HITZE, FRANZ: German Roman Catholic; b. at
Hannemicke, Westphalia, Mar. 16, ,1851. He
studied at Wilrzburg 1872-78, and then was chap
lain of the German Campo Santo at Rome for two
years. He was then appointed secretary of the
Roman Catholic society
Gladbach, and two years later was elected to the
Landtag, going to the Reichstag in 1904. In 1893
he was appointed associate professor of Christian
sociology at Munster, where he was promoted to
his present position of full professor of the same
subject in 1904. He has written:
Frage and die Beatrebungen zu ihrer Uaung
%apital and Arbeit and die Reorgani
sation der Gesellsehaft
Pflichten and Aufgaben der
mungen des Gesetzes betreffend die Invaliditf- and
HITZIG, hit'siH, FERDINAND: German exegete
and Old Testament critic; b. near L6rrach (28 m.
s.s.w. of Freiburg), Baden, June 23, 1807; d. at
Heidelberg Jan. 22, 1875. He studied theology at
Heidelberg, Halle, and GBttingen, and became
privet-docent at Heidelberg in 1829. He first at-
of the congregation requires that in the sermon
the communion with God as established by
him be represented, and, after that, the attitude of
the congregation toward him as conditioned by that
relationship. In this sense the sermon, like Christian
worship in general, may be regarded as an expository
activity. Schleiermacher distinguishes between
an expository and an effective activity; but it is
impossible to exclude from the former the idea of
effective purpose. A homiletics which admits the
means of grace to be real powers of salvation can not
refrain from putting the sermon into the category
of effective activity. Thus the question is raised
in what the effect of the sermon should consist.
It has been shown that instruction is not simply
and solely the purpose of the sermon. But it must
be admitted that lack of knowledge is a prominent
and pervading defect of personal Christianity, to
remove which instruction is the only means, and
this is accomplished most effectively in preaching.
Moreover, the congregation has the promise that the
Spirit of truth will guide it into all truth (John xvi.
13). Homiletics must therefore find a designation
which does not exclude instruction. A comprehensive
designation offers itself in the word "to edify,"
which leaves room for instruction (I Cor. xiv. 4).
This indication of purpose was not unknown to the
older church, and has been correctly explained in
Mosheim's Anweisung erbaulich zu predigen
§ 2 (Erlangen, 1771): The hearers are (1) to be
confirmed in the knowledge of religion which they
have already obtained, and this is to be extended;
(2) to be awakened and exhorted to diligence and
growth in godliness. This confirmation takes place
through the exposition of Christian truth, which has
edifying power through the testimony of the Holy
Spirit. As a means of accomplishing this it is
evident that, above all, the subject-matter of the
sermon must be edifying. Thus Hyperius requires
that that should be preached which concerns faith,
love, and hope. To faith belong all those religious
subjects which are contained in the Apostles' Creed.
To love belong the doctrine of morals, the decalogue,
especially the second table, the doctrine of the
Church and of the sacraments. To hope belongs the
doctrine of the last things. Hyperius, like other
writers on homiletics, thus arrives at the catechism,
guided by the correct idea that that should be
preached which corresponds to the religious needs
of the congregation. But even though the subject-matter
be properly chosen, this does not guarantee that the
sermon is capable of edifying. The subject-matter
becomes edifying or unedifying according
to its treatment by the preacher. It was rationalism
which made the subject-matter responsible for
edification through the sermon, and as rationalism
discarded catechetics, it excluded from the sermon
the very matters upon which earlier times had laid
stress. Recent writers on homiletics again tend
toward the opposite extreme by trying to eliminate
from the sermon almost all social, economical, and
merely philosophical questions. But all such subjects
have a religious side, and are therefore subject
to sermonic treatment. Theoretical homiletics must
insist upon the fact that there is nothing which
a priori may be excluded from the sermon as
unedifying. Edification lies not in the quality of the
subject-matter, but in the quality of the sermon;
hence the doctrine of the edification of the sermon
must be distributed over both material and formal
4. Relation of the Sermon to Scripture and the Creeds.
But there are other problems which theoretical
homiletics must try to solve. The congregation
possesses in Holy Scripture an authoritative
norm, inasmuch as the Spirit of
God acts in it and through it. What,
therefore, is the connection between
sermon and Scripture? All theologians
agree that the authority of Scripture
is higher than that of the sermon, but
a question which arises is whether the
sermon is superfluous if Scripture is all-sufficient.
