in oratorical \par composition. Of course natural ability must be \par presupposed, and the divine call and empowering \par must not be forgotten ; but along with all this one \par cannot read the remains of Joel, Amos, Micah, \par Zephaniah, and others of the minor prophets, and \par still less the immortal utterances of Isaiah and \par Jeremiah, without feeling sure that these men \par had studied to good effect the best ways of making \par their messages impress ive to their hearers. They \par were not only great orators but trained orators. \par They not only knew, but knew how. The case of \par Amos is of special interest because in a well- \par known passage (7:14, 15) he disclaims being a \par prophet or a son of a prophet. But this disclaimer \par seems to refer to his occupation prior to his call \par and authorization rather than to lack of technical \par preparation for his work. On the contrary Dr. \par Davidson * speaks of Amos as the "oldest l!iterary \par prophet, " and as having "the prophetic manner \par ism and technique." In the books of Proverbs \par and Ecclesiastes there are a few striking traces \par of rhetorical care, implying at least some rhetori \par cal culture. Wisdom, instruction, and propriety \par \par i Hastings D. B., IV, p. 109. \par \par \par \par 20 THE ART OF PREACHING \par \par of speech are noted in Prov. 1:1-4; and in Prov. \par 25 : 11 we have a rhetorical principle of perennial \par importance: "A wo"rd fitly spoken is like apples \par of gold in network of silver/ In the classic \par passage, Eccl. 12:9-12, we find a "preacher," or \par master of assembly, who was himself "wise" and \par "taught the people knowledge," who "pondered," \par "gave ear," "sought out proverbs," sought "ac \par ceptable words," or "words of delight"; there is \par praise of "the words of the wise" which are as \par "goads," or incitements to action, and as "nails" \par which hold a structure together ; there is me#ntion \par of "many books" and of "much study," with cau \par tionary advices. Certainly from hints such as \par these we may infer that in the preparation of \par men for public duty as religious teachers, atten \par tion was duly paid to the study and selection of \par the language and form of discourse. \par \par Further inference as to the existence of rhetor \par ical instruction among the Hebrews may be drawn \par from their institutions : the order of Prophets, the \par order of Scribes,$ and the Synagogue. The long \par continued activity of an order of men whose chief \par duty was public religious speech certainly implies \par not only a body of traditional principles for the \par better performance of that duty, but also some \par instruction in those principles. The fact that so- \par called "schools of the prophets" are known to \par have existed adds force to this deduction, but too \par much force must not be allowed to it. For the \par school," as applied to these commun%ities \par \par \par \par BIBLICAL AND CLASSICAL BASES 21 \par \par or bands of prophets, is not itself found in the \par accounts of them ; and we have no means of know \par ing how much attention was paid in these guilds \par or communities to study and disciplinary training \par for the exercise of the prophetic function. We \par may not, however, resist the conclusion that there \par was likely to have been some such instruction; \par but it would be a violent assumption to discover \par & in the notices of these "sons of the prophets" a \par description of a modern theological seminary with \par its course in Homiletics ! * It is not important for \par our present inquiries to determine the time when \par the order of scribes arose. We find them well \par established in New Testament times, and they cer \par tainly existed long before then. Their main busi \par ness was the interpretation and teaching of the \par law, but this was enlarged to mean the whole body \par of Scripture'. So that theirs was primarily a \par teaching function. While thus the content of their \par teaching is the main thing, yet it is reasonable \par to infer some attention to the form also of their \par discourses. The hortatory or applicatory part \par of their teaching called haggada was really \par preaching. Prof. Eobertson Smith, as quoted \par in Hastings Bible Dictionary, says it was "doc \par trinal and practical admonition, mingled with \par parable and legend. ... It was recognized as a( \par rule of faith and life, and embraced doctrinal \par topics, practical exhortation, embellishments and \par fabulous developments of Bible narratives." It is \par \par iSee 1 Sam. 10: 5, 10, 12; 2 Kings 2: 3, 5, 7, 15; 4: 1, 38; 6: 1. \par \par \par \par 22 THE ART OF PREACHING \par \par scarcely to be denied that for instruction in this \par kind of teaching there must have been something \par more than example, though as to the amount and \par details of such technical training we are) left to \par conjecture. Yet it is surely not an unreasonable \par inference, in view of the evidence which has been \par presented that there was some kind and degree \par of rhetorical or homiletical instruction among the \par ancient Hebrews. \par \par Can we find any traces of homiletical teaching \par in the New Testament? The historic basis of \par Christian preaching as such, both in its proelama- \par tory and didactic forms, is of course to be found \par in the work of Jesus and his a*postles. They \par preached both in the synagogues and in the open \par air, in private houses and other more retired \par places, as occasion offered or required. The con \par tent of their message is also well understood and \par need not here be considered. Among their teach \par ings did they include any instructions which may \par fairly be called homiletical? Did Jesus and his \par apostles teach others how as well as whet to \par preach ? \par \par First, let us inquire whether the teach+ing of \par Jesus shows any attention, either in his own prac \par tice or in his instructions to others, to rhetorical, \par or homiletical, principles ? x Let us waive the curi \par ous question of any instruction, general or homi \par letical, which in his human development our Lord \par \par i There is a thorough and able survey of the preaching and \par methods of Jesus in The Master Preacher a Study of the \par letics of Jesus, by Albert R. Bond, D.D. \par \par \par \par BIBLICAL AND CL,ASSICAL BASES 23 \par \par may have received. It is not improbable that he \par attended the synagogue school at Nazareth; but \par that he owed much if anything, humanly speaking, \par to the schools, either as to the contents or the \par manner of his teaching is exceedingly doubtful. \par The astonishment produced by his teaching, its \par marked contrast to that of the scribes, and espe \par cially the wondering question (John 7: 15), "How \par knoweth this man letters, having never learned -?" \par all go to show that the traditional lore and \par methods of the schools were little or nothing to \par him. But does his teaching show any care of \par form and method, as well as of content? Did \par he have and practice we ask with all reverence \par a homiletical method of his own? In his ad \par dresses as we have them there is wealth and vari \par ety of what may be called homiletical material. \par Scripture fills