CHAPTER XVIII.

OF HOMILIES.'

§ 1. GENERAL REMARKS, NAMES, ETC.

EVERY religious discourse, almost without exception, was based on some text, or distinctly related to some passage of Scripture. It aimed at nothing more than to explain and enforce the same. In the Latin church, instances frequently occur of sermons without any text, but they had reference distinctly to the Scripture lesson which had just been read, which is sometimes cited, and at others is passed over in silence. But in either case the discourse is a paraphrase or explanation of the passage in question. A sermon, according to the idea of the ancient church, may be defined to be a rhetorical discourse upon some passage of Scripture, having for its object the spiritual edification of the hearers. It is an exposition and application of Scripture, not merely a religious discourse designed for the instruction of the audience.

This discourse was called by different names, as 2óyos, an oration, ôμλia, a homily: the latter implies a more familiar discourse than the former. When the deacon officiated in the place of the bishop, his discourse was frequently denominated xrpvyua. It was also styled διδασκαλία, ἐξηγήσις, έκθεσις, etc. In the Latin church it was styled tractatus, disputatio, allocutio.

The modern divisions and parts of a sermon, such as the introduction, the proposition, the illustration and application, were totally unknown in form, to the ancient fathers. The strife then was, as Gregory Nazianzen justly observes, not about terms, but doctrines.

Mosheim asserts that the sermon was not at first a necessary part of religious worship. In answer to this absurd hypothesis it must be admitted that the discourses of Christ and his apostles were not indeed homilies like those of Chrysostom and Augustin, but they resemble these much more than they do the catechetical in

structions of Cyril and Gregory Nazianzen, to say nothing of our Lord's sermon on the mount, which may truly be regarded as a pattern for a formal discourse. The same may also be said of most of the discourses of Peter and Paul, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles.

We may also, with propriety, refer to all those passages which relate to the usage of Jewish worship in their synagogues, according to which that portion of Scripture which had been read was made the subject of discourse. Luke iv. 16; Matt. iv. 23; xiii. 54; Acts xiii. 15-27; xv. 21; 2 Cor. iii. 15, etc: from all which it appears that a discourse based on the Scriptures was an essential part of the worship of the Jews. The first instance of such on record is in the eighth chapter of Nehemiah. The homilies of the Christian church were only an imitation of these discourses in the synagogue, from which they were derived. The discourses of the apostles were either based on some specific portions of Scripture, or else they were an abstract of sacred history. Instances of the former class are found in Acts i. 15; ii. 14-36; of the latter, Acts vii. 2-53; xvii. 22-31; Acts xxii. and xxiii.

For further illustration we may refer to 2 Tim. iii. 14-17, and to the miraculous gift of prophesying, i. e. of teaching, which is mentioned in 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29; Eph. iv. 11. The churches to whom the apostles addressed their epistles were required to have them read in public, accompanied, no doubt, with suitable explanations and applications, Col. iv. 16; 1 Thess. v. 27; 2 Peter iii. 15, 16.

Justin Martyr expressly asserts, that "certain selections from the prophets and memoirs of the apostles were not only read, but explained and enforced." By the prophets and memoirs, he evidently means the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament. "After the reading is ended, the minister of the assembly makes an address in which he admonishes and exhorts the people to imitate the virtues which it enjoins." This is the first mention made in ecclesiastical history of a Christian sermon.

So also Tertullian, in the second century: "We come together to acquaint ourselves with the sacred Scriptures, and to hear what, according to the circumstances of the present time, may be applicable to us, either now or at any future time. At least, we establish our faith, we encourage our hope, we assure our confidence; and, by the injunctions of the divine word, we make its life-giving power efficacious to our hearts. We admonish and reprove one another, and give ourselves up to the teachings of the divine word. And this

word of God has the greater weight, because each regards himself as standing in the presence of God." Who can doubt that this extract describes the office of the preacher as an essential part of public worship.

This duty is also specified in the Apostolical Constitutions: "When the gospel is read, let all the elders and deacons, and the whole assembly stand in silence. Afterward, let the elders, one by by one, but not all of them, exhort the people; and lastly, let the bishop, as the master, address them."5 Again, they speak of the bishop as "the preacher of the word of God," and as preaching to the people the things pertaining to their salvation."

Again, the notes of Peter's addresses to the people which Clemens Romanus has left, are proof positive to the point in dispute, provided they are genuine; but they are confessedly of doubtful authority. Enough, however, has been said to show that a sermon or homiletic address was, in the first and second centuries, a part of public worship. In regard to this point at a later period, there can be no question.

§ 2. OF THOSE BY WHOM THE HOMILIES WERE DELIVERED.