The answer must be that the Bible, without detriment to its authority, belongs to the past, though
destined for all times, while the sermon is a testimony
from the present life of the congregation and
in its immediate object applies only to the present.
This testimony must agree with Scripture, but must
have an independent form, corresponding to modern
needs. Therefore the sermon is necessary alongside
of Scripture. Theoretical homiletics also asks how
far the preacher is bound to the confession of his
Church. Protestant Church commmuties have in
the past provided for their preachers certain norms
of doctrine in which the sum total of Christian
doctrine is expressed. These church communities
were not contented merely to unite against the
Catholic Church and to decide not to have anything
in common with fanatics. They felt bound to explain
why they dissented, to give to their better
knowledge a definite positive expression, and this
not merely from reasons of church polity, but because
of pastoral interest in their own congregations. This
is the deeper reason why preachers were always
bound to teach according to such doctrinal standards.
Homiletics may not surrender this obligation.
It must admit, however, that not everything
in the different confessional writings is to be regarded
as an integrating constituent of the confession.
But this concession does not involve the
possibility that the Evangelical confessions will
some time be abolished; for homiletics rests upon
the presupposition that it is one and the same spirit,
the spirit of Jesus Christ, who speaks in Scripture
and leads his disciples to the knowledge of truth.
From this it is self-evident that the preacher is to be
personally devoted to the faith and confession of
his Church. It would be too little simply to keep
within the limits of the confession without personal
fidelity to it, although the effect of the sermon
does not depend upon the personal attitude
of the preacher to that which he preaches.
5. Subject and Basis of the Sermon.
From these fundamental conceptions concerning
the nature and purpose of the sermon in general,
homiletics passes to the treatment of
the quality of the individual sermon,
i.e., material and formal homiletics.
Since edification is the purpose of the
sermon, while the possibility of edification
through the individual sermon is
dependent upon its quality, the first question is,
What can homiletics teach in regard to the subject
361 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
imp, ib. 1884; H. Bassermann,
1885; A. Stole, Honiletik, Frei
burg, 1885; J. A. BroaAus, Preparation and Delivery
Sermons, New York, 1888 (Professor Broadue earned a
wide reputation for his .kill in this branch); J. W. Etter,
Sermon, Dayton, O., 1888; C.
Palmer, Evanpelische Homiletik, Stuttgart, 1887; A. J. F.
Preaching, New York, 1890;
A. T. Pierson, The Divine Art
Preaching, ib. 1892; T.
1893; R. F. Horton, Ve
bum Doi, Londop, 1893; W. B. Carpenter, Lectures on
Preaching, London, 1895; J. Jungmann, Theorie der paiat
lichen Beredamkeit, 2 vole., Freiburg, 1895; J. stalker,
and his Models, London,
1895; 1. Stoek
meyer, Homil6tik, Basel, 1895ˇ Phillips Brooks, Lectures
on Preaching, New York, 1898; H. Van Dyke, Gospel for
Doubt, ib. 1898; J. A. Kern, Ministry to the
Congregation, ib. 1897; T. H. Pattison, The Making
Sermon,, Philadelphia, 1898; H. Hering, Die Lehre ton
der Predipt, 2 vole., Berlin, 1897-1904; J. S. Kennard,
Psychic Power in Preaching, Philadelphia, 1901; F. Bar
ton, Pulpit Power and Eloquence, 2 vole., Cleveland, 1901
1902; T. H: Pattison, Hist.
Christian Preaching, Philadel
phia, 1903; W. J. Fosell, The Sermon and Preaching, New
York, 1904; J. J. A. Proudfoot, Systematic Homiletics,
1904; A. S. Hoyt, The Work
Preaching, ib. 19M;
L. O. Brastow, The
ib. 1908; A. E. Garvie,
A Guide to
London, 19118; H. C. Graves, Lcoˇ
lures on Homiletics, Philadelphia, 1908; W. Rhodes,
Homiletics and Preaching, Baltimore, 1908; P. T. Forsyth.
Positive Mind, New York, 1907;
S. Horne, The
the Modern Church, London,
1904; P. Kleinert, Homildik, Leipsio 1907; H. Johnson,
York, 1908; C. R. Brown, The
Pulpit, London, 1908.
For further literature see under PabACrr?Na, Harroa: or.