an eminent place, being employed \par as authority, quoted frequent.ly, often expounded, \par habitually assumed as revelation, and reverenced \par as the word of God. Authoritative assertion, \par based on his glorious consciousness of truth, gave \par power to his speech and impressed his hearers \par as one of his most marked qualities. Yet also he \par frequently used argument with powerful effect, \par and that both in its direct and indirect forms; \par his refutative logic was often crushing. And \par what is to be said of his wonderful illustrations? \par/ From the more elaborate parables down to brief \par mention and passing allusion there was mastery \par of this method of preaching. His application of \par \par \par \par 24 THE ART OF PREACHING \par \par truth to his hearers, both individual and general, \par is thorough, appropriate; often final. Thus in \par the Master s own practice we find the indispensa \par ble and perennial homiletical categories of Scrip \par ture, Experience, Argument, Illustration, all used \par with marvelous s0kill to the crown of them all; \par Application. \par \par But what of order and language, or in rhetori \par cal phrase, Arrangement and Style? While we \par discover no prominence of logical order or dis \par tinctly marked analysis in the recorded discourses \par of Jesus, there is yet in most of the longer ones \par an evident order and progress of thought, show \par ing that he was not indifferent to this element of \par power in public discourse. The fadeless charm \par of his language sc1arcely needs comment ; at times \par sweet simplicity, then suggestive obscurity, poetic \par grace, logical strength, fitness to thought and occa \par sion, moving eloquence all were at his command. \par We do not find in our Lord s sayings or teachings \par any definite instructions which could be called \par homiletical; but his own example of careful \par speech, his remarks (Matt. 12:36, 37) about the \par value of words, his teachings on many other points \par of detail in regard to hearing2 and preaching, his \par instructions in regard to prayer, and the general \par command to preach, may be taken as giving some \par hint at least that in his unrecorded teachings he \par may have sometimes touched upon matters re \par garding the forms and methods of presenting \par truth. It may be worth while to remark that the \par \par \par \par BIBLICAL AND CLASSICAL BASES 25 \par \par language of Matt. 10 : 19, 20, cannot be interpreted \par as forbidding preparation for preaching; for 3it \par distinctly refers to over-anxiety on the part of the \par disciples in regard to their defense when they \par should be brought before rulers for the gospel s \par sake. (See also Luke 12 : 11, 12 ; 21 : 15.) \par \par In the Acts and Epistles there are some data \par from which we may infer at least a measure of \par attention to homiletical theory. The reported ad \par dresses of Peter in the early chapters of Acts \par show excellent homiletical skill. The narrative \par manner of St4ephen s speech (Acts 7) suggests \par the synagogue method, as does also that of Paul \par in Pisidian Antioch (Acts 13). There is clear \par evidence in Paul s addresses of rhetorical train \par ing, both Jewish and classical. The short report \par (which most probably was given by himself) of \par the notable address on the Areopagus at Athens \par reveals not only a rare degree of oratorical skill, \par but the sure traits of culture. And the same may \par be said of the defense before Festus 5and Agrippa. \par In 1 Cor. 1 : 17 ; 2 : 1-5, 13, we have the passages \par in which Paul depreciates as a medium of com \par municating the gospel "the words which man s \par wisdom teacheth," stating that on coming to \par Corinth he determined to "know nothing among \par them but Christ and him crucified." These ut \par terances have been unwarrantably pressed in the \par interest of discrediting proper study, and also in \par support of the unfounded hypothesis that Paul \par was conscious o6f bavins: made a failure at Athens \par \par \par \par 26 THE ART OF PREACHING \par \par when he attempted to use oratory in its home, and \par came to Corinth chastened and determined to dis \par card in the future any attention to rhetoric. All \par this seems to me utterly wrong. It is far more \par likely that Paul would have taken his speech at \par Athens as an illustration of the principle here laid \par down. For when we remember that the style of \par popular speaking in that sub-cla7ssical age was \par degenerate and tawdry, bombastic and extrava \par gant, we must see that the noble restraint, the \par sincere dignity, the faultless style of the Athenian \par address is as far as possible removed from the \par prevailing rhetorical fashion. It is good homi- \par letics at any time and place to discard the mere \par tricious aids of false taste and exaggerated con \par ceits, and deliver a plain, chaste, straightforward \par message. This Paul did and commended. \par \par 8In the Epistles to Timothy several passages \par contain excellent homiletical hints, though of \par course nothing like formal homiletical instruc \par tion. Among the qualifications of the bishop (1 \par Tim. 3:2) is that he shall be "apt to teach," im \par plying skill as well as character and knowledge. \par In 1 Tim. 4: 13-16 Paul urges that Timothy "give \par attention to the reading, the exhorting, the teach \par ing"; that he should not neglect his gift, that he \par should "meditate on t9hese things," and that he \par should "take heed to himself and his teaching." \par In 1 Tim. 5 : 17 he speaks of the elders "who labor \par in discourse and teaching." In 2 Tim. 1:13 he \par mentions a "form of sound words" and though \par \par \par \par BIBLICAL AND CLASSICAL BASES 27 \par \par this refers probably to the body of doctrine, yet \par the phrase is significant. In 2 Tim. 2 : 2 he exhorts \par that what Timothy had received he should com \par mit to "faithful men who should be :able to teach \par others also"; in verses 15, 16 he urges that Tim \par othy be diligent to be a good workman, shunning \par "profane and vain babblings"; and in verse 24 \par again insists on aptness to teach as an indispen \par sable qualification for the minister. We cannot \par be wrong in inferring from these hints that a pre \par vious and continued training for the preacher s \par task would, in Paul s view, include attention to \par the manner as well as the content of his message. \par ; And on the whole we may say that while nothing \par like formal homiletical instruction in the modern \par sense may be found in the New Testament, yet \par there are clear indications that the ability to pre \par sent the truth of God effectively in human speech \par is both exemplified and enjoined by the highest \par authority. And this surely is the essence and \par justification of homiletical theory. \par \par We come now to see how to some extent parallel \par with this Biblical teaching< there grew up, espe \par cially among the ancient Greeks and Eomans, a \par highly developed rhetoric, or theory of public \par speaking which joined with the Biblical principles \par to produce in time a theory of preaching, or art \par of Christian discourse. \par \par The Classical Impulse \par The splendid oratory of the