that which makes men happy or unhappy; he feels the one, as a joy touching himself, the other, as personal pain. This feeling is not inactive in him, it has a practical nature. Without this easily awakened feeling, Massillon would never have been able to gain that deep knowledge of the human heart and life, which distinguishes him. The cold observer never penetrates very deep; the selfish man sees that which can bring advantage, all else remains concealed; to the scorner true forms must appear as caricatures; only love to men, only zeal for their welfare sharpens the sight in their observation, guards from onesidedness, keeps the eye undimmed, and is able even to supply the perceptions, which are wanting, by a correct presentiment. With these qualities, we might expect that Massillon would have broken through the common forms of pulpit eloquence, and sought to pave a new way for himself in proclaiming the Divine word. How could he have hoped by the representation of a duty, and the general motives for conforming to it, to produce a deep impression? His knowledge of the human heart betrayed to him the hindrances which oppose the fulfilling of a duty, whose obligation one acknowledges; he fixes his eye upon these hindrances, and seeks to overcome them; he struggles with the hearer, and in this bears some resemblance to Demosthenes; and where is there a noble and fit development of eloquence, that does not remind us of the Demosthenian., To another form, which he has so often and with so great skill applied, he must almost necessarily have been led by his peculiarity. The human heart and life stood clear before him; he had looked through all their depths; he had observed so many men in their most important moments, those of suffering and death; and with his deep and lively feeling, the most joyful, but oftener still the most painful impressions had remained to him; he could paint with a pencil dipped in the glow of his own heart. Not less excellent than in description, does Massillon appear, when he presses upon the wavering hearer, with ever new arguments for repentance and conversion. And for this immediate address, which, as it appears to us, is also one of the most beautiful characteristics of the eloquence of Chrysostom, Massillon was fitted by his deep knowledge of man and his glowing zeal. It follows from what has been said, that that which is commonly cailed wealth of thought, that is, a cumulation of such thoughts as address the understanding more than the heart, did not accord at all with the eloquence of Massillon, and with its peculiar character. He chooses and develops only such conceptions as can produce a deep impression upon the feeling and disposition of the hearer; and he does 1849.] Style of Massillon. 25 not leave them till he has made the fullest use of them in this respect, He cannot possibly, therefore, cumulate the thoughts; if he were to do so, one would limit the other in its development, and neither would effect that for which it is designed. It is so with the eloquence of Demosthenes; he also seeks not to surprise and entertain by a change of ideas; a few principal thoughts lie at the ground of each of his orations; and he shows himself inexhaustible only when he applies them most manifoldly, and uses them in the most various manner to accomplish his ends. But this is something, the taste for which is lost in modern times; even the French, from whose native rhetorical taste we should not expect it, are sometimes unjust towards Massillon in this respect. They admire Bossuet's gifted flashes, Bourdaloue's fulness of thought, and undervalue Massillon in comparison with these. We gain little by such comparisons; and it is better to recognize in every one what he has, than demand of him things which he cannot have, because they are at variance with his nature and its greatest excellences. The end, which alone Massillon proposed to himself, and which alone, considering his whole peculiarity, he could propose to himself, was to move his hearers to concern for their salvation, by awakening now the most joyful, now the most painful feelings. For this, flashes of genius and fulness of thought are not the most appropriate means; hence they are not found in him. We must, however, observe that this susceptible feeling, which seems to us most prominent in Massillon's rhetorical character, by no means expresses itself in him beyond the bounds of propriety and moderation. The style of Massillon is precisely that, which, with such a personality and such