The Homiletical Theory and Practice of Ebenezer Porter

Citation preview

THE HOMILETICAL THEORY AMD PRACTICE OP EBENEZER PORTER

by R. Clyde Yarbrough

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, In the Department of Speech, in the Graduate College of the State University of Iowa July, 1942

ProQuest Number: 10831787

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is d e p e n d e n t upon the quality of the copy subm itted. In the unlikely e v e n t that the a u thor did not send a c o m p le te m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved, a n o te will ind ica te the deletion.

uest ProQuest 10831787 Published by ProQuest LLC(2018). C opyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C o d e M icroform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346

ii

I \04 -S V,,. 1i w ^ C o

^ PREFACE The writer wishes to express his appreciation

to Professor A# Craig Baird, under whose direction this study has been made# Br* Lester Thonssen also rendered generous and gracious help* Special thanks are due the Reverend Bichard D* Pierce of the Andover Newton Theological Library, whose knowledge of libraries, love of research, and >i c{

cheerful, indefatigable cooperation in searching for materials have helped to make this study a pleasant

). "1 $h® second class of books included Basil, Chrysostom, Augustine, Erasmus, Abbe Maury, Feneion*s Dialogues. Campbell, Bishop Wilkins, Baxter, Claude, Dr, Gregory, Smith’s Lectures, Fordyce*s Art of Preaching, Swift’s Letter to a Young’llor g y man, Rollings 'Belles Lofctres, Edwards'11" Preacher and Hearer, and Massillon’s Charges (87'* 405-7)* Th© list of sermons recommended included two volumes of collected sermons: Latin and Greek Fathers, and English Fathers» Individual English preachers included were: Howe, Flavel, Barrow, Bates, Jeremy Taylor, Tillotson, Owen, Baxter, South, Leighton, Watts, Horne, Doddridge, John Newton, Whitefield, Paley, Blair, Erskine, McLaurin, Gisborne, Jay, Bradley, Venn, Chalmers, Robert Hall, Fuller, Robert Walker, Burder, Cooper, Cecil, Robinson, Alison (87, 408-11). Th© list of French preachers included, concerns only "a few of the most distinguished" (87, 411)— Massillon, Saurin, Feneion, Bourdaloue, Bossuet, and Plechier* Sermons by American preachers are limited to those which Porter believed "especially useful to students in theology and young ministers" (87, 412): President Edwards, Davies, Bellamy, Hopkins, Smalley, Emmons, Witherspoon, Griffin, Tappan, Dwight, Lathrop, Bollock, Perkins, Keith, Payson (87, 412-14). Porter gives a brief evaluation of each of the works in this list. For additional books which Porter recommended for the young preacher see (88, 419-20), (98, 423-26).

(newspapers, periodicals, and the like) should he religious­ ly confined "within such limits as are consistent with other paramount claims on his time” ; works of fiction should he 22 shunned altogether (86, 392), (Cf* 95, 191). 22* Porter’s theory of preaching coincides with present-day theory in some respeeta (see pp.74-75, 139, 185-86, 231, 236). Concerning th© reading of fiction, as on© means of accumulat­ ing knowledge with which to give aennons "matter," however, it is at variance* Such a well-known contemporary homiletic tan, for example, as Dr. H* E* Luccock of Yale Divinity School, not only advises preachers to read fiction but teaches a course for preachers in Literature in which he discusses homiletics! helps in works of fiction, drama, poetry and biography (Cf, 230), (Cf, 231). Reverend William L* Stldger, of the Boston University School of Theology, in 1932 published a book en­ titled F l a m i n g Your Preaching, which contains suggestions for a yearns preaching based on what he considers to be some of the world’s "outstanding" poems, dramas and novels (255). Porter refused to read "but’ two or three of all the volumes of fiction from LWalter Scott’s'] prolific pen," be­ cause, among other reasons, "as an Instructor of young minis­ ters, I could not, with a good conscience, devote the time requisite for all this reading of romance***" (96, 1917. Not only should the preacher read with discrimi­ nation; h© must, declared Porter, if he expects "growth in practical wisdom" (86, 395), read with purpose. The principal object of th© preacher’s reading should b© "the acquisition of knowledge for his own benefit, and that of others " ; a secon­ dary object, especially for th© young; minister, should be the development of style and the stimulation of intellectual powers (86, 390, 397). All reading should be done with a specific view to the task of the ministry* Like th© painter or sculptor, th© architect or military chief, who sees in every object around them something relevant to their specific tasks, th© preacher should read and think "as a preacher" (95, 216)• The

knowledge he acquires from study and reading should be systematically classified, and adapted to his use as a og “Christian Instructor* (95, 216), (Cf, 86, 397)* 23* Porter advised the preacher to keep a “blank-book" in which to record s e m o n i c materials and suggestions* The most important subjects on which the minister will likely preach should be listed in the book alphabetically, h© said, In his reading and studying, th© preacher should enter in the book under th© appropriate subjects what he finds "most striking" in a given writer, with references to author and page number. Th©3© entries should be brief notations, "not a transcription of passages" (95, 216), (Cf, 86, 397). The only time Porter used the rhetorical phrase "common place book* was in connection with this advice about th© blank-book* The blank-book, he said, "will never become vo­ luminous, like th© cumbrous Common Place books, used for transcribing entire pages, to which practice there are in­ superable objections* (95, 216). He gave no consideration in his homiletical theory to stock arguments or commonplaces or to th© topoi* The Andover President maintained that the preacher, in addition to possessing estimable native capacities that make possible the acquisition of knowledge through study and reading, should be a man of conspicuous personal piety.

24

In

24# Porter defined piety on on© occasion as "that love to God, which results from a spiritual renovation of heart* (7, 6 )* fact he conceived of piety as th© most important qualification 25 for th© ministry (95, iii), (Cf. 98, iv), (94, 44), (82, 5). 25* Porter*s colleague at Andover, Professor Moses Stuart, was of a similar opinion* "Compared with piety," h© said on on© occasion, "all th© other attainments of which w© are capable, ar© inferior* Indeed, the gifts of an archangel without this piety, would only serve to make a devil" (115, 20)# This evaluation of th© place of piety in the proacherfs qualifications was still accepted a half century later.

Broadus considered piety "the prime requisite" in the minis­ ter’s "outfit" (191, 7), (Cf# 241, 582, 585)* He did not mean, however, that such a declaration should be construed as a disparagement of learning, as is evidenced by a statement he made in th© Seminary Chapel on one occasion; Let profound learning be cultivated here# Let interpreters of the Bible, and theologians, and ministers, who are able men, go from these halls annually# Christian learning is the heavy artillery of th© ministry, against th© armies of the aliens (138, 268), (128, 146)* Nevertheless, he pointed out that learning without piety is as unprofitable in th© ministry as piety without learning. Th© churches, h© said, "will pass by cold scholars, and pre­ fer men of moderate learning, with ardent piety, to be their ministers" (94, 45), (Cf. 138, 257), (Cf. 115, 19, 20), (Cf, 128, 145), (Cf* 95, 204)* He summed up the matter of th© preacher*s need for piety by saying "Genuine eloquence in the pulpit, cannot exist without PERSONAL PIETY jtn the preacher" (94, 40, 43), (Cf. 95, 87).

