ABSTRACT
CONCEPTIONS OF 'ARRANGEMENT' IN
AMERICAN PROTESTANT HOMILETICAL THEORY

by Daniel Edwin Weiss

This thesis describes, analyzes, and interprets

the conceptions 0f Al’l’angement in American Protestant
homiletical theory, through a study of the writings of
those homiletical theorists considered to be most signifi-
cant, in terms of use and/or influence, in the history of
American homiletical theory.

The sixteen theorists studied were selected on the
basis of a survey taken among professors of preaching in
theological seminaries which are members of the American
Association of Theological Schools. The major writings of
these theoriSts serve as the basic sources of the study.
Three theorists are studied from the mid-nineteenth
Century period, three from the late nineteenth century,
four from the early twentieth century, and six from the
mid-twentieth century.

The homiletical theories considered in this study
are analyzed in terms of (l) the approach to homiletics
and preaching, (2) the over-all definition and interpre-
tation of Arranganent, and, (3) the point of view with

regard to the parts of the sermon. The following conclu-

Sions are noted:

(1) In the nineteenth century, homiletics is viewed

Janiel Edwin Weiss

as a science and generally conceived of as a species of

the genus rhetoric. In this period extensive use is made

of the rhetorical theories of Aristotle, Cicero, ,Luir.t“

."

D o r‘ " Q v.
;_. .1. 4.‘ ,- fif‘ . . J "‘ _ " v.- v - -.
-.u;.ls_....le, -prDeil, “lair, unete‘y, and .‘lrldt. i“). the early

twentieth century, however, preaching is approached with

more of a the010gical than rhetorical interest, whereas in
the mid-twentieth century a renewed interest in applying
rhetorical insights to preaching is in evidence. Generally
preaching is considered to have the functions of both
instruction and persuasion: in more recent theory, however,

due to the influence of Barthian theolOgy, the element of

"proclamation“ is seen as an important function of preach-

ing.

(2) In American homiletics Arrangement is conceived
to be the process of ordering, prOportioning, and distri-
buting the materials provided by Invention into a
functional pattern of sermon organization in light of both
logical and psychOIOgical considerations. some homileticians
also add the element of "selection" to ‘the function of
Arrangement and thus include within its scope that which
some theorists consider to be a part of Invention.

The importance of Arrangement is stressed through-
out American hom11etica1 theory, with the greatest emphasis
being given to the subject by the nineteenth century
Writers and the least in the early twentieth century.

Throughout American homiletics matters of Invention and

Daniel Edwin Neiss

Arrangement are given precedence over matters of Style and
Delivery.
In the nineteenth century the Arrangement of the

sermon is seen to be determined by strict rules which

govern structure. In more recent times, however, homileticians,

in viewing preaching as an art, consider Arrangement to be a
flexible process based upon principles rather than exacting,
detailed rules.

The over-all plan of the sermon is seen to be
characterized by the elements of unity, order, proportion,
and climax: and its structure is considered to be deter-
mined by the subject, audience, sermon type, and sermon
purposes. The biblical text utilized in the sermon is also
seen to be a significant factor in the sermon's over-all
plan since sermons are generally classified as topical,
textual, or expository depending upon their structure in
relation to the text.

(3) In the nineteenth century the primary emphasis
on Arrangement is in terms of the parts of the sermon,
while in the twentieth century theorists give primary con-
Sideration to the over-all plan of the sermon. In the
earlier period the approach to Arrangement is generally in
terms of a pre—conceived plan of parts, whereas in the
later period a more flexible concept of sermonic Arrangement

is prevalent.

Daniel Edwin Weiss

The theorists studied delineate from three to seven
parts in the sermon, with the majority holding to a three
part division: Introduction, Body (Divisions or Argument),
and Conclusion. The parts of the sermon are never seen to
exist as separate, independent entities, but are viewed in
their functional relation to one another and to the plan of

the sermon as a whole.

COpyright by
N IEL EDWIN WEISS
1965

NCEPTIONS OF 'ARRAEGENEST'
IN

AMERICAN PROTESTANT HOMILETICAL THEORY

BY

Daniel Edwin Weiss

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Speech

1964

ACKNOWLB DGM ENT 3

The writer wishes to take this Opportunity to
emress his sincere appreciation to the persons who helped
make this study possible. He is particularly indebted to
- Dr. Kenneth G. Hance, Chairman of the Guidance Committee,
for his wise counsel, constant encouragement, and careful
direction. To the other members of the Guidance Committee -
Dr, Fred Alexander, Dr. David Ralph, and Dr. Gordon Thomas
of the Department of Speech, and Dr. Gilman Ostrander of
the Departmmt of History - the writer is deeply grateful
for. their genuine c00peration and helpful suggestions.

Final acknowledgment is made to my wife Rachel,
whose "constant faith and abiding love" have been a con-

tinual source of inspiration and encouragement-

ii

ACKNOWLEDQ’IENTS . . . . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION . .

CHAPTE R

I.

Iv,

VI

CONCEPTIONS OF

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I .
' ARRAZNIGEMENT ‘

DANIEL PARRISH KIDDER'S CONCEPTION
OF 'ARRANGEE-‘LENT' o . o . o o o . o . . .

WILLIAM GREENOUGH THAYER SHEDD'S
CONCEPTION OF 'ARRANGEMENT' . . . . . .

JOHN MASON HOPPIN'S CONCEPTION OF
.ARRA-NGWENT.OOOOOOOOOOOOO

PART II.
CONCEPTIONS OF 'ARRANGEMENT' IN LATE
NINETEENTH CENTURY MERICAN
PROTESTANT HOMILETICAL THEORY

JOHN ALBERT BROADUS' CONCEPTION OF
'ARRANGEMENT' . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A?STIN PHELPS' CONCEPTION OF
ARRANGEMENT' . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

THOMAS HARWOOD PATTISON'S CONCEPTION ,
0F 'ARRAINGmEbIT. O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0

PART III.
CONCEPTIONS OF 'ARRANGEMENT' IN EARLY
TWENTIETH CENTURY AMERICAN
PmTESTANT HOMILETICAL THEORY

CHARLES EDWARD JEFFERSON'S CONCEPTION
OF'ARRANGEMENT'

QWERLES REYNOLDS BROWN'S CONCEPTION
0F 'ARRANGEMENT' . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii

IN MID-N INETEENTH
CENTURY AIvIERICAN PROTESTIQIT HOMIL ETICAL THEORY

b)
O‘\

100

133

174

193

211

CHAPTE R P ag e

IX. OZORA STEARNS DAVIS' CONCEPTION
OF'ARRANGEMENT'.............228

X. GAIUS GLENN ATKINS' CONCEPTION
OF'ARRANGEMENT'.............248

PART IV.
.CONCEPTIOIIS OF 'ARRANGmENT' IN
MID-TWENTIETH CENTURY AMERICAN

PROTESTANT HOMILETICAL THEORY

XI. HALFCRD E. LUCCOQ('S CONCEPTION OF
'ARRANGEI‘IENT...............266

XII. PAUL EHRMAN SCHERER'S CONCEPTION OF
'ARRANGEMENT'. ............. 292

XIII. GERALD H. KENNEDY'S CONCEPTION OF
.ARmNGEMWT . C C O O C C C C O C O O O O 30 6

’LIV. ANDREW W. BLACKWOOD'S CONCEPTION OF
' AquEIENT ' O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 3 24

XV. ILION T. JONES' CONCEPTION OF
.ARRANGWT. O O O C C C C O C O O O O O 345

KVI. HENRY GRADY DAVIS' CONCEPTION OF
.ARRANGEMENT'OOOOOOOOOOOOOOBOC

CIDDECLUS ION S

O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 395

APPENDIX A - PERRY'S LIST OF HOMILETICAL
THEORISTS AND THEIR
AND TEXTBOOKS . O O O C O O O C O O O 410

APPENDIX B - A SURVEY OF CONTEMPORARY PROFESSORS
OFPREAQIIINGOOOOOOOOOOOCC416

:3 131. IOGRAPHY

O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O 0 4-23

iv

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCT ION

gugpgse of Study

This study seeks to describe, analyze, and inter-
pret the conceptions of Arrangement in American Protestant
hmdletical theory, through a study of the writings of
those homiletical theorists who are most significant in
terms of use and/or influence in American homiletical
theory.

In this study, "Arrangement“ is conceived as one of
the five canons of rhetoric originally set forth by classi-
cal rhetoric (Invention, Style, Memory and Delivery, are,
of course, the other four). A useful, working definition
Of Arrangament is that provided by Cicero in 22 Oratore:
"[the duty of the speaker is] next, to diSpose and arrange
his matter, not only in a certain order, but with a sort
of power and judgment.“ He further states that the purpose
Of Arrangement is "to arrange what you have invented. "1
Arrangenent refers to the ordering and distributing Of in-
Vented materials into a functional pattern of Speech or
Sermon or‘B‘auriization.

\
1C *— — ‘
[icero, De Oratore, Bohn Edition, pp. 178 and 242.

 

vi

Homiletics is that branch of practical theology
which treats of homilies or sermons.l It is that body of
theory which pertains to sermon construction and delivery.

This study is concerned with those theorists whose
writings are published in the United States and whose in-
fluence as homiletical theorists has been particularly on
the American homiletical scene. The theories studied are
those Set forth by homileticians who are Protestant in
their religious affiliation, and thus Catholic and Jewish

homiletical theories are not considered.

Limitations of Stggy

This study is limited to the homiletical theories
of sixteen Mexican Protestant homileticians selected,
out of the vast number of American theorists, on the basis
Of a survey taken among contemporary American professors
01‘- Preaching in Protestant theological seminaries.2 This
particular number of homileticians is considered to be
restrictive enough to allow for a detailed study in depth:
and yet extensive enough to allow for valid generalizations
regarding the conceptions of Arrangement in American

\
Protestant homiletical theOrY-

-
—_

l .
Barnh Arnerican Coll e Dictiona , edited by Clarence
art, New York: Random House, 1950), p. 1432.
2
See Appendix B.

vii

 

The major text book, or books, written by each of
the theorists under consideration are the basic sources of
the study: and in every case the study is limited to those
works in which the author sets forth his most comprehensive
and complete treatment of homiletical theory. This study
is not concerned, therefore, with the practice of Arrange-
ment, nor is it primarily concerned with cognate or tangent
statements which theorists might have made about preaching.
Rather, this study is limited to those works in which a.
writer explicates, most completely, his homiletical theory.

There is no attempt in this thesis to make value
indgments or to assess the adequacy Of the theories under
consideration. This study is limited to describing, analyz-
ing, and interpreting the conceptions of Arrangement in
American Protestant homiletical theory in terms of the
general approach to homiletics and preaching, the over-all
definition and interpretation Of Arrangement, and the

pOint of view with regard to the parts of the sermon.

Justification of Stggy

Intrinsic Merit

Since preaching is undoubtedly influenced by the
homiletical tradition underlying it, it is important that
the various concepts which are contained in American homi-
leucal theory be described, analyzed, and interpreted-
The rhetorical canon of Arrangement is given careful and

e - ‘
xactlng Consideration by classical rhetoriCianS and is

viii

cxmsidered by them to be a vitally important element in
Speech making. It is important, therefore, that the treat—
ment of Arrangement by homiletical theorists be given care-
ful consideration, both because of the importance Of the
canon of Arrangement and because of the close relationship
between homiletical theory and pulpit practice.

Furthermore a particular need exists to re-construct,
re-evaluate, and perhaps reform the theory and practice of
preaching as a Whole and sermonic Arrangement in particular.
It is hOped that this thesis will serve as a basis for
further theorizing with regard to homiletical theory in
General and Arrangement in particular.

An additional value of this study is that it pro-
Vides a list of the most significant homileticians, in
terms of use and/or influence, throughout the history of
‘fimmican Protestant homiletical theory, based upon a survey

c 0
0* Contemporary professors of preaching.

Distinctiveness of Study

Although several theses have been completed on the
mfiflect of.Arrangement as well as on certain aspects of
"k“31can preaching and homiletical theOrYo to this
writer's knowledge. no study has been attempted express/12’
dammed to conceptions of Arrangement in American

rrOtestant Homiletical theory. Lambertsonl and
\

CTIF Floyd w. Lambertson, “Survey and Analysis of emeri-
tiéa‘omiletics Prior to 1860,“(unpublished Ph.D. disserta-
r“ State University of Iowa, 1930).

ix

- 1 . - . ,
nbernathy surveyed various trends in American homiletical

theory up to 1940, Perry2 noted various trends and emphases

in the philosophy, materials, and methodology of certain

American homiletical trade and text books, from 1834 to

3

1954, and Higgins studied books on preaching prior to 18:51.

Rudin4 was concerned with the conceptions of ethos in late
Anerican preaching, and Barton5 studied a brief segment in
the history of American homiletics in terms of contributions

to a particular mode Of Delivery.

—7

lElton Abernathy, “An Analysis of Trends in

{merican Homiletic Theory Since 1860,"(unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, State University Of Iowa, 1940).

2Lloyd Merle Perry, "Trends and Emphases in the
fthIOSOphy, Materials and Methodology of American Protestant
-"0miletica1 Education as Established by a Study of
391ected Trade and Text Books Published Between 1834 anc' 3.954,"

lgzgjlfalished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University.

‘ 3Howard Hubert Higgins, "A Critical Study of
Pelected Books on Preaching Published in the United States
Before 1861," (unpublished M.A. thesis, State University of
Iowa. 1927).

‘ 4'John Jesse Rudin. "The Concept of Ethos in Late
EmeriCan Preaching," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
“orthwestern University, 1952).

n 5Fred Jackson Barton, "The Contribution Of Selected
blorks in American Homiletics from 1860-1880 to the Theory

8f E"telnpore Speaking," (unpublished M.A. thesis, State
niversity of Iowa, 1929).

 

 

Studies have also been completed by Baxter,l

Casteel,2 and McGladry3 on various aSpects of the Lyman

Beecher Lectures on Preaching at Yale University Divinity
School. These studies, however, are not Specifically
concerned with conceptions of Arrangement, nor do they

deal exclusively with the particular theorists studied in

this thesis.

The homiletical theories of three of the homi-
leticnans considered in this thesis have been studied.

Pollack4 studied the rhetorical theories of W.G. T. Shedd,

Huber5 and Todd6 studied John A. Broadus, and Sleeth7

1Batsell Barrett Baxter, “An Analysis of the Basic

Elements of Persuasion in the Yale Lectures on Preaching,"
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern
California, 1943).

gJohn Casteel, "Conceptions of Preaching in the
Lyman Beecher Lectures, 1872-1941,“ (unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Northwestern University, 1942).

, 3L. D. McGladry, "The Changing Standards of Preach-
1n9 as Revealed in the Lyman Beecher Lectures on Preaching
FFGm 1922-1935,“ (unpublished M.A. thesis, University of
dinnesota, 1936).

4Wallace Stanley Pollack, “The Rhetorical Theory of
william G.T. Shedd," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Northwestern University, 1962).

5Paul Huber, "A Study of the Rhetorical Theories of
J91“) A.Broadus," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Univer-
Sity of Michigan, 1955.)
P 6Hollis B. Todd, "John A. Broadus' Theory and
Llattice of Speech Arrangement," (unpublished M.A. Thesis,
ouisland State University, 1949.)

7

rd Ronald Sleeth, "The Rhetorical Theories of Charles

aewgrd Jefferson," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, North-
3 err! University, 1952).

xi

ov-

analyzed the rhetorical theories of Charles Edward
Jefferson. With the exception of Todd's study these theses
dealt with the complete rhetorical theories of the homi-
leticians and were not concerned exclusively with Arrange-
ment. All of these studies were limited to the particular
theorist studied and thus did not bring together and

analyze conceptions of Arrangement from a number of homi-

leticians.

Although studies have been completed dealing with

the concepts of Arrangement in other bodies of theory by

e . l 2 - 3 - 4 5
irw1n., Posz, and Hewlett, DeMougeat, and Carrino, no

attenmm has as yet been made to study the conceptions of

Arrangement in American Protestant homiletical theory.

*—

lRamon L. Irwin, "A Survey of Principles of Dis—
stition in Speech Making," (unpublished M.A. thesis,
Cornell University, 1937.)

2Albert C. Posz, “A Critical Analysis of the Theory

Efi Arrangement in Selected American Textbooks on Public
ffifiaking Since 1900," (unpublished M.A. thesis, State
Lmiversity of Iowa, 1946).

‘ 3Marilyn m. Hewlett, "An Analysis of Theories of
=$meCh Arrangement as DevelOped by Selected Ancient
R“etcu‘icians,” (unpublished M.A. thesis, State University
Of IWat. 1947) .

William R. DeMougeat, “Modern Conceptions of In-
:mfidOh and Disposition," (unpublished M.A. thesis, Cornell
”Nanny. 1950).

. Elnora M.D. Carrino, "Conceptions of Dispositio
iniAnCient Rhetoric," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
ixiversity of Michigan, 1959).

xii

The major sources used in this study are the homi-
letical textbooks written by the sixteen theorists under
consideration. The homiletical theories of the writers
studied are found, in their most complete form, in their
following works, listed in chronological order, which serve
as the major sources in this study:

Kidder, Daniel Parrish. A Treatise on Homiletigs,
1864.

Shedd, William Greenough Thayer. Homiletics and
Pastoral Theology. 1867. fi_'_—

HOppin, James Mason. The Office and WOrk of the
Christian Ministry, 1869.

__, Homileticsgg 1881.

Broadus, John Albert. A Treatise on the Preparation
and Delivery of Sermcps, 1870.

Phelps, Austin. —Ihe Theory of Preaching, 1881.

Pattison, T. Harwood. The Makinggof the Sermon,
1898.

Jefferson, Charles Edward. Quiet Hints~tq_Growigg
Preachers In fly Study, 1911.

. The Minister as Prthet, 1905.

. The Building of the Churgh" 1910.

. The_xigiste£_as_Shtherd. 1912.

Brown, Charles Reynolds. The Art of Preaching, 1922.

Davis, zora Stearns. Principles of Preaching, 1924.

Atkins, Gaius Glenn. Preaching and the Mind oEngay,
1934.

Luccock, Halford Edward. In the Minister'siflggg;_
shop, 1944.

Scherer, Paul Erhman. For We Have This Treasure,
1944.

Kennedy, Gerald Hamilton. fiis_figrd Through Preaching,
1947.

Blackwood, Andrew Watterson. The Preparation of
Sermons, 1948.

Jones, Ilion Tingal. Principles and Practice_oi
Preaching, 1956.—_' if m—

Davis, Henry Grady. Designfor Preaching” 1958.

 

 

 

 

Inéfifiition to the major sources listed above supplementary
sources in homiletical theory. rhetorical theorYo “9010972"
Chumhhistory, American history, and biography are also

xiii

 

utilized in the study.

Method of Resggrch

This study employs the methods of the questionnaire
survey and the library survey, with elements of historical
research, in order to determine the conceptions of Arrange-
ment in American Protestant homiletical theory, as well as
to give some indication of the historical context of the
haniletician and his theories.

Each of the writers considered in this thesis is
analyzed in terms of the following questions:

1. From what point of view are homiletics and

preadhing approached by the writer?

A. What is his definition of homiletics and-
preaching?

B. What does he conceive to be the function
and purpose of preaching?

C. What influences on his theory can be noted?

D. Is there any possible relationship between
his theological commitments and his homi-
letical theory?

2. What is his over-all definition and interpre-

tation of Arrangement?

A. Does he make any value judgments regarding
previous treatments of Arrangement?

8. What are the £229; of Arrangement?

xiv

C. What importance does he give to Arrangement?

D. What is the relative importance of Arrange-
ment to the other rhetorical canons?

E. What is his over-all plan in terms of:
(1) Subject matter, theme, or proposition?
(2)7Audience?
(3) Type of sermon?
(4) Sermon purpose?

3. When a sdheme of parts of the sermon is used:

A. Is the primary emphasis on Arrangement in
terms-of the plan of the whole sermon, or
in terms of the parts of the sermon?

B. How many parts or divisions are used?

C. What is the importance of each part?

D. What is the nature and function of each part?

B. What is the arrangement of each part and
sub-part?

F. What is the relation of the modes of proof

to each part?1

 

1Classical rhetoricians have discussed within the
canon of Invention three modes of proof. These modes of
guoof are: ethical proof, emotional or pathetic proof, and
lc“Ii-Cal proof. "Ethical proof“ refers to those available
means of persuasion which reside within the Speaker himself.
when the Speaker seeks to bring the audience into a psycho-
$936.1 state so that it influences its own reaction to
I a 18 said he is using "pathetic“ or "emotional proof."
b“ recIer'it years this concept of emotional proof has been
"foadened to include motivational appeals as well.
r Egical proof“ refers to the Speaker's attempt through
.ajnnal appeals to aim primarily at the hearer's reason-
1119 Process.

XV

Method of Report

The chronological method is utilized in reporting
anaconceptions of Arrangement in American Protestant
‘mmdletical theory. The writings of the sixteen theorists
under consideration fall into four main chronological
periods: mid—nineteenth century, during which time Kidder,-
.flmfld and HOppin wrote: late nineteenth century, which en-
ammesses the works of Broadus, Phelps, and Pattison:
eafiuztwentieth century, which includes the theories of
Jefferson, Brown, 0.8. Davis, and Atkins,- and mid-twentieth
century, during which time Luccock, Scherer, Kennedy,
Bladnmnd, Jones, and 3.3. Davis set forth their theories.
Each of the theorist's conceptions of Arrangement is
rQXHted in terms of his approach to homiletics and preach-
ing.lus over-all definition and interpretation of Arrange-

meny and his views regarding the parts of the sermon.

Emfiihomiletician studied forms a chapter in the particu—
]

.31“ Chronological sect ion.
The following is an outline of the thesis:
Introduction
Part I - Conceptions of 'Arrangement' in Mid-
Hineteenth Century American Protest-
ant Homiletical Theory
Chapter I - Daniel Parrish Kidder
Chapter II - William G. T. Shedd
Chapter III - James Mason HOppin
Part~II - Conceptions of 'Arrangement' in Late

Nineteenth Century American Protest-
ant Homiletical Theory.

xvi

 

 

Chapter IV - John A. Broadus
Chapter V - Austin Phelps
Chapter VI - T. Harwood Pattison
Part III - Conceptions of 'Arrangement' in
Early Twentieth Century American
Protestant Homiletical Theory
Chapter VII - Charles Edward Jefferson
Chapter VIII- Charles Reynolds Brown
Chapter IX - Ozora Stearns Davis
Chapter X - Gaius Glenn Atkins
Part IV - Conceptions of 'Arrangement' in Mid-
Twentieth Century American Protestant
Homiletical Theory
Chapter XI - Halford LUCcock
Chapter XII - Paul Scherer
Chapter XIII- Gerald Kennedy
Chapter XIV - Andrew w. Blackwood
Chapter XV - Ilion T. Jones
Chapter XVI - Henry Grady Davis
Conclusions

Appendices

Bibliography

xvii

PART I

F ' . sRRANGEI~ZLZNT '

f‘)
O
'2‘.
( )
r
m
H
H
O
'2:
(n
O

in
MID-N INETEENTH CENTURY AMERICAN

PmTESTANT HOMILET ICAL THEO RY

CHAPTER I

DANIEL PARRISH KIDDER'S mNCEPTION OF 'ARRANGEMENT'

Daniel Parrish giddeg

Daniel Parrish Kidder was born October 18, 1815
of New England stock at Dorian, Genesee County (then
South Pembroke), New York. He spent his boyhood on an
uncle's farm in the state of Vermont, and “from the age
of fourteen he taught school, attended country academies,
read books, and earned his living. ”1

Kidder's keen interest in learning was given
more formalized deveIOpmont when he attended the
Gsnesss Wesleyan Sauinary at Lima, New York and from
there entered Hamilton College in 1833 as a saphomore.
It was through his experience in the Lima school that
Kidder, despite the Opposition to Methodist doctrine
by his father, was converted to Msthodism and brought
under the conviction that he should become a minister.

From Hamilton College, therefore, he entered WesleYan

1
Bio "Daniel Parrish Kidder,“ Dictionary of American
ra ed. Dumas Malone, X (New York: Charles
ns, 1933), 369.

 

3
University to prepare for the ministry and was graduated
in 1836.

The year 1836 was an important year in Kidder's
life, for it was during this time that he had his first
experience at being both a preacher and a teacher. In
1836 he taught French, mathematics, and ancient languages
in the state of New York and also began to carry on a
preaching ministry. It is interesting to note that
Kidder taught French and ancient languages, and there -
fore, may have been exposed to the vast array of works
on rhetoric in these languages.

After only one year of teadhing and preaching
in New York state, Kidder, in 1837, went to Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil, as a missionary and while there engaged
in an extensive preaching ministry. The death of his
wife in 1840 caused him to return to the United States.
For three years Kidder served churches in Paterson and
Trenton, New Jersey, and then in 1843 at only twenty-
eight years of age he was elected by the Methodist
chum?! as secretary of its Sunday School Union and
ad11:01: of the litgrature used in the Sunday schools.

After twelve years of successful work in the

Methodist Sunday schools, Kidder entered the service of

4
theological education. From 1856 to 1871 he taught
practical theology in Garrett Biblical Institute,
Evanston, Illinois, and from 1871 to 1881 held a similar
position at Drew Theological Seninary, Madison, New
Jersey. Although Kidder was “not an extraordinary
preadier himself, he had the gift of teaching others

..1

the art. It was during these years of teaching

homiletics that he develoPed his theory of preaching
and wrote his book weatise on Homiletics, the only
book out of the seven written by him devoted to the
subject of preaching.

In 1880, Kidder was elected secretary of the
Board of Education of the Methodist Church. He left
the teaching field, therefore, in 1881 and continued
318 secretary of the Board until 1887 when he was
forced to retire by poor health. He spent the remaining

years of his life in Evanston, Illinois, where he died
°n July 29. 1891.

1
SEE" pp. 369-370.

5
Approach to Homilggics and Preaching

Kidder sees the term “homiletics“ as that which

. . .embraces in its significance all that relates to

preaching.“ (17)1 Homiletics is conceived by Kidder as
the science of preaching.2

As, however, science signifies knowledge
and implies a systenatic arrangenent of
what is known on a given subject, there
appears no reason why the term may not be
applied to preadhing as well as to inter-
pretation, or any other topic of sacred
study. (19)

Kidder is careful to note, however, that in considering
homiletics and preaching as being a science, he is not
Placing preaching on the level of a merely human enterprise,
which he believes would be undesirable, but, rather, is
Bead-39 to rescue it from the position it is often made to
°°°“PY as an incidental of the clergyman's total education

or a ”mere appendage of rhetoric,“ and ". . .to place it in

‘__

f 1The homiletical theory of Daniel Parrish Kidder is
HWnd in its most complete form in his book A Treatise 9;;
M: Desigled 3.9 Illustrate 35th True Theory 933
pLac-st 21: Preaching 3.113 GospeI,INew York: Carlton &
on": 1364 . Re erences to Kidder's theory are from this
' and the page numbers are indicated in parentheses.

posiu 21" v1ewing homiletics as a science, Kidder takes a
Other on similar to that taken by John Quincy; Adams and

It shouri‘°t°r1Cians who conceive of rhetoric as a science.
rheton d be nOiled, however, that other homileticians and
sciencecun' c=€>t'ts:l.der homiletics and rhetoric as both a
Althou hand an art, or in some cases, exclusively as an art.
these 3133' is beyond the scape of this thesis to discuss
POSBibi “Cf-ions in detail it is important that these

e di ferences are recognized.

 

6
its true light as a science originated by the great
Teacher, and illustrated by Christian experience in the
successive ages of the Church." (19-20)

Kidder states enphatically that homiletics is not
to be considered as a branch or species of rhetoric. He
believes that throughout the history of the church,
preaching has lost its efficiency by adhering too carefully
to the “irrelevant precepts of systematic rhetoricians.“
He goes on to state that,

this mistake under various modifica-
tions, has been so far perpetuated that
even now many seen to suppose that rhetoric,
having been perfected in ancient times,
moderns, and even Christian ministers, are
to find their highest teachings in the sys-
teus of Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian.
(20) _
Kidder criticizes such homiletical writers as Vinet,
Porter, and Ripley for using the term “sacred rhetoric"
and inferring that homiletics stems from rhetorical theory.

There are several reasons why Kidder’ wishes to
avoid considering homiletics as a species of rhetoric. He
feels that the sermon is given an inferior position when
it 13 “B1ghed, by rhetoricians, to being simply a species
of deliberative speaking: he believes, rather, that the
christian minister must consider the sermon as an in-
dependamt and distinctive kind of public address. Kidder
313° ”Sues that since rhetoric is a progressive science,

I)
sing an outgrowth of language and human experience. there

1
s disagroenont among rhetoricians as to what constitutes

 

7

the proper character of rhetoric. He makes the point that

God would not have appointed a means of Spreading the

Gospel which could be regarded as a mere addendum to

rhetoric or any systun of human science. “Preaching is

to be regarded as prominently a religious agency appointed

by the Saviour of the world as a means of rescuing men

from error and sin, and teaching them the way of life and

immortality.“ (21) Preaching in its essential character

and fundamental design, he argues, was impossible of

being conceived by the ancient rhetoricians and thus

preaching cannot be considered to be a species of rhetoric.
It is interesting to note, however, that Kidder‘s

objections, in terms of the relationship between rhetoric

and Preaching, seen to stem from his desire to maintain

f°r Preaching a unique and superior position. He does

not take the position that preaching cannot learn from

rhetoric, but rather he attempts to rescue preaching

fm‘“ being simply a branch or species of rhetoric. This

18 clearly indicated throughout the deve10pment of Kidder's

homiletical theory, for he makes broad use of the terms

and insights set forth by the ancient rhetoricians.

He notes that ,

the fact that the Gospel was written and
Preached in that very Grecian language

in which both rhetoric and logic had
re(reived their highest cultivation, clear-
ly indicates that Christianity was designed
‘0 avail itself as a tributary of whatever
900d thing science and culture has prepared
t° its hand. (22)

 

8
Kidder's euphasis is that in preaching, Christ exalted
human speech to a new office which, rather than being a
subdivision of rhetoric, stands above it yet availing
itself of rhetorical insights.
The very nature of preaching, as the
peculiar and characteristic agency for
the promotion of Christianity, suggests
the unspeakable importance of a thorough
study of the principles which underlie
its exercise, as well as of the modes
most conducive to its successful practise.
(34) w
In analyzing the New Testament words for preach-
ing, Kidder concludes that preaching aims to convert men
from sin and error and to instruct and edify them in
Christian truth. He believes that preaching involves the
announcement of the joyful tidings of the Gospel, the
Public proclamation of truth in an urgent and authorita-
tive manner, and the conviction and persuasion of men by
means of argument. Whereas exhortation is the species of
the genus preaching and “, . ,is that branch or style of
Preaching in which appeal, entreaty, admonition, and
Consolation constitute the principal elements,“ (103)
Preaching, in its broadest sense refers to theact of
cOlllmunicating the sermon, which Kidder defines simply as
u

° . .a formal religious discourse founded upon the word

°f God.“ (110)

Definition and Interpretation of Arrangement

Tomi of Arrangement

Kidder believes that the three steps in the mental

preparation for preaching are the interpretation of the
text, invention, and disposition. In drawing the line

between the functions of Invention and Arrangement,

Kidder states that

disposition signifies arrangement in

its most comprehensive sense. Its office
is to put thoughts in their right places.

It is the necessary complement of invention.
Invention accumulates, disposition distri-
butes. Invention gathers together the wood,
the stone, the iron, and every species of
material essential to a building. Dis-
position from shapeless heaps constructs a
beautiful edifice. (153)

He further teaches that as the sermon is in the process
Of being arranged, that which has been omitted in
Invention becomes discernibly evident, and the preacher's
inventional activity becomes reactivated.
If in the process of constructing anything
small or great is found to be wanting in-
vention is dispatched in search of it, and
often when invention is most busily at work

disposition takes materials directly from
her hand and places them where they are to

be found. (154)
In Practice, therefore, Kidder believes that Invention
and Arranganent are often simultaneous and interrelated.
Although Kidder believes that the functions of
In"ention and Arrangenent should never be widely

sePirated, he notes that it is best to consider them in

10
their separate functions. He sees Invention as being pri-
marily the work of imagination, and Arrangement as the work
of Judgment.
Although the imagination sometimes acts in
logical order, yet oftener it requires the
control of the regulative faculties, reason,

and common sense. This control results in
disposition. (154)

Arrangenent is seen by him, therefore, as the process of
ordering, prOportioning, and structuring into a sermon

Plan those materials provided through the process of

Invent ion.

The Importance of Arrangement

In considering the importance of Arrangement,
Kidder quotes Vinet as saying that “'it is diSposition, it
18 order, which constitutes discourse. There is no dis-
course without it. The difference between a common orator
and an eloquent man is often nothing but a difference in
respect to disposition”. (155) Kidder sees Arrangement
as being essential to both instruction and persuasion
within the sermon, for in his view an audience is
instructed only if it is able to comprehend and retain:
and such comprehension and retention occur only if the
material of the sermon is well ordered and arranged.
An'angenent is also important in Kidder's thought because
1"- cOmpletes and perfects Invention. It determines and

reduces to strict unity the sc0pe of the proposition, and

11

it aids in discovering what the subject contains as well
as giving to each aspect and element of the subject its
proportionate importance. Arrangement further helps to
give the speaker inspiration, for he must eXperience in
himself the effect he wishes to produce in others. Kidder
believes that without a carefully conceived plan, the
preacher cannot speak with a “true inspiration." Such a
preacher

proceeds at hazard, gropes in the dark,

advances and recedes, continually break-

ing the thread he is trying to unravel.

This uncertain, hesitating, out-of-breath

procedure is most contrary to inspiration

and that continuous movement which should

be as one single expiration from a powerful

chest. (156)
In Kidder's thought, therefore, Arrangement is important
beczause of its effect upon the audience, the sermon, and

the preacher himself.

The Overall Plan of Arrangement

Kidder sees as the two principal kinds of
A’i‘l‘angement or DiSposition the “Logical" and the
“Oratorical“. "Logical diSposition has simple reference
to Order and symmetry. Oratorical disposition aims to
PrOduce an effect upon the mind and the will of the
heaKer." (156) Logical Arrangement, in Kidder's theory,
is governed by strict rules of either analysis or

SWthesis, while Oratorical Arrangement determines whether

12

analysis or synthesis or a combination of both of them
shall be anployed. Logical Arrangement, therefore, is
seen by him to be the basis of Oratorical Arrangenent.
Kidder notes that the oratorical cannot violate logical
principles but may choose between different forms of
logical developmmt. Oratorical Arrangenent may, there-
fore, determine if the process will be inductive or
deductive, analytic or synthetic: and if analytic, the
Point at which the analysis will actually begin.
“Oratorical disposition determines whether to exhibit the
J-°9:l.cal framework of the discourse in the whole or in
part, or to conceal it beneath the drapery of language
01‘ the living organisms of ideas.“ (157)

Kidder further notes that practice in Logical
Arrangenent is an excellent preparation for oratorical
effootivuiess. He warns, however, that a rigid following
°f legical forms in speaking "would chill the very soul
‘35 eloquence.“ (157) “In short, logic is essential to
°ratory, but oratory is superior to logic.“ (157)

Oratory maintains this superiority because the sermon
begins with the hearer in a state of indifference and it
“awakens his attention, then conquers his prejudices, and
pmteeds to enlist his sympathies, arouse his feelings,
sec311's the decision of his will, and to demand action."
(158) The purpose of Oratorical Arrangement, according to

Kidder. is to develOp the logical aspect of Arrangement

13

according to oratorical principles taking into account
basic elenents of concern in communication.

Kidder advises the preacher that in order to
secure oratorical progress in the sermon he should follow
the rules set dove: by Vinet in regard to such progress.
(Vinet advises the preacher to advance from that which
affects the understanding to that which affects the will:
from the abstract to the concrete: from _a priori argument
to a msteriorifl' and from the weaker argument to the
Stronger, noting that the stronger argument is that which
makes the most powerful impact on the will of the hearer.)
Kidder states that,

it is the office of disposition in oratory

to arrange ideas in accordance with the
dmands of our mental and moral nature:
and as truth is adapted to move the mind,
and the mind is constituted to be moved
by truth, so an arrangement for the most
apprOpriate and effective application of
truth must always be considered of vital
importance to the orator. (158)

Kidder sees a close relationship among the subject
and purpose of a particular sermon and the mode of treat-
ment, which is enployed by that sermon. "From the differ-
at classes of subjects and the correSponding designs

(Purpwegj of sermons, arise certain different kinds of

discussion or modes of treatment.“ (172) Whether or 301'-

 

1I_\ pgiori arguments refer to a kind of reasoning
“hid! makes uctions from principles which are regarded

as self evident, while _a_ steriori proofs are those
”00158 which are based upon experience.

14
the various kinds of discussions will have a precise
division must be determined by the individual case, in
Kidder's view for “each of these kinds of discussion may
sometimes require a division of the subject, while at
other times the subject may be more satisfactorily dis-
cussed without any formal division.“ (172) The followe
ing is a tabular view which Kidder sets forth to indicate
the relationships which he sees among the text of
scripture, the subject of the sermon, and the mode of

treatmen t :

TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE involve
The Subjects of Sermons

IN THE ARGUMENT, or development of the subject,

kinds of discussion, é‘gfitgzfigal
SUBJECI-s may have various e {Propositional
modes of treatment: .9. 4.Applicatory

1. Textual,
(1. Natural,
(2. Analytical,
(3. Synthetical:
Either xmn or DISCUSSION may be con- or
dnoted by (or without) Division. 2. To ical,
(1. By analysis,
(2. relations,
(3. illustration,
(4. eXhibition of
motives,
(5. statement of
proofs. (172)

Kidder classifies sermons according to their sub-
Ject and design (design here refers to purpose and not
8tl‘ucture). “matever form of sermon is thus produced may

be Classified, not according to the mode of treatment

15

adapted or the style of division employed, but according
to the subject and design of the discourse as a whole. "
On this basis Kidder classifies sermons as "eXpository,"
“hortatory,” “doctrinal,” “practical,“ and “miscellaneous
or occasional.“ In this type of classification modes of
treatment are subordinate to subjects, and styles of
divisions are subordinated to modes of treatment.

The specific purpose of a particular sermon has
important implications in terms of the classification of
that sermon and in terms of the overall plan of the sermon
as a whole, according to Kidder.

Vagueness in conceiving of an explicit

object for any sermon will lead to loose-

ness of construction and inefficiency of

result. Dullness in the invention, and

unskillfulness in the disposition of

materials, conduce to a similar end.

Preachers should, therefore, accustom

thanselves to see the end from the begin-

ning of their sermons, and to make all their

preparations converge to a given point, and

that point the impression of truth or duty
on the minds of their hearers. (174)

The Parts of the Seggon

Kidder enphasizes the necessity of careful
Planning in terms of both conceiving of the sermon as a
°°mp°site whole and in structuring its component parts.
Noting that some writers of homiletics have confused
"disposition“ with ”division,” Kidder maintains that dis-
POsition is better understoodas the genus of which

division 13 a subordinate species or branch. According

 

16

to Kidder, disposition covers the arrangement of the
entire sermon from the Introduction to the Conclusion,
whereas division is technically applied to the Argument
or Body of the discourse. Kidder believes that the plan
of the whole sermon must be laid out before the structur-
ing of its parts and details can be accomplished.

The reader should bear in mind that this

subject [the order of preparatior‘n is here

treated under the head of disposition, and

that the present work in no case reconmends

detailed composition in words until the

whole thought-work of the discourse is

planned. That being done, there appears

no valid objection to the subsequent com-

position of the entire discourse in the
apprOpriate order of its parts. (168)

In noting the various number of parts proposed by
the ancient rhetoricians, Kidder observes that the
taIdency of his day is to throw out those parts which are
nOrr-essential or of little value. “Partition,“ “Transi-
“0n.“ and “Digression,” for exatnple, need not be retained

!
Since the term “Argument“ aptly sums up what intervenes
between the Introduction and the Conclusion. Kidder
belileves, therefore, that generally the “law of disposition“
calls for an Introduction, an Argument, and a Conclusion
in the sermon.

The following is a tabulated view of the sermon
as a Whole in which Kidder indicates the mutual relation

°f all its parts:

17
The SERMON enbraces

The TEXT, The INTRODUCTION, The ARGUMENT, and
the coucwsron.

The INTMDUCTION leads from the text to the
argument.

The ARGUMENT develOps the subject by discus-
3193, often facilitated by division.

The argument is supplemented, applied, or
followed by The CONCLUSION.

"The distribution of matter, with reference to its adapta-

tion to the several parts, is the task of disposition.“
(173)

The Introduction

The basic purpose of the Introduction “is to pre-
Pare the mind of the bearer to understand and appreciate
the Subject of the discourse." (164) It is necessary
for the human mind to be prepared for new thoughts and
“Panhanent impressions.“ Since men need preparation for
the influence which the orator wishes to make upon them,
it 13 important that the speaker adapt his Introduction to
this end, for “to say first what should be said last or
1“tern-gem.ately is a serious error.“ (164)

Kidder makes a distinction between “formal“ and
“inEOnnal' Introductions. He designates as ”formal"
Intmductions those which appear in a form distinct‘from.
the body of the sermon. An ”informal" Introduction refers
‘0 an.luactua1 commencement'with the subject itself.“ (162)

The 13°Igmal Introduction may be omitted and the informal

18

used in cases where the subject is familiar and the audi-
ence need no preparation for the understanding and
appreciation of it. Even in such a case, however, the
spellker is advised by Kidder to move gradually into the
Subject of the sermon. “Hence, although omitting an
introduction proper, he a... introductory matter, or
matter in an introductory form.“ (163)

In occasions of great excitement, where both the
attention and the feelings of the audience are thoroughly
aroused. the formal Introduction can also be omitted.
similarly in a situation in which the preacher must make
haste and say a great deal in a short period of time
theta need not be a formal Introduction. Although noting
tihesg exception! to a formal Introduction, Kidder remarks
that ”with refermce to the sermon generally, as well as
to an oration, in ordinary circmstances a formal intro-
duction, or an exordium in prOper form, may be considered
app'1'Opriate, oftm essential.” (164)

In considering the “kinds“ and “qualities" of
Introductions, Kidder draws heavily on other rhetorical
and homiletical theorists. He sets forth the five kinds
of Introduction noted by Whately: the inquisitive: the
pa‘radoxical: the corrective: the preparatory: and the
narrative, and further notes that other writers include

th
e explanatory: conciliatory: argumentative: and apolo-
Static types of Introductions. “The truth is that there

19
18 no limit to the variety that good speakers may employ

in the introductions to their discourses.“ (165)

Kidder also notes that in discussing the qualities
which the Introduction should possess, Blair and others,
in the tradition of Cicero, state that Introductions
Should be “easy and natural: correct, without the appear-
ance of artificiality: modest, but dignified: calm in
manner, and, not anticipating any material part of the
subject.“ (165) Kidder also embraces the suggestion of
the French homiletician Claude that the Introduction
Shalld grow out of the subject and be in harmony with the
subject. as well as gradually bringing the audience to
the t-0pic of discussion. The Introduction should be
"brief, clear, cool and grave: engaging and agreeable:
naturally connected with the text: and simple or literal,
n°t figurative.“ (166) Kidder believes that among all
the qualities of the Introduction “the one comprehensive
quality suggestive of nearly all minor good qualities,
and Opposed to the more common vices of an exordium, is
Kati-hence, the quality of strict relevancy or fitness.“
”'66, The Introduction should be pertinent to the text,
the 8nibject, and style of discussion: the occasion and
its damends: the speaker and the audience: and its own
Wee as an Introduction.

Kidder suggests that the materials of the
Introduction may be drawn from the context of the text,

20
from a related subject, the importance of the subject
itself, from an opposite subject by way of contrast, or
from the circunstances of the Speaker or hearers. “The
chief difficulty is to select rightly, and skillfully
adapt the thought chosen to the object in view.“ (167)
Kidder euphasizes the necessity of unity in the

Introduction and he believes that in order for the
Introduction of the sermon to maintain the characteristic
0f unity it must have only one leading thought, and
ideally there should be no subdivisions of this thought.
It “Nat also blend harmoniously with the discussion of
the Sermon and be naturally and skillfully joined to the

AWilmer“; so that it may contribute to the total purpose of

the Sermon.

The Argument

Kidder defines the Argument of the sermon as
". . othe body or principal part of a discourse-mthat to
which the introduction leads and which the conclusion
1E0Howe.” (169) In a situation in which the formal
Introduction and Conclusion are omitted, however, the
Argument is the discourse itself. The function of
“Arringqnent” as applied to the Argument of the semon is
Been to determine the kind of discussion and the type of
divisicn that may be most apprOpriately anplOYed in the

Ar
gument. It should also be noted that the term

 

21
“Mgmuernt,” in Kidder's theory, is used in a rhetorical

sense and as such is generic in that it embraces the
elenents of both Logical and oratorical Arrangement.
For Kidder the specific object of a particular

Sermon detemines the mode of discussion to be used in
the Argument. He sets forth four basic modes of dis-
Guanion that he believes may be anployed in the sermon:
e“Planational, observational, prOpositional, and appli-
cational. Since the preacher finds his message in the
"0rd or God, his primary task is seen by Kidder to be
that of explanation, in which he explains the revealed
truth of the Bible to his hearers. He notes that the
8°°Pe of "explanation“ is very broad and includes narra-
tion. description, analysis, exemplification, comparison,
and Contrast. The use of “observation“ as a mode of dis-
cussion is defined as “. . .a means of illustrating truths
which are obvious or familiar, but which nevertheless
need to be presented in new combinations for special
Objects.“ (175) Since many of the truths which the
preacher presents are controversial, he often finds it
neceBsary to danonstrate than by reasoning and testimony,
and 1n such instances Kidder sees the need for the pro-
p081-"¢:l.onal discussion. The applicatory discussion in-
volves a continual application of the truth to the con-
Science and life of the bearer. The precise time Of mode
to be used in a specific semon is to be determined by

t
he nature of the subject, the character of the audience,

22
and the special purpose of the sermon.
Of the four modes of discussion noted by Kidder,
the “propositional“ receives the most specific attention

in terms of its implications to the arrangement of the

l

Argument. To begin with, the prOpositional discussion

"requires the principal truths of the text or subject to
be Stated in the form of one or more propositions for
denonstration.” (184) Kidder gives the following rules
for developingthe arguments of the discourse which are to
Pme the prOposition:

1. Avoid blending arguments that are dis-
tinct in their nature.

2. Let arguments of different degrees of
strength advance in the order of climax.

3. Display clearly and distinctively argu-
ments that are strong and conclusive:
those that are doubtful may run into
one another for mutual support.

4. Do not extend arguments too far, nor
multiply than too much. (186)

Kidder also notes that arguments do not need to be
numbered or stated in a formal manner but ". . .it is
essential to arrange than properly as well as state them
meal51y, since the force of reasoning depends hardly less
on the order than on the matter of proofs.“ (186) Kidder
\

apps 1'In his discussion of Arrangeuent, Kidder often
smears to be dealing with matters that might be con-
Althred to belong to the exclusive domain of Invention.
partc’ugh the treatment of logical proofs is technically a
Arm°f Invention, it has important implications to the
ing ganent of the sermon in that it deals with the order-
foreand structuring of materials. In this sense, there-
matt' it is perfectly logical for Kidder to discuss these
era of Invention under the subject of Arrangenent.

 

23
believes that the ”prOper order" of arguments are depend-
ent upon two principles: the state of the hearer's mind
regarding the subject, and the dependence of proofs on one
another. When the preacher speaks to a believing audience
Where his purpose is to confirm and strengthen their
beliefs, Kidder believes that the weaker arguments should
precede the stronger. If opposing ideas need to be re-
fut°do however, the strongest arguments should be advanced
first for innuediate refutation. In such a case some
“mug arguments should be reserved for the close of the
Sermon or the arguments recapitulated in reverse order so
that a strong, lasting impression can be made on the
heaters.

Kidder believes that the student of homiletics
must not be contmt merely to know a correct theory of
89mm“! construction, but should engage in practice with
various kinds of discussion and with the types of divisions
which logicians and orators have elaborated as a means of
"deVQloping and impressing" the truth. In the natural
practice of arranging the Argument of the sermon, Kidder
91"“ heavy anphasis to “generalization" as “the first
legitimate work of disposition. . ."(196) In homiletics
generalization is the deduction of a specific thene from
a text of scripture. In its broadest sense, and generally
for the purpose of exposition, it seeks the meaning of
the tQXt as a whole. “ (197) "Generalization" groups to-
gather all the essential ideas of the text and condenses

‘

 

24
than into a comprehensive state'nent known as a "categori-
cal“ or “direct“ preposition. This work of “generaliza-
tion“ is seen as indispensable to the unity of the sermon
in that it helps to define the limits of the sermon and
often suggests the best mode of treatment. ”It is there-
fore recommended as an invariable rule to employ general-
ization upon the text as a primary process of disposition,
and as a means of fixing upon the precise subject of the
Sermon proposed.“ (197)
Kidder suggests that when the subject of the text

18 determined and the kind of discussion chosen through
the Work of ”generalization,“ the next step is analysis,
Which he sees as the practical equivalent of “division.“
nD:‘-Vil~8.‘l.on for rhetorical purposes is practically a
Bystenatic mode of definition. It shows us what belongs
t° a subject by bringing into distinct view its several
elemGuts." (198) For Kidder, “division“ is the Opposite
cf "generalization“ in that “generalization disregards the
differences between individual parts or elements, and
anbraces only the properties they have in common.
Div“Eton resolves the generalization into individual parts,
and Sets forth their reSpective differences.“ (198)

The distinction between these two Operations is suggested
as follower“. . . generalization traces affinities down-_
Ward Or inward to a common center, while division from a

Como“ center traces differences outward." (199) Kidder

25
sets forth the following rules to be anployed in division:

1. Let the theme to be divided be single,
and let but a single principle of divi-
sion be followed.

2. Employ that principle of division which
is best adapted to the special design of
the address.

3. Let the divisions be few in number, and
expressed with clearness and brevity.

4. Nevertheless, the divisions of a subject
should be comprehensive, and if practicable
exhaustive, that is, embracing parts which
equal the whole.

5. Divisions should be coordinate, that is,
of the same rank or class, avoiding the
confusion of particulars with generals or
species with genera: for example, oaks
and elms with trees, roses with flowers,
etc.

6. Divisions should be well arranged: not
always in the same order, but always in
correSpondence to each other, and with a
view'to mutual dependence and support. (200)

In connection with the rules which are set down
f°r divisions, the “leading principles of arrangement" in
a Sermon are “1.) the order of nature, including time,
cx’“"'-1<3‘uity, progress, etc.: 2.) the order of climax, and
occESionally anticlimax: 3.) the order of augmenting
fol“so.“ (201)

Kidder recognizes the “textual“ and “tapical“ as
tw° types of divisions which can'be employed in the
Argument of the sermon. ”Textual division resolves the

mfi 31:: a text into the principal heads of discourse“

(201).. In this method the text is regarded as the theme
0

f the sermon, and generalization is employed to reduce
t

he theme to its briefest form of statement. Kidder

b .
Qlieves that the textual method is best applied to texts

 

26
containing "precepts,“ "commands," "promises," "warnings,“
and ”facts."

Kidder breaks down the textual style of division
into the "textual natural," the “textual analytical," and
the “textual synthetical" methods. The "textual natural"
method is seen to be best suited to those texts of
scripture in which distinctions of ideas already exist
and require only to be noted. In the “textual analytical"
method the important points of the text are brought out
bY means of interrogation, the answers to the questions
posed to the text becoming the divisions of the Argument.
The ”textual synthetical” method of division ". . .results
from a statanent of the meaning or subject of different
parts of the text in other words than those the text
finploys, and without reference to apparent ana1Y313o yet
1‘”ing a real basis in the words of the text.“ (206)

When Kidder speaks of "tepical division," he uses
the term “tOpical" as relating to the subject of the
89mm rather than to any formal list of tapics, which he
feels would be artificial and cumbersome. Topical divi- '

sion“. . . is simply that in which the tOpic derived from a

t
ext is made the subject of division, without reference

t
o the Words of which the text is composed-" (203’

K
idder feels that tepical division in the sermon has the

ad
vantage of being conducive to variety in preaching as

w
811 as Promoting unity in the sermon. He believes that

 

27

tepical division should be used in a situation where
textual division would result in a large number of dis-
jointed ideas, or where the thought of the text would be
more effectively set forth in language other than that of
the text. The preacher's judgment and discretion deter-
mine which method of division, textual or tOpical, shall
be used with a particular text.

Kidder sees the divisions of the sermon as stands
ing in something of an auxiliary relation to the substance
Of the sermon by functioning to give greater clearness
and unity to that substance. The combinations which
Sadat between discussion and division are set forth as
fellows:

1. Explanatory discussion anploys textual
division in all its forms, and tOpical
division by analysis.

2. Observational discussion employs tOpical
division by relations and by illustration.

3. Frapositional discussion enploys tOpical
division by the statement of proofs and
the exhibition of motives.

4. Applicatory discussion combines readily
with every form of division. (214)

Kidder indicates that the process of constructing
the divisions of the sermon has implications which affect
all of the rhetorical elements in preaching. As part of
the total task of disposition or arrangsnent in the
Sermon, division also aids the preacher in completing
his work of Invention. Ability in division enables the
PreaCher to map out the area of thought he wishes to

treat, and to construct the basic framework of his argument.

28

The style of the sermon is also aided, for “division, thus
enployed in advance, contributes greatly to the facility
and.correctness of composition, whether in writing or in
Speaking.“ (215) Kidder further sees the divisions of
the sermon as being an aid to the menory of the speaker,
which is of particular help in delivery, as well as con-
tributing to the understanding of the sermon by the audi-
ence.

By way of warning, Kidder advises the speaker
aagainst abuses of divisions such as being preoccupied with
Particulars which gives rise to minuteiess: excessive
el'miueration which overburdens the memory of both speaker
and hearer: the inherent defects of monotony, disunity,
and lack of symmetry: and a detailed statement of the
Plan of the Argument which makes that which follows seen
repetitious.

The problem of whether the divisions of a sermon
are to be formally announced is seen to be determined on
the ground of “rhetorical prOpriety.” If such a statenent
18 to the advantage of the sermon, it should be made. The
fellowing rules are given as guidelines for determining
WhEther or not the divisions will be announced in a

Particular situation:

1. On plain tOpics, where the minds of hearers
can readily follow the course of thought,
the announcement of divisions is super-
fluous.

2. In treating upon abstract and difficult
subjects it is essential to define our
intended course, and often at least to

29

erect landmarks to enable our hearers
to know the progress they are~making,
and in due time to retrace their steps.

3. Granting that in given cases announce-
ment is called for, we must choose be-
tween the different kinds [modes of
announcement] in view of‘dhe principle
of rhetorical adaption, having due
reference also to that of variety.

4. We should study to make our divisions
tend to moral and spiritual ends as
well as merely rhetorical results.

5. Finally, if we err at all in this matter
of announcing divisions it is better to
err on the side of plainness and logical
simplicity rather than on that of mazy
indefiniteness. (220-221)

The Conclusion

The Conclusion is considered to be of greater
importance in preaching than in any other type of oral
doiacourse, especially because preaching seeks to get men
to act on the most important issues of life. Since audi-
ences hearing sermons often cannot act on what they have
learned until a long period of time elapses, Kidder
believes it is essential that the impression made upon
their menory and convictions be definite and lasting.

"A sermon without application is worthless“ (222),
and it is in the Conclusion that Kidder sees application
as having a particular function. In sermons where
W has been continuous throughout, however,
Kidder feels that a formal or separate Conclusion is less
u«Tigel'ttly needed. In such a case recapitulation may be

aPPI‘Opriate, or in a case where the last argument in a

30
series is the most important, that argument may itself
become the Conclusion. If adequate application has not
been accomplished in the sermon, however, it is in the
Conclusion that such application must be made. “. . . The
design of a conclusion is to apply to the grand object of
the discourse whatever has been said in the foregoing
Parts, and to intensify its effect by an enphasis peculiar
to itself.“ (224)

Since Kidder gives a primary emphasis to the
function of application in the sermon's Conclusion he
nO’ties several ways in which such application can be made.
(1) The Conclusion may contain “inferences," for “at the
end of a logical argument one or more inferences from the
POints proved are strictly in order. " (224) (2) The
Conclusion may consist of recapitulation. Recapitulaticn
is particularly adapted to explanatory, observational, and
applicatory discussion and enables the preacher to sun-
marize and impress the leading thoughts of the sermon
upon the hearer's memory. (3) “Appeal" is also a pos-
Sible elenent of the Conclusion, and in such a case
SPacific address may be made to various categorical types
Composing the audience in a direct appeal for action from
then. (4) ”Bxhortation" is also seen to have an effective

use in the Conclusion of the sermon.1

lAlthough ”appeal" and “exhortation“ might be
thought of as referring essentially to the same processes,
Kidder sees a distinction between them. He appears to conceive
° appeal" as having particular reference to attenpts at per-
”351°“. whereas "exhortetion" is seen to involve encouraging
those already convinced of Christian truths to experience
deeper faith and commitment.

31

Emotional appeal is seen as having a particular
function in the Conclusion, and he advises the preacher
to utilize various means of “exciting“ and “addressing"
the “feelings“ and “passions“ of the audience. To pre-
pare the audience for the emotional appeal of the Con-
clusion Kidder suggests that throughout the sermon the
preacher should prepare the audience for the “pathetic
appeals" of the Conclusion, for he believes that such
appeals are based on knowledge and conviction on the part
Of the hearers. Kidder further advises the preacher to
avoid indicating that his purpose is to “move the feelings"
of the audience. In the Conclusion the Speaker himself
must be possessed of real emotional feeling, and his
motions must rise and assume leadership over those of
his audience. The speaker should also use the apprOpriate
“thoughts and language of emotion." He should present
Particulars rather than general views of the subject and
8elect those points and aspects of the subject which will
Produce the emotional responses he seeks. “His language
Should be simple and unaffected, yet animated and glowing,
calculated to stimulate the imagination of his hearers
and to give it scope for action.“ (227)

Kidder notes that since it is good to maintain
the principle of climax in preaching, it is often effec-
tive to make the closing statement of the sermon some form

of devotional statement such as a particularly relevant

32

passage of scripture, a prayer, or a doxology. He further
teaches that whatever the Specific content of the Conclu-
sion, it should always have the characteristics of
variety, brevity, and power. In summary, Kidder states
that the prerequisites of the effective Conclusion are

a careful study of the prOper design, the

apprOpriate material, and the just limits

of this branch of discourse: a close

observation of the results of different

modes in application to different subjects,

and a persevering determination to attain
excellence at whatever eXpense of effort. (231)

W

(1) Homiletics is conceived by Kidder as a science which
encompasses all that pertains to the preparation and
Praotice of preaching.

(2) Homiletics can profit from the insights provided by
rhStorical theory, but its unique spiritual nature ele-
Vates it to a position which transcends the boundaries
and level of rhetoric.

h” Central to Kidder's view of preadhing is his belief
that the ultimate goal of preaching is the conversion of
men from sin and the instruction and edification of men
in Christian truth. Preaching has as its end both
adVoczacy and instruction.

“U Both Invention and Arrangement are seen as distinctive,

YSt inter-related, processes with both being essential to

33

the total impact of the sermon. Arrangement is seen as
complementing the process of Invention in that it acts on
the invented materials in order to shape them for communica-
tion purposes.

(5) Kidder emphasizes the importance of Arrangement,
believing that there can be no really effective sermon if
Arrangement is non-existent, and he sees a close relation-
ship between the arrangement of the sermon and the
POtential of that sermon to persuade and inform.

(6) There is a sense in which Kidder believes that
Arrangement has a bearing on the speaker's mental set at
the time of speaking, for he feels that Arrangement aids
the inspiration of the speaker since a well arranged

Sermon gives the speaker a feeling of confidence, direction,
and purpose.

(7) Kidder makes a careful distinction between "Oratorical"
Arrangement and “Logical" Arrangement. “Oratorical"
Arrangement. the type predominantly used in preaching, is
concerned with the desired effect of the sermon upon the
hear-er and thus takes into account both the logical and
Psychological elements involved in persuading and instruct-
ing, Kidder places euphasis, therefore, upon the type of
Order within the sermon which has particular influence

Upon the “will“ of the hearer.

(8) The determining factors regarding the arrangement of a

Particular sermon, as well as the general mode of treatment

34
and classification of that sermon, are (l) the subject,
which is derived from the text, (2) the purpose of the
sermon, and (3) the audience addressed by the sermon.
(9) Kidder prefers to view the sermon in terms of an over-
all plan, and he considers the parts of the sermon in terms
of their own particular functions in contributing to the
total effect of the sermon.
(10) He sees the total sermon as functioning in three
stages or parts: the Introduction, the Argument, and the
Conclusion.
(11) The Introduction is viewed in a functional sense in
terms of what it is to accomplish in preparing the hearers
for the subject of the sermon as develOped in the Argument.
(12) The function of Arrangement in the Argument of the
Sermon is to determine the kind of discussion and type of
division that should be employed in light of the sermon's
Bubled: and specific purpose.
(13) The principles determining the order of proofs with
1“ the Argument of the sermon are the effect of the order
“13°“ the audience and the dependence of the proofs upon
each other.
(14) The divisions of the Argument are seen by Kidder to
grow Ont of a generalization of the ideas contained in the
biblical text and placed into the form of a proposition.
The analysis of this generalization constitutes the

division of the Argument.

35

(15) The divisions of the semen are determined by the
purpose of the sermon: and they should be comprehensive,
coordinate, distinctive, few in number, and placed in an
order determined by the subject, the audience, and the
nature of the arguments.

(16) The text plays an important role in the division of
the sermon's Argument, for the treatment of it determines
whether the sermon will be deve10ped textually or topically.
(17) Kidder's belief that preaching is to instruct and
move the bearer causes him to assign great importance to
the function of the sermon's Conclusion which is to apply
to the lives of the hearers. that which has been develOped
in the sermon.

(13) Emotional appeal is seen by Kidder as having a parti-

cular function in the Conclusion of the sermon.

CHAPTER II

WILLIAM GREENOUGH THAYER SHEDD'S CONCEPTION OF‘ 'ARRANGEMENT'

William Greenough Thayer Shedd1

w. G. T. Shedd was born into the family of a
Congregational minister on June 21, 1820 in Acton,
Massachusetts.2 His earliest schooling was received in
Acton: but in 1831 when his father was called to a
Pastorate in Willsboro, New York, he entered a college
Preparatory school at Westport, New York, and in 1835 he
entered the University of Vermont at the young age of

fifteen.
Upon graduating from the University of Vermont in

1839: Shedd moved to New York City where he spent a year
teaching. While in New York, however, he became active

in a Presbyterian church and felt called to the ministry.

‘—

 

homil lFor an extensive treatment of Shedd's life and

Rhet et‘--1.cal theories, see Wallace Stanley Dollack, “The

Ph D°r1cal Theory of William G. T. Shedd (unpublished
‘ ° dissertation, Northwestern University, 1962).

2"William Greenough Thayer Shedd," Appleton's
& Jo: dia of American Bi ra h , ed. James Grant Wilson
490 “ Fisk, v New York: D. Appleton 5. Company, 1888),

36

37
This sense of calling led him to enter the Andover
Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, and he received
the Bachelor of Sacred Theology degree in 1843.

From Andover Theological Seminary, Shedd went to
Brandon, Vermont to bec0me the pastor of the Congregational
Church. He served at Brandon for two years and on January
4, 1844 was ordained to the ministry. After leaving the
pastorate at Brandon, Shedd was appointed professor of
English literature at the University of Vermont, a position
Which he held from 1845 until 1852. From 1852 to 1854
he was professor of Sacred Rhetoric and Pastoral Theology
1n the Auburn Theoloqical Seminary.

The period extending from 1843 to 1854 was one of
the most fruitful of Shedd's life in terms of his writings.
AJ-th‘mgh Homiletics and Pastoral Theology was not published
until 1867, the major portion of it was written in 1852
and 1853. Shedd's interest in rhetoric during this
period is indicated by the fact that in 1850 he translated

Francis Theremin's Elogggnce a Virtue, which included his
own forty-eight page “Introductory Essay."

In 1854 Shedd became professor of Church Hdstory
at AndOVer Theological Seminary and along With his “3“"
at the Seminary carried on an active preaching ministry
“”9 the churches of the area. During his stay at
AlWWW-3 certain theological disagreements began to emerge

w
“hi“ the Congregational denomination. Since Shedd's

 

38
theological position was essentially that of the older
Calvinism, a point of view which was increasingly on the
vans in Congregationalism, these disagreements caused him
to leave Andover in 1862, and he became the associate
pastor of the Brick Street Presbyterian Church in New York
City. He stayed at Brick Street Church until 1863,
when he was appointed professor of New Testament
Literature at Union Theological Seminary. In 1874 he be-
came professor of Systematic Theology at Union and con-
tinued in this position until poor health caused him to
resign in 189 3.

Shedd was honored with honorary degrees from the
University of Vermont and New York University. During his
lifetime he was recognized widely as an outstanding
8c3h€>3|-a1:'. His broad interests made him an authority in
English literature, rhetoric, homiletics, Biblical
Studies, church history, and systematic theology, and he
held a professorship in each of these areas.

Shedd died on November 17, 1894 in New York

911127. 3

 

3"William Greenough Thayer Shedd,” Dictiona of
loan Bi ra h , ed. Dumas Malone, XVII, (New York:

Charles Scribner's Sons, 1935), 56.

