m V"1'
I rW7f '
'rmi
The Commonet
VOL. 16, NO. 12
ifGBtaUoiiB of God's power may account for tho
tromoridous Impression that ho makes upon his
audience, for is not man impressed by rugged-
HC8B?
And his language is undignified, they say.
Well, it is unusual at times. Ho uses slang
phrases, but a phrase that begins as slang often
cams a placo in our language by its forcefulness.
Tho purjposo of argument is to persuade, and
how can an argument persuado unless it is un
derstood? Some people speak over tho heads
of their auditors. What shall it profit a preach
er if ho use tho whole dictionary and lose tho
soul that ho is trying to save? Shall wo put a
higher estimate upon form than upon substance?
Language is intended to convey thought; if a
sinner can bo aroused" by a slang phrase is it .not
better to uso tho phrase than to delight his ears
with euphonious words while he walks tho road
to ruin?
If Mr. Sunday's language seems abrupt at
times, and oven impolite, it must be romembered
that the Master in whose name he preaches used
strong language. "Scribes, Pharisees, hypo
crites," were not eulogistic terms nineteen hun
dred years ago; "whlted sepulchre" was not a
conciliatory description; "yo serpents, yo gen
eration of vipers," was not oven then a custom
ary salutation at social gatherings. Tho twenty
third chapter of Matthew alono furnishes enough
epithets to shock any minister who considers it
his duty to palliate social sins and sooth the
conscience of the evil doers in his congregation.
Even "hell," in referring to which Billy Sun
day sins most frequently against so-called dig
nity and alleged good taste, docs not sound as
bad as it would feel. It is better to hear of it
hero than to endure it hereafter. Ho gets tho
word from tho Bible, where it is frequently
mentioned, and mentioned quite pointedly, too.
Christ asks: "How can yo escape the damna
tion of hell?" Wo aro even told that it is bet
ter to pluck out an eye or cut off a hand, if they
offend, rather than that the "whole body should
bo cast into hell." "Liar" is not 'a compli
mentary ter.m, but there .Bible authority.Jtor.
tbo use of It to describe tho man who says that
ho loves God but hateB his brother.
But why glvo so much attention to tho thorns
upon (ho stem and so little to tho rose? .Mr.
Sunday's critics are so busy finding fault with an
occasional phrase that they have no time left to
consider the message that he delivers to his au
dience. What if he does jump too higli, or run
too fas, or come too near exhaustion in tho ex
penditure of physical energy; should, that blind
any reasonable person to the beneficent influ
onco of his sermons?
And what if he does use language that grates
upon tho ear, if by the use of it he can tear his
way through the outer covering of the heart and
touch the life spring? To take an illustration
from the diamond: What if ho does twist tho
language and curve his sentences, if by so doing
ho- can make the devil strike out? Those who
overlook the good that he does and see in him
only an acrobat and a slang monger should read
what was onco said of certain blind guiaes
"which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel."
BILLY SUNDAY'S COMPENSATION
Before taking up tho message which tho great
evangelist is lying to Boston it is worth while
to. consider another objection which is made by
unfriendly critics, namely, as to the compensa
tion which ho receives.
It is a compliment to Mr. Sunday that, as a
rule, his critics insist upon measuring him by
a higher standard than they apply to them
selves a compliment which ho doubtless ap
preciates. He can not object to scrutiny. It
would bo not only a reflection upon him, but a
hindrance to the work in which ho is engaged,
if those -who find fault with him could bring a
just accusation against the plan which he fol
lows in the collection of his remuneration.
There is1 but one economic law for tho meas
uring of rewards, namely, that tho individual
can rightfully draw from soceity a reward com
mensurate with his contribution to the welfare
of society. He is entitled to this much and no
more. If one receives less than he earns he
suffers injustice; if ho receives more than he
earns he is receiving that which belongs to
some one else. ,
If Mr. Sunday's compensation is not to bo
measured by this, law; what law shall wo in
voke in his case? That tho laborer is worthy
.4
of his hire is an axiom In the" economic world;
and "Muzzle not tho mouth of the ox that
treadeth out the corn" is Bible authority which
has never yet been called in question.
Will any one say that one who devotes him
self to spiritual things is not entitled to com
pensation? By what process of reasoning can
ono reach the conclusion that while the feeding
of the body and tho training of the mind furnish
a legitimate claim for reward, the instructor in
morals and the adviser in spiritual affairs is to
bo denied compensation for his work? And if
ho is entitled to any compensation at all, how
much? Just enough to live on, or what he act
ually earns?
If it is conceded, as it must be. that Mr. Sun
day Is entitled to some" compensation, how shall
tho amount be determined? What is his. plan?