Such a declaration places Porter

26# Porter felt that the basic qualification for preaching was "the formation of a character, which should itself most eloquently teach the divine requirements" (138, 243), (Cf. 5, 12)j "...he who ministers in holy things, should himself be holy" (7, 6). in line with the classical position concerning ethical proof which affirms that good speaking emanates from the good man. Aristotle maintains that the successful speaker is, among other things, th© man of good will and moral character (176, 92). Quintilian, quoting Cato, defines an orator as "a good

man skilled in speaking” (244, XIX, 1, 1), and contends that oratory "can be conceded only to good men” (244, II, 15, 1)# 27# This classical theory of ethical proof in successful speaking finds expression in such m o d e m writers as Sarett and Foster, who state it thuss "Speech is effective, other things being equal, in proportion to the intensive worth of the speaker” (251, 12), (Cf# 256, 70*71); and in such contemporary speakers as the Reverend Ernest Fremont Tittle, who, speaking on "Learning How To Speak,” said: "You cannot make silken purses out of sows* ears; nor can you get a big speech out of a little speaker###»Gr©at speeches•«*never come out of shallow minds and sordid secular souls" (254, 272)# In addition t© possessing intellectual ability and cultivating personal piety, th© preacher must apply himself, declared Porter, to the acquisition of the practical skills of his profession, as the carpenter learns to us© his plane or the sculptor his chisel or the surgeon his scalpel# "No man can T e a m to preach by study merely#" declared Porter, Neither will piety alone render him skilful and powerful in the pulpit#•••The preaching of the gospel is a science# which has elementary princi­ ples# Other things being equal, he will best succeed in this sacred work, who best understands and applies these principles (95, lii), (Cf. 94, 13), (Cf# 95, 85, 219)####no man becomes possessed of an interesting and impressive delivery, except as the result of pains and patience in preparatory discipline (89, 427-28)####.#.♦**.♦#*•##.*..... . Rules on preaching cannot make a preacher: nor can Euclid*s ELEMENTS make a mathematician# But skill In any art or science presupposes acquaintance with its elementary principles# Knowledge of the Bible, and of systematic Theology, is essential to the Christian Teacher, but this is not sufficient# He may possess this, and yet not be qualified to write or speak his own thoughts in a perspicuous and in­ teresting manner# *A man may be a good lawyer# and yet a bad pleader: so he may be a good divine# and yet a very indiff©rent preacher* (98, iv),*®

28* For Porter’s theory of style and delivery, see Chapters V and VI, pp. 118-169. Porter felt that thorough application in rhetorical studies was the most effective means of acquiring these practical skills, provided such studies were accompanied by 29 practice in the skills, "After all the use that can be made 29, William Sandford, writing in 1929 declared that there are two kinds of teachers of speech: "On the one hand, there are those who teach speaking primarily as a rhetorical problem, one which involves th© exercise of skill and judgment in the selection, arrangement, and phrasing of material with a view to interesting or persuading the audience, and who treat delivery a® the handmaid of composition# On th© other, are those, whether or not they are directly Influ* ©need by th® elocutionary tradition, who place primary emphasis upon delivery, and who tend to subordinate problems of composition to those of oral presentation (162, 7), Granting that this is a somewhat arbitrary classifI* cation of speech, Porter would be included in the first group* For a description of how he taught the rhetorical studies at Andover Seminary see (89). of text books, and rules, and authors," h© declared, "the advancement of the student both in writing and delivery, de­ pends essentially on practice" (89, 422), (Cf. 150, 558), (Cf* footnote

4, p . 135)* he believed that "skill in elo­

cution is not likely to be attained by accident," but by "private drilling with

a

teacher," together with "th©

daily habit of private reading and speaking," and th© experience of speaking in public (89, 428-28).

30

30# Broadus agrees that "The only way to learn to preach is to preach" (191, 10), but goes on to add that practice which is to develop the highest skill must be "heedful,

thoughtful practice, with close observation of others and sharp watching of ourselves, and controlled by good sense and good taste*' (191, 10}* The Andover professor's theory of the practical skills in preaching comprehended not merely style and delivery, but included the choice and explication of texts, and the choice and arrangement of materials as well*

SI

These topics

31# Article line of the Funds and Statutes of Andover Semi­ nary indicates the scope of Porter's teachings "Under the head of PULPIT ELOQUENCE shall be delivered a competent number of Lectures on the importance of oratory; on the in­ vention and disposition of topics; on the several parts of a regular discourse; on elegance, composition, and dignity in style; on pronunciation, or the proper management of the voice and correct gesture, and on th© immense importance of a natural manner; on the rules, to be observed in composing a sermon, and on th© adaptation of th© principles and pre­ cepts of ancient rhetoric to this modern species of oration; on th© qualities in the speaker, in his style, and in his delivery, necessary to a finished pulpit orator; on the methods of strengthening the memory, and of improving in sacred eloquence; on th© character and style of th© most eminent Divines and best models for imitation, their re* spective beauties and excellencies in thought and expression; and above all, on the transcendent simplicity, beauty, and sublimity of th© Sacred Writings" (121, 56)* In his teaching Porter did not consider invention in th© strict rhetorical sense (Cf* p. 42 ff. ). Neither did he discuss methods of strengthening th© memory* All the other topics listed in Article Nine, however, he did treat; some in detail, others only generally* Professor Hoyt H* Hudson of the University of Pittsburgh, reviewing Porter's Lectures on Eloquence and Style in the Quarterly Journal of Speech Tn 1927, refers to this long list of Porter *s duties, and says that a less capable man would have given up in despair at such a "formidable program.w He points out, however, that Porter, undaunted, grouped these numerous subjects under five heads (Cf* 94, 9-10), and pro­ ceeded to do a satisfactory job of lecturing on them (124, 337-38)* j —

are discussed in connection with Materials and Arrangement (see Chapters III and IV, pages 42-117).

Characteristics of Good Sermons Porter believed that the preacher is God's medium through which His message of love and redemption reaches a lost world, and that the sermon is the preacher's medium for making that message intelligible to and effective in the life of the world (see pp. 22-27)# Therefore, Porter insisted, after th© preacher has qualified himself— by intellectual discipline, by th© cultivation of a spirit of piety, and by the acquisition of the necessary technical skills— to deliver God's message, he must learn to construct "good" sermons (95, 200-201), (Cf* 94, 10)* Th© Andover preacher and teacher defined a "good" sermon as one that is evangelical, instructive, and direct (95, 200-253), (Cf. 207, 105-36), (Cf* 228, 235-62)# Evangelical sermons, in Porter's opinion, are sermons that discuss Mth© essential doctrines of th© gospel" — atonement, grace, sanctification, regeneration, and the like 32 (95, 201-2), (Cf. 126, 152-53). He did not maintain that 32#

See Porter's statement on p* 24*

Compare pp. 56-57.

every sermon should discuss, "in set form," on© of these essential doctrines of Christianity. But he did insist that 11every sermon ought to exhibit the spirit of Christianity, and to derive its appeals to the heart from the motives of