 

39

Approach to Homiletics and Preadhing

In distinction to Kidder's point of view regarding
the relationship of homiletics and rhetoric, Shedd notes
that “homiletics is the term that has been chosen to denote
the application of the principles of rhetoric to preaching. "
(38)1 For Shedd, homiletics is synonymous with sacred
rhetoric. He rejects the idea that there is any distinc-
tion in kind between secular and sacred rhetoric. Like the
secular oration, the sermon is an address to an audience,
and its purpose “is to influence the will and conduct of
the auditor.“ Shedd further states that

like the secular oration, it [the sermon]

is a product of all the powers of the human

mind in the unity of their action, and not

of the imagination alone, or of the under-

standing alone, and like the secular oration

it addresses all the faculties of the hearer,

ending with a movement of his will. (42)

Although Shedd does not see a distinction of LEE-EC}.
between secular and sacred rhetoric, he does feel that a
distinction of dare: exists. Shedd believes that sacred
rhetoric is comparatively more didactic in nature than is

secular, “The semen must be a perceptive discourse, and

\—

1‘I'he homiletical theory of William Greenough Thayer

511:2? 18 found in its most complete form in his book
Sch: et. 8 and P 3130 31 “19010 a (New York: Charles
ibner 5* Company, 1867 . References to Shedd's theory

are from this boo
and the a e numbers are indicated in
parent-113868. k, p g _

40
the information of the mind must be one of the chief ends
of sacred eloquence.” (41) As a result of seeing the
greater need for eXpesition and instruction in the sermon.
Shedd feels that the sermon has less of the "purely
oratorical element“ than does the secular oration. "The
sermon calls for more argumentation, more narration, more
doctrinal information, than secular discourses contain,
and hence, speaking comparatively, secular rhetoric is
more purely and highly rhetorical than homiletics.“ (42)
This difference is further described as follows: I

the sermon is more solid and weighty

in its contents, more serious an earnesn

in its tone, and more sober in its coloring,

than the deliberative, or judicial, or

panegyrical oration of secular eloquence.

It is a graver production, less dazzling in

its hues, less striking in its style, less

oratorical in its general character. (42)

Shedd not only sees a distinction between secular
rhetoric and homiletics in terms of the relative degree
Of instructive concern in each, but also indicates that a
difference exists with regard to the "sources of eloquence"
1n secular oratory and preaching. He believes that the
”“1138 of sacred eloquence lie deeper than those of
Bemil-er oratory. Since “eloquence is the product of
idea" Shedd conceives of the foundation of preaching as
being discovered in ". . .the range of ideas and the class
of truths from whichtit derives both its sub ject-matter
and its ingpuauon," (1) For him it is the revelation
o .

f G°d in the Scriptures that serves as the basic founda-

t
ion of preaching: and thus the task of preaChing. in

41
distinction to secular oratory, is to interpret and ex-
plain the Scriptures. Shedd also believes that the very
fact that preaching finds its foundation in the scriptures
gives an originality to religious speaking that cannot be
achieved in secular oratory. ". . .the sacred orator is
quickened by the analytical study of the sacred volume

into a freedom, freshness, and force, that are utterly

beyond his reach without it.“ (7)

Definition and Interpretation of Arrangement

 

Tomi of Arrangement

Shedd sees the functions of Invention and
Arrangement as interrelated to the extent that the process
Of arranging the materials of the sermon will often un-
cover weaknesses which exist in the invention of that
material. He notes that “it will sometimes occur. . .
that the endeavor to fill out the plan will reveal
faults, that were not seen while constructing it.“ (212)
Thus 38 the process of Arrangement serves to indicate
faults and weaknesses in Invention, so the process of en-
larging the skeleton of the sermon with invented matter
will indicate weaknesses in the basic construction of the
8ezlmon. In Shedd's theory there appears to be a recog-
nition of the distinct function of Arrangement as over
against Invention, Style and Delivery: but because of the

Close interrelationship and complementary relationship

42
which exists between Invention and Arrangement, he often
discusses matters that might be technically classified as

“inventional” under the topic of Arrangement.
The Importance of Arrangement

Shedd underscores the importance which he assigns
to the rhetorical canon of Arrangement by indicating that
the skillful arrangement of sermonic materials is a
”fundamental“ ability of the preacher. He notes that
since the preacher's task is

to compress the greatest possible amount of
matter into the smallest possible foam, and

in the most energetic possible manner... he
must possess the power of seizing instantane-
ously the strong points of a subject, of fix-
ing them immovably in a rigorous logical
order, and of filling them up into a full
rhetorical form, by such subordinate thoughts,
and trains of reflection, as will carry the
‘hearer along with the greatest possible rapid-
ity, together with the greatest possible
impression. This power of organizing united
‘with the other principal power of the orator,
that of amplifying to the due extent, is
imperatively demanded of the preacher, by the
active, clear, driving mind of the present age:
and whoever shall acquire it will wield an
influence over the public, either for good or
for evil, greater probably than could be
exerted by an individual in an age character-
ized by slower mental processes. (56)

The emphasis given to the importance of Arrange!“ent
in Sermonizing 13 further develOped in the discussion of
the "homiletical habit.“ In setting some “general maxims
for Belmonizmg," Sheddiists as the first'maxim,

ll .
Cultivate a homnetic mental habit." (107) He relates

 

43
this maxim directly to Arrangement when he states that

this homiletic habit will appear in a diSpo-
sition to skeletonize, to construct plans,

to examine and criticize discourses with
respect to their logical structure. The
preacher‘s mind becomes habitually organific.
It is inclined to build. Whenever leading
thoughts are brought into the mind, they are
straightway disposed and arranged into the
unity of a plan, instead of being allowed to
lie here and there, like scattered boulders

on a field of drift. (108)

Shedd gives three basic reasons for believing

that the preacher should give Special attention to the
arrangement of materials in his sermon. First, if the
Preacher speaks without a carefully developed plan, his

own mind will lose its logical and constructive ability.

H18 “organizing power“ will disappear. "No mind can be

methodical that does not actually methodize. No mind can

be constructive, that does not actually construct." (214)
se(Bondly, if the preacher neglects arrangement, he'will
tend to become rambling and diffuse in his preaching.
'“iawing no leading idea, branching off into natural ramifi-
cations, by which to guide his mental processes, they run
and ramble in every direction." (215) Thirdly, neglect
‘10 form a plan results in a "declamatory and hortatory"
style of sermonizing.

For Shedd the neglect of preaching carefully
aI‘I'anged sermons is actually a sin on the part of the
lPii‘eacher. “It is a sin, for the preacher to become a
Inez-e rhapsodist. It is a sin, if he is a mere rambling

babblex, It is a sin, if he is a mere declamatory

¥

44

exhorter. He is solemnly bound to be an orator, —- a man
who speaks on a method, and by a plan.“ (217) In dis-
cussing the importance of the arrangement of the sermon,
therefore, Shedd appears to indicate that the use or lack
of use of a carefully developed plan in preaching gives
eVidence of the true character of the preacher as well as'
the sermon. He believes that if the sermon is without
order and arrangement, the Speaker will lose energy and

Power through the presentation of material which is

basically irrelevant.

Classification of Sermon Types

Shedd believes that the simplest classification
cf sermon types results in grouping sermons as topical,
t“-extual, and expository. To him, sermons are always
Closely related to a text of scripture: and the classifi-
cation of sermons is determined, to a great degree, by
the particular structure of the sermon.

The tOpical sermon, according to Shedd, is more
Draperly an oration than either the textual or eXpository
sermons. Like an oration it has a definite theme that
can be clearly stated in a brief statement and “all of
its parts are subservient to the theoretical establishment
of but one idea or preposition. . .“ (145-146) Unity of
structure, therefore, is one of the'main characteristics
of the tOpical sermon, for it has but one leading idea or

definite subject, taken from a text, which is either

‘

45
formally announced in a proposition or pervades the entire

sermon without such formal announcement.

Since the topical sermon is seen by Shedd to be
most similar to the oration in terms of unity, symmetry,

and convergence to a single point or idea, it is to be the

model sermon species for the preacher. Shedd believes that

all semons should possess an oratorical character having

a single purpose, proposition, and doctrine. A sermon

"- . .should be a discourse that exhibits singleness of
aim, and a converging progress towards an outward practical
and.“ (146) Because he feels the topical sermon should
serve as a model for all sermons, Shedd notes that in a

sense both the textual and expository types of sermons

should be as tepical as possible} A textual sermon is

not made tOpical, however, by making the plan of the
Sermon a mixture of tOpical and textual by stating a
1-"-<>poica1 proposition and following it with textual divisions,

but rather by making the plan textual and the style and
m(“ferment of the sermon marked by the topical qualities of

uIlity, simplicity, and progressiveness.

\

n 1‘It is important to note that Shedd uses the term
tOpical" in two senses in explicating his theory. On the
°ne hand he speaks of the "topical sermon" which is one of
Elie three types of sermons which he recognizes. In a
roader sense, however, Shedd also uses the term 'Ftopical“
as an adjective denoting a characteristic which he believes
fVer-y sermon should possess. In one sense, therefore, it
as used as a noun denoting a group of sermons partaking of
Jertain qualities, while in the other sense it is an ad-
ective which should describe all sermons regardless of

gen eric species.

46
Shedd states that when constructing a textual or

expository sermon and making it tOpical, the preacher

". ..must aim to pervade it with but one leading idea, to

embody in it but one doctrine, and to make it teach but

one lesson.“ (147) It is the quality of unity that is

particularly stressed as the basic characteristic of the

topical sermon. It is this unity that he wishes the

preacher to impart to any type of sermon he constructs.
Shedd gives special emphasis to this concept because he
believes that “, , ,sermons are more defective in respect

to unity of structure, and a constant progress towards a

single end, than in any other respect.“ (147)

In the textual sermon a passage of scripture is
bJI‘Oken up into its component parts and either the main
Words or leading clauses become the basic heads of the

Sermon. Shedd indicates, however, that the exact words

Of the text do not always have to be used, for he class-
ifies sermons as textual when the substance of the text's

clauses, rather than its exact words, are made the main

heads of the sermon. Shedd sees as the two requisites to

a good textual sermon a significant text and a talent on
the part of the preacher to discover its significance.

ll
T113 text must contain distinct and emphatic conceptions,

to Serve as the parts of the division." (150) If such

explicit “conceptions" do not exist the text must at

leaat contain a number of “distinct positions“ or "affirm-

a ' ' '
t10113“ to serve as parts of the division. It is at this

47
point that the preacher's “homiletical mental habit" comes

into play as he attempts to discover the hidden skeleton

in the text.
Whereas Shedd sees the topical sermon as the type

which should make up most of the preacher's sermons, he
believes that the expository sermon should be the least
used. The expository sermon, according to Shedd, is an
earplanatory discourse, and its purpose is to develOp the
meaning of a portion of scripture in a more detailed
manner than does the textual or topical sermon. Although
the expository sermon is seen as the farthest removed
from the oration in structure and movement, Shedd never-
the-1688 believes that “an expository discourse should have
a 1°gical structure, and be pervaded by a leading sentiment,
38 readily as a topical sermon." (153) The expository
Seli‘mon should be more than just a biblical commentary and
thue should attempt to be as topical as possible by
SeJ-ecting for exposition a passage of scripture which is
complete and unified with one leading teaching. Shedd
nOt-es, however, that even when a suitable passage is used,
the preacher needs to give careful attention ". . .to
anPloy his strongest logical talent, and his best
rhetorical ability, to impart sufficient of the oratorical

f°nn and spirit, to the expository sermon.” (155)

Arrangement and the Text

In examining the principles upon which Shedd

48
classifies sermons as well as the general plan of arrange-
ment regarding individual sermons, it becomes obvious
that the text selected for the sermon is an important
element in his concept of Arrangement. He believes that
the sermon is always to be founded on a passage of
scripture and that this text contains the subject of the
sermon and thus pervades the entire structure and organiza-
tion of the sermon. It is the text that constitutes the
body of the truth that is to be presented to a particular
audience. The text is also the determining factor in
selecting the type of sermon to be used in a particular
instance for the text will lend itself to either a topical,
textual, or expository treatment. The divisions of the
semen are also related to the text in that they are to
be develOped from within the text. Skill in selecting the
text is also of great importance to Shedd since he believes
that Arrangement does not merely consist of placing
material in some order but also relates to the matter of
text selection in order to provide for the best orderly
arrangement. The preacher also needs to use judgment to
Select the particular outline, out of the many excellent
outlines that might be potentially resident in a given
teXt. which he wishes to use in the sermon. The text,
therefore, conceived by Shedd in these many relationships,
becomes one of the most important factors in his theory

of
germ(mic A rrangement.

 

49
The Overall Plan of the Sermon

Shedd believes that an overall plan for the
sermon should be formed before the actual composition of
the sermon begins. He finds the basis for the type of
arrangement to be used in a given sermon in the approach
to the scriptures which the preacher takes and thus upon
the three Species of sermons. The nature of the scripture
passage together with the preacher's immediate purpose
generally determines the type of treatment to be used.
The preacher, therefore, is to select the best scheme of
construction possible before beginning his initial compos-
ing. If a “general distribution“ method of arrangement is
to be used, the sermon is topical. If the main clauses
and leading words of the text are to form the divisions,
the sermon is textual. In the expository sermon the
preacher logically or chronologically will unfold the
teachings of a longer passage. Shedd notes that in terms
Of the overall plan of the sermon, regardless of the
SPECIes of the sermon, it should be “a rounded and sym-
m8trical discourse, pervaded by one idea, breathing but
one Spirit, rushing forward with a uniformly accelerating
“mu-On. and ending with an overpowering impression and

influence upon the will.“ (148)
The Parts of the Sermon

In distinguishing the parts of the sermon, Shedd

 

50

applies the same maxim as was used in delineating the

different species of sermons. "The distinctions should be

simple, generic, and as few as possible.” (179) On the

basis of this principle, he adopts the enumeration of

Aristotle and sees the sermon as having four parts: the

Introduction, the PrOposition (Statement), the Proof, and
the Conclusion,

The Introduction

Shedd defines the Introduction as ". ..that part

of the sermon which precedes the proposition and the
proof.” (179) He believes that the Introduction and
Conclusions are secondary parts of the sermon with the
primary parts being the PrOposition and the Proof. He
quotes Aristotle in this regard as saying that “‘it is

absolutely necessary that a discourse should state

something, and prove it.” (179) Shedd believes that the
Proposition and the Proof of a sermon would have some
Positive value even if they stood alone, whereas the

Introduction and Conclusion standing alone would be
wOrthless.

The Introduction is conceived as being ”prepara-
t0137" in nature. "It does not lay down any truth: it
(begin?- establish any doctrine: it Simply prepares the
way for the fundamental parts, and necessary matter, of

the discourse," (180) Shedd notes that whereas part of

51

the preparatory function of the Introduction in secular

eloquence is to conciliate the hearers toward the speaker,

to remove prejudices and arouse sympathy with him, in
sacred eloquence there is no need for an Introduction
with this purpose. "The preacher, unless he has been ex-
ceedingly unfaithful to himself and his calling, may
presume upon the goodwill and the reSpect of his auditory,

and need not waste time or words, in endeavoring to

secure a favorable attention to himself, as a man.“ (180)

Shedd notes, however, that it is often necessary for the
preacher in the Introduction to conciliate the audience

to the subject at hand. This is particularly true

if his theme is a very solemn and awful

one, if the proof and discussion of it

lead to those very close and pungent trains
of thought, which are apt to offend fallen
human nature, it is well for the sermonizer
to prepare the mind of his auditor for this
plain dealing with his heart and conscience.

(180-181)
Shedd believes that the general function of the

Introduction “is to exhibit the text in its connections,

and to explain its less obvious meaning." (181) He

further notes that while some theorists assign the above
mentioned function to a separate part of the sermon called

"the eXplanation.” it 13 better to regard it as belonging

to the Introduction. ", , .It is better to define the

introduction as consisting of all the matter. be it con-
Ciliatory. or explanatory, or both, which prepares for

the necessary and fundamental parts of the sermon.-"the

52

proposition and its proof.“ (181)

In considering the length of the Introduction,
Shedd observes that it should be in prOportion to the
general length and structure of the sermon as a whole and
as snush should be short. Brevity is seen as the distin-
guisrning characteristic of the Introduction, for when the
Intrcuduction becomes too lengthy, often "the consequence
is, tflaat.the theme itself is not handled with any
strength or firmness of grasp, and the long labored
introduction only served as a foil, to set off the brevity

and inferiority of the body of the discourse.“ (182)
The Proposition

The Proposition of the sermon is seen as ”. ..the
enunciation of the particular truth which is to be estab-
lished. and applied, in the sermon.“ (183) This defini-
tion can be further amplified by noting the following
CharaCteristics which Shedd assigns the Proposition:

(11 ) The PrOposition should be stated positively
and affirmatively.

C 2 ) It should be stated in the most concise
manner possible.

( 3 ) It should be the condensation and epitome
of the whole sermon and thus be character-
ized by the utmost "density" of meaning.

(‘4 ) It should be stated in a most straight-

forward manner, not dogmatically but with

53
a strong confidence in its truth. “A
weighty conciseness, and a righteous
boldness, ought to characterize the
terms, and the form of the proposition.“
(183)
( 5) It should be carefully worded and
phrased. “As a constituent part of the
skeleton, it should be purest bone.“ (184)
Although Shedd Speaks of the proposition as a
definite and distinct statenent which follows the
Introduction and precedes the Proof as a visible,
chronological part of the structure, he also notes that
a sermon does not necessarily have to contain a formal
and verbal Proposition. In such a case the PrOposition
is seen as being implied in the body of the sermon and
W(We?! into the Proof and discussion of the sermon. If,
however, a sermon does not have a PrOposition either
expressly or by implication, it is not topical in nature.
Shedd feels that it is best for the preacher to
Vary the structure of his sermons by utilizing both
modes of the proposition. He believes that the stating
°f a formal PrOposition week after week gives an air of
3M‘finess and formality to preaching. He cautions the

preacher. however, to take care that when a formal

Pr”wait-ion is not stated, there is no doubt in the

hearer's mind with regard to the real and positive teach-

ing °f the sermon.

54

If therefore, a sermon contains no outward
and formally announced prOposition, it
should contain an inward and organic one,
all the more: and the whole mass of its
argumentative, and illustrative matter,
should have even a plainer reference, and
a stronger drift in one direction, than

when the prOposition has been verbally enun-
ciated in the beginning. (186-187)

The Proof

According to Shedd's theory the Proof constitutes
the very substance of the sermon and, thus, is the most
important part of the discourse ”. . .because it is that
part, for the sake of which the discourse itself is com-
Posed.“ (187) Shedd believes that the Proof is of prime
11nportance because as the argumentative part of the
sermon it seeks to establish some truth and produce con-
viction. Separated from the Proof of the sermon, the
Introduction, Proposition, and Conclusion are worthless.

‘The Proof, as a part of the total sermon, is it-
self d1V1ded into parts called “heads“ or “divisions".
Basic to Shedd's concept of the Proof and its divisions
are two qualities which he believes should characterize
the divisions. (l) The divisions of the sermon must
”33933 a “true logical force,“ and all must contribute
to the establishing of the Proposition so that “at the
Conclusion of each head or division of proof, the auditor
ShWJ-d feel that the proposition has received an addition-

a
l. and real support." (187) (2) Each division ought to

55
exhibit a "distinctive character“ by itself. The division
should not contain elements of proof found in other
divisions but must be a distinct and additional contribu-
tion to the total argument. Shedd believes, therefore,
that only the leading arguments should appear in the sermon
for “the preacher should seize upon the few prime arguments,
and exhibit to the pOpular audience only the capital proofs'.‘
(188) The importance assigned to these basic qualities of
divisions is suggested:
A close attention to these two funda-

mental properties, in the heads of proof, is

indispensable to good sermonizing. If a

particular argument, in support of a proposi-

tion, is not genuinely demonstrative, and

distinctly demonstrative, it should not con-

stitute a part of the proof. All arguments

that do not, so far as they reach and relate,

really evince, and afford new elements of

conviction, ought to be energetically rejected.

(188)

Shedd applies the above two maxims in discussing
the number of divisions which should constitute the Proof
0f the sermon. The application of the two principles to
a Particular instance will insure the correct number of
divisions. for if the Proof is constructed without regard
to its intrinsic worth and strength, the divisions will
be 1100 numerous for "the nature of oratory.“ Shedd believes
that the Problem of "too many divisions" can be avoided if
the preacher asks, with regard to each division, "'Does

t
his proPOSed head really tend to prove the preposition,

an
d does it afford a positively new item of proof, that is

 

56

not contained in any head?” (189)

Although he applies some basic principles to the
question of the number of proofs to be employed in a
given sermon, Shedd does not set down any strict rule
with reapect to the number of divisions to be used. He
does note, however, that some rhetoricians say that the
number of divisions should not exceed five. The basic
concern in this regard, as it is with all of the matters
of sermonizing, is simplicity. “It is better to amplify
one first-rate argument, than to present two mediocre ones,
in the same place. " (190) The basic advice which Shedd
gives to the preacher in regard to the number of divisions
is “amplify rather than multiply.“ This advice also
relates to what Shedd teaches with reSpect to the choice
of arguments, for he believes that proofs which are
genuinely and distinctly demonstrative are the only ones
that can be amplified and cannot be multiplied.1

Shedd further applies the principle of genuineness
and distingtness to his theory of the division's sub-
divisions. The subdivisions must also have a real and

_

a lThe elements of genuineness and distinctiyegggg
re Seen by Shedd to refer to the ability of an argument
WhiTake a real contribution to the proof of the Proposition
e avoiding overlapping with other proofs. These
ements insure comprehensive and complete proofs capable

of fun amplification.

 

57
distinct emphasis and should avoid repeating each other
in any degree. He further notes that the choice and number
of subdivisions should be determined by the same principles
as are the principal divisions, and, also that subdivisions
should not generally be formally announced by the Speaker.
”They should be so forcible, and marked, in their
character as to announce themselves. Generally Speaking,
a subdivision that would not attract the attention of a
bearer, by its own weight and worth, should be omitted."
(191)

Although Shedd feels that the principal divisions
of the Proof should be clearly marked, he does not believe
that they should be pre-announced by the preacher at a
time early in the sermon. He teaches that ”recapitulation”
0f the divisions at the close of the arguments is superior

t° Dre-announcement, for recapitulation is more

"intelligible,” more "impressive,“ and more easily
renembered than pre—announcement. Recapitulation is more
intelligible because ”the full impact, and connection, of
an argmnent, cannot be perceived, until it has been un-
fOlded in its relations, and dependencies." (195) It 18
more impressive because “the accurate and rapid repetition
Of the argumants of a sermon, after they have been clearly
and co"infectedly exhibited makes a very strong impression
upon the hearer.“ (195) Recapitulation is more easily

rananbered because it is more intelligible and impressive.

58

Before leaving Shedd's theory of the sermon's Proof,
it is well to note some of the observations which he makes .
regarding the Proof of the “subject sermon:" that sermon
which contains no formally announced pr0position, although
having an internal and implied one. Shedd believes that
the Proof of such a sermon differs from a more formally
constructed discourse in that the logic and proof are less
formal in nature and less formally announced within the
Sermon. In fact, it is often customary to identify the
Proof part of the “subject sermon" as the "treatment“ or
the “discussion."

the qualities which should characterize the

discussion, or treatment, of a theme, are

substantially like those of the proof prOper.

There must be the same accumulation of

genuinely demonstrative material. As this

less formal develOpment of the theme goes

on. it should acquire additional logical

force, and produce a growing conviction and
understanding of the hearer. (194)

The Conclusion

Shedd sees the Conclusion of the sermon as having
the particular function of "application”. "The conclusion
is that part of the sermon which vigorously applies the
truth, which has been established in the proof, or
-d°"eloped in the treatment, or discussion." (196) Whereas
Shedd believes that the Introduction should be conciliatory
and eXplanatory in nature, he feels that the Conclusion
8hO‘ulld be applicatory and hortatory and as such be »

characterized by ”intensity" and “energy." The Conclusion

59
is the most vivid and impressive part of the sermon, the
place where the sermon reaches its "highest vitality.”
The Conclusion should be, therefore, a “vehement and
powerful winding up, and finishing of all that has pre-
ceded it.“ (197)

Whereas Shedd believes that secular oratory has
onlyrione species of Conclusion, the direct address, he
feels that the distinctive, didactic nature of preaching
allcnvs for the sermon to be concluded both by direct
address and by “inferences.“ Shedd gives two guiding
Priruziples to determine where an inferential Conclusion
18 to be employed. First, “the sermon should have an
inferential Conclusion, when the principal practical
fcNice of the prOposition, or the subject, is in the in-
ference from it,“ and secondly,“. . .when the proposition
and its proof, or the subject and its discussion, are
highly abstract in their nature." (198)

Shedd believes that the four basic characteristics
of idaferences made in the Conclusion are as follows:

(1) The inferences must be ”legitimate.” They
must come from the very substance of the
prOposition and be drawn from the
essentials of the subject and not that
which is merely incidental to it.

(2) The inferences must be "homogeneous.“

They must all be of the same kind, character-

ized by agreement and harmony.

6O

(3) The inferences must be “igtenselygpracticgl,”
being ". . . entirely free from a theoretic

aSpect, and from abstract elements.“ (202)

(4) The inferences must be ”ggmulative." They
should progressively build upon one another
with the strongest inference as the last
inference in the Conclusion.

When, therefore, it the Conclusion consists
of inferences, these should be of such a
nature, and so arranged, as to press with
more and more weight, to kindle with

hotter and hotter heat, to enlighten with
stronger and stronger light, to enliven

with intenser life, and to move with
more and more irrestible force. (203)

The Conclusion of "direct address“ is conceived as
being more strictly “oratorical" in nature than is the
inferential Conclusion. Whereas the inferential Conclusion
is Seen by Shedd as further contributing to the develOpment
°f the subject of the sermon while that subject is
being applied to the audience, he believes that the
Ccmclusion of direct address is simply and solely appli-
catOry with no additional deve10pment of the subject
invkilved, Such a Conclusion presupposes that the
Proposition and its Proof have exhausted the subject and
innit nothing remains but to apply the subject to the

hearers. It is not didactic in nature but purely

61
"oratorical" and "hortatorical" as it attempts to press
the theme of the sermon upon the "affections and will"
of the audience.
The Conclusion of direct address must, in Shedd's
viewpoint, be characterized by "appropriateness" and

"singleness." It must be "aoorooriate" in that it should

 

enforce the one prOposition or the one lesson of the
sermon. ”Every part, and particle, of the peroration
should be pertinent to the discourse as a whole.“ (205)
It must also be ”single,” that is, characterized by unity.
The Conclusion of direct address applies the specific
teaching of the particular sermon and that teaching alone.
Shedd emphasizes the necessity of such unity for he sees
the total sermon as ". . .a homogeneous composition,
developing one theme, and making a single impression."
(206) The Conclusion as an outgrowth of a unified sermon
as a whole should also maintain this unity.

Shedd believes that the preacher has a moral
responsibility to make a “plain and solemn" application
°f the subject of his sermon and to bring the truth
discussed to bear upon his audience. For this reason

aPpr'Opriateness and singleness should

Characterize the concluding address of the

sermon. Bringing all the teachings of the

discourse into a single burning focus, it

8h(fibuld converge all the rays of truth upon

a Single spot. That spot is the point in the
1"""’ailz‘er's soul, where the feelings and the
°°n8cience come tOgether. Any auditor whose
affections are rouses, and whose conscience
is Stirred, may be left to himself, and the

 

62

Spirit of God: and any peroration which
accomplishes this work, is eloquent. (208)

Conclusions

(1) Homiletics is viewed by Shedd as a term which desig-
nates the application of rhetorical principles to preaching.
Homiletics is sacred rhetoric, and any difference between
secular and sacred rhetoric is in degree only and not in
kind.

(2) The place of the Christian Scriptures is central to
Shedd’s homiletical theory. The scripture is the basic
source of the sermon, and thus preaching has as its task the
interzaretation and explanation of the Bible.

.(3) TTme function and purpose of preaching are the instruc-
tion and persuasion of the audience. This view of
Preaching as persuasive and informative discourse is
relateKi to the central position of the Bible in Shedd's
theory, for preaching is to instruct the audience in the
truth of the scriptures and then persuade them of that
truth.

(4) Shedd recognizes the distinct function of Arrangement
in relation to the other rhetorical canons: but because

0f the close and complementary relationship which he

finds exiating between Invention and Arrangement, he often
discusses matters that might be technically classified as
inventionel under the topic of Arrangement.

(5) An.‘n'lgement, in its broadest sense, is seen as the

63
gprocess of determining the structure of invented materials
and placing those materials in their proper sequence as govern-
ed.lw'the:particular Subject matter and the specific purpose
of the sermon. Arrangement also involves the functional
aspects of the parts of the sermon in order to give maximum
effectiveness to the message of the sermon as a whole.
(6) Shedd emphasizes the importance of Arrangement in the
sermon. He believes that the quality of the sermon's
arrangement helps to determine the ability of the sermon
to reach its goals. Shedd also feels that it is actually
a sin to neglect the arrangement of the sermon and thus
stresses its importance in relation to the character of
the preacher.
(7) Shedd classifies sermons according to the mode of
treatment which they give the particular Biblical text at
hand. On the basis of this method of classification, he
teadhes that a sermon is either tOpical, textual, or
exPository.
(8) The Biblical text is central to Shedd's concept of
Arrangement, for it constitutes the body of truth to be
ruesented and determines the type of sermon to be used.
The divisions of the sermon are also develOped from the
text, Arrangement, therefore, does not only consist of
Iflacing the material of the sermon in some order, but
“9° relates to the selections of the text in order to

Provide for the best orderly arrangement.

64
(9) The overall plan of the sermon is to be selected
after the preacher has chosen a text but before he begins
further preparation of the sermon. The structure of the
overall plan is fixed by the nature of the text in con-
junction with the preacher's immediate purpose in the
sermon.
(10) Shedd sees four distinct parts with in the sermon:
the Introduction, the PrOposition, the Proof, and the
Conclusion. Each of these parts has a particular function
in the sermon's total plan.
(ll) The Introduction and the Conclusion of the sermon
are considered by Shedd to be secondary in importance to
the PrOposition and the Proof. He believes that the
sermon could still exist if it consisted of only
Proposition and Proof, whereas the Introduction and Con-
clusion would be worthless in themselves.
(12) The primary function of the Introduction is to pre-
pare the audience for the subject which has been derived
from the text and is to be stated in the Preposition and
d“Wheat! in the Proof.
(13) The Proposition, as the statement of the particular
truth to be developed in the sermon, must not necessarily
be a Visible, chronological, and formally stated part of
the sermon but may be implied in the body of the sermon.
(14) Shedd sees the Proof of the sermon as its most

1
mportant part for, as the argumentative part of the

65
semen, it instructs regarding the truth of the sermon
and contributes the most to the actual persuasion of the
audience.
(15) Basic to Shedd's understanding of the Proof and the
divisions by which the Proof is develOped is his belief
that each of the divisions must genuinely and distinctively
contribute to the establishment of the sermon's proposition.
Each division and sub-division is to have a distinct
enphasis and should not be repetitive or overlapping.
None of the divisions of the Proof should be coextensive
with the subject or the proposition of the sermon.
(16) The primary function of the Conclusion is that of
application. The truth which has been develOped and
established throughout the sermon is to be applied to the

hearers' lives in the Conclusion.

CHAPTER III
JOHN MASON HOPPIN'S CONCEPTION OF 'ARRANGWENT'
John Mason Hoppin

James Mason Hoppin was born on January 17, 1820 in
Providence, Rhode Island. His earliest vocational
interest was in the law, and after graduating from Yale
in 1840, he entered the Harvard Law School and in 1842
received the Bachelor of Laws degree. After graduating
from law school, however, Hoppin became increasingly
conscious of a call to the ministry, and thus he left the
legal profession to train for the Christian ministry.

In preparing for a career as a clergyman, Hoppin
Spent two years at Union Theological Seminary in New York
City and one year at Andover Seminary, in Massachusetts,
where he received his theological degree. He continued
his training, after graduation from Andover, at the
Univer81ty of Berlin in Germany. Happin's years of
f“mal- education were followed by extensive travel,
Pmicfilarly in Germany, Palestine, and Greece.

HOppin was ordained on November 27, 1850 and in-
stal-IEd as the pastor of the Crombie Street Congregational
Church in Salon, Massachusetts, where he remained until
May 1859 and then resigned in order to spend fifteen

66

 

67

months traveling in Europe. Upon returning to the United

States in 1861, Heppin accepted the chair of Homiletics
and Pastoral Charge in the Yale Divinity School, a post
he held until 1879.

During his first two years at Yale, Happin served

as the pastor of the College Church. While at Yale his

reputation as a preacher kept him in constant demand

among the many other churches of the area. His fame as a

preacher and teacher is evidenced by the fact that in 1870
he was honored by Knox College in Galesburg, Illinois,
with the Doctor of Divinity degree.1 Although his

professorship was in the Divinity school from 1872 to

1875, Heppin lectured in the Yale Law School on Forensic

Eloquence. He also taught for one year, 1880, at Union

Theological Seminary in New York City.

In 1879 Heppin left his position in the Divinity

SChool to become professor of Art History in the Yale

School of Fine Arts. He held this chair for twenty years

and became professor emeritus in 1899. “The change of

occupation did not mean a lessening interest in religion:

for according to his theory art is a great moral influence,

__.__

 

“James Mason Heppin,“ Appleton's chogdia of
1;!“ ican Bi ra h ed. James Grant Wilson and John Fisk,
II New York: D. Appleton 5: CompanY: 1887) 2620

68
a power by which men may bring in the reign of truth and
light.“1
Along with his book on homiletics and pastoral
theology, which he later revised and deve10ped into two
books, Hoppin wrote extensively on subjects other than
homil etics, particularly the history of art. He also
delved deeply into Greek thought and published among other
works his Notes on Aristotle's Ethics in 1882.

Heppin died in New Haven, Connecticut, on November
15, 1906.

Approach to Homiletics and Preaching

Happin feels that it is best to consider “homiletics"
as “the application of the principles of rhetoric to
preaching the word of God, which is the end and aim of all

61ckinetics. " (24)2 He prefers to conceive of homiletics as

_n.

 

h 1 'James Mason Happin," Dictionagy of American Bio-
$29.2.

ed. Dumas Malone, DC, (New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons. 1932), 226.

2 The homiletical theory of James Mason Heppin is
found in its most complete form in the followin two books:
$119..er and wag; of the Christiaqjggist New York:
Sheldon and Company, 1869 : and Homiletics.%ew York:
add. Mead and Company, 1881). Page references in paren-

9993 are from the earlier volume. The later book is a
revision of the section on homiletics in the 1869 edition
ind, as Heppin notes in the preface, “it is greatly en-
arged. and, in some parts wholly rewritten. There is much
°f 1"- whilch is entirely new. " Hoppin's concept of
Erangflnent, however, has undergone little significant

c an‘39 in the 1881 edition. His theory as noted in this
:hapter, therefore, is generally as set forth in his
Sgtigicbmk. Where his viewpoints have changed or are

a“ t will be noted 1
fmtnOtes.t1y expanded, such informa ion n

69
a science which uniquely utilizes the insights of

rhetorical theory to the task of proclaiming the truth

of the scriptures.1

“Preaching” is seen as the act of ”heralding" the
word of God to man. Heppin does not believe that preach-
ing must necessarily be a technical “pepular address“ but
may be used to designate all kinds of “proclaiming," or
"publishing,“ of Christian truth. Although Hoppin says
that preaching is the“. . .m aking known, in any and every
way, the gospel to men," (23) it is apparent that he
Particularly has in mind the process of oral communication
in the total context of the public worship service.

There is a close relationship between the act of
preaching and the semen in Hoppin's view, for he states

that the sermon

combines the simple idea of 'preaching' or
'publishing the word of God,‘ with the idea
0f more thoughtful and systematic instruc-
tion of God's peeple in the truth. It has
essentially the character of a 'discourse',
combining, in however rude a form, analysis
and synthesis." (24)2

M‘

"th lIiOppin defines homiletics in his 1881 revision as

publeiscience that teaches the fundamental principles of

ing 0% discourse as applied to the proclamation and teach-

the divine truth in regular assemblies, gathered for
pu"-"pose of Christian worship. " (9)

plicauzaoppin expands this definition and includes an im-

editio on to the arrangement of the semen in the 1881

analysn When he notes that the sermon "...implies not only

or 33 is but Synthesis: and it presupposes a set discourse,

assenfired °rat1°na mama. delivered to an

of publy of Christian peeple brought together for the purpose
11° mrship.“ (11)

70

The general aim of preaching is “to make the truth
and love of God known to men: and, to persuade them to
obey it." (56) Specifically, the objects of preaching
involve instruction and persuasion. Hoppin believes that
preaching should be instructive in that one of its objects
is "to teach men divine truth. " He further notes that
"the didagig element, if not the chief element in preach-
ing, thus comes first in the order of time: for men must
know the truth before they can obey it.” (57) Preaching
must also have a persuasive element impelling men to
choose and obey the truth and it must also aim toward the
edification and improvement of men and the building up of
a living faith in them. The ultimate purpose of preaching,
therefore, is conceived as follows:". . .to set forth
divine truth, with such clearness, simplicity, love, and
dependence upon the spirit of Christ, as to build up men
in the whole faith and life of Christ -- to convert,

educate. and sanctify their souls. " (59)

.Defigitign and Interpretation of Arrangement

m; of Arrangement

In saying that ”W may be defined to be the
8E. 92 W and methodizing [arranging] the subject-
mm Lf a discourse,” (271) Hoppin indicates that he

places the functions which have traditionally been
assigned to the rhetorical canon of Arrangement to that

71
of Invention.1 He further develops this point of view
by stating that “Its[Invention's] primary idea is, to
discover, bring together, or supply the requisite
material of thought, from whatever source: its subordinate
idea, and one legitimately connected with it as far as the
proper uses of rhetoric are concerned, is the right
methodizing or arrangement of this material." (271)
Althmigh grouping them under the heading of "Invention,“

Hoppin sees two distinct functions taking place in the
preparation of the sermon. The first is the bringing

together and supplying of materials, and the second the
arrangement of materials. In a sense the issue seems to
he basically a semantic problen. Rather than formally
designating arranganent as a distinct canon, Hoppin pre-
fers to preserve its traditional function but to include
this function under the broad heading of " Invention. "

In considering the two functions which he assigns
to Invention, Hoppin treats the planning or arrangement
of the sermon as being secondary in importance to the pro-
cess of supplying the materials of the sermon. ”No true
sermon springs out of a plan," he writes, "but a plan

Springs out of study and thought, and is only a help in the

g.

 

hold 11n his later edition HOppin indicates that he
8121-130 only two designated rhetorical canons. "Rhetoric,
InVent Y considered, is divided into two principal parts,

( 673) ion and Style, or the matter and manner of discourse. "

72

orderly development of a sen-non." The plan is “but

0’
Is.

an. 6

l0]

1:2 flide and harmonize thought, not 23 original source f
thought” . . "( 68)

The Importance of Arrangement

Although Happin considers the act of planning the
sermon to be of lesser importance than that of selecting
and supplying the materials of the sermon, he nevertheless
believes that Arrangement is an important and indispensable
part of develOping the sermon. This fact is illustrated
in the discussion of the uses of reasoning to the preacher
where he indicates that one important use of reasoning is
to enable the preacher “_t_o_ develog 55231} in an orderly
manner. " He notes that in order for truth to have power,
it must have order and prOportion, and thus, since the
gOSpel is a system of truth, it must have an orderly
development if it is to have "its full influence of trans-
forming power upon the mind." Hoppin further notes that
"CONPaCt. orderly discussion should occupy the main body

Of almost every discourse from the ptflpito" (217)

Classification of Sermons

Hoppin attempts to classify sermons as simply as

Possible With particular regard to their "method of treat-

ment“. The following is an outline of his concept of the

Various tYpes of sermons, as well as the means by which

1:
hey are classified:

73
1. As depending upon the manner 2; treating the
£255:
6- Esrzssl:
b. ggpical:

c. Engsitogy, or exggetical-egpgsitogy.
2. As depending upon the manner gfi treating the

subject:
a. Doctrinal:
b. Ethical:

c. Metaphysical:

d. Hjstorical.
3. As depending upon the general rhetorical

treatment:

 

a. Arflmentative:
b. Meditative:

c. Descgiptive:

a. Hortatogy. (91)

The Overall Plan of the Sermon

Ehoppin's main emphasis with regard to the plan of
the Sermon as a whole, is upon the basic unity of the dis-
Cburse, This unity, implemented through the use of a
Single theme, is considered to be the guiding principle in
c:"”’3“:'37‘1C*-‘-ing every particle of the sermon:

eVery true work should have a plan, an inner

unity, some one idea to be developed, some

one aim to be attained: and that should guide

and shape every subordinate detail, to the
furthest and minutest ramification of the theme.

‘74

Hoppin does not conceive of the over-all plan of the
sermon as being restrictive in nature. He rejects stereo-
typed":L rigid plans and rules which he believes merely
served to limit freedom and creativity in preaching:

,,,the plan should not be made to restrain

or to confine the thought: it should regulate,

not repress: it should not be the frigid

application of the rule and square to every

sermon: but it is often useful as a method of

arranging thought, and of employin our

materials to the best advantage. 66)
For Hoppin, therefore, the plan of the sermon is an aid to
the preacher and a helpful means-to-an-end rather than a
binding, restrictive structure into which every sermon

Should be forced.

The Parts of the Sermon

The parts of the semon are referred to as "those
Welsmgts gf g discourse M ggmand attention
EMA-.6. 3,3; the process 9; constructing g sermon." (93)
Hoppin does not believe that these "constituent elements"
m‘3‘3‘33361‘11y have to be distinctly and formally evident in
every Sermon, but he does feel that they belong to the

K

Ho 1 11:: the later edition of his homiletical theory,
t pgdn Gives special aphasia to his oppositionto stereo-
tn; Plans. He notes that no two sermons ought to have
Semsarne plan but rather that the plan of a particular

on 81"lould be determined by the text or theme of that

Egon. “We would have every variety of plan -- indeed the
that gr e theme makes the plan: all we contend for is,
settinhere should be some clear and thoughtful method of

that ,9 forth truth to the mind.“ Hoppin goes on to state

Const ‘-othe plan should never be one of entirely artificial

nat rut=tion, or one superimposed upon the subject: but a
m Plan, or one growing out of the subject itself." (284)

 

75
structure and framework of every "intelligible discourse."
‘ Hoppin believes that every sermon must have at

least three parts, for he notes that any formal address
cannot dispense with an Introduction, an Argument, and a
Conclusion. "Every true discourse must have at least a
beginning, a middle, and an end: and the beginning and end
are naturally of less dimensions than the middle.“ (93)

The maximum number of divisions which Hoppin feels a

sermon can have is seven: the Text, the Introduction, the
Explanation, the Proposition, the Division, the Development,
and the Conclusion, and it is this seven part system which
he chooses to develop. He does not, however, believe that
in reality every sermon will have all seven of these parts.
The seven-part system is discussed in an attempt to
deveIOp fully the ideal sermon which he implies will have
all these parts. Hoppin believes that the text and theme
°f a Particular sermon will determine the number of parts
t0 be employed, but in no case will there be more than the
Seven Parts in a particular sermon. His (333136 is to be
exha‘IStive, covering all the possibilities, rather than
prescriptive and forcing every sermon into the seven part

System.

The Text

HOppin believes that the use of a text of scripture
i
n the Sermon not only helps to give divine authority to

76
the sermon but also serves to promote the unity of the
sermon, and introduce and limit the subject of the sermon.
A text must be chosen, therefore, which has a unity in it-
self. HOppin further notes that in the process of prepar-
ing the sermon, the preacher should choose the text for
the sermon before he chooses his subject in order that the
subject might Spring from the text. The text of the
sermon should be announced at the outset of the sermon and
Should be ". . .pronounced clearly, with some simple

preparatory remark introducing it easily." (117)

The Introduction

The Introduction of the sermon is conceived as
"meemeaiw. 292m
E 222-, fig £93; subjec ." Hoppins further notes that the
Introduction does not necessarily include all that is pre-
liminary to the PrOposition of the sermon by way of actual
exlolanat.‘l.on or the clearing up of difficulties "but it has
regard rather to the state of mind of the audience and the
Speaker. putting the Speaker in correspondence with the
audience, " This functional concept of the Introduction is
indicated when Hoppin more fully defines it as "a_]_=_]_._ that,
W £33; discussion .o_f_ the. subject, egg M _i_§
Weeesewwemhwe and
t~° m .theme." (121) Only that which contributes to
Securing the attention of the audience and orienting them

to
the Speaker and the subject is technically considered

77
by HOppin as the Introduction. He further illustrates
his concept of the Introduction by comparing it to the
doorway of a house:

. . .the introduction should harmonize with the

subject of the discourse, and not strike the

mind with incongruity: and as the door ought

not to be too large for the house, neither

should the introduction be so for the sermon.

Neither should the doorway be mean and narrow,

nor the introduction fail of an air of freedom

and simple elegance: and as the door is general-

ly placed in the centre of the building, in like

manner the introduction strikes the central

thought and purpose of the sermon. (118)

Hoppin believes that the necessity for the func-
tions of an Introduction in the sermon is founded in the
"very laws of the mind," in preparing the mind and lead-
ing it to the subject at hand. "The human mind, which, in
its healthy state, has a sense of dignity and self
respect, does not like to be hurried, or compelled to move
by another's impulse rather than by its own voluntary act:
it Will not be pushed, but may be drawn. " (122)

The three basic objects of the Introduction are
(1) to remove actual prejudices against the speaker: (2)
to Create a favorable regard for the speaker: and (3) to
create a favorable regard for the subject. Hoppin
SuggeSts that in order for the Speaker to utilize the
Intrcduction to remove prejudices against himself, "...he
is to feel his way through the subtle, popular prejudices,
and dispel them, if they are unjust, without, perhaps,
seeming to do so.“ (123) The Speaker is cautioned,however,

78
not to remove such prejudices by making direct allusions
to himself but by”. . .indirect suggestions of the intrinsic
importance of the theme, of the imperfections of preachers
and of men, and of the perfection of truth. " (123)

Hoppin further believes that the preacher having
thus removed prejudices towards him, should use the
Introduction to create a favorable impression for himself
by beginning modestly, not promising his hearers too much,
and indicating an interest in the good of his hearers and
yet avoiding flattery. "He should endeavor, in a simple,
manly way, to bring himself into sympathy with his audience,
and to gain their good will and willing hearing: and to be
modest, to be in earnest, is the best way to effect this."
(123)

HOppin not only considers the Introduction to have
the function of increasing the speaker's own personal
appeal but he also advises the preacher to attempt to
create a favorable regard for the subject in the "Intro-
duct-.1031. Hoppin feels that to accomplish this the
Speaker should (1) state the intellectual advantages to be
gained from a discussion of the subject: (2) note the
relationships of the subject to other "more practical"
SpiritUal truths: (3) make some "historical allusions" to
Create interest: (4) indicate how the subject bears upon
the welfare of the audience: and (5) set aside false im-

Press-tons which the audience may have about the subJeCt-

79
The ideal qualities of the Introduction are
regarded as simplicity, modesty, "fitness," and "suggest-
iveness.“ To insure the quality of simplicity, Hoppin
advises the preacher to (I) avoid abstruseness, for
thought too difficult and deep discourages attention: (2)
avoid too earnest argument: (3) avoid too impassioned and
imaginative language because "appeals to feeling are
generally altogether out of place in the introduction: for
what begins in excited feelings may end either in frenzy
or in the depths of bathos," (126): (4) avoid indirect-
ness of thought or style by coming straight to the subject:
and (5) avoid making the Introduction too lengthy and thus
Sacrif icing audience attention.
Modesty in the Introduction is seen to relate to

the gaining of the good will of the audience as they per-
ceive of the Speaker as a modest and humble man. The
.QUality of "fitness" is necessary to the Introduction in
its relation to the sermon as a whole. for Hoppin believes
that the Introduction should be in "keeping and harmony"
With the entire sermon. "Fitness" also is seen to refer
to the internal symmetry and proportion of the Introduction
in its relationship to the‘theme. "Suggestiveness" is also
emphasized because of its importance in creating interest
in the audience toward the subject. The preacher should
Strive to maintain a balance between being overly profound

01: e
xqessively superficial by being what Hoppin calls

80
"suggestively stimulating". Hoppin believes that the
qualities of simplicity, modesty, fitness, and suggestive-
ness must reside in the Introduction if it is to achieve
its unique function of orienting the audience to the
speaker and the subject, and of gaining their interest and

attention for the entire sermon.

The Explanation

The “EXplanation" of the sermon is seen as compre-
hending “. . . 9;; that $3 fired for the purpgse gt
ngidating trig meaning _agg £9593 9t tge t_egt_, _a_n_§_ot t}_1_L_1_s_
W m it t_r_1_e_ true subject _o_§ 11.119. discourse.” (132)

 

The EXplanation refers, therefore, exclusively to the text:
and its function is one of definition and not judgment.
"It is the defining of the actual terms and contents of
the text,“ Happin observes, "so that its true theme may be
distinctly presented to the mind.“ (132) The Explanation
has 33 its task the elucidation of the full and precise
meaning which the text intends to conveY- It leads the
way to the Pmposition and the Argument of the sermon but
is dist:ant from them since its task is to define what the
text means so that the subject of the sermon can be clearly
presented.

Eioppin indicates that the extent of the Explanation's
SCOpe includes both the "facts" and the "sentiments" 0f the
ten~~the "narrative" and the "expOSition.“ The narrative

fun
(”lion of the Explanation is seen to involve the setting

£31
forth of the more purely objective truth of the text in its
relation to time, place, and circumstances. It is the
viewing of the text in the concrete and in its particular
context. The exposition, which Hoppin feels is the princi-
pal part of the EXplanation, is seen to concern itself
with the definition of the precise terms and contents of
the text. For Hoppin the eXposition is not concerned so
much @931; the text as it is v_v_i__t_h_ the words of the text.
It is verbal definition in which the text is viewed
subjectively to discover an absolute truth or a general

principle which it contains in order to note the essential

meaning and teaching of the text.

The qualities which should characterize the
Explanation are as follows: (1) it should present the
true meaning of the text: (2) it should be perSpicuous being
a neat, concise, finished work: (3) it should be brief.

accomplishing its full task but avoiding irrelevant
material: (4) it should be modest, avoiding any pretentious
qiSPlay of learning or style: (5) it should suggest the
preposition or subject of the sermon. hoopin believes

that there should be a natural and logical step from the
EXplal'iation to the Preposition based upon firm, clear

d

efinition: (6) the Explanation should bear upon every
part. of the sermon including the Conclusion. It

Should u

. skilfully prepare for each after step and

lab ‘
“' Ought, it should lay its train for every blow. " (142)

83

Hoppin believes that the most natural place for the
Explanation to be placed in the sermon is immediately after
the Introduction. He seems to indicate, however, that at
times it may best be intermingled with the Introduction or
take the place of the Introduction. Although believing
that: the EXplanation generally is best assigned to a place
follmowing the Introduction, he notes that whenever the
text: is subjected to definition throughout the course of
the sermon, the process of explanation is actually taking
place. Therefore, the Explanation of the sermon

. . . may be direct or indirect: it may pre-
cede or follow the theme: it may be in the
nature of an elaborate analysis, or of a more
brief, condensed synthesis: but the eXplanation
in all cases, is the use of the critical
faculty employed upon the interpretation of the
text, rather than the exercise of the logical
or more strictly reasoning faculty, which
arrives at general truths, and deve10ps the
ultimate relations of the truth which is thus
distinctly evolved. (143)

The Proposition

Hoppin defines the Preposition of the sermon as

- that portion in which the subject of the sermon is
more <31 stinctly and more formally announced," and he goes
on fur“:her to elaborate his concept of it by quoting
Whately as stating that

a preposition signifies a sentence in which
something is said -- affirmed or denied -- of
another. That which is spoken of is called
the 'subject' of the proposition: and that
which is said of it is called the 'predicate':
and these two are called the 'terms' of the

83

prOposition, from their being in natural
order the extremes and boundaries of it. (143)

It should be noted that in Hoppin's theory the
propositional form is seen as belonging almost exclusively
to the didactic type of sermon and as such cannot be in-
variably followed. The use of a Preposition presupposes
the "synthetic“ method of treatment in the sermon in that
it “.. . . requires that a distinct tepic should be drawn
fronn the text, gathering up and combining all the ideas of
the text in a definite form, and then that the sermon
should be built, not upon the text itself, but upon the
propOSition.“ (151)

Heppin believes that the place, time, and method of
announcing the Proposition may be varied by the preacher.
It may, however, be laid down as an almost
invariable principle, that it increases the
facility of apprehension and the degree of

interest on the part of the audience, to

announce, as near the beginning of the dis-

course as pessible, what is the subject—

under discussion. (144)

AS a g meral rule, Hoppin believes that the Preposition, in
some fairly distinct form, should immediately follow the
ExPla‘nation. He also believes that in a case where the
subjecn: is complex, involving many particular propositions
under: El general theme, the PrOposition must be brought
fo .
tward in parts gradually deve10ping the subject at
Var
“”48 stages in the sermon.
By using an analogy of a tree, Heppin indicates the
canoe and importance which he believes the Pr0posi-

1110
n. has in the sermon. He says that the Text of the

84
sermon is the root, the Argument the branches, and the
Preposition the trunk. Just as the trunk, before it

divides itself into branches is narrow, rigid, and fixed,

80

the preposition is just this definite, un-
yielding, all-comprehending part of the
sermon: the strength of the discourse is
bound up in it: all the life of the sermon
runs through it to the minutest extremity,
while it draws its life immediately from
the text, or the divine word. As one tree
has generally one trunk and one character,
and bears one kind of fruit and leaf, and
is distinguished from all other trees, so
one sermon should have one subject and one

aim. (146)
HOppin sets forth three basic maxims with regard to

the substance and matter of the PrOposition. (l) “M
Wmamsmmgmwo mummies
Mia- " The unity of a sermon is dependent upon the unity
9f 11:8 subject and thus the subject should be one which

can be stated in a single unified PrOposition. (2) "2132

W enould 1_)_e_ plainly involved or implied _ig 5113
text. " (147) (3) "th propgsition should include,
W, a; that is 339 133 discussed _i_g She sermon: £9
3% 3““‘3 92 m." (148) Hoppin believes that these
Characteristics of unity, Biblical foundations, and com-

preherlsiveness are essential to the basic substance and

m
attez. of the Proposition.

Six characteristics of the structure and quality of
th
e Preposition are indicated: the Proposition should be

(1
) plain and simple: (2) neat and condensed: (3) Specific:

85

(4) stated in language other than that of the text: (5)

"prudent1Y" expressed: and (6) varied,

ways of stating the subject.

avoiding stereotyped

Since the Preposition is seen by Heppin as generally

located directly after the EXplanation and immediately pre-

ceding the Divisions of the sermon, it has the reSponsibil-

ity not only to state the subject in a clear and concise

manner, but to lead anoothly into the

Divisions of the

sernuon. This function can often be extremely well-

acccsnplished in the Prepositions

the proposition may sometimes comprehend

in itself the divisions of the
and announce them, thus making
merely medhanical parts of the
compact as possible: and this,
is the best way, generally, to
a preposition. (149)

The Divisions

For Hoppin, the Divisions of a

Q W separated and discussed. "

referring particularly to the special

sermon,
all the
sermon as
perhaps,
construct

sermon are "the

Qiiésugggg’pgggg in which the main proposition 9; sub ect

(153) He sees them

points of view in

Which the subject is to be examined and discussed. These

Divisions, treating the subject in that clear and distinct

m
anner. have a four-fold purpose and usefulness: (1) they

promote variety in unity because while there is variety in

th
e Ilixwisions they are united in a common center: (2) they

promote clearness: “good divisions are nothing more than

the .
Q3~ear analysis of any given theme

of thought:“ (154)

86
(3) they promote the progress of the discussion as they
mark the logical and natural advancement of thought: and
(4) they refresh the mind and memory of both the Speaker
and the hearer by introducing breaks which allow the hearer
to assimilate, review, and digest the material and, thus,
also help keep attention and interest.

The nature of the sermon's Divisions is determined,
in Hoppin's view, by the type of treatment the particular
subject requires. On this basis the sermon may assume the
"logical,“ "inferential," “subjective,“ or ”textual“ form,
with each requiring its own peculiar Divisions. The
logical form of discussion is seen as the process-of
reasoning in which a series of connected propositions or
divisions are presented, each of which is true because the
one that precedes it is true. Hoppin believes that this
f‘01-‘11! of discussion absolutely requires divisions in order
to indicate each successive part of the argument.

The inferential form of discussion is conceived as
that which consists in a series of independent inferences
0‘ Obsemations which are drawn from the subject and which
eXpand the thene into its various relations and applica-
tions. The Divisions in this type of sermon are the clear
markings of each new important observation or thought in
the sex-Inch.

The subjective form of discussion is somewhat dis-

Counted by Hoppin, for he notes that such a sermon almost

87

defies division, tends to wander, and is likely to become
essay-like in style. The textual form of discussion is
seen as that method of treatment in which each distinct
point or idea of the text is marked by some division. In
conSidering each of these forms of discussion, he con-
eludes that “. . . regular divisions belong to the
logical or argumentative style of sermons more fitly than
to any other, and yet, that all kinds of sermons demand
something like 'divisions,’ which clearly mark or set
forth the different steps of the discourse.“ (153)

The following rules are set forth with regard to
the characteristics of the Divisions:

(1) Digpsions should correspond £2.Eh£ nature
9: Ehg subject. (1557

(2) Divisions should pp made pg comprehend pp
exhaust Ehp contents 2; php main prepgsi-
tion. As the preposition aims to exhaust
the text, divisions aim to take up into
them the whole meaning and contents of the
proposition, and to unfold the whole sub-
stance of the thought comprehended in it.

(3) Divisions shogig hp governed hy 3 £33 3:
unity which regpires that each division
suggest pg bear vital relation pg phg
proposition. (15$)

(4) One divipion should hgp anticipate 2;
include ghg pucceeding one.

(5) Divipions should re are ghg gay fig; some-
thing 59 come. (157,

(6) Divisions belonging pg 222 same class
should hp similar pg each other hp form. (158)

 

 

 

Bysetting forth these basic rules, Heppin attempts
to insure the unity and coherence of the sermon. He is
Concerned that the Divisions of the sermon help to pre-

Serve ttnis unity by finding their basic focal point and

88
origin in the Preposition, bearing a progressive relation-
ship to eadh other, and having a oneness in essential form
while being distinct in their particular contributions to

the total argument of the sermon.

In considering ”. . . the art of bringing into one
View the several elements of a given subject, or separating
it into its component parts . . . ,“ that is, the composi-
tion of the Divisions, Hoppin instructs the preacher to

observe the following suggestions:

1. Divide the whole general subject or preposition
into two or several particular prepositions.
These may be distinct, but true parts of one
theme.

2. Separate the genus into different Species.

The truths of Scripture are usually given in
generic form, and they are thus capable of
almost endless Specification and illustration.

3. View the truth in its various apprOpriate
relations or bearings to other truths. One
may be obliged to do this in order to eliminate
the particular truth in hand, and make it stand
out clear in its own preper place in the field
of relative truth.

4. Marshal and discuss the principal proofs or
arguments of the theme in hand. Truth of
Scripture stands on its own ground of inspired
authority: but even this may be strengthened
and confirmed by reasoning.

5. Exhibit the grand motives of any given duty
or proposition, including such duty.

6. Illustrate the fact or duty involved in the
subject in various practical ways and observa-
tions: or, in brief, divisions may proceed by
Classificatggh, Anal sis, Relations, Proofs,
Motives, Illustration. (158)W

 

I‘I‘Oppin sees the order of the sermon's Divisions as
b
“"9 determined primarily by the needs of the subject --
t
he order inherent in the subject when developed by thought.

He
DOtea that the order of Divisions may be the order of

89

"logical necessity:" the order of “inherent dignity or
value of ideas:“ the order of time, including cause and
effect: the order of “progressive strength of argument“
in which the speaker advances from weaker to stronger
arguments or begins and ends strong with the weaker argu-
ments in the middle: the order of “progress from abstract
to the concrete:" and the order of “personal interest“ in
which the Divisions are arranged to secure “progressive
interest and moral impression." Heppin further notes, in
considering the order and nature of the divisions, that,

as with the Preposition

each division should be plain and persicuous:

should be clearly cut: should give complete

sense by itself: should not be too commonplace

or easy: and it should be so announced as best

to promote the clear progress of the discussion,

and its remembrance by the audience." (159)

In dealing with the problem of the number of
divisions which a sermon should have, Hoppin sets down
the Principle that there should be as few divisions as
possible because divisions tend toward “stiffness“ in the
gamma. He believes that the sermon should be a living
ngth from the text and not a stiff, wooden structure.
Basically, he says, the number of divisions is governed
by the nature of the subject. A simple subject requires
few dj"Visions, and a more complex subject more analysis.
H
Oppin feels, therefore, that no arbitrary number of

d
1V131°ns can be set down as the ideal. As many Shmfld be

Us
ed 5‘3 are needed by the subject -- no more and no less.

9O

Flexibility is also the course suggested with regard
to the formal numbering of divisions by the preacher.
While numerical division is often useful in order to help
make the sermon easily understood and remembered, if such
numbering is not essential, it is best omitted so that the
sermon can be neatly joined together without the joints
snowing. In general, Hoppin believes that the audience
will be the determining factor in this regard, for “the
rmare intelligent the audience, the less necessity of

formal numerical statements or divisions at all.“ (160)

The DevelOpment

"The development of the sermon is the whole body 9:
£3 22 glated severally 1:2 the text, the subject, the
Eromsition, grid the division, and these originate, mark,
and linut the deve10pment," (160) according to Hoppin's
definition. He believes that the DevelOpment has the
functixon of carrying out and filling up the plan just as
the Dixrisions are the carrying out of the PrOposition and
the Prwaposition of the Text. The Development is the actual
treaUhenrt of the theme of the sermon and as such is seen
as the actual body of the sermon. In each sermon the
CharaCtisr of the Development of that sermon is determined
primarily by the subject; but Hoppin also notes that the

obJECt or main purpose of the particular sermon may also be

a
deter!“ ining factor.

91

Hoppin believes that the mode of develOpnent of the
sermon differs according to whether the sermon is
"expository,“ “illustrative," "argumentative," or "per-
suasive" in nature. The “expository develOpment“ aims to
set forth the meaning of the scriptures and is of two
types according: (l) a simple eXposition of the clauses
of a particular passage of scripture in their actual order
within the passage: (2) "a brief setting forth of the
definite truth or truths which the passage thus explained
conveys, especially in the way of practical observations
and lessons.“ (161) This latter type of eXpository
develOpment is seen as being distinguished from the first
in its enphasis upon the "practical observations and
lessons.“

The second type of Development noted by Hoppin is
“illustrative development,“ which is ". . . the illustra-
tion of truth by the proof and evolution of facts, rather
than words or ideas.“ (164) The historical sermon, in
Which truth is set forth through the lessons of history,
is noted as an example of illustrative deveIOpment.

The function of “argumentative develOpment“ is
° . . to convince the judgment by bringing out and
establishing the truth through proof and evidence.“ (165)
AS the eXpository explains and the illustrative exemplifies,
the "argumentative development“ has the function of proving.
Hoppin Sees two kinds of argumentative development, the
direct and the indirect. Indirect argumentation involves:

(l)
the refutation of objections, which Hoppin believes

92
should be done early in the sermon in order to leave a posi-

tive impression at the end: (2) the “suppositious” form of
argument, which consists in bringing up several suppositions,
beginning with the least plausible, and then discussing and
disproving them in succession in order for the speaker to lay
the way for a supposition he wishes to establish: (3) and the
"serial“ or “gradual“ argument which appears to be a Chain of
enthymemes in which the preacher ". . . begins with some dis-
tinct and common truth, that is readily conceded by the bearer,
and then comes up by making the predicate of one proved truth
the subject of another, until what you wish Specifically to
prove presents itself in an irresistible form, as a forgone
conclusion.“ (167) The direct method of the argumentative
deve10pment is defined simply as “the adducing of direct and
Positive proof.“ The fourth mode of development noted by
HOPPin is “persuasive develOpment.” Although believing that
the persuasive type is similar in aim to the argumentative in
that it seeks conviction, Hoppin distinguishes between .the
two by noting that the persuasive deals chiefly with motives

and motive appeal rather than proofs or reasons.
\ '

Ho 1In the later edition of his work on homiletics,
1: 5131“ adds a fifth mode of develOpment by including “medi-
ba ive development." He sees this mode of development as
61mg of two types. The first type is a sermon in which the
Pgeacher develOps his own thinking on some “purely Spiritual"
Th?“ and in doing so works from his own personal eXperiences.
Selfsecond type is a sermon founded on a text which was it-
exber? meditative utterance from the writer's own spiritual
Cleve], ence. In either case HOppin notes that the meditative
than gpment ”arrives at principles by contemplation rather

Y logical methods. . . ” (422)

93

Hoppin notes that all of the modes of Development
in the sermon should partake of certain basic characteris-
tics. The DevelOpment must be characterized by unity, it
needs to center on the theme and aim of the sermon and have
regard to each of its parts. "Roundness or perfectness"
is also seen by him to be essential to the DeveIOpment.
In this sense HOppin refers to the parts of the DevelOpment
as well as the whole. Each thought in the DevelOpment
Should.be fully deve10ped, with the developed parts united
into a completed whole. Progress of thought, with each
taxaught preparing for and being succeeded by another
thought forming an advance, as well as balance and prepor-
tion.of structure and thought, are also seen as essential

characteristics of the sermon's Development.