intentions, it must be and alone could be. Massillon would address the heart, and describe what passes in the heart and life of man; but for the one as for the other, a diction is entirely unsuitable, which deviates too much from the common mode of expression; a clear and simple style is requisite, and that we find in him. Nowhere do we meet with rhetorical pomp, plays of wit and fancy, and embellishments, which, without strengthening the thought, are to win and entertain the hearer. One is almost compelled to acknowledge that this Frenchman surpasses many of our German pulpit orators in simplicity. This simple style, however, has the highest vivacity, it pours on unceasingly in the most rapid flow, whilst, at the same time, by the most powerful turns, the uniformity of such a rapid course is broken, the attention kept up, and the impression strengthened. A mind like that of our orator must form for itself such a style as this, and it was also necessary, in order to express the emotion with which he spoke. Over this simple and living style is poured VOL. VI. No. 21. 3 the grace of a morally beautiful character; and what Dionysius said of the oration against Leptines, that it was the most graceful of all orations, might be said of every sermon of Massillon, if one did not commonly, in the earnestness and power of the orator, forget the gracefulness of his style. Even those who place little value upon such qualities, will not perhaps be so unjust, as to blame it in him, who does not seek it from self-love, but possesses it as the necessary bloom of a beautiful nature. I certainly will not undervalue Bossuet and Bourdaloue, in comparison with Massillon, in respect to style; but I may be allowed perhaps to say, only to designate the peculiarities of these three men, that Bossuet speaks ever from the bishop's throne; that Bourdaloue appears surrounded with the scholastic atmosphere of a Jesuit college; that Massillon alone speaks with his audience the cultivated language of society. He has perhaps too many words, and dwells possibly too long on a thought, but this fault flows from the same source as the excellences of his style, from the warmth and fulness of his heart. ARTICLE II. DOCTRINE OF THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. Translated from De Wette's Commentary on the XV. Chapter of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. 2d edition. 1845.* THE occasion of treating this subject was, that some in Corinth denied the truth of the resurrection of the dead (v. 12); but we do not certainly know, what was the character of these doubts and in what connection they stood. It appears, that these Corinthian Christians did not deny the fact of the resurrection of Christ, because the apostle, in his argument, lays this at the foundation, and indeed expressly certifies it, but does not seek to establish it against objections.1 This conclusion however is not entirely certain, since the apostle writes for the majority of the Corinthian Christians, who had not yet been possessed by those doubts, although dangerously affected by them, rather than against the authors of those doubts (Flatt). In verse 35, it is *For some account of De Wette and of his merits as a commentator, see Bibliotheca Sacra, No. XVIII. p. 263. 1 Ziegler, Theologische Abhandlungen, II. 93. Knapp, scripta varii argumenti, etc. p. 316. Meyer. 1849.] Importance of the Resurrection of Christ. 27 true, he seems to have regard to an objection from them; but this is of such a character, that it could be made from various quarters. Meyer concludes, from the anti-materialistic view of the resurrection, which the apostle maintains in verses 35 and following, that the principles of the opponents were anti-materialistic; but the opposite conclusion would rather be the true one. See the remarks upon these verses. Jesus, in refuting the Sadducees, Matt. 22: 30, views the subject in the same manner. Hence those in Corinth, who doubted the doctrine, might formerly have been Sadducees, (for, that such persons must be answered with passages from the Pentateuch, rests upon an erroneous view of Matt. 22: 31, 32,) if every intermixture of Sadduceeism with Christianity were not so improbable. Since also the derivation of those doubts from Essenism (Mosheim) has little or no probability, we are limited in our conjectures to the circle of Gentile Christians in Corinth. That the doctrine of the resurrection opposed the Grecian mode of thinking, we know from Acts 17: 32. The supposition of Epicurean