53 Christianity" (95, 202). 33. Porter believed that a discourse ma^ inculcate what is both true and important and yet not be a Christian sermon (95, 202-3). he pointed out that ^ocrates taugut the being

of a God, the doctrine of immortality and eternal retri­ bution. But he taught them as a ,fheathen philosopher*” He taught them not as a part of but as independent of the Christian system. Therefore, Porter declared, Socrates1 addresses were not Christian sermons even though what they advocated was both important and true* To be Christian* to be evangelical, a sermon must draw its arguments, and motives, and exhortations from the authority, and must exhibit the spirit, of th® gospel (98, 905). Porter taught that an instructive sermon is one that has an important subject, is perspicuous in method and language, is rich in matter, is in th© form of discussion rather than declamation,^ and discusses a given aspect of $4# Phillips Brooks years later disagreed with this theory of s e r m o n construction* Larson found that ”in the main he **.proclaimed rather than discussed” (158, 34). divine truth as a part of the connected, consistent system of Christian principles (95, 212-20)* An ” important subject” Porter defined as one “which spreads before the hearer some serious truth to be believed, or duty to be done, or danger to be avoided" (95, 212)*

555

55* The Bart let Professor considered such subjects a® re­ pentance, faith, humility, the character of God, th© character of man, the way of salvation b y Christ, prayer, fidelity, charity, immortality, any "specific part of faith or practice" as important (95, 73-85, 213). All subjects that "tend to produce sound belief, sincere love to God, repentance for sin®, and a life of holiness” (95, 82) are important| those that tend to "divert the hearers, without Instructing them,” that are mere discantations "on points critical, speculative, or merely curious," or that call forth admiration rather than produce edification are in­ significant (95, 213), (Cf. 95, 81, 82). Perspicuity of method and language in a sermon refers to form and style. Arrangement of "the things taught"

should be so clear, Porter believed, and the language used should be so intelligible, that the sermon is clearly under­ stood and easily remembered by "common minds” (95, 214). A sermon "rich in matter," according to the Andover divine, is on© that is neither barren in thought nor novel in subject matter* It contains Biblical truths, supported in a diversified manner.with facts and illustrations which the preacher draws from an inventive mind stored with knowledge from his experience and his reading (95, 214-18). Sermons that present a connected view of religious truth, according to Porter’s teaching, are those that, while necessarily discussing the gospel in parts, clearly indicate the relation of the parts "to th© general scope of revealed religion," avoiding a distorted, "partial and superficial preaching" (98, 219-20), (Cf. 207, BO-81). 36* Porter recognized that the form of a sermon— whether it is discussion or declamation— properly belongs to th© treatment of Argument or Discussion* It has been considered, therefore, in th© section on Argument (see p.67 ff.). In his discussion of directness as on© of the three characteristics of a good sermon, Porter stated that by direct he meant "explicit," both as to doctrine and exe37 cution (95, 233)* A good sermon, he felt, should discuss 37* He illustrates his meaning in part with the following quotation (he does not give the author): "A man who walks directly, though slowly, towards his journey’s end, will reach it sooner than his neighbor, who runs into every crooked turning, or loiters to gaze at trifles, or to gather flowers by the wayside" (95, 233)*

a subject in such a way that the hearers not only can under­ stand it, but are made aware of its relevancy and importance to themselves. Summary Ebenezer Porter*s Lectures on Homiletics was the

i/

first book by an American to gather into one volume the ac­ cepted precepts of preaching. Th© book broke away from the rhetorical domination of homiletics, and, for the first time in the history of homiletics, presented rules of speaking as old as Aristotle and Quintilian and homiletieal principles as standard as Campbell*s Lectures, from the specific standpoint of preaching rather than that of rhetoric. Th© arrangement of Porter*s Lectures was poor, some of the material included was unnecessary, but they represented an important step toward making American homiletics a distinctive department of public speak ing* Porter conceived of preaching as the human instru­ ment by which God was to change mankind from a state of sin to a state of holiness, and, therefore, as the most important work a man can do* To be qualified for the work of preaching, a man must be genuinely pious, naturally gifted, possessing broad knowledge and cultivated technical skills that enable him to us© his knowledge with maximum efficiency in teaching the system of revealed religious truths. The preacher’s sermons, the medium for his teaching, should be evangelical in spirit, direct in presentation, and edifying in results.

Chapter III Theory of Materials According to Dargan, the science of homiletics, in considering the topic of "Materials,” gives first place to Scripture, with a consideration for "the selection, in­ terpretation, exposition, and enforcement of Bible texts.” He points out that "other materials of discourse, such as narration, description, argument,

Illustration, and appli­

cation have their place” in a secondary position (273, 350), Invention, In th© strict rhetorical sens© of ar­ tistic and inartistic proof, therefore, is not used as completely in the science of homiletics, as in that of rhetoric (Of, first paragraph, footnote 1, p. 45), The preacher does not employ such Inartistic, legal proofs as witnesses, documents, tortures, oaths, and contracts (176, 8, 80 ff,), (201, II, 27), (244, V, 1, 7), which are used in forensic rhetoric. Th© three artistic inodes of persuasion, logical, ethical, and pathetic proof (176, xxxvii-xxxvili, 8-9) — because

of

the nature of th© audience, the type of

material used, the ends sought, and th© character of the speaker (see pp. 9-12)— are likewise restricted for pulpit use* Sacred rhetoric, for example, cannot make as extensive and formal us© of the topoi as general rhetoric (176, 14281), and tends to draw its examples and enthymemes from a more restricted field— the Christian religion and its literature*

1

1* Robert L. Dabney, Professor of Systematic and Pastoral Divinity at Virginia’s Union Theological Seminary, in 1370 declared, "To the sacred orator, the work of invention can­ not be what it is to the secular, because...the whole matter which we are to handle is given to us by the Scriptures" (207, 49-50), (Cf. 187, 283), (Cf. 246, 14-18), (Cf. 260, 49-53). The study mad© by Evans found that the early English (1530-1692) theory of homiletics held a similar view. 11In­ vent io in Homiletics," Evans concludes, ’had to do chiefly with the Scriptures and Christian doctrines" (154, 240). Dargan, in his article for The New Schaff-Herao r Encyclo­ pedia. leaves the Impression that in the history of preach­ ing this predominantly Scriptural conception of invention has been held Irrespective of location or time (273, 350), Although Porter took many of his examples and arguments from non-Bibllcal sources (see pp. 186-95), the general homiletical practice of his period drew more upon Biblical sources than does present-day theory (Cf. footnote 32, p.75). Ethical proof, according to Aristotle, is a matter of winning the confidence of the audience (176, 8-9), and is generally established by the speaker’© demonstration of in­ telligence, good will and moral character (176, 92), (Cf. p. 34), It is not as necessary for the preacher, who, on the whole, faces the same audience week after week, to make an effort to win the confidence of his listeners as it is for th© secular orator (Cf. 246, 87-88), (Cf. 252, 180).