The Conclusion

The Conclusion of the sermon is conceived as ". . .the

1‘3 Limits 22 6—353 :33 Beam seplication sf. all 22st
EEEEQQQgQ.” (178) It has the same relation to the end of
the Sermon as the Introduction has to the beginning. Its
primary function is seen to be the impressing of the
Sermonts teachings upon the bearer.

I‘1¢:>ppin notes four basic values of the Conclusion
which he believes contribute greatly to its importance in
the semen,

1-. It enables the preagher £9 carry out the true

dea f preaching: i.e., to give a practical

 

p.

 

94

gpplication to what he preaches, directing it
to the conscience and heart of his hearers.

2. IE combines the scattered impressions g; 2
sermon into one powerful impression, and thus
adds 29 the effect 9; whatever has gone before.

3. g; pgeserves the sensibilities 9f ppeacher and
hearer from beipg exhausted.

4. IE avoids g rude abruptness i3 closing. (179)

 

 

The Conclusion of a senmon may consistcf (l)
”recapitulation:“ (2) "applications, inferences and remarks:“
(3) "appeal to the feelings, or personal appeal.“ Each of
these types separately or all of them combined may form the
Concflusion. Hoppin feels, however, that recapitulation
should be used particularly when argumentative discussion
has been used in the sermon. ‘He further notes that when
recapitulation is used, it should be rapid and clear and
munild avoid repeating arguments in the same words used
in the body of the sermon. He advises the preacher
occasionally to vary, the order of the arguments in the
C0DC111sion generally by arranging them in a climactic
order.

In discussing the use of applicatory "inferences
and remarks“ in the Conclusion, Hoppin indicates that in
his View inferences are logical deductions from the
argument, and remarks are "natural suggestions" drawn from
it’ The use of inferences and remarks in the Conclusion
is seen as a particularly useful method of directly apply-
ing the arguments of the sermon to the congregation, and
he Sats :forth.the following rules to govern their use:

1. They should bf: drawn directly from the whole

95

character and development of the sermon. (182)
2. They should be forcible and drawn from the
body of the sermon. (183)-
3. They should have regard to the character
and states of mind of the hearers, as well
as to the character— and design of the
subject.
4. They shoulLd increase in force and importance.
5. They should be free from stiffness, dullness,
and mpgotonousness. (1847'

 

 

 

HOppin also sets forth some basic suggestions
regarding the use of appeals to feelings in the Conclusion.

1. The whole sermon should be more 2_ less
pgranged for the moraL and emotional effect 9;
the conclusion.

2. The appeal should not be for rhetorical, but
f__o_r true effect. Trey—fl '

3. The appeal should not be over drawn.

4. All appeals to feeling should be brief. (187)

5 An indirect appeal is often effective. (188)

 

 

 

Conclusions

(1) liomiletics is conceived by Hoppin to be a science
which tiniquely applies to the task of preaching the insights
0f rhetorical theory.

(2) ITme objects of preaching are seen to be instruction
and persuasion. Hoppin appears to assign a priority to
the didactic element in preaching, at least in terms 0f
cmnological priority, for he believes that persuasion
must be leased on a prior knowledge of the truth.

(3) Hopflbin believes that there are only two legitimate
rhetorical canons, Invention and Style. The term
“Inventicn1.“ however, is used to apply both to the
bringing together and supplying of materials, and the

a.
rtanganel‘t of materials. The distinctive function of

96
Arrangement is recognized by Hoppin, therefore: but rather
than designating it as a separate rhetorical canon, he
prefers to treat it as a part of Invention.
(4) Hoppin's unwillingness to recognize Arrangement as a

distinct canon of rhetoric may be due, in part, to his

belief that the process of arranging materials is of
secondary importance to the process of supplying materials.
Sinceefloppin sees Arrangement as a process directly con-
cerned with the ordering of invented materials, he treats

it under the heading of Invention.

(5) The function of Arrangement is considered to be vital
and necessary for it serves as a means by which the
materials of the sermon can be mobilized and given added
Strength, unity, and effectiveness.

(5) 131a basis of classifying sermons utilized by Hoppin

is the mode of treatment which the particular sermon employs
With regard to the text and the subject.

(7) Tile characteristic of unity is seen as the pervading
faCtor"1n the entire plan and structure of the sermon.

The °Vera11 plan of sermonic arrangement is considered as
an aid to the preacher and a means to an end rather than

as a binding, restrictive structure into which every sermon
must be forced.

(8) HC’Ppin's stress on freedom and flexibility with regard

to A
rra-“gement has a bearing on his view of the parts of

the
sehnon. He does not prescribe an exact number of parts

 

97
which he believes will universally fit every sermon, but
he gives a degree of latitude in this regard and notes
that the sermon should have at least three but not more than
seven parts. The maximum parts of the sermon noted by
HOppin are the Text, the Introduction, the Explanation, the
Proposition, the Divisions, the Development, and the Con-
clusion, each of which has a particular function in rela-
tion to the treatment of the subject.
(9) The function of the text is to provide the subject of
the semen. HOppin's emphasis on ppi_t;y as the basic
characteristic of the sermon's arrangement is indicated in
his belief that the Text employed in a semen should be one
Which is unified in itself in order that it might help to
Promote unity in the entire sermon.
(10) The function of the Introduction is to secure the
interest and attention of the audience and to orient them
to both the speaker and the subject. Ethical proof is seen
to have a particular function in the Introduction.
(11) The function of the Explanation is limited to the
Clef“Ii-tion of the terms and contents of the text in order
to ex13<38e the basic theme of the text.
(12) HOppin does not make a clear distinction between the
Intmduction and the Explanation as separate parts of the
Semon' and he indicates that the EXplanation may best
function as part of the total introduction.

(13) The Proposition is an important element in the sermon

98
since it forms a vital link between the Text and the
Argument of the sermon. The Proposition takes the subject
of the text and states it so that it can be effectively
divided and developed in the ensuing parts of the sermon.
(14) The nature and order of the Divisions are determined
by the type of treatment warranted by the particular sub-
ject. The divisions preserve the basic unity of the semen
by finding their focal point and origin in the Preposition,
bearing a progressive relationship to one another, and
having a common form, while at the same time being distinct
in their particular contributions to the total argument of
the semen.
(15) The Development has the function of filling out the
basic plan of the sermon, and as such forms the actual
bOdY of the sermon -- it is the filling out of the
Sermon's basic skeleton. The particular character of the
Development in a given sermon is determined by the subject
and the purpose of that sermon. I
(16) The primary function of the Conclusion is the appli-
cation of the truths of the sermon to the hearers' lives.
Emotional proof according to Hoppin's theory, has a parti-

Cular “38 and function in the ConCIUSion-

PART II

CDNCEPTIONS OF 'ARRANGEMENT'

IN

LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY

AMERICAN PROTESTANT HOMILETICAL THEORY

CHAPTER IV

JOHN ALBERT BROADUS' CONCEPT OF ARRANGEMENT

Esme-22mg

John Breadus spent his entire life living and
ministering in the southern part of the United States. He
was born in the state of Virginia on January 24, 1827 and
was educated in southern schools.1 Breadus' early educa-
tienal experiences did a great deal to prepare him as a
homiletical theorist. In high school he excelled as a

Latin scholar, reading the speeches and writings of

Cicero and Horace,2 and was also a member of the debating
society. After graduation from high school, Breadus

taught. for several years in grammar schools, an Opportunity
"hi-Ch not only afforded him with teaching experience but
PMIded him with time to study Greek, French, and Latin

in order to prepare for entrance into the University Of

Virginia,

 

\

11021111913151)r an extensive treatment of Broadus' life and

Rhetoriical theories see Paul Huber, “A Study of the

disse cal theories of John A. Broadus "(unpublished Ph.D.
I:t’i’l‘F-1LCJn, University of Michigan, 1956).

2
Broadu Albert T. Robertson, Life and Letters of John A.
1910 sI;(Pl'1iladelphiax American Baptist Publication Society,
' p. 28—32.

100

101

Shortly before entering the University of Virginia
in 1846, Broadus, who had been eentunplating a career in
the legal profession, decided to become a minister."l He
was graduated from the University of Virginia in 1850 with
the degree Master of Arts, with the highest academic
honors awarded by the university. His education at the
university provided him with an extensive background in
rhetoric which was ultimately to serve as the foundation
for his own homiletical theory.2

After graduation Broadus went out preaching for
one year and that returned to the University of Virginia
as an assistant instructor in ancient languages. He con-
tinued at the university for two years and in 1855 resigned
‘10 become pastor of the Charlettesville Baptist Church and

chaplain of the University of Virginia.

—__

‘ 1John A. Broadus,Sermens d Addr sees,
Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1901), ”

PP. 39 7-399 .

2Recording to Huber the two areas of study that
:1?" Of particular value to Broadus, in terms of his
morai’rical theory, were those of ancient languages and
Orati Philesephy. In language courses he read Cicero's
W. E stlus, and Diverse” Horace, Virgil, Livy,

acitus, l in Latin. In Greek he read selected works

his enoPhen, Hereditus, Aeschines, and Aristephanes. In
B phJ'J-CJsephy classes he read I. ctures on Rhetoric and

1- tte s by Hugh Blair, Philosthy of Rhetoric by

G
53:3. <zuupbell, Bl ts f to i by Richard Whately,
1‘ll's work on Iogic.

 

102

In 1859 Broadus accepted a position in the depart-

ment of homiletics in the newly formed Southern Baptist

Theological Seminary.1 As a result of his teaching

duties and his interaction with students he began to

synthesize and develOp his own homiletical theory during

his early years at the seminary. In 1865 a blind student

enrolled in the school: and in order to aid him,8roadus
c=<>Illposed his lectures in written form so that the blind

bOY's classmates could read them to him. These written

lectures formed the basis of his book, A Treagseggtbg

ti dD ive of Sermn2

Broadus continued to teach homiletics at the

Sonthern Baptist Theological Seninary and eventually be-

came its second president. He died on March 16, 1895, in

Louisville, Kentucky.

Appmch to Homiletics and Preaching

John A. Broadus conceives of homiletics as the
u

. science or art of Christian discourse, or a treatise

K

13qu notes that in 1859 Broadus used Ripley's
We and Vinet's Homiletics as the text for the
horn, etics class and in the 1860-61 session of the seminary
“Bed Whately's Elements 9; Rhetgric. (Ibid.)

2Since the first publication of this book in 1870,
1"- has been reprinted forty-two times, translated into
fixeral foreign languages, and used as a textbook at one

e or another in almost every Protestant theological '
summary in the country.

103
on that subject, “bracing all that pertains to the
preparation and delivery of sermons.“ (16)"L Seeing
homiletics as a m of rhetoric (rhetoric applied to a
peculiar kind of speaking which is preaching), Breadus
believes that preaching must be distinguished from
Secular discourse in terms of the primary source of its
materials, the directness and simplicity of its style,
and the 'unwerdly motives” by which the preacher should be
mOtivated. In distinguishing sacred and secular discourse,
Bmadus does not mean to indicate that homiletics should
be treated apart from rhetoric, but rather that these dis-
t”Just-Jens should be kept in mind in order to gain a
cileum-er understanding of the relationship between rhetoric
and homiletics.

Breadus believes that eloquence has as its primary
characteristic the giving of a powerful impulse to the
W111. He notes that “the hearers must feel smitten,
at:lrred, moved to, or at least moved towards, some action
or determination to act.“ (5) For Breadus, eloquence is
a Practical thing aiming at real and practical results:
and he favorably notes Augustine's injunction to the
orlater to make the truth plain, pleasing, and moving.

\_

f J"I'he homiletical theory of John Albert Broadus is
hound in its most complete form in his book A Treatise 99
$6 Preparation Ed Delivery of Semons, (New York: A.C.

strong an Son, 89 . References to Breadus' theory
ate fran this book, and the page numbers are indicated in
pfir-entheses.

 

104
Therefore, the purpose and aim of preaching are to secure
from the listener a definite response of his will to God's
The means of securing such a response involves the convinc-
ing of the hearer‘s judgment, the kindling of his imagina-
tion, and the moving of his feelings. It must not be
thmlg‘ht, however, that Breadus places undue emphasis upon
emotional or psychological appeals in preaching. To the
contrary, he notes that ". . . preaching and all public
aPeaking ought to be largely conposed of argument. . . "
(x1) and that the response of the individual's will to God
18 to be seen as an act prolupted primarily by careful
argument along with exciting the imagination and moving
the feelings. Broadus sunmarizes the task of the preacher
by noting that "our main duty is to tell the people what
‘30 believe, and why they should believe it.“ (155) Such
a dKaty necessitates the careful explanation of the
$crilptures by the preacher, and such explanation is among
th‘ preacher's primary functions.

Having been imersed in the Greek and Latin
rhetoricians in the process of his fennel education, _
BrOGdus was deeply influenced by the classical rhetorical
ttheory. He notes, particularly, his indebtedness to
Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian among the ancients.
lqdlhough the ancient classical writers influenced the basic
tatlet of his own theory, Breadus identifies Whately, Vinet,
and Ripley as having exerted the most direct influence

105
upon his thinking. In passing, Broadus also notes that
be derived a great deal from the homiletical writings of
Alessander, Shedd, Day, Hoppin, Coqueral, and Palmer among a
great variety of other writers. (xii)

Broadus' homiletical theory was also influenced by
his theological comitments. In relation to his theory
of sermonic Arranganent this influence is particularly
evident in terms of his stress upon Biblical preaching
and the expository sermon. Believing that the Bible is
the ultimate authority in spiritual affairs and that its
authority supersedes human reason and experience, he
taught that the explanation of the Scriptures is anong the
Primary functions of the preacher. This view of the
Place of the Bible in preaching is reflected in his theory
of expository sermons: his view of the arrangement of
ali‘guments within the sermon: and the general concept he
esPcluses regarding the function, purpose, and content of

the semen.

Definition and Interpretation of Arrangement
Mef Arrangement

Broadus believes that Arrangement is a distinct
Part of the speaker's work and should be centenplated and
hal'tdled as something apart from Invention on the one hand,
and Style on the other. He does, however, recognize the
Qlose relationship between the inventienal and arranging

Processes, for he notes that Arrangement reacts upon

 

106
Invention and teaches that a subject has not been thorough-

1y studied until thoughts about it are arranged. This

attenpt to arrange thoughts further enriches the preacher's

Invention, for the “effort to make out an arrangement will

often suggest to us new thoughts which otherwise we should

never have gained.“ (277) Although Breadus believes that

a close interrelationship exists between Invention and

Arrangsnent, he also notes a clear distinction between the

m; of each.

He sees Arrangsnent as the process of

ordering that which has been invented, and believes that
this process of so arranging a sermon may help to
initiate and inspire further invention to take place.

There are thus both an interrelationship and a careful

distinction between Invention and Arrangenent.

Importance of Arrangement

The stress which Breadus gives to the importance of
Arrangement not only gives an indication of the importance

in his mind of the canon itself but further indicates the

relative importance of Arrangsnnent to the other rhetorical
Congas. Breadus separates his discussion of homiletical

thebly into four parts, each essentially corresponding to

the rhetorical canons of Invention, Arrangsnent, Style,

and Delivery. In terms of the number of pages which he

devotes to each of these canons, Invention is seen to

rewaive the most extensive treatment, with two hundred

107
thzl. rty-nine pages being devoted to it. Style has the next
highest number of pages with ninety-three, Arrangement has
eighty-one pages, and Delivery seventy-eight pages. Simply
in terms of number of pages devoted to the particular
canons, Invention and Style would seem to be of greater
importance in Broadus' mind than is Arrangement. He notes,
however, that “the effective arrangement of the materials
in a discourse is scarcely less important than their in-
trinsic interest and force.” (258)
In this respect Broadus favorably quotes Vinet as
Bailing that "disposition may be eloquent in itself, and on
°1°8e examination we shall often see that invention taken
by itself, and viewed as far as it can be apart from dis-
Position, is a comparatively feeble intellectual force.”
(259) Broadus places the relative importance of Arrangement
close to that of Invention for he notes that there is an
interdependence of each of the two canons in terms of the
t°ta1 effect of the discourse. He further quotes Vinet to
the effect that "we may affirm in general, that other things
being equal, the power of discourse is proportional to the
Order which reigns in it, and that a discourse without
Order (order, be it remembered, is of more than one kind)
is camparatively feeble. '“ (259)
To Broadus, Arrangement is seen as important to both
the Speaker himself and the audience. Since Arrangement

reads upon Invention, it is of importance to the speaker in

108
his study and understanding of the subject of the sermon, a
subject not having really been studied until an attempt
has been made to arrange thoughts about it. As the Speaker
arranges his thoughts on the subject, these attempts will
suggest new thoughts to him. The work of arranging the
sermon will further help to assist the preacher to work out
clearly the details of the sermon. Arrangement also aids
the speaker‘s memory and, therefore, is of particular
“upcrtance to him when speaking extemporaneously. Broadus
further notes that the arrangement of the sermon is also
1mP<'>r:‘tant to the emotion of the preacher, for ”whether in
Preparation or in delivery of sermons, a man's feelings will
£19" naturally and freely, only when he has the stimulus,
a“PEER-t, and satisfaction which come from conscious order. "
(250) If a speaker neglects the arrangement of his sermons:
he will rapidly lose his ability to construct and organize
a discourse and will have to rely, for the effect of his
3%!)3' entirely upon the impression made by striking
puticular thoughts, or on the possibility that high
quotional excitement may produce something of order.
Broadus also notes the importance of Arrangement
with regard to its effect upon the audience. It is his
v13“ that a discourse needs to be well arranged in order
t° make it intelligible or he believes that intelligibility
1‘3 as much an affair of Arrangement as it is of Style

I"fiause it depends as much on clear thinking and on good

109

order as on clear eXpression. An additional problem noted
in this regard is that poor arrangement may not simply
cause the sermon to be unintelligible but may even cause it
to: be misunderstood. Broadus feels that the importance of
Arrangement also relates to the fact that the well
arranged sermon is pleasing to hear and helps to keep the
attention of the audience. The well arranged sermon will
not hold the atteition of the audience simply because it is
more intelligible and pleasing but because it conforms to
the natural laws of human thinking and as such will be
better able to carry the thoughts of the hearers along with
it. Good Arrangement is also seen as having a persuasive
elament. Broadus notes that 9152;; is of great importance
bOth in presenting motives and in appeals to feeling, and
he states that ”the hearer's feelings will be much more
mrfully and permanently excited, when appeals are made
in some natural order.“ (263) Arrangement is seen to be
°f~ further importance to the audience in that the orderly
presentation of a discourse causes it to be more easily
tamelmbered.

A further indication of the deep importance which
Broadus assigns to Arrangement becomes particularly evident
1“ his discussion of the types of sermons and the means of
classifying sermons. He notes that there are two distinct
Principles or bases upon which classification of sermons

can be made, these being the subject matter, including

110

subjects, occasions, and materials: and the homiletical

structure of the sermon. (306) It is upon the principle

of homiletical structure that the three species of sermons

are established: subject-semons, text-sermons, and

expository sermons. The subject sermon and text sermons

differ with regard to the source of the sermon's divisions.
Breadus defines sub ject-sermons as those sermons which

derive their divisions from the subject, independently of

the text. The text-sermon, on the other hand, takes its

<iii-Visions from the text of Scripture. While in the text

aeli'mon there may be a definite subject, the subject is not

dil-Vicled according to its own nature but only such divisions

are made as are presented by the text.

In a subject-sermon the subject is drawn from a
text. generally stated in the form of a proposition. The

BubJest is then divided and treated according to its own

1°91cal develOpment, just as if it had not been derived

thin the text. The text, having furnished the subject,

hes no further part as a formative force on the plan of the
Se“lion. To Broadus the sub ject-senmon has several merits:
it better insures unity, it trains the preacher's mind to
3’°9-‘lcal analysis, it is often more convincing and pleasing
than other types of sermons, particularly to cultivated
p°°Dle, and it is most helpful in an occasion which demands
the fullest presentation of a concept. According ‘10

Emadus, the subject in the sub ject-sermon should not be

111
general but should be specific in nature in order to pro-

mote variety in successive sermons and make each subject

more fruitful. Breadus believes that if possible, the

subject theme should be the specific theme of the text

from which it is drawn. The subject should be divided

according to its own demands coupled with the speaker's

purpose in treating it. This design, Broadus feels,

usually leads to explanation by analysis or comparison,
to proof, to the application of the subject, or in many

cases some combination of these.

Broadus suggests that the text-sermon always have a

calt'eful plan and clearly marked divisions and he describes

tVO distinct varieties of text-sermons. those which

PIOBent a single subject, and those which discuss several

sub.‘Iects. The single subject type is drawn from the text

“I"! is discussed under such divisions as the text

f"-‘i|'-‘!\:l.shes. While there may be rare times in which these

divisions will coincide with a complete logical analysis
°t the subject itself, nevertheless, the divisions from
th‘ text, even if not forming a complete analysis of the
glibJest, must be so related to the subject and to each

other that they form a symmetrical whole. In the second
the of text-sermon which Broadus discusses, the several
t”Pics presented by the text are seen to be successively

tl‘eated and thus there is no one definite and comprehensive

3‘1me in the sermon. These several subjects, however,

112
though not actually combined into one, are seen as being

in need of a mutual relation so as to give the discourse

unity. Broadus notes that "a discourse that has not unity,

both offends taste and lacks power-«in fact, is not a dis-

course at all.“ (315) As for the various sources of

unity, Broadus notes that the unity of the sermon might be
that of a subject, of a person, or of a place and he notes

that along with this external unity the sermon should also

have internal connection and unity. He believes that in

Order to maintain this unity it is often best to have the
dli-Vision headings consist of the very words of the text,
and in other instances the divisions may be in different
terms and in a different order than that of the text if it

makes for a better arrangement.
The third class of sermons which Breadus believes to

be based upon structural considerations is the expository

“one which is occupied mainly, or at any rate
(322) Unity

Benson:
largely, with the exposition of Scripture. "
or structure is the prime requisite which Broadus sees as
the key to effectiveness in an expository sermon, for he
believes that unity is necessary for instruction, convic-
tion, and persuasion. The structure of the expository
figtation is seen as growing out of the heads and divisions
within the passage as in a textual sermon. Broadus, how-
ever, distinguishes between the text-sermon and the eXposi-

th sermon by noting that mereas in the text-sermon the

113
preacher simply takes the subject and division heads from
the text and treats them in his own way, in the expository
Benson he attempts to treat all the details of the passage
as well as its main divisions. In the expository sermon

the preacher further needs to take pains to point out and

apply the lessons of the text. These applications may be

made at the close of each division in the sermon, although
Broadus also notes that in many cases it is best to reserve

the main applications for the Conclusion.

The Over-all Plan of the Sermon

In treating the arrangement of sermons in general,
Particularly in terms of the broad plan of the sermon as a

wheals, Broadus notes that the principal elements of good

Ihttangement are unity, order, and proportion. He feels

that unity is often a forgotten characteristic of sermons,
Particularly text and expository sermons, while are fre-
<i'dently made up of two or three little sermons in suc-
estion and thus he believes that the semon must have
aOtue unifying element that ties it together and gives it
ccl'itinuit:y. This unity may be found through the use of a
dszztrinal prOposition, an historical person, or a practical

d‘sign. Broadus also emphasizes the idea that the sermon

must have order. Even if all that is said in the sermon

i“ on the same subject, the several thoughts must still

t°llow each other according to their logical relations, or

 

114
according to the specific purpose of the preacher in a

particular semen.
For Breadus, the concept of order in the semon in-

volves both the proportion of natural symmetry and the

proportion of specific design. The parts of the sermon,

Whether they are distinctly indicated or not, must be so

treated as to make a symmetrical whole. This does not

mean that the parts of the semen are all to be discussed
at. the same length, but rather that they are to be dis-
cussed at a length in proportion to their relations to
each other and to the entire discourse in keeping with
their peculiar function and the and sought in the sermon.
Since there is flexibility in this regard, the preacher
may treat substantially the same tapic several different
times eld each time vary the length of particular parts

aIncl the stress laid upon them according to the object

presently in view. It is a functional consideration

tempered by the end sought in the particular sermon.
The relationship of the sermon's subject matter to

the over-all plan of Arrangement relates most specifically,
in Broadus' thought, to the types of arguments used in the
sermon. In this regard he indicates that what is discussed

in the sermon has some determining effect upon the overall

Plan of the sermon. He believes that when a subject re-

quires explanation and argument, it is most advantageous

to have clearly stated divisions and subdivisions. These

llS
divisions and subdivisions, however, must not be so multi-

plied or so stated that they prevent the semen from
standing out as living whole, or interrupt its progressive

movements towards the practical and in view.

Concerning the placing of the refutation of

Objections Breadus makes several suggestions: (1) if an

objection is against the point of view presented in a
Certain part of the sermon, that objection should be dis-

Posed of in that particular part of the discourse: (2) if
the objections are against the basic idea of the sermon
but can briefly be refuted, independently of the Discussion
or the Body of the semen, it is most advantageous to clear

them out of the way before entering into the lines of

at‘gmment in the sermon: (3) if, however, the refutation

depends upon argument or will take a good deal of time, it

ahould be left until the close. The nature of the sermon

“terial at hand, therefore, has a significant influence
uE>On certain considerations which Broadus makes regarding
the arranging of the proofs and arguments of the semen.

Broadus also takes into serious account the nature

and attitude of the audience with regard to the over-all

Plan of the sermon. He feels that at times the known

lttitude of the audience may necessitate departing from the

order which would be fixed by the natural dependence of the

a-1’-‘9muents upon each other. If the audience is not friendly

to the preacher's views, it is best for him to begin with

116
one or more strong arguments in order to command respect
and secure attention, then bring in the less impressive

argments, and close with the strongest of all for the

sake of final impression. The speaker may also begin with

the strongest arguments, add the less important but con-
firmatory considerations, and close with a recapitulation
in reverse order thus having the effect of a climax.
Breadus also considers the nature of the audience when
dealing with the place and treatment of the Preposition in
the sermon, noting that as a general policy the Preposition

should be distinctly stated to the audience in the early

Minutes of the sermon. If the subject is a difficult one

for the 'cornmon mind“ to grasp, however, it may better be
presented in parts, in order first to give the arguments
which will elucidate and establish the Proposition, and
then state the Proposition in the Conclusion. If the
audience has an unwillingness to hear the subject or a
3twang prejudice against the Preposition, it may be best

to withhold the full statenent of the Proposition until

later in the discourse. As a general rule, however,

Breadus feels that it is best to speak out boldly and
frankly and present a full statement of the Proposition

1n the early part of the sermon.

The? sof th Se on

Although he theorizes regarding the plan of the

8Simon as a whole, the way in which Breadus deals most

¥

117

specifically with the subject of Arrangement is in relation

to the parts of the semen. In considering the parts of

the sermon, he adversely criticizes some homileticians
who he feels have made artificial distinctions or parts.
Breadus believes that some of the parts which are some-

times distinguished as separate elenents could just as

easily blend in with other parts. The “Exposition,“ for

ample, will often constitute the Introduction, and in

many cases no formal exposition is necessary or even

appropriate. Similarly, he notes, the “Preposition“

hardly needs to be treated as a distinct part of the

Sermon, being, rather, a transition from the Introduction

to the Discussion of the subject, thus belonging to both

Introduction and Discussion. Breadus believes that the

Simplest approach to the Arrangement of the sermon would

be that of three parts: Introduction, Discussion (includ-

ing divisions when they are made), and the Conclusion.

C 266)

The Int reduction

Breadus believes that a sermon should have an
Introduction because of the natural aversion which people

have to abruptness and thus a semen without an Introduc-

tion will look incomplete. The Introduction hastwo

Chief objects: to interest the bearer in the subject, and

t<3 prepare the hearer's understanding of the subject.

118

Breadus believes that the success of a sermon often
depends upon the first impression the preacher makes upon
the audience in the Introduction. When the preacher seeks
to make a positive impression upon the audience, his
”- . . aim should be to excite not merely an intellectual
interest, but, so far as possible at the outset, a spiritual
and practical interest «to bring our hearers into sympathy
With our own feeling, and attune their minds into hameny
with the subject we design to present.“ (267)

The several sources from which Breadus believes the
1Introduction can be drawn include the text (in the form of
an explanation of it), the subject to be discussed, the
ocotzasion, and the creative imagination of the preacher.
He notes that the good Introduction should present some
tfl‘Icnaght clos ely related to the theme of the sermon, lead-
ing to the these with naturalness and ease and yet being
C113 tinct from the Discussion, and should not aim to give
instruction separate and apart from the lessons of the
89linen, but rather should generally consist of a single
thought related to the basic idea that the sermon wishes to
GQVQlOp. Bread and commonplace generalities should be

avoided in the Introduction, lest it sound like an Opening

PMlBe of dullness. Conversely, he believes that the

Introduction should not appear to promise too much in its
uh“Lights, style, or delivery but rather should excite
interest and expectation, providing that expectation can be

119
met in the Body of the sermon.

Breadus appears to mphasize the place of ethical
proof as having a particular function in the Introduction
of the sermon as over against logical or emotional proof,
for he notes that the Introduction should not be highly
argumentative or highly impassioned, but that the preacher
should “shun the sensational and pretentious and begin with
modesty.” (273) He implies that the good Introduction
should be exclusively adapted to the particular semen in
that it should be uniquely relevant to the subject at hand.
Also, the Introduction should not be too long and, though

simple and inelaborate, should be carefully prepared.

The Discus sion

In considering the Discussion or Body of the semen,
Breadus states that “the plan of a discourse in the bread-
est sense includes the introduction and the conclusion,
but as these are here considered separately, we may, for
convenience, speak of the plan as belonging rather to the
discussion, or the body of the discourse, with its

divisions and subdivisions.“ (276) Breadus believes that

the Discussion must be constructed with some plan in mind

or it is not technically a discourse. "Though there be no

divisions, and no formal arrangement of any kind, yet the

thoughts must follow each other according to the natural

laws of thought." (276) He indicates that the Discussion

itself, being part of the over-all plan of the sermon,

120
must also have a plan of its own and that at times such a
plan may occur to the speaker along with the subject or
with very little reflection. In other cases the speaker
will get a variety of thoughts about the sub ject: and in
such a case the speaker should write the thoughts down in
order that, through studying than, a plan of treatment will
energe. When the best plan is selected, it should be
Staple, free from obscurity, and free from straining for

effect. The plan ought to be fresh and striking, for ”it

18 only a plan which strikes that has any chance of being

tenanbered.“ (278) Breadus seeks to avoid stereotyped,

unchanging plans, and he criticizes those persons who

I“('Jnotoneusly use the same number of divisions in every

Swans
Included in the plan of the discourse, and treated

under the Discussien of the semen, is the statsnent of the
3‘Jlibject or that which is technically known as the Proposi-
t-‘-:I.c>n. Breadus does not feel it necessary to treat the
P:l'mopesition as a separate part of the semen, as do Shedd
and Hoppin, but considers it as part of the Discussion as

does Kidder.
In dealing with the divisions of the Discussion,
Breadus notes that "two things are obviously necessary to

an effective discourse: that there shall be a plan, as we

have seen, and that there shall be mavens-At, progress.

These requisites must be harmonized.” (281) He believes

121
that this mevunent of the semen, as applied to the Dis-
cussion, should not be wild or irregular: and the orderly

plan must not involve such interruptions and pauses as

muld retard movenent. The divisions of the Discussion,

however, should not be so obvious that they draw attention

to thanselves, but all the components should function as a

Symmetrical whole. Nevertheless, Breadus believes that it

is generally best to mark clear divisions in the Body of
the semen in order to make the train of thought plain to
the hearers, and in order to aid the preacher in achieving
logical correctness and mmpleteness of preparation and in
assisting his mmory for extsnperaneous delivery. Although
he sets down these suggestions, Breadus takes a fairly
dynamic, creative approach to preaching: and instead of
setting dove: stringent rules and regulations, he allows the
1“exits of the individual case and the preacher's judgment
to determine whether or not the divisions of the Discussion
311mld be broadly or slightly marked, and how carefully the
entrance upon a new division should be indicated. His main
concern is with the idea that such divisions and transitions
actually do exist, however obvious they appear.
Concerning the number of divisions in the Discussion
015 the sermon, Breadus notes that the preacher must look to

simplicity, and at the same time vividness and variety, for

the principles upon which to base his decision. It is most

simple to have few divisions, and in many instances two

 

122
divisions will be most natural and pleasing, although as
a uniform method, any fixed number of divisions lacks
variety. Since it is also very important that the
divisions be interesting, having the vividness which be-
longs to concrete or specific thoughts, it is often best
in Broadus' judgment, to have several divisions since the
reduction to a smaller number would cause the divisions to
be too general. When there are as many as five or six
divisions, they must follow each other in a natural order
in order to insure the audience's rememberance of them.
Breadus believes that the traditional use of three
divisions in the Discussion has some natural origin in that
it provides good variety without distracting attention or
burdening the memory. In general, “one should make the
most natural divisions, considering the subject and
practical design of the discourse, but not allowing the
number of heads to exceed four. That in doing so the
number most frequently eccuring will be three, and next to
that two, is what he may eXpect." (287)

Breadus sees the character or nature of the
divisions of the Discussion as being determined by their
relation to the subject of the sermon and their relation
to each other. While no one of the divisions of the
semen should be co-sxtensive with the subject, the sum
total of all the divisions, however, should exhaust the

aspect or view of the subject under consideration in the

123

semen. By this Breadus does not mean that the subject
puoposed would be exhausted the same way in which it

rnight be eXhausted by a scientific, logical analysis, but
[rather that the divisions of the sermon should, with a
general completeness, cover the entire ground of the
Proposition, but not necessarily in a way which denands
scimtific detail and precision. The divisions of a
semen must be distinct and symmetrical in their relation
t1: each other: and, therefore, a distinct division will not
iriclude another division or a part of another division,
said thus overlapping is avoided. The preacher should also
anioid.going to the other extreme and dividing that which
18 not capable of division. The semen divisions should
also be symmetrical in that “. . . the divisions must all
al-lstain the same kind of relation to the subject proposed.“
(290) ‘

Breadus believes, however, that at times the idea of

aYttunetry could be carried to harmful extremes, and that
P‘s-occupation with giving each division the same number of
a‘Jlbdivisions in order to be symmetrical is very apt to cause
aurtificiality in the sermon. Another mistaken idea of
3Ix'rllnetry requires that each division, and sometimes each
Bubdivision, should be discussed at about the same length.
ZBroadus notes that such distribution can be very pleasing
When it is natural, but that it is most often an unnatural

treatment of the divisions. The basic point of view which

124
Breadus espouses with regard to symmetrical characteris-
tics of the semen is that ”a mere external symmetry is
far less important than preportion to the internal rela-
tion of the topics, and to the specific design of the dis-
course.“ (291)

As for the order of the sermon's divisions, Breadus
indicates that both logical and 'practical' considerations
must be take: into account. He notes that even where in-
struction and conviction are the aim of the preacher,
there is always, in preaching, a practical effect proposed,
and usually instruction and conviction are subordinate to
the object of impressing the feelings and determining the
Will. When instruction is an important consideration, the
Order of the divisions should be that in which the preced-
ing ones help to give understanding to those that follow.

Breadus suggests that when the preacher's concern is
to persuade the audience, his arguments should be arranged
ac~<=ording to three general principles which regulate the
order of arguments: (1) proofs springing from the very
nature of the preposition should commonly come first in
oJi‘der to provide a full explanation of the proposition:

V‘ 2) arguments a priori generally precede other arguments
and help to prepare the mind to receive the 2 292523332;

125
proofsfl (3) it is generally best to begin with the weak-
est argunents used and and with the strongest, thus foming
the powerful effect of a climax.2 (216)

When particularly concerned with the practical
effect of the sermon, the preacher should discern clearly
the end sought and then give consideration to that arrange-
ment of the tepics which will be most likely “by kindling
the imagination and warming the passions, to induce the
hearers to resolve and to act as the truth requires.” (292)
Breadus indicates that to secure a practical effect the
abstract must precede the concrete and the general precede
the specific: and generally instruction and conviction must
Precede the direct appeal of the semen to the audience.
The appeal of practical application of the truths of the

.ermon may either come after the entire body of instruction

‘

1"Arguments _a_ priogi“ refers to a kind of reasoning
WI"1mm makes deductions from principles which are regarded as
Belf evident, while “3 meteriori proofs“ are those proofs
ch are based upon experience. Breadus apparently believes
that 3 prior; proofs are stronger than those which are 3
e i r and should be employed first so that they may serve
‘8 foundation for arguments from experience. In this belief
9 concurs with the suggestion of Vinet, as noted by Kidder,
with regard to the position of these two kinds of reasoning.

2This in no way contradicts Breadus' teaching, noted

011 page 115, that it is most effective in persuading an un-
Eriendly audience to begin with the strongest arguments. In
the earlier context he is discussing some adaptations in
argument order which might be necessitated by the nature of
a particular type of audience. In the present context he is
J“ieferring to the normal ordering of arguments and not to an
txception to this general rule brought on by an unbelieving
audimce.

126
and argument or immediately follow each of the sermon's
rnain thoughts as they are presented. Breadus suggests
'that the idea of applying the truths to the particular
practical considerations of the hearers as the semen moves
‘along has a great deal of advantage since in so doing the
successive waves of emotion may thus rise higher and higher
tn: the end. To postpone application until the end of the
sermon may also impair the steady growth of interest in the
auadience, for “. . . while thought produces emotion, it is
aulso true that emotion reacts upon and quidkens thought, so
'tlaat the impressive application of one division may secure
far the next a closer attention." (292)

Breadus believes that sermon transitions have both
an) important functional role to play in the sermon itself
and an educational role to play in the preparation of the
Semen. Functionally the various parts of the semen
8hould fit together perfectly, with the one part growing
out; of the preceding part by a process of natural develOp-
ment. This meoth movement within the semen is of parti-
caUllar effect when least noticeable: and, therefore, the
taz-ansitions within a semen must not have any separate
IDrominence calling attention to themselves. Breadus

lindicates that generally the transition can be effected by
a.single, brief sentence and should be characterized by
Simplicity and variety. He notes that transitions can al-

so be a help to the preacher in his work of preparing the

 

127
sermon when used as a test for the quality of the sermon's
arrangenent. Since good transitions are contingent upon
the quality of the arrangment of the sermon's parts.
”When therefore we find the transition difficult, it is

well to inquire whether the arrangement is not defective. "
( 294)

The Conclusion

In comparing the relative importance of the
Introduction and Conclusion of the semen, Breadus notes
that the Conclusion is the more important of the two and
the more neglected in the attention given to it by
Preachers. Breadus believes that, particularly in the
Conclusion, there must be a combination of thorough prepa-
ration and liberty in delivery. He feels that the speaker
Should prepare carefully the Conclusion and yet be sensi-
tJive to the fact that the feeling of the moment may favor
and be more conducive and effective for another Conclusion.
Just as Breadus appears to give particular emphasis to the
Place of ethical proof in the Introduction (although not
to the exclusion of the other modes of proof), logical
proof in the Discussion of the semen (though again not
Exclusively so), he gives particular mphasis to the place
of emotional proof functioning in the Conclusion. Pointing
out, however, that not every sermon must end with
pathetic appeals, he indicates that at times it is best to

avoid motional appeals in the Conclusion. It is accurate

 

128
to conclude, in terms of Broadus' viewpoint, however, that
particular emphasis is given to the function of emotional
proof in the Conclusion, to logical proof in the Discussion,
and to ethical proof in the Introduction.

The basic elements of the Conclusion, according to
Breadus, are-rggapitulatien and application, the former be-
ing particularly useful when a sermon has consisted chiefly
of careful explanation or detailed arguments. He believes
that if it is important to the over-all effect of the
sermon that the divisions be remembered by the audience,
then the recapitulation of the divisions is a necessity.

In most instances the preacher gathers the several

thoughts of the sermon in order to concentrate their force
upon one final effort of conviction or persuasion in a
Egggmgi The application “embraces a variety of materials,
including application preper, suggestions for practical
guidance, and persuasive appeal.“ (300-301) The concluding
exhortation of the sermon should be specific and in re-
lation to the subject which has been treated throughout the
sermon. Breadus notes that often the final words of the
sermon can include a comprehensive restatement of the
subject, the very words of the text, or the reading of a
quotation or poem.

Breadus believes that strict rules regarding the
length of the Conclusion cannot be set down, but that its

length is contingent upon the circumstances of the moment.

129

Be warns against making the Conclusion too long, particular-
ly when the preacher is involved in hortatory appeals and
he notes that if the sermon is long, the Conclusion should
be particularly short. For instance, in some sermons, the
last division of the Discussion actually brings the thought
of the sermon to a close and thus makes a formal Conclusion
unnecessary: and in other instances an abrupt conclusion to
the sermon may be most effective. ”The great requisite is,
that the body of the discourse and the conclusion shall be
adapted to the other: and this may be accomplished by fix-
ing the general contents and design of the conclusion when

laying out the plan of the discourse. . . .“ (304)

Wises

(1) Breadus conceives of homiletics as the science which
pertains to the preparation and delivery of semons. It

is rhetoric applied to preaChing.

(2) Although preaching is seen as having both a persuasive
and instructive function, Breadus gives primary enphasis to
the sermon as suasery discourse. ‘

(3) Broadus' concept of the Bible as the highest authority
in Spiritual affairs is basic to his theory of preaching

in that it affects his view of the function, purpose, con-
tent, and Arrangement of the sermon.

(4) Arrangement reacts upon Invention and is the process
of ordering invented materials. Breadus sees inter-

relationship between Invention and Arrangement, in that

130
Arrangement helps to initiate and inspire additional
Invention to take place, and the process of arranging
thoughts about a subject is seen to be essential to the
study of that subject.
(5) Broadus assigns an importance to Arrangement second
only to that which he gives to Invention. Arrangement is
important to both the speaker and the audience in the pro-
cess of preparing, delivering, hearing, and remembering the
sermon. The importance which Broadus assigns to Arrange-
ment grows out of his emphasis upon the persuasive function
of the sermon, for he believes that Arrangement is an in-
dispensable aid in enhancing persuasiveness.
(6) Broadus classifies sermons according to the nature and
type of the sermon's Arrangement in relation to the text of
scripture utilized. He classifies sermons as subject-
sermons, text-sermons, and eXpository sermons: eadh of
which is based upon the way in which the particular sermon
is structured with relation to the text.
(7) The overall plan of the sermon is determined by the
subject matter of the sermon, as treated in the text, the
nature of its arguments, and the audience to which it is
addressed. Broadus believes that the sermon as a complete
whole should have the characteristics of unity, order, and
proportion, and he believes that the individual parts of
the sermon should contribute and maintain these character-

istics.

131
(8) Broadus' primary emphasis on Arrangement is in terms
of the parts of the sermon. He takes a three part view of
the sermon and sees it possessing an Introduction, Discussion,
land Conclusion, eadh of whidh has distinct functions.
(9) The primary functions of the Introduction are to
interest the audience in the subject of the sermon and to
prepare them for the understanding of the subject.
(10) Broadus treats the Proposition of the sermon as part
of the Discussion and not as a separate part.
(11) The Discussion of the sermon includes divisions and
subdivisions which are euployed to develop the subject and
as part of the sermon's overall plan, has a progressive
plan of its own.
(12) The divisions of the Discussion are determined by the
method of treatment chosen to deal with the text. Their
nature is determined by their relation to the subject and
to each other. None of the divisions should be cc-
extensive with the subject, but the sum total of the
divisions should ekhaust the subject in the sense of cover-
ing the entire ground of the Proposition. Divisions should
be distinct , avoiding overlapping, and yet sustaining the
same relation to the subject. The order of the divisions
is determined by the particular purpose of the sermon, the
nature of the audience, and the type of arguments employed.
(l3) Broadus believes that the transitions of the sermon

are a necessary consideration in a theory of sermonic

 

132
Arrangement. They help the parts to function smoothly
wiflhin the whole of the sermon, and aid the preacher in
testing the quality of his Arrangement in the preparation
of a particular sermon.
(l4) Broadus' emphasis upon the persuasive element in
preaching causes him to consider the Conclusion to be more
important to the sermon than the Introduction, for he
believes that the Conclusion has a more direct function in
the persuasive process. The basic functions of the Con-
clusion are the recapitulation and application of the
arguments used in the sermon.
(15) Broadus sees the modes of proof as having distinctive
functions in the respective parts of the sermon with
ethical proof having a particular function in the Introduc-

tion, logical proof in the Discussion, and emotional proof

in the Conclusion.

CHAPTER V

AUSTIN PHELPS' CONCEPTION OF 'ARRANGEMENT'

Austin Phelgs

Austin Phelps was born into a prominent American
family on January 7, 1820. His early education was
received at a variety of places due to the frequent move-
ments of his father. In 1826, Phelps' father moved to
Pittsfield, Massachusetts to become principal of a school
for young women: and in 1830 he moved to Geneva, New York,
in order to assume the pastorate of the First Presbyterian
Church of Geneva. While in Pittsfield, Austin Phelps
attended the Berkshire Gymnasium and the Wilbraham Acadany
in Wilbraham, Massachusetts. Upon moving to Geneva, he
entered Hobart College while only thirteen years of age,
at”lining there for only two years before transferring to
Amherst College. His stay at Amherst was also brief, how-
”91'. for in 1335, when his father moved the family to
Phil adelphia, Phelps entered the University of Pennsylvania,
from where he was graduated in 1837.

After graduating from college at age seventeen,
Phelps spent an entire year involved in historical reading
and then went to study at Union Theological Seninary and
“1° D:l.vinity School, respectively. Although Phelps never
133

IIIII-_.

 

134
completed a regular theological course of study, he was,
nevertheless, licensed to preach by the Third Presbytery of
Philadelphia in 1840, and on March 31, 1842 was ordained as
the pastor of the Pine Street Congregational Church of
Boston.

Following six successful years in the pastorate,
Phelps, in 1848, was appointed Professor of Sacred Rhetoric
and Homiletics at Andover Seminary. He held this position
at Andover for thirty years and was honored by being
appointed Chairman of the Faculty during the last few years

as well as receiving the honorary doctor of divinity degree

from Amherst College in 1856.1 In 1879, Phelps resigned

'his position at Andover because of poor health and was
Inade professor emeritus.

It was during his retirement years that Phelps
became most productive in writing about his theories of
HCcnniletics and Preaching: during the early 1880's his most
significant homiletical treatises as well as other works of
a <3evotiona1 and theological nature, were produced, Phelps
not. only spent his retirenent years engaged in writing, but

he also took active part in the theological controversy
\ — *—

3 lfiAu'tin Phfilpso“ A leton's C clo edia of American
"i95U522_2. ed. James Grant Wilson a John Fisk, IV (New

Y°u<a D. Appleton 5. Company, 1888), 752.

 

135
that raged at Andover during the last years of his life by
aligning himself prominently with the conservatives.

Phelps died on October 13, 1890 at Bar Harbor,

Maine)

\

Approach to Hgiletics and Preaching

Phelps sees two distinct methods of treating the
subject of homiletics, the “practical“ and the “scientific“.
The “scientific“ approach treats homiletics chiefly as a .
science and develops any discussion of the subject by
scientific analysis in its relation to kindred sciences,
Whereas the “practical“ method, although not unscientific,
has primary regard to the practical uses of homiletics.
The practical method forms ". . . a treatise valuable to a

8tindent chiefly as a practical guide and help to the work

of the pulpit." (iv)2 Since Phelps' homiletical theory,

38 expressed in written form, is largely the result of

lectures on homiletics which he gave in a theological
seminary classroom, he has chosen the “practical“ method of

deve10ping his theory, the method best adapted to the study

\

l"Austin Phelps," D ctiona of American Bio ra h ,
.d- Dumas Malone, XIV, (New York: Char es Scribner 8 Sons,

1334.), 526.

e‘

f 2References to the theory of Austin Phelps are taken
tom his book The Th of Preachin (New York: Charles

Seaman's Sons, 1881 .

136
of the ”art“ in a professional seminary.

Although his method of treatment is essentially a
”practical” approach in application, Phelps, nevertheless,
considers homiletics as '. . . the science which treats
the nature, the classification, the analysis, the con-
struction, and the composition of a sermon.“ (1) He sees
homiletics as the science of which preaching is the art,
and the sermon the end product. Phelps believes that
rhetoric and homiletics are related to one another as the
genus is to the species. Homiletics is the Species of the
genus rhetoric: it is rhetoric as illustrated in the theory
of preaching. '

In discussing what he holds to be the generic idea
(Bf the sermon, Phelps defines the sermon as “. . . an oral
address to the popular mind, upon religious truth as con—

tained in the scriptures, and elaborately treated with a

View to persuasion." (21) The fact that it is “elaborate-

1y treated“ distinguishes a sermon from other types of
lfenigious talks. In this regard Phelps also indicates the
1anortance which he assigns to Arrangement in the sermon,
for he notes that "a sermon is a structure: it is some-
tnhing put together with care. It has unity, coherence,
preportion, a beginning, a middle, and an end.” (14) By
definition, therefore, Phelps notes that Arrangement is
illdispensable to the sermon, for it is actually the one

Bingle element that distinguishes it from other types of

‘31 igious discourse.

 

 

137

Definition and Interpretation of Arrangement

T031 of Arrangement

Phelps sees both a distinct function and an inter-
relationship with regard to the rhetorical canons of Inven-
tion and Arrangement. He believes that as one engages in

the process of arranging and ordering invented materials,

new thoughts will often be suggested. The amount and

quality of invented materials will also aid the speaker in.
his arranging of that material. Phelps states that
“Obviously, if your mind is filled with only anatomical
materials, you must fail in the attempt to make them live
in a breathing sermon. Moreover a certain degree of full-

ness of mind with right material is essential to forcible

development.“ (427) This relationship between Invention

and Arrangement is most clearly indicated in Phelps' dis-
cuseion of the proposition or theme of the sermon, where he
Bees the work of restricting the subject of the sermon as
Part of the arranging process and notes that such restric-
tion will assist the invention of original materials. “If
your inventive power is sluggish, restriction of theme will
stimulate it: if it is active, restriction of theme will
g3-‘7e it scOpe." (310)

Phelps further indicates that the arrangement of a
Bub_‘Ject helps to give the speaker a better understanding of

that subject for ". . . clear mental action works instinct-

1“’B~1y by plan and-each assists the other. You understand

¥

138
a subject the better for having reduced it to a plan of
discourse. A natural division of a subject for use is no
more nor less than a philosophical analysis and arrangement
of its materials: your own thoughts are the more lucid for
the discipline.“ (366) Phelps also sees the relationship
between Invention and Arrangement as a means of testing the
depth and quality of ideas in a sermon, noting that “nothing
discovers poverty of thought more surely than a pertinent

Plan.” (371-372)

Importance of Arrangement

When Phelps speaks and writes of homiletics, he
Beans to think primarily in terms of the canon of Arrange—
ment. Out of the forty lectures which embody his homileti-
Cal theory, all but the first two, which define the sermon,
and the last one, which is a lecture on ministerial culture,
‘31531 with the parts of the sermon. Phelps treats
‘1rrventional and stylistic matters and touches on the canon
‘315IDelivery under his discussion of the various parts of
'tlie sermon. In his definition of the sermon further evi-
‘ifimnce is given of the tremendous importance which Phelps
asSigns to Arrangement: here he says that the fact of the
8eImon's having a structure is its unique characteristic
1‘1 relation to other types of religious talks. Phelps also
bfilieves that Arrangement is of vital import to any type of
(iiscourse: ”no art requires oneness of character in its
‘Prbduction more imperatively than that of oratorical dis-

QOurse. A good discourse is a structure-~one structure, a

139
whole, not a congeries of alien particles." (300)

Phelps also senses the importance of sermonic
Arrangement in terms of the effect of a sermon upon the
emotions of the audience.

In the history of the pulpit, those dis-

courses which commonly produce epileptic and

cataleptic phenomena in the audience are

rambling discourses. Thought without an aim,

emotion without a purpose, stimulation of the

sensibilities without intelligent gravitation

to an object let loose upon feeble minds the

most unmanageable tendencies to pathological

distortion. (301)

The importance given to Arrangement is further seen
143 the role which Phelps assigns it in the classification
(hf sermons. He generally rejects such factors as the mode
(If delivery, the occasion, the subject, the character of
tflne audience addressed, and the text, as determining the
calassification of the sermon. He says, rather, that
Sermons ought to be classified according to the mode of
tireating the subject of the sermon. This method of class-
iufication, Phelps believes, is a strictly rhetorical class-
ification because it does not go outside the sermon itself
ta; find the character of the discourse and a sermon must
1’6 classified as a rhetorical structure.

Using this basis of classification, Phelps notes
tune following four types of sermons: (l) the explanatory
tYpe, which involves the process of explaining what the
tihing is: (2) the illustrative type, which intensifies the

"1vidness of truth: (3) the argumentative type, which has

 

 

140
the syllogism as its basic framework: and (4) the persuasive
type, which has as its immediate object the persuasion of
the audience. (While a single sermon can partake of all
these elements, one of them will predominate.) It is well
to note that Phelps also speaks of three types of sermons
classified according to their relationship to the scrip-
tures: the expository, the textual, and the tOpical sermon.
These sermons are further classified according to the mode
of treating the subject within them, be it by explanation,

illustration, argumentation, or persuasion.

The Parts of the Sermon

Phelps’ primary emphasis in his conception of
Arrangement is upon the parts of the sermon. His theory is
developed around the parts: and although he makes allusions
tn: a comprehensive plan of the entire sermon, his con-
sideration is given most eXplicitly to the individual parts
<31? the discourse.

When Phelps speaks of the parts of the sermon, he
‘dees not necessarily refer to just those parts of the
aGannon visible to the eye in a manuscript or audible to the
ear in delivery. Nor when he speaks of the “constituent
parts“ of the sermon does he mean that all of them are"
eaBential to every sermon, because while most of the parts
are essential, there are exceptions. By “constituent parts“

:fiielps refers to ”those features of discourse, which, in

141
the process of its construction, must engage the attention
of the preacher.“ (37) The speaker must deal with all the
parts of the sermon in his preparation if only to decide
whether or not they are to be used.

In considering the number of parts of which the
sermon consists, Phelps notes that to some extent the number
is contingent upon a method of approach. ". . . the ques-
tion whether we shall adapt a condensed or an extended
analysis of a sermon is chiefly one of convenience in
criticism. For purely scientific theory the more condensed
analysis is the more finished: but for convenience in
practical criticism, the more extended subdivision is the
superior.“ (39) Phelps, like Hoppin considers the sermon
to have seven parts: the Text, the Explanation, the Intro-
duction, the PrOposition, the Division, the Development, and
the Conclusion. In considering whether or not the Text
should be considered as an actual part of the sermon,
Phelps notes that theoretically it may be regarded as
growing out of the PrOposition and as such involved in the
process of announcing the subject. Phelps believes, how-
ever, that in practice, preachers have a text which in
actuality is distinct from the PrOposition and since there
are important homiletical implications in relation to the

Text, it should be treated separately for convenience.

142

The Text

Phelps notes that the Text may be a paragraph of
scripture, a verse, or a part of a verse, which has the
following important functions in the sermon: (l) to give
inapired authority to the ideas of the sermon: (2) to help
give additional knowledge of the Bible to the audience: and
(3) to help to condition the audience to the scriptural
“forms of truth.“ The text further helps to facilitate

the memory of the audience with regard to the content of

- the sermon. “The best texts are brief statements of

truth.“ (58) The Text should be the sermon in miniature

so that when the audience recall the text, they recall the
train of thought which the sermon develOped. The Text is
also assigned by Phelps the function of aiding the intro—
duction of the subject of the sermon. The Text also pro-
motes variety in preaching and aids in preserving the unity
of the sermon. “There is an aim in his [the preacher's]
text which steadies the aim of the sermon.“ (64)

Phelps believes that the Text must have a pertinent
relationship to the main body of the sermon and that there
must be congruity between the Text and theme of the sermon.
"A perfect text will express exactly the subject of the
sermon. . . , “ and "a text foreign to the subject is no
text.” (108) The Text must contain both the subject and the
ProPOsition of the sermon that is, it must not have a

different aspect of the subject than that of the sermon as

a whole.

143

The Explanation

The Explanation of the sermon “is that part of a
sermon which comprehends all those remarks of which the
object is to adjust the meaning of the text to the homiletic
use which is to be made of it.“ (138) Phelps notes that
the Explanation is not entirely identical with the process
characterizing the explanatory sermon since the Explanation,
as part of a sermon, concerns itself exclusively with the
text and its uses: it is not necessarily the chief feature
of the sermon. The Explanation is also distinguished from
the process of investigation by virtue of the fact that
Explanation occurs subsequent to investigation in that it

deals with the results of investigation and not the process

 

of investigation. Explanation is also distinct from the
exegesis in a commentary. Whereas exergesis concerns a
text without homiletical reference, Explanation concerns a
text with no other reference than to its homiletical uses.
Explanation has the function of explaining the Text as far
as the object of the sermon requires: “its aim is to make
the text useful." (139)

Phelps does, however, see a close similarity be-
tween the process of the Explanation and the expository
sermon. The Explanation as part of the topical or textual
sermon is distinct from exposition in an expository sermon
only to the extent that one is only a preliminary, whereas

thetother is the bulk of the sermon. Aside from this

 

144
difference the Explanation of the topical sermon is the
same as the Body of the expository sermon. The principles
which Phelps sets forth for the Explanation, therefore,
can be applied to the whole subject of expository preaching.
The Explanation is discussed not only as one part of a
total sermon but also as an example of a complete expository
sermon.

Phelps sees the Explanation as having three possible
functions or objects. The first of these is ”verbal
criticism,” which may take the form of an analysis of the
text involving the partitioning of the text, distinguishing
the significant words, and making certain points of
emphasis. “Verbal criticism” may also be in the form of
definition in which the words and meanings of the text are
defined. It may also take the form of a verbal paraphrase
which may consist of a succession of definitions or the
translation of scripture into the language of the hearers.
“Verbal criticism“ may also be in the form of Textual
criticism in which the text is corrected and inaccurate or
obscure translations illumined.

The second possible function of the Explanation
which Phelps notes is that of "logical adjustment,” the
process of noting the logical relationships of the Text to
its immediate context in the scripture or to other passages
of scripture. It may also involve noting the relationship

of the Text to the experience and intuitive knowledge of

145

the audience in order to indicate to the audience the logic
of the scripture and to impress upon them the fact that
the teachings of the scriptures do not necessarily conflict
with the experiences and beliefs of men.

The third function of the Explanation is that of
“rhetorical amplification,” the purpose of which is to
make the Text alive, exciting, and interesting, in order
that it might make its fullest impact upon the hearers.

In considering the qualities of the Explanation,
Phelps goes into a great deal of specific detail. He
notes that the Explanation should give the true meaning
of the Text and should strike a balance between develOping
the full force of the Text and giving the Text more than
its full force. The Explanation should be clear, express
positive Opinions, and consist of unity of exposition.
The Explanation should be as concise as clearness and full-
ness will permit: it should preserve the dignity of the
scriptures: it should be made interesting: and it should be
free from such pedantic weaknesses as technical philology
and excessive textual criticism. The Explanation should
further be in keeping with the rhetorical structure of the
Text: and it should naturally suggest the PrOposition of
the sermon, for the PrOposition is the bridge from the Text
to the subject. A good Explanation will often show that
the PrOposition is contained in the text or that it is
suggested by the Text. Phelps indicates his concept of

the overall unity of the sermon by noting that in the

146

tOpical sermon the Explanation should attempt. when pos-
sible, to bring the Text to bear directly upon the Con-
clusion of the sermon.

The chronological place of the Explanation in the
arrangement of the sermon varies according to the
character of the sermon, in Phelps' view. In the exposi-
tory sermon the Explanation forms the body of the discourse,
whereas in a textual sermon the Explanation may be divided
into parts which appear in different places throughout the
sermon. Since each clause of the Text is a division in
the textual sermon, each section can be explained in the
development of its own division. In the topical or textual
sermon the Explanation may sometimes form an introductory
division by itself. Phelps believes that this is often the
most natural method of dealing with a difficult, mis-
interpreted, or contested text. In a tOpical sermon the
Explanation will usually be a preliminary to the Proposition
and as such will generally be brief and serve as a bridge

from the Text to the subject.

The Introduction

Phelps distinguishes between the preliminaries of a
sermon and the Introduction proper, noting that not all
which precedes the announcement of the subject is neces-
sarily Introduction. The exposition of the Text, for
instance, is not an Introduction although it may take the

place of an Introduction or make it unnecessary. An

147
Introduction could exist without a text while an exposition
could not, and an exposition could exist without a subject
while an Introduction could not. Phelps believes, there-
fore, that the Introduction has specific, unique functions
which are not performed in any other part of the sermon.

The basic function of the Introduction is seen to
be the bringing together of the audience and the subject.
Its task, therefore, ". . . is that of preparing the minds
of the hearers. To secure to the audience a natural
approach to the subject and to its discussion--this is the
aim.” (221) Phelps believes that the theory of the Intro-
duction also involves a relationship to the mental state
of the speaker. It is a process of bringing the speaker
and the audience together in mutual sympathy for one an-
other and for the subject at hand: “. . . an introduction
is that part of a discourse which is designed to prepare
an audience for agreement in opinion, and for sympathy
in feeling with the preacher on the subject of discourse.“
(223)

Phelps finds in the writings of Cicero the state-
ment which sets forth his concept of the objects of the
Introduction, "‘eddre auditores benevolosI attentos,
docilgs,'“ (224) The specific objects of the Introduc-
tion are:- to secure the good will of the audience towards
the preacher: to stimulate the attention of the hearers,

and to dispose the hearers to receive favorably the ideas

of the sermon.

148

The “power of person“ residing in the speaker
is seen as being of particular importance in attempting to
secure the good will of an audience. Phelps believes that
the preacher's ethical appeal of "power of person“

". . . is a legitimate object of homiletic culture.“ (226)
He goes on to state that “no wise preacher, therefore, will
defy a prejudice against himself among his hearers, or in-
vite indifference to himself, by his neglect of anything
which forethought and self-discipline can add to his power
of person.“ (226) In this respect, therefore, Phelps sees
the element of ethical proof or gghgg as having a function
of particular importance in the Introduction of the

s ermon .

Generally the chief object of the Introduction,
according to Phelps, is to stimulate the attention of the
hearers. He believes, therefore, that the Introduction
should avail itself of the natural curiosity of an audience
at the beginning of a sermon, and should direct interest
to the subject at hand.

The third purpose of the Introduction noted by
Cicero and utilized by Phelps is to dispose the hearers to
receive favorably the sentiments of the sermon. The
preacher is warned to avoid the belligerent introduction
of the truth: "much depends on suppressing, by the intro-
duction, the consciousness of difference of opinion be-

tween preacher and bearer.“ (233) Phelps believes that

149
in the Introduction a great deal can be done favorably to
dispose the hearers to the subject by making appeals to
authorities recognized and trusted by the audience.

In discussing the characteristics of the good Intro-
duction, Phelps goes into minute detail, analyzing what he
feels to be the six basic characteristics of the good
Introduction. Simplicity is the characteristic first in
importance. Because during the Introduction the mental
state of the audience is one of being unexcited yet waiting
in suspense. The introduction, therefore, should be
characterized by “ease and naturalness,“ and the avoidance
of “abstruse trains of thought and prolonged argumentation.“
Phelps also warns against the expression of I'impassioned
feeling“ in the Introduction and advises against the use
of direct appeals at this point. He sets forth a prin-
ciple in this regard which is ”. . . that of reserving the
sensibilities of an audience till a place is reached in.
the sermon at which an appeal to them will be timely, be-
cause of the accumulated force of thought behind.“ (239)
Phelps does note some exceptions to the principle of avoid-
ing "impassioned” Introductions and states that the case
in point should be judged by the mental state of the
audience, the nature of the occasion, the reputation of
the speaker, and the size of the audience.

A second characteristic of the good Introduction

is that of unity, which is defined as that which includes

150
all that is essential to oneness of impression. ” A true
exordium is always an aim and a shot. No part of the dis-
course should be more intensely one in its impression.“
“(242) The basis of unity is to be found in the subject of
the sermon. Phelps notes that if the subject is the
center of the Introduction, all other materials should be

subordinated to the one, thus securing unity.
Phelps further believes that the Introduction

should be characterized by directness of approach to the
subject at hand. Directness of approach requires that the
Introduction have a progress of thought that will rapidly
and directly lead to the subject. "Make everything clear
as you proceed, but press on.“ (245) Such rapidity of
approach is regarded as desirable for the sake of brevity
in the Introduction, which will in turn stimulate interest

in the subject by both preacher and hearer.
A fourth characteristic of the Introduction is that

Of "congruity with the character of the sermon.“ The
Introduction should be devoid of extraneous materials and
be characteristic of the subject at hand. Phelps notes
t“'15:“: congruity may also be sacrificed by an Introduction
°f excessive length for “disprOportion is itself in-
congruous." (248) Congruity may be further sacrificed if
the Introduction is superior to the rest of the sermon in
its "rhetorical qualities,“ and if the materials which

belong to the main body of'the semen are used in the

k

151
Introduction. “The introduction should lay claim to
nothing which will serve the purpose of the sermon more
effectively elsewhere.“ (250) Congruity does demand, how-
ever, that the Introduction should resemble the body of
the sermon sufficiently to suggest it. In illustration of
this, Phelps urges the preacher to ”let logic usher logic.
Let beauty herald beauty. Let solemnity foreshadow
solemnity.“ (250) Congruity also demands that, if pos-
sible, the Introduction cover everything in the sermon that
needs some introductory remark.