Greek and Eoman \par \par \par \par 28 THE ART OF PREACHING \par \par peoples during the flourishing periods of their \par history is too well known to need more than =\par passing reference. Along with the practice \par a theory was also developed, and the Graeco- \par Eoman rhetoric has been a rich storehouse \par of principles for all subsequent times. In \par deed, there has been little of real value or \par original thought added to the ancient treatises. \par What has followed has been mostly in the \par way of necessary development and of adapta \par tion to later times, languages and conditions. The \par Greek theory of oratory received its most scien >\par tific and enduring expression in Aristotle s work \par on Ehetoric. Aristotle died in 322 B. C. The Eo- \par man rhetoric found its best and completest treat \par ment in the works of Cicero and Quintilian, the \par former of whom died B. C. 43, and the latter \par about A. D. 120, possibly earlier. The Eoman \par rhetoric was very largely dependent on the Greek \par as was the case in other departments of litera \par ture though Quintilian *s work is a far more fin \par ished and complete ?performance than Aristotle s. \par We thus see that at the time when the ancient \par rhetoric came in contact with the post-biblical \par preaching the theory of public speaking had \par reached a high state of development and needed \par only adaptation to Christian discourse. And homi- \par letical theory, both in its origin and in its develop \par ment, is the application of accepted principles of \par public speaking to the particular ends and de \par mands of the Christian gospel. Our busin@ess now \par \par \par \par BIBLICAL AND CLASSICAL BASES 29 \par \par is to trace briefly the rise and perfecting of this \par ancient classical rhetoric up to its impact upon \par the even more ancient though partly parallel de \par velopment of Biblical prophecy, preaching and \par hermeneutics. \par \par The origin of the Greek people and their lan \par guage cannot be traced, but their history and lit \par erature reveal them as a speaking people. In \par the Homeric poems the heroes arAe orators as well \par as warriors. Herodotus and Thucydides, as well \par as other historians, make record of speeches, and \par even report or invent them. Thucydides devotes \par especial attention to the noble oratory of Pericles. \par The drama also indicates the sway which oratory \par held in the popular esteem and customs. Lastly, \par oratory itself extended from practice into litera \par ture and theory. Published orations and treatises \par on the art of speaking are the latest developBment \par of Greek letters. Grote accounts for this oratori \par cal element of Grecian culture as lying in the \par genius and language of the Hellenic peoples, in \par their love of liberty and their forms of govern \par ment, in the parallel and sympathetic development \par among them of philosophy and art, in their pop \par ular assemblies, and especially in the nature of \par their law courts and systems of pleading. Jebb \par points out two forces in the origin and develop \par ment of tecChnical studies of oratory: (1) The im \par pulse given to Greek thought and culture by the \par dialectic philosophy of the Ionian schools ; and (2) \par the technical rhetoric of the Sicilian teachers. \par \par \par \par 30 THE ART OF PREACHING \par \par Neither of these movements originated at Athens, \par but both found early lodgment and careful atten \par tion in the chief seat of Hellenic culture. The \par dialectic impulse came chiefly from Protagoras \par (who taught how to make the Dweaker cause appear \par the stronger), Prodicus (who taught how to dis \par tinguish synonyms), and Empedocles, the philoso \par pher-poet of Sicily. The strictly rhetorical im \par pulse came from Gorgias (a pupil of Empedocles), \par Korax, and Tisias (a pupil of Korax), all of \par Sicily. Grote was inclined to recognize Empedo \par cles and Gorgias as the beginners of properly \par rhetorical instruction among the Greeks, but Jebb, \par with apparently better reason, considers Korax \par ofE Syracuse (B. C. 466) as the founder and father \par of Greek rhetoric, so far as that distinction may \par be given to any one man. At any rate it was he \par that published the first treatise which professed \par to give rules for the art of public speaking. \par \par In B. C. 466, Thrasybulus, tyrant of Syracuse, \par was overthrown and a democracy established. By \par him and his predecessors much land had been from \par time to time confiscated and bestowed on differ \par ent ones, so that Fon the fall of the tyrant numerous \par claimants for these lands arose, and there was \par great confusion as to titles. The causes had to \par be tried before the popular courts, and the claim \par ants were required to present their arguments in \par person. Many were timid and unskilled in speak \par ing. So Korax drew up a system of rules and \par taught the pleaders how to present their claims. \par \par \par \par BIBLICAL AND CLASSICAL BASES 31 \par \par Cope, in his Introduction to ArGistotle s Rhetoric \par (p. 28), speaks very slightingly of this famous \par treatise, saying that it was occupied wholly with \par the argument from probability which was nothing \par more nor less than to make the worse appear the \par better reason, "in other words, to subvert truth \par and justice." I have never seen the treatise nor \par any analysis of it and cannot therefore uphold or \par dispute the fairness of Cope s criticism; but it \par seems a little one-sided and severe though no Hdoubt \par well founded. Tisias was a pupil of Korax and \par carried on the work of his master. Gorgias, a \par contemporary of these and a pupil of Empedocles, \par came to Athens on a political errand and so cap \par tivated the Athenians by his florid style of elo \par quence that he was (no doubt easily!) induced to \par remain and become a teacher of the art of speak \par ing. After him the orator Antiphon combined \par theory and practice by being both a pleader in the \par courts and an Iinstructor of others. Lysias, as \par is well known, wrote speeches for his clients ; and \par Isaeus, the teacher of Demosthenes, did likewise, \par besides giving instruction in oratory. \par \par The method of these earliest teachers has per \par petuated itself. There was study of treatises, like \par that of Korax, which was speedily followed by \par many others ; there was lecture or conversational \par discussion with the pupils; there was critical \par study, under the teacher s guidanceJ, both of the \par poets and orators; and there were models fur \par nished by the teacher, and exercises submitted by \par \par \par \par 32 THE ART OF PREACHING \par \par the pupils. Thus, as often, are we reminded of \par the famous saying of Sydney Smith, that "the \par ancients have stolen all of our best ideas. " \par \par Greek oratory and rhetoric practice and theory \par came to their culmination in the same age ; the \par one in Demosthenes and the other in Aristotle, \par both ofK whom died in the year 322 B. C. The \par immortal treatise of Aristotle was the fruit of \par his reflections and teachings during the years of \par his great career as a teacher at Athens of all the \par elements of knowledge current