2

2. Usually, a church audience maintains confidence in their minister even though they may not agree with him on a given question or concerning the sentiment of a given sermon, as the recent action of the Community Church in Hew York City testifies. When the United States entered the war, Dr. John Haynes Holmes, pastor of the Community Church, knowing that his congregation as a whole did not agree with his stand on pacifism, resigned. The church refused to accept his resig­ nation. He must demonstrate intelligence and knowledge (see pp. 2633) in his preaching. But the fact that he is a minister,

committed to the principles of the Christian religion epitomized in the Golden Rule, obviates his specific demon­ stration of good will in a given sermon; his audience assume that their good is his first concern# As for moral character, that is taken for granted in a preacher (Cf# footnote 46, p* 91)# In cases where he proves to be otherwise, he ceases to have an audience: voluntarily or involuntarily, he resigns from his charge# Because pulpit oratory considers some subjects which cannot be proved in the rhetorical sense of logical proof (see footnote 28, p# 70, pp* 73-75), there is probably a tendency to use more emotional proof (176, 9, 57-60; 92-131) in sacred than in general rhetoric (Cf# 187, 283)# Porter1s theory of Materials

3

embraced three major

3# The Andover President used the homiletical term almost exclusively# When he did employ the rhetorical term. In­ vention, he restricted it to homiletical subject matter (see footnote 9, p# 239)# topics: choice and explication of texts, choice and classi­ fication of subjects, and argument# Texts Porter taught that every Christian sermon

4

should

4# Porter defined a sermon as "the perspicuous and per­ suasive exhibition of some truth or duty, as taught in the word of God" (95, 59), and pointed out that one of the major differences between sacred and secular oratory is that "It is not the province of secular oratory#.#to ex­ pound any infallible code of doctrines or laws1 (95, 59)# The definition of a sermon given by Austin Phelps (who was the Eartlet Professor of Sacred Rhetoric at Andover

from 1848-1879) is more inclusive than Porter *s. "#*#a sermon," declared Phelps, "is an oral address to the popu­ lar mind, upon religious truth as contained in the scriptures, and elaborately treated with a view to per­ suasion "(241, 2 1 ) * A generation or so earlier than Phelps, Professor Hoppin, of Yale College, defined a sermon in substantially the same way as Phelps by saying that it is "a sacred oration, complete in its parts, delivered to an assembly of Christian people bratight together for the purpose of public worship" (222, 11).

have a text (95, 59). "It is not enough," he declared, "that the chief sentiment of a sermon is true, nor that it is im­ portant, nor that it is contained In the Biblej it must be contained in the text or properly deduced from it" (95, 57). This belief that a sermon should be "founded on some specific passage" of the "word of God" (95, 59) was good Calvinistic doctrine, dominating American homiletical theory for three-fourths of a century after Porter1s time (Cf# 153, 73 ff.). Today, however, the position that a text is an es­ sential of a Christian sermon would be considered by many homileticlane, especially the exponents of "experimental" and "experiential" preaching (Cf# 155, 14-22), as straining the point. Much of present-day homiletical theory maintains that since God did not stop His revelation of truth with the closing of the Hew Testament Canon (Cf# 165, 1001), (Cf, 153, 67), it is neither necessarily essential nor always desirable that a sermon should have a Biblical text; a Christian sermon can be just as valid and equally effective by employing a text from some of the best passages of secular literature as by always insisting, sometimes to the point of stiffness and artificiality, that a text from the Bible be used (see p#180).

John Haynes Holmes is a typical representative of this point of view* In an article in the Christian Century for August, 1952, hr* Holmes discusses his use of texts, having kept a complete record of the texts he used from 1912 to 1952* 11In the fall of 1914,” he states, "there began a practice which I have followed more or less faithfully to the present day— namely, reading in every service some 5 passage from an extra-biblical source" {165, 1001)* "What 5* The "extra-biblical" texts most often used by Dr* Holmes, listed in the order of their frequency, arei Emerson, Plato, Walt Whitman, H* G* Welle, Bernard Shaw, Carlyle, Lincoln, Tolstoy, Channing, Lowell, Tennyson and Theodore Parker* Many others were used less often, among them, ancient and modern poets such as Wordsworth, Browning, Shelley, Matthew Arnold, Whittier, Milton, Cowper, William forris, Oliver Wendell Holmes, John Addington Symonds, Dante, Goethe, Robert Bridges, and Vachel Lindsay; novelists such as Robert Louis Stevenson, George Eliot, John Morley, Hugo, Dostoevski, Thomas Hardy and others; scientists and philosophers, includ­ ing Kant, Spencer, Nietszche, Huxley, John Fiske, William James, John Locke, Josiah Royce and J* S* Kill; and such con­ temporary writers as Remain Holland, I * Gandhi, Charles Bann Kennedy, Bertrand Russell, Edwin Markham, Adler, Dewey, Tagore and Foadick (165, 1003)* I wanted," he explains, "was a scripture reading which would flood the minds of my people with the light I wanted my sermon to focus upon some great truth* This might come from Kal&chi or from Mencken* It was all the same to me pro­ vided only it was light" (165* 1001), Choice of Texts*

Porter disagreed with George

Campbell tnat "the text ought to be chosen for the subject, and not the subject for the text" (197, 266).

6

Porter

47.

6. Abernathy points out that the controversy as to which should bo chosen first, the subject or the text, was still V ig o r o u s ” In American homiletics as late as the first quarter of the nineteenth century (152, 69). believed that except for wspecial” sermcns, such as ordi­ nation addresses, the text should b© chosen before the subject, in order to insure relevancy of the subject to the text, and unity and clearness in the arrangement (95, 60-61), (Cf# 246, 22-23, 58), (Cf. 207, 94)* His most serious ob­ jection, however, to selecting a subject first and then searching for a text to fit and support it was based on his belief that such a procedure tender to decrease "reverence” for ti® Bible as the infallible, revealed word of God, by making the text a secondary matter (95, 61), (Cf. 213, 159). Porter also disagreed with Campbell, whom h© con­ sidered "an enlightened scholar and a judicious preacher1* (95, 102), on a second principle regarding the selection of a text. Campbell maintained that a text should serve 11as a motto to the discourse, notifying to the congregation the aim and subject of the preacher...11 (197, 245); whereas Porter took the position that a text should "never be chosen as a mere motto of a sermon11 (95, 59), a position with which Dabney later agreed (207, 94). Porter was in agreement with Campbell, however, concerning a third principle to be followed in selecting a text, namely, nthere should be no affectation of peculiarity” (95, 61), (Cf. 205, 218), (Cf. 197, 251-52), (Cf. 246, 27),

(Cf. 207, 102), (Cf. 252, 169), (Cf. 191, 26).

7

Porter

7. Porter cited and condemned the practice of "some preachers" who selected such peculiar texts as "Not so," "Jehovah Jlreh," "Zaphnalhpaanea," and the monosyllables "But" and "0." To seek to arouse curiosity "by such an artifice," Porter de­ clared, "is altogether unbecoming the dignity of the pulpit" (95, 61), (Cf. 126, 152). protested against the whims and eccentricities of preachers that set them to "ransacking the Bible for some odd word or phrase, to be the basis of a discourse" (95, 63). In his theory there was no place for "sensationalism" in the choos­ ing of a text or in the announcement of a sermon subject* Texts should not be selected, he maintained, with a view to giving the impression that one is a "profound," "erudite" preacher, or of eliciting admiration for "onefs sagacity" from "vulgar minds" (95, 61-63). Speaking of a fourth rule to be observed in se­ lecting a text, i* ©#, that a text should make complete sense (Cf. 203, 216), (Cf. 246, 29), (Cf. 228, 125), (Cf. 252, 16667), the Andover divine said; I do not mean that it should contain all the sense, of which it is susceptible, when viewed in relation to the context. In many cases this would be impossible* But I mean that it should, gener­ ally, consist of at least one grammatical sentence, simple or complex, containing the dis­ tinct relations of subject, attribute, and object (95, 63). He pointed out that this principle of completeness In a text is usually violated because of a desire to be brief. When Bishop Hume, for example, used as a text "Follow after patience," he achieved brevity, Porter said, but he mutilated