Modesty is the fifth characteristic of the Introduc-
tion which Phelps notes. Modesty involves all the‘parts of
the sermon “. . . and yet it comes most prominently to
View in the exordium.“ (253) Here again Phelps reiterates
the element of ethical proof as having a particular func-
tion in the Introduction for in the Introduction, modesty
Should indicate a respect for the audience as well as a
modest self appreciation. Phelps also believes that the
care with which the I ntroduction is constructed reflects
Doe's attitude toward the bearer. "Vigorous thought, a
maI‘tly style, the omission of needless explanations, and
celerity of progress in the exordium are tacit signs of
the speaker's estimate of the abilities of his hearers."
(255) Phelps further notes that modesty demands freedom
erm arrogant insinuations on the part of the speaker as

Well as affectations of style and humility.

¥

 

152

The last characteristic of the Introduction is
"suggestiveness.“ Phelps sees the preacher's task in the
Introduction as one in which he attempts to get the audi-
ence thinking in and thus prepares them for vigorous
thought in the remainder of the sermon. The Introduction
should be intellectually stimulating and suggestive in
order to excite the interest of the audience and set the
intellectual tone for the remainder of the sermon.

In discussing the varieties of Introductions,

Phelps advises the preacher to avoid the “humdrum” and
attenpt to be as varied as possible. He sets forth ten
<1ifferent varieties of Introduction, not to provide models
or a list from which selection can be made, but simply to
1ruiicate the variety available for use:

(1) The approach to the subject without a formal
Introduction. The Explanation of the Text
and the derivation from it constitute the
entire part of the sermon that would normally
be occupied by a formal Introduction.

(2) "The introduction applicatory of the text."
(267) This Introduction attempts to attract
attention to the subject by bringing the Text
up to date and applying it to the present
audience.

(3) "The introduction intensive of the text by

comparison with other scriptures.“ (268)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

153
Imus Introduction has as its aim the magnifying
of the truth taught in the'rext.
“The introduction explanatory of principles
involved in the discussion.“ (268) This in-
volves the development of principles upon
which the argument of the Discussion is to be
based.
”The introduction narrative of facts which are
necessary to an appreciation of the subject.“
(269) This Introduction looks forward to the
subject and not backward on the Text.
”The introduction illustrative of either facts
or principles involved in the discussion." (269)
The use of an anecdote or quotation which
illustrates the basic principle of the sermon.
"The introduction commendatory of the subject."
(270) The object of this Introduction is to
exalt the dignity of the subject in the minds
of the hearers.
“The introduction connective with the preceding
discourse.“ (272) This is applicable when the
preacher is preaching a series of sermons or
if the sermon is one of several at one
occasion.
"A condensed review” of another subject related

to that of the sermon. Since some subjects are

154
natural preliminaries to others, sometimes an
effective Introduction to a sermon may be the
compressed discussion of another sermon.

(10) A request for the attention of the audience.

“It is not necessarily confined to a brief
and single request. It may be eXpanded into
an appeal for devout attention, for patient
attention, for an uninterrupted attention.“
(273)

Phelps offers several suggestions with regard to the
composition of the Introduction. He advises the preacher
to define the specific object of the particular Introduction
in his own mind and then review the development of the
aermon's subject as he has thought it over in his own mind.
fie further suggests that the Introduction be composed with
all of the parts of the entire sermon in view, for he
believes that the Introduction should not be written until

the plan of the sermon is outlined.

The Proposition

Phelps conceives of the PrOposition of the sermon as
"., . . that part of the discourse by which the subject is
defined." (282) The Proposition includes, but‘is not
limited to, that which is termed the"proposition"in the
n‘”henclature of logic. "It embraces all varieties of

rhetorical form by which a subject is indicated to the

a“dishes. " (282)

¥

 

155

The PrOposition is an important element in Phelps'
theory in terms of the speaker, the bearer, and the subject
matter of the sermon: “The oratorical instinct of a good
speaker demands that he shall have a proposition," (283)
(The instinct of the listener also demands that the speaker
speak to the point.) Phelps further believes that the
nature of the subjects with which sermons are concerned
makes the PrOposition a necessity. He feels that because
the thoughts on religious themes often become obscure and
difficult for the “popular mind“ to understand, thus "one
part of the mission of the pulpit, therefore, must be to
divide and define and identify religious thought in the
Exapular experience.” (286) Believing that definitive
propositions will help to consolidate the theological
:Eaith of the peOple who listen to sermons, Phelps notes,
taierefore, that ”a Preposition, and a prOposition studied,
and a proposition stated, and often a proposition finished
111 elaborate and compact form, is a very vital part of
Pulpit discourse.” (292)

In dealing with the question of whether or not a
P11-"l3position should be omitted in order to conceal the aim
of a sermon, Phelps observes that the practice of conceal-
‘nefirt in the pulpit is rare due to the nature of preaching,
wh«Ich involves an openness of policy, and due to the fact
that such practice leads to suspicion and distrust.

There is a sense in which Phelps believes that cer-

tain elements of the complete statement of the speaker's

156

Conclusion can go unrevealed in the Proposition. He

teaches that the Proposition may involve the Conclusion

without actually stating it:
Your prOposition may announce a theme in
general: your conclusion may disclose a
specific truth on that theme. Your prOposi-
tion may be an interrogative: your conclusion
may be its answer. Your prOposition may ask
attention to some thoughts suggested by the

text: your conclusion may educe results which
the hearers would not have tolerated at the

outset.” (298)

Phelps considers the essential substance of the
PrOposition to be regulated by three principles: the
relation of its elements to each other: the relation of
the whole to the text: and the relation of the whole to the
sermon. Believing that the foundation of unity in the
sermon must be laid in the unity of its Proposition, Phelps
notes that the elements of the Preposition should be so
related to each other that they produce unity of discussion.
The importance assigned to the element of Arrangement in
the sermon is clearly seen in this context, for Phelps
notes that “no art requires oneness of character in its
productions more imperatively than that of oral discourse.
‘A good discourse is a structure, -- one structure, a
whole, not a congeries of alien particles." (300) The
Preposition is seen to function as the unifying element of
'Ehe sermon and in this connection Phelps quotes Penelon
a8 saying that"‘the discourse is the proposition unfolded,
sun: the prOposition is the discourse condensed.'“ (301)

POI Phelps the great value of the Preposition isthat it

157
restrains heterogeneous discourse.

Phelps considers four possible types of PrOpositions,
each corresponding to the four varieties of sermons --
eXplanation, proof, illustration, and persuasion. The
Preposition, therefore, may suggest a process of argument:
and thus the sermon will be argumentative. The PrOposition
may be deductive in which the aim is explanation and not
proof, or it may be fitted to “picturesque” or “oratorical“
unity for the illustrative and persuasive sermons.

The second principle relating to the essential
substance of the Proposition involves the elements of the
Preposition in relation to the Text. The PrOposition
should be congruous with the Text, with the Preposition and
Text sustaining each other. Using the analogy of a tree,
as does Happin, Phelps comments that “if the proposition
is the trunk from which the body of the sermon expands it-
self, the text is the root from which, in some sense, the
preposition should grow.” (308)

The third principle involves the relation of the
Proposition as a whole to the body of the sermon. The
PrOposition should not have more materials than can be
discussed adequately in one sermon, nor should the sub-
8tance of the Preposition have less material than is
sufficient for adequate discussion in one sermon. Phelps
aaye further that the Proposition, in its relation to the

BOdy of the sermon, should not contain other materials

158
than those which are actually discussed in the particular
sermon.

Although the substance of the Proposition is
determined by the three above principles, the form of the
Proposition should be characterized by simplicity, brevity,
and specificity, according to Phelps. The Proposition
should be simple, for ”. . . it is a statement, a full
statement, and nothing but a statement of the thing at
hand." (335) It should have the quality of briefness be-
cause "the deepest, the truest, the most magnetic [of
Propositions] are susceptible of compactness in form.“
(349) Phelps also urges that the Proposition should be
Specific, for specific statements limit the range of the
sermon‘s discussion, concentrate attention, and stimulate

the interest of both preacher and hearer.

The Division

The Divisions of a sermon are a necessity to both
the speaker and the audience, according to Phelps. They
aid in giving understanding by helping the preacher to
clarify his thoughts, and they assist the bearer to achieve
clearness in understanding. Phelps argues for clear
Divisions in the sermon from the point of view of the
sermon as oral discourse, saying that the demand for instant
intelligibility in the oral preadhing situation necessitates
divisions of thought in the sermon. He notes that “ . . . good

discourse in the pulpit demands that a preacher shall have

159
divisions in his own mind, and that he shall so state them
that hearers shall be distinctly sensible of them.“ (365)

The relationship of Invention and Arrangement is
seen in the belief that Divisions help to promote compre-
hensiveness of discussion udthin the sermon. “They
I§ivision€1 assist a preacher in collecting and arranging
the materials for sue? a discussion,“ (367) as well as
helping him to uncover gaps in his logic or incomplete
materials. Phelps further notes that Divisions help to
promote unity of discussion in that ”the very effort to
classify materials tends to unify them in the result."
(370) Sermonic Divisions are also necessary berries they
promote and assist both the progress and the conciseness of
a discussion: good Divisions in a sermon help to CoijCt
the structure of the sermon and thus foster conciseness.
The hearers of a sermon benefit from clear Divisions in
that Divisions enhance interest and help to register a
lasting impression by aiding the memory.

Phelps states that the extent to which the sermon's
Divisions should be obvious and visible is dependent upon
the nature of the subject, the way in which the subject is
to be treated, the character of the audience, and the
amount of time which the speaker is allotted to speak. The
basic principle prOposed in terms of the subject to be dis-
cussed is that “. . . the more severely the subject tasks
the mind, the more imperative is the need of a thorough

division of materials." (380) If a subject is to be

160
treated argumentatively, it will need more clearly stated
Divisions than if it is treated by exhortation. The prin-
ciple is that Divisions should equal, not exceed, the
demands of the sermon's discussion.

Phelps warns the preacher to avoid the use of any
arbitrary number of Divisions: an uncontrolled multiplica-
tion of Divisions: uniformity of Divisions: extending the
Divisions beyond the second degree and subdividing sub-
divisions: visible division for the speaker's convenience
alone: form for form's sake: and visible division if it
outweighs rhetorical force. In regard to this last warn-
ing, Phelps states that “in all oral Speech, and specially
in preaching, results depend much more on rhetorical
impression than on scientific form." (385)1

In the discussion of "materials" of sermon
Divisions or of what thoughts Divisions should be composed,
the following suggestions are offered:

(1) A Division should be necessary to the develOp-

ment of the Proposition.

(2) The Divisions, as a whole, should fully deve10p

the Proposition.

1Phelps indicates, as does Kidder, that scientific
1°gic is not sufficient for the best 'rhetorical impression:
His implication is that the best logical Arrangement is not
rlecessarily the best rhetorical Arrangement in terms of its
°°mmunicative ability to instruct, persuade, and move an
audience to action.

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

161
The Divisions should consist of the most
powerful thoughts which research on the subject
has discovered.
The materials of Divisions should be classified
upon the same principle of division.
Divisions should be susceptible of unity of
development. ”Each [Division] should be in
itself a unit and susceptible of compact
development.” (398)
The Divisions of the Body of the sermon should
not anticipate those of the Conclusion. In an
argumentative sermon, for instance, the
development and application of the PrOposition
are distinct. The development belongs in the
Body and the application in the Conclusion, for
the preacher cannot apply what has not been
proven.
The materials of the Conclusion should not re-
turn to that which has preceded it except by
way of an intended recapitulation.
The Divisions should be as suggestive of the
main thoughts of the Proposition as possible.
”. . . The materials of each division should be
so related to the proposition as to be a

reminder of it.“ (405)

The principles set forth regarding the ferm of the

Divisions are the same as those which Phelps notes for the

162
form of the Proposition: (1) they should be intelligible
vdthout being “hackneyed,” interesting without being fanci-
ful, and easily remembered: (2) they should be closely
similar to the design of the PrOposition and constructed
.so as to suggest each other yet not susceptible of confu-
ision with each other: (3) they should further be stated so
that they will help to foster expectation and interest in
'tlie mind of the hearer.

The order in which Divisions are to be stated is
determined by the subject, its discussion, its aim, and the
amidience. The object aimed at in ordering divisions is
". . . progress in intensity of moral impression.“ (421)

Time order best achieving this object is the one to be
Beelected by the preacher. The following eight considerations
are given as suggestions regarding the possible ways in which
Divisions may be ordered;

(1) Divisions may be arranged by an order necessitated
by logic. Some ideas, by their very nature must
precede other ideas.

(2) Divisions may be arranged in an order determined
by the relation of cause and effect, effect to
cause.

(3) Divisions may be arranged on an order based on
the relation between genus and Species.

(4) Divisions may be arranged in the order of
“intrinsic dignity.” This involves beginning

with the less and moving to the greater in a

163
climactic procession of thought. “In
intrinsic dignity that truth is the most
weighty whidh will carry the most weight over
to the object of discourse.“ (417)

(5) Divisions may be arranged in an order suggested
by psychological considerations.

(6) Divisions may be arranged in a time order.

(7) Divisions may be arranged in an order based
upon weight of argument. This approach coin-
cides with the order of “intrinsic dignity,"
only it is limited to arguments. The weakest
argument is used first and the strongest last.

(8) Divisions may be arranged in an order dependent
on progress in the personal interest of the
hearers, a progress that stimulates the
hearer's individual interests.

Phelps sets forth intelligibility, congruity with

‘the feelings of the hearers, and permanence in the memory
<3f the hearer as the chief objects in announcing
lDivisions.» With these objects in mind, he makes several
observations about the announcing of Divisions.

(1) Divisions should be so announced that transi-

tions can be distinctly perceptible.

(2) Divisions should be announced so as to pre-

serve the harmony of the nature of the

materialS.

164

(3) Divisions should be so announced as not to be
confused with one another.

(4) Divisions do not need to be announced in
synOpsis form before the discussion.

(5) Divisions should not be announced so as to
disclose prematurely the character of the Con-
clusion.

(6) Divisions should not be announced so as to
deceive the audience as to the length of the

sermon.

The Development

The term “Development“ as used by Phelps may be
thought of as the designation of the entire sermon in
relationship to the Text: the Preposition and the Divisions
c>f a sermon as related to the subject: the Divisions alone
ias related to the Preposition: and the amplification of
each separate division of the sermon as well as all of
‘them collectively. Although Phelps believes that the term
can be used to denote a variety of processes, he chooses
‘to treat and limit it with particular regard to the ampli-
fication of the Divisions of the sermon. He notes that
". . . the development is an unfolding of the salient
thoughts expressed in the divisions. . .“ and further says
that "the text, the preposition, and the division being
given, criticism designates the remainder of the sermon as

the 'development' and applies the term either to a

165
discourse separately, or to all the divisions collectively.“
(426)

The Development of the sermon is thus seen as the
accomplishing of that which the plan of the sermon proposed
and, therefore, the work of develOpment is the composition
of the sermon as distinct from the planning of it. ”It
[the Development] is the clothing of the skeleton of the
sermon with the elements of effective discourse.“ (426)

In this sense Phelps sees Arrangement and Invention closely
related in the DeveIOpment of the sermon. Insofar as

“the DevelOpment“ is a part of the sermon, it may be con-
sidered as a concern of Arrangement. The actual process
«of the Development, however, is primarily a function of
(Invention, for "it sets invention at work more severely,
iand calls into service a greater variety of mental powers,
than does any other part of the discussion.“ (427)

The important function of Invention is underscored
111 the discussion of the prerequisites of the Development.
Ffiielps notes that an important prerequisite in this regard
153 “the possession of the right quantity and quality of
materials.“ (427) He rejects the use of set 2229; employed
bY’ the ancient orators and calls for the mental dexterity
°E5 the preacher to be put into Operation in discovering and
Pttbcessing the right quantity and qualities of materials to
be used in the DevelOpment. The type of treatment to be

91Men to the DeveIOpment is thought to be determined by the

166
nature of the subject: the character of the audience: the
demands of the occasion: the nature of the preacher's total
rninistry: and the personal tastes, level of ability, and mood
of the preacher.

’ Phelps describes the ideal Development as having the
characteristics of unity, pertinency, completeness, concise—
ness, order, and proportion. The Development must be
characterized by unity because "a division amplified is a
discourse in miniature! (436) Phelps notes, however, that
unity is often sacrificed by attempts to discuss divergent
ideas under one heading. ”Unity of impression requires
intensity of aim: and an intense aim shuts out everything
but necessities." (439)

Phelps believes that strict unity will generally
insure pertinency of DevelOpment, because a lack of pert-
inency is often the result of poor arranging in which
irrelevant thoughts are simply out of place. Phelps notes
that every sentence of the sermon is a subdivision of
Something and that the same law of careful thought should
govern the Species as well as the genus. “The habit of
precise and intense thinking, will tend to adjust the
details of development as rigidly as it plans the outline
or a sermon." (442)

Completeness in the Deve10pment is seen as being
impaired by omitting a necessary link in argument: an in-

éldequate statement of the strong point in the argument: and

¥

167

a lack of clearness of transitions. Conciseness and com-

pleteness must oomplenent one another in the Development

with conciseness subordinated to completeness.

The Development must also have order. Phelps ad-

vises the preacher to preserve order by maintaining con-

tinuity of thought and aiming at a climax in the Develop-

ment. "The path of best order may be discovered by asking

the question, 'what is the order of increase in point of

intensity?’ Follow that order, and you always have the

natural arrangenent, even to the location of a word.“ (451)

The Development, being a miniature discourse, has a

beginning, a middle, and an end: and for this reason the

Development of each division by itself should be proportioned

in all its parts. The Development should also be prepor-

tioned to that of each other division, thus having an

internal and external proportion.

The Conclusion

Phelps sees in the Conclusion of the sermon the

c1"taracteristic element of the sermon as a whole: the

“practicalness” of the sermon. “Preaching is always for

an object, always aimed at a practical result, never for

dalliance with entertaining materials. No other part of

the sermon [than the Conclusion] therefore defines itself

more positively.“ (456) He believes, therefore, that the

characteristic idea of the Conclusion is application

 

since it presupposes a thene discussed which is then to be

‘

 

168
applied to something. Phelps notes, however, that the
Conclusion is not necessarily restricted to the chronologi~
cal termination of the sermon, for ”its characteristic
idea, of application, permits its distribution throughout
the body of a sermon, in place of its concentration at the
close.” (456)

In considering whether the preacher should use con-
tinuous application throughout the sermon or place a compact
application at the close, Phelps sets forth the principle
that ". . . the less elaborate the sermon, or the less
cultivated the audience, or the more emotive the condition
of the audience, the more readily is the continuous appli-
cation admitted or required.” (514) He seems to favor,
however, the compact conclusion as being the more appli-
cable in the largest number of cases, noting that it is
often demanded by logical necessities, is the most natural
to the type of discussion whith demands unbroken continuity,
and is the most favorable in an attempt to make a concen-
trated impression upon the audience.

In his theory of the Conclusion, Phelps identifies
the three “radical“ elements of the Conclusion as recapitu-
lation, appeal, and infegenc§_or remagk. He suggests that
the preacher ”make the conclusion sympathetic with the
discussion, recapitulate, infer, remark, appeal -- one or
all, -- as may be requisite to evolve most richly the
applicatory force which is latent in the body of the sermon."

(519)

169

Recapitulation in the Conclusion should be brief
and restricted to the materials which preceded it.
Believing that the use of recapitulation in the Conclusion
is a means of testing the quality of the divisions of the
sermon, Phelps states that

the advantage of good divisions in a sermon

comes to view in their recapitulation.

Clear, compact, forcible divisions fall into

line beautifully in an epitome of the dis-

cussion. One of the most valuable single

rules for constructing divisions is so to

frame them that they can be easily and forc-

ibly recapitulated at the close." (521)

The rgcapitulation should further be characterized by
climactic order, which, according to Phelps, will generally
be the order of good divisions.

Phelps' definition of ”inference,“ and “remark“ as a
type of Conclusion is that “both are rhetorical sequences
from the body of the sermon. An inference is a logical
sequence: a remark is a suggested sequence. Both are
rhetorically related to the discussion as consequent to '
antecedent." (523) Both the inference and remark should be
"legitimate” sequences from the body of the sermon. Phelps
notes that the inference should be a logical sequence and
the remark a natural suggestion from the sermon.

In the discussion of the use of appeals in the
Conclusion of the sermon, the following observations are
made:

(1) Appeals should be founded on the sermon's

strategic materials.

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)
(7)

(s)

(9)

(10)
(ll)

(12)

170
Appeals should be aimed at feelings as dis-
tinct from convictions.
Appeals should be aimed ultimately at the
“executive faculty of the soul,” that
"faculty” which Phelps believes compels the
individual to concrete action.
Appeals should be constant with their aim to
the vital acts of religious duty.
Appeals should be Specific in their basis and
their aim. ”The point from which they Spring
should be well defined: the point at which
they strike should be equally so." (557)
Appeals should not be unduly emotional.
Appeals should be so constructed that they
imply the expectation of success.
Appeals should be delivered in a natural, un-
affected way.
Appeals should be prepared and spoken under the
impetus of the preacher's genuine feeling.
Appeals should avoid being excessive in length.
Appeals should be varied in respect to the
“class of sensibilities" to which they are made:
the truths on which they are based: and their
style.
Appeals should be stated without forewarning
the audience lest they close their minds to the

application that is to be made.

171

Qgpclusions

(l) Phelps conceives of homiletics as a practical science
which is concerned with the nature, classification,
analysis, construction and composition of the sermon: of
which preaching is the art and the sermon the end product.
(2) Homiletics is the species of the genus rhetoric: it

is rhetoric as illustrated in the theory of preaching.

(3) The sermon derives its basic content from the scrip-
tures and has as its primary end the persuasion of the
bearer and its secondary and instruction.

(4) Phelps clearly distinguishes between Invention and
Arrangenent but also notes inter-relationship between

them. In the process of arranging, further Invention takes
place, the subject is understood more completely, and the
depth and quality of Invention is tested.

(5) Phelps sets forth two methods of classifying sermons:
according to their relationship to the scriptures, and
according to the mode of treating the subject. Using the
first basis, he classifies sermons as expository, textual,
and tepical: and on the second basis as explanatory,
illustrative, argumentative, and persuasive. A single
ser'l'aon may thus be classified in two ways.

(6) Matters of Arrangement are of primary concern in
Phelps' homiletical theory due to his belief that structure
is inherent in the very nature of discourse. His discus-
8ion of homiletics is generally treated within his lectures

on the parts of the sermon.

 

172
(7) In terms of the total plan of the sermon, Phelps
gives primary consideration to the characteristic of over-
all unity.
(8) Phelps distinguishes between logical and rhetorical
‘Arrangement. He believes that preadhing is primarily con-
cerned with the best rhetorical Arrangement because of its
'concern for communication. Rhetorical Arrangement has
logical concerns but is primarily interested in the best
Arrangement of the sermon as oral discourse.
(9) The primary aphasia of Phelps' theory of Arrangenent
:18 upon the parts of the sermon, which he treats with pre-
caise analysis and detail. The detailed and technical
treatment with which Phelps develOps his theory is due to
1113 belief that homiletics is a practical science.
(10) The sermon is seen as having a maximum of seven parts:
tame Text, Explanation, Introduction, PrOposition, Divisions
DevelOpment, and Conclusion.
£11) The Text is treated by Phelps as a separate part be-
cause it contributes the subject of the sermon and lends
eWilt-horny and unity to the sermon.
(12) The function of the Explanation is to explain the
tut in the light of the purpose and object of the particu-
la;- sermon.
(13) The Introduction functions to secure the attention and
900d will of the audience and to orient them to the subject

°f the sermon. Phelps believes that ethical proof has a

173
particular function in the Introduction of the sermon.
(14) The Proposition is assigned by Phelps the function of
stating and defining the subject of the sermon in its com-
plete form. The essential substance of the Proposition is
regulated by the relation of its elements to each other,
the relation of the Proposition to the Text, and the rela-
tion of the Preposition to the entire sermon.
(15) The Divisions of the sermon are seen by Phelps as
raecessary to the communicating ability of the sermon.
{Their function is to develop the prOpositicn of the sermon
141 a unified manner. The order in which the Divisions of
time sermon are to be stated is determined by the senmon‘s
Stibject, its general discussion, its Specific aims, and the
audience to which it is addressed.
(:16) The function of the Development is to amplify the
tluaughts expressed in the Divisions of the sermon. Al—
tluough Phelps treats the Development as one of the parts in
the sermon's arrangement, its main function is inventional
in nature.
(157) The function of the sermon‘s Conclusion is that of
application. Phelps' concept of the sermon as having per-
suasion as its primary function sees the Conclusion, in
applying the truths of the sermon to the lives of the
hearers, as a necessary completion in the total attempt at

persuasion in the sermon.

CHAPTER VI

THOMAS HARWOOD PATTISON‘S CONCEPTION OF 'ARRANGEMENT'

Thomas Harwood Pattison

Although he was born, reared, and formally educated
in England, T. Harwood Pattison's professional contribu-
tions as a teacher of preaching and a homiletical theorist
were made on the American theological scene.

Pattison was born on December 14, 1838, in Cornwall,
England.1 He was educated in English grammar schools and
txmok his college training at Regent’s Park College, where
he was graduated in 1862. He Spent the early years of his
ministry in Great Britain.

The Rochester Theological Seminary, a Baptist
School of theology located in New York state, extended an
invitation to Pattison to join its faculty as Wycoff
Professor of Homiletics and Pastoral Theology in 1881, a
Pesition which he accepted and held until his death in

19042. During his tenure at Rochester, Pattison's

1" T.Harwcod Pattison“ Who Was Who in America 1897-
1942, I, (Chicago: The A.N. Marquis Company, 1943 , p.944.

2Theodore L. Trost, Librarian, Colgate Rochester
fgvinity School, in a letter to this writer dated April 21,

64.
174

 

175
homiletical theory largely grew out of his experience in
teaching future Baptist ministers in the art of preaching.
His book, The Making of the Sermon, is a synthesis of his
classroom instruction in homiletical theory and was origin-
ally written primarily for classroom use. Pattison's
stature as a theological educator was recognized by Colgate
University, Brown University, and Williams College, each
of these institutions granting him the honorary Doctor of
Divinity degree.

Pattison's wide interests extended into fields
<other than homiletics, however, for his published works
include books dealing with Church History, Biblical studies,
‘worship, and religious education as well as the theory and
jpractice of preaching.

A tribute to Pattison's experience and ability as
Tboth a theorist and practitioner of the art of preadhing
was given at the time of his death, in February, 1904, by
President Augustus HOpkins Strong of Rochester Theological
Seminary. In his tribute Strong observed that “the stu-
dents of this Seminary could always in Dr. Pattison see the
'preacher behind the lecturer on preaching, and have convinc-
ing proofs that his precepts were not mere theory, but were
the result of experience.“1

¥

1Rochester Theological Seminary Bulletin, Seventy-
fifth Anniversary Volume (Rochester'New York: May, 1925),
P. 27.

176

Approach to Hpmiletics and Preaghing

Pattison defines preaching as ". . . the spoken
communication of divine truth with a view to persuasion."
(3)1 He notes that such a definition covers the three
elements which are of chief concern in the sermon: its
rnatter: its manner: and its purpose. The “matter“ of
rereaChing is “divine truth,” which tells the preacher 2233
'to preach: the "manner” of preaching is “Spoken”, which
(denotes 293 to preach: and the purpose is "persuasion,"
xdhich tells gpy one preaches.

Pattison further develOpS his concept of the “matter"
caf preaching in saying that "Christian preaching is
Inimited to the proclamation and enforcement of the truth
c>f God.“ (3) He believes that preaching is the delivery
C>f a message from God to man and, therefore, must concern
istself with the subject matter of religion. "The preacher
Its called to preach the gOSpel of Christ, and not to lecture
<>n literature or politics or economical questions.“ (5)
Pattison gives particular stress to the use of the Bible as
time source of preaching content and believes that the truth
revealed in the Bible is the very staple of preaching.
Paittison roots his idea of the authority for preaching in
tame idea that the preacher eXpounds the revealed truth of

\

1References to the theory of T. Harwood Pattison are
t-aken from his book The Making of the Sermon (Philadelphia:
erican Baptist Publication Society, 1898).

177
God. The authority of preaching, therefore, is in the
fact that the preacher is a messenger who delivers to his

hearers the Word of God.
Since the “manner" of preaching is Spoken, Pattison

sees it distinguished from other types of religious communi-

cation in the fact that it demands a Speaker and an audience.
Pattison believes that it is most natural that the communica-
tion of divine truth be through the medium of the Spoken

mrd because men are most apt to be touched and affected

by their fellowmen in a face-to-face situation. In the

light of this, therefore, the preacher must be sensitive
to human needs: Pattison quotes Beecher as saying that
preaching is “the application of personal enotion and
thought to living people: the power of one living man to
lay himself on the heart and intelligence of another."'(10)
A1 80, he believes, the preacher must possess natural abil-
ities in Speaking, be morally and Spiritually qualified for

his task, and be content to deliver his message free from

pe-l:‘eonal ambition. Closely related to the preacher's

qualifications as a person is his responsibility to his

auc3.:1ence. Pattison believes that the audience should be

kept in view during the preparation of the sermon in order
that the preacher may hold the attention of the audience
tmughout the sermon, be able to appeal to the reason,
the imagination, and the heart of his audience, and be'

effective in persuading then of the truth.

178

Pattison sees the purpose of preaching as persuasion,
and he further notes that in persuasion every form of
discourse must be used including the three distinct kinds
of pulpit discourse set forth in the New Testament: (1)
“familiar discourse,“ which is characterized by easy and
ggraceful conversation: (2) “rhetorical discourse,“ which is
". . . a more formal, studied, and impassioned declaration
(sf God‘s will,“ (16) and (3) “argumentative discourse."
Iaattison advises against using any one of the types of dis-
caourse mentioned to the exclusion of others.

With the even level of familiar address let

hum talk and teach: in more precise forms of

Speech let him reason of the great truths of

salvation: now and again, rising into im-

passioned language, let him announce the good

tidings, let him give rein to the impetuosity

of his emotions, let him testify against those

who harden their hearts before the pleading of

divine mercy: and oftener still, as one who

knows the fear of the Lord, let him persuade

men, beseeching them in Christ‘s stead to be

reconciled to God. (17, 18)

Definition and Interpretation of Arrangement

The TOppi of Arrangement

Pattison sees a clear distinction between the func-
tirorgs of Invention and Arrangement, although he fully recog-
niizlas an inter-relationship between them. He notes that
"1“ any discourse the true rhetorical order is, first, the
con<=eption of ideas: then, their orderly arrangement: and
fineally, their expression in fitting language.“ (337)

1‘ interrelationship between Invention and Arrangenent

179
exists in the fact that as the preacher arranges materials,
further Invention takes place. Arrangement is conceived,
therefore, as that process of ordering materials into a
sermon plan, and the very act of so ordering the materials

may prompt further Invention to take place.

The Importance of Arrangenent

Pattison assigns great importance to the canon of
Arrangenent in his homiletical theory. In terms of the
amount of Space given to the treatment of each of the
rhetorical canons, Invention is prominent: but Arrangement
is assigned an important function and is seen as closely
complementing the preacher's inventional work. Matters of
Invention and Arrangenent are assigned a greater importance
than those of Style and Delivery, both in terms of amount
Of Space given for their discussion and their actual func-
tion in preaching. Pattison explicitly states that the
Preparation of the sermon plan is of greater value than the
careful writing out of the sermon because ". . . the plan
reL'—‘~t‘esents thought, the composition expression." (122)

A further indication of the importance which
Pat"lison assigns to Arrangenent is seen in the fact that he
cla-Ssifies sermons as tOpical, textual, and expository on
the basis of their particular structure in relation to the

Te)“: of the sermon. His approach in this regard is Similar

t
0 that utilized by John Broadus.

180

The Overall Plan of the Sermon

The theme of a particular sermon is seen as an
important factor in the overall plan of that sermon accord-

ing to Pattison, when he defines the theme of the sermon

as u.
Speak, drawn from a passage of scripture and modified by the

The theme

. . the subject upon which the preacher prOposes to

purpose which the preacher has in view. “ (97)
gives to the semen a single, clearly defined purpose,

promotes unity and compactness, and insures careful arrange-

ment in the sermon. Pattison quotes Fenelon as saying

"'the theme is the sermon condensed: the sermon is the

theme unfolded.” (99) While he does not conceive of the

theme as an actual part in the arrangement of the sermon,

but he does see a close relationship between the theme and

the plan of the sermon. The plan of the sermon consists of

a thorough development of the theme which has been chosen:

. the plan is central: on it converge the lines of

preparation, while from it proceed the lines of delivery.“

(116) Pattison Speaks of preparation for the plan of the

SeI‘mon, in relation to the theme, and preparation 9_f_ the

1’1 an. Preparation for the plan is a process of Invention

in which the theme is developed. In this process the theme

is Unfolded and prepared for its logical and orderly arrange-

ment in the plan. The preparation _o_1_f_ the plan grows out of

the inventional work on the theme. In the process of

peraration the preacher determines ". . . the meaning of

his. text, he has freed it from superfluous matter,

181
formulated his theme distinctly, and prepared the way for
a logical and effective sermon plan.“ (120) Pattison
indicates that it is at this point that the actual arrange-

ment of the parts of the sermon, as they develop the thene,

can begin to take place.

The Parts of the Sermon

Although he gives careful consideration to the plan
of the sermon as a whole in all its relationships, Pattison
gives fairly detailed attention to the parts of the sermon.

He considers the sermon as having three parts: Introduction,

the Divisions or Body, and the Conclusion. He treats the

text of the sermon as actually functioning in the Intro-
duction and not as a distinct part of the sermon. Similar-
‘ly, the deveIOpment of the divisions is seen as being part
caf the Body of the sermon itself and not existing as a

(iistinctly separate part. Pattison feels that careful

Ordering of the parts of a sermon is of great necessity for
"if order be hearer's first law, then why shall not our
Sermons by the clearness and conclusiveness of their

J'ogical advance justify our claim to hold our credentials

from the skies?" (174)

The Introduction

Believing that the Introduction presupposes that the

Sel‘x'non is a complete structure with an overall plan,

£>
attison compares it to the prelude of a poem or the preface

 

182
of a book. He also notes that there is no rule requiring
an Introduction. If the sermon does not seem to need a
formal Introduction, omit it for “the charm of surprise
will sometimes be given to a sermon by beginning it at once
without any kind of a preamble.“ (144)

In comparing the Introduction to the portico of a
public building, Pattison states that it should be of the
same style as the rest of the structure: be harmonious with
the design of the entire structure: be modest in its propor-
tions: be simple rather than flowery or ostentatious: and
should not attract too much attention to itself but lead
at once into the building (sermon). “Nowhere are compact-
ness, rapidity of approach, directness, and singleness of
aim more admirable than in introducing the subject of a
discourse." (145)

The Introduction is seen as having two main purposes.
First “it should arrest and insure attention to the text
«and to the subject of discourse.“ (145) Pattison believes
“that attention is best secured by making the theme clear
Eind.distinct by leading directly into the divisions of the
Sermon. Secondly, the Introduction should serve to bring

‘tdle preaCher and his hearers into personal touch with one
another for in the Introduction the personality of the
speaker should be felt through his "manner, tones, and
5“:‘=itudes." (146) The Introduction, therefore, is seen to

1:‘111ction as a preparation for the ensuing content of the

 

183
sermon and as a place where the ethical appeal of the
Speaker should have particular prominence.

The four characteristics of the Introduction
enumerated by Pattison are pertinency, brevity, naturalness,
and "worthy thoughts.“ The pertinent Introduction is
applicable to the theme of the sermon and its occasion, for
in the Introduction the hearer's attention must be seized,
and the direction of his thought determined. The Introduc-
tion, therefore, must be free from that which is foreign
to the text or the theme and in a few words indicate the
line of thought to be pursued.

If text and theme be kept in view, the

special line of thought whidh is to be

pursued in the sermon may be readily in-

dicated: and sometimes the divisions can

even be formally mentioned. (148)

Pattison further notes that the Introduction should
also be brief. “In your introduction take the theme by one
hand and the audience by the other, make them acquainted,
and then drOp the hands and get to work as soon as pos-
sible. The introduction, in other words, must bear a
lmodest prOportion to the sermon itself." (149) Five
Ininutes are suggested as the sufficient length of an
lintroduction in the thirty-minute sermon.

The Introduction should also be characterized by
nEituralness and simplicity, according to Pattison, who
a<ivises the preacher to avoid a florid style, complicated
£3GB-Ihtences, and exaggeration. The preacher is instructed

t9 begin on an "easy level“ of discourse and not on a

¥

184
level of style or a mode of delivery that is tainted with
display or ostentation.

Pattison also conceives of the Introduction as having
the necessity of being “worthy of gaining the attention of
intelligent hearers“ by being free from frivolity and by
discussing its subject matter in a fresh and stimulating
manner. The characteristics of the Introduction are

suggested as: "a natural manner, an easy level of tone and

of language, and a clear but vigorous line of thought are
features which should distinguish the introduction.“ (153)
Pattison sees the Introduction as fulfilling its
chief purpose when it "leads up to the cleavage of the text,
and suggests the lines of analysis which are to be followed

in the divisions of the sermon." (157)

The Divisions

Pattison believes that every text on which a
sermon can be preached has a natural cleavage or division
and thus he sees the Divisions of the sermon as being an
advantage to both the preacher and the hearer when follow-
iJMg their natural cleavage. They enable the preacher to
adhere to the “model" of oral discourse and help him to
a"(Did writing an essay and calling it a sermon. They al-
30 Eissist the preacher in the composition of the sermon,
for“Divisions are evidences of consecutive thought and,

therefore, train the preacher to think consecutively.

Divi Sions also aid the preacher in the delivery of his

185
sermon by aiding his memory, enabling him to stress the
important points of the discourse, and assiting him in his
transitions from point to point. In addition to the ad-
vantages which sermonic divisions have to the preacher,
Pattison also sees them as having certain distinct advant-
ages to the hearers. They help to excite interest in the
minds of the hearers by fostering expectation, and they
assist the hearer's understanding and memory of the sermon.
Divisions also help to produce in the hearer the effect
aimed at in the sermon, for "every discourse which deserves
the name must have an aim, and the divisions assist the
preacher in taking his sight as a skillful marksman should
do." (159)

Pattison believes that the Divisions of the sermon
should be made clearly apparent by the preacher. He
argues that if the subject is logically and progressively
treated, an intelligent hearer deserves to be told exactly
‘Where he is in the sermon. However, a sermon must neces-
sarily become rigid or mechanical -- or in the words of
IPhillips Brooks: ”'the true way to get rid of the boni-
ness of a sermon is not by leaving out the skeleton, but

by clothing it with flesh.” (161)

There can be no set rule for the number of divisions
in the sermon, according to Pattison, because of his belief
tha4; uniformity in this regard is unreasonable since “the

““1“er of divisions in any discourse must evidently be

186

determined by the species to which the sermon belongs and
by the subject of which the sermon treats." (163) He does
advise the preacher, however, to have as few divisions as
possible because "impression is marred by multiplication.”
(164) Three major divisions are formed when possible, for
“the three-fold division of most subjects insures sufficient
thoroughness of treatment, and yet escapes tediousness."
(165) '

Pattison believes that the Division of the sermon,
should be marked by interest, clarity, pgggression, and
We He enphasizes the necessity of the Divisions

being Characterized by variety and interest. Furthermore,

the Divisions should be clear with the meaning of each.made
so evident that it needs no further explanation. Clarity
in the Divisions is also considered to be important in
terms of the understanding and memory of the hearers.

Divisions should also be characterized by a definite pro-

gression of thought and a smoothness of movement from

division to division. “. . . divisions should be logical

43nd.practica1. They must be in their right place in the
(liscourse, and they must serve the true end of the dis-

CXflJrse.“ (170) Pattison notes that there must also be

 

Pltlportion within the various parts if_§ymmetry is to be
preserved in the Divisions,and he sees the Divisions
related to one another in the progress of thought with each
division suggesting the one that follows. Divisions ,there-

fore. should bear a due prOportion to one another in terms

 

 

187
of the thought: discussed in each of them. Pattison further
notes that the Divisions of the sermon should be capable of
recapitulation, for “. . . if at the close of your sermon
you cannot readily recall the divisions, and if they do not
naturally succeed one another, you may be sure that they

are faulty." (173)

The Conclusion

Pattison stresses the importance of both the Intro-
duction and Conclusion of the sermon by saying that

of the various parts of the sermon the most

pains should be given to the introduction

and the conclusion: to the introduction be—

cause it is the first step that counts: to the

conclusion because no two congregations being

precisely alike in number or in condition of

mind, the preacher will have no other opportun-

ity with his audience." (177)
It is interesting to note that Pattison believes the Con-
clusion of the sermon to be the more important of the two.

The Conclusion of the sermon may consist of re-
capitulation, application, appeal, ”rhetorical peroration,“
(Dr scripture. Pattison sees recapitulation as being of
INthicular necessity in an argumentative sermon, in which
the preacher goes over the various points of his argument
ii! the Conclusion and reviews the evidence which he has
Presented. The preacher is cautioned, however, to avoid
repetition when using recapitulation in the Conclusion:
ll
311- that you should aim to do is to revive recollection."
(17E3) Pattison believes that, although there is a parti-

cular sense in which application ought to be made at the

188

end of a sermon, application should not be reserved for the
Conclusion alone, for “far wiser is the preacher who learns
how to carry a thread of application through the entire
sermon." (179) In considering the place of the appeal in
the Conclusion, Pattison indicates that a particular func-
tion of the Conclusion is to touch the conscience of the
hearers. "I am inclined to think that the only faculty
which should certainly be dealt with as the sermon draws to
its close is the conscience." (180) Pattison does not, how-
ever, conceive of an appeal to the conscience in the same
sense that other theorists see emotional proof as particular-
ly Operative in the Conclusion. He emphasizes, rather,
the appeal to the conscience of the hearer, not as an
emotional appeal, but as an appeal to his ethical judgments.
The “rhetorical peroration” is seen as the Conclusion in
which the language of the sermon becomes more ornate and
embellished in style than that which has been previously
used. Scriptural quotations, particularly the words of the
'text, may often be used as the final impression of the
«Sermon as the preacher ends by making his appeal to the
highest authority, which Pattison believes is God and his
revelation in the Bible.

The Conclusion should be personal to the hearer, be
aFEllicable to the whole sermon, be characterized by
breEvity, and be marked by variety and interest in order to

accc>mplish its function of persuading the audience of the

189

truth of God as it has been deve10ped in the sermon.

Conclusions

(1) Pattison defines preaching as the oral communication
of the truth of God as revealed in the scriptures. He
emphasizes the centrality of the Bible as the source of
preaChing content and feels that such biblical centrality
lends authority to the act of preaching.

(2) The primary goal of preaching is persuasive in
character. Its end is to persuade men to be reconciled to
God in Christ.

(3) Pattison indicates a clear distinction between the
functions of Invention and Arrangement in sermonizing,

and yet he recognizes an inter-relationship between these
rhetorical canons. Arrangement is seen as the process of
ordering invented materials into a sermon plan. He also
believes, however, that in the very art of ordering further
Invention is often prompted to take place.

(4) Pattison assigns great importance to the function of
‘Arrangement in the sermon and believes that matters of
Jhrvention and Arrangement are of greater concern than
matters of Style and Delivery.

(5) Sermons are classified according to the mode of
tITiatment employed in handling the text: tepical, textual,
and expository.

(6) The factors noted by Pattison which determine the

Particular mode of treatment utilized in a given sermon

190
are the text itself, the theme of the sermon, the occasion,
and the personal preference of the preacher. In accept-
ing these determining factors, he indicates the belief
that the Arrangement of the sermon is largely determined
by the particular circumstances of which it is a part, and
thus he prefers to set forth principles determining the
sermon's arrangement rather than stringent rules.
(7) There is a close relationship between the theme of
the sermon and the sermon's over-all plan in Pattison's
theory. Because the plan of the sermon consists of a
thorough develcpment of the theme, the preparation of the
sermon's plan grows out of the theme as it has been
develOped through the process of Invention.
(8) Although he gives careful consideration to the plan Of
the sermon as a whole, Patterson's primary emphasis on
Arrangement is in terms of the parts of the sermon. He
maintains a three-part division: the Introduction, the
Divisions or Body, and the Conclusion.
(9) The Introduction of the sermon functions as that
part.of the senmon in which the audience is interested in,
€3nd.prepared for, the subject matter of the sermon, and in
vflaich the Speaker's own ethical appeal should have parti-
Cnilar prominence as he establishes a relationship with the
audience. The Introduction has the further task of lead-
inSI up to the dividing of the text and suggesting the

1«tries of analysis that are to be followed in the Divisions.

191
(10) The Divisions of the sermon, as the formal deve10p-
ment of the theme as contained in the text, are seen to be
particularly important to the sermon's ability to communi-
cate the message of the text with maximum clarity. For this
reason Pattison believes that the Divisions of the sermon
should stand out and be perfectly obvious to the heater.
(ll) Pattison emphasizes the elements of interest, clarity,
progression, and symmetry as important elements in the
Divisions. His stress on them grows out of his concern
that the Divisions communicate the message of the sermon in
a way that will be conducive to the persuasion of the audi-
ence.
(12) Because of his emphasis on the persuasive function of
the sermon and his belief that the preacher's last chance
to persuade the audience is in the Conclusion, Pattison
considers the Conclusion to be the most important part of
the sermon. He views the Conclusion as having the task of
‘reviewing the arguments of the sermon, applying the truths
<developed to the personal lives of the'hearers, and appeal-
-1ng'for decisions on the part of the audience.
013) Particular emphasis is given by Pattison to appealing
tO‘the conscience of the hearers in the Conclusion of the
Sermon. He does not conceive of such an appeal as an
a“Otional appeal, however, but rather as an appeal to the

haarer's ethical judgments in an attempt to persuade them.

PART I II

COIJCEPTIONS OF 'ARWGfl-(IEL‘IT'
IN
EARLY TWEQTIETH CENTURY AMERICAN PRO‘TESTANT

HOM IL ETI CAL THEORY

CHAPTER VII

CHARLES EDWARD JEFFERSON’S CONCEPTION OF 'ARRANGEMENT'

Chgrles Edward Jefferson

Jefferson was born on August 29, 1860 in Cambridge,
Ohio.l His early education was received in the state of
Ohio, and in 1882 he graduated from Ohio Wesleyan Univer-
sity. After two years of teaching in Ohio public schools,
Jefferson moved to Boston, Massachusetts, and began studies
in law. While in Boston, however, he came under the influ—
ence of Phillips Brooks,2 who was influential in directing
him into the ministry. He left law school and entered the
Boston University School of Theology, from which he was
graduated in 1887. He was then called to be the pastor of
the Central Congregational Church of Chelsea, Massachusetts,
where he served until 1898. In reference to his years of

.ministry in Massachusetts, Jefferson has been described as

1For an extensive treatment of Jefferson's life,
7homiletical theories, and practice as a preacher, see Ronald
Sleeth, “The Rhetorical Theories of Charles Edward Jefferson,“
(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University,
11952):and Frederick J. Speckeen, "A Rhetorical Study of the
IPreacning of Charles Edward Jefferson,“ (unpublished Ph.D.
<iissertation, Michigan State University, 1961).

2Charles Clayton Morrison, ed., The American Pulpit,
(New York: The Macmillan Company, 1925), p. 165.

193

194
“. . . one of the brilliant young coterie of ministers
about Boston who were friends of Bishop Phillips Brooks.
It was well known at this time that this group from all
denominations was searching for the best interpretation of

the GOSpel to our generation.“1

In 1898, Jefferson left the church at Chelsea to
become the minister of the Broadway Tabernacle in New York
City, a position which he held until 1930. During his
ministry in New York, he maintained a close working
relationship with Union Theological Seminary. He had
faculty status at Union as a teacher of homiletics: and his
contact with the seminary intensified his interest in
preaching theory, for many of his theories were first
{presented at Union.

In August, 1930, after thirty-two years of success-
:ful ministry at the Broadway Church, Jefferson retired.

'Eiis retirement years were active, however: he spent them
izravelling and speaking to college groups and churches
11hroughout the nation until his death on September 12,1937.

Jefferson was honored with the D.D. degree from

{Inion College and Oberlin College in 1898, Yale in 1903,

and the University of Vermont in 1921. He also received

 

 

P‘ 1L. Nelson Nichols, History of the Broadgpy
siéiégrnacle of New York City, (New Haven: Tuttle, Morehouse,
Eand Taylor Co., 1940), p. 136, as quoted by Sleeth, pp. gig.

ED. 11,

195

the LL.D. degree in 1905 from Ohio Wesleyan University.

volthough Jefferson wrote extensively throughout his life on

:nany subjects, his homiletical theory is contained basical-

ly in four books: Quiet Hints to Growing Preachers in my

Study, The Minister as Epophet,and The Minister as Shepherd,

each given as the George Shepherd Lectures on preaching at
23angor Theological Seninary: and The Buildingpof the Church,

<given as the Lyman Beecher Lectures on preaching at Yale.

Approach to Homiletics and Preachipg

Conceiving of preaching against the backdrOp of the
{drencher's total ministry, Jefferson believes that an
aidequate understanding of what constitutes preaching pre-
£3upposes a comprehension of the entirety of the preacher's
tzask. Preaching, according to Jefferson, must be seen
VVithin the context of all the duties which the minister

E>emforms. He notes that the preacher, seen within the

licotality of his task, is best conceived as a shepherd.

"VVhatever else a minister may be, he is first of all a

EShepherd.“l In further developing this shepherd concept,

E163 states that "the primary work of a preaCher, then, is

‘ifle cultivation by word and deed of the spirit of Christ-
3-1J<e brotherliness among members of his own church.“2

\

1Charles Edward Jefferson, Quiet Hints to Growing

in my Study, (New'York: Crowell & Co., 1901),

g1£33achers
p. 33

? 2Charles Edward Jefferson, The Building of the Church,
(dew York: Macmillan and Co., 1910): P- 55.

196
In relation to preaching, therefore, Jefferson states
regarding the preacher that "your supreme business is not

to build sermons, but to build characters."

In viewing preaching in its total pastoral context,

u. .
QEDLC

Jefferson conceives of the minister's role as being a
one with preaching as one of its many facets. He sees the
goal or end of preaching, therefore, as being concerned
tuith the minister's pastoral office and his reSponsibility
'tc work with his peeple, live with them, know them, love
'them, and build their character. Although he views preach-
;ing only as one aspect of the minister's task, Jefferson

«emphasizes the primary importance of preaching.

Preaching is your highest business. Nothing
can ever take its place. You are to be
administrators, but administration will not
fill the place of preaching. Unless you are
preachers, you are not likely to have much

to administer. You are to be organizers, but
the organizing gift will never compensate for
the lack of the gift of preaching. Men who
cannot preach have ordinarily little to
organize.2

Pfireaching is seen to be the preacher's crowning function,
25:); “experience shows that when preachers cease to preach,
Ei (darkness falls upon the world. . . . The whole world

brightens when a man appears able to unfold in syllables of
3

f1-Ve the unsearchable riches of Christ." He further says,

\
1Ibid., p. 106.
21bido. pp. 278-279.

31bid., p. 281.

197

"let the PU1Pit decay, and the cause of Christ is lost."1

For Jefferson, the sermon is the ”climax of public worship."2

Jefferson's concept of the sennon is closely tied to
his view of the preacher as a man, because in his theory
the sermon is the man.

The sermon is the man and upon the man every-

thing depends. . . . You must be so good and

true and Christlike that you yourself shall

seem to be a part of the Christian revelation,

and the eternal truth of God seem to be burst-
ing into fresh Splendor on your lips.3

This relationship of the man and his sermon is more dis-
tinctly applied to the sermon itself in Jefferson's state-
ment that

it is the man that makes the sermon. The man

is the sermon. That is why it is impossible

to print a sermon. No sermon has ever yet been

printed. We print the words, but the words are

nothing but the skeleton, and the Spiritual

body of the sermon is the personality of the

man. . . . Not what the preacher says but what

he is -- this constitutes the sermon.4

Jefferson believes that the sermon is a dynamic,
growing thing: and he rejects any idea that would tend to

see it as being mechanically constructed and delivered.

1Charles Edward Jefferson, The Mppister as PrOphet,
(New‘York: Crowell & Co., 1905). p. 13.

2Jefferson, The Building of the Church, p. 231.

3Jefferson, The Minister as Pr0phe§L pp. 108-109.

4Jefferson, The Building of the Church, o. 299.

198

A sermon is not a manufactured product, but

a Spiritual creation. It is not a machine
which a man can construct in his sermonic

Shep, and set it running in the pulpit like

the electric toys which one sees sometimes

on the corner of the city street. A sermon

is an exhalation, a Spiritual vapor emerging
from the oceanic depths of the preacher's soul.
It is an emanation, an efflux, an effluence
flowing from an interior fountain hidden in the
depths of personality. It is an efflorescence,
and outflowing of beautiful things whose home is
in the blood. It is a perfume from Spiritual
roses blossoming in the garden of the heart. It
is fruit growing on the trees of a man's life.

This concept of the sermon is related by Jefferson to the
nature and preparation of the sermon. In this case he

again emphasizes the sermon as dynamic and natural rather
than mechanical and artificial in nature and construction.

The usual expression is 'making' a sennon,
or'getting up' a sermon, but the 'growing'
of a sermon is preferable. For in a very
true sense you can no more 'make' a sermon
than you can 'make' an ear of corn, and you
can no more 'get up' a sermon than you can
'get up' a lily of the valley. A sermon in
the highest sense is a growth rather than a
manufactured product, or organism and not a
thing that is made. You may make something
and call it a sermon -- a verbal thing thirty
minutes long, but a verbal creation is not
necessarily a sermon even though you give it
that name.

Jefferson not only sees the sermon as a dynamic,
<2reative process rather than being static, but he also

loelieves that the sermon is vitally linked to the Christian

1Ibid., p. 287.

2Jefferson, The Minister as PrOphet, p. 75.

199
experience of the preacher. The sermon is the very "life
blood" of the preacher. “Your personal contribution is
everything. You must pour into your sermon your own
heart's blood. Let me give you a new definition of sermons:

they are drOps of blood shed by the servants of the Lord

1

for the redemption of the world." He also notes in this

regard that “a sermon is the life-blood of a man baptized
into the spirit of the Lord, and every syllable of all he

tatters must have in it the weight of a full-statured

Chri stlike man. " 2

In considering the purpose of the sermon, Jefferson
riotes that the sermon should function as a means of nurture

:EOr the congregation.

The curse of the pulpit is the superstition
that a sermon is a work of art and not a
piece of bread or meat. It is supposed to

be a declamation or an oration or a learned
dissertation, something elegant and fine to
be admired and applauded and talked about by
eulogizing saints, or carped at by stiff-
necked, unreasonable sinners. Sermons rightly
understood are primary forms of food. They
are articles of diet. They are meals served
by the minister for the sustenance of Spirit-
ual life.3

3klong with the sermon's function as a means of Spiritual

1Ihid., p. 60.

2Jefferson, Quiet Hints to Growing Preachers in my
.8 tudy, pp. 143-144.

3Charles Edward Jefferson, The Minister as Shepherd,
(Ifiew York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co., 1912), p. 61.

200
nurture for the congregation, Jefferson sees it as building
human personalities.

God is building human personalities. That is

our work also. We are co—laborers with him.

Great preaching is preaching which sets free

the latent energies of the soul and builds up

rich and potent personalities. All great

preachers are alike in this, they create by

their preaching resourceful, masterful, and

Godlike men. The greatest gift whidh the church

can give the world is a full grown man, having

in him the mind of Jesus.1

It is important to note that Jefferson never con-
siders the sermon outside of its setting in worship. He
Zbelieves that the sermon must always be considered in the
context of worship.

The sermon is the climax of public worship.

It summons to the throne of God a larger

number of faculties than any other act of

worship. It calls upon everything within us

to bless God's holy name.2

Definition and Interpretation of Arrangement

Importance of Arrangement

Jefferson gives scant attention to specific tech—
tniques of sermon construction. This does not mean that he
(disparages careful sermonic‘Arrangement but rather that his
leasic concern is more related to such issues as the pastor's
<own personal life, his work with peOple, the building of the
church, and other similar matters. He notes that

1Jefferson, The Building of the Church, p. 115.

2Ibid., p. 5.

201

there has been scant attention to the tech-
niques of the sermon, but the soul of the
sermon has been held steadily in view. There
have been no climaxes, and perorations, be-
cause these things are secondary, and do not
reach the root of power in preaching.l

Jefferson emphasizes the preparation of the man and
appears to leave the details of arrangement up to the indi-
vidual. His concept of the sermon as a growing organiSm
also tends to contribute to his reticence in setting down
specific organizational techniques. He notes that if a man
were to "make" a sermon rather than ”growing" a sermon, he
would not actually have a true sermon.

A minister may bring out his materials, put
in a piece of exegesis, add a piece of doc-
trine, tack on a piece of illustration, and
then a piece of exhortation, and these having
been nicely fitted together, he may sandpaper
them and varnish them, and the whole thing
polished and labeled may be carried before a
congregation and called a sermon, but a
sermon in reality it is not.2

Although Jefferson avoids setting down Specific rules
.regarding the arrangement of the sermon, and in a sense
:ninimizes the importance of Arrangement, he is concerned
‘that the sermon be carefully arranged and that the preacher
reassess organizing abilities in this regard.

The power of organizing thought must be built
up and disciplined, for it is his business to
weld the links of argument and appeal into a
chain which shall be strong enough to bind
men’s hearts and minds around the cross of
Christ.3

lJefferson, The Building of the Church, p. 279.

2Jefferson, The Minister as Prophet, p. 76.

3Ibid., p. 56.

202

The Overall Plan of Arrangement

Jefferson is concerned that sermons have an overall
plan of Arrangement within them. He states that some
preachers have neglected the proper arrangement of sermons
and consequently simply string ideas and thoughts together
and call it a sermon. This practice is described as
follows:

There are two kinds of preachers, -- men of
thoughts and men of thought. The man of
thoughts keeps all sorts of books of illus-
trations, and drawers filled with clippings,
and envelopes stuffed with bright ideas, and
when the time comes for the making of the
sermon, he brings out of his treasury things
new and old, placing the thoughts in a certain
sequence, like so many glass beads on a string,
the string being divided into sections by an
occasional big blue head, this bead being an
illustration. Such a man brings his beads be-
fore the congregation, counts them over, Spends
thirty minutes in doing it, and the peeple go
home thinking they have been listening to a
sermon.1

Jefferson rejects this approach as being a "performance"

and not really preaChing: in contrast "preaching" is the

unfolding of truth: it is the evolution of an idea.“2

Jefferson believes that the sermon should be a
unified whole having one basic aim and idea:

A man who can take a great idea and by sheer
force of brain unfold it until it glows and
hangs glorious before the eyes of men, and so
burns that hard hearts melt and consciences
awake and begin to tremble, is a preacher

 

lJefferson, The Minister as Prephet, pp. 56-57.

21bid., p. 57.

203

indeed and actually performs the work of the
Lord.1

He suggests that every sermon should have a clearly thought

out aim and that the overall plan of the sermon should be

develOped with that aim in view.

The sermon which once thrilled with a burn-
ing purpose may dwindle into a diSplay of
verbal handiwork or a string of meaningless
commonplaces with which to tie up a service.
Even men who work prodigiously on their ser-
mons may forget the end for which sermons
ought to be prepared. To no one is sermon
production easy, to many it is exhausting
toil: and so intent sometimes does the worker
become in the unfolding of his ideas as to
lose sight entirely of the work which the
idea is meant to accomplish. The arrow is
carefully and ingeniously fashioned and then
shot at random into the air. The bullet is
molded at great pains but no target is visible
to the marksman's eye. Preaching which is
rightly done the most exacting and purposeful
of all forms of labor may easily become the
most desultory and purposeless of all.

Jefferson attempts to trace this lack of aim in the sermon,

which he deplores, to its basic cause and concludes that it

is related to a lack of aim in the preacher's total parish

work.

A man is effective in the ministry, other
things being equal, in proportion to the
clearness of his purpose and the definite-
ness of his aim. This lack of intention
reveals itself in the sermon. An aimless
sermon breaks down the interest of a con-
gregation and sends it home disheartened
and confused.3

 

Study,

11bid.

Jefferson, Quiet Hints to Growing Preachers in my
Up. 85, 860

I.

(A)

Ibid. ' p0 87.

 

204
This concept is a further indication of the close relation-
ship that Jefferson sees between the man and the sermon and
between preaching and the total task of the minister.
Jefferson believes that the unity of structure and
the singleness of aim and purpose which every sermon should

possess, as conceived in its overall plan, can be enhanced

by the preacher if he asks himself two questions with

regard to his sermon.
No question should be oftener on the preacher's
lips than, 'to what purpose is this?‘ That is
the question with which he should begin every
sermon. On the first page he should write in
clear, terse Saxon the precise work which this
particular sermon is intended to do: and on the
last page he should write his honest answer to
the question: 'Is this sermon so constructed
as to be likely to accomplish the result for
which it has been written?‘1

Although Jefferson says that these two questions should be
aSKed by the preacher of himself and his sermon, he does
indicate that the unity and aim of the sermon can be
better fixed in the mind of the listener if at the begin-
nirng (of the sermon the preacher states to the audience what
the Sermon aims to do, and at the close condenses into

,One compact sentence the gist of what has been said.

The Parts of the Sermop

Jefferson's primary emphasis on Arrangement is in

t . .
exams; of the overall plan of the sermon rather than in

 

\

Ibid., p. 89.

205
terms of the parts of the sermon. He does, however, make
some brief observations regarding the parts of the sermon,
particularly the Introduction and Conclusion. Although
appearing to regard the sermon as having three parts,
Jefferson does not make explicit observations regarding
the nature of the Body of the sermon, nor does he develop
xnuch in the way of comprehensive or thorough instruction

concerning the Introduction and Conclusion.

The Introduction

Jefferson warns the preacher against having too long
arm Introduction in the sermon and against beginning the
sermon with an apology. Observing that often a long,
dznawn-out Introduction is simply an exhausting prologue
for that which never comes, he insists that if the preacher
cannot say anything of significance in the first ten
Iminutes of his sermon, he should begin with the second ten.

He further states that

even when the introduction is excellent it
may be out of all preportion to the argument
it leads up to. Building the porch longer
than the house is a blunder peculiar to the
builder of sermons.1

Jefferson also warns the preacher not to begin his

selfiwuon with an apology: ". . . beginning a SPGGCh With an

ép‘llxbgy is a piece of nonsense unprovoked and inexcusable.“2

\ —

St 1Jefferson, Quiet Hints to Growing Preachers in my
“6w 152 ..___._ w fir
\' p. .

2140C. Cit.

 

 

206

He notes that many preachers feel compelled to begin with

an apology but that this practice is foolish since the
audience will soon decide for themselves if he is competent

for the task. To take precious minutes in the Introduction

for an apology is Sheer waste of valuable sermon time,

according to Jefferson. He also believes that there is an

element of egotism in the person who apologizes since the

:apology seems to infer that he could accomplish great

'things under another set of circumstances. In warning

aagainst the use of an apology in the Introduction there is

at sense in which Jefferson gives particular attention to

tJ1e ethical appeal of the Speaker, for he believes that

tame use of an apology indicates to the audience that some

urnfavorable personality characteristics exist within the

Speaker.
The Body

Although Jefferson does not eXplicitly set forth
h153 \riews regarding the Body of the sermon , he does implY
thirt. its basic function is to develOp the subject of the

seITncnn, which is initially indicated in the Introduction.

T—

\

thee 1In a sense Jefferson has particular reference to
st sermon's Body when he discusses the over-all plan or
th::4<=ture of the sermon. Although he appears to include
(We Introduction and Conclusion in his treatment of the
trerall plan, the fact that he gives these parts separate
Se a”irnent, while never giving such treatment to the Body,
ha?“s to indicate that his discussion of the over-all plan
53pecial reference to the Body of the sermon.

207
The nature of the Body is seen to be characterized by
essentially the same elements which he conceives to be part
of the sermon's over-all plan: singleness of direction, aim,

and purpose resulting in a basic unity.

The Conclusigp

The tendency to waste time in the Conclusion is of
concern to Jefferson just as it is in relation to the
:Introduction. He diSparages the use of such eXpressions as
'PIn conclusion,” "finally," and "one word more." He does

rust believe that it is necessary to indicate to the audi-

ence that the end is near.
A blunderbuss after saying, 'finally,‘ is
sure to catch a glimpse of a new idea, and
straightway pursuing this, he will forget
all about the promise he has made to his
hearers, and will go off on expeditions
more extended than any ventured on in the
body of the discourse.

Jefferson believes that the preacher Should speak right on

With full momentum until he ends the sermon.

Conclusions

(1) CTefferson's theory of preaching is rooted in, and in-
fluenuczed by, his belief that preaching must be viewed as
one aSpect of the minister's total pastoral task.

(2) IDreaching has a pastoral function, in Jefferson's view,
in tl‘EYt it is a means of building “human personalities."

P
rea*=}11ng functions to deve10p the ethical and Spiritual

ch
aracter of the bearer.

lIbid., p. 153.

 

 

 

208
(3) Preaching is considered to be the most important
aSpect of the minister's pastoral activity.
(4) The sermon is seen as an expression of the preacher
himself and as such is actually an extension of his own
personality.
(5) The close relationship which Jefferson sees existing.
loetween the sermon and the man preaching it causes him to
consider the sermon to be a dynamic, growing entity, like
‘the human personality: and thus he rejects any meChanical,
:static approach to the construction and delivery of sermons.
(£5) The concern of Jefferson for the sermon as dynamic

and growing causes him to give scant attention to the

Specifics of sermonic Arrangement. In his concern for the

preparation of the preacher as a man, he prefers to leave
the method of Arrangement up to the individual rather than
setting down Specific suggestions in this regard.