in his day. The \par limits of this lecture forbid any study of this mar \par velous man and his many-sided and lasting influ \par ence upon thought and culture. We have here in \par view only his rhetorical theory. Quintilian some \par where states that Aristotle Lwas accustomed to talk \par on rhetoric with his pupils as he walked, on the \par covered ways (peripatoi, hence Peripatetic) of \par his famous Lyceum, in the afternoons. We might \par infer from the wretched style and arrangement in \par which the great treatise reaches us that post \par prandial dullness and jog-trot conversation both \par figured somewhat in its preparation. Perhaps it \par is more charitable to assume that the work was \par not written by Aristotle at all, but is only the coMn \par glomerate notes of his pupils and taken in after \par noon walks! At any rate some sort of apology \par is due to posterity for the form in which this most \par interesting and valuable production has come \par down to us. A brief synopsis of its contents is \par all that can be here presented. \par \par \par \par BIBLICAL AND CLASSICAL BASES 33 \par \par After preliminary definitions and explanations \par the three main topics treated as essential to rhetor \par ical theory are ArgumNents (xforttf). Diction \par (Ae z), and Order (ragity and it might be as \par sumed that the treatment would adhere to this \par lucid and comprehensive division, but it does so \par only in a general way. There are three books and \par the outline of them is this : \par \par Book I. The Nature of Oratory and Rhetoric. \par (Aristotle himself gives no such indication of his \par matter. This heading is inferred from the con \par tents.) In chapters 1-3 there are introductory \par definitions aOnd explanations: The relation of \par logic to rhetoric is stated, the utility of rhetoric \par defended, and rhetoric is defined as "the faculty \par of considering in any subject that which will in \par duce belief. It is the art of persuasion and there \par fore deals mostly with argument. Arguments are \par classified as (1) Technical (those which lie in the \par scope of rhetoric itself, i. e., may be produced or \par discovered by the speaker) ; and (2) Untechnical \par (those which lie outPside of the speaker s mind, \par external, legal, documentary, etc.) . The Technical \par or Rhetorical Arguments are further explained as \par being derived (1) from the character of the \par speaker, (2) from the disposition of the hearer, \par and (3) from the speech itself i. e., the form its \par argument takes, whether (-1) enthymeme (rhetori \par cal deduction) or (b) example (rhetorical induc \par tion). The three kinds of oratory are then dis \par tinguished: (1) Deliberative (political,Q legisla- \par \par \par \par 34 THE AET OF PREACHING \par \par tive) ; (2) Epideictic (no good English equivalent; \par show oratory, declamatory, platform, belonging to \par some occasion, memorial, invective, etc., in other \par words "the big speech") ; (3) Judicial, or Foren \par sic (pertaining to law courts). In chapters 4-15 \par there follows a more detailed discussion of these, \par with suggestion of the topics appropriate to each. \par As an appendix to the treatment of judicial oRra \par tory Aristotle mentions and dismisses the untech- \par nical arguments, such as testimony, oaths, deeds, \par etc. \par \par Book II. Discussion of the Technical Argu \par ments TTiffreis. The threefold distinction is re \par duced to two by merging the first two (those re \par lating to speaker and hearer) into one, which are \par called ethical arguments, and are treated at length \par in chapters 1-18. In this section (2-11) there is \par an acute discussion of the feelings and how tShey \par are to be reached, such as anger and placability, \par love and hatred, confidence and fear, benevolence, \par pity, etc. Varieties of character and condition \par (age and fortune) are also brought under pene \par trating review, and the way to deal with them. \par Then the logical arguments, i. e., those inhering \par in the speech itself, are taken up and discussed in \par chapters 19-26. First he briefly notices the com \par mon topics (c. 19), i. e., those belonging to all kinds \paTr of oratory, such as possibility, fact (past or fu \par ture), and degree. Then there is a strong study \par of the rhetorical induction and deduction (example \par and enthymeme). Of the latter there is an ill- \par \par \par \par BIBLICAL AND CLASSICAL BASES 35 \par \par arranged enumeration of twenty-eight varieties. \par Then comes a discussion of fallacies and of refu \par tation. \par \par Book III. Diction (Style,A#tf) and Order (Ar- \par \par \par \par By way of preliminary in cUhapter 1 the three \par fold division into argument, style and arrange \par ment is noted. Then the matter of delivery and \par voice is taken up. The subject is dismissed in a \par very brief but luminous and suggestive way. \par Then follows a disjointed and repetitious discus \par sion of diction or style. It is full of good things, \par but does not readily lend itself to brief analysis, \par and to enumerate all the points would take too \par much space. Such matters as faults of diction andV \par construction, use of words, figures of speech, pu \par rity, dignity, rhythm, etc., are presented with sense \par and spirit. The four chief "virtues" of style are \par held to be : clearness, fitness, impressiveness, and \par beauty. Lastly and briefly, chapters 13-19, ar \par rangement is considered. The necessary parts of \par a speech are only two : Proposition and Proof; but \par Introduction and Conclusion may be added, mak \par ing four. The Introduction may be derived from \par theW speaker, the subject (or occasion), the audi \par ence, or the opponent. The Statement, or Narra \par tion varies according to the kind of oratory \par Epideictic, Forensic, or Deliberative. The Proof \par may be either direct (arguments appropriate to \par the kind of oratory again) or indirect, as interro \par gation, reply, ridicule. The Conclusion has one or \par \par \par \par 36 THE ART OF PREACHING \par \par more of four aims: (1) To incline the hearer \par favorably; (2) To amplify oXr dimmish for effect; \par (3) To appeal to feeling ; or (4) To recall the line \par of thought. \par \par It is a remarkable fact that this, the most sug \par gestive and scientific treatise on rhetoric which \par appeared in ancient times, and almost in any time, \par came not from a professional rhetorician nor from \par an orator, but from a great all-round philosopher \par who was chiefly intent on other subjects but took \par this in as an important element of his teaching. \par This goesY far to explain both the merits and the \par glaring defects of the work. It is easy to criticize \par its faulty arrangement, its inadequate definition, \par its dry and difficult style, its vexatious obscurities, \par and many other details here and there. But on the \par whole criticism is lost in admiration when we con \par sider the ample knowledge, the wealth of illustra \par tion, the penetrating judgment and discrimination, \par the broad and firm grasp of fundamental and uni \par versal Zprinciples, the depth and acuteness of \par thought, and the exhaustiveness of suggestion dis \par played in this brief and vigorous