Paul*s injunction to Timothy, "Follow after ri^iteousness, goodness, faith, love, patience, meekness" (95, 65). On the whole, Porter did not approve of an abbreviated text, even when it retained a complete meaning in itself* He did admit, however, that "there are scm e special advantages in a concise text, provided it is perspicuous and appropriate" (95, 64). A long text, he believed, is less likely to be remembered, and when it involves more than on© subject is likely to cause the preacher to lose simplicity and unity of design— two necessary qualities of all good sermons, according to Porter (95, 64), (Cf. 95, 56-57). In addition to the text being grammatically complete, it should, Porter averred, "express a COMPLETE SENSE OF THE INSPIRED WRITER, from whom it is taken" (95, 64), (Cf. 205, 216), (Cf. 215, 159), (Cf. 207, 96-97), (Cf. 191, 33). There are times, Porter conceded, when it is permissible to select as the text a single clause from the members of a compound sentence, provided the clause is independent and does not dis­ tort the meaning of the original statement. The clause, "re­ joice with trembling," from Psalm 2:11, which reads, "Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling," fulfills these two conditions, he points out: it is both harmonious in meaning and spirit with the complete sentence, and is in­ dependent in structure; it could legitimately be used as a text. But the clause, "There is no God," from the Psalmists statement, "The Fool hath said in his heart, there is no God," while independent in construction, perverts the true.

as well as the complete, meaning of the writer, and should be strictly avoided as a text, Porter declared (95, 65). As another rule for selecting texts, Porter advo­ cated that the "true" and "complete" meaning of the Biblical author should constitute the subject of the sermon (95, 65), (Cf. 197, 255), (Cf. 246, 51), (Cf. 228, 125), (Cf. 252, 168). This principle of pertinency of text to subject, Porter de­ clared, is violated in three ways. To choose some fanciful text in order to make it fit the particular occasion or subject (which is always the danger when the subject is se­ lected before the text, see pp. 46-47) Is one way. The preacher, for example, who chose as his text for Ash Wednesday the words of the Psalmist, "I have eaten ashes like bread," obviously violated the principle in this respect, Porter contends; the only correspondence between his text and his subject being in the realm of sound rather than sens© (95, 65). Another way of violating the principle of textual rele­ vancy, is to choose a text at random in connection with the point to be discussed, without reference to either sound or sense. As an example of a "random" selection of text that violated the principle of pertinency. Porter cited an English preacher who chose for his text the announcement of the angels to the shepherds, "Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace, good will toward men," and who, after his introduction, pro­ posed as the subject of his discourse: ffTo examine the doctrines tof Calvin as laid down in his Institutes" (95, 66). The third way of rendering a text impertinent is to take it out of its

context in such a disjointed fashion that its apparent mean­ ing, though true, is not the real meaning of the passage. Porter cited as an example of a text perverted by dislocation from its context, a sermon by Hugh Blair on "The Duties Be­ longing to Middle Age," for which he used the text: "When I became a man I put away childish things" {95, 67),. Porter correctly pointed out that it was not the intention of the Apostle Paul in this statement to inculcate the duties of middle age. On the contrary, the Apostle used the statement to illustrate the truth, that just as the scenes of adulthood surpass the feeble comprehension

of childhood, so "the grand

concerns of the Heavenly state transcend the dark conceptions" 8 of the earthly state (95, 67). 8. Andover*s President believed that the best of men at times take "great freedom with the plain meaning of the Bible, under the license of what they call accoromodation." He cites Dr. Hawkes, who, from the words "Speak to the children of Israel, that they go forward," preached on the doctrine of "progressive sanctification"; Porter suggests as a more appropriate text the New Testament one, "Grow in grace" (95, 67). There are times, Porter admitted, when an "accommo­ dation” is justifiable; such for example as taking a scriptural declaration or precept or fact which was limited and special in its original application, and making it the basis of some general instruction. "Son of Man, I have made thee a watchman to the house of Israel," Porter acknowledged to be words addressed to the prophet Ezekial as a minister of God in the ancient church. But he claimed it was legiti­ mate to consider that solemn charge to the prophet as being applicable to GQd*s ministers of the Christian period. Or the words, "I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me," though spoken originally to the Jews, were accepted by Porter as a legitimate text for a sermon on the general subject of Ingratitude (95, 67-68). Half a century later, Broadus was still proclaiming this view of the "accommodation" of texts (191, 32-56), (Cf. 241, 144 ff.).

Finally, Porter suggested that a text should be Simple (Cf. 203, 218), (Cf. 197, 255), (Cf. 228, 126), (Cf. 246, 27-29), (Cf* 191, 25). If the text is so obscure, Porter maintained, that a "critical commentary" is necessary before the subject can be announced and the text applied, it proba­ bly is not the best available text for that particular subject* If the text contains a figure, Porter advised that It be ex­ plained briefly and then dropped; attention should be focused on the thought, not on the figure (95, 68-69). Explication of Texts.

Porter taught that the chief

reasons for explaining a text are to prepare the way for the announcement of the subject, and to show that the subject is contained in the text and that it is derived, consequently, from the "word of God" (95, 96), (Cf. 228, 106). In his opinion, the explanation should be a simple, unpretentious process, avoiding philological discussion, critical common9 tation, and literary ostentation# Like many of the nineteenth 9, Porter agreed with Campbell that "Particular care ought to be taken In expounding the scriptures, not to appear overlearned and over-critical" (95, 102), (Cf. 203, 221 ff.), (Cf. 213, 158-59). century homileticians after him (Cf. 228, 132), (Cf. 222, 280), (Cf. 215, 305), (Cf. 191, 142), the Bartlet Professor of Sacred Rhetoric asserted that the preacher should have access to and should make constant use of good commentaries, and should be familiar with the original text and several good translations,

in his efforts to ascertain the correct

meaning of the text* He believed, however, that the results

and not the process of such study should appear in the preacher*s explanation of the text (95, 97*98). He did not agree with such men as Etter, who took the position that the explanation of the Bible is "especially difficult” (153, 81). Rather, he contended that although the Bible does contain **obscure" passages, making "critical research" necessary at times, fundamentally it is a plain book...written chiefly, by plain men, unaccustomed to the abstract phraseology of science...written for the use of plain men, such as constitute...the great majority of our race (95, 98-99). Therefore, believing that the Bible is compre­ hensible to "the average mind" concerning all points "es­ sential to salvation," the Andover President advised that the preacher should assume that most texts are simple, and should not look for some "great difficulty" or "mystery" which must be explained (95, 98), (Cf* 21, 380). At the same time, however, he warned against taking it for granted that the most obvious sense of a text is always the true one (95, 99), and against the temptation to find a novel sense in the text (95, 99-101), (Cf. 191, 34), (Cf. 241, 124), (Cf. 192, 163). In most cases, all that is necessary in explaining a text, Porter declared,

is to point out the connection of

the text with the context, or to make some factual statement about the occasion and circumstances connected with the text. Such a simple explication— which is made more for the sake of a "vivid impression" than because the difficulties of the

54. text demand it (9 5 , 9 7 )— he believed should constitute a part of the introduction and lead logically to the announcement of the subject (95, 96*97)# In a very few cases, he said, the difficulty of the text may justify a more technical expla­ nation, which would be treated in a separate division immedi­ ately following the introduction rather than being made a part of it (95, 97)# Porter sensibly advised that in those eases where genuine thinking, hard work and ’‘the best aids which learn­ ing can furnish” leave the preacher In doubt as to the real meaning of a passage, he should “let that passage alone in the pulpit;--at least not...make it the subject of a sermon” (96, 96*97)#

10

10# Porter agreed with Claud© that Ma man who needs to b© told that he ought not to preach on a text before he under­ stands it, needs at the same time to be informed that he is fitter for any other profession than that of the ministry” (95, 97), (Cf. 205, 242), (Cf. 191, 32-53).