(7) Although Jefferson gives slight attention to the

Semon's arrangement, he believes, nevertheless, that the

Semen should be carefully constructed. In setting forth a

thEKDIEI of preaching, however, he believes that a discussion
°f the preacher and his over-all task as a minister has
priority over matters of secondary importance among WhiCh
he includes the Specifics of Arrangement.

(8) 'Po the extent that matters of Arrangement are treated
by Jefferson, the primary emphasis is upon the over-all
plan of the sermon. His view of the sermon as a growing

a
nd u~hfolding thing causes him to view it primarily in its

209
totality rather than in terms of its parts.
(9) In viewing the over-all plan of the sermon, Jefferson
emphasizes the elements of direction, aim, and unity as
being important characteristics of the sermon. His advice
that the preacher should write out the sermon's purpose
to be stated at the outset of the sermon and then sum-
marized at the close is a preservative of unity, aim, and
direction.
(10) Jefferson's view of the sermon as an extension of
the preacher as a person relates to his view of Arrange-
ment, for he implies that the sermon has aim and direction
to the extent that the preacher has aim and direction in
his total parish work. The organization of the sermon is a
reflection of the organization which characterizes the
preacher's life in general.
(11) Jefferson recognizes three parts in the sermon, but
since his main emphasis is on the sermon's over-all plan,
he gives only scant attention to the parts.
(12) Jefferson does not set forth much in the way of
positive teaching regarding the sermon's Introduction. His
particular concern is that the preacher avoid making the
Introduction too lengthy and that he abstain from making
apologies in the Introduction.
(13) Although Jefferson gives slight explicit information
regarding the Body of the sermon, he does imply that its

function is to deveIOp the subject, and that its nature,

210
like that of the sermon's overall plan, is to be character-
ized by unity, aim, and direction.
(14) The wasting of time in the Conclusion is deplored by
Jefferson. He teaches that the sermon should come to a

close with finality and with full strength.

CHAPTER VIII
CHARLES REYNOLDS BROWN'S CONCEPTION OF 'ARRANGEMENT'
Charles Reypolds Brown

Charles Reynolds Brown was born in Bethany, West
Virginia, on October 1, 1862. He received his under-
graduate education at the University of Iowa, where he was
granted the A.B. degree in 1883. His graduate training.in-
cluded study at the University of Iowa, Yale, and Boston
University, from where he received the bachelor of Sacred
Theology in 1889, and the doctor of Sacred Theology in 1922.

Brown was ordained into the Congregational ministry
and served as the pastor of the First Congregational Church
of Oakland, California, from 1896 to 1911. Upon leaving
the Oakland church, he became the dean of Yale Divinity
School, a post he held until 1928, when he became dean
emeritus.

Throughout his life Brown was honored by institutions
of higher learning by being invited to campuses as a
Special lecturer and in receiving several honorary degrees.
He was a Special lecturer on Ethics at Stanford University
from 1899 to 1906 and gave the Lyman Beecher lectures at
Yale both in 1905-06 and in 1922-23. He was also a
Special lecturer at Cornell in 1909, Columbia in 1911,

211

212

Harvard in 1920, Pacific School of Religion in 1924, the
University of North Carolina in 1926, and Southern
Methodist University in 1936. In addition to the honor of
being invited to these various institutions as a lecturer,
Brown was further honored with the following degrees: D.D.
Yale - 1928, Oberlin - 1912, Brown - 1914:1LL.O. Wesleyan
College - 1915, Boston University - 1937, Mills College -
1937: and L.H.D. The University of Vermon - 1926.1

Brown's stature in the field of theological educa-
tion and religion in general is further indicated by the
fact that he authored twenty-eight books. Of the three
books which he wrote relating to the subject of preaching,
The Art of Preaching, which contains his Lyman Beecher
lectures on preaChing at Yale delivered in 1922, is per-

haps the best known of his works on sermonizing.

Apprgggh t9_HomiletiE§ apd Preaching_

Brown assigns great importance to the minister's
task of preaChing the sermon, for he believes that “. . . the
sermon is by right, and may well be in fact, the most
august expression of mind, heart and will to be heard any-

where in human society.“ (1)2 Preadhing, in his view, is

..__ ’—
— i w

1”Charles Reynolds Brown," Who's_§ho in New B land
Vol.4, (Chicago: The A.N. Marquis Company, 19395, p. 96.

2The homiletical theory of Charles Reynolds Brown is
found in its most complete form in his book The Art of
PreachingI (New'York: The Macmillan Company, 1922}. Refer-

ences to Brown's theory are from this book, and the page
numbers are indicated in parentheses.

 

213

the result of an interaction which the preacher has with
his congregation in which he senses their peculiar needs
and attempts to reapond to their needs. “In the preadhing
of a real sermon the whole man is acting and reacting under
the stimulus Offered by the Spiritual needs of a body of
peOple.“ (2) Growing out Of his belief that the
function of preaching is to react to Spiritual needs, is
Brown's view of the essential purpose of the sermon as "the
creation, the nurture and the direction of Christian
impulses" through ”convincing the judgment,“ ”kindling the
imagination,” “moving the feelings," and “giving a power-
ful impulse to the will,“ all of which he believes will
ultimately find expression in responsible action.

In his view of preaching, Brown places great stress
upon its function in relation to "Christian impulse,“
which he conceives to be the activation of Christian truth.
He goes on to state that

. . . the well ordered and efficient expres-

sion of that Christian impulse, once awakened

and then genuinely ripened, in terms of useful

service makes a similar requisition upon the

values attendant upon the presentation of the

truth in its most dynamic form through preach-

ing. The high office of the sermon then is to

aid in the creation, the nurture and the

direction of Christian impulse. (5)
The giving of direction to "Christian impulse" commits the
sermon to more than simply moving the feelings and the will
of the bearer, according to Brown, for the responsibility

of preaching extends to the ultimate actions of the

214
hearers as well. "The sermon embodying in living form
some important portion of this truth [truth which bears
upon the development of Spiritual life] is therefore de-
signed to make men feel, and feel so deeply that they will
resolve. It is designed to make men resolve and resolve
so strongly that they will act.” (2, 3)

Brown believes, as does Jefferson, that preadhing
must be seen as functioning within the context of the
minister's total pastoral task. He feels, however, that of
all the minister's work, preaching is the most significant.
“I would say without a moment's hesitation that the making
and delivery of an effective sermon is not only the most
conSpicuous but the most influential single service the
minister is privileged to render in the whole round of the
week's activity." (7) One of the reasons why such import-
ance is assigned to preaching by Brown is that he sees the
sermon as being the “flowing forth“ Of the best in the man
preaching it. He takes preaching out Of the realm of being
a perfOpnance and sees it as an extension Of the very best
in the man himself. “The sermon is the highest output of
which a man trained and devoted to this end is capable at
his best." (10) He further deveIOps this view of preach-
ing and the sermon by noting that “the preparation of a
sermon then is really the preparation of a man who pre-
pares and preaches sermons as the highest exercise of his
functions." (28) Preaching is also of high significance

to Brown because of the “final Significance" which he sees

215
in it in terms of its Spiritual accomplishments. “The
final Significance Of every sermon is to be manifested at
last not in the profundity of its thought or in the grace
of its literary finish but in the Spiritual results which
it achieves.“ (24)

While believing that the sermon is to be a work of
art, Brown is careful to note, however, that he does not
mean that the sermon, as a work of art, is an end in it-
self, but rather that it is a means to an end or “the tool
of our trade.“ He indicates that the sermon should be a
work of art in three regards.

1. It is to be finely conceived so that it

may contain and eXpress some one great
idea, standing out clear and distinct
from the various surrounding truths.
2. It is to be well wrought out, the
vision of the preacher passing over in-
to achievement as he declares in the
finest literary form he can command what
he has seen and felt in connection with
that one great truth.
3. It is to be a work rounded out, finished,
and complete, so that it finally steps of
itself because it is done. (32)
A clear indication of Brown's concept of the sermon as both
a work of art and a means to an end is to be Seen in his
analogy of the sermon as the brush rather than the paint-
ing. He says that “the Christians you make by your preach-
ing are your paintings; they are your masterpieces." (32)
His theory of preaching is permeated with this hearer-

centeredness in the sense that sermons are to grow out of

the scriptures, and be applied to the contemporary problems

216
of the hearer, and in terms of their arrangement ". . . are
to be constructed so that they will help peOple to live."
(34)

Definition and Interpretation of Arrangement_

TOpoi Of Arrangement

Brown sees as the two basic steps in the construct-
ing of the sermon the assembling of an abundance of
material and the putting of that material into effective
shape by prOper arrangement. In terms of a time sequence
between the work Of Invention and Arrangement, Brown
states that

in the order of time, I believe the material
should be gathered before the plan is
definitely made. If you were building a
house you would have the blueprints first.
Then you would fare forth to assemble the
requisite quantities of stone, boards,
bricks, mortar, glass and all the rest to
carry out your plan. (62)

Brown cautions, however, against adopting a mechanical view
with regard to the develOpment of the sermon.

The making Of a sermon is not carpenter work--
it is a much more vital process. The best
sermons grow. They grow mainly out of a.man's
interiors. The sermon is the showing forth,
the manifestation Of the man himself. And be-
cause sermons do thus grow, the best plans are
conceived and deveIOped in the immediate
presence Of the material to be utilized and
with a clear vision of the end to be sought in
the preparation and the preaching of that
particular sermon. (63)

The two distinct and complementary functions of

Invention and Arrangement are clearly delineated: but he

217

further indicates the dynamic process of sermon develop-
ment and notes that Arrangement reacts upon and, in measure,
is determined by the nature of the invented materials.
Arrangement, therefore, is not seen to be a mechanical way
Of treating materials but rather a dynamic process deter-
mined by the materials and the end sought in the particular
sermon. Brown further deveIOps this concept of the inter-
relationship and complementary nature of these two rhetori-
cal canons by indicating the function which he believes
Arrangement can have as a test of Invention.

When I forget and leave out certain vital

points in one of my sermons I always know

that the sermon was not well built. If

that particular idea had been needed just

there in the construction of that sermon,
I should not have forgotten it. (108)

The Importance Of Arrangement

Observing that “there are sermons which have a lot
of good stuff in them, but the material is not arranged
in any sort of order, " (104) Brown says that careful
arrangement is important because the lack of it often
causes the sermon to be of excessive length and because the
. lack of clear order causes confusion and uncertainty in the
minds of the hearers.

The tendency Of some preachers to Oppose the use
of a skeleton or careful structure in the sermon is noted
by Brown: and while agreeing that a “bony" appearing sermon

is undesirable, he says, “the bony appearance of the sermon

218
is to be avoided, not by building it without any particular
plan, but by clothing the outline with living tissue.“ (105)
He believes, therefore, that the sermon which has an
obtruding structure is not to be corrected by removing that
structure but rather by filling out and developing the
sermon with additional material. Brown instructs the
preacher to

have a solid backbone hidden away somewhere

in your sermon so that it can stand up man-

fashion and do its work. Organize your

material around that Spinal column, heads,

arms, legs, fleshy parts, muscles to grip

the people and nerves to respond to the

movements of their own feelings, so that it

may accomplish the desired end. (107)

His basic belief in this regard is, therefore, that the
sermon should have a definite plan but it should not be too
much in evidence. It should serve as a vehicle by which
the message is more effectively carried.

The necessity and importance of Arrangement are
emphasized for three reasons: (1) He believes that the well
arranged sermon is easier to deliver because the points,
following a logical order, can be more easily remembered
by the preacher: (2) the well arranged sermon will enlist
the interest and attention of the hearers more completely
and be more easily remembered by them: and (3) the well
arranged sermon will come logically and naturally to its
conclusion, thus avoiding excessive length.

A further indication of the importance which Brown

assigns to Arrangement is indicated by the fact that he

219
classifies sermons as tOpical, textual, and expository,
according to the method of structure utilized in treating
the biblical text.

The Over-A11 Plan of the Sermon

In viewing the over-all plan Of the sermon, Brown
notes that the sermon partakes Of the dimensions of
breadth, depth, height, and length. He defines the
relationship of these dimensions in the sermon as follows:

If the sermon is broad in its sympathies,
in the range of its interest, and in the
sc0pe of its outlook upon the needs of the
world: if it is deep in its graSp of those
fundamental, underlying principles and
varieties which worthily sustain it: and
if it is high, not merely in the level of
its actual achievement but in the upward
reach of its aSpiration, then it adds to
its apprOpriate length the necessary quali-
ties of breadth and height and depth. And
by this needed extension it comes to be a
well-built, symmetrical sermon. (94, 95)

Special emphasis and consideration are given, however, to
the dimension of length in terms of the sermon's over-all
plan. In considering the dimension of length, Brown dis-
regards the notion that a set length of time can be
arbitrarily established for the sermon.

There is no more reason that a man's sermon

should be just so long, than there is that a

man's trousers should be just so long. It

all depends on the length of the man. In

one case it depends upon the length of the

man's legs, and in the other case it depends

on the length of the man's mind. (95)
In Brown's mind, one of the determining factors to be used

in establishing the length of a sermon is the set of

220
particular capabilities of the preacher himself. "The
prOper length Of any sermon must be determined in the light
of the reach and power Of the man's mental grasp, in the
light of his capacity to hold, to interest and to profit a
body of hearers by his presentation of the truth.“ (96)

Another criterion which Brown employs in attempting
to discover the prOper length Of the sermon is a pragmatic
consideration. He states that since the sermon is a tool,
“. . . its length is to be determined entirely by those
considerations which indicate its fitness or its unfitness
to accomplish a desired Spiritual result." (96) The prOper
length of a sermon, therefore, is that which works best in
producing Spiritual results. Brown does not conceive of
sermon length in terms of time but rather by effect. A
sermon that seems long to the audience is long: and the
short sermon ends when peOple wish for more, regardless of
time.

Brown sets forth several characteristics which con-
tribute to making the sermon seem too long. He indicates
that a sermon appears lengthy when it employs too long a
scriptural text. "One clear, definite statement from
scripture, brief enough to be uttered readily and easy to
remember when used as a text, gives the sermon a much more
promising start.“ (101) Other reasons why sermons appear
too long, are: (1) that they have too lengthy an Introduc-

tion, (2) lack clear arrangement, (3) dwell too extensively

221

on the Obvious, (4) are delivered in a steady, monotone
"preaching tone,“ and (5) have lengthy Conclusions. He
believes that the over-all impact and impression of the
sermon can be enhanced by adequate and careful preparation,
in which an hour's worth of content is put into twenty-
five or thirty minutes, and a straightforward, simple style.

Brown's concept of the over-all plan Of the sermon
is not so much in terms of how the plan of the sermon
looks on paper but rather in terms of its total impact and
influence upon the audience in light of varied dimensions
of the Sermon. He does not neglect, however, the more
Specific application of the sermon's plan to the actual
mapping out Of a plan and structure, but he simply acknow-
edges the fact that such Specific planning is needed and
that such plans should be varied and not borrowed by the
preacher from books of sermon plans. He gives no
additional Specific information with regard to the actual
construction of an over-all plan but seems to prefer to
Speak in terms of the sermon's broad dimensions and their

effect on the audience.

The Parts of the Sermon

The primary emphasis which Brown gives to Arrange-
ment in his homiletical theory is in terms of the plan of
the sermon as a whole rather than to the Specific parts of
the sermon. Although his main concern is with the broad

arrangement of the total sermon, he does give some

222
consideration to the sermon's parts, particularly the
Introduction and Conclusion. When discussing the sermon's
parts, however, Brown does so only incidentally in relation
to his broader discussion with regard to the length of the
sermon. He recognizes three parts to the sermon, the
Introduction, Body, and Conclusion, and notes that it is
possible that the Text of the sermon may be considered as a
part, which would thus bring the possible number of parts

to four.

The Introduction

Brown believes that the function of the Introduction
is to introduce and to orient the congregation to the theme
of the sermon and thus “. . . to put a theme and a congre-
gation on such pleasant and intimate terms with each other
as to enable them at once to Spend a profitable half hour
together.“ (103) He also indicates that the Introduction
should, through presenting the theme, initiate the
interest and attention of the audience to the theme.

”There is no better way of getting the attention of a con-
gregation than by giving them as promptly as possible some-
thing worth attending to.” (103) Brown advises the
preadher to write out and memorize the first sentence Of
his sermon's Introduction. “I like to begin, if I can,
with a sentence as good as I know how to make it, so that
the first ball may be pitChed, if possible, right over the

place and at the prOper level." (113)

223

The Body

Brown, like Jefferson, gives little Specific
attention to the Body of the sermon as such, but appears
to assume that much of what is noted in conjunction with
the over-all plan of the sermon has direct application and
reference to the Body of the sermon. He sees the Body as
an important dimension in the sermon's over-all structure
and believes that it functions to develOp and expand the
theme of the sermon in a manner contributive to the basic

aim and intent of the particular sermon.

The Conclusion

Brown treats the Conclusion, along with the
Introduction, as a factor causing excessive length in
sermons. While believing that the Conclusion may be the
mostimportant part of the sermon, he cautions the preacher
to avoid making it overly lengthy. Brown says that when
the preacher says "in conclusion," he Should keep his
promise to his hearers and not burden them with excessive
length. He also advises the preacher to avoid excessive
"eXhorting" and “exhausting“ in the Conclusion:

It is possible to bring peeple into a

fine mood of Christian aSpiration and of

high resolve. and then by useless re-

iteration and wearisome exhortation to

get them out of that mood again, so

that some Of them will go away almost

sorry that they came to church. 'Exhort-

ing' and 'exhausting' not only sound

alike--in the effect produced upon many a
congregation the two processes there

224

indicated are very much alike. Remember
always that you are preadhing for the
sake of the peOple. You are not preach-
ing to fill up a given amount of time, or
to get a certain amount of ideas Off your
mind. And when the sermon has really
accomplished its high end in making a
definite Spiritual impression, it had
pettpr stOp before that result is marred.
113

Brown notes that it is advantageous for the
preacher to memorize five sentences in his sermon: the
first sentence of the Introduction and the last four
sentences Of the Conclusion.

When the minister has gotten his case all

in, strong and clear as he can make it,

then let him utter a few swift sentences

to send it home and lodge it permanently

in the minds and hearts of the peOple, and

then cease. (113)

A basic principle set forth in regard to not only the
Conclusion but the sermon as a whole is: "conclude while

the peOple still want more."

Conclggiong

(1) Brown sees preaching as the re3ponse to the Spiritual
needs of the hearers. It grows out Of the preadher's
interaction with the congregation in which he senses their
Spiritual needs and attempts to reapond to them.

(2) Preaching has as its main function the element of per-
suasion, according to Brown.

(3) The relationship of preaching to "Christian impulse"
is important in Brown's theory, for he believes that

preaching, as the expression of Christian truth, is

. 225
rSSponsible not only for what the hearers believe but for
the ultimate actions Of the hearers as well.
(4) Brown views preaching within the context of the
preacher's total pastoral task, but believes that it is the
most significant aspect of that task.
(5) The relationship between the preacher and the sermon
is important to Brown, for he believes, as does Jefferson,
that the sermon is an extension of the preacher himself.
(6) The sermon is seen by Brown as a work of art, not that
it is an end in itself, but as a means toward a Spiritual
end it partakes Of the qualities of a work of art.
(7) The view of preaching held by Brown is bearer centered
in that he sees preaching as a process in which the
preacher focuses upon the particular problems and needs of
the audience and attempts to meet these needs by applying
the scriptures to them.
(8) Brown distinguishes between the functions of Invention
and those of Arrangement and indicates that Arrangement
presupposes Invention and is Operative on
materials provided by Invention. He rejects mechanical,
predetermined plans because he believes that each sermon
imaps its own course in the light of the and sought and the
rmaterials of the sermon. Although Brown emphasizes the
dependence of Arrangement on Invention, he also believes
tfuat the process of arranging serves to test the complete-

neSs of the materials provided by Invention.

226
(9) Brown's concept of the sermon as a means to an and
causes him to emphasize the importance Of Arrangement. He
believes that Arrangement is conducive to the interest and
logical direction Of the sermon as well as ease in remember-
ing it and thus feels that the well-arranged sermon serves
best as a vehicle toward a stated end.
(10) Brown classifies sermons as topical, textual, or ex-
pository according to the particular method utilized in
' treating the scriptures.
(11) In considering the sermon's over-all plan, Brown is
particularly concerned with the matter of the sermon's
length. His concern for the length of the sermon is due to
his belief that excessive length decreases the semon's
ability to accomplish its stated ends.
(12) Brown's main emphasis is upon a broad treatment of the
sermon's over-all plan, with particular regard to the
effect of the plan upon the sermon's ability to influence
the hearers, and thus slight attention is given to the
Specific details of structuring the sermon or to the parts
Of the sermon.
(13) Brown recognizes the Introduction, the Body, and the
Conclusion as the parts of the sermon and gives Special
treatment to the Introduction and Conclusion.
(14) The function Of the Introduction, in Brown's view, is
to introduce, orient, and interest the congregation in the

theme of the sermon.

227
(15) The Body of the sermon functions to develOp and eXpand
the theme of the sermon in a manner conducive to the basic
end which the particular sermon has in view.
(16) Brown believes that the function of the Conclusion is
to take the case develOped by the sermon and concisely and

briefly apply it to the lives of the hearers.

CHAPTER IX

OZORA STEARNS DAVIS' CONCEPTION 0F 'ARRANGEMENT'

Ozora Stearns Davis

Davis was born in Wheelock, Vermont, on July 30,
1866. He remained in New England for most of his formal
education and was graduated from Dartmouth College in 1889.
After receiving his degree from Dartmouth, he was the
principal of the White River Junction High School in
Vermont until 1891.

During the time he Spent as a high school principal,
Davis felt called into the Christian ministry: and in 1891
he entered the Hartford Theological Seminary in Connecticut,
Where he was graduated in 1894. From Hartford, Davis con-
tinued his studies in Germany and received the Ph.D. degree
at the University of Leipzig in 1896. He returned to the
United States after completing his work at Leipzig and was
ordained to the Congregational ministry in 1896.

Following his ordination, Davis served as the
pastor of First Church in Springfield, Vermont, from 1896
until 1899, then left Vermont to assume the pastorate of
Central Church of New Jonville, Massachusetts, where he
stayed until 1904, when he accepted a call to South Church

in New Britain, Connecticut.
228

229

In 1909, after fourteen years of pastoral experi-
ence, Davis entered the field of theological education by
becoming president and professor of practical theology at
the Chicago Theological Seminary. He held this position
until 1929, when he became president emeritus, a position
he held until his death on March 15, 1931.1

Davis' years as a seminary president and professor
were his most productive in terms of his writings. During
that twenty year period, he authored twelve volumes, most
of which dealt with some aspect of preaChing.

Honorary degrees were awarded to Davis by Iowa
State College in 1906, Dartmouth College in 1909, Colorado
College in 1921, and Washburn College in 1922, in recogni-

tion of his reputation as a teacher and practitioner of

preaching.

Approach to Hpmiletics and_P£eaching;

The homiletical theory of Ozora Stearns Davis, as
set forth in his book, Pginciples Of Preachin ,2 is unique

in that it is based upon an inductive study of eight

—— _i _— ‘—

 

1"Ozora Stearns Davis,” Who Was Who in America.

897-194 Vol. 1, (Chicago: The A.N. Marquis Company,
1943), p. 302.

2The homiletical theory of Ozora Stearn Davis is
found in its most complete form in his book, Principles of
‘ggeaChing, a textbook based upon the inductive method for
class use and private study. (Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press, 1924).

230
sermons by well-known preachers. Davis' procedure was to
analyze these sermons and on the basis Of this analysis
set forth a system of homiletics. He states in the pre-
face of his work that

this is designed to be a textbook in which
the principles of preaching are drawn from
an inductive study of typical sermons, and
the results are formulated with reference
to the needs of the world today. The sermons
which are used as the sources of the study
are not those that are pOpularly called
'great'. Adapting a phrase in current and
sanctioned use, we may call them 'sermons

of power.' They have been chosen primarily
because of the homiletical method apparent
in them and to cover a wide range of thought
and temper. (vii)1

As a result of his inductive study of sermons,
Davis believes that a sermon may be defined as "an oral

message, incorporated into an order of worship, on a
religious truth, directed to the popular mind with a view
to a decision Of the hearers which shall lead them into the

Christian experience, individually and socially." (184)2

1The following sermons were used as the basis for
Davis' study: FrederiCK W. Robertson's“Obedience, the Organ
Of Spiritual Knowledge,“ Horace Bushnell's “Unconscious
Influence," Phillips Brooks' "The Light of the World,“
Henry Ward Beecher's “What is Christ to Me?,“ Thomas
Chalmers' "The Expulsive Power of a New Affection," Charles
Hadden Spurgeon's "Songs in the Night," John Henry Newman's
”Christ, the Son of God Made Man,“ and Percy Clough Ainsworth's
"Star Counting and Heart Healing.“

2It is interesting to note the similarity of Davis'

definition of the sermon to that of Austin Phelps. The only
real differences are that Davis includes the items of public
worship and the Objective of preaching in the realization Of
Christian experience, while Phelps' "elaborate treatment" is
omitted. An additional distinction that exists is that the
"truth“ of the sermon is not confined by Davis exclusively to
that contained in the Bible but includes all truth biblically
sanctioned.

231
He further indicates that the preacher, as a messenger of
good news, should have a deep conviction and a moving
urgency in his actual preaching of the sermon.

Davis notes that, since the audience consists of
all types of peOple, the sermon and the preacher should be
prepared "to meet the popular level of thought and feeling
and lift it to noble decisions," for “the Sermon is
directed to the whole personality: mind, emotion, and will.
It seeks to convince the hearer, to move him to lofty
feelings, and then to secure a decision for the truth that
the sermon has brought to him." (185) The basic objec-
tive of the sermon in his mind is, therefore, ”to bring
Christ to men and men to Christ in an experience that

shall embrace the entire range of human relations." (185)

Definition and Interpggtation of Arrangement

T0201 of Arrangement

Davis sees a definite distinction between the
preparation and selection of materials on the one hand,
and the arrangement of those materials, on the other. He
believes, however, that a close inter-relation exists
between the two processes. Invention and Arrangement in
the preparation and construction of the sermon are seen
as dependent on one another and actually stimulating each
other. The materials provided by Invention will often

indicate the best way to arrange themselves, and the act

232
of arranging will help to stimulate new ideas as well as
testing the quality of the material. Davis advises the
preacher to make a rough arrangement of his materials as
Soon as the subject of the sermon is clearly enough defined
to be set forth in a statement. He notes that “this will
serve as a stimulus and guide in further search for
material, and it will aid in arranging such material as it

is found in thinking and reading." (222)

The Importance Of Arrangement

The careful planning and arrangement of
sermons are believed to be of great importance by Davis.
An indication of the importance which he assigns to this
tOpic is the fact that out of the twelve chapters in
which he explicates his homiletical theory, seven of them
are devoted to some aSpect of the subject of Arrangement.

A further indication Of the importance assigned to
Arrangement:ha the sermon is evidenced by the method Davis
uses to classify sermons. He believes there are three
types of sermons and that they are differentiated in terms
of their relationship to the text with particular regard
to the influence Of the text on the actual arrangement of
the sermon: the tOpical, the textual, and the eXpository.
The togical sermon takes a subject suggested by the text
but develOps the discussion of the subject and arranges
thoughts about the Subject independent of the text. Davis

feels that this particular type of sermon can be especially

' 233

interesting Since it gives a great deal of freedom and
range to the preacher's inventive and arranging skills.
In the textual sermon both the subject and the plan of the
sermon are found in the text. The develOpment of the sub-
ject and the arrangement of the sermon in the textual
sermon, therefore, are seen as determined by the course of
thought in the text. Davis believes that the textual
sermon is the easiest to arrange, since the plan is found
in the text itself, and that it is an easy way to memorize
the arrangement of the sermon, for in memorizing the text
the preadher also memorizes the plan. The expository
sermon is subject to the same rules as the textual sermon,
the only difference being that it is concerned with a
longer passage of scripture.

The amount of discussion devoted to Arrangement,
as well as the fact that the sermon's arrangement is an
important factor in the classification Of sermon types,

gives a clear indication of the importance which Davis

assigns to sermoniczarrangement.

The Over-all Plan of the Sermon

In considering the over-all plan of the sermon,
Davis emphasizes the necessity of unity in the sermon in
terms of the consistency of its purpose, materials, and
method of treatment:

A sermon must not be like a string of beads,

held together merely by the string. A
sermon is not a series of pious rambling

234

remarks on a religious subject. Every

sermon must have a definite purpose, be

concerned with a Specific subject, pro-

gress steadily toward the climax. There-

fore it must be unified. (250)

Davis sees this over-all unity in the plan of the
sermon as growing out of three main areas. "The preacher's
purpose“ helps to give the sermon its essential unity. "The
unity of the sermon is made or destroyed by this purpose,
always present to guide and sustain the preacher preparing
his sermon.“ (252) The second area indicated by Davis as
contributing to the unity of the sermon relates to “the
preadher's materials“, that which Invention has provided.
He notes that "the preacher's purpose governs him in the
selection or rejection of the materials at hand." (252)
The final arrangement must consist of the materials at
hand," (252) and he goes on to state that the final test
of the materials is: "Does it explain, prove, illustrate,
or persuade? Does it do this effectively and better than
anything else at hand for the particular purpose dominant
at the moment?“ (253) The last area which Davis believes
helps to enhance the over-all unity of the sermon relates
to “the preadher's technique." The method which the
preacher uses to handle the materials must be unified: his
techniques must be consistent. ”Every preacher must work

out his own technique, be freely consistent in its use,

and practice unified sermons in this way.“ (253)

235

The_Parts Of the Sermon

Davis' primary emphasis in his theory of sermonic
Arrangement is in terms of the parts Of the sermon. He
follows a five-part division and sees the sermon as having
a Text, a Proposition, an Introduction, a Discussion or

DevelOpment, and a Conclusion.1

The Text

The Text of the sermon is defined as “that portion
of scripture that suggests or sanctions the subject, and
may also furnish the plan." (191) Davis believes that it
is advantageous to use a Text in preaching for the followh
ing reasons:

(1) The Bible never becomes antiquated when a

Text is used in preadhing and applied to the
contemporary scene.

(2) The Text introduces the subject quidkly and

creates a presumption in its favor.

(3) A unified Text aids in the preparation of a

unified plan.

(4) All Christian truth finds its finest eXpres—

sion in the Bible.

1Davis also calls the Title and Subject "parts" of
the sermon, but in the further develOpment of his theory he
does not see then as actually existing as independent parts
within a given sermon. The title is Simply an aid in the
cataloging and the naming of the sermon and the subject is
a general statement of what the sermon is about. These two
“parts" are treated by Davis more as an aid in the preparation
of the sermon rather than as actual parts of the oral discourse.

236

Davis is careful to note, however, that in Spite of the

desirability of using a Text, it is not necessary for every

sermon to have one, for "that which makes a sermon Christian

is not the fact that it is furnished With a text, but the

spirit of the preacher and the content of the message."

(193)

In order to give direction with regard to the

selection of'rexts, Davis sets forth the following prin-

ciples governing the choice of Texts in the sermon:

(l)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Although it is important to recognize the
interests of the preacher and the congrega-
tion with regard to certain Texts, the
preacher should avoid choosing texts prompted
by temporary interests if in turn such
selection would cause the permanent needs of
the congregation to be overlooked.

The Text should grip the preacher's heart

in the course of his study. Davis advises
the preacher to "let the text 'find' you as
well as finding the text." (194)

Texts of questionable authenticity or in-
accurate translations should be avoided.

The “great, edifying“ Texts should be chosen
as frequently as possible.

Interesting Texts whose basic meaning may

involve surprise should be used frequently.

237

(6) The Text used in the sermon Should be a com-
plete sentence and treated as such.

(7) If several Texts are used in one sermon, the
preacher should be certain that those selected
are made complementary to each other.

The Text has important significance Since it provides both
the subject Of the sermon and, in most cases, the plan of

the sermon as well.

The PrOposition

The Proposition of the sermon is conceived as "the
statement, in its concisest possible form and by complete
sentence, of the subject that is to be discussed in the
sermon.” (205) Davis indicates, however, that the
PrOposition of the sermon does not necessarily appear
formally stated in the actual sermon. He makes a clear
distinction between the place of the PrOposition in the
preparation of the sermon and its place in the delivery of
the sermon.

A prOposition is not necessary in every

sermon as it is delivered: but it is

absolutely essential in the process of ser-

mon preparation: and it would be a source of

added force and finish if every sermon when

delivered contained a definite and formal

preposition." (205)

Although his inductive study of sermons indicated that a
formal PrOposition is seldom used in preaching, Davis,

nevertheless, feels that such a statement would contribute

greatly to the strength and total effect of the sermon.

238

Davis believes that a Proposition Should have the
characteristics of unity, accuracy, clarity, and interest.
The PrOposition Should have unity, for "all the parts of
the prOposition must have a centripetal force, that is,
there must be just one center of thought. A unified
prOposition will practically insure unity of discussion."
(208) Accuracy can be maintained by avoiding obscure and
controversial terms and in turn using strong, simple and
current words in order to enhance clarity. It is Davis'
contention that a clear and forceful PrOposition will
Secure unity and progress for the entire sermon. He be-
lieves that

true unity calls for orderly and evident

progress. When these have been incorporated

into the prOposition we have the fullest

warrant for confidence that they will be

maintained in the discussion. Indeed, the

major problens Of sermon develOpment are

solved in the franing Of the prOposition. (209)

With regard to the actual number of parts seen in
the sermon, it is interesting to note Davis' observation
that it is often good to blend the PrOposition of the
sermon into the Introduction. He feels that such a
practice will "add interest and charm to the discourse,
and is probably the best method for general use in the-
pulpit." (209) Although the PrOposition is treated apart
from the Introduction, it seems that in actual practice
Davis sees it functioning as part of the Introduction.

In such a case he would hold to four parts within the

239
sermon rather than five, or possibly even to three parts
if the Text could also be considered as part of the Intro-

duction.

The Introduction

"The introduction is that part Of the sermon which
leads into the discussion of the proposition.“ (210)

Davis does not believe, however, that the Introduction is
necessarily all that precedes the discussion of the sub-
ject, for he believes that there may be statements concern-
ing the text, occasion, or related subjects which are not
actually part Of the Introduction.

Davis views the Introduction as an important and
necessary part of the sermon because the human mind
approaChes a subject gradually and needs some orientation
to a subject. The Introduction is also regarded as neces-
sary as a means of securing and sustaining the attention
and the interest of the congregation.

The Introduction should be concise, clear, and
brief. Davis quotes Lyman Abbots' The Christian Ministry
with regard to the element of brevity as follows:

'AS to introductions, generally the less

the better. The whole service of prayer
and praise and scripture reading has been
introduction: that is, it has been prepar—
ing the mind and heart of the congregation
for the message of the preacher. He who
strikes the heart of his subject in the
first sentence is most likely to secure

an attentive listening at the outset of
the discourse.‘ (214)

240

Davis also underscores the necessity of unity in
the Introduction and advises the preacher to "reject
every factor in an intraduction that may divert the move-
ment of thought straight into the discussion.“ (214) He
believes that the first sentence of the Introduction Should
be short and interesting, and he notes with favor Brown's
instruction to write out and memorize the first sentence of
the Introduction. Davis is also reminiscent of Jefferson
in his discussion of the Introduction, for he also warns the
preacher to avoid apologizing in the Introduction.

Davis seems to see the element Of the preacher's
ethical proof having a particular function in the Introduc-
tion of the sermon, for he notes that “the temper of the
preacher will be revealed at no point more clearly than in
the introduction. The qualities of courtesy and good-will
ought to be evident here, therefore, beyond any question.“
(216)

The Discussion

Davis notes that the truth suggested by the Text,
and explicitly stated in the Proposition, needs to be
develOped in such a way that it will “convince the mind,
move the feelings, and sway the will of the congregation."
(189) This develOpment takes place in the Discussion, Body,
or Plan of the sermon. Davis further indicates the func-
tion of the Discussion or Plan in saying that "the sermon

should have a plan according to which the thought is

241
discussed for the purpose of convincing hearers of its
validity. The plan unfolds the prOposition according to
the laws of right thinking." (221) He also develOps his
concept of the nature and importance of this part of the
sermon through the use of analogy when he writes that

as the sculptor or painter undergoes a

long discipline learning anatomy, so the

preadher ought to discipline himself until

he is, first, wholly familiar with the

bony structure Of a severely logical sermon,

and then, in the second place, exceedingly

skillful in so manipulating his framework

that it will not be obtrusive. The common

method of always announcing points and

divisions should not become a slavish

practice. In the end that is best art that

conceals art. (221)

In the Discussion of the sermon, Davis sees the
preacher using only that material necessary for a complete
discussion of the PrOposition. He notes that this discus-
sion of the Proposition is generally carried along and
develOped by three to five ”points“ or "heads." He em-
phasizes, however, the necessity for the preacher to be
flexible in his construction Of the Discussion's plan.

All plans of sermons must be so flexible

that they may be modified the moment that

the develOping thought calls for change.

No greater mistake could be made than to

allow the plan to bring you into bondage

at any point. It is always your servant

and you must never become its slave. (223)

Davis sees two fundamental principles regarding
the plan of the sermon's Discussion: (1) progress of the
Discussion and, (2) prOportion of the parts. In consider-

ing the progress of the Discussion, he says that ' an

242
effective plan must be one in which each point is clearly
Stated, grows out of the point preceding, adds something
to it, and prepares for the point to follow if there is
one." (224) This steady progression is coupled with prOpor-
tion: Davis believes that there should be an accurate
distribution of both time and emphasis among the points or
heads of the Discussion in order to provide a symmetrical,
progressive development of the PrOposition under consider-
ation in the sermon.

Like John Broadus, Davis also gives some consider-
ation to transitions in his theory of sermonic Arrangement.
He indicates the importance of transitions in the sermon
when he states that

It has been said that it is easy to get

the heads of a sermon: it is not very diffi-

cult to get the EQQX? the real problem is

the £325. The point at which many a sermon

breaks is the connection between points and

paragraphs. Transition is vital to a
sermon. (247)

Several means are suggested whereby transitions may be
implemented in the sermon: (1) the preacher might employ a
connective word or some word or phrase at the end of one
paragraph looking forward to the beginning of the next: (2)
such phrases as "in the first place," and "let us consider
next,” as well as (3) physical movements and changes in
pitch and inflection of voice that can be utilized in
initiating a smooth transition from one part or division of

the sermon to the next.

243

The Conclusion

The Conclusion of the sermon is defined as "that
part of the discourse in which the discussion is drawn to
a close and the truth fitted to life.” (217) The Conclu-
sion is to give a new and final turn to the develOpment of
the PrOposition. Davis believes that in the Conclusion
the truth that has been discussed in the sermon is brought
to bear upon the audience in an effort to make it convinc-
ing and to secure a decision in its favor. “The conclu-
sion ought to bear the truth home to the minds and hearts
and wills of hearers with all the concentration and force
that the preacher can muster.“ (217)

Davis sets forth the following principles in the
develOpment of his theory of the Conclusion:

(1) The Conclusion should have dignity and beauty.

(2) The Conclusion should be prepared with care-
ful attention in order to utilize its maximum
effectiveness.

(3) The Conclusion should generally appeal to the
will and seek a decision on the part of the
hearers.

The preacher is an advocate. He wants
his truth to effect changes in the
lives of those who hear him. The final
decision will depend upon the way in
which the mind has been convinced and
the feelings moved. The whole person
is the object of influence in the ser-

mon: but the will is the point of attack
in the conclusion. (219)

244

(4) It is often effective to introduce a personal
element into the Conclusion but such personal
allusions must be done with modesty and
reserve.

(5) “The factor of passion appears at its highest
in the conclusion." (219) Whereas Davis indi-
cates a particular function of ethical proof
in the Introduction, he sees emotional proof
as having a particular function in the
Conclusion.

(6) The Conclusion is the great point of climax.
“The most cogent reasoning and tenderest
appeals must issue at last in the conclusion.
Its style must be energetic and its material

vital." (219)

anglusions

(1) Davis' preaching theory is drawn from an inductive
study of eight selected sermons. The sermons chosen, how-
ever, are more of a reflection of Davis' theory rather than
prescriptive to that theory since his basis of selection

is his own estimate of the sermon's quality in terms of
homiletical principles. His use of these model sermons,
therefore, is primarily to illustrate his own preaching
theory.

(2) Davis views preadhing as an aSpect in the total con-

text of worship, and he believes that the sermon has a

245
persuasive function in that it is primarily directed to
obtaining spiritual decisions on the part of the hearers.
(3) Invention and Arrangement have both a distinct func-
tion and an inter-relationship in Davis' theory. He
believes that invented materials often indicate the best
method of Arrangement, and the act of arranging helps to
stimulate further ideas and to test those ideas already
invented.
(4) Davis gives heavy emphasis and considerable space to
the subject of Arrangement. The importance which he
assigns to it is illustrated by the fact that he classifies
sermons as tOpical, textual, and expository on the basis of
the method used in arranging the ideas supplied by the
Text.
(5) In considering the over-all plan of the sermon, Davis
stresses the necessity of unity's pervading the discourse
in terms of its purpose, materials, and method of treat-
ment.
(6) Davis' primary emphasis on Arrangement is in terms of
the parts of the sermon. He sets forth a five-part
division and sees the sermon as having a Text, a PrOposi-
tion, an Introduction, a Discussion, and a Conclusion.
He implies, however, that the Preposition and perhaps the
‘Pext may best function as part of the Introduction and thus
may also be considered to follow a three part division.

(7) The‘rext is believed by Davis to be an actual part of

246
the sermon because it provides the subject of the sermon
as well as generally providing a unified plan for the
sermon.
(8) The Proposition functions to present the subject of
the sermon in sentence form. Although Davis treats the
Preposition as a separate part of the sermon, he sees it
functioning in actual practice as part of the Introduction.
(9) The task of the Introduction is to arrest the
attention and interest of the audience and orient then to
the subject of the sermon. Davis' concern for unity in the
sermon's structure is reflected in his concern for unity
in the Introduction, for he believes that the Introduction
helps to set the basic tenor of the sermon in terms of its
unified characteristic.
(10) Davis sees ethical proof as having a particular func-
tion in the Introduction of the sermon.
(11) The function of the Discussion of the sermon is to
develOp the subject, as stated in the Preposition, with
particular regard to persuasion.
(12) Davis believes that the elements of progress and
preportion are of particular importance to the structure
of the sermon's Discussion.
(13) Consideration is given by Davis to the importance
and function of transitions, particularly in the Discus-
sion of the sermon. He believes that transitions are
important because they are essential to the progress and

unity of the discourse.

247
(14) The Conclusion functions to take the truth discussed
throughout the sennon and bring it to bear upon the audience
in a final and climactic attempt to persuade them.
(15) Davis sees emotional proof as having a particular

function in the Conclusion.

CHAPTER X

GAIUS GLENN ATKINS' CONCEPTION OF 'ARRANGEMENT'

Gaius Glenn Atkins

Born in Mt. Carmel, Indiana, on October 4, 1868,
Gaius Glenn Atkins received the major portion of his educa-
tion in the Middle West. He graduated Phi_8etagKappa from
Ohio State University, and in 1891 was granted a law
degree from the Cincinnati Law School. He also studied
theology at the Yale Divinity School and in 1895 was or-
dained to the Congregational ministry. Before being
ordained and entering the ministry, however, he was head of
the History Department at a private preparatory school in
Indiana from 1892 to 1895.

Atkins served as a pastor from 1895 until 1927 in
Massachusetts, Vermont, Michigan, and Rhode Island. In
1927 he was appointed the Hoyt Professor of Homiletics and
sociology at the Auburn Theological Seminary, where he con-
tinued teaching until 1939, when he was named professor
emeritus. It was while he was engaged in teadhing at
Auburn that Atkins wrote greaching_and the Mind of Today,
which, out of the twenty-two books he has authored, is the
most complete presentation of his preaching theory.

Atkins received the D.D. in 1904 and the L.H.D. in

248

249
1923 from the University of Vermont, and was honored with
the D.D. from Dartmouth College in 1906, and the Litt. D.
from Ohio State University in 1933. He was also awarded

the Church Peace Union prize for an essay on International

Peace in 1914.1

£22£Qach to Hgmiletigs and Preaching

The factors motivating Atkins to set forth his
theory of preaching are important elements in the under-
standing of his particular homiletical point of View.2

He notes that

within a long generation the whole content
of inherited Christianity has come up for
re-examination, asked to be taken back into
the Christian mind and reissued, charged
with proper power and meaning for its con-
temporaneous world. Preaching cannot escape
that challenge. (xi)

It is the challenge of the changing contemporary
mind that Atkins finds motivating him to set forth his
views on preaching, for to him the very task of preaChing
is "to create a Christian mingL_taking 'mind' in_its most
ample sense: whigg will_accept and commit itsglfutg_th§_
Christian way_with all which the Christian way_involves and

demands." (xii) Atkins' theory, therefore, must be understood

‘ —

l“Gaius Glenn Atkins,” Eho's Whg_in America 1952-
_g, Vol. 27, (Chicago: A. N. Marquis Company, 1952 , p.89.
2The homiletical theory of Gaius Glenn Atkins is
set forth in his book Preachinggand the Mind of Today,
(New York: Roundtable Press, Inc., 1934). References to
Atkins' theory are from this book, and the page numbers are
indicated in parentheses.

250

as growing out of this attempt to relate preaching to the
mind of the men of his day. He sees the basic task of the
Christian church and Christian preadhing to be the renewing
of the Spirit of men's minds, and he notes that “as far as
preaching is failing or has failed it is because it has
not the Splendid simplicity of the mind of Christ.“ (xv)

Atkins says that preaching

is nothing more or less than the creation

by the spoken word of some sense of the

presence of God and reality of religion.

It seeks to fill the void of human loneliness

'with the sound of solitary voices' proclaim-

ing the unseen and eternal, to lighten our

darkness with the uncreated light. (7)
While admitting that this definition of preaChing is too
indefinite, he believes that the very indefiniteness of an
understanding of what preaching really is accounts for the
preacher's continual search to find additional help in
preaching. The inability to discover and reach the true
hiding place of preaching power accounts, in Atkins' mind,
for the excessive concern of preachers for the techniques
of preaching. He notes that this emphasis on the art and
technique of preaching is peculiar to American theological
education and is not to be found in such places as England,
and infers that the knowledge of literature, history, and.
phiIOSOphy is sufficient to enable the preacher to preach
well, for he says that the English preach largely “by the
light of nature out of a full and instructed mind.“ (8)

Atkins further believes that American Specialization in

251
homiletical training "is probably due in part to the uneven
and sometimes deficient background education of American
preachers. It reflects also the strain American preaching
is under, of creating the congregation and carrying the
back-breaking burden of over-institutionalized and over-
financed churches in an over-churched nation.“ (9)

Atkins appears to diSparage the study of techniques
of preaching and sees them assuming importance in America
simply as an attempt by over burdened preachers to find
preaching power and in distinguishing between “sacred" and
"profane“ rhetoric, Atkins further indicates his belief
that a strong general education makes the study of “sacred
rhetoric" somewhat unnecessary.

The difference between 'sacred' and 'profane'

rhetoric would seem to be in the subjects con-

sidered and the ends sought, and not in the
eneral laws of the right use of language.

One is tenpted to believe that 'sacred

rhetoric' has often taken the over dressed

part.) Creative disciplines of method and

style in public address belong to the general

field of education. (8)

He notes that in spite of the abundance of techniques and
rhetorical insights with Which American preaching has been
supplied, it still has not discovered the real source of
power and ability to meet the contemporary mind.

Evidently, then, preaching is something more

than effective public Speech, or else the

constant demand for guidance in the technique

of it is a sad witness that we have misused

the fundamentals of good training even in that.

I think both alternatives are true, but the

nature of preaching itself is for the most
significant. Its sense of being charged with

252

a commission for those supreme interests

of the soul by which men live, for want

of which they die, is--or should be--the

unescapable and awesome burden of all

preaching, and that burden is not easily

borne. (9)

Atkins indicates not so much a dislike for tech-
niques in preaching, as he does a strong feeling that the
learning of additional techniques will not provide the
source for the necessary power and relevance of preaching
in relation to the contemporary mind. He notes that the
present day preacher is actually the heir of the Hebrew
prOphet and the Greek rhetorician. {e believes, further,
that the preacher's vocation has been Shaped and influenced
by the develOpment of the “Christian mind" and the
Christian church. In the past the inherited creeds,
loyalties, authorities, hOpes, and confidence, had seemed
complete and secure, but in one generation all of this be-
gan to be questioned and undone. Atkins thus believes that
the preadher could no longer depend upon an inherited
Christianity and inherited forms of expression because a
new mind was beginning to emerge about science, about the
sources and documents of the Bible, about the sources of
Christianity and about religion itself. It is to this new
mind that the present day minister must preach. In attempt-
ing to communicate to the new mind, however, modern
preaching is confronted with many problems in Atkins' view.

The doctrinal framework in Which preaching once functioned

is giving way, and the number of peOple who will eagerly

253

hear the key words of the evangelical faith and are able
to transform them into a power and reality in their
religious living is diminishing. Another problem which
Atkins sees facing preaching is the lack of unity in the
mind, temper, and outlook of any congregation. His basic
theme in develOping his preaching theory, therefore, is
that “preaching must take account of the times." (42)

Atkins believes that from its very beginning, the
nature of Christian preaching was largely determined by the
nature of the world it was attempting to reach. He notes
that the different kinds of preaching which have develOped
throughout the history of the church (eXpository, evangeli-
cal, educational, edification of saints and church, ethical,
apologetical, social, etc.) "are what preaching has become
when it faced any living situation with a living passion.”
(47) Atkins is convinced that preaching is now faced with
the necessity of having to discover and sense how it can
creatively relate to a changing world.

A vast deal depends upon its prescience and

its courage and, above all, on its concep-

tion of the ruling ideas by which it charts

itself and in which it finds its message.

It may wisely therefore engage itself in an

examination of these ruling ideas which

Should now control preadhing and make it

rightly creative. For preaching must be

creative, nobly creative, and, since it is

Christian preaching, it must help to create

Christian ways of life. (54-55)

In attempting to sense the course which preadhing

must take if it is to communicate with the modern mind,

254
Atkins sees modern preaching falling into two categories:
"The interpretation . . . of life in terms of the Christian
revelation: the creation--as far as preaching can create
it-—of a society conformed to the Christian mind." (88)
since a preacher's preaching is a revelation of his under-
standing of life and an expression of his Christian faith
in all of its relation to life, Atkins believes, as does
Jefferson, that the roots of effective preaching are to be
found deep in the pastoral relationship of the preacher to
his congregation.

Atkins“ theory of homiletics, and particularly of
sermonic Arrangement, must be understood in the light of
his over-all concept of the nature and function of preach-
ing. The great necessity of Speaking to the modern mind
determines, to a large degree, both the nature of his
theory of Arrangement as well as the prOportionate emphasis

and detail with which he attends to the subject.

Definition and Interpretation of Arrapgemeng

Topoi of Arrangement

Atkins sees a definite distinction between what he
calls the "matter" and the "technique” of the sermon. He
believes, however, that the form or structure of the
sermon is always to be subordinate to the actual content
of the sermon. "Preaching takes its force and character

from its ruling ideas and its directing purpose, and of

255

these two the ruling ideas are most strategic." (45) The
"directing purpose" of the sermon is considered to be the
over-all view of the sermon's arrangement and as such of
lesser importance than the ideas of the sermon. This
emphasis is further seen in his statement that

the minor aSpects of the techniques of a

well-made sermon are entirely subordinate

to the Splendor of the task. Noble preach-

ing always fuses its elements in its truth

and passion. When it is drawn from living
fires it will find its prOper molds. (213)

Importance of Arrangement

Atkins emphasizes the elements of Arrangement which
he feels are most relevant to his over-all concern of
preaching to the contemporary mind. In doing so, he gives
particular stress to the elements of direction and movement
in preaching. He feels that the sermon should be so
arranged that it has a definite direction because

half the futility of futile preaching is in

misdirection. What is said is well enough.

Except for rare art in organization and pre-

sentation and the gift which elect preachers

possess of giving some high quality of

interest to their sermons, there is astonish-

ingly little difference in the general sub-

stance of Christian preaching. A deal of

otherwise good preaching goes wrong‘because

it arrives nowhere. (44)

Atkins is convinced of the importance of an over-all
direction in the sermon's structure Since he believes it is
a vital factor in communicating with contemporary minds.

He also stresses the element of movement within the sermon

for he feels it is of importance in arresting and

258
maintaining the attention of men's minds. The alert minds
to which the minister preaches need to be continually
challenged and interested throughout the sermon and-thus
the element of movement is extremely necessary.

The most dependable interest factor is move-
ment, movement of develosing thought. As
long as a sermon is going somewhere the con-
gregation will go with it. They do not ask

a too one-track movement: ag contraire-

They love such variations of the motif as a
musician introduces. They reSpond happily

to detours through a little quiet Spree of
beauty or to some summit of commanding vision
but they want always to move on and forward.
They share, not always consciously, the
preacher's periods of grOping uncertainty, get
lost with him and do not always get back on
the main road with him. Directly the sermon
begins to double back their interest weakens.
If at the end they are where they started
they know that nothing has been done and
grudge this wasted time. (223)

 

Although Atkins assigns great importance to the
elements of direction and movement in the sermon, he
gives scant attention to other aSpects of Arrangement.
He takes the position that structure will emerge from the
subject matter of the discourse and thus little attention
needs to be given to instruction regarding Arrangement.
This is not to say that Atkins is not concerned that the
sermon be well arranged but rather to recognize that he
feels that such arrangement will emerge from the materials
of the sermon and thus the subject of Arrangement does not
require a detailed treatment. The total thrust of Atkins'
preaching theory, in its concern for re-thinking preaching

in the light of the new mind of the twentieth century,

257
ranks the technique of sermon Arrangement low in priority
in relation to other matters pertaining to the basic con-
tent of preaching and the preacher's reSponsibility in his

total pastoral context.

The Parts of the Sermon

Atkins sees the sermon as having three basic parts.
In keeping with his concern for movement within the total
plan of the sermon, however, he does not consider them as
'parts' but rather as movements. He observes that “there
are substantially only three movements in any sermon:
getting into it, getting through it, and getting away from
it with some clean-cut finality." (205) He warns the
preacher against working too hard and "overbuilding" the
structure of the sermon, and believes that it is not too
necessary to go into much detail with regard to the three
movements of the sermon since "the laws and principles in-
volved are common to all good public address, and a well

trained mind uses them instinctively." (205)

“The First Movement“

The two basic elements which Atkins believes the
First Movement, or Introduction, of the sermon must have
are "timing" and "mobilization." The preacher's task is to
get himself and his audience into the message of the
sermon in the Firstriovement, according to Atkins. “Half

his introduction is for himself, half for the eXpectant

258
folk before him whose more or less wandering minds must be
brought together, stirred to interest, and told what it is
all about." (206) Atkins emphasizes the idea that these
two lines of approach must converge if the sermon is to
get off to a prOper beginning. He believes that, unless
the attention of the audience is immediately arrested
through careful timing and mobilized to continued interest,
the minds of the congregation will be off to their own
lines of thought.

Atkins teaches that the prOper and effective Intro-
duction can best be secured by the preaCher through the
process of careful eXploration and examination of the Intro-
duction in the course of preparing the sermon. He suggests
that different methods of introducing the sermon be con-
sidered and evaluated by the preacher until the one which
best fulfills the Introduction's function of mobilizing
the attention and interest of the congregation is dis-
covered. The one danger about which Atkins warns the
preacher is that of making the Introduction too lengthy
and disunited, thus causing it to be ineffective in
mobilizing attention and interest. He notes that "if
there are essentially three movements in a sermon the
first danger is that the approach should be too long and

too wandering." (207)

259

"The Second Movement"

Atkins defines the Second Movement of the sermon as
"the organized and develOped saying of what the sermon
sets out to say.“ (207) He notes four approaches that the
preacher might employ to develOp the Second Movement: (1)
the preacher might build the Second Movement as a mason
builds a wall and organize his materials around a progres-
sive sequence of firstlys, secondlys, etc.: (2) the tech-
nique of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is preposed as
another possible mode of develOpment by Atkins: (3) he
further suggests that the Second Movement might be con-
structed like a symphony with develOpments of a theme:
(4) the preacher might also “grow it as a tree grows with
trunk and branches Spreading into a wealth of foliation
through which the lights and shadows play and the winds
make music.“ (207) This last method is called "the
essayists' art and the secret of full develOpment." He
seems to prefer this "growing" method of treatment because
he feels it is most conducive to the fullest develOpment of
the preacher's ideas. He observes that

it is easy enough to grow a homiletical

trunk with a few main, bare branches in

the air, like the trees we used to see

in the battle areas, but to carry a branch

through all its aspiring Finials to the

full-finished Spread of it is another

matter and far more difficult. (208)

Atkins believes, however, that whatever method of

organization is used by the preacher in the develOpment of

the sermon, the "true develOpment is in the very structure

260
of the matter." He feels that the subject matter of the
particular sermon and the nature of the message will ulti-
mately determine the arrangement of the material, and thus
once he finds the one inevitable line of
develOpment, the rest is easy. The ser-
mon will organize itself: as he goes on he

will find what is to be said next waiting
for him because it must be said next. (208)

“The Last Movement"

The Last Movement of the sermon is considered to be
crucial to the sermon's success. Atkins notes, however,
that ”the last movement is not the rhetorician's peroration
or the text—book's conclusion. It is as much as anything
else the way in which a sermon draws in upon life." (209)
Atkins apparently thinks that in some discussions of public
address the Conclusion is merely an addendum to the Speech
existing almost apart from the Speech. Whether he is
correct in his interpretation of rhetorical theory at this
point is not of primary concern. The fact that he is
emphasizing the importance of the Conclusion as an integral
part of the total sermon is of concern, however, in an
understanding of Atkins' concept of the sermon's Last
Movement. In the Conclusion, therefore, he believes that

what has been said must reach and rest upon

some definite frontier of thought, faith,

or conduct and it must not leave an unbridged

gap between itself and the possible issue of it

in life.

The sermon's Last Movement has the task of taking

what has been discussed previously and relating it to the

261
lives of the hearers. Atkins believes that asaxresult of
this the preacher is faced, in the Conclusion, with the
question of how all that has been said of Christianity
throughout the sermon can be fit into the lives of modern
men. Atkins notes in this regard that

most sermons face this whole demanding situ-

ation in their last movement. The preacher

has made his case, developed his prOposition,

indicated a duty, or promised a blessing--

what you please. He needs to take a care,

for whose importance I can find no adjective,

that, as all this draws in upon life as it

is just then and there before him, he does

not lose himself and his congregation in a

holy obscurity of pious phrases and exhorta-

tions. (217)

Because Atkins believes that it is in the Last
Movement of the sermon that the concepts of Christianity
developed in the sermon are uniquely related to the minds
of men, he advises that Special care be given to its prep-
aration. He feels that two-thirds of the preacher's labor
in preparing the sermon should be devoted to the Last Move—
ment of the sermon. He notes that too often the preacher
prepares the Introduction very carefully, develOps the
second third of the sermon in some detail, and then allows
the Last Movement to come out of the feelings of the
moment in which it is delivered. The emphasis in Atkins'
theory of reaching the minds of modern man makes the Last
Movement, in which the message is Specifically applied to

modern life, of crucial importance and as such deserving

of particular attention and careful preparation.

262

 

Qonclusiops

(l) Atkins' theory of preaching grows out of his attenpt to
relate preaching to the changing mind of his contemporaries
and to making preaching relevant to a modern generation.

(2) Preaching is viewed by Atkins as the process of creat-
ing a sense of God's presence and the reality of religion
through the Spoken word.

(3) Atkins believes that preaching has lost its power and
is not achieving its purpose because there has been a fail-
ure on the part of the preacher to communicate to the modern
mind.

(4) Atkins sees the study of preaching techniques as an
attempt of overburdened American preachers to discover
preadhing power. He implies that a broad and adequate know-
ledge of subject matter is sufficient to provide good
preaching. His primary argument, however, is not with
techniques but with the belief that simply learning addi-
tional techniques will provide preaching with power and
relevance in terms of the contemporary mind.

(5) Atkins feels that throughout history the nature of
preaching has been determined by the nature of the world it
was attempting to address. He is concerned that contempor-
ary preaChing change in order to communicate to a modern
mind which does not have a traditional Christian frame of
reference.

(6) The function of preaching is seen by Atkins as inter-

preting life in terms of the Christian revelation and

263
creating a society conformed to the "Christian mind.“
(7) Since preaching is viewed by Atkins as the preacher's
revelation of his own understanding of life and
Christianity's relationship to it, its roots are to be
found in the pastoral relationship the preacher has with
his congregation.
(8) Atkins distinguishes between the "matter“ and the

' of a sermon, and he believes that the form or

"techniques'
structure of the sermon is greatly subordinate to its con-
tent.

(9) Scant attention is paid to the subject of arrangement
in Atkins' theory. He does, however, single out and treat
the elements of direction and movement in the sermon, for
he believes they have particular relevance to communicating
to the modern mind.

(10) Atkins' lack of concern for the details of Arrangement
grow out of his belief that the structure of the sermon

will almost automatically emerge from its subject matter.
Although he believes that the sermon ought to be carefully
structured he feels that a careful treatment of Arrangement
results in undue concern with technique and is of low
priority in relation to sudh matters as the content of
preaching and the pastoral reSponsibility of the preacher.
(ll) Atkins sees three basic parts in the sermon, but due

to his concern for movement within the over-all plan of the

sermon he prefers to identify the parts as "movements.”

264
(12) The First Movement, or Introduction, is seen by
Atkins as having the function of arresting attention
through careful timing} and by 'mobilizino' the minds of
the congregation in order to maintain continued interest.
(l3) The development of the Second Movement, or Body, is
determined, in terms of its organization, by the nature of
its subject matter: and it has the task of setting forth
the basic ideas of the sermon.
(l4) Atkins' concern for reaching the modern mind through
preaching causes him to place great importance upon the
Conclusion or Last Movement of the sermon. He believes
that it is in this Last Movement that the ideas of
Christianity discussed throughout the sermon are related

specifically to modern life.

PA RT IV

CONCEPTIONS OF 'ARRANGEIQENT'

IN

MID—TWENTIETH CENTURY AMERICAN PROTESTANT

HOM IL ET I CAL THEO RY

CHAPTER XI
HALFORD E. LUCOOCK'S CONCEPTION OF 'ARIUu‘xIGEIvlmT'
Halfordp§;_Luccock

Halford Luccock was, perhaps, the best known homi-
letician of the twentieth century, being author of almost a
score of books and an acknowledged leader in the homiletical
circles of his generation.

Luccock was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania on

March 11, 1885.1

He received his undergraduate training
from Northwestern University and was granted the A.B. in
1906. In 1909 he completed his seminary education at Union
Theological Seminary and in that same year was awarded the
M.A. degree by Columbia University. Luccock was also
honored throughout his lifetime with honorary doctorates
from Syracuse University, Allegheny College, Wesleyan
University, and the University of Vermont.

In 1910 Dr. Luccock was ordained as a minister in
the Methodist Church; and for the next two years he was
actively involved in a parish ministry, serving as a pastor

in Windsor, Connecticut. In 1912, however, he was called

to be an instructor at the Hartford Theological Seminary

*— F

1“Halford Edward Luccock”, “Who's Who in New England,
1949, Vol.4, (Chicago: The A.N. Marquis Company,l949),p.389.

266

267

in Connecticut. He taught in the department of New Testa-
ment at Hartford for two years, at which time he resigned
his post to enter again the parish ministry as the pastor
of St. Andrews Churdh in NewHaven.l In 1916 Luccodk left
the church in New Haven to resume seminary teaching, and
he was appointed Registrar and Instructor in New Testament
at Drew'Theological Seminary in Madison, New'Jersey. In
1918 he left Drew and worked as Editorial Secretary of the
Methodist Board of Foreign Missions until 1924, when he
was appointed contributing editor of Christian Advocate.

Luccock's early experiences as a preacher, pastor,
teacher, administrator, and editor made him eminently
qualified for the task of training young ministers. In
1928 he was appointed professor of homiletics at the Yale
University Divinity Sohool, a position he held until his
retirement in 1953. It was during his twenty-five years
at Yale that Luccock's influence began to be felt in
American homiletics. In a statement made shortly after
Luccock's death, Dean Liston Pope of Yale noted that "Mr.
Luccock taught preaching at Yale for 25 years before his
retirement in 1953, and thousands of preachers around the

world had their basic instruction in homiletics through him."2

AA-

1"Halford Edward Luccock," Who's Who in America,
1952-1953, Vol.27, (Chicago: The A.N. Marquis Company, 1952),
p.1515. .

 

2Quoted in "Luccock Fund Launched at Yale Divinity,“
The Christian_Century, 77 (December 14, 1960), 1461.

268

Through personal contacts with students and through
his many books and articles, Luccock's influence on
American preaching was profound. Until his death on
November 5, 1960, he was actively engaged in a writing and
speaking ministry. Most of the almost twenty books from
his pen deal with some aSpect of preaching. Among these
many books the one in which he sets forth his concepts of
homiletics to the fullest degree is In Th§_Minister's

WorkshopI which was published in 1944.

Approach to Homiletics and Preaching

Luccock's approach to preaching is strongly centered
in the preacher as a person. He sees the preacher's per-
sonality as a channel used by God to convey a particular
message, and thus preaching to him is the communication,
through the channel of the preacher's personality, of the
revelation of God. Basic to his theory of preaching,
therefore, is his emphasis upon the minister as a man and
his personality as an unobstructed channel of communication.
"Far more important than what the minister can do about his

sermons is what he can do about himself" (16)1

lHalford E. Luccock's theory of sermonic Arrange-
ment is found in its most complete form in his book,
In the Ministerflgpfigrkshoo, (New York: Abingdon Press,

1944). References to his theory, found in parentheses,
are from this book.