treatise. How \par much Aristotle may have owed to his predecessors \par we may not say, but probably not much; for he \par commonly speaks very slightingly of other works. \par As it stands Aristotle s Rhetoric is the supreme \par achievement of the Hellenic mind on the subject \par of which it treats. Besides the Rhetoric Aristotle \par wrote a less valuable work,[ to which he sometimes \par refers the Topics, or helps to invention. \par \par \par \par BIBLICAL AND CLASSICAL BASES 37 \par \par In the early Roman times there was a develop \par ing native oratory, but the later influence of the \par Greek practice and theory gave both to speaking \par and writing a Grecian method and bent. The lack \par of originality in the Latin literary product is no \par torious. Yet there was some slight theoretical in \par struction in public speaking in the early \republican \par days of Eome. The Senate and Forum taught by \par example. Cato the Censor spoke contemptuously \par of rhetorical studies, and Crassus (himself an ora \par tor) when consul warned the people against the \par encroachment of Greek studies in this art. But \par Crassus had himself studied the Greek rhetoric, \par and Cato in spite of his growling had drawn up a \par set of rules for speaking derived mainly from his \par studies in Greek literature. One of his short rules \par is w]orth remembering : Rem tene, verba sequentur. \par About B. C. 100 formal instruction in both Greek \par and Latin literature and rhetoric is said to have \par begun at Rome. Mommsen (Vol. III., p. 565) \par mentions an ancient Latin treatise on rhetoric \par dating from the time of Sulla as being " remark \par able not merely for its close, clear and firm han \par dling of the subject, but above all for its compara \par tive independence as respects Greek models. " \par Julius Caesar wrote a tre^atise on the art of speak \par ing correctly, and dedicated it to Cicero a fact \par which the orator mentions with pride (Brutus, \par chap. Ixxii), and proceeds to say that Caesar "laid \par it down as an axiom that an accurate choice of \par words is the foundation of eloquence. " Cicero s \par \par \par \par 38 THE ART OF PREACHING \par \par own rhetorical works are well known the treatise \par on Invention (derived almost entirely from Aris \par totle s Topics and claiming no originality_), the \par famous dialogue on the Orator, and the Brutus, or \par dialogue on the Celebrated Orators. These were \par not manuals of instruction, but literary treatises, \par very pleasant reading and giving careful discus \par sion from many points of view of the accepted \par principles of oratory traditional and prevalent in \par Cicero s time. \par \par But the great Latin treatise on rhetoric is the \par truly admirable and exhaustive work of Quintilian, \par the Education of an Orator, o`r, as sometimes \par called, the Institutes of Oratory. In passing from \par Aristotle to Quintilian we make a great leap : in \par time it is nearly four hundred years ; in culture it \par is from the Greek at its culmination to the Roman \par in its early decline ; in men it is from a great all- \par round thinker and genius to a cultivated specialist \par of excellent talent but no great depth of thought ; \par in works it is from the original and suggestive but \par incomplete and unpolished aproduction of a master \par mind chiefly intent and notably great in other de \par partments, to the highly elaborated single achieve \par ment of a sound judgment and well-read intelli \par gence directed through a long life to this one task. \par Little is known of the life of Quintilian. Born, it \par seems, in Spain he came to Rome in the brief reign \par of the emperor Galba, and remained there a \par teacher of rhetoric all his long life, dying probably \par in A. D. 118, or thereabout. He bwas highly es- \par \par \par \par BIBLICAL AND CLASSICAL BASES 39 \par \par teemed both in character and as a highly success \par ful teacher. He was one of the first of those who \par received at Vespasian s order a salary from the \par public revenues of the city; and Domitian com \par mitted to him the education of his great-nephews, \par presumably heirs to the purple. By the same em \par peror he was invested with the insignia of the con \par sulship an event which is thought to have occ \par casioned Juvenal s sneer: Si fortuna volet fies de \par rketore consul. Quintilian was incidentally a \par pleader in the courts, but with all his heart a \par teacher of oratory. And the practice and teaching \par of a lifetime are condensed in his famous book. \par \par This elaborate and satisfying production is \par wrought out in twelve books. It was actually \par written in about two years, though the studies, \par labors and reflections of many years lay back of \par its publicatiodn. It covers a wide range as the \par course of education was in that age chiefly rhetori \par cal discussing many subjects which would now \par be classed in other departments of culture. It is \par complete in topics, thorough and discriminating \par in treatment, and attractive in style. The first \par book treats of the primary education of youth \par preparatory to oratorical training; the second \par book discusses the nature and principles of rhe \par toric; from the third to the seventh ienclusive, the \par topics of invention and arrangement are consid \par ered ; from the eighth to the eleventh, style and de \par livery are handled ; and in the twelfth there is dis \par cussion of some important practical matters such \par \par \par \par 40 THE ART OF PREACHING \par \par as the orator s morals, principles, choice of work, \par retirement, etc. The work has always been recog \par nized by competent judges as a masterpiece. It \par has, of course, greatly colored and influencefd all \par subsequent teaching and treatment of rhetoric. It \par is far superior to Aristotle s work as a manual, as \par well as in the completeness and orderliness of its \par treatment, though falling below in originality and \par power of thought. The two treatises taken to \par gether represent the consummation of the Graeeo- \par Eoman rhetoric. \par \par A word must be said in regard to the place of \par rhetoric in the ancient systems of education. It \par was a leading place. The so-cgalled Seven Liberal \par Arts, as later developed and correlated, were: \par Grammar, Dialectic (Logic), Ehetoric the Tri- \par vium; and Arithmetic, Geometry, Astronomy, \par and Music the Quadrivium. The post of honor \par belonged to the first three ; and as both grammar \par and logic were closely connected with rhetoric, they \par were considered as necessary parts of the instruc \par tion of the orator. For teaching rhetoric, with \par grammar (or literature) and dialectic, teachers \par ahnd schools abounded in all the ages of the Graeco- \par Roman education. During the first five centuries \par of the Christian era rhetoric in the larger sense, \par including literature held the chief place in school \par education. Vespasian is reported by Suetonius \par to have ordered that the salaries of teachers at \par Rome should be paid out of the municipal treas \par ury, and this is held to be the beginning of state \par \par \par \par BIBLICAL AND CLASSICAL BASES 41 \par \par educiation. But Julius Caesar is said