Subjects Classification of Subjects.

Art authoritarian in

point of view (see pp# 21-25), Porter believed that all sermon subjects like all sermon texts (see p# 45) should be Biblical (95, 71), (Cf. footnote 35, p. 38). These subjects, he observed, can be divided into four general classes, (ac­ cording to the purpose of the sermon); doctrinal, ethical or practical, historical, and hortatory (95, 73-81). Doctrinal subjects, Porter classified as “that whole

circle of truths, which appertain to the system of revealed religion” (95, 73), (see p. 38)# He maintained, therefore, that any sermon which undertakes to diseuss as its principal subject one of these truths of "revealed religion” is a doctrinal sermon.

11

The primary object of the doctrinal sermon,

11. Porter considered doctrinal truths to be such subjects as: the character of God, the character of man, the way of salvation by Christ, ”and the kindred doctrines involved by a necessary connection with these” (95, 74). "*The holiness, extent, and inflexibility of the moral law,— our depravity and dependsnce on God,— his sovereignty and universal govern­ ment,— the special agency of the Holy Spirit*” (83, 14), he also included in the doctrinal category# Porter stated, is to “enlighten the understanding, confirm the faith, and obviate the mistakes of the hearers” (95, 74). Its characteristic form, consequently, is didactic (95, 73). Since Porter contended that the chief object of preaching is instruction (see pp. 23-24), and since h© be­ lieved that doctrinal sermons "are the grand basis of all profitable instruction,” he advised the preacher to use fre­ quently doctrinal truths for the topics of his public dis­ courses (95, 74). Porter alleged that unless a preacher brings his congregation to an understanding of these "re­ vealed" truths which are "essential to be understood and believed" h© fails to teach his "flock” anything of religious value, and "forgets the chief end for which the Christian ministry was instituted" (95, 74). Moreover, the Bartlet Professor of Sacred Rhetoric believed the preaching of doctrinal sermons to be so important that if they were omitted for half a century "the night of paganism would again

spread its gloomy shades over Christendom" (95, 74). 12 In the ethical or practical class of subjects 12. President Porter used the tern "ethical" instead of the term "practical" and "moral," not because he believed there was any primary difference in the meaning of the teraia, but because he was convinced that the t e r m s practical and moral were customarily associated with views of Christian duty that were indefinite and "often erroneous" (95, 74). He believed the doctrines of the Bible to be "eminently practical" as they respect the essential characteristics of a ’wtruly re­ ligious man." But a morality that attributes moral qualities to actions without considering the temper and motives of the actor is a "spurious morality," he declared, which ho "respectable" person can countenance (95, 74-75). Custom, expediency or convenience, Porter insisted, must not be mad© the standard of human duty; "mere external confounity to divine commands" must not be substituted for a "regenerated" heart, because such norms of conduct neither conform to the Bible nor are able to make men moral (95, 75). Porter included "all those external duties which man is re­ quired to perform, resulting from his relations to other be­ ings, ©specially to his fellow men" (95, 75). Such duties, he said, include prayer, observance of Christian institutions, fidelity, charity, and the like (95, 75). The chief purpose of the ethical sermon, Porter be­ lieved, is to help the listeners achieve "a good life," which is "commanded by God," is essential to the relationship of •moral beings ,1 and is "the only proper fruit and evidence of a holy temper" (95, 76). The preacher must be careful in his ethical sermons, however, Porter advised, to distinguish be­ tween "good works" and "justification." The former, he insisted, "can never be the ground" for the latter (95, 76). The sinner, Porter believed, no matter how "unexceptionable" his good works, is dependent "on the atonement and grace of

Christ* for njustification before God" (95, 76).

13

13. This eoncept of the relation of good works and justi­ fication is in harmony with the Calvinistic doctrine of election, and it is to be expected that Porter, a strong adherent and defender of the Edwardsian theology, would embrace it. A historical subject was defined by Professor Porter as "a statement of facts, which is limited to the character of an individual* or which relates to some particular period or to some community of men* (95, 76). Consequently, Porter declared, the preacher who takes his subjects from the his* torical class does so with the object of making the traits of some distinguished Biblical character, "good or bad," or some notable Biblical event, "the basis of practical instruction" (95, 76), (Cf. 187, 286). Porter believed that From individual characters delineated in the Bible, and from facts exhibiting the providence of God, and the agency of man, in the history of communities, the preacher may derive the most interesting topics for sermons (95, 77). hortatory subjects include, according to the Andover President, "all the points on which the preacher considers his hearers both to know and acknowledge the truth, in speculation* while they neither feel nor obey it" (95, 80). The purpose of the hortatory class of sermons (which, includes topics that "are endless in variety and ex­ tent of interest) (95, 80), is, Porter claimed, not to in­ struct the auditors in Christian doctrines and duties of which they are ignorant; but to persuade them— through

appeals to the motives and addresses to the feelings— to act upon the doctrines and to p e r f o m the duties with which they are already familiar, end the truth of which they are already convinced (95, 80). "When we choose a subject from this class, Porter asserted, we ought to do it with the full conviction, that our success, so far as it depends on our­ selves, depends almost entirely on that sort of ethereal simplicity, sincerity, affection, and fervor, in the spirit and execution, which commend the truth to the hearts of the hearers (95, 81). Choice of Subjects.

In choosing his subjects for

the four general classes of sermons the preacher should be guided by certain principles, Porter believed* He advocated first of all that the preacher select a subject commensurate with the high purpose and consequent "awful" importance of preaching— instructing man in the way of salvation (see pp. 21-25). Porter observed that the se­ lection of subjects which a given preacher makes tends to correspond "with his principal end in preaching" (95, 71)* For example, the preacher mho makes his own personal aggran­ disement his chief objective will model his sermons both in content and in style "according to the prevailing taste of the time" (95, 71), choosing topics that are calculated not to "be repulsive to popular taste" (10, 18), (Cf. 5, 7-8). Likewise, if the preacher’s goal is "to amuse his audience by the exhibition of an elevated taste or a splendid ora­ tory" (95 , 71), he is not likely to present those "doctrinal views" that make for "the glory of God and the salvation of man" (95, 87), (Cf. 95, 81, 8 6 , 215), (Cf. 10, 18).

On the

14* Porter condemned ministers who seek to be extraordinary by appearing "witty" 5 who try to give the impression of "pro­ found genius.•.and learning" by finding "some gordian knot in every text" and by plunging their hearers "into the labyrinths of criticism"j or who seek for themselves the role of "polemic champions" by employing "abstruse and adventurous speculations" (126, 152), (Cf* 95, 61-62). other hand, declared Porter, "if the preacher1s end, is to glorify $od, and save his hearers, the peculiar truths and duties of the gospel will constitute the principal topics of his public discourses" (95, 71)* Another principle that should motivate the preacher in his choice of subjects, Porter averred, is the "influence *> , t 15 of local and temporary causes" (95, 71} • ................ . ..■■"■■■■'

mm

... uni ................

mi... ............................. ......... .