269

Preaching has,in Luccock's view, the function of
instructing, persuading, and edifying. He believes the
function and purpose of the sermon to be to get peOple to
see the truth, act upon it, and be helped by it. Since
his emphasis, is upon the sermon as a means to accomplish
ultimate ends he diSparages preoccupation with teChnique,
"for technique, when it ceases to remain a servant and be-
comes a master, when it ceases to be a means and aSpires,

'often with a fatal success to become an end in itself, has
slain ten thousand preachers." (26) He believes, neverthe-
less, that ends depend on the means: and thus he evidences
a deep interest in the techniques of preadhing, an
interest, however, that is tempered continually by his
concern that the sermon must function as a means and not
the end.

Like Jefferson, Brown, and Atkins of the early
twentieth century, Luccock also conceives of preaching in
the context of the total work of the minister and the
church. He believes that the sermon can function only
within this context, for "a sermon is like a brick} it
fulfills its function only as it is placed in relationship'
in a structure." He goes on to note that

preaching, separated from its roots and

accompaniment in the life of a paris}; Euad

community, becomes an aerial plant with

faint color and deficient life. The a

. £3
has true meaning when it is seen as Q $1190“

many agencies of the Spiritual life. he of
K 253

 

270

Growing out of this view which sees preaching
functioning in the total pastoral context of the minister's
life is Luccock's emphasis upon an audience or peOple
'centered approach to preaching. This emphasis is an ex-
tremely important one to Luccock's entire theory of preach-
ing, and it has definite implications with regard to his
theory of Arrangement which will be noted later. He
stresses the necessity of preadhing to peOple at the point
of their present eXperience and at the place in life where
they are living. This type of preaching has

. . . a sense of people which permeates

all varieties of sermons, a quality and

flavor evident both in the inner Spirit

and in the visible and audible word. It

comes from living with people, and issues

in what Emerson called ‘writing that is

blood-warm .' (73)

Since Luccock believes that preaching is the com-
munication, through the preacher's personality, of the
revelation of God, his view of preaching, like that of
Phillips Brooks, sees the elements of both personality and
truth functioning within it. Luccock sees the Truth as
being the revelation of God, and he summarizes it in three
quotations from the Bible: "The word was made flesh:“

"If any man . . . Open the door, I will come in:“ "Other
foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is
Jesus Christ.“ This use of the Bible as a source of

preadhing the Truth is emphasized by Luccock, and he

stresses the idea that there needs to be a return to the

271

Bible as the source of preaching materials. He believes

that the prOper use of the Bible in preadhing will help

preaching to be more hearer centered and allow it to meet
human problems with the Truth of God. He sets forth five
reasons why the Bible should be used as a source of preach-
ing:

(1) Preadhing with the Bible as its source is in the common
language, for it is in the native tongue of the
Christian church.

(2) The material contained in the Bible is the most vivid,
dramatic, and arresting the preacher can use.

(3) Using the Bible as a source of preaching saves the
preacher from the futile strain of attempting a
"great” sermon every Sunday. It helps him to forget
attempts at showy oratory and allows him to deal with
the real problems of men. Dealing with the narratives
and truths of the Bible gives the preacher prOper
perSpective and helps him to avoid the lure of the
sensational.

(4) The Bible contains parallels to present human ex-
periences.

(5) The Bible is unrivaled as a source of variety and

freshness in preaChing.
Unlike other theorists who call for a revival of
using the Bible as a source of preaching, Luccock dis-

courages attempts to reinstate eXpository preaching.

272
". . . the great and real values of preaching rooted in
the Bible are not to be realized by an uncritical and
line-of-least-resistance reversion to 'expository preaching.'"
(150) Undoubtedly Luccock's negative view of that exposi-
tory preaching set forth by the nineteenth century homi-
letical theorists, rests in his belief that such preaching
often fails to relate the truth of the biblical passage to
the problems and realities of modern life and) thus, fre-
quently degenerates into a weak paraphrase of the passage
of scripture with a moralistic ending added to it.
Luccock's view of preaching, however, sees the preadher
taking the revelation of God and directly relating it to

the contemporary problems of life faced by the hearer.

T‘Jgfinition and Interpretation of Arrangement

Topoi of Arrangement

Luccock sets forth Specific advice to the Speaker
regarding the process to be followed in the preparation of
the sermon, and from this advice the particular relation-
ship between the canons of Invention and.Arrangement can
be implied. He believes that Arrangement consists of
ordering, on the basis of particular principles, the
material which has been invented. He advises the preadher,
therefore, to write down all the ideas he has on the sub-
ject, with no thought as to their arrangement, as one of
the first stages in the sermon's preparation. Luccock

implies that the careful and detailed work of Invention

273

should be relatively completed before the process of
Arrangement is initiated, and he warns against ordering the
materials into an outline too early in the preparation of
the sermon. He notes that forming the outline too soon

. . . is one of the commonest causes of

mediocre and commonplace sermons. An out-

line, or general conception of a sermon,

arrived at prematurely, before one has walked

around the subject and seen it from various

points of the compass, is nearly always a

wooden outline. (169)
Luccock thus notes a distinction between Invention and
Arrangement in terms of their reSpective functions in the
construction of the sermon. He believes, however, that
the process of Invention leads to the act of Arrangement
and may suggest something of the nature of the Arrangement.
Arrangement is seen as the process of acting upon invented
materials to achieve the plan of the sermon in light of
the particular objectives of the sermon. He believes that
the arrangement of materials occurs as an integral part of
the preparation of the sermon but that it cannot even begin
to occur until the process of Invention has reached a
stage where it is "ready." When this stage is reached,
the outline will emerge from the materials.

From time to time, as this [the process

of Invention] is going on, the sermon

maker will watch to see if an outline is

ready to emerge. This, ordinarily, will

not all come at once: it will grow. Some

one prOposition will demand a place to be

followed by others. (170)

Luccock notes that when the outline finally

appears and is imposed on the materials, certain parts of

274

the invented materials will fall into place and others

will be discarded. He seems to imply, therefore, that
within the scope of Arrangement there is contained the
element of selection and rejection of invented materials
depending upon their ability to fit into the sermon's total
plan. He also indicates that some materials find their
prooer arrangement in the process of Invention in that

o

heir relationship to other materials denands that they be

(3'

fitted into a particular place in the sermon plan. The
relationship between Invention and Arrangement is believed

to be a natural and complementary one in which the arrang-

ing of the materials grows smoothly out of the inventional
work on the materials. He notes that the outline ". . .causes
the material -- the facts, ideas, narratives, questions ~-

to move, almost of themselves, under the various aSpects

or divisions of the theme." (171)

Arrangenent, in Luccock's view, is the servant of
Invention, for throughout the develOpment of his preadhing
theory he stresses the priority of content over form and
notes that matters of the "craftsmanship of sermon making"
are secondary to primary matters of the sermon's content.

This focus on craft and teChnique needs

no apology. It is part of a minister's

reasonable service, a measure of his con-

secration. If we concentrate our atten-

tion on this realm, it is done with the

emphatic and continual understanding that

skills of any degree are secondary matters.

These may be the branches of preaching:
they are never its roots. (12)

275

The Importance of Arrangement

Luccock believes that the urgency of preaching

demands that careful consideration be given to the tech-
niques of sermon construction.

If an apology for attention to preaching
skills were needed, it is found in the
fact that it is just when the compelling
urgency for getting a thing done is at its
greatest that the concrete means for its
accomplishment assume the greatest import-
ance. (22)

He affirms that "the importance of specialized skill

varies directly with the urgency for accomplishing a great

achievement."(22)

The stress which the homiletical theorists of the
nineteenth century placed the subject and importance of
Arrangement in commended by Luccock. He notes that al-

though a great deal has been said about the basic import-
ance of sermon structure,

there is constantly recurring occasion for

its repetition. For there is a contemp-

tuous disdain, endowed with the persistence

of a hardy perennial, on the part of many
preachers for a serious and painful concern
with sermon outlines, as a sort of pedantic
technicality unworthy of the attention of a
truly prOphetic mind. Such do not see that

it is not only vitally related to the
effectiveness of preaching but also in-
separable from a man's inner integrity, from
the honesty of his soul, like the professional
integrity of an architect, who scorns to throw
timbers and stones and cement together in a
formless Sprawl. (119)

It is interesting to observe Luccock's commendation of the
nineteenth century homileticians' emphasis upon the import-

ance of Arrangement and also to note the similarity of his

276

views to those of W.G. T. Shedd with regard to the ethical
implications of a concern or lack of concern with sermonic
Arrangement.

Luccock believes that both power and beauty in the
sermon are to be found in its structure. "The power of a
sermon lies in its structure, not in its decoration." He
also notes the teaching of Aristotle to the effect that
"beauty depends on order" and observes:

that is basic foundation for all forms of

eXpository, argumentative, and persuasive

writing and speaking -— including, emphatic-

ally, preaching. To get it well in mind will

help to keep in remembrance the truths so

important to a maker of sermons, that ornament

often blurs what should be the clear, hard

beauty of structure. (118)

Luccock sees four basic reasons why Arrangement

should be given careful consideration in preaching:

(1) It helps to give the hearers of the sermon a
Continuous indication of What the sermon is
attempting to communicate. "Evident struc-
ture and a consecrated devotion to clarity,
which sets the preacher free from a self-
regarding fear of letting the outline appear
point by point, give the bearer a necessary
map of the journey." (120)

(2) It helps the preacher to avoid detours away

from his subject and thus aids him in retain-

ing a graSp on his subject.

277

(3) It preserves movement in the sermon, a character-
istic in Luccock's view which is essential to
the interest evoking ability of the sermon.

(4) It is essential to the progress of the sermon,
the ability of the sermon to move purposefully
toward an assigned goal:

A sermon should gather strength as it goes

along, reaching a climax or a series of

climaxes. That can be achieved only under

a planned strategy of Operation, with the

successive objectives to be taken well mapped.

Otherwise, even when the idea is good, there

will be a tendency for the sermon to run down

hill after the central idea has been unfolded.

Unless there is an outline that compels pro-

gress, the sermon will trickle like a thin
stream running down from a Spring. (126)

The Over-all Plan of Arrangement

Luccock conceives of the over-all plan of the
sermon's Arrangement in terms of both the audience to which
the sermon is addressed and the type of senmon used on a
particular occasion.

Structure and outline are not simply a matter of
logical sequence and progress in relation to a subject:
rather, there is a psychological Arrangement of the sermon
in which the preacher takes account of the “emotional
rhythm" of an audience.

A sermon is not a chapter in a text book,

where ideas can be unfolded in a near

vacuum. It is a c00perative achievement

with an audience and the audience must be

kept in mind at all costs. Thus, material

which is immensely valuable in getting into
contact with an audience and holding that

278

human contact may often seen a wasteful
detour from the point of view of strict
logic. But it justifies its place in

the structure by the indispensable service
it renders. (127)

Luccock believes that in every sermon there is both
an emotional or psychological Arrangement which maintains
the attention and interest of the audience, and a logical
Arrangement which develOps the subject or theme of the
sermon in an orderly manner based on logical principles:

A study of many sermons will reveal an
emotional outline as well as a logical
one -- places where there is a 'break
through' with a stepped up animation and
intensity. Climaxes arising like peaks
from a plain, after which, with a change
of tempo and volume, the sermon goes on
to reach, after a stage of the journey,
another climax. (129)

Sensing a rhythm of rising and falling attention
and interest in audiences, Luccock seeks to take account of
the attention limits of the human mind. He sees as an
important aspect of Arrangement, therefore, the consider-
ation that must be given to planning the sermon so that
the audience is given mental “rests" within the sermon and
to providing a series of climaxes or emotional peaks, which

break the steady pattern and enhance interest and atten-

tion.1

lLuccock's distinction between logical and emotion-
al Arrangement is similar to the distinction made by Daniel
Parrish Kidder between Logical and Oratorical Arrangement.
Although their presentations differ somewhat in terms of
points of emphasis, both attempt to take into account the
audience and their needs as listeners as important consider-
ations in the total arrangement of the sermon and to point
out that a strictly logical arrangement is inadequate in the
actual Speaking situation.

279
In Luccock's view the arrangement of the sermon is
also determined by the type of sermon it is. He sees two
broad types of sermons, "one begins not with subjects but
with persons in the situation which surrounds them: the
other begins with an idea but arrives at persons as its
destination." (50)

‘ In developing his view of "life-situation sermons,"
Luccock acknowledges that his theory in this regard has
been greatly influenced by an article published in 1928
in Harper's Magazine and written by Dr. Harry Emerson
Fosdick. In this article, entitled "What is the Matter
with Preaching?,” Fosdick influenced American homiletical
theory in general: and this influence is reflected in
Luccock's theory. In his article Fosdick described the
process of preaching to life situations, and Luccock quotes
it as representing the most adequate description:

'Start with a life issue, a real problem,
personal or social, perplexing the mind or
disturbing the conscience: face that problem
fairly, deal with it honestly, and throw such
light on it from the Spirit of Christ, that
peOple will be able to go out able to think
more clearly and live more nobly because of
that sermon.’ (51)
According to Luccock, this type of preaching is preaching
". . . which meets peOple at the point of experience which
they have reached," (50) it is preaching in which
". . . Spiritual truth is brought to bear at the point in

eXperience where a particular need is felt. . . . To put

it in another way, preaching to life situations is not

280
preaching on a subject so much as it is preaching to an
object.“ (52)

The life situational type of preaching cuts across
the traditional classification of sermons as doctrinal,
biblical, ethical, or tOpica1: but it may be all four of
then at once. This type of sermon fits in very naturally
to Luccock's total homiletical theory, for in it the .
sermon obviously is a means and never an end. It pre-
serves the hearer-centered orientation for preaching and
evaluates success only in terms of its ability to provide
help in overcoming life's problems.

The actual procedure of life situational preaching
has important implications for the subject of Arrangement,
for it involves a definite change in the ordering of
materials from that of the more traditional approach.
Luccock notes this important change by contrasting the
traditional pedagogy of the German educator Johann
Friedrich Herbert (1776-1841) with that of John Dewey.

It is interesting to see the similarity between the
Hefbartian method and the general approach to sermonic
Arrangement set forth by the nineteenth century homileti-
cians. The steps in the Herbartian method of teaching
are as follows:

(1) ‘greparation of the mind for receiving new

ideas or information.

(2) Presentation of new ideas to the sum of

281
ideas one already has.
(3) Comparison of new ideas with the others to
note relationships, discover truth, etc.
(4) Geperalization or conclusion as a result of
the discussion or presentation.
(5) Application of the new truth to life.1
The process of learning set forth by John Dewey and applied
by Luccock to preaching to life situations is as follows:
(1) A felt difficulty: I
(2) Location and definition of the problem:
(3) Suggestion of possible solutions:
(4) Development by reasoning of bearings or
suggestions:
(5) Further observations and exploration leading
to acceptance or rejection of the solution.2
In applying the Dewey reflective thinking process
to preaching, through the influence of Fosdick, Luccock
thus adds an important new dimension to the concept of
Arrangement in homiletical theory.

Luccock feels that the new approaCh to preaching

has an advantage over the more traditional approach

lSee Johann Friedrich Herbart, The Science of
Educatiop, translated from the German by Henry W. and
Emmie Felkin, (London: Swan Sonnerscheim & Co., Ltd., 1897).

2See John Dewey, How We Think (Boston: D.C. Heath
and Company, 1910). -

282
particularly in terms of its point of application. He
states that whereas the Herbartian approach, as applied to
preaching, postpones the application to the end of the
sermon,1 the Dewey model begins with application and thus
begins at the point of real interest.

The sermon on the Herbart model runs the

danger of postponing the application to

life until the end, when the attention

limit has been passed and alertness lost:

and the real'heart and point of the sermon

feaphes a distracted and exhausted audience.
58 -

In discussing the life situational approach to
preaching, however, Luccock does not imply that it should
totally replace the more traditional approadh to preaching.

All this is not to say that a vast total of
effective preaching and teaching has not
been done in what here is called the tradi-
tional form. It is being done now and will
be done in the future. The contrast is made
not to say that the second style of approach
is the best or the only kind to use. The
purpose has been to examine in some detail
933 Style of productive sermon. (59)

The second broad type of sermon which Luccock de-
lineates is the "idea sermon.“ This type is not as new an
innovation as is the life Situational sermon, for it is

very similar to the tOpical sermon as set forth in the

1Luccock's observation regarding the postponement of
the sermon‘s application until the Conclusion is generally
correct. All of the nineteenth century homileticians studied
in this thesis saw "application" as the particular task of
the Conclusion. In the early twentieth century Davis and
Atkins also appear to have this view. It should be noted,
however, that although primary emphasis is given to applica-
tion in the Conclusion both Kidder and Phelps, although
generally following the Herbartian pedagogical model, allow
room for and encourage application throughout the sermon.
None of the theorists, in fact, rigidly limits application
to the Conclusion.

283

theories of earlier homileticians. This type of sermon
starts with an idea -- "some particular slant on a situ-
ation or human trait, some insight connected with a text
or portion of Scripture.” (93) The ”idea sermon" has much
in common with the life situational sermon except that it
usually leads into the life situation rather than starting
from it. Although the "idea sermon" might be called
biblical since it is generally rooted in a biblical passage
or text, its center of interest is in the idea rather than
the eXposition of the scripture. In this type of sermon
the preacher starts with a new idea or insight, possibly
in a text or passage of scripture, and develOps this new
thought by relating it to the lives of the hearers.

Luccock presents ten different modes of treatment
or types of outlines that he has observed in use and whidh
he feels could be used profitably in the develOpment of a
life situational or "idea" sermon. He warns, however,
that

every preacher must find his own most

natural ways of doing his work, the method

that works ‘with the grain' of his nature,

mind, and personality. . . . The one

caution worth paying continued attention to

is that against the danger of settling pre-

maturely into one method, before others,

which might have given greater range and

power and which certainly would add to a

preacher's variety of resource, have been

eXplored and tried. (134)

The following are the ten modes of treatment set forth as

possible methods of develOping the outline of a sermon:

(l)

(2)

(3)

(5)

284
The ”Ladder“ sermonL
This sermon moves from point to point like the
rungs of a ladder and is well adapted to argumenta-
tion and persuasion.
The_:Jewel" sermopL
In this sermon the preacher turns the idea at hand
around like a jewel “allowing different facets to
catch the light and throw it into different realms
of experience. Its usefulness consists in unity of
theme, with diversity of relationship and applica-
tion." (137) ‘
The “Classificatiop” sermon.
This approach is based on dividing people, things, or
ideas into different classes or types.
The "Skyrocket“ sermon.
This sermon is best adapted to life situational
preaChing. "The sermon begins on the ground in life:
it travels up to a spiritual truth which has meaning
for that Situation on earth: and then the sermon
comes down, as it were, in separate divisions to that
situation.” (146)
The "Twin" sermon sets forth Opposing or contrasting
aSpects of one truth and thus has two basic divisions.
It is of particular use when clarification of a
common misunderstanding of some truth is needed.
The "Roman Candle" sermon is ". . . a succession of

P

statements or observations which follow without any

285
particular design except that they are all related
to the subject." (141) It is a kind of “planless”
treatment in which a succession of statements or '
observations are made with no apparent reason for their
order.

(7) The "Analogy" sermop is an effort to impress the truth
by means of analogy.

(8) The “Surpriseepad<age“ sermon takes a text or idea,
the treatment of which appears predictable, and then
makes a surprise turn calculated to awaken interest in
the heater.

(9) The_flChase TeChnigue" sermon.

In this approach the preacher attempts to get the
audience to explore a problem and attempt a solution
rather than doing it for them. The preacher and the
audience mutually deal with a problem.

(10) The ”Rebuttal“ sermon is an answer to some idea or
practice that the preacher feels is false or misleading.

These ten types of outlines cover a broad range of
possible approadhes, but all of them function as the mode
of treatment for either the life situational or “idea"
sermon. Luccock is concerned that preaching have variety
both in content and in method of approach: and therefore,
he encourages the preacher to utilize a variety of methods
in constructing sermons. In each approach, however, the

main concern appears to be a concentrated attempt to bring

286
Specific teaching to bear at a particular point.
One general observation applies to most
sermons. The most helpful sermon is
usually one which teaches in detail in a
limited area rather than one which travels,
no matter how eloquently, over a wide range
of territory. (132)
This implies that Luccock has a particular concern that
the sermon has Specific direction and goals and makes a

concentrated attempt to accomplish them.

The Parts of the Sermon

Luccock's primary emphasis on Arrangement is upon
the plan of the whole sermon rather than in terms of the
parts of the sermon. In fact, he presents no systematic
treatment of sermon parts. He does, however, allude to
three basic parts of the sermon in that he recognizes the
Introduction, Body, and Conclusion. It is important to
note, however, that Luccock's approach to preaching is
quite diversified, particularly with regard to the methods
or techniques to be employed in the construction of the
sermon. For this reason he may imply a three-part
division of the sermon when taking a more traditional
approach and might in another instance consider the five
steps in the Dewey reflective thinking process as five
parts in a life situational sermon. Through implications
that can be drawn from his teachings and model sermon out-
lines which he uses to illustrate, it is safe to assert

that in general Luccock conceives of the sermon as having
.. .J

287
a fairly distinct Introduction, Body, and Conclusion.
The amount of information concerning his conception of the
nature and function of these parts is, however, very

minimal.

The Introduction

The Introduction is apparently seen as having the
task of setting forth the basic idea, theme, or prOposia
tion that the sermon as a whole is to develop. It takes
the basic idea of the sermon, interests the audience in
that idea, and clearly presents and prepares it to be

broken into its various aSpects in theIBOdy of the sermon.

The Body

In a sense the ten varieties of outlines which
Lucco¢k notes and which have_been discussed previously
might be considered to have definite implications to the
nature of the Body of the sermon. Although these vari-
eties of treatment have been considered in relation to the
over-all plan of the sermon in terms of a particular sermon
type, they may also be said to serve as examples of pos-
sible types of the sermon's Body. The Body of the sermon,
according to Luccock, is that point where the central idea
or prOposition, revealed in the Introduction, is divided
into its significant and relevant aSpects, divisions, and
relationShips. He believes that this is a very critical

point in the plan of the sermon, for “unless this is done,

288
the sermon is liable to stOp in its tracks and go into
circular repetition. Or else the value of the initial idea
is lost by not being carried through to practical implica-
tions." (129)

In keeping with his emphasis upon variety in ser-
mon construction, Luccock believes that no one pattern
should be universally followed in the Body of the sermon:
and he encourages the preacher to utilize varied methods of
dividing the theme of the sermon and develOping it in the
Body. Some of these methods are set forth in the ten types

of outlines previously noted.

The Conclusion

As is the case with all three basic parts of the
sermon, the function of the Conclusion depends upon the
type of sermon being preached. Luccock believes that the
Conclusion, even if the preacher is using the traditional
Herbartian method of treatment, should not be simply an
application tacked on to the end of the sermon. Rather,
the Conclusion should function to bring together all of the
elements of the sermon, summarize them, and leave the bearer
with a clear understanding of the sermon's content and his

own reSponsibility in light of that content.

Conclusions

(1) Luccock's homiletical theory places a particular
emphasis upon the preacher as a person serving as an

unobstructed channel of God's communication to men.

289
Preaching is considered in its function as part of the
total work of the minister and the church.
(2) Basic to Luccock's theory is his concern that preach-
ing be hearer-centered, meeting the peculiar needs of the
audience with the truth of God. This concern has a distinct
effect upon his concept of sermonic Arrangement.
(3) Preaching is considered as a means to accomplish its
ends of persuasion, instruction, and edification.
(4) The use of the Bible is an important element in
Luccock's view of preaching, for he believes that as the
s urce of preaching materials it assists the task of
preaching to be bearer-centered by taking the revelation
of God and directly relating it to the contemporary prob-
lems of life.
(5) Luccock conceives of Arrangement as the process of
acting upon invented materials in order to achieve the
plan of the sermon in light of the particular objectives
of the sermon. He believes that the process of Invention
is related to that of Arrangement in that it may suggest
something of the nature of Arrangement in a particular
instance.
(6) The importance of Arrangement is underscored by
Luccock because he believes that effective preaching
demands that attention be given to Arrangement for in his
view the power and beauty of the sermon as well as its
ability to communicate to peOple's needs are contingent

upon careful Arrangement. He believes that concern or ladk

290
of concern for Arrangement has definite ethical implications
for the preacher as a person in relation to his
responsibility to his hearers.
(7) The primary emphasis which Luccock gives to Arrange-
ment is in terms of the over-all plan of the sermon. In
his view, the over-all plan is structured in terms of the
audience and thus must have a definite psychological
Arrangement, taking into account the nature of the audience
as an audience: and it is also determined by the type of
sermon being preached.
(8) Luccock's concern for preaching to people's needs has
important implications in terms of his theory of Arrange-
ment. He classifies sermons as Idea Sermons, designated
as topical sermons by other writers, and Life Situation
sermons. The latter type, preferred by him, is the utiliza-
tion of the Dewey reflective thinking process to preaching,
as applied by Harry Emerson Fosdick, in distinction to the
traditional Herbertian pedogogical method. The five steps
in the Dewey process are proposed by Luccock as a possible
pattern of planning the sermon.
(9) Variety in sermon content and method of approach is
important to Luccock, and he encourages the preacher to
utilize a variety of methods in constructing the sermon
whether it be an Idea or Life situation sermon.
(10) Because of his emphasis upon the total plan of the

sermon, Luccock does not develop a systematic treatment of

291
sermon parts, although he implies that generally a sermon
will have an Introduction, Body, and Conclusion.
(11) Luccock implies that the parts of the sermon have cer-
tain functional reSponsibilities which contribute to the
total impact of the sermon. The Introduction functions to
interest the audience and to set forth the basic idea to
be develOped in the sermon: the Body develOps the idea by
dividing it into its significant divisions and relation-
ships: and the Conclusion functions to bring together all
of the elements of the sermon, to summarize them, and to
leave the hearer with a clear understanding of the truth

and his responsibility in light of it.

CHAPTER XI

PAUL E. SCHERER‘S CONCEPTI N 01’ 'ARWEJGEMEI‘IT'

f3u_1__§hman 8 ch erer

 

Scherer was born in Pennsylvania on June 22,
1892.1 He was educated at the College of Charleston in
South Carolina, where he received the 3.A. in 1911 and the
M.A. in 1913. His theological training was taken at the
Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, from which
he was graduated with the B.D. degree in 1916. Scherer
has been awarded four honorary doctorates from as many
colleges as recognition of his professional stature and
achievement as a clergyman.

Upon graduation from seminary in 1916, Scherer was
ordained as a minister in the Lutheran Church. His years
in professional service were largely Spent in the pastor-
ate of the Holy Trinity Lutheran Church of Buffalo, New
York, a post which he held from 1918 to 1945. During his
years in the pastorate, Scherer also found time from 1919
to 1929 to become involved at the Mt. Airy Lutheran
Seminary in Philadelphia as instructor. In 1946 he left

the parish ministry and became Brown Professor of

 

l"Paul Ehrman Scherer," Who's Who in Americay;l964-
iggg, Vol.33, (Chicago: The A.N.Marquis Company,1964),p.l768.

292

293

Homiletics at Union Theological Seminary in New York City.
Scherer retired from Union in 1960, and since that time
has served as a visiting professor at Union Theological
seminary in Richmond, Virginia, in 1961 and at Princeton
Theological Seminary in 1962.

Along with his parish and teaching ministries,
Scherer was the radio preacher on Sunday VeSpers from 1932
to 1945 and association editor of the Interpreters Bible
from 1942 to 1957. His reputation as an outstanding
theorist and practitioner of preaching is attested to by
the fact that he was invited to give the Lyman Beecher
lectures on preaching at the Yale University Divinity
school in 1943. These lectures, which contain Shcerer's
most complete exposition of his preadhing theory, were
published in 1944 under the title Epr We Hay§_This

Treasure,

épprpach t9_fiomil ti 3 and Preaching_

____

Scherer's theory of preaching is built upon a
concern for the preacher as a man and a proper theological
understanding of his task as a proclaimer of the ChriStian

gOSpel.1 Of secondary concern to Scherer, therefore, are

1The preaching theory of Paul E. Scherer is found
in its most complete form in his book E9; We Have This
TreasureI (New York: Harper & Brothers, 19447: References
to Scherer's theory are from this book, and the page
numbers are indicated in parentheses.

294
m tters that pertain to the methodology of constructing
and delivering the sermon.

Central to Scherer's theory of preaching is his
conception of the preacher as a man uniquely called by God
to preach. His viewpoint with reSpect to the nature of
preaching has as its basic foundation the belief that the
preadher must be uniquely called of God for his task. He
affirms his conviction that the preacher's call is a
necessary prerequisite in preaching when he says that

I believe with all my heart that a man must
hear it [the call of God] and feel its
imperious constraint before he can ever give
himself with any wholehearted devotion and
abiding wonder to this stewardship of the
Gospel. (4)

The reason for Scherer's emphasis upon the
preacher as a man called to preach is seen in his concep-
tion of the preacher's primary duty. He believes that the

chief function of the preacher

. . . is to keep alive and cogent on this
earth that awareness of Almighty God which

is the soul's own creaturely reSponse to

its creator. . . . He is to help heaven come
and dwell somewhere on the earth. And it is
precisely his zest for this, his solemn eager-
ness himself to stand on the threshold of God's
two worlds of sense and spirit, and there,
under the quiet hand of the master of life,

to interpret for all that will hear him what
there is about the living that is most firmly
true and most deeply real, -- it is just this
that constitutes the workaday human aspect of
his divine vocation. (6,7).

In seeing preaching as essentially the task of
interpreting the world of God to the world of men, Scherer,

of necessity, lays heavy emphasis upon the divine call of

295

the preacner. The very content of the preacher's message
and the nature of his duty cause Scherer to see a
definitely supernatural dimension in the act of preaching.
He observes, with regard to the divine call felt by the
minister, that

primarily it is a commission to preach.

And to preach not just sermons, but that

event in history and in eternity by which

God entered most fully and effectively into

human life. It is a commission to announce

the good news of His Kingdom, bearing witness

to that saving activity which is in Christ

and of which the very bearing of the witness

is itself a part. (18)

While Scherer conceives of preaching as but one
aSpect of the total pastoral reSponsibility of the preacher,
he assigns to it a place of priority in relation to other
assects of that reSponsibility. he sees preaching as
dependent upon the minister's total pastoral task, however,
and advises the preacher to maintain a close pastoral re-
lationship with his hearers in order to sense their needs
and enhance his ability to communicate with them.

You may begin your career with a doctrinaire

interest in theology or in preaching as one

of the fine arts. But pray God you may find

yourself, little by little, drawn to human

lives and human hOpes and human fears. You

may begin with the aloofness of the scholar.

But pray God you may continue with tenderness,

a warmth of affection for all the weary souls

of earth that will go far to keep you human

and to make you great. (23)

The emphasis that Scherer makes upon the necessity
of the preacher's keeping in close pastoral touch with

peOple is due to his stress upon the importance of the

296
preacher as a person. He is concerned with the Speaker as
a person, both in his interpersonal relationships and in his
own personal life as a man of prayer and faith. He notes
that “if preaching is the mediation of divine truth through
personality [as defined by Phillips Brooks] . . . then the
one thing you have to contribute toward the transaction is
yourself." (37)

The purpose of preaChing, in Scherer's view, is to
communicate the truth of God, as it is discovered in
revelation and eXperience, in order to make men and women
new creatures in Christ. He seems to imply that preaching
has the functions of both instruction and persuasion.
Preaching is seen to present a body of the truth and to
attempm.to initiate belief and action as a result of that
truth. In this regard, however, Scherer disparages the
phrase "preaching for a verdict," believing that such an
approach to preaching connotes too much of the argumentative,
the evidential, the forensic about it. "I sometimes think
we should do better perhaps to borrow not from the courts
but from courtship. There is a knocking at the door that
wants an answer. A quiet talk. A question is asked. and
mind and heart and will tOgether are shut up not alone to
a true decision but to life. . . ." (69)

The place of the Bible is important in Scherer's
total concept of preaching. While believing that in general

the theme of the sermon should grow out of a text of

297

scripture, Scherer avoids, however, classifying sermons
rigidly into doctrinal, expository, ethical, pastoral, and
evangelistic types: and he notes that ". . . I have never
preached or heard or read a sermon worthy of the name
which was not to a greater or less degree all five of these
together . . ." (165) Also:

A sermon without exposition, with nothing

which leads to a clearer understanding of

God's Word, is without its highest sanc-

tion. A sermon without doctrine, with

nothing which leads to a clearer under-

standing of the cardinal tenets of the

Christian faith, is without foundation.

A sermon without the ethical is pointless.

. . . A sermon without the pastoral is

spiritless. And a sermon without the evan-

elistic is Christless and useless together!

(165)
Although he believes that all of these ingredients should
be found in one sermon, Scherer does indicate that the
emphasis of the sermon, in relation to each of these

elements, should vary from sermon to sermon.

Definition_and Interpretatiop_of Arrapgement

I:

Scherer sees preparation for preaching to be or
two kinds: the kind that begins back in the life of the
preacher and continues on through the years: and the kind
that involves specific preparation for a particular sermon.
As has been indicated, adherer's basic concern is for the
preacher as a man called of God and equipped to accomplish
the task to which he is called. For this reason he does
not set forth an extensive treatment of sermonic‘Arrange-

ment either eXplicitly or implicitly.

298

Togoi of Arrangement

Scherer indicates that in the process of Specific
preparation for a particular sermon, both the processes
of Invention and Arrangement take place. He implies that
after the subject of the sermon is selected and the
emphasis of the sermon, in terms of the subject and
materials, is determined, the work of Arrangement tw<es
place. Scherer does not indicate a close interacting
relationship between Invention and Arrangement but indi-
cates that Arrangement goes to work when the process of
Invention is completed. Arrangement, therefore, has the
task of placing invented materials into some form of

organization.

The Importance of Arrangement

Although Scherer does not devote much attention to
Arrangement in the explication of his homiletical theory,
—he, nevertheless, is quite»emphatic in asserting that the
sermon should be carefully arranged and that the basic
framework should be evident to those who listen. He
believes that Arrangement is important in that it helps to
give direction, purpose, and aim to the sermon, and it aids
the preacher in clearly understanding and communicating
the message he wishes to convey .

. . . I am definitely Of the Opinion that it

is well for the structure to show. There is

no painting the human figure without some
knowledge of human anatomy: and unless the

299

framework is manifest to a degree, what

you have is no longer human. It is

either surrealism or it is jelly fish.

I have listened to sermons that without

aim did 'go round', as Browning has it,

'in an eddy of purposeless dust, effort
unending and vain.‘ And I have preached
them too. The technique is not difficult.
Like an Englishman at his bath, you plunge
right in and Splash around a bit. Having
nothing to say which has seemed to you of
sufficient importance to compel a clear
analysis, you fill in the necessary time
with a few remarks. You aim at nothing in
particular, and hit it squarely in the
middle. The only sane question a bearer can
ask when it is over is, What on earth was it
all about? And the only sane answer anyone
can give is, About everything. Or nothing.
You are to have a frame-work -- and let it
show -- making no vulgar diSplay of it, as
if your skeleton were exhibit A, victim of
famine in the Ukraine: yet not allowing what
you are supposed to have in hand wander
hazily abroad like an indeterminate fog. (167)

It is quite apparent from Scherer's statement that his con-
cern for Arrangement in the sermon is greater than the
attention he gives to the subject in setting forth his

theory of preaching would indicate.

Thelarts of the Sermon

 

Scherer recognizes three basic parts to the sermon:
the Introduction, the Body, and the Conclusion. In terms
of the sermon as a whole, he is concerned with the func-
tion of each part with regard to the contribution which
they make to the total effect of the sermon. Soberer's
main emphasis in his treatment of Arrangement is in

relation to the parts of the sermon. He gives far more

300
attention to the parts of the sermon than he does to other
matters which are also the concern of Arrangement, such as
the over-all plan of the sermon and the relation of the
sermon's Arrangement to the subject, audience, and type of

sermon.

The Introduction

The primary function of the Introduction is not
simply to arouse the interest of the audience, but actually
to orient them to the subject of the sermon and prepare
them for the develOpment of that sukject. The Introduction,
therefore, is seen by Scherer as necessarily having the
quality of relevance both to the sermon as a whole and to
the particular concerns of the audience at the moment of
Speaking. The Introduction is to meet the audience at
their present point of concern and bring them into the
subject under consideration in the sermon. He advises the
preacher to

let. it [the Introduction] bring them fizhe

audience] to understand that something real

and pressing is afoot. with deliberate vio-

lence, not so much of manner as of matter,

let it seize their restful minds, before they

settle back for one more sermon, out of the

past tense into which scripture so often seems

to throw peOple quite unaccountably, and snatch

them away into a realization that it is not the

there and then with Which you have to deal but

the here and now. (172)

Scherer advises the preacher to vary his approach

in the introduction in order to achieve maximum interest

and to accomplish the task of orienting the audience to

the subject. He believes that variety in this regard will
enable the sermon to maintain its relevance to the audience
and will cause the audience to become involved in the main-
flow of the sermon at its outset. ln suggesting this vari-
ety, scherer also cautions the preacher to remember that
the Introduction sets the basic tenor for the entire

sermon and, therefore, . . . if you are too brilliant
[in the Introduction] , you will not live up to it, and if
you are too heavy, you will never live it down or preach it

up." (170)

In the Body of the sermon the subject is divided
and developed, according to scherer, thus in it the basic
substance of the sermon is seen to reside. In dividing and
develooing the subject the diblical text used in the sermon
is seen by Scherer to be of particular importance. He
notes that often the text decides the number of divisions
(which dcherer believes will be two or three, rarely more)
and the order of these divisions through its own internal
arrangement.

Scherer is concerned that the divisions fulfill the
function of rendering support and develOpment to the
central theme of the sermon. In order to accomplish maximum

support and develOpment of the theme he emphasizes the idea

3.2
that proportion and balance be maintained among the
divisions of the Body.

Two basic methods of develOping theiBody of the
sermon are set forth by Scherer. The first is a deductive
approach in which the text is announced, the theme is drawn
from it, and the divisions of the body support and develOp
the basic theme. The second approach is more inductive
in nature. In it the divisions of the body build upon each
other forming a logical and psychological sequence which
leads up to the announcement of the theme and the state-
ment of the tax .

scherer advises that in the process of constructing
the sermon, the preacher should compOse the Body first in
order that the Introduction and Conclusion might be adapted
to it. .

Once we have got the main heads of our dis-

course clearly in mind, their relationships

and sequences clearly indicated, the points

arranged in the most telling order, without

overlapping, driving on toward some great

truth or obligation . . . then it is time to

block out the introduction and conclusion.

not before, lest the introduction fail to

introduce, and the conclusion fall short of

concluding. (170)

In Scherer's viewpoint, therefore, the nature of
the Body of the sermon is largely determined by the parti-
cular text utilized by the sermon , is the primary part of

the sermon, and determines the basic nature of the sermon's

Introduction and the Conclusion.

303

The Conclusion

Scherer believes that the sermon's Conclusion is of-
equal importance to its Introduction in that it completes
the total emphasis of the sermon. He indicates that the
Conclusion has the task of summarizing, in a brief para-
graph, the chief divisions of the sermon as set forth in
the Body, and roststing them showing their relationship to
the text of the sermon. The Conclusion also has the func-
tion of application wherein it should make a final, pointed
and practical application of the truth of the sermon. “But
What ever your purpose, however you arrange it, let the
closing sentences clinch the matter, -- lost half-a-dozen
good things, or things not half so good, be left hanging
in the air with no visible means of support." (175) In
Scherer’s mind, therefore, the Conclusion brings together
all of the elements of the sermon and in a particular and
unique way relates these truths to the life's experience
of the hearers. In the Conclusion, apparently, the final
and ultimate act of communicating the world of God to the

world of men is to be accomplished by the proadher.

Conglusions

(1) Since Scherer approaches preaching with a primary
concern for the preacher as a person and a theological
understanding of his task, he considers the methods of
constructing and delivering the sermon to be of secondary

importance.

304
(2) Preaching is conceived by Scherer as the act of
interpreting the world of God to the world of men: and thus
he places great emphasis upon the preacher as a person
called by God, capable of communicating God's truth to men
through his personality.
(3) Although Scherer believes that preaching has the
function of instruction and persuasion, in that its task
is to present the truth of God and initiate belief and
action in light of the truth, he sees persuasion effected
through the act of simply proclaiming the truth rather than
by employing argumentative procedure.
(4) The Bible is given an important place in Scherer's
view of preaching for the sermon is seen as being built
upon and develOping from a biblical text.
(5) Due to his primary concern with the preacher as a man
equipped for his task, Scherer does not develOp an exten-
sive treatment of Arrangement either eXplicitly or
implicitly, feeling that such matters are of secondary
importance.
(6) Scherer recognizes the function of Arrangement in the
sermon even though he spends little time in treating it as
a part of his homiletical theory. He does not recognize a
close interaction between the functions of Invention and
Arrangement, but rather sees Arrangement commencing its
work when the task of Invention is completed. Arrangement

is conceived of by him as the process of placing invented

305
materials into some form of organization.
(7) Although Scherer gives scant attention to Arrangement
in setting forth his theory, he believes that the function
of Arrangement is important in preaching and should be
carefully utilized to give direction, purpose, and aim to
the sermon. His concern for Arrangement in the sermon,
therefore, is greater than the attention he gives to it
would indicate.
(8) What minimal attention Scherer does give to Arrange-
ment is in terms of the functions of the parts of the
semen rather than in terms of the over-all plan of the
sermon in its various relationships. He designates three
parts in the sermons Introduction, Body, and Conclusion.
(9) The Introduction is seen by Sdherer as functioning
to interest the audience in the sermon and to introduce and
orient them to the subject of the sermon by indicating
the relevance of the subject to their particular concerns
of the moment.
(10) The Body is the most important part of the sermon in
Scherer's view in that it divides and develOps the subject
of the sermon and generally determines the essential
nature of the Introduction and Conclusion. The internal
structure of the Body is generally determined by the
internal structure of the text selected for the sermon.
(11) The Conclusion brings together all of the elements of
the sermon and relates and applies these truths to the
lives of the hearers in the final act of communicating the

world of God to the world of men.

CHAPTER XIII

GERALD H. KENNEDY'S CONCEPTION OF 'ARRANGWT'

Gerald Hamilton Kennedy1

BishOp Gerald Kennedy is, today, generally con-
sidered to be the spokesman for American Methodism. He was
born in Benzonia, Michigan, on August 30, 1907 and from his
high school days onward was vitally interested in public
speaking and preaching. While in high sdhool he was
greatly influenced by a speech teadher, an influence which
appears to have affected his own particular view of the
necessity of sermonic Arrangement. He notes that one of
the reasons he places an emphasis on the importance of
Arrangement '. . . is that I received such a thorough
grounding in the necessity of organizing speeches from a
fine teacher of public speaking in my high sdhool that I
cannot preach any other way.'2

Kennedy attended the College of Pacific and was

graduated in 1929 with an A.B. in speech.3 His subsequent

__ A

1For a comprehensive picture of Gerald Kennedy as a
person see his autobiography While I'm On M Feet, (New
York and Nashville: Abingdon Press,.l963 . r

2Gerald Kennedy, His WOrd Throu h Preachin , (New
York: Harper & Brothers Puinshers, 194;},p. 49.

3Fred R. McMahon, “Rhetoric of Californian Rhetori-
cians," Quarterly Journal of SpeeCh, XLIX (December, l963),469.

306

— — fi—

307

education resulted in an A.M. from the Pacific School of
Religion in 1931, a B.D. in 1932, an S.T.M. from Hartford
Theological Seminary in 1933, and a Ph.D. from Hartford in
1934. He has also been awarded honorary doctorates from
nine colleges or universities.4 I

Although Kennedy was ordained by the.Methodist
Churdh in 1932, he was the pastor of the First Congregation-
al Church of Collinsville, Connecticut, from 1932 until
1936. From 1936 to 1940 he pastored the Calvary Methodist
Churdh of San Jose, California, and from 1940 through 1942
was pastor of the First Methodist Church of Palo Alto,
California, as well as the director of the Wesleyan
Foundation at Stanford University. It was during his years
as pastor of these California churChes that Kennedy became
involved as a teather of preaching in a theological
seminary, for he served as acting professor of homiletics
at the Pacific School of Religion from 1938 through 1942.
He left his duties in the California churches and the
seminary in 1942 when he became the pastor of St. Paul's
Methodist Church in Lincoln, Nebraska. In 1948 he was
named BishOp of the Methodist Church in the Portland,
Oregon, area and in 1952 was appointed BishOp of the
Methodist Church of the Los Angeles area, a position he

continues to hold.

_—

~—

4“Gerald Hamilton Kennedy,” Who's Who in America,
1964-1965: Vol. 33, (Chicago: The A.N. Marquis Company,

I6§ZTT'§J.1079.

308

Kennedy is known as a powerful speaker and an effect-
ive administrator and spokesman for his church. He continues
to preach extensively, serves as a trustee of several edu-
cational institutions, and from 1960 to 1961 was the presi-
dent of the Council of Bishops of the Methodist Church. He
has been a guest lecturer at many colleges, universities,
and theological seminaries including the Lyman Beecher
lectures which he delivered at Yale University Divinity
School in 1954. He has also authored some sixteen books,

one of the first of which was the develOpment of his homi-

letical theory, His Word Through Preaching, in 1947.

Approach to Homiletics and Preaching

The preaching theory of Bishop Gerald Kennedy has at
its core an attempt to rediscover and underscore the
central importance of preaching in the Christian Church
and in the world at large.1 In placing this emphasis upon
the importance of preaching, Kennedy acknowledges the in-
fluence of Karl Barth, the contemporary Swiss theologian,

upon his own point of view.2 He notes that “the Barthian

J'The homiletical theory of Gerald Kennedy is found
in its most complete form in his book,His Word Throu

n (New'York: Harper Brothers, 1947’. References
to Kenn y's theory are from this book, and the page numbers
are indicated in parentheses.

zsee Karl Barth, Cthch matics, Vol. I, edited
by s.w. Bromiley and T.F. Torrance and translated by G.T.
Thompson and Harold Knight, (New York: Charles Scribner's
Sons, 1956), pp. 743 ff. This is the English translation of

Barth's rchli e Do atik, Vol. I, (Zurich: Zollikon
Verlog, 19325.

309
emphasis has helped us to understand that preaChing cannot

be eliminated from Christianity without Christianity's
losing its essential quality and its true nature.“ (5)
Since preaching is the “bringing of truth.through person-
ality“ Kennedy believes that Christianity, because of its
very nature as a personal religion, is dependent upon
preaching. Therefore, preaching looms as the most impor-
tant aspect of the minister's total task: and the sermon is
considered to be “the most critical and potentially the
most influential event of the week . . .' (21)

Kennedy's emphasis on the importance of preaching
is a logical position in light of his belief in the unique
nature of preaching. He believes that preaching is not
"merely education,“ nor is it ‘. . . the delivery of an
essay in which one gives his comments on life and passing
events . . .“ (6) Nor is preaching considered by
Kennedy as simply a theological lecture or a discussion
of moral, social, or political matters. Although he
believes that preaching may partake of all of these
elements, in the last analysis he conceives of it to be
basically ”the gift of the Spirit,” and thus possessive of
a unique quality.

The Christian preacher is the proclaimer

of an occurence which was nothing less

than God breaking into the processes of

life to reveal Himself supremely in a

Person. If the pulpit loses its power,

it is always when it loses its sense of

God proclaiming this Event, through a
man to men. (8)

310

In Kennedy's view, therefore, the preacher becomes
an ambassador of God telling men how they can be reconciled
to God. Since he believes that ”preaching is confronting
man's tragic inadequacy with God's redeeming grace“ (8)
and thus sees preaching not only as a means of spreading
infbrmation about the Christian faith but in a sense a
revelation of that faith itself, it follows that ”the sense
of being an ambassador of God makes preaching a holier
experience than any other kind of public spedting." (10)

The relationship between the act of God in Christ
in history and preaching is further indicated in Kennedy's
concept of the dramatic element of preaching. He believes
that the supreme drama of all times was the act of God in
history in Christ, and he sees preaching to be the re-
telling of the drama of this Event to every new generation.
In preaching, therefore, Kennedy believes that the drama
of God redemptively acting in history is in a sense being
repeated over and over. “Our Christian preaching is not
the reciting of a long list of sins and a long list of
ethical duties. It is the production of a vision of the
King who came once, comes now, and will come continually
. . .' (30) The purpose of preaching in Kennedy's theory
initially appears to be neither instructive or persuasive,
in the traditional sense,‘but rather as a proclamation in

which the drama of God's supreme act in history through
Christ is repeated. Kennedy notes, however, the hope that

the‘hearer will respond in faith as he is confronted by

311
the enaction of this drama. In this sense the hearer is'
expected to act upon that which he has learned and, there-
fore, Kennedy's view of preaching ends does appear to en-
compass both instruction and persuasion.

Kennedy believes that the Bible should play an
important part in preaching because it frees preaching from
triteness and restores to it power, drama, and authority.
He observes that he “. . . cannot help but feel that the
best way to learn how to preach with power is to steep
oneself in the scriptures. The Bible is the great source
book of the Gospel and in it there is revealed this
dramatic nature.” (39) He further asserts that.'modern
preaching needs the authority of the Bible in it, and we
can do nothing better than to return to Biblical preaching.“

(97)

Definition and Interpretation oanrgangement

$229; of Arrangement

Kennedy sees a clear distinction between the func-
tions of Invention and Arrangement. He believes that the
preacher is always engaged in a continual process of In-
vention in that his mind is at work continually in learning
'and classifying new ideas. He differentiates, however, be-
tween general and specific preparation for preaching,

believing that one of the first steps of specific prepara-
tion is the organizing and arranging of that which‘has been

invented and the framing of an outline.

312

Invention, therefore, is seen as the process which
supplies the substantial content of the sermon and Arrange—
ment as the process of distributing the material into an
order which contributes to the maximum effectiveness of the
sermon. Kennedy states that “this getting it [the outline]
down is the real labor and it takes from one hour up,
depending on how'much work the subconscious has been doing
and how’smoothly the thought processes function.“ (44)

This observation also indicates the close inter-dependence
of Invention and Arrangement, for Kennedy implies that the
quality of the Arrangement is contingent on the quality of
the invented materials and that the ultimate value of the
invented materials is dependent upon the nature of their

arrangement.

The Importance of Arrangement

Kennedy's views of the importance of preaching and
the nature of the season as a re-enactment of the drama of
God's redemptive act in history determine, to a great exp

tent, the importance he assigns to Arrangement. He is

deeply concerned that preaching accomplish its purpose and
that the GOSpel be communicated with clarity and power,

and thus he underscores the importance of Arrangement as a

vital elanent in the sermon's total effectiveness. The

lack of organization is regarded as the most distressing

problan of most sermons '-- “more sermons crack up on this

hidden reef of inadequate organization than on any other

313
rock." (48) He notes that too many sermons lack a single
thread that holds them together, and that too often preach-
ing is simply the stringing together of beautiful thoughts
and eloquent phrases without a directive rationale as to
the order of materials and a carefully develOped plan of
develOpment.

Arrangement is seen to have important implications
with regard to the sermon's persuasive ability, the audi-
ence, and the preacher's delivery. Kennedy believes that
the Arrangement of ideas detenmines their persuasiveness
to as great an extent as do the ideas themselves, and he
quotes Demosthenes dictum that ”'persuasion is as
dependent upon the order of the arguments as upon the
arguments themselves.'“ (49) The sermon's Arrangement is
also seen important in terms of the audience's ability to
understand and remember the sermon.

. . . many a preacher wants to go direct

to his peeple with his idea nebulous and

amorphous. It will not do. We are not

only the architects who dream the dreams

and draw the plans: we are also the car-

penters who must lay the foundations, build
the framework, and drive in the nails. (53)

In terms of delivery, Kennedy feels that a well
arranged sermon is an aid to the preacher's memory in ex-
temporaneous preaching, and although he favors the ex-
temporaneous method of delivery, he notes that

. . . the preacher needs to be warned

against the temptation to depart from his

outline and thus wander too far afield
from the main path of the discourse. Unless

314

a man is able and willing to discipline
himself to keep the outline as his master,
he would do better to read the sermon. (46)

Perhaps the best indication of the degree of
importance which Kennedy assigns to the Arrangement of the

sermon is contained in the advice which he sets forth to
the pre-theological student -- advice which reflects his

own particular educational experience.

I think the most valuable early training any
young preacher can have is debating. I would
make that a required part of the pre-theologi-
cal course for several reasons. For one

thing, it teaches one to speak for a verdict,
or a decision. It demands such careful prepara-
tion that the debator is ready to answer any
possible arguments that may be advanced by his
Opponents. But most important of all, it
teaches one how'to organize his material by
making a brief. Then it is that one learns

to make an affirmation and build a foundation
for it that will hold up. The process is one
of saying that this is true, because this is
true, because this is true. The whole thing
has to hang together and develop logically, and
in my judgment, that is the minimum requirement
for building a sermon. (53, 54)

The»0ver-all Plan of Arrangement

Concerning the over-all plan of the sermon,

‘ Kennedy's primary emphasis is upon the characteristic of

unity. He notes, however, that unity presupposes, and is
contingent upon, a carefully develOped outline or scheme
of Arrangement. “The great importance of the mechanical
working out of an outline, is due to the necessity of

unity in the finished sermon, and without the first we can

not have the second.“ (54) Kennedy believes that the

315

element of unity is fostered in the sermon by the use of
clearly stated theme or prOposition in the form of a
sentence. This theme, therefore, becomes the unifying
point of the sermon as the sermon takes the single idea
expressed in the theme and develops it. Kennedy develOps
the idea of a single impact or impression upon the hearers
and notes that all the elements of the sermon must con-
tribute to that impression if the sermon is to have unity.

The sermon that lacks this singleness of

purpose gives the impression of arbitrari-

ness and forced direction. One feels that

it could just as well have been handled

another way, or that this idea could

easily have been placed under the other

point. Somewhere within the theme there

is the organization that is as near per-

fection as we may hOpe to come. If the

preacher wants to handle the word of truth

aright, he will not be satisfied until
that arrangement has been found. (56)

Kennedy implies, therefore, that a particular sub-
ject or theme has an arrangement that is more perfect for
it, in terms of the sermon's over-all unity, than another
method of arrangement: and he advises the preacher to
attempt to arrange materials around the these, utilizing
the particular plan most conducive to the unified develop-
ment of that theme.

In order to encourage variety in sermon plans,
Kennedy sets forth ten different types of approach which
he believes can be utilized in the sermon. It should be
noted that, although these various types of outlines

generally relate to the plan of the sermon as a whole, in

316

many instances they have particular implications to the

Body of the sermon. The following ten types of plans

indicated by Kennedy are to be used with subjects for

which they are best suited:

(l)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(S)

(6)

(7)

(a)

“It is true because.” The sermon consists of
a series of supportive arguments in order to
affirm a stated proposition and convince the
audience of its truth.

“Implications.“ A series of implications
drawn from a text of scripture..

‘Question and answer.“ A question of
universal meaning is posed , and the sermon
develops a series of answers to the question.
“Negative-positive.“ Both the negative and
positive meaning of the text are discussed.
“Doctrine.' The sermon consists of thee-
logical implications drawn from the text.
”The wrong and the right approach.“ The
sermon discusses the wrong steps often
applied to meet a problem and in contrast
indicates the right means of solution.

“Is it this?“ A question found in the Bible
is proposed and possible solutions to it are
examined.

“Analogy.” Spiritual insights are drawn

from an analogy noted in the scriptures.

317
(9) “Paradoxes.“ The sermon is develOped by a
series of truths stated in the form of
apparent contradictions.
(10) “Cables.“ Several fairly weak ideas are

brought together and made strong, like a
cable, in their cumulative effect.

From the varied types of sermon plans indicated by'Kennedy,
he gives evidence of his belief that the sermon should be
unified in terms of its intent and development, and it
should be varied in order to arouse maximum interest. In
each case the subject of the sermon, expanded into a theme
or proposition, is develOped in a manner conducive to

unity, clarity, and interest.

The Parts of the Sermon

Although the primary emphasis which Kennedy gives
to Arrangement is in terms of the over-all plan of the

sermon, he does recognize three basic parts functioning
in the sermon - the Introduction, Body, and Conclusion -
and implies that each part has unique functions and
characteristics which enable it to contribute to the

over-all pattern of the sermon's Arrangement.

The Introduction

Kennedy believes that the Introduction of the
sermon is the most important part of it because it general-

ly is determinative of the basic character of the sermon

318

in that it sets the basic tenor of the sermon, and because
in it the attention of the audience is secured. In the
Introduction, “we are simply trying to get our peeple to
want to hear what we have to say.“ (58) This simple func-
tion, however, is seen to be of great importance, and
Kennedy indicates four basic characteristics which he
believes will contribute to the accomplishment of this
function in the Introduction. (1) The most important
characteristics of the Introduction are directness and
(52229, and the preacher should get into the Body of the
sermon quickly to maintain interest. (2) The second
basic characteristic is concreteness, for ”the sermon
which begins in generalities is under such a handicap
that it hardly ever overcomes it. The introduction should
be precise and picturesque.” (59) (3) Kennedy also
emphasizes brevity as an important characteristic of the
Introduction, implying that all that is really needed in
the Introduction is for the preacher to hint at the
direction to be taken in the sermon, or to note the
importance of the theme, or to indicate the reason for
considering the theme at the particular time. (4) The
last basic characteristic of the Introduction is variety.
Kennedy believes that the preacher should vary the nature
of his Introductions from sermon to sermon in order to
maintain the interest factor.

In viewing the Introduction as a whole, therefore,

Kennedy's main concern and emphasis is upon the elements of

319

movement, urgency, speed, and directness.

The Body

Many of the observations made by Kennedy relating
to the over-all plan of the sermon are relevant to his
idea of the Body of the sermon, particularly the various
types of sermon plan which are set forth.

Kennedy indicates that in the Body of the sermon
the subject or theme is develOped by a number of divisions
or basic points in the outline. While the number of points
may vary within reason, it is not necessary for the points
to stand out prominently, “unless the hidden divisions
shine through with enough clarity so that no one will be
in doubt as to where you are going and where you have been,
it is better to make sure your listeners know by telling
them frankly.“ (49)

In general, Kennedy sees the text as the determining
factor with regard to the divisions of the Body. The text,
as it divides itself, will often indicate the proper manner
of dividing and developing the Body of the sermon since the
Body usually develOps a subject supplied by the text.

Kennedy believes that the order of the points in
the sermon's Body should proceed from the general to the
particular, for he conceives of the sermon as progressing
from general truth to the particular application of that
truth to the individual hearer. “. . .the place where

the sermon makes its demand upon each.man personally is the

highest point. " (50)

320
Because of his concern for clarity and unity in the
sermon, Kennedy emphasizes the element of simplicity in the
Body of the sermon. He believes that simplicity is neces-
sitated by the audience since an overly intricate outline
of the sermon's Body helps to confuse the listener and
cause him to lose sight of the relationship of the various

divisions to the main theme of the sermon.

The Conclusion

As with the Introduction, Kennedy also believes
that the Conclusion should be characterized by directness,
concreteness, and brevity. Conceiving of the‘Conclusion

as the most difficult part of the sermon, he feels that
if the Conclusion is done properly, the most important

single thing has been accomplished in the sermon, inasmuch
as the Conclusion is that part of the sermon in which the
actual working out of the spiritual principle discussed

in a life or situation is indicated. “Here is the place
where the wondrous beauty and glorious power of the Gospel
message must shine.“ (61)

Seeing the sermon as moving toward a climax in
the Conclusion, Kennedy thus believes that in it no new
material should be brought into the sermon but rather that
which has been given is to be underscored, brought to-

gether, recapitulated, and the implications for life indi-
cated. Because of this important function Kennedy, like

Charles Reynolds Brown, believes that the Conclusion needs

to be thoroughly prepared to the extent that the concluding

321

words of the sermon are memorized by the preacher:

. . . the conclusion has to be thoroughly
prepared, and I think the concluding words
ought to be memorized. This is too import-
ant to leave for extemporaneous speech,

and anything less than perfection is not to
be endured. (61)

gonclusions
(1) Kennedy's preaching theory is strongly influenced by

Barthian theology with respect to its.emphasis upon the
function and importance of preaching.

(2) Preaching is considered to be of great import by
Kennedy because of its unique nature as the process of
proclaiming the 'Event' of God's redemptive act in history
in Christ. Preaching is the retelling of the drama of
God's supreme act in history through Christ.

(3) Preaching,as proclamation, is seen by Kennedy to en-
compass in its function the elements of instruction and

persuasion for they are aspects in the total task of pro-

clamatien.

(4) Kennedy believes that the Bible should play an
important role in preaching, for its use imparts variety,
freshness, power, drama, and authority to the sermon.

(5) A clear distinction is seen by Kennedy between the
canons of Invention and.Arrangement. He believes that
Invention is the process of supplying the substantial
content of the sermon while Arrangement is the process of
distributing that material into an order conducive to the

sermon's maximum effectiveness. An interrelationship is

322
also seen to exist between Invention and Arrangement, howb
ever, in that the quality of the sermon's Arrangement is
dependent upon the quality of the invented materials, and
the materials are dependent for effectiveness upon the
nature of their Arrangement.
(6) The importance which Kennedy assigns to preaching, as
the re-enactment of God's redemptive act in Christ,
causes him to emphasize the importance of Arrangement as an
important means in aiding the communication of the Gospel
with clarity and power.
(7) Kennedy's primary euphasis on Arrangcnent is in terms
of the plan of the sermon as a whole because of his concern
that the sermon make a single unified impact on the hearers.
(8) Kennedy rejects the idea that a subject can be forced
into a predetermined plan of Arrangement and thus believes
that every subject or theme‘has a particular mode of
{Arrangement best suited for its maximum unity. He stresses
the use of variety in sermon plans but believes that any
plan should take the subject, as it is expanded into a
theme or proposition, and develOp it in a manner conducive
to unity, clarity, and interest.
(9) Three parts in the sermon are recognized by Kennedy:
the Introduction, Body, and Conclusion. He views them as
having unique functions which contribute to the unity and
thrust of the over-all plan of the sermon.
(10) Kennedy sees the Introduction as the most important

part of the sermon, for it is regarded as determinative of

323
the basic character and tenor of the sermon. The Introduc-

tion functions primarily to enlist the attention of the
audience and, secondly, to indicate briefly the direction
the sermon will take with regard to the subject.

(11) The Body develops the subject or theme under con-
sideration in the sermon by dividing it into its various

points or divisions. Kennedy sees the scriptural text to
be the determining factor in the divisions of the Body,
for he believes that as the text divides itself, it indi-
cates the best way in which the Body can be divided in
order to develop the subject.

(12) The Conclusion functions to indicate the relevance
of the truth discussed throughout the sermon to the lives
of the hearers and thus it serves as the climax of the
sermon. Its basic elements are summary and application:
and like the Introduction, it should be characterized by

directness, concreteness, and brevity.

CHAPTER XIV

ANDREW w. BLACKVDOD'S CONCEPTION es 'ARRANGEMENT'
Andrew WI Blackwood

Blackwood is Chairman-Emeritus of the Practical
Department, Princeton Theological Seminary, where for the
twenty years between 1930 and 1950 he served as professor
of homiletics. Born in Kansas on August 5, 1882, Blackwood
attended Franklin College in Ohio, where he received the
A.B. in 1902, and Harvard College, where he was awarded

the A.B. magna cum laude in 1905. His seminary education

was received from Princeton Theological Seminary and

Xenia Theological Seminary. He was granted the honorary
D.D. by the University of South Carolina in 1918.1

The United Presbyterian Church ordained Blackwood
in 1908: and he held pasterates in Presbyterian churches

in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Columbia, South Carolina:

and Columbus, Ohio, until 1925. From 1925 until 1930 he
was professor of English Bible at the Presbyterian Thee-

logical Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. In 1930 he was

fi—v ——_‘— T‘— W'—

1”AndrewWatterson Blackwood,“ Who'g Who in America,
1962-1963, Vol. 31 (Chicago: The A.N. Marquis Company,
1962), p. 278.

324

‘ 325
appointed professor of homiletics at Princeton Theological
Seminary, and in 1938 he was appointed Chairman of the

Practical Department. Blackwood was named Professor
Emeritus by Princeton in 1950, and from 1950 until 1959 he
served as professor of preaching at the School of Theology
of Temple University.

Since his retirement in 1958, Blackwood has con-
tinued to eXpound his homiletical theories through lectures
at theological seminaries and through his writings. He
presently serves as a contributing editor to Christianioy
‘goooy and is involved in writing “The‘Minister's WerkshOp“
a feature in that periodical particularly concerned with

preaching.

Blackwood has authored over thirteen books dealing

with preaching or some other phase of practical theology.

Among these books is The Preparation of Sermons, written

in 1948 and containing the most thorough and comprehensive

develepment of his homiletical theory.

Aoorooch to Homiletics and Preaching

Blackwood's definition of preaching is very
similar to that of Phillips Brooks: “. . . divine truth
through personality or the truth of God voiced by a

chosen personality to meet human needs.” (13)1 He believes

1The homiletical theory of Andrew W. Blackwood is
found in its most comprehensive form in his book The Prop:
aration of Sermons. (New York 5 Nashville: Abingdon Press,
1948). References to Blackwood's theory are from this book,
and the page numbers are indicated in parentheses.