to have had \par a similar scheme in mind ; and he actually did es \par tablish schools in Gaul. After Vespasian various \par emperors added to the dignities and emoluments \par of teachers, in some cases making their salaries a \par charge upon the municipal revenues of the chief \par provincial cities. Marcus Aurelius endowed chairs \par of rhetorical instruction at Athens. In A. D. 425 \par Theodosius II established a grand imperial school \par at Constantinoplje, directly under state control and \par supported by the government. It had thirty-one \par professors, most of whom taught rhetoric and the \par related subjects. Thus at the time when Chris \par tianity ceased to be persecuted and became a care \par of government, a great system of education in \par which the theory of speaking was a central, and \par perhaps the leading, element, had come to be thor \par oughly wrought out and established. Not only \par was education in this way chiefly rhetokrical in tone, \par but a fondness for popular eloquence had also \par been developed and maintained, and in some sort \par a critical (though often vitiated) taste had been \par cultivated. It was into a society thus educated \par and trained that the longer, though part of the \par time parallel, stream of Biblical prophecy and \par preaching poured its new volume of power. And \par thus the preaching and homiletics of patristic and \par mediaeval times received their classic impulse. \par \palr \par \par LECTURE II \par \par THE ORIGIN AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF AN ART OE \par THEORY OF PREACHING \par \par A. D. 100-600 \par \par THE period covered in this lecture is that gen \par erally known as the Patristic Age, or the Period \par of the Fathers. It extends from the beginning of \par the second century to the close of the sixth. Writ \par ers differ as to the exact limits, but those adopted \par here are convenient for our purposes. The end \par of the New Testament canon withm the first century, \par and the pontificate of Pope Gregory I, bishop of \par Rome (590-604), give suitable turning points for \par the study of our subject. For a reason which will \par soon appear the latter part of the period is par \par ticularly important for us, and so it will be con \par venient to divide it into an earlier and a later \par epoch, the first extending from 100 to 400, and the \par second from 400 to 600. During the first of these \par epochs there was, especially among then Greek \par preachers, considerable practice of rhetorical art \par in discourse, but it was not until the publication of \par Augustine s epoch-making little book On Chris \par tian Teaching (Doctrina Christiana) in 397 and \par 426 that a definite theory of preaching was formu \par lated and published. That work, of which the \par \par 42 \par \par \par \par ORIGIN AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT 43 \par \par fourth book was published in 426, has the distinct \par honor of being the first treatise oon the art or \par theory of preaching. In the meantime the exposi \par tion of Scripture as a part of Christian worship, \par which followed the close of the New Testament \par canon, began to be influenced more and more by \par rhetorical teaching and practice, as we shall now \par see by a survey of conditions prevalent during the \par second, third and fourth centuries. \par \par The Earlier Developments, A. D. 100-400 \par \par Within this important and fruitful epoch the \par two lines opf development which we have already \par traced worked together side by side to produce a \par real theory of preaching at its end. The old illus \par tration of two streams coming together is appo \par site here. After the junction each in a measure \par keeps its place till at last there is fusion. The \par classical rhetoric and the Biblical principles of \par preaching for a time flowed parallel in the same \par channel and finally mingled. The dominance of \par rhetoric in the school educatiqon of the time must \par ever be borne in mind. This had a double effect \par on homiletical theory: (1) It secured to the edu \par cated by actual culture, and to the uneducated by \par imitation and custom, the application of the com \par mon principles of rhetoric to preaching. An edu \par cated man entering the Christian ministry in that \par age could be safely assumed to know how to con \par struct and deliver a discourse. We know that this \par \par \par \par 44 THE ART OF PREACHING \parr \par was true of the great preachers ; and what was the \par case with them was true of others to some degree. \par (2) But on the other hand the exaggeration, bom \par bast, unreality, and sophistry which marked and \par marred the oratory and rhetoric of the age put \par many of the Fathers into a critical and cautionary \par attitude toward the rhetorical teaching then cur \par rent. We have seen already that Paul probably \par alludes to these perversions in his remarks to the \par Corintshians about the "persuasive words of man s \par wisdom." We find a good deal of this caution in \par the allusions of the Fathers, and it was far from \par unnecessary. So that the attitude of the Chris \par tian teacher toward current rhetorical theory as \par applied to preaching was eminently a corrective \par one. Theory did not so much need to be learned \par as chastened and applied to Christian uses. \par \par In regard to the working out of Biblical prin \par ciples of public speech in tthe practice and teaching \par of the Fathers there are four matters of impor \par tance to be remembered: (1) The influence of the \par noble content of the gospel message and the Bible \par morality upon those who would set them before \par others must not be forgotten. This was a note \par which ancient oratory and the teaching of it never \par had. (2) More particularly the actual use of the \par prophets and apostles as models of effective re \par ligious speech, especially as they were regaruded \par as immediately inspired of God, must not be over \par looked. (3) But along with these considerations a \par most powerful influence in shaping homiletical \par \par \par \par ORIGIN AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT 45 \par \par theory was the very nature of preaching itself, as \par being primarily an interpretation and application \par of Scripture. As oral tradition declined and the \par canon of Scripture was formed and closed, and as \par the body of disciples grew and became diversified, v\par the preaching became more and more an exposi \par tion and turning of Scripture to the spiritual and \par moral profit of the hearers. Thus arose the \par "homily," or talk, and the basis of it was a careful \par interpretation of the Bible. And so in all the \par after history of preaching and its theory the rela \par tion of Homiletics to Hermeneutics has been close \par and vital. (4) Nor must we forget that along \par with the authority of the word that of the teacher \par was an importwant matter. Paul had already rec \par ognized this, and with the development of the epis \par copate in the patristic age the appointment and \par authorization of the presbyters as teachers and \par preachers become highly important. This tended \par to increase the dignity of the preacher and render \par more needful his attention