JUSTIN MARTYR informs us, that after the reading, the president of the assembly, о лρɛστús, makes an application of the word, νουθεσίαν καὶ πρόκλησιν ποιεῖται, and exhorts to an imitation of the virtues which it inculcates. This passage distinctly ascribes to the presiding minister the duty of explaining and applying the Scriptures which were read. And the same is manifest from the whole history of the ancient church. To preach, or as Ambrose expresses it, to teach the people, was uniformly the bishop's duty. The case of Ambrose himself is a clear illustration of this duty. He was promoted from a civil office to that of bishop, without having even been baptized as a catechumen; and, in view of his unpreparedness, sought in vain to excuse himself from the discharge of this part of his duties, alleging that he had need himself to learn, instead of teaching others. But, as he himself confesses, he was obliged to begin to teach before he had himself been a learner.2

The distinction between ruling and teaching elders resulted simply from the circumstance that, in those trying times, men were sometimes required to manage the concerns of the church who yet were not qualified to act as preachers; and a competent teacher was not always suited to direct the affairs of the church. But the

office of a ruling elder who did not teach, was regarded as an exception to a general rule-as an extraordinary provision for a peculiar emergency, while the office of preaching was accounted the most honourable and important part of the bishop's duties. "Far from this seat," says Chrysostom, "let him be removed who knows not how to teach sound doctrine as he ought." The neglect of this duty is, by the Apostolical Canons, c. 58, to be punished with suspension and removal from office.

There is, indeed, no case on record, of a bishop who was removed for his inability to teach; but there are many in which the bishops were disregarded and neglected for this cause. Such was the case of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, and Atticus, bishop of Constantinople. On the contrary, they who excelled in this duty were held in the highest consideration, as Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Augustin, etc.

The deacon and even the presbyter officiated only as substitutes of the bishop in case of his absence or inability from sickness or other causes. Both Augustin and Chrysostom preached for their bishops in this capacity. In such cases the bishop was held responsible for what was said by his substitute, of which we have a striking instance in the history of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople.

From all this we are not, however, to conclude that the right to preach was restricted under all circumstances, to the bishops alone. For how, in that case, were the churches which had no bishop to be supplied with the preaching of the word of God? In all such cases the presbyter occupied the place, and discharged the duties of the bishop; and in his absence or failure, the deacon supplied his place; not, however, by delivering an original discourse, but by reading one from the fathers. The Apostolical Canons, c. 58, require the bishop or the presbyter to deliver the sermon, and exact upon both the same penalty for neglect of duty.

In times of persecution, presbyters and deacons were entrusted with the office of preaching. Still, the deacon was regarded only as an assistant, like a licentiate or candidate for the sacred office. Origen, in Palestine, was invited "by the bishops to expound the sacred Scriptures publicly in the church, although he had not yet attained the priesthood by the imposition of hands." From Justin Martyr it would seem that freedom of remark was allowed to all laymen in social worship, and Hilary explicitly declares that

it was the common privilege of all, first to teach and then to baptize.*

Laymen who had not received ordination were not allowed to preach, but there are instances on record, notwithstanding, of such permission being granted to them under certain circumstances."

But the apostolic rule forbidding a woman to teach was most cautiously observed. The Montanists are, indeed, an exception to this remark, but Tertullian, himself one of this sect, complains of this abuse. The fourth Council of Carthage forbid both the laity and women to teach in public. "Let no laymen teach in the presence of the clergy.' "Let no woman, however learned or pious, presume to teach the other sex in public assembly."

10

§ 3. OF THE FREQUENCY OF SERMONS.

11

IT has already been stated that the sermon consisted originally in an explanation and application of the Scripture lessons which had just been read. Sermons were, therefore, as a general rule, as frequent as the reading of the Scriptures. If, in any instance, a sermon was delivered without any foregoing lesson from the Scriptures, it was an exception to the general rule. In some cases, several sermons were delivered by different speakers in succession at the same meeting. At other times, several were delivered by the same speaker on the same day.' Sermons were an appropriate part of every form of public worship, but they were especially designed for the catechumen; and for this reason were a part of the services designed for them. The frequency with which they were delivered varied greatly in different countries and dioceses. They were expected of course on the Sabbath, frequently on Saturday, i. e. both on the Jewish and Christian Sabbath, especially while both days were observed in connection, as was customary until the fourth century. A sermon was also essential to a due celebration of the festivals of the church. During the fifty festive days from Easter to Whitsunday, a sermon from the Acts of the Apostles was delivered each day, in the oriental churches; and also on each day of Lent. Afterward they became less frequent, but were still delivered on fast-days. On other occasions they were delivered in the afternoon. A sermon was also delivered at some time during the middle of the week; usually on Friday.

* Primum omnes docebant et baptizabant.-In Eph. xv. 12.