326

therefore, that preaching involves an interpretation of
contemporary life, by the preacher, in the light of God's
truth as contained primarily in the scriptures.

In referring to Phelps' definition that “homiletics

is the science of which preaching is the art and’the semen
is the finished product? Bladkwood notes three methods
that might be utilized in approaching the study of
preadhings (l) the science of homiletics, (2) the art of
preaching, and (3) the study of sermons. He observes that

naturally these divisions overlap, for
facts do not fit systems. Still, we can
think of these methods as good, better,
best. If each of them has its pitfalls,
so has everything else on earth. In this
book we shall pay some attention to the
science of homiletics, more to the art of
preaching, and.most to the preparation of
sermons. (18)

Blackwood rejects the giving of primary emphasis
to the science of homiletics, in explicating his theory of
preaching, because he believes that the scientific defini-
tion of terms and classification of types often tends to
become so complicated that the imagination of the preacher

is not utilized and eventually becomes lost in the morass

of detail. He also feels that such an approach lends it-

self to a wooden and stilted method of preparing and

delivering semmons in which preoccupation widh rules

limits the dynamic elements of preaching, and preaching is

thought of in terms of rules rather than in terms of life.
In the wrong hands the teaching of homiletics

as a science has contributed to the low estate
of the pulpit. Many who have tried to master

327

the terminology of the science have

emerged with a set of molds, or fonns,

into which they have poured materials

for sermons. (19)

The “artistic“ approadh to preaching contrasts to
the “scientific” approach in that it helps to remedy the
defects inherent in the conception of homiletics as being
exclusively “scientific“ in nature. Blackwood implies
that the “artistic“ approach is superior to that of the
“scientific" in that it introduces the element of
imagination to preaching and thus gives warmth to a
wooden and stilted approach made cold by a rigid pre-
occupation with “scientific” rules.

In his approach to preaching Bladkwood prefers to
concern himself with the study of the sermon itself, for
he believes that this particular method combines the
“strength of homiletics with the sweetness of artistic
study“ and adds its own unique contribution.

Ideally every minister ought to know some-

thing about homiletics and more about the

art of preadhing, but he should think most

of all about the sermon. He ought to look

on himself not as a scientist with a mass

of knowledge, or as an artist with a gift

of appreciation, but as a preaeher with'

ability to prepare all sorts of sermons. (20)
Blackwood's approach to the subject of preaching, there-
fore, is to consider the sermon itself both in its parts
and as a whole.

Basic to the point of view from which Blackwood
approaches preaching is his concern that preaehing be a

response to human need. In this emphasis he appears to

328
eCho Luccock‘s concern for preaching to life situations,

for he stresses the belief that in preparing the sermon
the preacher must begin with a sense of human need and
then attempt to meet that need through providing informap
tion and persuading the heater to the action necessary in
the light of the information. In BleCkwood's view the
element of focus on human needs along with the dimension
of God's truth contributes to make the sermon unique from

any other kind of oral discourse.

Definition and Interpretation of Arrangement
$922; of Arrangement

In setting forth his preaching theory, BlaCkwood
makes a clear distinction between the functions of In-
vention and Arrangement. He recognizes, however, the
complementary inter-relationships between these two canons
but appears to have a precise view in terms of the reSpon—
sibilities of eaflm. He sees Arrangement as the process
of shaping invented materials into a complete sermon in
terms of ordering and proportioning materials. Arrangement
is concerned with the over-all pattern of the sermon as a
whole as well as with the nature and structure of its
parts. Arrangement presupposes Invention, and thus is
dependent upon the existence of invented materials as
these materials are dependent, for their own effectiveness,
upon the way in which they are arranged.

Blackwood sets forth in tabular form fifteen

329
stages in the preparation of the sermon: and these stages
give some indication of the relationship which he sees
among the rhetorical canons in the preparation of the
semen :

1. Allow abundance of time for the sermon
to grOW.
2. Set up a lofty goal, in writing.
3. Choose a Eggs in line with the purpose.
4. Embody the purpose in a conclusion.
5. Start to assemble all sorts of materials.
6. Let the whole matter incubate for a while.
7. Begin to think about the tOpic Eitle]
of the sermon.
8. Gradually grrm gg the according
to their aim.
9. Begin to think also about illgstrgtion .
10. Decide about the introduction or the
approach.
11. write out the sermon as a whole, at one
sitting.
12. The next day revise the manuscript with care.
13. Prepare to deliver ”the message from God.
14. In the pulpit forget about preparation.
15. T at God to bless the preaching of his Word.
143’

The Importance of Arrangement

Blackwood closely associates the importance and
necessity of sermonicikrrangement with the teaching func-
tion of preaching. ”Whenever the teaching function of the
ministry looms large, structure seems important, because the
man who teaches must follow a plan of his own making.“ (125)
He notes that sermon structure has been important through-
out the history of preaching and that almost all of the
great sermons that have lived throughout the centuries have
had a carefully arranged structure. He also illustrates

the central importance of form and structure in preaching

330
by noting the central place of structure in all of the
fine arts.

Blackwood also believes that a carefully thought
out plan of Arrangement is necessary to the sermon in order
for the sermon to move toward its desired end with unity
and singleness of purpose. Seeing the structure of the
sermon as “. . . the bony framework of a sermon that lives
and.moves so as to readh a certain goal,” (125) he seems
to imply that the ability of a sermon to readh the goal
which is set for it is largely contingent upon its
arrangement.

A further indication of the importance assigned
to Arrangement is evidenced by the fact that Blackwood
classifies sermons as textual, expository, and topical
according to the sermon's Arrangement in relation to the
text or passage of scripture. He defines the Textual
sermon as “. . . one whose structure corresponds with the
order of the parts of the text.“ (55) The expository
sermon is also identified in terms of its structure, but
it differs from the textual only in that it treats a
larger passage of scripture, its structure thus being
determined by a paragraph of scripture rather than by a
single text. Although Blackwood advises the preacher to
utilize all types of sermon, he appears to favor the
topical sermon, which he defines as ”. . . one whose form
grows out of the words and ideas in the subject,“ (101)

because of its conduciveness to unity and progress.

331
He classifies sermons, therefore, in terms of their struc-
ture as based upon a text or paragraph of scripture or
upon a tepic supplied by a text or some other source. The
fact that structure plays such an important role in the
classification of sermon types indicates the importance

assigned to this canon in Blackwood's theory of preaching.

The Over-all Plan of Arrangement

Sermonic Arrangement, conceived by Blackwood in
its over-all framework or plan, has four basic inter-
related characteristics which govern its nature.

(1) Eggs! - The sermon should have one subject and should
deliver one message, and thus each part of the sermon
must of necessity be related to the central theme of
the sermon. Unity involves both omitting that which
does not contribute to the central theme of the
sermon and retaining thosewmaterials which focus upon
the central theme or idea. Blackwood advises that
to insure unity, the preacher to write out his
central theme in the form of a preposition and then
allow'this stated aim to govern all that is done in
the structuring of the sermon.

(2) Qgggg - Whereas “unity refers to the body as a whole:
order concerns the various parts in relation to the
whole and to each other.” (131) Each part in the
total plan of the sermon is seen as a contributing

factor in terms of the unity of the sermon as it moves

(3)

332
toward its appointed goal and thus Blackwood advises
careful concernto each detail of the total sermon
plan.
W - ". . , the proportion among the various parts

. has much to do with the beauty of the message as a

(4)

whole and with the effect upon the hearer,“ (132)
Blackwood does not mean, however, that all the parts or
divisions within the sermon's over-all plan are to be
of the same length. He conceives of symetry, rather,
as the giving of each part the time and stress its
importance denands.

Prgggess - As this term is used by Blackwood, it in-
cludes both movement and climax in the sermon. He
believes that the sermon must progressively move to-
ward its set goal and thus make continual progress and
have continual movement. He implies, however, that
progress or climax is largely determined by the order
of parts and divisions within the sermon, and he notes
that such order should be determined by the subject,
the audience, and the preadher's particular goal in
the sermon at hand.

Like Luccock and Kennedy, Blackwood also sets

forth several varied approaches to aid in develOping and

arranging the over-all plan of the sermon. In one sense

the seven types of sermon plans which he enumerates have
particular implications to the Body of the sermon: in a

more significant sense, however, they pertain to the

333

over-all plan of Arrangement in the sermon. It should.bs

noted that Blackwood does not believe that these compre-

hend all the types of preadhing possible: rather, he notes

the following seven particularly because they are new ways

of planning the sermon.

(1) ”The iggggtive’mstned.“ This type of sermon

(2)

(3)

(4)

begins with human experiences and on the
basis of the instances cited leads to a
generalization in the form of a principle.
“The life situation awn.“ Blackwood acknow-
ledges the influencs of Laccock upon him in
setting forth this type of sermon. (His view
of the life situation sermon is almost
identical to Luccock's). Blackwood's concern
for human interest in preaching causes him to
assign great importance to this method of
preaching.

“The case method," In this sermon a case
study from the Bible or another source is
discussed and truth relevant to the problems
of the particular congregation is drawn out
and applied to their lives.

”The thematic message.“ This approach is
borrowed by Blackwood from W.L. Stidger, who
refers to it as the ”symphonic“ method of
preaching. In this sermon a saying or phrase

is reiterated and woven throughout the sermon,

(5)

(6)

(7)

334
and inferences and implications are drawn
from it as it is viewed from various aspects.
”The dramatic message.“ This sermon resembles
a one-act play in which the actions,
struggles, conflicts and suspenses of the
life of a person or the lives of a group of
persons are developed.
“The Hggeligg methgd.“ The structure of the
sermon is suggested by Hegelian philosophy and
its view'ef history as thesis, antithesis,
and synthesis. The sermon, therefore, has
three parts with differing emphases. The
thesis presents the ideal situation regarding
some circumstances of life, the antithesis
the realistic facts of the case as it present-
ly exists, and the synthesis or resolution
indicates how the truth of God can transform
the situation in life as it presently exists
in order to make it conform to the ideal.
"Thg adverbial plan.“ While Blackwood does
not consider this to be a good method of
planning the sermon, he notes it because it
is in use. In such an approach questions
such as who?, when?, why?, etc. are posed
and answered, and the sermon is develeped in

relation to these questions.

335

Blackwood's basic concern with regard to the sermon's
overball plan is that the sermon have the characteristics
of unity, order, symmetry, and progress: and that the
preacher utilize his own imagination in constructing a
sermon plan which will partake of these characteristics
and yet be varied, interesting, and effective in bringing
the truth of God to the needs of men.

The Parts of the Sermon

In his approach to Arrangement, Blackwood attempts
to maintain a balance between concern for the over-all
plan of the sermon and the parts of the sermon. He notes
a three part division in the sermon: the Introduction,

Body, and Conclusion.

The Introduction

The basic function of the Introduction, in Blackwood's
point of view, is to gain the attention of the audience
and fix their minds on the subject at hand. He notes
Cicero's injunction that the Introduction is to "'arouse
interest, secure favor, and prepare to lead.'” (109)

Blackwood indicates six basic elements which
should characterize the Introduction of the sermon, each
of which contributes directly to the main function of the
Introduction:

(1) the Introduction should be “interesting but

not exciting." Whereas the Introduction needs

 

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

336

to be interesting in order for the sermon to
secure the attention of the hearers, it,
nevertheless, should not produce an anti-climax
by arousing eXpectations that will not be met
in the ensuing parts of the sermon. Blackwood
believes, therefore, that moderation both in
spirit and tempo is required by the Introduc-
tion.

The Introduction should be “short bgt not
abrup ,“ it should accomplish its task and
move directly into the Body of the sermon.

The Introduction should be "appropriate but
not commonplace,“ It needs to be apprOpriate
to the occasion, the speaker, and the message
and.yet express apprOpriate remarks in an un-
expected way in order to contribute to the
interest factor in the sermon.

The Introduction should be “ riendly but not

effusive.“ The element of personal appeal is

 

an important factor in Blackwood's view of the
Introduction's function.

The Introduction should be "clear ggt not antip
cipatory.“ The purpose of the sermon should be
clear to the hearer and yet there Should be an

element of suSpense which creates attention.

(6) The Introduction should be characterized by

337

variety.

Blackwood is concerned for the characteristic of.

variety in the Introduction of sermons. He delineates,

therefore, twelve possible varieties of sermon Introductions

or “sermon gates.”

(l)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

The textual approach." The Introduction
presents the text and focuses upon it.

“The contextual approach.“ The sermon begins
with the background of the text in its con-
text.

”The dramatic description,“ The Introduction
consists of a dramatic account of a moving
scene related to the text and subject of the
sermon.

”The topical appgogch," Interest is aroused
through a contemporary approach to biblical
truth in that the sermon begins where the
hearers are in contemporary life and leads to
the text.

“The problgm approac ." The approach taken by
the life situational sermon based upon the
Dewey reflective thinking process and set
forth by Harry Emerson Fesdick and Halford
Luccock.

”A direct statgment of purpgse.“ The preacher
directly states his purpose and method of

338

approach in his opening sentences.

(7) "A striking ggotation.“
(8) ”The illustration.“

 

(9) *The news item or cartoon.“

 

(10) “The occasional introduction.“ The Introduc-

 

tion is adapted to the special occasion in
which the sermon is presented such as holidays,
special events, etc.

(11) ”The psychological apprgach.“ A new approach
to an old truth is given in order to surprise
the audience and secure their attention.

(12) “The life situation." The preacher begins
with a remark he overheard in some common
situation in life and utilizes the Introduction
to relate the remark to the theme of the sermon.

Blackwood’s main concern in considering these
varieties of Introductions is that the sermon arouse the
interest of the bearer. His anphasis is upon the elenent
of human interest in the Introduction in order to create
a desire to listen in the mind of the‘hearer.

The Preposition of the sermon is included by
Blackwood as part of the Introduction. He notes the
importance assigned to the Proposition by the homileticians
of the past, particularly Austin Phelps, and believes
that the Preposition is of particular necessity and use
when the sermon has a distinctive teaching function. The

Proposition takes the form of a declarative sentence

339
that contains the substantial idea of the sermon.
"Ideally, it consists of a complete sentence -- simple,
not complex: declarative, not interrogative: straight-

forward, not figurative: positive, not negative." (123)

The Body

The varieties of sermon plans noted in Blackwood's
concept of the over-all plan of the sermon have particular
relevance to the Body of the sermon in that the character-
istics of these several plans relate not only to the plan
of the entire sermon but in many instances in a direct
sense to the Body of the sermon itself.

Blackwood appears to consider the sermon's Body as
that part of the sermon in which the main idea of
Preposition is developed. In most cases he sees the
develepment of the subject in the Body as being a process
of dividing the subject into its aspects for more detailed
and complete analysis. While believing that the number of
divisions composing the Body can vary from one to six,
in general, however, he feels that two divisions is a
preferable minimum and six an absolute maximum. Blackwood
also indicates that the divisions of the Body be parallel
to each other and that no one division be co-extensive
with the subject. The number of divisions utilized is to
be determined.by the needs of the subject under discussion
and the particular purpose which the preacher has in mind

for the sermon. The purpose of the sermon is also seen

340
to determine the prominence of the divisions in the sermon,
for Blackwood indicates that if the sermon's primary intent
is instructive, the divisions should stand out boldly,
but if the primary aim is persuasive, the divisions need

not be quite so obvious.

The Conclusion

Blackwood believes that the Conclusion is the most
important part of the sermon for it is '. . . the last
part of a sermon, the part that embodies the purpose.“
(162) The Conclusion, therefore, is seen as finally ac-
complishing the sermon's basic purpose, “guiding the
hearer into doing the will of God ' -- in the Conclusion
the final impact of the sermon is made and force of all
that has occurred is brought to bear on the‘hearer. The
nature of the Conclusion, therefore, depends upon the
basic purpose of the particular sermon: and thus the Con-
clusion becomes the final arrival at the goal of destina-
tion which has been set by the preacher.

The emphasis which Blackwood makes upon the neces-
sity of variety in the sermon is also evidenced in the
Conclusion. He notes the nine following varieties of
Conclusion which he feels contribute not only to variety
but to the basic function of the Conclusion:

(1) “The re a eal.”

(2) “Th; practical application.“
(3) (The fipg summary."

341

(4) ”The contrasting truth.”

(5) “The appeal to imggination.“
(6) “The closing ppen,“

(7) “The closing illustration.”
(8) "W3
(9) “The fing sgztence." '

Whatever the content and form of the last

paragraph or two, the sermon as a whole

must lead up to a final sentence, which

ought to stand out more boldly and

strongly than any other sentence after

the text. (167)

Blackwood notes that the Conclusion should be
characterized by the attributes of appropriateness,
simplicity, brevity, positive emphasis, personal appeal,
and sincere persuasion. He further believes that the
Conclusion should be marked by dignity and decorum in order
that its basic purpose of personally relating the truth
to the life experience of the hearers might be realized

with maximum effectiveness.

W

(l) Blackwood defines preaching as the interpretation of
centeuporary life in the light of the truth of God as
discovered primarily in the scriptures. His approach to
preaching is more in terms of rhetorical concerns than it
is in terms of purely theological considerations.

(2) The primary concern in Blackwood‘s approach to

preaching is that the sermon be a response to human needs.

342
Thus he rejects a purely scientific approach to preaching
as being too wooden and stilted and devoid of human quali-
ties; and he chooses, rather, to consider the sermon, as a
whole and in its part8, in light of both scientific and
artistic implications.
(3) Blackwood sees preaching as having both informative
and persuasive functions, for he believes that if preaching
is to meet human needs, it must inform of God's truth and
persuade men to act upon it. His belief that the teaching
function has been neglected causes him to give particular
emphasis to this element of the sermon's purpose.
(4) Arrangement is conceived to be the process of order-
ing and proportioning invented materials into a completed
sermon plan. Invention and Arrangement are interrelated,
however, in that Bladkwood believes that Arrangement pre-
supposes the results of Invention and invented materials
depend upon proper Arrangement for effectiveness.
(5) The importance which Blackwood assigns to Arrangement
grows out of his concern for the teaching function of
preaching, for he believes that the sermon's ability to
teach is dependent upon clearly arranged materials which
promote movement, unity, and singleness of purpose in the
sermon.
(6) Blackwood classifies sermons as textual, expository,
and tepical on the basis of their basic form and structure
in relation to the scripture passage, thus indicating

the central importance of Arrangement in his homiletical theory.

343
(7) In his view of the sermon's over-all plan, Blackwood
is primarily concerned that the sermon have the character-
istics of unity, order, symmetry, and progress, and that t
the preacher's imagination be utilized to construct plans
characterized by these elements and yet plans that are
varied, interesting, and effective as means to the end of
relating the truth of God to the needs of men.
. (8) Blackwood takes a traditional tripartite view of the
sermon, designating the parts as Introduction, Body, and
Conclusion.
(9) The Introduction functions to gain audience attention
and to orient them to the subject of the sermon. To ac-
complish this, Blackwood includes the PrOposition as part
of the Introduction, believing that it has a particularly
important place in the teaching function of preaching.
(10) The Body of the sermon functions to develop the main
idea or PrOposition of the sermon by dividing the subject
into its various aspects in order to give it a detailed
and complete analysis.
(ll) Blackwood sees the Conclusion to be the most import-
ant part of the sermon since it is the goal of the
sermon, and in it the sermon completes its ultimate func-
tion of applying the truths of the sermon to the needs of
the‘hearers.
(12) Because of his emphasis on variety in preaching,

Blackwood sets forth several specific methods of introducing,

344
develOping, and concluding the sermon that he feels will
contribute to the functions of each part and the sermon as

a whole.

CHAPTER XV

ILION T. JONES' CONCEPTION OF 'ARRANGEMENT'

Ilion T: Jones

Ilion T. Jones was formerly professor of practical
theology at San Francisco Theological Seminary, San
Anselmo, California.

Jones was born on October 28, 1889 in Seymour,
Texas.1 He was graduated from Trinity University, now at
San Antonio, Texas, with highest honors in 1913. He took
his theological training at McCormick Theological Seminary
in Chicago, where he earned the B.D. degree in 1916: and
he took additional graduate work, leading to the.M.A.
degree, at Columbia University. He received the D.D.
from Trinity in 1928.

After finishing his formal schooling, Jones, who
was ordained by the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. in
1916, held three pastorates during the years 1917 to 1945:
the Third Avenue Presbyterian Church, Corsicona, Texas:

the Madison Square Presbyterian Church, San Antonio, Texas:

fi— _ __—v— ww_

1"Ilion Tingal Jones," Who's Who in America, 1953-
;254, Vol. 28 (Chicago: A.N. Marquis Company, 1953),
p. 1389.

345

346

and the First Presbyterian Church, Iowa City, Iowa.
While at Iowa City he was also the Director of the
Westminster Foundation at the State University of Iowa.

During the years he held pastorates, Jones was
actively involved in the presbyteries and synods to which
he belonged and in the General Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church. In 1940 he was chairman of the Social Education
and Action Committee of the General Assembly. From 1941 to
1945 he was chairman of the General Assembly's Special Com-
mittee on Theological Education. In 1945 Jones assumed the
position of Vice President and Professor of Practical Theo-
logy at the San Francisco Theological Seminary. He resigned
as Vice President in 1949 but continued to serve as
Professor of Practical Theology until his retirement in 1960.

Jones is the author of several books encompassing
the fields of worship, pastoral theology, and.homiletics,
including Practice and Principle; of Preaching, which
sets forth his homiletical theory in great detail. For
many years he was a contributing editor of The Presbyterian
Advance and has many contributed articles and sermons to

various religious periodicals.1

Approach_to Homiletics and Preaching

The homiletical theory of Ilion T. Jones is based

 

upon the belief that the minister and the society in which

~* g _

1Much of the biographical material noted here was
supplied by Ilion T. Jones in a letter to this writer dated
May 11, 1964.

347

he lives are in a continual state of develOpment and

change.1

Preaching procedures must be adapted to
the several stages of the minister's own
growth and to the changing conditions of
the peeple. Methods effectual in one
period of life will not necessarily suffice
for other periods. Even though the prin-
ciples of effective preaching remain con-
stant, the way in which they work out
varies as situations change. Hence, homi-
letical methods need to be revised several
times within a single lifetime. (8)2

Jones views preaching, therefore, as the translation of the
unchanging truth of the Bible into the language, the termi-
nology, the mental concepts, and the experiences of every
new generation.

In setting forth his homiletical theory, Jones
develops two basic theses: (l) preaching methods need to
be, and can be, improved to meet modern conditions, and (2)
corporate worship and preaching should supplement each
other. These two contentions form the basis of, and the

motivation for, the develOpmeht of his preaching theory.

1The homiletical theory of Ilion T. Jones is found

in his book Principles and Practice of Preaghing, (New'Yorx:
‘Abingdon Press, 1956 . References to Jones theory are from

this book and the page numbers are indicated in parentheses.

2In the light of Jones' concern for adapting homi-
letical methods to changing conditions, it is interesting
to note that his theory of homiletics has a greater degree
of similarity to the theories of the nineteenth century
homileticians than any other twentieth century theorist
studied in this thesis with the possible exception of 0.8.
Davis and A.N. Blackwood. This may indicate that Jones
believes that a return to the more traditional approach to
homiletics is needed in this generation.

348

Jones assigns a great deal of importance to the
preacher's background in terms of his habits, attitudes,
convictions, and experiences: these elements are seen to
determine the importance with which the preacher himself
views his task, the purposes he sees in it, and the effort
he puts into it. The importance of the preacher's back-
ground and experience is further indicated in the defini-
tion of preaching as the “. . . passing on to the peOple
the truth of God as it has been shaped by one's own think-
ing and tested by his experience.“ (131)

Jones believes that the importance of preaching
grows out of the very nature of man as a being who com-
municates through the medium of speech.

We are endowed by our Creator with mechan-

isms to produce words, to listen to them,

and to react to them. Speech is the most

unique of all human gifts, sets man apart

from the rest of God's creatures, and con-

stitutes his most solemn stewardship. (l3)
Preaching, as "the noblest use of the power of speech,“ is
seen as differing from other forms of speech in terms of
its purposes and ends. Noting that preaching is to in-
struct in and persuade men of the Gospel of Christ, Jones,
therefore, regards preaching as of particular importance.
Its function is seen by him as publishing the Word of God
and of initiating God's redemptive work in the believer.

Preaching may be, should be, and at

best will be, a redemptive deed. A

sermon is not a lecture, an essay, a

theological dissertation, a discussion
of social, political, and world affairs

349

or instruction in morals, but God's

'saving approach to the souls of men

and women.‘ (19)

Preachers are, therefore, ”partners with God in His contin-
uing redemptive activity, sharers of God's responsibility
for the salvation of the world.” (20)

The tremendous reSponsibility which Jones sees in
preaching leads him to emphasize the importance of careful
method and diligent practice in utilizing human language
for the purpose of proclaiming the "divine word of redemp-
tion."

Preaching is conceived of as an integral and com-
ponent part of the worship service and as a vital aspect of
the minister's total pastoral work:

. . . there is no substitute for preach-

ing, it is essential for all true worship,

necessary for the pastoral ministry, a

prnme requisite in the transmission of the

Christian faith, and indispensable for the

redemption of mankind. (32)

Preaching is seen to have the functions of both
instructing and persuading. Jones sets forth the following
five basic purposes for preaching, all of which either re-
late to persuasion or instruction: (1) to make people God-
conscious: (2) to translate the Gospel into modern thought
terms: (3) to show the relevancy of the Gospel to human
situations: (4) to persuade men to believe the Gospel and
live by it: and (5) to offer hope to sinful men. It is
'well to note that in Jones' approach to preaching the Bible

assumes an extremely important position. He believes that

350

the Bible should serve as the foundation of preaching con-
tent and in effect should permeate the very fiber of the

semon 0

Definition and Interpretation of Arrangement
Topgi of Arrangement

 

In setting forth the process which he believes
takes place in the preparation of the sermon, Jones indi-
cates his concept of the £229; of Arrangement and the
relationships existing among the rhetorical canons. In
considering the preparation of a particular sermon, he
notes two distinct processes in the Invention process: the
first is the discovery of an idea or subject for the
sermon, and the second involves researching the subject
and analyzing materials thus researched.

Jones sees the process of Arrangement taking place
after the materials have been accumulated through the
inventive work of the preacher. He advises the preacher
to make a tentative outline at this point in order to
bring some order out of the mass of accumulated material.
Although this work of preliminary ordering is considered
traditionally as the work of Arrangement, Jones chooses
to call the process “inventive production.” It should be
noted, however, that he includes within the work of form-
ulating the tentative outline the function of selection
and thus does not limit it simply to arranging the parts

in some kind of order. This additional function may

351
account for Jones' desire to call this process ”inventive
production," although at times he calls the same process
Arrangement. He observes that after the work of research
and accumulation of materials is completed,

the important procedure known as 'inventive

production' has now begun. The preacher is

selecting and arranging ideas into a produc-

tion distinctively his own. The material has

never before been put together in exactly the

relationships and for the particular purposes

he has in mind. Through his creative thoughts

he is bringing an organic unity out of a mis-

cellaneous assemblage of material. In short,

he is inventing something. (130)

Jones appears to see something of an overlap be-
tween the processes of Invention and Arrangement, for he
indicates a distinct elenent of selectivity in his view of
the function of Arrangement. Arrangement in his mind is
not simply placing the materials in some order but also
involves selecting the appropriate material from that
which has been accumulated. This element of selectivity
is included in both the process of making a tentative out-
line or “inventive production” and the final, complete,
and detailed outline of the sermon.

The following tabulation of the main steps to be
followed in sermon preparation gives an indication of the
various functions believed to take place in the construc-
tion of the sermon as well as the place of Arrangement in
relation to the other processes:

1. Select the text and general subject,

or idea for the sermon.
2. Put the subconscious mind to work.

352
3. Browse in your library and gather
material.
4. Brood over the material.
5. Settle upon specific subject and
theme and exact purpose.
6. Make a tentative outline.
7. Prepare a complete, detailed outline.
8. Fill in the outline with ideas and
illustrations.
9. Write out the sermon in full.
10. Revise and reshape.
11. Get the sermon in your system.
12. Prepare yourself. (135)

The Importance of Arrangement

Jones believes that in a sermon the preacher must
concentrate his ideas on a limited area and focus and guide
these ideas in the direction he wants them to go. In his
mind this process of concentrating and focusing requires
the careful arrangement of materials within the sermon.

Arrangement is seen as having importance to both
the preacher and the bearer of sermons. Jones indicates
four reasons why careful Arrangement is important to the
preacher: (1) It aids him in the development of thought
and helps him to see the direction in which he is headed
in the sermon. "The outline confines the sermon within
desired limits, controls its course, unfolds it step by
step so it will be understandable, and directs it to its
intended goals.“ (90) (2) Arrangement is important be-
cause it helps to keep the preacher on the direct course
toward his goal. It “. . . keeps one from taking detours,
going around in circles, and holds him steadily on the

straight road ahead.” (91) (3) Arrangement enables the

353
preacher to keep the parts of the sermon in proper proporb
tion. It assists him in viewing the over-all plan of the
sermon and in seeing the parts of the semon proportionate-
ly and in their proper place. (4) Arrangement is also
important to the preacher in that it insures movement and
progress in the sermon.

Jones also sees four reasons why careful Arrange-
ment is important to the hearers of sermons: (1) It en-
ables the hearers to understand what the preacher is
saying and where he is ”going in terms of the sermon's
direction. Jones observes that

you cannot eXpect peOple to understand ideas

fanned out in a disorderly manner to the

four corners of a room. human minds grasp

ideas when they are presented in some kind

of orderly sequence. That is the nature of

human minds, the way they function. (88)

(2) It prevents misunderstanding. (3) It provides the
hearers with a needed "emotional rhythm”, taking into
account needed mental and emotional pauses and the fact
that audience attention rises and falls during the sermon.
(4) It aids the hearers in remembering what has been said.

In short, careful Arrangement makes the sermon “more

intelligible, more effective, more pleasing, and.more

A

—fif w—vw j—w

1
Jones' view of "emotional rhythm" is similar to
Kidder's concept of “oratorical Arrangement" and Luccock's

view of "emotional Arrangement.“ Jones does not develop
the concept as fully as do these theorists, however.

354

memorable to the hearers." (92)

The Over-all Plan of Arrangement

MuCh of the material which Jones discusses in
relation to the Body or Discussion of the sermon has parti-
cular relevance to the over—all plan of the sermon's
Arrangement since it has definite implications for the
sermon plan as a whole.

Like Luccock, Kennedy, and Blackwood, Jones is con-
cerned that the plans of sermons be characterized by vari-
ety as they are preached from week to week. He sets forth
several approaches to arranging sermons, most of which are
almost identical with those types discussed by these
earlier theorists. The following ten sermon types are
considered to be ”standard types":

(1) "'Two-point' outline” -- This type correSponds

to Luccock's "twin sermon."

(2) "'Question' outline" -- correSponds to

Kennedy's "Question and Answer“ sermon.

(3) "'Ladder' or 'unfolding telescope' outline" --

correSponds to Luccock's “ladder sermon.“

(4) "'Classification' outline“ -- correSponds to

Luccock's "Classification sermon."

(S) "'Series of Statements' outline" 1.

corresponds to Luccock's "Roman Candle sermon.“

(6) "'Jewel outline" -- corresponds to Luccock's

"Jewel sermon."

(7)

(8)

(9)

as:

”’Hegelian' outline” -— corresponds to BlaCKwood's

“Hegelian sermon.”

“'Guessing Game' outline" -- correSponds to

Kennedy's ”Is It This?“ approach.

"Rebuttal outline“ -- correSponds to Luccodk's

”Rebuttal sermon."

(10) “Life situation" or "prdblem solution out-

line“ -- based on Dewey's reflective thinking

process as noted by Luccock and Blackwood.

Jones notes three "special types“ of sermon out-

lines that may also be utilized in the plan of the sermon

as a whole.

(1)

(2)

(3)

The traditional eXpository sermon interpreting
a chapter or part of a chapter of the Bible.
In this approach a theme is formalized for the
main truth or truths contained in the passage
and then the verses of the passage are grouped
under headings, each of which represents a
distinct phase of the passage contents. These
points are then arranged to provide a skeleton
for a coherent, unified sermon.

An exposition of an entire book of the Bible.
The contents of the book are grouped under
headings and arranged in the sermon.

An eXposition of a biblical character. A
particular trait or problem is selected, and

this trait becomes the sermon topic. Points

356
are formulated and arranged to develop the
topic either chronologically or in terms of
the various aspects of the person's character.

Other approaches to sermonizing are noted as ”new
approaches," including "symphonic sermons" (noted also by
Blackwood), “imaginary narratives,“ “dramatic use of books,
poems, and stories,” "sermons on hymns," “sermons on
musical compositions,“ "sermons on art,“ and “sermons on
objects.“ These "newapproaches," however, have little
direct relationship in themselves to Jones' theory of
Arrangement.

In setting forth various approaches to develOping
the general plan of the sermon, Jones implies, in each
case, that an outline with a theme, a definite purpose,
and a carefully planned sequence of thought leading up to
a climax must be utilized: and he emphasizes the necessity
of unity, order, proportion, movement, and climax in the
plan of any sermon.

Concerning the arrangement of the sermon as a whole,
Jones makes the following observations which succinctly
summarize his basic point of view:

1. There is no known way to escape the

necessity of planning the outline of
sermons, if they are to achieve their
maximum efficiency.

2. No matter what approach one decides
upon he will need to arrange in an
orderly sequence what he wishes to say.

3. Regardless of the contents of sermons,

their outlines will fall consistently
into relatively few patterns.

357
4. Familiarity with a few types of out-
lines, carefully differentiated from
one another, will be of inestimable
service in building satisfactory

sermon structures and in providing
variety in preaching. (122)

The P_a_r_'ts of theiermon

Jones sees three necessary parts in the sermon:
the Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion. "The
Introduction, that lets the congregation know what the
subject is about: the Discussion, that develOps the sub-
ject: and the Conglusion, that in some manner drives home
what has been said.” (87)

The Introduction

Jones believes that the Introduction has four
basic purposes. First, he notes, as did John A. Broadus,
that the Introduction is to function in order to avoid
abruptness for both the preacher and the hearer. Secondly,
the Introduction is the place in the sermon where the
preacher's ethical proof is to have a particular function --
Jones sees, as one of the basic purposes of the Introduc-
tion, the gaining of the hearer's good will by the
preacher. Third, the Introduction is to function to
arouse interest in the subject of the sermon. In this
regard allusion is made to Kennedy's view that in the
Introduction “we are simply trying to get our people to
want to hear what we have to say.“ The fourth purpose is

that of informing the hearers of what the sermon is to discuss.

358

The functions of the Introduction are of great
importance to Jones: "Often the first sentence or two,
and always the first paragraph, are crucial. If the
preacher does not grip the interest of the peOple by that
time he may fail to grip it at all." (158) He believes
that the Introduction best accomplishes its important pur-
poses when triteness and platitudes are avoided, and vari-
ety of form and subject matter and brevity are practiced.

Jones divides the Introduction into five parts of
its own, parts which he believes are essential to its over-
all purposes: (1) Text, (2) the subject or theme of the
sermon, (3) an explanation of the connection between the
text and the subject, (4) an indication of the relevancy or
importance of the subject to contemporary life, and (5)
some interesting material designed to arrest the attention
of the hearers.l He suggests that for variety the order of

the parts he changed from sermon to sermon.

The Discussion

The Discussion of the sermon functions to develOp

the subject by dividing itself into ”points," "main heads,"

1Earlier homileticians, taking a seven part view'
of the sermon considered the Text, Proposition, and Ex-
planation of the sermon as separate parts and saw "(4)” and
“(5)” of Jones construct as the Introduction PrOper. Jones,
therefore, recognizes these parts but chooses to consider
them all under the Introduction.

359
"sub-theses," or “topical divisions." These points together
constitute the framework or main body of the sermon and
are that part to which the Introduction leads.
The five following elements are set forth as basic
characteristics of the basic outline of the Discussion:1

(1) An outline should have Unity.

It should be unified around one main idea,
that is, each point of the Discussion should
be a step or stage in the unfolding of the
theme. ”To attain unigypeachjpoint shpuld be
a subthesis of the main thesis." (93) Each
point should be a distinct phase of the thesis,
subordinate to the thesis and not coextensive
with the thesis.

(2) The outline should have 95925.
“When an outline has order each point says one
thing only and follows the others in a clear
continuity of thought. . . . To attain order
the_points of the outline should be coordinate.“
(94) Each point should be of equal importance
or rank and should carry the truth forward
step by step, each step being of equal

importance with the others.

1Whereas the term "outline" is used technically by
Jones to refer to the plan of the sermon as a whole, he be-
lieves that the Discussion itself requires a detailed outline
and it is in this regard that the term is used when referring
to the Discussion.

360

(3) The outline should have Prgportion.
There should be balance in the outline a sym-
metrical arrangement of the whole. Each point
of the Discussion should have prOportionate
weight or emphasis in both time and Space.
"To attain prOportion, all points should be of
parallel construcgion.“ (95)

(4) The outline should have movemept.
There should be progress in the Discussion as
it moves toward the Conclusion. "To attain
movementk;pg;pts_should be distinct.“ (97)
There should not be repitition of material from
point to point and each point should deal
with only one specific aSpect of the subject.

(5) The outline should have Climax.
The sermon should have a cumulative effect,
gathering strength as it moves toward the place
where the preacher hopes to move the hearers
to decision and action. “Tq:gttain climaxl
points should be agranged in_an ascendingzscale."
(98) The last point of the Discussion should
be the major climax to the sermon. It should
“. . . crown what has gone before, begin to
bring everything to focus, gather force and
prepare for the final appeal for action.“ (98)

Although Jones' treatment of the five basic

361
characteristics of the Discussion gives a clear and com-
prehensive picture of his particular theory with regard to
this part of the sermon, most of what has been said with
regard to the varieties of sermon plans, treated under the
heading "The Over-all Plan of Arrangement," can be applied
particularly to the Discussion of the sermon as well as to

its over-all plan.

The Conclusion

Jones believes that next to the Introduction, the
Conclusion of the sermon is “rhetorically, psychologically,
and Spiritually" the most important part of the sermon.

Every poor conclusion is a lost Opportunity,

because there the sermon should come to its

final climax, there its main purpose should

be achieved, there the preacher's supreme

effort should take place. (160)

Jones sees four basic functions taking place in
the Conclusion. The first, though not necessarily in order
of importance, is to bring the sermon to an ”effective
close“ by ending it with "concentrated force and power.”
Second, the Conclusion should function to apply the truth
discussed in the foregoing parts of the sermon. Although
Jones notes that the application of truth should be distri-
buted throughout the whole of the sermon, he believes that
it should be particularly compacted and accomplished in the
Conclusion. “To lay the truth on the hearer's conscience"

is the third function of the conclusion. This consists of

implementing the application by focusing “. . . the claims

362
of the truth on the moral judgments and wills of the
hearers.“ (161) Fourth, the Conclusion should function to
move the hearers to action. In this regard Jones appears
to see the element of emotional appeal as having a particu-
lar function in the Conclusion of the sermon, for he
observes that ”pressure on their wills, an effort to arouse
their emotional response, is definitely an integral part of
the conclusion.“ (162)

Jones implies that there are five component parts
within the Conclusion of the sermon and sees them function-
ing not in isolation but in conjunction with one another.

(1) 'A prOper transition or connection" from the
Discussion of the sermon into the Conclusion.

(2) Some reference to the truth set forth in the
preceding parts of the sermon. This may take
the form of a restatement of the subject in a
brief sentence or a brief resume of the sermon.

(3) "some material designed to drive the truth
home and clinch it." (164)

(4) Some material particularly designed to per-
suade the hearer of the truth and move him to
act upon it.

(5) A strong concluding sentence that appropriately
completes the total sermon.‘

These five parts set forth by Jones have no particular

order, except for the first and the last, but are viewed by

363
him as working in conjunction with each other in order to
fulfill the basic purpose and function of the sermon's

Conclusion.

Conclusions

(1) Jones approaches preaching with the belief that it
must adapt to the changing patterns of life, and thus his
theory of preaching is an attempt to set forth principles
that can be employed to communicate the unchanging truths
of God to a changing society.

(2) Preaching is conceived to be the utilization of human
language to proclaim God's redemptive work in Christ. Its
function is to instruct men in, and persuade them of, the
Christian Gospel.

(3) Jones' view of preaching as part of God's redemptive
activity causes him to conceive of it as the most important
aSpect of the preacher's total ministry. This emphasis on
the priority of preaching also causes Jones to give care-
ful and detailed attention to the methods of preparing and
delivering sermons. In its concern for the detail of
methology Jones approach to preaching reflects the influ-
ence of nineteenth century homiletical theory.

(4) Arrangement is seen to have the functions of both
selecting and ordering materials in that Arrangement selects
the apprOpriate materials from that which has been accumu-
lated by Invention and orders this material into a sermon

plan. A distinctive element in Jones' concept of Arrangement

364
is his inclusion of “selection” as part of its task.
(5) Jones' concept of the function of preaching as part
of God's redemptive plan causes him to see Arrangement as
an important element in enhancing the effectiveness of the
sermon to achieve its goal in that Arrangement aids the
preacher in concentrating his ideas and guiding them toward,
and focusing them on, a distinct goal.
(6) Jones encourages and illustrates the use of variety
in the use of sermon plans. He feels that while plans
should be varied, every plan should develOp a theme with a
distinct purpose and have a carefully develOped sequence of
thought leading up to a climax.
(7) While Jones takes a three part view of the sermon,
unlike other twentieth century theorists, he considers the
parts not only functionally but structurally as well,
particularly with regard to the Introduction and Conclusion.
(8) Jones believes that the Introduction is the most
important part of the sermon.' It has the functions of
arousing interest and orienting the hearers to the subject
of the sermon, and in it ethical proof has a particular
function. The Introduction itself has five distinct parts,
each of which contributes to its basic functions. Although
some of the elements are considered as separate parts by
some theorists, Jones includes them all in the Introduction.
(9) The Discussion divides and develOps the subject of

the sermon and is characterized by unity, order, prOportion,

36S
movement, and climax. Jones provides explicit suggestions
with regard to the nature and order of the divisions of the
Discussion in order to insure its maximum effectiveness in
develOping the subject.
(10) In the Conclusion the truth of the sermon is sum-
marized and applied to the lives of the hearers with the
intent of moving them to action. Jones sees anotional proof

as having a particular function in the Conclusion.

CHAPTER XVI

HENRY GRADY DAVIS' CONCEPTION OF 'ARRANGEMENT'

Henry Grady Davis

H. Grady Davis, Professor of Functional Theology
and Director of Worship at Chicago Lutheran Theological
Seminary, was born June 5, 1890 in Tennessee and received
his undergraduate education in Salem, Virginia, graduating
with the A.B. from Roanoke College in 1910. He was awarded
the B.D. by Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia
in 1916,1 and he took further graduate studies at the
Universities of Tennessee and Chicago. In 1938 he was
honored with the D.D. degree by Wittenberg College,
Springfield, Ohio.

From 1910 to 1937 Davis held pastorates in five
different Lutheran churches in Tennessee, New Jersey, and
Indiana: and in 1937 left the pastorate to become Professor
of Functional Theology at Chicago Lutheran Theological
Seminary.

Davis has written two books: Design for Preaching,

a homiletical textbook published in 1958, and Why We Worship,

A
— ‘—

1It is interesting to note that Davis was graduated
from the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia in
the same class as Paul Ehrman Scherer.

366

367
published in 1961. His textbook on homiletics is presently
used more extensively than any other homiletical textbook
in the preaching courses of American Protestant theological
seminaries.l
An insight into Davis' approach to preaching is
provided by him in the following reflections:

I approached preaching from a deep experience
of music and literature, especially poetry and
drama, literary and artistic criticism,
historical and psychological and cultural
writings, plus studies in natural history.

The life I lived was given voice and color

by general literature, more than by conven-
tional religious piety. I saw'my life and my-
self and all that happened to me through the
eyes of writers, mainly the romantics to begin
with. But I started with the classics, especial-
1y the Greek tragedies. I read the Bible in
the same way, and found it more classical and
realistic than romantic. My study of the
Bible and theology was in the context of world
literature, not as a separate field of Special-
ization. My graduate studies and private read-
ing were mostly in literature.

This is why I had to look at preaching, in-
cluding my own, as related to and comparable
with all other works of the human spirit.
Even apart from the faith it proclaimed, it
had to be the highest and best of which a man
was capable, as an expression and interpreta-
tion and illumination of the fullness and in-
tegrity that was in him. And whatever faith
it proclaimed must be as real, heart-whole as
the rest of him. These must be no evasions and
no tricks. It was his poem, his story, his
symphony, whether he meant it so or not,

 

1This fact was discovered in a survey by this writer
among professors of preaching in theological schools be-
longing to the American Association of Theological Schools.
See Appendix B for a description of this survey.

368

and it had to stand the same tests, at
least as to the seriousness of his purpose
and the totality of his effort.1

Definition of Homiletics and Preaching

The homiletical theory of H. Grady Davis is his
response to such questions as: “What do you do to your
thought when you preach?" and “Specifically, how does the
text come alive from a basic statement of truth about God

to the living existential person-to-person relationship?"
(v)2 He believes that traditional homiletical theory has
not answered these questions in a satisfactory manner, and
thus his own theory is an attempt to grapple seriously with
such questions. He notes, however, that he has been led.

to the conviction

that the answers lie neither in the tradi-
tional study of homiletical forms as forms,
nor in a preoccupation with the vital con-
tent of preaching apart from the form it
takes, but in a sharper awareness that the
content and form are two inseparable elements
of the same thing in the design of a good
sermon. (vi)

This relationship of content and form is a vitally important

element in Davis' homiletical theory and must be understood

lH. Grady Davis in a letter to this writer dated
May 22, 1964.

2The homiletical theory of Henry Grady Davis is
found in its most complete form in his book Design for
Preachin , (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1958). Refer-
ences to Davis' theory are from this book, and the page
numbers are indicated in parentheses.

369
as basic to the whole of his theory.

An additional key to the understanding of Davis‘
homiletical theory is the understanding of the fact that he
is extremely concerned that the sermon be conceived of as
a dynamic, growing and develOping entity. In an attempt
to indicate and maintain these characteristics, Davis uses
a new homiletical vocabulary which he believes best com-
municates the dynamic, growing quality of the sermon. In
one sense the new terms utilized by Davis are simply new
labels for old concepts. In another sense, however, his
approach to homiletics is unique, both in the language
which he uses and in the ideas which he emphasizes. This
is not to say that Davis' concept of homiletics, preaching,
and Specifically Arrangement is completely new and
original, but rather that his emphases are unique as well
as the language which he uses to set forth his theory.

A further insight into Davis‘ theory is provided by
his view toward homiletical rules and methods. He believes

1

that inherent in the "germinal idea" of the sermon is the

1Davis generally uses the term “idea“ of the sermon
to refer to that which other homiletical theorists designate
as the subject, or tOpic or theme of the sermon. He notes
that "a well prepared sermon is the embodiment, the develOp-
ment, the full statement of a significant thought. Every
thought is an idea. But a sermon idea is more than a bare
thought. It is a thought plus its overtones and its ground
swell of implication and urgency. It has more than the form
of a thought: it has the energy, the life force of the
thought.“ (20) The sermon is generated by its idea and is
inherent in its idea just as a plant exists in its germ or
seed: thus Davis Speaks of "germinal ideas.“ He sees the
idea of the sermon, therefore, as being a “productive,
generative, germinal relation" to the sermon.

370
prOper develOpment and structure of that sermon, and thus
he attempts to avoid setting forth exacting and binding homi-

letical methods.

. . . no sound homiletical method exists
until it comes into being in an actual
work on a given text or theme. and it
also means that no method is ever sound
unless it is right for the particular
text or theme with which a man is working
at the time. This fact greatly increases
the difficulty of studying the process by
which an idea expands into a sermon.(82)

Davis’ concern, therefore, is to provide the preacher with
the necessary principles for sermonizing which can be
effectively utilized in a variety of situations and with any

type of subject matter.

Davis sees a close unity between the elements of
“substance” and "form“ in the sermon.1 He believes that
substance and form are indiSpensable to each other and,
therefore, cannot be separated, for "we cannot have a
thought without its form. The thought must be given form in
order for it to be recognizable by another and thus allow
for communication.“ (1) He further observes that "thought

and its eXpression, content and organization, substance and

1By “substance" Davis refers to abstractions or
ideas, given a degree of concreteness, which take the form
of thoughts or concepts, consisting of subject and predi-
cate, in order to be apprehended and Spoken of. In using the
term, ”form“ he does not mean something apart from the idea
that is apprehended and Spoken of. Rather he sees an organic
relation between substance and form. "The sermon idea is
thought having form, not thought contained within a form
that might just as well contain some other thought. The
form is the shape of the thought itself, its image in the
human mind, its likeness to ourselves." (20)

371
form, are not two things but one, two inseparable aSpects
of the same thing." (36) Davis notes that form as such
cannot be avoided in any type of communication but will
be either good form or bad form} He stresses this concept
when he states that

the difference between chaotic thought and

ordered thought is not the difference between

no form and form: it is the difference between

confused form and organized form. The chaotic

talker perpetrates form as surely as the skil-

ful Speaker does. The only question is, what

form? (3)

The importance of form says Davis, is to be found
in men's reSponse to it, because reSponse to form lies
deeper than the level of rational thought but belongs deep
in the intuitive feelings of men. Thus reSponse to a
thought is considered to be determined largely by the shape
and form of that thought. He observes that the power of
great poetry

ought to show how foolish it is to suppose

that if a thought is good it does not matter

much how it is expressed. The character and

dimensions of a thought, its weight, its

reach and force, are either limited or ex-

tended by the form of its expression. (4)

Since the relation of form and substance is regarded

as of utmost importance in the communication of thought,

Davis feels that this relationship is of particular concern

A ‘

lDavis believes that form of some kind exists in-
herently in substance and cannot be avoided. His emphasis,
in light of this, is upon careful consideration to that form
in order to give the communication maximum effectiveness.

372
to the preacher in terms of the form of what he says. A
primary reason for its importance to the preacher relates
to Davis' concept of the chief purpose of preaching.

The aim of preaching is to win from men a

response to the GOSpel, a reSponse of

attitude and impulse and feeling no less

than of thought. Since form does its

work immediately and at deeper levels than

logic. persuades directly and silently as

it were, form has an importance second only

to that of thought itself. (5)

Although Davis is deeply concerned with the form
of the substance in a sermon, he seeks to avoid the idea
that the sermon must fit into a preconceived pattern.
"There is no ideal or standard form which every sermon
should take. . . . There is no pre-existent mold into
which the substance of thought must be poured in order to
make a sermon.“ (8) Davis, therefore, does not develOp
his homiletical theory as though it were a group of rigid,
exacting rules that could be applied universally to all
sermons. Nevertheless he does assert that

there is a right form for each sermon,

namely, the form that is right for this

particular sermon. A right form can never

be imposed on any sermon. If it has to

be imposed it is not right. The right form

derives from the substance of the message

itself, is inseparable from the content,

becomes one with the content, and gives a

feeling of finality to the sermon. (9)

Davis believes that when form is used rightly, it appears
to be the inevitable shape of the thought and as such is
undistinguishable from the thing said in that it becomes a

part of the thing itself.

373

In his concern for a real unity between content
and form, Davis warns against an over-balance in which
there is a preoccupation with form and a neglect of con-
tent to the extent that the preacher becomes a mere
technician dealing in forms, or where there is a pre-
occupation with content to the extent that the preacher
never masters form and thus fails to communicate. In
stressing the importance of balance, particularly in under-
standing form, it is interesting to note Davis' statement
that

this is not a plea for an intensive formal

study of rhetoric. Just the same, it is

chastening to remember the proud history

rhetoric has had, from Aristotle to Brooks

and Warren, as the art of Communication in

language. Many of Christianity's great

preachers were rhetoricians before they were
preachers, among them Ambrose, Augustine,

and Chrysostom. Rhetoric is not equivalent

to a blown-up, artificial style. Whately's

Rhetogic was among the few books Abraham

Lincoln studied most avidly, and the incom-

parably simple force of the Gettysburg

Address and the second Inaugural Address

would not be the same without it. (11)

Although he appears to indicate that the primary
function of preaching is persuasion, Davis notes three
chief purposes of preaching: "Proclamation," teaching, and
”therapy.” Like Kennedy, he sees "proclamation" as the
heralding of the GOSpel, the proclaiming of God's action
in Christ and offer to men. In a very real sense, how-
ever, proclamation involves persuasion in that it calls

men to belief and seeks a "radical change“ in man. Per-

suasion is also involved in "therapy," for it is

374

". . . Speech for the purpose of effecting some improvement
in the hearer, some change in his state or condition,
mental, emotional, or religious." (127) Although Davis
implies that "proclamation" is uniquely different from
either persuasion or instruction, it, nevertheless,
appears, in his view, to contain both these elements as
does the function of therapy of which exhortation is one
aSpect. It appears, therefore, that Davis conceives of
preaching to have the functions of persuasion and instruc-
tion along with whatever uniquely different elements might
also be involved in "proclamation" and "therapy.“

Preaching is seen as an art rather than a science:
preaching

is a way of doing rather than a compli-

cated theory of what to do and how to do

it. . . . Art is skill in doing, controlled

by an inner sense of rightness, a sense that

is nearer to feeling than to calculation,

nearer to intuition than to deliberation. (12)
In order to provide the preacher with help in cultivating
skills for his art, Davis seeks to set forth a theory of
preadhing which is ". . . stripped of all nonessential
and merely traditional matters, which sticks to the
factors that are decisive, and deals with than clearly.“

(13) He is concerned to develOp a clear theory of sermon

design: and he notes in poetry the concept which he has of

375

. _ . - . l . . .
tne deSign or tne sermon, likening it to the growth and

, 2
develOpnent or a tree.

(3'!

D SIGN FOR A SERMON

A sermon should be like a tree

It should be a living organism:
With one sturdy thought like a single stem
With natural limbs reaching up into the light.

It should have deep roots:
As much unseen as above the surface
koots Spreading as widely as its branches spread
Roots deep underground
In the soil of life's struggle
In the subsoil of the eternal Word.

It should Show nothing but its own unfolding parts:
Branches that thrust out by the force of its inner
life
Sentences like leaves native to this very spray
True to the Species
Not taken from alien growths
Illustrations like blossoms Opening from
inside these very twigs
Not brightly colored kites
Pulled from the wind of somebody else's
thought
Entangled in these branches.

It should bear flowers and fruit at the
same time like the orange:
Having something for food
For immediate nourishment
Having something for delight
For present beauty and fragrance
For the joy of hepe
For the harvest of a distant day.

lDavis uses the term "sermon design" in place of
sermon construction or planning, and he Speaks of sketch or
design rather than outline. “Design is seeing and shaping.
. . designing a sermon is more like making a plant grow to
the form inherent in it.“ (21) he prefers the term ”design”
Tbecause he feels it is more in keeping with the nature of
'what happens in the ”seeing and Shaping."

2It is interesting to note that the comparison of the
sermon to a tree is not unique to Davis but is also utilized
iby James Mason HOppin.

376
To be all this it must grow in a warm climate:
In loam enriched by death
In love like the all-seeing and all-cherishing sun
In trust like the sleep-sheltering night
In pity like the rain. (15, 16)
Definition and Interpretation of Arrangement

Tonoi of Arrangement

Although Davis sees a close relationship between
substance or content and form, he also notes that “we must
clearly distinguish between content and form. The form
does not produce the substance - what the sermon actually
says. Rather, the substance takes on the form." (141) In
this sense Davis identifies form primarily with the canon
of Arrangementl -- the process that takes place upon the
substance of the sermon, the invented materials. He con-
ceives of the process of Arrangement, therefore, as being
closely related with that of Invention and yet distinct.
Arrangement is seen to be dependent upon Invention in that
it acts upon the invented materials but does not produce
them. It is the process of giving form to the invented
substance of the senmon.

Davis indicates the relationship between Invention

and Arrangement in his description of the develepment of

A A;

*— i

1It should be noted that when Davis speaks of form,
‘he generally refers to both the Arrangement of the substance
into a plan as well as the stylistic elements of framing
the ideas into words and phrases. The primary emphasis
here, however, is with that aSpect of form in which the
substance is arranged in the total plan of the sermon.

377

the basic sermon idea.
In its primary form your idea may be only
a thought in a Single sentence. When you
begin to question your idea, eSpecially
when you question the text and it together,
it will eXpand into definite things to be
said, things from which your plot, your
plan will be constructed. It is not a
plan yet, and there is no advantage in
hurrying on to make a definite plan. There
may be a disadvantage. While everything is
still fluid, the substance can eXpand rapid-
ly, Once there is a plan, it tends to

harden the substance and limit its expan-
sion. (96)

The Importance of Arrangement

Arrangement is of particular importance in Davis‘
theory of homiletics because of his stress upon the dynamic
quality of the sermon. Since he sees the basic Structure
of the sermon inherent in its ”germinal idea,“ it follows
that the treatment of that idea depends upon the skill of
the preacher in allowing it to develOp into the structure
it inherently requires. From this point of view, there-
fore, Arrangement is assigned great importance since in it,
the preacher does not merely place the substance of the
sermon into a stereotyped pattern but senses the proper
structure for each given idea. In Davis' view this ability
is an absolute prerequisite for effective preaching:

to learn to preach, a man must develOp
his sense of form, his feeling for the

378

shape and organic structure of a thought.1

This is the first step in learning. To

feel the shape and structure of his idea

is also the first and chief task in

preparing any given sermon, down to the

las; one a man will preach before he dies.
26

Like Shedd and Luccock, Davis also sees definite
ethical implications in the preacher‘s work of arranging
the sermon. He believes that the handling of a subject
in terms of “anatomy“ and structure is more than simply a
detail of sermon technique: rather, it is actually a moral
issue since it indicates either the respect or disregard

of the preacher for the peOple listening to his sermon.

The Over-all Plan 9f the_§e£mog

In order to consider Davis' view of the sermon's
over-all plan it is necessary to trace the total develOp-
ment of the sermon as he sees it, for an understanding of
the sermon's growth is necessary to an adequate view of
its total plan. Davis believes that the growth and
develOpment of the sermon begins with a basic idea, al-

though the primary source of preaChing ideas is actually

fl *— — _

1"Organic structure" is a term used by Davis in an
attempt to maintain the sense of the sermon as an organ-
ism. Since the sermon is an organism, he believes that it
consists of parts or members which are in structural and
functional relation to one another and to the whole of the
sermon. He Speaks of the parts, divisions, heads, and
points of the sermon, therefore, as “structural" parts
whidh he feels help to signify their character as organic
elements of a develOping idea or thought.

379
the Bible. This does not necessarily mean that the sermon
is to have a text but rather that the source of the idea
is the Bible or that the idea is true to the scripture.
Davis' stress on the Bible is due to his belief that the
"pervading implication” or impression which the sermon
leaves is an important consideration in preaching since it

will remain when everything else about the sermon is for-

gotten.

This stubborn, elemental fact of communi-
cation, not some theorist's rule, is the
compelling reason why the sermon's basic
idea must be worthy of the hearer's deep-
est regard, why it must be thoroughly worked
out and clearly presented. It is, more-
over, the reason why it must be true to the
sacred text. (55)

The next step in the sermon's develOpment is the
selection of a Specific, clearly delineated subject which
is generally an aspect of a broad or general subject.

This subject involves both that which is to be discussed in
the sermon as well as the limits of the discussion. The
subject is then followed by a predicate or by more than one

predicate.l Believing that subject-predicate is the basic,

‘ —
—— _fi—vv— ———

lDavis believes that the basic elements of think-
ing are the subject and the predicate. He illumines his
concept of this relationship by stating that “it seems
natural to use the word assertipn to denote the eXpression of

a complete thought, natural to use subject for the thing ,
talked about, predicate for the thing said about it, and pred—
ication for the process of saying or asserting something

.about the subject." In his emphasis upon subject and pred-
icate Davis' concern is similar to that of Whately and his

cliscussion of the PrOposition of a discourse as noted by the
'homiletician.Hoppin.

 

380
recurring form of communication, Davis thus urges the
preacher to develOp the sermon as a whole on this pattern.

The combination of subject and predicate consti-
tutesin Davis' theory the basic idea of the sermon. [in the
older homileticians such as Phelps this same element in
the sermon is designated as the prOposition]. Davis notes
that this sermon idea has a basic anatomy to it. In terms
of the Arrangement of the sermon this anatomy is dis-
covered by determing "what the idea is talking about and
what is said about it:" these two elements constitute the
organic structure of a develOped idea. These two elements
are seen to stand closely together in their relationship:
they are interdependent, and one cannot stand without the
other. Davis notes that "a group of assertions not
attached to a clearly defined subject makes a rambling,
pointless harangue -— a brushpile. A subject, however
important, that is not followed by predication is not a
complete idea.“ (25)

The elements of subject and predicate are extremely
important and basic to Davis' concept of preaching in
general and to sermonic Arrangement in particular. One
reason for his stress upon this construct is his concern
that only one subject be adequately treated in a sermon.

Such common faults in design, such lack

of organization, result from neglect or

defiance of these supposedly simple facts.

They are deformities of thought, anatomical

monstrosities, like a three headed calf.
No overlay of brilliant or witty talk, apt

3B1

quotations, choice anecdotes, can hide

a misshapen body of thought. There is no

way to correct these elemental faults of

design except to keep pressing the ques-

tion, 'What am I to talk about? What must

be said about it?‘ (26)

In Davis' mind the over-all plan of a well-designed
sermon, therefore, is the embodiment and extension of an
important idea, the first element of which is a clearly
defined subject and the second element one or more things
'said about it, predicates, structural assertions concern-
ing the subject. These contributing predicates are seen
to be few in number, seldom more than six or eight: and the
rest of the sermon is the develOpment of the predicates,
the separate and distinct things said about the subject.

One important element that Davis believes should be
characteristic of the over-all plan of the sermon is unity.

When a sermon is the embodiment of one

vigorous idea, when the whole of it be-

comes simply the elaboration and exten-

sion of that idea, then it produces in the

listener that concentration of effect which

is called unity. That is all unity is: an

impression of oneness and entirety, of an

ordered relatedness of parts in a whole.

Its opposite is fragmentation, partition,

disorder. (35)

This effect of unity is not created by pure singleness and
uniformity, however, but out of plurality and diversity
from which several things come together in unity. He
further feels that this element of unity is of particular

importance in the sermon's total structure because “the

desire for unity is a law of the listener's mind."

382

If we do not join our fragments into a

wholeness which we see, the listener's

mind will force him to make his own oom-

binauknxaf our fragments into a total im-

pression that may be very different from

our own. This is the imperative reason

for unity. (36)

In order for the preacher to maintain unity in the
sennon Davis advises him to select and study the text,
discover the “true subject" of the sermon and then decide
what is the "all-important," “all-inclusive“ thing the
sermon ought to say about the subject. This, then, is the
central theme of the sermon around which all else clusters
in a unity. This central thought, therefore, becomes the
controlling factor in terms of the sermon's potential for
unity: it determines the entire nature of the sermon's
structure, for it is the predicate to be develOped and
'supported throughout the sermon.

Davis sets forth several "organic forms" or struc-
tures which he believes may be utilized in the develOpment
of the sermon's total plan. “Organic forms” are defined
as ". . . the structure a sermon assumes as a result of
the state in which the germinal thought exists in the
preacher's mind.“ (139) Since Davis believes that not all
sermons take the same forms, he indicates that the
original thought, in large measure, determines the struc-
ture of the sermon. The standard and simplest structure
consists of the develOpment of a completed thought. This

all-inclusive thought or statement is supported or illumin-

ated by a series of generalizations or "contributory

383

thoughts" or points. "The trunk of the tree consists of
both subject and predicate, and the branches thrust out
from a complete thought. . . " (140) Because he real-
izes that not all sermons follow this pattern, however,
Davis presents five varied organic forms which he sees
functioning as the sermon's over-all plan.

The first form is designated by the phrase "é
Subject Discussed." Davis notes that in some instances
the subject will be only a noun with no single all-inclusive
predicate but rather will begin with two independent
predicates. This sermon is described as being “. . . like
a tree that has no single trunk, but twin stems dividing
near the ground.” The points or divisions of this type
of sermon are a series of statements about the subject,
all of which are needed to develOp it since no single
predicate completes the sermon's idea. Davis observes
that in such a sermon

. . . the completeness or incompleteness

of an original thought determines the

task my whole sermon must accomplish and

provides its organic form. The noun sub-

ject requires that the sermon take the

form of distributed predication, a number

of things said about the subject. The

germinal idea expands by adding predicates

to the subject. (142)

The second type of form is “A Thesis Suppgrte ,"
different'from “A Subject Discussed" form in that the

preposition or idea expanded in the sermon is a complete

idea, having both subject and predicate. It differs from

384
other types of forms in that it is an attempt to prove or
support an assertion by evidence or reasoning or both.
Davis notes that "it is dialectical in its attitude. Its
methods are argument and demonstration.” (146) In this
form the structural assertions are conceived of as general-
izations of evidence and logic utilized to convince the
hearer of the truth of the preposition. This type of ser-
mon actually differs littleikom the type set forth by
earlier homileticians in which a prOposition is stated and
then proven by a series of arguments in its support.

"A Message Illumined“ is the title given to the
third organic form. The sermon idea in this form takes
the form of a message to be illumined. As in the preposi-
tional form, this is Seen to eXpand a single complete idea,
a sentence with a subject and a predicate. It differs
from the thesis or propositional form, however, in that it
simply states what it has to say without posing it as an
issue. The sermon idea in this form is simply an asser-
tion or an affirmation accepted as being true and pro-
claimed and illumined by a series of observations regarding
its meaning and relevance to life.