to the form of his dis \par courses. And with this the leadership and care of \par the congregation had influence in determining the \par theory of pastoral duty in gxeneral and hence of \par preaching also. In the writings of even such great \par preachers as Gregory, Chrysostom and Ambrose \par pastoral care receives more attention than hom- \par iletical theory. \par \par The writings of the Apostolic Fathers, so far as \par I have noticed, do not contain anything of value \par as to the progress of a theory of preaching. The \par \par \par \par 46 THE ART OF PREACHING \par \par discussion of teachers and prophets in the Didache \par says nothing on tyhe point; and the Ancient Hom \par ily, formerly known as the Second Epistle of \par Clement, is not a production of special merit as a \par sermon, nor does it mention or suggest anything \par of force as to rhetorical training. With the rise \par of the Apologists in the second century we come \par upon evidences of a more liberal culture in the \par Christian writers, and this naturally carried with \par it more attention to rhetoric. Tertullian who on \par some accounts may be classed with thze Apologists \par was trained as a rhetorician and lawyer, and his \par writings show the influence of his training as well \par as the natural traits of the orator. It is not, how \par ever, till we come to Origen in the third century \par that we can feel at all sure-footed in dealing with \par our subject. In the preaching, teaching and en \par during influence of that great scholar and teacher \par we begin to discover more distinct traces of a real \par art of preaching, and of instruction i{n its princi \par ples. There is no formal treatise on preaching \par among his works ; but scholars have collected pas \par sages from his writings which enable us to present \par his homiletical teachings in a somewhat orderly \par way. 1 \par \par Origen s example and teachings encouraged a \par higher appreciation of the homily as a studied dis \par course. Before his time it had been only a loosely \par \par \par \par iPaniel, Geschichte der Christlichen Beredsamkeit, SS. 138-149; \par |153-157; 166-170. Nebe, Zur Geschichte der Predigt, I, SS. 1-40. \par Broadus, Lectures on the History of Preaching, p. 51ff. \par \par \par \par ORIGIN AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT 47 \par \par connected string of comments on the passage of \par Scripture selected. Nor does it in fact become \par much more than that in his hands; yet there is \par progress both in preparation and in form. But \par he is careful to warn against the abuse of rhetoric. \par He compares the prevalent rhetoric, dialectic} and \par grammar to the leaven of the Pharisees, which the \par disciple of Christ should avoid, yet says : i i But a \par lucid discourse, the splendor of eloquence, and the \par art of arguing are with propriety admitted to the \par service of the word of God." Thus we see that it \par was the abuse and not the use of rhetorical prin \par ciples that he condemned. In this connection it is \par to be remembered that Origen insists upon the \par preacher s character as essential. Indeed both \pa~r Aristotle and Quint ilian urge with all emphasis \par that the orator must be a good man ; and the Chris \par tian teacher could surely do no less. The preacher, \par according to Origen, must not be an artificial and \par ambitious orator, but a pure and spiritual man, \par a fit channel and instrument for communicating \par the word of God to his hearers. \par \par But the main element of Origen s homiletics \par was hermeneutical. He insists that the preacher \par must get his message from the word of God; and \par to this end, of course, study and interpretation \par are necessary. Origen did not invent but he did \par elaborate and practice what is known as the \par allegorical method of interpretation. In his time \par and in his hands there were three modes of inter \par preting any given passage of Scripture: (1) the \par \par \par \par 48 THE ART OF PREACHING \par \par grammatical and historical, by which the exact \par meaning of the text was sought and set forth; (2) \€par the moral or hortatory, whereby the ethical doc \par trine of the text was applied to the hearers ; and \par (3) the allegorical, or spiritual, whereby some \par mystical or hidden sense beyond the literal mean \par ing and especially suited to minister to the spirit \par ual life was wrought out and applied to the pur \par pose of edification. Later the methods were in \par creased to four by dividing the last into the tropo- \par logical and the allegorical, or the figurative and \par the spiritual. The example and teaching of Origen \par did much to establish the allegorical interpretation \par as particularly appropriate to preaching, and it is \par due to him more than to any other individual, per \par haps, that this abuse has been so persistent in all \par preaching since his time. The fathers of the West \par ern Church, notably Ambrose and Augustine, \par adopted it with enthusiasm and practiced it with \par amazing ingenuity and power. But we must do \par Origen the justic‚e to say that his motive in adopt \par ing and defending this spiritualizing of Scripture \par was primarily devotional and practical. He was \par earnestly intent on making every word of Scrip \par ture count to the "deepening of the spiritual life" \par to use a modern phrase. And this purpose, in \par his mind, was of the utmost importance in preach \par ing. Four points, then, will summarize Origen s \par homiletical theory: (1) The preacher s character \par must be sound and devout; (2) He mƒust get his \par message from Scripture by a careful study of all \par \par \par \par ORIGIN AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT 49 \par \par its possible meaning, literal and figurative; (3) \par He must faithfully apply this meaning to life; \par (4) He must take thought for the form and method \par of his discourse, using but not abusing the ac \par cepted principles of the art of public speaking. \par \par In the earlier Latin fathers not much of impor \par tance for our study is found. As already re „\par marked, Tertullian was a trained rhetorician, and \par the gifts of the orator were his also, but nothing \par is quoted from him nor have I myself observed \par anything in such of his writings as I have read \par in the way of a theory of preaching. Yet his prac \par tice and style were potent. Cyprian was an ardent \par admirer and follower of Tertullian, and his writ \par ings likewise show the training and practice of a \par rhetorician. In his Letter to Donatus 1 Cyprian \par speaks a…s follows of the relations of secular and \par sacred speech: "In the courts, in platform ad \par dresses let voluble ambition boast a wealth of elo \par quence. But when it is speech concerning the \par Lord God, then pure sincerity of speech rests for \par persuasives to faith, not upon the powers of elo \par quence, but upon things (i. e., reality). In fine, \par use not eloquent but forcible words, not those pol \par ished to attract a popular audience by artificial \par speech, but simple en†ough to proclaim with plain \par truth the divine love." Surely this is good enough \par homiletical theory for any time. Paniel quotes \par similar language from