15* Dr* Skinner, who was elected to the Andover Chair of Sacred Rhetoric at Porter1© death, agreed with Porter that some sermon subjects should be the outgrowth of local, and somewhat transient needs. "It is this," he declared, "above all extrinsic things, which gives a discourse pungency, that it be spoken pertinently to present wants and demands" (115, 7)* The preaching of any given period, Porter rightly contends, is colored by its social milieu and by the special emergencies that may develop in that milieu. The problem of slavery, for example, gave a definite slant to the Revolution­ ary period of preaching* Luther*s controversy with the Homan Church caused many sermons in most of the Protestant churches for one hundred years after his time to allude to "the usur­ pations of the papal hierarchy" (95, 72), according to Porter. The Unitarianism of the Boston of Porter’s day, which "sprang from an atmosphere that was favorable to the flowering of the

mind” (193, 1 2 ), caused the ministers of that city to intro­ duce "the literary sermon," which gained for them the repu­ tation of "graceful rhetoricians" (193, 12). The predi­ lections of the Connecticut laity and clergy for drink motivated Porter and Lyman Beecher, one of Porter’s fellow ministers in the Litchfield County Ministerial Association, to preach some of the first temperance sermons ever delivered in America (143, 173-74), (l38, 373-74), (3), (150, 347), (184, 245). The Andover divine also contaided that the principle of adapting the subject to the audience should Influence the choice of topics (95, 72). Every judicious preacher, he be­ lieved, "will take into view the capacity and cultivation of his hearers; their attainments in religious knowledge; their prejudices; and their intellectual and moral habits" (95, 72),

/

,16

(Cf* 113, 7).

He will remember the diversity of character

16* The theory that the speaker should analyze his audience and adapt his discourse to them is acceptable present-day speaking technique, having as its exponent such a repre­ sentative contemporary rhetorician as A, Craig Baird (178, 242 ff*), (179, 4), (Cf* 176, 92-131)* existing among them due to differences in doctrinal views, early training, age, temperament, convictions, and will se­ lect his subjects and adapt his truths according to "the 17 great variety existing among them" (95, 72, 238-39). 17* Porter pointed out that some church members are in­ clined to ultra-Calvinism, while others incline to the oppo­ site extreme* Some are strong and clear in their reasoning powers, while others are feeble and obscure* Some are well

advanced in knowledge, while others are not* Some are ju­ dicious, others are indiscreet? some are ardent, others are phlegmatic? some ere gentle, others are austere* Likewise, the spiritual characteristics of church goers differ* Some are fervent and devoted in their religion as others are negligent and lukewarm* Some continue to grow in religious character as others tend to decline. Where sane have too much of a religion of opinion, others will have too much of a religion of passion. Where some tend to conform too much to the world, others tend to withdraw too much from it (95, 239) * Any preacher, Porter believed, whose public in­ structions are to meet the needs, religious and otherwise, of such a diversified audience can afford neither to choose his subject® at random nor to ignore the important precepts of adaptst ion in choos ing them. It may be that Porter was influenced in his theory of audience adaptation by Blair’s Lectures. which, as already indicated (see p. 17), was one of the "comparatively few" books on the art of preaching that were available in America at the time Andover Seminary was founded. Speaking of how to make the sermon interest ing, Blair declared: It will be of much advantage to keep always in view the different ages, characters, and con­ ditions of men, and to accommodate directions and exhortations to these different classes of hearers. Whenever you bring forth what a man feels to touch his own character, or to suit his own circumstances, you are sure of interesting him. No study is more necessary for this purpose, than the study of human life, and the human heart* To be able to unfold the heart, and to discover a man to himself, in a light in which he never saw his own character before, produces a wonderful effect (187, 285). According to the findings of Lambert son (157, 267) and Abernathy (153, 69), American homiletical theory from Porter*s time to the present has advocated the principle of adapting the subject to the audience; whether or not Porter exerted any influenee on later homiletics respecting the principle is pure speculation.^

18# For further discussion of Porter’s theory of the need for adapting the subject to the audience, see pp. 82, 84. Like John Witherspoon before him (270, Vol. 3, 423), and like most of the homileticians after him (153, 70), Ebenezer Porter advised that the subject should also be adapted to the speaker; it should be in keeping with his age, taste, and talents (95, 72)* A sermon topic that demands the investigation of some abstruse point in religion, for example, Is more likely to be favorably received by a congregation, Porter observed, if,they feel that the preacher has mature judgment and extensive knowledge concerning the subject. But such judgment and knowledge come only with experience in preaching. Consequently, the young preacher. Porter advised, should not choose abstruse subjects (95, 72). Likewise the pastor of a church can use subjects with his congregation which "would b© very inappropriate if discussed by a 19 stranger" (95, 72). 19# For additional information concerning Ebenezer Porter’s theory of the need for adapting the subject to th© speaker see pp. 94, 95-96, 161-62. Th© principle of variety, declared the Andover professor of homiletics, should be observed by th© preacher in his choice of subjects. Instead of preaching repeatedly "on a single subject, or a contracted^!role of subjects," the preacher, asserted Porter, should diversify his subjects according to important happenings in his parish, and according

to the "taste and attainments of different hearers, and of the same hearers in different circumstances" (95, 81), (Cf* 260, 7). However, Porter did not suggest that the preacher secure variety in his subjects at the expense of propriety. He advocated as a sixth rule to be followed in selecting subjects that the preacher never choose a topic merely to ap­ pear novel or sensational or amusing (95, 81-82, 71), (Cf. p. 48). The minister, as "an ambassador of Christ," he asserted, should not "sink his ministrations to the rank of a dramatic exhibition" (95, 81); avoiding those subjects which are more proper for "novels and gazettes"— such as "vaccinations," "th© popular dread of apparitions," and "the beauties of a New England autumn, and the charms of its Indian summer"— the minister should choose biblical subjects, that tend "to turn the sinner from darkness to light; and to build up the believer in his most holy faith" (96, 82), (Cf. footnote 35,

. 20

p. 39).

