HOMILETICS
443
HOMILETICS
Blackstone (op. cit., IV, 204), is what the former
English law termed petit treason, the killing by an
inferior of a superior to whom the slayer owed faith
and obedience. This crime might, therefore, be com-
mitted by an ecclesiastic against his superior, by a
wife against her husband, or by a servant against his
master, acts which modern law does not distinguish
from other homicides [op. cit., IV, 203, note to Lewis's
edition (Phila., 1897), 204] (Bishop, op. cit., I, sec.
611). Suicide is felonious homicide by the English
common law (Wharton, op. cit., 587). But the
ancient forfeiture of goods being now abolished, this
ofTence is beyonil the reach of human tribunals
(Bishop, op. cit., II, sec. 1187). That a person shall
be legally guilty of criminal homicide death must have
occurred within a year and a day after the occurrence
out of which an accusation arises (Bishop, op. cit.,
sec. 640). Although the criminal law of the States
of the United States (except Louisiana) is based on
the English common law, yet statutory modifications
are numerous and important.
Charles W. Sloane.
Homiletics. — Homiletics is the science that treats of the composition and delivery of a sermon or other religious discourse. It inclutles all forms of preaching, viz., the sermon, homily, and catechetical instruction. Since the nineteenth century, homiletics has taken its place, especially in Germany, as a branch of pastoral theology. The " Standard Dictionary " defines Homi- letics as "that branch of rhetoric that treats of the composition and tlelivery of sermons or homilies". Many differ from this definition, and maintain that homiletics as a science is distinct from rhetoric. Of this we shall be better able to judge after considering the origin and history of homiletics; and the question will be noticed towards the end of this article. As the first form of preaching was largely the homilv, the reader is referred to the article thereon for much that will supplement what is here stated. Needless to say, Christ himself preached, anil He commissioned His Apostles to do so. His preaching included two forms of sermon, the missionary and the ministerial (to which correspond the magisterium and the ministerium of the Church), the former to unbelievers, the latter to those already in the Faith. Of the latter we have a striking example in the discourse after the Last Supper, John, xiv-xvi. It cannot be saitl that His preaching took any definite, rounded form, in the sense of a modern sermon; His aim was to sow the seed of the word, which He scattered broadcast, like the sower in the parable. His commission to His Apostles in- cluded both kinds. For the former or missionary preaching, see Matt., xxviii, 19; Mark, xvi, 15; iii, 14; Luke, ix, 2. St. Paul's sermon referred to in Acts, XX, 7-11, is an example of the second kind of preach- ing. In this the Apostles were supported by assist- ants who were elected and consecrated for that pur- pose, for example, Timothy and Titus; as also by those who had been favoured with charismata. The homily referred to in Justin Martyr's "Apology" (cf. Homily) is an example of ministerial, as distinct from missionary, preaching. In missionary preaching the Apostles were also assisted, but in an informal wa.y, by the laity, who explained the Christian doctrine to their acquaintances amongst unbelievers who, in their visits to the Christian assemblies, must have heard something of it, v. g., cf. I Cor., xiv, 23-24. This is particularly true of Justin Martyr, who, wearing his philosopher's cloak, went about for that purpose. The sermons to the faithful in the early ages were of the simplest kind, being merely expositions or para- phrases of the passage of Scripture that was reafl, coupled with extempore effusions of the heart. This explains why there is little or nothing in the way of sermons or homilies belonging to that period. It also explains the strange statement made by Sozomen
(Hist. Eccl., VII, xi.x), and by Cassiodorus in his
" Tripartite History ", which Duchesne (Christian
Worship, p. 171, tr. London, 1903) apparently accepts,
that no one preached at Rome. (Sozomen wTote
about the time of Pope Xystus III.) Thomassin's ex-
planation (Vetus et Nova Eccl. Disciplina, II, Ixxxii,
503) of Sozomen's statement is that there was no
preaching in the sense of an elaborate or finished dis-
course before the time of Pope Leo — with the excep-
tion, perhaps, of the address on virginity by Pope
Liberius to Marcellina, sister of St. Ambrose, on the
occasion of her taking the veil, which is regarded as a
private discourse. And the reason for this he attrilv
utes to the stress of persecution. Neander (I, 420,
note) says of Sozomen's statement: "The remark
could not extend to the early times; but suppose it
did, it meant that the sermon was only secondary.
Or the fact may have been that this Eastern writer
was deceived by false accounts from the West; or it
may have been that the sermon in the Western
Church did not occupy so important a place as it did
in the Greek Church."
The office of preaching belonged to bishops, and priests preached only with their jiermission. Even two such distinguished men as St. Augustine and St. Chrysostom preached, as priests, only when commis- sioned by their respective bishops. Origen as a lay- man expounded the Scriptures, but it was by special permission. But this is quite ilifferent from saying (as is stated by "Chambers' Encyclopaedia", the " Encyclopa>dia Metropolitana", the "Encyclopaedia Britannica", older edition) that priests were not or- dinarily allowed to preach before the fifth century. This is not tenal)le in the light of history. For in- stance, Felix, priest and martyr, preached in the third century, under two bishops, Maximus and Quintus. Of the latter it was said that his mouth had the tongue of Felix (Thomassin, ibid., c. xiii, 505; Paulinus, " Poems "). Priests, indeed, were forbidden to jjreach in Alexandria; but that was on account of the Arian heresy. A custom springing from this had spread to the north of Africa; but Valerius, Bishop of Hippo, broke through it, and had Augustine, as yet a priest, to preach before him, because he himself was unable to do so with facility in the Latin language — "cum non satis expedite Latino sermone concionari posset". This was against the custom of the place, as Possidius relates; but Valerius justified his action by an appeal to the East — " in orientalibus ecclesiis id ex more fieri sciens". Even during the time of the prohibition in Alexandria, priests, as we know from Socrates and Sozomen, interpreted the Scriptures publicly in Cssarea, in Cappadocia, and in Cj'prus, candles being lighted the while — accensis tucertiis. As soon as the Church received freedom under Constantine, preaching developed very much, at least in external form. 'Then for the first time, if, perhaps, we except St. Cjrprian, the art of oratory was applied to preach- ing, especially by St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the most florid of Cappadocia's triumvirate of genius. He was already a trained orator, as were many of his liearers, and it is no wonder, as Bardenhewer (Patrology, p. 290) expresses it, " he had to pay tribute to the taste of his own time which demanded a florid and grandil- oquent style ". But, at the same time, he condemned those preachers who used the eloquence and pronun- ciation of the theatre. The most notaisle preachers of the century, St. Basil and the two Gregories (the " Clover-leaf of Cappadocia"), Sts. Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, and Hilary, were all noted ora- tors. Of the numljer the greatest was St. Chrysos- tom, the greatest since St. Paul, nor has he been since equalled. Even Gibbon, while not doing him justice, had to praise him; and his teacher of rhetoric, Liba- nius, is said to have intended John as his successor, "if the Christians had not taken him". It is a mis- take, however, to imagine that they preached only