principles (cf. Acts 17: 18) in those at Corinth, who denied the resurrection, is decidedly rejected by Neander (Apost. Gesch. I. 315), by Meyer and others, because such principles stand in too great opposition to Christianity, and because the apostle, in verse 32, adduces the Epicurean manner of life, not as the source, but as the consequence of the doubts, which he opposes, and indeed as an argument against them. But still he warns them, in verse 33, against "evil communications," which can be no other than the intercourse of those who doubted this doctrine. As sensuality could creep into the church, so also could Epicurean levity. That these were Gentile Christians of philosophic cultivation,2 is not very probable, considering the small number of such Christians in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:26) and the absence in this chapter of all polemic opposition to worldly wisdom. It is a false view to regard them, with Grotius, Usteri, Billroth, and Olshausen, as allegorists like Hymeneus and Philetus (2 Tim. 2: 17, 18), because in the argument of the apostle no trace of an opposition to such a tendency is to be discovered (Meyer). Vs. 1-11. The apostle sets out from the fact of the resurrection of Christ as a main point of the gospel, and lays that at the foundation of his argument. Vs. 1, 2. yvwoi[w] I make known. Theophylact, Oecumenius: TovτέOTIV inαvauurioxo, and so the most; Rückert: I call attention to, contrary to the literal sense of the word, cf. 12, 3. 2 Cor. 8: 1. Gal. 1: 11. The apostle begins, as it were, anew with the announcement of the gospel. zò evayy.] is not to be limited to the 2 Heumann, Mosheim in part, Michaelis, Storr, Knapp and Flatt. proclamation of Christ's death and resurrection (contrary to Rck. and Mey.); these points are only rendered especially prominent by the v πρώτοις in vs. 3 seq. ὅ καὶ παρελάβετε κ. τ. λ.] The και three times used designates in each case something added to the preceding thought (Meyer); and indeed there is a climax in the repetition. napláßere denotes the fact of perceiving (intellectually), historical faith, corresponding to the παραδιδόναι = εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, cf. v. 3. Gal. 1: 19. Phil. 4: 9, and often; according to the common explanation, it denotes the believing reception (Jno. 1: 11), έorýnarɛ the faithful abiding therein (cf. Ro. 5: 2.), owlɛodɛ, ye are saved (of the certain future), the salutary effect. zív-xaréxerɛ] contains a condition of the latter, since zivi Lóy. evn77. vuiv, for the sake of emphasis, is placed first: if ye hold fast the doctrine as I have announced it to you. Contrary to Heidenreich, Billroth and others, who unite τίνι λόγ. εὐηγγ. ὑμῖν with ὁ εὐηγγ. ὑμῖν, (see Rückert and Meyer). λόγος is here to be taken of the substance (Rückert, Meyer) and not the reason (Estius, Kypke, Wetstein, Rosenmüller, Flatt, Heidenreich), since nagέdoxa v. 3, and what actually follows, leads us only to the former, viz. the substance. ¿xtos-iлiorevσare] unless (14: 5) ye have in vain (Gal. 3: 4. 4: 11) become believers. If now this clause, which forms an exception, is connected with ooLove, this does not suppose "the case (inconceivable to the Christian consciousness) that they, notwithstanding the xaréyev, could still lose the fruit of faith" (Mey.); but it does suppose the truly conceivable case, that they had indeed received and held fast the gospel, but had not made a fruitful application of it to themselves; but with this connection, the more appropriate explanation would be, without reason, temere, as in Col. 2: 18.2 Thphlet. Oec. Calv. Est. Bllr. connect with xarέxeze, so that six denotes the being in vain, in reference to that; with this view we must indeed make an addition to the sentence: xaréxɛre dè návros (Thphlet); and this on account of the position is the more suitable. Accordingly by the ei xaréy, the danger is indicated, that they might not have firmly adhered to the Gospel, and this apprehension, by the exròs ei un x. 7. 2, is carried out, as it were with horror, to the worst, scarcely supposable case, that their reception of faith had been entirely in vain. Vs. 3 and following. Specification (not proof, Mey.) of the riv λóyop, in the principal points. ráo] namely (Bllr.). év noάrois] in 1 Beza, Flt. Olsh. Rck. Mey.; but which would not render necessary any insertion in brackets of the rivi-KATÉXETE, as in Griesbach and Scholz. 2 Rackert, but who with Theodoret supposes the reference to verse 14, which seems over-hasty. |