The fourth form is "A Question Propounded,"
wherein the sermon idea takes the form of a question to be
investigated and is an inquiry rather than an assertion.

In this form “the sermon should expand and illuminate the
question, Show clearly what is at issue, show in what

direction the answer lies, if it can. and.move toward the

385
answer as far as possible." (155) This type of sermon is
similar to that noted by other mid-twentieth century homi-
leticians such as Kennedy's “Question and Answer” sermon.

The fifth organic form noted is designated as “A
Story Told!“ wherein the sermon idea takes the form of a
narrative of events, persons, actions, or words and
through the narrative communicates the meaning of the
story to the lives of the hearers.

In each of these organic forms, Davis implies that
the subject matter and basic intent of the sermon deter-
mine the eventual structure and plan it is to have. It is
well to note that in each instance the sermon idea with
subject and predicate, or a variation of such, serves as
an important and determining factor in the development,
growth. and final structure of the sermon.

An extremely important element in Davis' theory of
Arrangement is his concept of "continuity” a term which
refers to what other writers have called “the outline of
the sermon." His meaning for the term is far more compre-
hensive, however:

there is one compelling reason, among

other reasons, why I shall not rely on

the word outline to designate the plan

of the sermon. The conventional outline

is a static and visual plan, whereas the

sermon can be preperly planned only as

an audible movement in time. The proper

plan of a sermon, then, the prOper sketch

of a sermon, the prOper design of a sermon,

is the design of time -- continuity. And

so I shall prefer to Speak of the contin—

uity or the movement of a sermon, rather
than of its outline. (22)

386
For Davis, therefore, the prOper design of a sermon is a
movement in time which ". . . begins at a given moment,
ends at a given moment, and moves through the intervening
moments one after another." (163)

The concept of continuity causes Davis to have a
particularly bearer-centered view of Arrangement. He
believes that the arrangement which is best utilized in
the sermon is a simple arrangement which the hearer can
grasp audibly:

The outline of the sermon, if it is to

be of any use to the listener, must be

clear and simple. It must have only a

few structural divisions or points. Each

of these divisions must begin perceptibly

in time, run its course, and come to an

end in time. One dimension must follow

another like the movements of a symphony

or the acts of a play. If the outline

becomes elaborate or complicated, with

many divisions, subdivisions, and sub-

subdivisions, it may look attractive and

orderly on paper, but it will be worse

than useless to the listener. (165)

In considering the means of constructing the con-
tinuity of the sermon, Davis notes four steps that need to
be followed by the preacher. He advises the preacher in
the first step to fix the goal of the sermon and have
clearly in mind the point which he wishes to reach. At
the outset, therefore, the preacher Should select from
among the many structural assertions which he intends to
use the one to come last, the goal toward which the sermon
is to move. The second step is to choose the structural

assertion to come first. Thus the first and last asser-

tions set the limits of the sermon's movement. The third

387

step involves the arrangement of the intervening points in
the sermon, an arrangement which should be a step—by-step
progress from the first point to the last ". . . planned
for the peOple, each point being an enlargement of their
view and movement toward the goal." Thus each point of
the sermon is also a progressive step in the listener's
exoerience,and understanding with each new thought serving
as a further advance of the eXpanding and develOping idea.
"To put the whole matter of continuity in a word, there
must be something to begin with and something to get to at
the end. There must be steps for getting from one to the
other. There must be something that runs through all the
points and relates them all to one another, to which they
all refer.“ (123) The fourth step in constructing the con-
tinuity is that of alloting each point the exact amount of
time it needs for its necessary development. In each of
these steps, however, Davis is careful to indicate that not
all sermons are alike and that the order of the sermon's
points is generally determined by the nature of the sermon.

Davis notes the following five types of continuity
that may be utilized in a sermon:

(l) "Deductive continuity.”

(2) “Inductive continuity" -- the text or sermon

idea is withheld until the end and thus made
the climax and goal of the sermon rather than

the starting point.

338

(3) “Logical continuity“ -- includes all contin-
uities not fitting under a Special category.
The sermon is an extended syllogism, enthymeme,
or a chain of enthymemes. Actually this type
involves both logical and psychological
cogency.

(4) "Chronoloqical continuity“ -- related to an
historical narrative.

(5) "Dramatic continuity” -- the sermon has three
steps, all of which are related in such a way
as to produce a dramatic action. This type is
similar to Blackwood's Hegelian sermon with
thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Davis uses

the terms "Exposition, "Complication,“ and
"Resolution."
Davis' emphasis in terms of the over-all plan of
the sermon relates to his concern with the sermon as a
growing and dynamic eXpanding idea and his view of the
sermon's plan as a movement in time, a continuity. These

concepts form the crux of his theory of Arrangement,

particularly in his view of the sermon as a totality.

The Parts of the Sermon

Davis' conception of the continuity of the sermon
causes him to be concerned primarily with the overall plan
of the sermon's arrangement. “Clearly, this continuity

will include the whole sermon from the first sentence to

389

the last. For the entire sermon, as for every one of its
points, first and last are the positions of natural
strength.“ (170) he notes, however, that the necessity of
continuity in the sermon as a whole is what gives the
Introduction and Conclusion of the sermon their importance:

The introduction and conclusion must be

parts of that continuity which is the

whole design of the season. They are so

intimately related to the idea and its

develepment that it is impossible to

treat than as if they had a separate exist-

ence apart from the whole design of the

sermon. (171)

Although Davis' primary emphasis on Arrangement is
in terms of the plan of the whole sermon, rather than in

terms of the parts of the sermon, he does recognize an

Introduction, Body, and Conclusion in the sermon.

The Introduction

Davis sees the Introduction as a short but decisive
moment in the sermon's total movement which should func-
tion to win the attention and interest of the audience and
to introduce the subject at hand, the central idea of the
sermon:

The introduction should be thought of as

the first two minutes of a twenty to

twenty-five-minute eXperience by the

peeple of the sermon's thought. It is

their first encounter with the idea, the

first phase of a growing experience. (188),

Davis also notes that the Introduction should fit the

functional form of the sermon, be it proclamation, teach-

ing or therapy, as well as its structural form whether

390

prOposition, message, question, narrative, or drama.

The Body

Since the major part of the sermon, in terms of
length, is the Body of the sermon, all of what has been
noted with regard to Davis' view of the sermon's over-all
plan can be appropriately applied to the Body of the ser-
mon. The Body of the sermon is that part of the continuity
in which the sermon receives its fullest develepment and
achieves its growth. It is generally develOped by a
series of structural assertions used to support, develOp,
or illumine the sermon idea. The brevity of both the
Introduction and Conclusion urged by Davis makes the Body
of the sermon almost equivalent to the sermon in its
entirety, and thus his view of this part is best discovered

by noting his concept of the sermon‘s over-all plan.

The Conclusion

Davis conceives of the Conclusion as the last
minute or two of the sermon in which the final thought of
the sermon is exposed.

The conclusion is the moment in which
listeners can come nearest to seeing the
idea whole and all at one time. It is
the moment in which the issue can be seen
at its clearest, felt at its sharpest,
and carried back into life where, if any-
where, it must be resolved. The conclu-
sion is the last chance to accomplish the
sermon's purpose, whatever that may be.
(192)

391
Davis notes a variety of ways in which the sermon can be
concluded, all of which have been noted by earlier
theorists. He feels that the Conclusion's unique function
is to bind the points of the sermon together into a uni-
fied whole in order that the hearers might have a clear

concept of what the sermon has accomplished.

Conclusions

(1) The homiletical theory of H. Grady Davis is based

upon his belief that content and form are linked inseparably
together in the sermon.

(2) As a result of his concern that the sermon be con-
ceived as a dynamic, growing, develOping organism, Davis
utilizes a new language of homiletics, employing such terms
as "sermon design," "continuity," etc., which he believes
contributes to preserve and communicate these qualities.
(3) Davis' approach to homiletics, in terms of both the
language he enploys and the ideas he emphasizes, is

unique in emerican homiletical theory.

(4) Because of his view of substance and form as a close
unity in the sermon, Davis avoids strict homiletical rules,
allowing the basic substance of the sermon to determine

its own form and develepment. His concern is to provide
principles that can be utilized to cultivate the basic

idea of the sermon in order that it might grow into a

fully develeped organism.

(5) In accord with his concern for dynamic principles

392
rather than rigid homiletical rules, Davis conceives of
preaching as an art rather than a science.
(6) lhe form of the sermon is of particular interest to
Davis beCause he believes that the bearer reSponds to the

form of an idea at a deeper level than that of rational

H)
H}
H,

thought, and thus form is of import to the e ect o the

sermon on both the feelings and beliefs of tne audience.

he believes that the respons to an idea is determined

(0

largely by the shape and form of that idea.

(7) Although Davis states that proclamation, teaching,

and therapy are the basic purposes and functions of
preaching he, nevertheless, appears to see persuasion as
its chief function since he conceives of persuasion as a
vital element in proclamation and therapy. Instruction is
also an important function of preaching, and it too is seen
to be a part of both proclamation and persuasion.

(3) Although Davis sees a close unity between content and
fonn in the sermon, he recoqnizes a distinction in their
respective functions. Arrangement is viewed as the process
of giving form to the invented substance of the sermon.
While form, or Arrangement, does not produce the substance,
the substance of the sermon indicates the Arrangement best
suited for its effective development.

(9) The dynamic quality which Davis perceives in the
sermon causes him to emphasize the importance of Arrangement
since he believes that the discovery and develepment of the

structure inherent in the sermon's basic idea are contingent

393
upon the preacher's skill in recognizing and developing
that structure. The study of arrangement is an important
consideration, because Arrangement does not involve merely
placing the substance of the sermon into a stereotyped
pattern, but it requires a recognition of the prOper
structure for the sermon's basic idea. Concern for
Arrangement is also seen to have ethical implications, in-
asmuch as Davis believes its quality in a given sermon
indicates either a reSpect or disreSpect for the hearers
of that sermon.
(10) Davis sees the over-all plan of the sermon to be
the embodiment and extension of an idea (referred to as a
PrOposition by other theorists) containing two basic
elements: a subject and a predicate(s) (assertions about
the subject). These assertions are conceived by Davis to
be a few separate and distinct observations about the sub-
ject, unified in their relationships to each other and the
subject.
(11) The subject matter and basic purpose of the sermon
determine the plan the sermon is to have. In any case,
however, Davis believes that the basic structure of the
sermon will at least embody a subject and predicate.
(12) Davis prefers the term 'continuity' to the tenn
'outline' in considering the total structure of the sermon
because he feels it is more in keeping with the dynamic
nature of the sermon and is more realistic in light of the

fact that preaching is audible communication. The sermon

394
is seen as an audible moment in time and as such structured
with the purpose of being heard and understood. The
total sermon is thus a growing experience for the hearer,
with each new thought serving to advance and expand the
idea at hand.
(13) Because of his view of the sermon as a continuity of
time, Davis' primary emphasis on Arrangement is in terms
of the sermon‘s over-all plan. He does, however, recognize
an Introduction, Body, and Conclusion as parts or moments
in the sermon's continuity.
(14) The Introduction is but a brief moment in the
sermon's movement, and it functions to gain the attention
of the audience and to orient them to the basic idea or
subject of the sermon.
(15) In the Body the sermon idea is supported, develOped,
or illumined by a series of assertions. Since the Intro-
duction and Conclusion should be very brief in length,
the Body becomes almost identical with the sermon as a
whole.
(16) Although the Conclusion of the sermon is seen to be
only a brief part in the total sermon, it has the impor-
tantfunction of bringing together all of the aSpects of the
composition into a complete, unified idea in order that
the bearer can see with clarity what the sermon has

accomplished.

CONCLUSIONS

CONCLUSIONS

This thesis has described,analyzed, and inter-
preted the conceptions of Arrangement in American
Protestant homiletical theory through the study of sixteen
representative American theorists and teachers of preaching
who were selected, as a result of a survey among contem-
porary professors of preaching in American seminaries, from
a list of American theorists whose writings extended from
the early nineteenth century to contemporary times. The
time periods into which the major homiletical works of the
theorists fall are mid-nineteenth century, late nineteenth
century, early twentieth century, and mid-twentieth
century. Three representative theorists were studied from
each of the first two periods, four from the third, and
six from the fourth period.

Several questions were asked in the Introduction
of this thesis relating to (l) the point of view from
which homiletics and preaching are approached, (2) the
over-all definition and interpretation of Arrangement, and
(3) the treatment of the parts of the sermon. Each
writer was analyzed within the basic framework of these
questions.

It is important to note that the conclusions drawn
in this thesis have a broader base than simply the sixteen

396

397
theorists studied, since these writers are generally con-
sidered to be prominent representatives of the history of
American Protestant homiletical theory as a whole, and to
be most significant in terms of use and/or influence in
American Protestant homiletical theory. The generaliza—
tions and conclusions made from the theories of these
sixteen writers, therefore, can be considered as generally
representative of American Protestant homiletical theory

as a whole.

The Epigt o§4Yiew from_flhich Homilgpics and Preaghing are_
Approacheg
(1) In general, the approach to homiletics and preaching
varies among the nineteenth, early twentieth, and mid-
twentieth centuries. In the nineteenth century homiletics
is viewed as a science pertaining to the preparation and
delivery of sermons: and as such, close attention is given
to the minute details of sermon methodology. By most
writers of the nineteenth century, homiletics is conceived
of as rhetoric applied to preaching, and extensive use of
rhetorical insights is made by all the writers.

In the twentieth century preaching is approached
with more of a theological than rhetorical interest. The
early twentieth century theorists are primarily concerned
with a definition of preaching that reflects its task of
meeting the contemporary problems of the time and making

the Christian GOSpel relevant to the thinking of an early

398
scientific age. In this period preaching is viewed more
in the context of the minister's total pastoral task,
and as a part of the act of worship, than it is in the
earlier period. Although nineteenth century writers
alluded to the personal qualifications of the preacher.
twentieth century theory is more concerned with the
preacher as a man intellectually, morally, and spiritually
equipped for his task.

The mid-twentieth century theorists maintain the
theological interest of preadhing, evidenced in the early
twentieth century period, but they add to it a concern for
preaching as communication and have a renewed interest in
the contributions of rhetoric to the task of preaching.
Preaching is considered as an art in the mid-twentieth
century: and as such, is conceived of as a dynamic,
flexible process. Thus the theorists suggest principles
rather than mere detailed rules.

(2) There is general agreement throughout the time

periods that preaching has the function of both instruc-
tion and persuasion. Its task is seen as instructing men
in the Christian truth and persuading them of that truth.

In the mid-nineteenth century, instruction and
persuasion are generally considered to be of equal import:
but in the late nineteenth century the function of per-
suasion is emphasized as being of primary concern. This
concern for the persuasive function of preaching extends

throughout the early twentieth century. Although in the

399

mid-twentieth century period there is a renewed interest

in instruction, persuasion is still considered to be the

more important function. In this period the element of

proclamation is introduced as an important function of

preaching.

(3) There are six major influences that can be isolated

and noted in the history of American homiletics.

(a) Nineteenth century homiletics is influenced by

(b)

(C)

the traditional rhetorical and homiletical theories

of Aristotle, Cicero, Quintilian, Augustine,
Campbell, Blair, Whately, and Vinet and the prevalent
pedagogical theory represented in the writings
of Herbert.

The emphasis of Phillips Brooks upon the
preacher as a person and the place of the per-
sonality in preaching has an important influ-
ence in the late nineteenth century and the
twentieth century.

Early twentieth century homiletics is influ-
enced both by its own reaction against the con-
cern for detail and techniques in the nineteenth
century, and the concern for making Christian-
ity relevant to a radically changing society

of an early scientific age. Both of these
elements are responsible for the subordination
of‘techniques'or the methods of Arrangement in

early twentieth century theory.

400

(d) Mid-twentieth century homiletics is strongly
influenced by the Dewey reflective thinking
process as it was applied to preaching by
Harry Emerson Fosaick.

(e) The impact of Barthian theology is an important
influence on the mid-twentieth century since it
re-emphasized the importance of preaching,
and influenced the definition of preaching,
conceiving of it as the proclamation of the
redemptive act of God in Christ.

(f) Secular speech theory as represented by con-
temporary college and university Speech text-
books made an additional impact on mid-
twentieth century homiletical theory in terns
of the utilization of Speech principles in
preaching theory.

(4) There appears to be little correlation between theo-

logical commitments and theories of preaching, particularly

with regard to conceptions of Arrangement. The most

Significant of theological influences on preaching as a

whole is the influence of Barthian theology and its view

Of the definition and function of preaohing as proclamation.
In terms of the Arrangenent of the sermon, the

only significant theological influence that can be noted

is in relation to the use of the Bible in the sermon.

ThiS. however, has more to do with the Egg of the Bible

than a theological view of the Bible. In the nineteenth

401
century the Biblical text is an important element in the
sermon for in textual and expository preaching it often
provides the basic structure of the sermon and in tepical
preaching it provides the sermon tepic. In this period a
great emphasis is also placed upon the extensive use of the
Bible in the sermon.

The early twentieth century theorists are interested
in applying scriptural principles to the needs of the
hearers, but their use of the Bible has little effect on
Arrangement. In the mid-twentieth century, however, there
is a renewed interest in the use of the Bible in preaching
and this re-emphasis has a potential effect on the Arrange-
ment of the sermon in that the passage is often seen as

providing or indicating the basic structure of the sermon.

The Oveg-all Definition and Interpretation of Arrangement
(1) In relation to previous theories of Arrangement, the
writers included in this study deal most severely with those
theorists who are preoccupied with excessive detail. There
is general consensus in favor of simplicity in sermonic
arrangement.

Whereas the early twentieth century theorists are
generally critical of the amount of attention given to
Arrangement by the nineteenth century writers, the mid-
twentieth century theorists are appreciative of the impor-
tanceassigned to Arrangement, particularly by Broadus and

Phelps of the nineteenth century.

402
(2) There is general agreement throughout the periods
that both a distinction and an interrelationship exist be-
tween the canons of Invention and Arrangement. Invention
is seen as the process of supplying the materials of the
sermon, and Arrangement as the process of ordering and
apportioning those materials into a sermon plan on the
basis of certain prescribed principles. Some writers see
some aSpects of Invention entering Arrangement and thus
add the element of selection to the function of Arrangement
and conceive of it as the process of selecting apprOpriate
materials from the mass of materials invented, and order-
ing, preportioning, and distributing those materials into
a functional pattern of Sermon organization.

These two canons are seen as inter-related in that
Arrangement acts on Invention and depends on, and pre-
supposes, Invention. Invention is viewed as often indicat-
ing the nature of Arrangement and as depending on Arrange-
ment for the effectiveness of the materials it supplies.
The process of Arrangement is also seen to aid in uncover-
ing weaknesses in Invention.

(3) The importance of Arrangement is indicated in two
ways by theorists: (l) in terms of~the amount of atten-
tion devoted to it in setting forth their theory, and (2)
in terms of statanents made regarding its importance.

In the nineteenth century Arrangement is given both

considerable treatment and emphasis by way of explicit

403
statements. In contrast, the early twentieth century
theorists, in general, give little attention to a
treatment of Arrangement although they do comment on its
importance. While there is an increased amount of
attention to both of these elements in the mid-twentieth
century, yet the emphasis of the nineteenth century is
never equalled, particularly in terms of the amount of
treatment given to the subject.

There is general consensus that careful Arrangement
is important in the sermon in that it aids the preacher in
organizing his‘thoughts, gives direction and unity to the
sermon, and aids the hearers in understanding and remember-
ing the sermon. Some writers see ethical implications in
the preacher's attitude toward, and practice of, arranging
sermons in that they believe it indicates his reSpect or
lack of reSpect for the audience.

(4) Throughout the history of American homiletical
theory, matters of Invention and Arrangement are given
precedence over matters of Style and Delivery. Thus
American Protestant homiletical theory can be said to
‘Stand in the classical rhetorical tradition in terms of
its emphasis on matters of Invention and Arrangement as
over against excessive concern with matters of Style and
Delivery. ‘.

(5) There is general agreement among theorists with re-

gard to the over-all plan of the sermon. It is seen to

404

be characterized by the elements of unity, order, prOpor-

tion, movement, and climax. In the twentieth century,

particular consideration is given to the dynamic, flexible

characteristic of the sermon's over-all plan.

(a) The overall plan of the sermon is conceived of

(b)

(c)

as the develepment of the theme or proposition
of the sermon as it is supported, illumined,
or amplified in terms of the senmon's partic-
ular purpose. It involves the distribution,

ordering, and preportioning of the sermon

materials for the accomplishment of desired
ends.

To the nineteenth century writers, the diverse
nature of various audiences is considered to

determine the Arrangement of a particular

sermon in that they note differences in order-

ing materials for ”believing“ and "non-
believing" audiences. There is general agree-
ment among all theorists that the Arrangement
of the sermon should be determined in light of
the common psychological characteristics of all
audiences, and thus there is concern that the
sermon be arranged with psychological as well
as logical considerations.

The type of sermon utilized is seen to have

implications in terms of its Arrangement in

both nineteenth century and mid-twentieth

century theory. In the nineteenth century the

405
structure of the sermon in relation to the

text determines whether the sermon will be
textual, expository, or tepical in type. In

the later period the type of sermon determines
its basic plan, be it a life situational sermon
or one of the many other varieties suggested

in the mid-twentieth century.
(d) There is some indication in mid-twentieth

century theory to support the view that the
sermon purpose determines its basic plan and
that a different type of Arrangement is to be
utilized in a sermon functioning primarily to
inform than in a Sermon functioning primarily

to persuade.

The Parts of thejEermon

(1) There is a recognition by all the theorists of both
the over-all plan of the sermon and the parts of the
sermon. In the nineteenth century the primary emphasis on
Arrangement is in terms of the parts of the semen, where-
as in the twentieth century emphasis is upon the plan of
the whole sermon.

In the nineteenth century the approaCh to Arrange-
ment is generally in terms of a preconceived plan into
which all sermons are placed. This approach is generally
absent, however, in the twentieth century, where a more

flexible and dynamic concept of Arrangement is prevalent.

406

There is greater emphasis on the parts of the
sermon in the mid-twentieth century period than in the.
early period of the twentieth century, but this renewed
emphasis on parts does not equal that found in the nine-
teenth century.

In American Protestant homiletical theory the parts
of the sermon are never seen to exist as separate independ-
ent entities, but are always viewed in relation to one an-
other and to the plan of the sermon as a whole. Neither
is there any concept of the over-all plan of the sermon
existing without any distinct parts functioning within it.
(2) There is basic agreement regarding the number of
parts actually functioning in the sermon. Although the
nineteenth century writers Speak of from three to seven
parts and the twentieth century writers are almost unan-
imous in noting three parts, in practice there is general
agreement. Whereas some earlier theorists delineate Text,
Introduction, Explanation, and Preposition as separate
parts, most writers holding to a three part division see
‘these elenents all functioning in the Introduction.
Similarly, the Divisions and the DeveIOpment, isolated into
separate parts by some writers, are recognized as having
distinct functions but are both placed in the Body of the
‘sermon by other theorists. Generally all of the writers
:see from five to seven parts in the sermon, but the

rnajority choose to discuss them under a three-part scheme

:rather than as separate parts.

407
(3) There is some diversity of Opinion with regard to
the relative importance of the sermon's parts. The
Introduction, however, is generally considered to be the
least important part of the sermon and the Body and Con-
clusion the most important, with most theorists calling

Special attention to the Conclusion of the sermon.

(4) There is general agreement regarding the functions of
the parts of the sermon. The Introduction functions to
arrest the attention of the audience and orient them to
the subject of the sermon. In the Body the subject is
develeped, supported, illumined, or expanded through a
series of points or divisions. The Conclusion functions
to summarize the sermon and apply its message to the lives
of the hearers.

There is also general agreement regarding the
nature of the parts of the sermon. In the twentieth
century, however, variety in the parts is emphasized. The
ideal Introduction is seen to be brief, interesting, and
straight to the point of the sermon. The Body is to be
constructed upon logical and psychological considerations
in terms of the order of its proofs or divisions. The
divisions should be distinct, progress from one another,
ibe proportionate, and be characterized by unity and move-
:nent. No division should be co-extensive with the Subject
«of the senmon. The Conclusion is to be brief, concise,

straightforward, and a logical and psydhological comple-

tion of the sermon.

408

(5) There is little attention to the arrangement of each
part and subpart of the sermon with the exception of the
Body. Generally the Introduction contains (1) the text,
(2) some material conducive to interest, (3) an indication
of the relationship of the text to the subject, (4) a
statement regarding the relevance of the subject at hand
to the audience, and (S) the preposition. There is no
general agreement as to the order of these elements in the
Introduction.

The divisions of the sermon's Body have their
arrangement determined by the text and logical or psycho-

logical considerations in light of the subject, audience,

and sermon purpose.

The Conclusion is generally seen to contain (1) a
summary or recapitulation of the sermon, (2) application of
' thersermon's truths to the hearers, and (3) an indication
of the action to be taken by the hearer, in that order.

While some attention is given by a few theorists
to the subject of transitions, generally this subject is
neglected by most of the writers.

(6) Throughout the history of American Protestant homi-
letical theory, as reflected in the writers studied,
attention is given to the modes of proof as having parti-
CUlar functions in the parts of the sermon. Ethical proof

is often seen to have a particular function in the Intro-

duction, logical proof in the Body, and emotional proof

409
in the Conclusion. There is greater emphasis upon the
special function of the modes of proof, in relation to the

sermon's parts, in nineteenth century theory than in the

twentieth century.

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

PERRY'S LIST OF HOMILETICAL THEORISTS AND THEIR

TRADE AND TEXT BOOKS

In his study of American homiletical education,

Lloyd M. Perry established a list of sixty-eight homi-

letical theorists and their trade or text books. In order

to discover those theorists and books that would be truly

representative of the American homiletical scene, Perry

used the following criteria to determine the eligibility

of the particular books used in his study:

1. The Author

a.

e.

a.

b.

C.

Must have been a Protestant.

Must have been a teacher in the practical
field in an American school.

Must have been born in the United States.
Iust have been listed in the Bibliography
of ”Pulpit Eloquence" by Harry Caplan and
Henry H. King. (Four authors not so
listed have been included: Ferdinand
Schneck, Gerald Jordan, Batsell Baxter,
and Galusha Anderson, on he basis of
research by this author Perrg indicating
that they are fully qualified additions.)
Must have been more than an editor of the
works of others.

Must have been sole author of a work.

Book

Must have been published as a trade or
text book by an American publisher between
the years 1834 — 1954. Limited private
publications not included.

Must have been other than a thesis, Single
sermon, oration, essay, or address on
preaChing.

must have had as its primary emphasis other
than the history and influence of preaching,
the interpretation and presentation of one

411

412

section of scripture, the setting forth of
a series of sermons or seed thoughts, or
the giving of advice pertaining to pastor-
al duties. ,

d. Must be the work of a given author which
demonstrates, in the Opinion of this
writer [Per , his most complete coverage
of the philo ephy, material, and methodology
of homiletics.

e. Must be the first or second American edi-
tion as listed in the Caplan - King
bibliography.

f. Must not be a revision by other than the
original author.1

On the basis of these criteria the following sixty-eight
theorists and their books, in order of publication, are

listed by Perry:

Porter, Ebenezer. Lecturesgog_Homileticgnand Preaching and
pp Public Prayer, 1834.

Skinner, Thomas Harvey. Aids to Reyealing_and Bearing,
1839.

Pond, W. Enoch. Thengung Minister's Guide, 1844.
Ripley, Henry Jones. Sacred Rhetoricé 1849.

Alexander, James Waddel. Thoughts on Preaghing, Being
Contributions to hgmiletics, 1861.

Kidder, Daniel Parrish. A Treatise on Homiletics, 1864.

Shedd, William Greenough Thayer. Homiletics and Pastoral
Theology, 1867.

Pittenger, William. Oratogy, Sacred and Seculag, 1868.

- ‘.-v—-—

1Lloyd Merle Perry, ”Trends and Emphases in the
PhiloSOphy, Materials, and Methodology of American
Protestant Homiletical Education as Established by a Study
of Selected Trade and Text Books Published Between 1834 and
1954," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern

Univer31ty' 1961), pp. 3: 4e

413

Heppin, James Mason. The Office and Work of the Christian_
flinistry, 1869.

Dabney, Robert Lewis. Sacred Rhetoric, 1870.
Townsend, Luther Tracy. Pglpit Rhetoric; 1882.

Broadus, John Albert. A_T£eatise on_the Preparation agg_
Delivegy of Sermons, 1889.

Anderson, Galusha. Notes on Homiletics, 1872.

Fry, Jacob. Elementary Homiletics, 1893.

Pease, Theodore Claudius. The Christiagzministryy 1894.
Phelps, Austin. The Theogy of Preaching, 1894.

Fisk, Franklin Woedbury. A Manual of Preaghigg. 1895.

Hall, Charles Cuthbert. Qualifications for Ministegial
Power, 1895.

Tucker, William Jewett. The Making and the=gpm§kigg_g§
the Preacher, 1898.

Booth, Henry M. The_flan and H;s Messagg‘ 1899.

Jefferson, Charles Edward. Qpiet Hints_to Growing
_Preachers:;n fly Stgdy, 1901.

Schenck, Ferdinand Schureman. Modern Practical Theolo ,
1903.

Iioyt, Arthur Stephen. The Work of Preaching, 1905.
<3raves, Henry C. Eggggresign Homilggigg, 1906.

iKern, John Adam. The Ministgy to the Congregation, 1907.
Ikmore, William Thomas. Preacher ngblemsL 1907.
JOhnson, Herrick, The Ideal Ministry, 1908.

IBreed, David Riddle. Preparingagp Preach, 1911.

-3urredl, David James. The Sermon: Its Construction and
Delivery, 1913.

llrastowg Lewis Orsmond. The Wogk of the Preacher: A Study
of Hgmiletic Principle§:gnd Methods, 1914.

414

Hutchins, William James. The Preacher‘s Idggls and
Inspirations, 1917.

Gardner, Charles, spurgeon. Psychology and Preachigg, 1918.
English, John Mahan. For Pulpit and Platform, 1919.

Brown, Charles Reynolds. The Art of Preaching, 1922.
Tilroe, William Edwin. Sent Perth, 1923.

Vance, James Isaac. Beings Preacher, 1923.

Davis, Ozora Stearns. Principles of Preaching, 1924.

Stidger, William LeRoy. Preaching Out of the_pverflow,
1929.

Phelps, Arthur Stevens, §pea§igg in Public, 1930.

Atkins, Gaius Glenn. Preaching and the Mind of Today,
1934.

Patton, Carl S. The_Preparation and Delivery_of Sermons,
1938. “_—

Sperry, Willard Learoyd. We Prophesy in Part, 1938.

Montgomery, Richmond Ames. Preparing Preachers to Preach,
1939. " "

Robbins, Howard Chandler. Preaching the GosEel, 1939.
Ray, Jefferson Davis. Exposito;y_PreaChing, 1940.

Noyes,r-1organ Phelps. 2563911an the Word of GE, 1943.

Kirkpatrick, Robert White. Creative Delivegy of SermonsI
1947.

ILuccock, Halford Edward. In the.Minister's Werkshog, 1944.

Oxnam, Garfield Bromley. Preaching ig_a Revolutionary Age,
1944. '

Scherer, Paul Ehrman. Egr We Hgve This Tgeasure, 1944.
.Jenes, Bob Jr. How to Improve Your Preaching, 1945.
I<ennedy, Gerald Hamilton. His Word Through Preaching, 1947.

Jalackwood, Andrew watterson. The Preparation of Sermons,
1948.

415
Fritz, John Henry Charles. Egsgntials of Preachingy,1948.
Riley, William Bell. IbggPreacher and His Preaghigg, 1948.
Baughman, Harry Fridley. PreaChing from the Prepers, 1949.
MacLennan, David Alexander. Preacher's Primer: 1950.

Whitesell, Faris Daniel. The Art of_Biblical PregChing.
19 so. ‘

Ferris, Theodore Parker. Go Tell the People, 1951.
Jordan, Gerald Ray. You Can Preach, 1951.

Coffin, Henry Sloane. QQmmunion Th;pugh_Preachingz The
Monstrance of the Gospel, 1953.

Baxter, Batsell Barrett. Speakigggfpr the Master, 1954.
Bowie, Walter Russell. Preachigg, 1954.

Caldwell, Frank Hill. Preaching Angles, 1954.

Garrison, Webb Black. The Preachg; and His Audience, 1954.
Gibson, George M. Planned Preaghlgg, 1954.

Litterin, Frank T. How to Preach the Word yith Variety,
1953.

WeatherSpoon, Jesse Burton. Sent Forth to Preach, 1954.

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B
A SURVEY OF CONTEMPORARY PROFESSORS OF PREACHING
Nature g§_the_ggrvey

In order to determine the most important and
representative homileticians throughout the history of
American Protestant homiletical theory, a survey was con-
ducted among professors of preaching in United States
seminaries affiliated with the American Association of
Theological Schools. A questionnaire composed of a list
of fifty homiletical theorists, distributed throughout
four historical periods in American homiletical history,
was constructed: and the recipients were requested to
select the sixteen theorists whose writings they believed

were most significant, in terms of use and/or influence,

in American homiletical theory.1

The list of homileticians included in the ques-

tionnaire was arrived at as follows:

1The questionnaire was structured so that approx-
imately one-third of the theorists from each historical
period would be selected. Although this particular number
was arbitrarily chosen, it was considered to be restrictive
enough to allow for a detailed study in depth, and yet ex-
tensive enough to allow for valid generalizations regarding
conceptions of Arrangement in American Protestant homi-
letical theory.

417

418

(l) Perry's list, noted in Appendix A, served as
the initial list of homiletical theorists.

(2) Perry‘s list was supplemented, brought up to
date, and eXpanded to include these foreign
born theorists whose primary influence was in
the United States.

(3) This supplemented list was then modified in
terms of the extent to which the theorists
develeped the subject of sermonic Arrangement.

(4) The final list resulted in nine theorists from
the mid-nineteenth century period, ten from
the late nineteenth century, thirteen from

the early twentieth century, and eighteen

from the mid-twentieth century.

The following letter and questionnaire were sent
to 118 professors of preaching in United States seminaries
affiliated with the American Association of Theological

Schools:

I.»
l...)
KO

Eichigan State University
East Lansing, Hichigan
April 30, 1963

Dear Sir:

This letter seeks to enlist your help in a research project
on American Protestant homiletical theory.

I am a Ph.D. student in Speech at Michigan State University
and am currently engaged in the preliminary stages of re-
search for my dissertation. I have the B.A. and M.A. from
Wheaton College, the B.D. from Gordon Divinity School, and
hepe eventually to teach preaching in a theological seminary.
Hy interest in Homiletics, therefore, is more than a passing
one. The dissertation which I have undertaken is entitled
"Conceptions of 'Arrangement' in American Protestant
Homiletical Theory."

I am writing to you and to the other Homiletics and Preach-
ing professors teaching at schools in the American
Association of Theological Schools for help in selecting,
out of the vast number of American homileticians, those
Whose writings are the most significant in American homi-
letical theory.

On the enclosed check list are the names of fifty American
Protestant homileticians. Obviously this list does not
include all those who have contributed to American homi-
letical theory. This list was arrived at by the three
following steps:

(1) A list of sixty-eight Protestant American teachers of
homiletics was compiled by Lloyd M. Perry in his Ph.D.
dissertation at Northwestern University entitled, "Trends
and Emphases in the PhiloSOphy, Materials, and Methodology
of American Protestant Homiletical Education as Established
by a Study of Selected Trade and Text Books Between 1834
and 1954."

(2) Perry's list was supplemented and brought up to date.
(3) This supplemented list was then modified in terms of
the extent to which the various homileticians developed the
subject of Arrangement. The resulting list of homiletical
theorists is enclosed: and it is from this list that I am
asking you to make a judgment as to which, in your epinion,
are the most significant, in terms of use and/or influence
in American homiletical theory.

You will notice that out of the list of names included on the
Check list, I have asked you to check the names of the most
significant one third out of each period. This will give me
sixteen homileticians to analyze in terms of Arrangement. This
particular number was considered to be few enough to allow a
detailed, in-depth study, and extensive enough to allow for
some generalizations with regard to the conceptions of Arrange-
ment held by the most important American homileticians.

I want to express my appreciation to you for your c00peration

in utilizing your knowledge and experience in helping me in
this study. I will send respondents the results of this survey

as soon as it is completed.
Sincerely yours,

420

Out of the following list of homileticians, who wrote about
1830-1870, check the three (3) whose writings you feel to be
most Significant in American homiletical theory:

___Ebenezer Porter ___William G. T. Shedd

___Thomas Harvey Skinner ___William Pittenger

___James Waddel Alexander ___Henry Jones Ripley
Daniel Parrish Kidder James Mason Heppin

Robert Lewis Dabney

Out of the following list of homileticians, who wrote about
1870-1900, check the three (3) whose writings you feel to be
most significant in American homiletical theory:

___John Albert Broadus ___John W. Etter
___Galusha Anderson ___Franklin woodbury Fisk
___George Winfred Hervey ___Jacob Fry

[__QAustin Phelps ___John Adam Kern
___Luther Tracy Townsend ___T. Harweod Pattison

Out of the following list of homileticians, who wrote about
1900-1935, check the four (4) whose writings you feel to be
most significant in American homiletical theory:

 

Charles Edward Jefferson ___Charles Reynolds Brown
___Arthur Stephen Hoyt ___Paul B. Bull

Herrick Johnson ___Ozora Stearns Davis

David Riddle Breed Richard C. H. Lenski

David.James Burrell William LeRoy Stidger
Lewis Orsmond Brastow Gaius Glenn Atkins

Johann Rel

Out of the following list of homileticians, who wrote about
1935-1962, check the six (6)whose writings you feel to be
most significant in American homiletical theory:

William L. Sperry Gerald Ray Jordan
Carl S. Patton W. E. Sangster

Richmond Ames Montgomery ___Batsell Barret Baxter
.alford E. Luccock ___Webb Black Garrison
'aul Ehrman Scherer ___Charles W. Keller
Gerald Hamilton Kennedy ___Roy Pearson
mandrew'w. Blackwood ___Ilion Tingal Jones
Faris Daniel Whitesell ___Robert McCracken
'fheodore Parker Ferris ___Henry Grady Davis

 

what textbook(s) are you curifintly using in the preaching or
homiletics courses in your s 001?

Signed SChOOl __ 1.,

 

471

J

.esults sf t.e Survev

’r

 

Ninety-five of the 118 professors contacted made
some kind of reSponse to the questionnaire, these responses
ranging all the way from refusals to fill out the question-
naire to completed questionnaires. Some reSpondents indicated
that they felt competent to complete only parts of the
questionnaire.

The following results were obtained regarding the

most significant theorists in terms of use and/or influence

in American homiletical theory:1

Hid-Nineteenth Century Homiletics

;g_ Ebenezer Porter ' * 49_William G. T. Shedd
_g_ Thomas Harvey Skinner _§_William Pittenger
lg_ James Waddel Alexander _§_Henry Jones Ripley
* 12_ Daniel Parrish Kidder *pgg_James Mason Hoppin
Late Nineteenth Century Homiletics
* §2_ John Albert Broadus _;_John W. Etter
O Galusha Anderson 4 Franklin Woodbury Fisk
'_3- George Winfred Hervey :§:Jacob Fry
* 56 Austin Phelps _§_John Adam Kern
O Luther Tracy Townsend * §g_T. Harwood Pattison
Early Twentieth Century Homiletics
* 51 Charles Edward Jefferson * §2_Char1es Reynolds Brown
21 Arthur Stephen Hoyt _4_Paul B. Bull
5 Herrick Johnson * §g_Ozora Stearns Davis
213 David Riddle Breed _2_Richard O.H. Lenski
6 David James Burrell 2§_William LeRoy Stidger
23 Lewis Orsmond Brastow * ;; Gaius Glenn Atkins
8 Johann Reu

!

liflie numbers preceding the theorist's names indicate the
numbEr of times the particular theorist was checked. The
a§terisks identify the men from each period who were con-
fa‘ldered to be most significant in American homiletics and
whose theories of Arrangement are studied in this thesis.

..§&

422

Mid-Twentieth Century Homiletics

lg_William L. Sperry _g_Gera1d Ray Jordan
11_Car1 S. Patton §2_W. E. Sangsterl
_Q_Richard Ames Montgomery _§_Batsell Barret Baxter
11_H alford E. Luccock 12_Webb Black Garrison
§l_Paul Ehrman Scherer _§_Charles W. Keller
21_Gerald Hamilton Kennedy 1;_Roy Pearson
63 Andrew W. Bladkwood * §£_Ilion Tingal Jones
uis Daniel Whitesell _2_Robert McCracken

.4
mo.

Theodore Parker Ferris * 1 Henry Grady Davis

Homiletical Text Books Currently Used in
American Protestant Theological Seminaries

Although this aspect of the survey had no direct
bearing on the particular theorists studied in this thesis it
is interesting to note that the following books, in the order
of the extent of their usage, are presently being used most ex-
tensively in preaching or homiletics courses:

38 schools use Davis, Henry Grady. Design for Preaching, 19 58.
20 use Broadus, John A. On the Prep_ration and Delivery of
Sermons 1870, and subsequent revisions.
17 use Jones, Ilion T. Principlesygpd_Practices.gf‘Preachigg,
1956.
12 use Blackwood, Andrew W. ePreparation of Sermgns, 1948.
9 use Sangster, William E. The Craft of Sermon Construction,
1951.
9 use Luccock, Halford E. In the_yinister's workshoE, 1944.
7 use Forsyth, P.T. Po§;tivngrgaching and the Mogern Mind,
1907.

7 use Miller, Donald. The Way to Biblical Preaching, 1957.

7 use Stewart, James. Heralds offiGod, 194 .
Forty additional books were also listed as being used as text
books in the preaChing or homiletics courses in the seminaries

 

contacted.

_“

—__ ;
_—

1Although the fact that W. E. Sangster was an Englishman
was well known to this writer, his name was included in the str-
vey because of his influence in this country, an influence clear-
ly indicated by the reSponse to him in the survey, and because of
the fact that his writings on homiletics are published in the
United States. In the course of the survey, however, many of
the professors who were contacted questioned the inclusion of
Sangster's name in a list of American homiletical theorists,
even though his influence in this country has been extensive.
Since Sangster's career as a teacher was almost exclusively
limited to Great Britain, and since the purpose of the survey
was to determine the most significant Amerigag homiletical theo-
rists, he was not included in the final list of theorists to be
studied in this thesis.

 

BIBL

3 13L IO GRAPHY

Bgoks and Articles on Homiletics and Preaching

_.

Alexander, James Waddel. Thought§_on Preaching, Being Con-
tributions to Homiletics, New York: Charles
Scribner. 1861.

 

Abernathy, Elton. "Trends in American Homiletic Theory

Since 1860," Speech Monographs. X (August, 1943), 234-5.
Anderson, Galusha. Ngtes on Homiletics. Boston: Rockwell

and Churchill, Printers, 1872.

Atkins, Gaius Glenn. Preaching and the Mind ofgggday.
New York: Round Table Press, Inc., 1934.

flash, Otto J. Pgoohetic Preaching. Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1958.

Baughman, Harry Fridley. Preachipg_from the Prepers.
Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1949.

Baxter, Batsell Barrett. §peakigg fgr thetgagter. New York:
The MacMillan Co., 1954.

 

Beecher, Henry Ward. ‘Yale Lectures on Preaching. Boston:
The Pilgrim Press, 1874.

Behrends, A.J.F. The Philosgphy of Prgaching. New York:
iCharleS Scribner's Sons, 1890.

Blackwood, Andrew W. Doctrinal Preachigg For Today.
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1956.

. Expository_Preachipg For Today. New York:
Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1953.

 

. The Fine Art of Preaching. New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1937.

 

. Preaching in Time of Reconstruction. New York:
The Pulpit Press, 1947.

 

. Planning a Year's Pulpit werk. New York:
Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1942.

 

424

 

425

 

Andrew W. Preaching From Prpphetic Books. New
“fiYork: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1951.

 

. Preaching_From_the Bible. New York: Abingdon-
Cokesbury Press, 1941.

. Preaching From_ Samuel.
bury Press, 1946.

 

New York: Abingdon-Cokes~

 

_p, . The Eggparation of Sermghg. New York and
Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1948.

Blocker, Simon. The Secret of Pulpit Power Through Theoreti:

Chrigtian Preaching. Grand Rapids: W.E. Eerdmans
Publishing Company, 1951.

Booth, Henry M. The Man and His Message.

*_ New York:
Fleming H. Revell Co., 1899.

Bowie, Walter Russell. PreachingL Nashville: Abingdon
Press, 1954.
drastow, Lewis Orsmond. The Work of Preachers: A Study of

Homiletic Principles and Methods. Boston, New York:
Pilgrim Press, 1914.

.Breed, David Riddle. P;eparing_to Preach. New York: George
H. Doran Co., 1911.

Ilnoadus, John Albert. A Treatisg_pn phe Prpparation and

Delivery of Sermons: Newaork: A.C: Armstfong—and
Son. 1870.

Brtxnts, Phillips. Lectures on Preaching. New York: E.P.
Dulton & Co. 1877.

Brenna, Charles Reynolds. The Art of_Pr§gchingl_ New York:
MacMillan Co., 1922.

Bull, Paul B. Preaching the Sermon Constructioh. New York:
The Macmillan Co., 1922.

Burrell, David James. The Sermon: Its Construction and

 

 

Delivegy. New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1§13o
Caernmerer, Richa d R. free-“Hr“ f:r the Chur____ch.

St. Louis : Concordia Publishing House.“ 1959.
Caldwell,

Frank H111 P*a - Jn ‘es N
' -..‘.‘,.;' . .' _;‘,;“- 7 A as} V

\-

"‘ Q’

426

Campbell, Gear 9. :ET‘UFQP"TQ_;HLP g nce. London:
M C‘

.pus, iJ a. :gate Street, 182

Caplan, Harry & King, Henry H. “Pulpit Eloquence," Speech
N:nographj; Vol. XXII, No. 4 (Special Issue, 1955).

Claude, John. hhw Es ssay o _hhg Cempppition of a Spgmon,
Edited by Char ‘

1
Carlton a Porte , 1779

I

Coffin, Henry Sloane. Communion Through Preadhing: The
Menstrance of the GoSpel. New York: Charles”
Scribner' S Sons, 1953.

Dabney, Robert Lewis. Sacred Rhetoric: Lectures on
Preaching. New York: Anson D. F. Randolph—and
Company, 1866.

 

 

 

Jargon, Edwin Charles. A Histopy of Preaching. New Yorx:
A.C. Armstrong & Son, 1906.

. The Art of Preaching in the Light of its Hist
New York: George H. Doran Company, 1922.

 

Davis, Henry Grady. Design for Preaching. Philadelphia:
Muhlenberg Press, 1958.

Davis, Ozora Stearns. Principles of Preaching: a Textbenh
Based on the Inductionfihethod for Class; Use and

Private Studyl Chicago: University of Chicago“"
Press, 1924.

. Pgeaching_by Laymen. New York: Fleming H.
Revell Company, 1923.

 

 

. Using the Bible in Pub1;S_Addre§§. New York:
Association Press, 1916.

 

English, John Mahan. ForiPulpit and Platform: A Handbooh
on Preparagigh. New York: The Macmillan Company,
1919.

 

Etter, J. w. The Preacher and Hi? Sermon. Dayton, Ohio:
United Brethern Publishing House, 1883.

Fenelon, Francois. "Dialogue on the Eloquence of the
Pulpit," Young Preacher's Manual. Edited by
Ebenezer Porter. Boston: Charles Ewer, 1819.

427

Ferris, Theodore Parker. §g_Tell the PeoEIe. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951.

Fisk, Franklin Woodbury. §_Manual of Preaching: Lectures on
Homiletics. New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son,
1884.

 

Forsyth, Peter T. Positive Preaching and the Modern Mind.
New York: Armstrong & Son, 1907.

Fritz, John Henry Charles. Essentials of Preaching: g
Refresher Course in Homiletics for Pastors.
st. Louis: Concordia Publishing Co., 1948.

 

Fry, Jacob. Elementary Homiletics: or, Rules and Princinleg
in the Preparation and Preachigg of Sermons.
Reading, Pa.: Henry H. Bieber, Printer, 1893.

Gardner, Charles Spurgeon. Psychglogy and Preaching.
New York: MacMillan Co., 1918.

Garrison, Webb Black. The Preacher and H;§vAudience.
Westwood, N.J.: Fleming H. Revell, 1954.

Gibson, George M. Planned Preaching; Philadelphia: The
Westminster Press, 1954.

Sraves, Henry C. gectures_on Homiletics. Philadelphia:
American Baotist Publishing Society, 1906.

Hall, Charles Cuthbert. Qualifications for Ministerial
Power. Hartford, Conn.: Hartford Seminary Press,

1595.

fiance, Kenneth G. "The Elements of the Rhetorical Theory
of Phillips Brooks,“ §peech Monggraphsi V (1938), 16-39.

Herney, George Winfred. A éystem of Christian Rhetoric
for the Use‘of Preaghers and cher EpeakersL
new York: Harper & Brothers, 1873.

 

ffl

0

Spin, James Mason. The_pffice and Work of the Christian
Hinistrv. New York: Sheldon and Co., 1869.

 

Homiletics. New York: Dodd & Mead Company, 1881.

-¥ 0

Koyt' Arthur Steohen. The Work of Preaching: A_Book for
the Classroom and Stugy. MacMillan Co., 1905.

Hlit-Chins, William James. The Proagher's Ideals and
Inspirations. New‘York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1917.

 

 

428

C4

efferson, Charles Edward. The_§uilding of the Church.
New York: Macmillan and Company, 1910.

. The Minister_as Prophet. New York: Crowell &
Company, 1905.

 

. The Minister as Sheoherd.New York: Crowell & Company,

 

. Qgiet Hints to Growing_Preachers in my SEEfiZ.
New York: Crowell & Co., 1901.

 

Johnson, Herrick. The Ideal Ministry. New York: Fleming H.
Revell Co., 1908.

Jones, Bob, Jr. How To Imgrove Your Preaching. New York:
Fleming H. Revell, 1943.

Jones, Ilion Tingal. Principles and Practices of Preaching.
New York: Abingdon Press, 1956.

 

Jordan, Gerald Ray. You Can Preagh. Westwood, New Jersey:
Felming H. Revell, 1951.

Kennedy, Gerald Hamilton. His Bord Throughfigreaching. How
York: Harper and Bros. 1947.

Kern, John Adam. The Ministry to the Congregation:
Lectures on_Homiletics. New York: Jennings and

Kidder, Daniel Parrish. érTreatise on Homiletics: Designed
to Illustrate the Theorv and Practice of Preaching
the GOSpel. New York: Carlton and Porter, 1864.

 

Kirkpatrick, Robert White. Creative Delivery of Sermons.
New York: HacMillan Co., 1944.

Lenski, R. C. H. The Sermon, Its Homiletical Construction.

fi__~_

Columbus: The Lutheran Book Concern, 1927.

Littorin, Frank T. How To Preach the word_With Varietv.
Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953.

Luccock, Halford E. Communicating the Gospel. New York:
Harper & Brothers, 1954.

. In the Minister's Workshop. Nashville, Tenn.:
Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1944.

 

 

MadLennan, David Alexander. Preacher's Primer. New York:
Oxford Press, 1950.

 

" ' an: new.”

429

NcCracken, Robert J. The Makingfiof the _Sermon. New York:
Harper and Brothers, 1956.

Miller, Donald G. Fire in Thy Mouth. New York: Abingdon
Press, 1954.

. The Way to Biblical _Preaching. Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 1957.

 

Montgomery, Richmond Ames. Preparing Preachers to Preach.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1939.

Moore, William Thomas. Preacher Problems: or, the
Tyeggieth Century Preacher. New York and Chicago:
Fleming H. Revell Co., 1907.

Noyes, Morgan Phelps. BEeaching the word of God; New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1943.

Oxnam, Garfield Bromley. Preaching in a _Revolutionary Age.
New York: Abingdon Press, 1944.

Pattison, T. Harwood. The Making of the SermonL
Philadelphia: The American Baptist Publication
Society, 1898.

Patton, Carl S. The Preparation and Delivery of Sermons.
New York: Willett, Clark and Co., 1938.

Pease, Theodore Claudius. The_Christian Ministry: its
Present Claim and Attractiony_and Other Writings.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1894.

Phelps, Arthur Stevens. Speakinggin Public. New'Yon<:
Richard R. Smith, Inc., 1930.

Phelps, Austin. The Theory of Preachigg. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1881.

_ . Men & Books or Studies in Homiletics. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons,—1882.

Eflirtenger, William. Oratory, Sacred and Secular: or, the
Extempgraneous Speaker. New York: Samuel R. Wells.

1868.

Pknud, w. Enoch. The Young;Minister' s Guide. Bangor, Maine:
E. F. Duren, 1844.

Porter, Ebenezer. Lectures on Homiletics and Preaching
and on Public Prayer. Andover and New York:
Flagg, Gould and Newman, 1834.

430

Ray, Jefferson Davis. Expositorngreachigg. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1940.

 

Reu, Johann. Homiletics. Chicago: Wartburg Publishing
Company, 1922.

Riley, William Bell. The Preacher and His PreaChigg.
Wheaton, 111., Sword of the Lord Pub., 1948.

Ripley, Henry Jones. Sacred Rhetoric: orLfiCgmposition 9f
Sermons; Boston: Gould, Kendall and Lincoln,

1849.

 

Robbins, Howard Chandler. Preaching the GOSpel. New Yofi<z
Harper and Brothers Pub., 1939.

Sangster, William E. The Approach to Preaching.
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1952.

u_. The Craft of _Sermon Construction. Philadelphia:
Westminster Press, 1951.

Schenck, Ferdinand Schureman. Modern Practical Theology:
a Manual of HomileticsL_L;3urgics, PoimenicsJ
ArchagicsL_Pedagogy, Sociology and the English
Bible. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1903.

 

Scherer, Paul Ehrman. For We Have This Treasure. New York:
Harper and Bros., 1944.

Shedd, William Greenough Thayer. Homiletics and Pastoral
Theolggv. New York: Charles Scribner and Company,

1867.

:fltinner, Thomas Harvey. Aids to Revealing and Hearing.
J. S. Taylor, New York, 1839.

Sperry; Mallard Learoyd. We Proghesy in Part: a Re-
examination of the Liberty o§_Pr0phesying. New York:
Harper and Brothers Pub., 1938.

Stewart, James S. Heralds of God. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1946.

Stidger; Palliam L. Building_Sermons with Symphonic Themes.
New York: George Doran Company, 1926.

—e . PreachinggOut_ of the Overflow. Nashville, Tm nn.:
Cokesbury Press, 1929.

TilIINB. William Edwin. Sent Forthi' New York: Abingdon
Press, 1923.

431

Townsend, Luther Tracy. Pulpit Rhetoric. New York:
Chautauqua Press: Boston: rranklin Press, 1882.

l‘Ucker, William Jewett. £29 Making_and_the Unmakigg of the
Preacher. Boston and New York: Houghton Nifflin Co.
1898.

Vance, James Isaac. Being a Preacher: a Study_pf the Claims
of Ehe Christian Ministryr New York: Fleming H.
Revell Co., 1923.

'finet, Adolphe. Hgmiletics. Translated by Thomas Skinner,
New York: Ivison and Phinney, 1855.

 

WeatherSpoon, Jesse Burton. Sent Forth to Preach. New
York: Harper and Bros., 1954.

Whitesell, Paris Daniel. The Art of Biblical Preaching.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1950

Hooks_and Articles on Rhetorical Theory

Adams, John Quincy. EECtures onfiRhetoric & Oratory.
2 Vols. Cambridge: Hilliard & Metcalf, 1810.

 

‘-istotle. Rhetoric Translated by Lane Cooper. New thkz
Appl eton-C entury-Crofts, Inc., 1932.

 

z.;3istine. ”On Christian Doctrine. “ A S lect ibrarv g;
the :Jicen-e and rest-~ic‘ne : her 3 of the Chri 1??
Churc1. Slited by Philip Schaff. New York:

Charles Scribner' 5 Sons, 1907.

 

 

 

 

livin, Charles. ;. Ancient Rhetoric and Poetic.
Gloucester, has: eter Smith, 1959.

oetic. Gloucester, Kai .

 

. ”air, Hugh. Leetures on Rhetoric Q Belles Lettrgs.
London: J.E. Dore, St. John's Square, 1823.

Valley, aert. ” John Ward's Concept of Dispositio,"
Speech Ionanraphr XVIII (March, 19517. 258-263.

 

 

‘vball. Peer e. Philosophy of Rhetoric. Philadelphia:
n l, Ames, & White, 1818.

'1"?ro. re Inventione. Translated by H. m. Hubbell.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1952.

 

432

. 23_Cratore. Translated by E. w. Sutton & H.
Rackham. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1952.

 

__. pe Partiticne Oratoria. Translated by H. Rackham.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1952.

 

__. Orator. Translated by H. M. Hubbell. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1952.

 

Dav, Henry N. The Art_of Discourse. New York: Ivison,
Blakeman, Taylor and Co., 1867.

gdney, Clarence w; Blair‘s Theory of "Diegositio,"
Speech MonOQraphs, XXIII (march, 1956), 38—45.

. "Richard Whatelv on Disnositio," Sgeedh
Monogranhs, XXI (August, 1854), 227-254.

 

Senung, John F. fiandbook on Rhetorical Analysis.
Boston: Ginn 5 Co., 1888.

 

. Outlines of Rhetoric. Boston: Ginn & Co., 1893.

. The_gractica1 Elements of Rhetoric. Boston:
Ginn & Co., 1886.

 

Irwin, Ramon L. "The Classical Speech Divisions,"
QuarterlyAJournal of Sgeech, XXV (April, 1939), 212-213,

Ouintilian. The Institutio Oratoria. Translated by H. E.
Butler. 4 Vols. London: William Heinemann, 1927.

Theremin, Francis. Eloquence a Virtue or Outlines of aw
Systematic Rhetoric. Translated by William G.T.
Shedd, Boston: Draper & Halliday, 1872.

Thonssen, Lester, and Baird, A. Craig. égeech Criticism.
New York: Ronald Press Co., 1948.

Wagner, Russell. "The Meaning of Dispositio,"
Studies in Honor of Alexander M. Drummond. Ithaca,

New York: Cornell University Press, 1944.

‘Whately, Richard. Elementsgof_gogic. London: John w.
Parker & Sons, West Strand, 1857.

___ . Elements of Rhetoric. New York: Sheldon & Co.,
1917.

 

433

MiscellaneousfiMaterials

“Atkins, Gaius Glenn,” Who's Who in America, 1952-53.
Vol. 27. Chicago: A. N. Marquis Company, 1952.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Vol. I. Edited by G. w.
Thompson & Harold Knight. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1956.

"Blackwood, Andrew Watterson," Who's Who in AmericaLgl962-
fig. Vol. 31. Chicago: The A.N. Marquis Company,
1962.

Brooks, John A. Sermgnsfiand Addresses. Philadelphia:
American Baptist Publication Society, 1901.

”Brown, Charles Reynolds,” Whole Who_in New England.
Vol. 4, Chicago: The A.N. Marquis Company, 1949.

“Davis, Ozora Stearns,“ Who Was Who in America, 1897-1942.
Vol. 1, Chicago: The A.N. Marquis Company, 1943.

Dewey, John. How We Think. Boston: D.C. Heath & Company,
1910.

Herbart, Johann Friedrich. The Science of Education.
Translated by Henry M. and Emmie Felkin. London:
Swan Sonnerschein & Co., Ltd., 1897.

"HOppin, James Mason,“ Appleton's Cy310pedia of American
Biography. Vol. III. Edited by James Grant Wilson
& John Fisk. New York: D. Appleton and Company,
1887.

"Hoppin, James Mason," Dictionary of American Biography.
Vol. IX, Edited by Dumas Malone. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1932.

"Jones, Ilion Tingal," Who's Who in America, 1953-54.
Vol. 28. Chicago: A.N. Marquis Company, 1953.

I<elly, Robert L. TheologicalZEducation in America. New
York: George H. Doran, 1924.

IKennedy, Gerald. While I'm 9n MyFeet. New York &
Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1963.

'1<ennedy, Gerald Hamilton," Who:§;Who in America, 1964-65.
Vol. 33. Chicago: The A.N. Marquis Company, 1964.

 

434

"Kidder, Daniel Parrish," Dictionary of American Biography.
Vol. X. Edited by Dumas Malone. New York: Charles

Scribner's Sons, 1933.

 

"Luccock, Halford Edward," Who's Who in AmericaLil952-53.
Vol. 27, Chicago: The A.N. Marquis Company, 1952.

"Luccock, Halford Edward," Who's Who in Newjpglandgl949.
Vol. 4. Chicago: The A.N. Marquis Company, 1949.

Morrison, Charles Clayton, ed. The American Pulpit.
New York: The Macmillan Company, 1925.

"Pattison, T. Harwood, “ Who Was Who in America; 1897-1942.
Vol. I. Chicago: The A. N. Marquis Company, 1943.

"Phelps, Austin,“ Applet on' s Cyclonedia of American
Biography. Vol. IV. Edited by James Grant Wilson &
John Fisk. New York: D. Appleton & Company, 1888.

 

Robertson, Albert T. Life and Letters of John A Broadus.
Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society,

1910.

Rochester Theological Seminary Bulletin. Seventy-fifth
Anniversary Volume, (May, 1925).

”Scherer, Paul Ehrman," Who' 5 Who in America 1964-1965.
Vol. 33. Chicago: The A. N. Marquis Company, 1964.

"Shedd, William Greenough Thayer,“ Appleton‘s Cyclopedia
of American Bi iograph . Vol. V. Edited by James
Grant Wilson and? John Fisk. New York: D. Appleton

& Company, 1888.

“Shedd, William Greenough Thayer,“ Dictionary of American

Biography. Vol. XVII. Edited by Dumas Malone.
New York: Charles Scribner' 5 Sons, 1935.

Uppu blished Materials

«Abernathy, Elton. ”An Analysis of Trends in American
Homiletic Theory Since 1860.“ Unpublished Ph. D.
dissertation, State University of Iowa, 1940.

Barton, Fred Jackson. “The Contribution of Selected werks
in American Homiletics from 1860-1880 to the Theory
of Extempore Speaking." Unpublished M.A. thesis,
State University of Iowa, 1929.

 

435

Waxter, Batsell Barrett. “An Analysis of the Basic
Elements of Persuasion in the Yale Lectures on
Preaching." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University or southern California, 1943.

Carrino, Elnora Madonna Drafahl. “Conceptions of
Dispositio in Ancient Rhetoric." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1959.

Casteel, John. "Conceptions of Preadhing in the Lyman
Beecher Lectures, 1872—1941." Unpublished Eh.;;
dissertation, Northwestern University, 1942.

Jofiougeat, William Robert. "Modern Conceptions of
Invention and DiSposition.“ Unpublished M.A.
thesis, Cornell University, 1950.

arty, Florence. "Changing Concepts of Speech Skill from
1870-1942." Unpublished M.A. thesis, University
of Wisconsin, 1943. -

Hewlett, Marylin WeSper. "An Analysis of Theories of
Speech Arrangement as DevelOped by Selected
Ancient Rhetoricians." Unpublished M.A. thesis,
State University of Iowa, 1947.

aiggins, Howard Hubert. "A Critical Study of Selected
Books on Preaching Published in the United States
Before 1861.“ Unpublished M.A. thesis, State
University of Iowa, 1927:

Huber, Paul. ”A Study of the Rhetorical Theories of John
A. Broadus." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Michigan, 1955.

Irwin, Ramon Lawrence. ”A Survey of Principles of Dis-
position in Speech Making.” Unpublished M.A.
thesis, Cornell University, 1937.

Lambertson, Floyd W. “Survey and Analysis of American
Homiletics Prior to 1860." Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, State University of Iowa, 1930.

.McGladry, L.D. ”The Changing Standards of Preaching as
Revealed.in the Lyman Beecher Lectures on Preaching
from 1922-1935." Unpublished M.A. thesis,
University of Minnesota, 1936.

Ferry, Lloyd Merle. "Trends and Emphases in the Philosoyhy,
Materials, and Methodology of American Protestant
Homiletical Education as Established by a Study of

 

436

Selected Trade and Text Books Published Between
1834 and 1954.“ Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Northwestern University, 1961.

Pollack, Wallace Stanley. ”The Rhetorical Theory of
William G. T. Shedd.“ Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Northwestern University, 1962.

Posz, Albert Conrad. "A Critical Analysis of the Theory
of Arrangenent in Selected American Textbooks on
Public Speaking Since 1900." Unpublished M.A.
thesis, State University of Iowa, 1946.

. .. I

uk- :-4-. .I-‘\ ‘

Rudin, John Jesse II. "The Concept of Ethos in Late
American Preaching." Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Northwestern University, 1952.

‘IC
v
..
D

Sleeth, Ronald. “The Rhetorical Theories of Charles
Edward Jefferson.“ Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Northwestern University, 1952.

Speckeen, FrederiCk J. "A Rhetorical Study of the
Preaching of Charles Edward Jefferson.“ Un-
published Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1961.

Todd, Hollis Bailey. "John A. Broadus' Theory and Practice
of Speech Arrangement.“ Unpublished M.A. thesis,
Louisiana State University, 1949.

Yarbrough, Robert Clyde. "The Homiletical Theory and
Practice of Ebenezer Porter.“ Unpublished Ph.D.
Dissertation, State University of Iowa, 1942.

ILetter from H. Grady Davis dated May 22, 1964.

:Letter from Ilion T. Jones dated May 11, 1964.

:Letter from Theodore L. Trost dated April 21, 1964.