20# Porter’s position regarding the choice of "sensational" subjects has its counterpart in present-day theory. Writing in the Homiletical Keylew in 1933, Arthur R. Macdougale, speaking of sensationalism employed by some preachers in the choice of subjects, declared: "To the list of the impossible [topics!! belong all the flashy, cheap themes which have been so in vogue among th© go-getters* The very scheme is repre­ hensible. Home such title as *A Pair of Bilk Stockings' is hung out to air. The preacher then attempts to ’sweat in’ a religious lesson, so called* This is mere showmanship. A sermon cannot be produced that way" (153, 70). The advice to avoid inappropriate and unimportant topics naturally led the Andover divine to suggest as another

rule governing the selection of sermon subjects, that of going to the Bible for them*

21

In this source book of his religion

21*

Porter claimed that the secular orator could find objects in mere worldly concerns, but "God be thanked,” he said, "that the affairs of courts and cabinets, or even of Popes and hierarchs, no longer furnish topics for the pulpit, since the days are gone by in which the sacred office was made subservi­ ent to secular ambition**•.the chief objects that can arouse the preacher to earnestness must be found in his religion (9 4 , 41). ---- ---

the preacher will find inexhaustible topics, Porter believed — topics that are stintless in variety, rich in materials, and "superior in***elevation, and sublimity, to those which any other public speaker is called to discuss” (95, 82}* In the character of God, he will find “all that is profound in wisdom, awful in holiness, and attractive in mercy" (95, 82)* In the character of man he will discover "a combination of dignity and misery; the dignity of an immortal soul, polluted and de­ graded by sin" (95, 82)* In the character and sufferings of Christ he will find "majesty and meekness, glory and ignominy, strangely united" (95, 82)* In th© gospel of Christ he will find a rescue for fallen man, "*a remedy for his maladies, and a rule for his guidance1" (95, 82)* Having at his dis­ posal a book so replete with topics concerning the business of preaching, the minister, declared Porter, need not look elsewhere for subjects*

22

22* Porter also discusses the use of the Bible as a "store­ house of knowledge" in connection with the sources of argument* See pp* 75-76*

Ebenezer Porter ”was obliged to break new ground” (274, 90) in the field of homiletics (see p. 18). When he be­ gan his teaching at Andover Sarrinary in 1812 no book had been 23 written in America, and only ”a few” elsewhere, that treated 23*

Compare footnote 1, p* 17#

systematically the art of preaching* Claude’s brief (135 page) Essay on the Composition of a Sermon* Fenelonfs short (153 page) Dialogues, Blair1s Rhetoric. which devotes only two of forty-seven lectures to Pulpit Eloquence— said that from the standpoint of the rhetorician rather than the homilet ici&n— and Campbell’s Lectures on Pulpit Eloquenoe were the only books in the English language available in America in 1812

24

24* Claude was translated from the French by Robinson and Fenelon by Stevenson. that made any attempt to treat of the preacher’s art* Only one of these, Campbell, considered the classification of subjects the preacher should use* Porter, however, did not follow completely, if at all, Campbell’s classification, which included five categoriess explanatory, controversial, commendatory, pathetic, persuasive (197, 218-22). The Andover homiletician seems to have relied rather heavily for his treatment of texts upon Claude, whose Essay Porter believed to be chiefly valuable for the ’’hints1' which ”a preacher of good taste” can derive from it

(87, 406).

Porter was familiar with Campbell’s discussion of texts, openly disagreeing with it concerning some aspects of the

topic, Blair did not treat texts at all, and Fenelon only slightly. To what extent, then, Ebenezer Porter was original in his theory of texts and subjects, and to what extent if any he influenced subsequent theorists of the preaching art with respect to these two topics, it is impossible to state with any degree of finality. All that is certain is that some of the ideas he expressed were not in print in America before his time, and that many of them appear in the

leading books

on homiletics which were written in America during the sixtysix years of the nineteenth century following his death in 25 1834* That he influenced some of the later writers in the 25, Th© first American work on homiletics of any consequence to be published after Porter’s Lectures on Homiletics was Ripley’s Sacred Rhetoric, which appeared approximately fifteen years after Port©rs' cleath• Henry Ware, Jr* published his Hints on Extemporaneous Preaching some four years before n#orterTs deathj.but, as the title indicates, it was too limit­ ed in scope to be classed with such comprehensive studies of the art of preaching as Porter’s Lectures on Bomiletics. How­ ever, Ware’s book was significant""for Amerlean homiletics; it marked th© turning point in the method of delivering sermons (157, 171), formulation of their theories of texts and subjects, as well as their tenets of th© general principles of homiletics, is suggested by the fact that when Bipley published his Lacred Rhetor1c in 1849 he acknowledged Porter’s Lectures on Homi­ letics as one of his sources (246, 10 ); Dabney’s Sacred Rhetoric, published almost a quarter of a century later, makes a similar acknowledgment (207, 6 ); Kidder’s A Treatise on Homiletics (1864) refers to Porter’s work as of ’’intrinsic

excellence” (228, 449); Hoppin (1869) lists it among the books in English that he considered valuable "for their practical qualities and uses” (222, 2)j Broadus (1898) quotes from It (191, 224); and as recent as 1934, Professor Johann Michael Reu of Wartburg Seminary, declared in his Homiletics:

”The remarks of Ebenezer Porter, the first

American homiletician, in his lectures on Homiletics and Preaching (1834), are worth noting today” (24$, 348), Reu quotes at length from Porter in substantiation of his own theory of preaching. Argument dhlike Campbell, Blair, and Whately, Porter was primarily a homlletician rather than a rhetorician (Cf, 26 footnote 9, p.239 ). His theory of argument, therefore, 26. Bishop Whately, whose Elements of Rhetor 1c was widely used in both England and America alter itsfirst publi­ cation in 1826, for example, bases his theory of argument on Aristotelian concepts, using the Aristotelian nomenclature, and giving a lengthy, systematic treatment of the topic in true Aristotelian style (265, Chaps, 2, 3). Porter, on the other hand, treats only that portion of the topic which re­ lates directly to preaching, employs the terminology of the pulpit (throughout his Lectures he never once uses the term logical proof” ), and bases his discussion largely on the Bible and its related subjects* like his theory of the other topics of preaching, stems from the homiletical rather than the rhetorical concept, and considers only that subject matter which is proper for the pulpit as contrasted with the field of deliberative or fo­ rensic speaking (Cf, pp. 42-44), What he really did was to

take over those rhetorical concepts that answered his needs as a teacher of young preachers and to recharge those con­ cepts with homiletical connotations. He discusses pathetic proof, for example, but always with a church audience in mind* He considers argument from facts, in which category he includes evidence of experience, testimony, and authority; but it is always argument with a view to persuading a congregation* "My simple business,” he declared, "is, to inquire in what way re­ ligious truths Las contrasted with the secular truths of th© rhetor icanD may be best vindicated and enforced b y argument in th© pulpit11 (95, 150)* Th© question, he said, is not whether, "in its proper place,” argument should be used in th© pulpit, but ”in what manner” it should be used (95, 130)* Th© pulpit "manner” of argument should, for one thing, forter taught, be adjusted to the reasoning level of the church audience# He believed that the cross section of hu­ manity which the average church audience represents does not spontaneously think and reason on common subjects in the abstract but in the concrete* Church audiences, he declared, "instantly understand reasoning” which presents the evidence of facts with "familiarity, and precis ion,” because such reasoning corresponds to tbeir customary modes of conception# A plain, historical statement, for example, "if the facts are unquestionable, is a kind of argument, which it is as easy Lfor a congregation^ to comprehend, as it is to breathe or to look” (95, 78)* This kind of evidence,— like the public dis­ courses of our Lord, especially his parables,— "More readily

commands assent in common minds, than any other" kind of evi­ dence, because "it unites the evidence of sense, of experi­ ence, and of testimony; vshile the combined influence of these is strengthened by the simple light in which this evidence is presented to the understanding" (95, 78-79). But When an argument depends on the investigation of criticiem, or the deductions of logic, few possess that intellectual discipline, and patience of thought, which are necessary clearly to per­ ceive it® force *T~

233*

Mitchell, W. Fraser, Engl ish Pu ip it Oratory from Andrews to fillotson. New York: The Lacm illan Com pany. 1932.

234.

Monroe, Alan H., Princi pies and Types of Speech. New York: Scott, Poreewan and Company, "T9