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.