Arnobius, who among other \par good things says: "When things far removed \par \par i Quoted by Paniel, op. cit., S. 230. \par \par \par \par 50 THE ART OF PREACHING \par \par from show are under discussion, what may be said \par is rather to be considered than how pleasingly it \par may be said. \par \par When we come to the Fat‡hers of the fourth cen \par tury it is necessary to bear constantly in mind two \par most important considerations: (1) The great \par prevalence of rhetorical instruction in the schools \par of the empire; and (2) the toleration and patron \par age of Christianity by the state. The educational \par and social advantages thus given to preaching \par profoundly affected both its practice and its \par theory. We find toward the middle and end of the \par fourth century one of the great historic culˆmina \par tions of preaching; and the five most famous pulpit \par orators of the age were, without exception, rhetori \par cally trained. These were Basil, Gregory Nazian- \par zen, Chrysostom, in the East; and Ambrose and \par Augustine in the West all of whom enjoyed in \par marked degree all that the best rhetorical instruc \par tion of the times could bestow. So also was it with \par others. \par \par I have not found in my slight reading of Basil \par anything at all upon the theory of pr‰eaching, but \par the more exhaustive research of Paniel 1 brings \par out the following. He speaks in one of his homilies \par of the necessity of varying the style of discourse \par according to the subject and audience, and says: \par "For as a man whose business is war and another \par who pursues farming do not use the same imple \par ments ... so also the preacher cannot use the \par \par i Op. tit., S. 341f. \par \par \par \par ORIGIN AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT 51 \par \par same mode of sŠpeech when he exhorts to the ac \par ceptance of the faith and when he opposes ad \par versaries. " In another homily he urges that the \par discourse should be as concise and pointed as is \par consistent with clearness, "so as to show many \par things in few words, and on account of its brevity \par to be easy for the memory to carry away. These \par excerpts can only make us wish that we had more \par of Basil s theory. \par \par There is not much from Gregory Nazianzen, but \par that little‹ is worth while. In one of his songs \par (quoted by Paniel) he stoutly takes issue \par with the notion (its age is no recommendation \par to it!) that it is more pious to be unpre \par pared so as to give free scope to the Holy \par Spirit. In one of his homilies also he speaks \par similarly and says it is better in an assembly \par to speak and hear five intelligible words \par than to pour forth an inexhaustible speech like a \par drum, but without edification. It is evident that \par this Œgreat master of sacred eloquence no matter \par what his practice at least in theory had no great \par respect for the sky-lark method of preaching \par " prof use strains of unpremeditated art." We \par should look to find some homiletics in Gregory s \par famous oration at Nazianzus on his return from \par his retirement to Pontus, 1 in which he discusses \par with eloquence and power his conception of the \par pastoral life and work. But it is mostly devoted \par \par i Translation in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VII, \par p. 204ff. \par \par \par \par 52 THE ART OF PREACHING \par \par to the practical and ethical side of the preacher s \par life, with little that even remotely bears on the \par theory of preaching. Teaching and preaching are \par named among the elder s duties, and adequate and \par studious preparation are insisted on, but character \par and wisdom rather than rhetoric are the main \par topics of this eloquent and thoughtful discourse. \par One sentencŽe at least I must quote, where in speak \par ing long and acutely of the folly of putting unpre \par pared men into the ministry, he says: "And we \par may rightly, in my opinion, apply to them the say \par ing of Solomon, * There is an evil which I have \par seen under the sun, a man wise in his own con \par ceit ; and a still greater evil is it to charge with \par the instruction of others a man who is not even \par aware of his own ignorance. " Chrysostom, Am \par brose, and especially Gregory the Great, were all \par deeply indebted to this vigorous oration of the \par Nazianzen for their more elaborate treatises on \par the Pastoral Office. In his practice of eloquence \par Gregory was often betrayed into soaring and pro \par lixity. Perhaps his theory was better. \par \par The world-famous preacher, John Chrysostom \par (347-407) of Antioch and Constantinople, was \par carefully educated by Libanius, the best teacher of \par rhetoric of the age. His sermons and homilies, of \par which a great number remain, give constant evi \par dence both of his native powers and of his excel \par lent training and practice. The three parts of the \par typical preacher s work are well illustrated in \par this ancient prince of the pulpit. He was an ad- \par \par \par \par ORIGIN AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT 53 \par \par mirable pastor, shrewd in his knowledge of human \par nature and faithful and loving in service of his \par flock. He was a careful and untiring student, es \par pecially ‘of the Bible; his principle of interpreta \par tion being that of Antioch rather than of Alexan \par dria ; that is, he paid chief attention to the literal \par and moral teaching of the word, with little or no \par allegorizing. And to crown it all he was a pulpit \par orator of the first rank. With him practice is \par everything, and but little theory is to be found in \par his works. Scholars have culled from his sermons \par here and there passages in which he speaks of \par preaching. These’ set forth his homiletical prin \par ciples. The preacher must found his discourse on \par the word of God, discard ambition for oratorical \par display and applause, and seek first of all the \par spiritual edification of his hearers. Over and over \par again these principles are insisted on. More tech \par nically, he says somewhere that an introduction is \par necessary to a well-ordered discourse, for a num \par ber of reasons. And to this his practice agrees; \par his introductions are usual“ly excellent. More \par than in the homilies we might expect to find Chry- \par sostom s theory of preaching set forth in his \par famous and delightful treatise On the Priesthood; 1 \par but he is here chiefly occupied with the pastoral \par side of the work, and does not say much about \par preaching. But that little is well worth remem \par bering. \par In Book IV., 3, Chrysostom asserts that ability \par \par i Translation by B. H. Cowper, London, 1866. \par \par \par \par 54 THE ART OF PREACHING \par \par to speak well is necessary for a presbyter, and ad \par duces Paul as an example. In the following chap \par ters he elaborates this and gives illustrations from \par Paul s writings in support of his argument. In \par Book V. he urges (c. 1) that to speak well requires \par much labor and study; (c. 5) that the learned \par preacher must labor even more than the un \par learned; and (c. 7) that he should compose his ad \par \pard dresses with a view solely \cf1\fs23\par }