He goes into a community and labors no one
can complain that the work is not sufficient in
quantity, and results prove that it is abundantly
satisfactory in quality and remember that ho
does tho work without exacting any promise of
any specific compensation.
The big corporations state the compensation
of their leading officers in contracts, and the
recipient of the salary is often the most influ
ential man In the group which Axes the amount.
In the case of government officials the remun
eration is named in the statute, so that tho man
who enters the office knows just how much he
is to receive. The school teacher's pay is speci
fied when tho employment is accepted; and even
the minister is usually Informed in advance as
to the amount he is to receive, although ft may
be increased by donations or decreased by fail
ure of the church to collect the amount neces
sary. Mr. Sunday's pay Is more precarious. He de
pends upon voluntary contributions, and. these
contributions are made, not in advance, but at
the end of his labors. What fairer plan could
be devised? How many of thoso who find fa,ult
with him as a "money maker" would be willing
to serve an individual employer, or even the pub
lic upon the same terms and risk having the
compensation depend .upon, tho satisfaction
given? if anyone's money is clean, Sunday's is.
It is not only earned by "doing good," but is in
the form of a "thank offering" gladly given for
work actually done. And it must be remembered
that h's compensation includes pay for the very
valuable services rendered by his wife, andepv
ers the unusual executive ability displayed in
bringing together and organizing a large group
of assistants, among whom are the indispensable
Ttodeheaver And other efficient workers.
But the rule above stated, namely, that each
individual member of society is entitled to draw
from the common store in proportion as he con
tributes to the common welfare, is economic
only, and relates to the acquisition of wealth.
There is, however, a moral law that runs paral
lel with it; namely, that no matter how much
one is able to earn, he holds it all as a steward
and is responsible to his Maker for the proper
use of that which he has a moral right to col
lect. No matter how blameless one may be In
the amassing of a fortune, he can not escape
moral responsibility for the use that he makes
of his money.
Mr. Sunday must obey this law also. Does he
do so? It is known that he devotes a tenth of
his income to religious and altruistic uses. If
this is not enough, let those who do more bring
accusation against him; criticism can not come
with propriety from those who do less. We have
Christ's own assurance that it is mora blessed
to give than to receive, and the fact "is verified
by all who have made the experiment. "" Why
should an evangelist be denied the gratification
that comes from the distribution, according to
his own pleasure of an honestly earned income
as he sees fit to devote to the causes that appeal
to him? Surely criticism can not come in good
conscience from those who are themselves draw
ing pay for religious work, unless they are re
. ceiving less in proportion to' results actually
accomplished; and it can not come from those
who collect for service less important to the in
dividual and to society.
THE SERMON TO MEN
iirSS P? con1siderIn6 the Sunday message in its
broadest and most fundamental aspects, it is
worth while to take the two practical applica!
tions of Christian principles upon which Mr
Sunday lays the greatest emphasis, namely, perl
sonal purf and total abstinence. Tho iw .
these sub s will claim all the space Tl
command today. ut our
"Chickens come home to roost " iR th m,
which ho gives to the sermon, which is only 1
epigramatic way of paraphrasing numl
passages in the Bible conveying tho T
thought. The warning is conveyed in the c
mandments: "For I the Lord thy God ama5"
ous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers
on the .children unto the third and fourth E
eration of them that hate me." Beu
No man has ever elaborated this thought mo
carefully than Mr. Sunday or fortified it rnrl
forcefully. In the course of this address he In
veighs vehemently against swearing, and Boston
will hear less profane language because of thn
Sunday campaign. WJien lie has finished his
indictment of the oath there Is nothing more to
bo said. His plea for cleanness of Bpeeeh la
alpha and omega on this subject.
His attack upon the sin of the libertine is a
cqmplete indictment, the counts including the
scars upon the body as well as the blots upon
the soul. The comparison which he draws be
tween the Jukes family and the Edwards fam
ily is a classic in rhetoric and a battering ram
in energy. If anyone doubts that Mr. Sunday
possesses oratorical ability of a high order he
should hear that sermon, and learn how skil
fully an argument can be built up how artis
tically a climax can be constructed.
Perhaps in no sermon does he display a wider
range of humor, pathos and invective; and that
the blows tell is proven not only by the applause
which punctures the address, but more conclu
sively oy the stream of men who are brought to
a decision by his appeal. A picture on canvas
could hardly depict more vividly before a father
the crime which he perpetrates upon his child
ren born and unborn, by licentiousness and de
bauchery. Many an auditor stands aghast as he
looks upon this verbal photograph of himself.
He sees that what lie has regarded as "manli
ness" is but miserable weakness, and that a pro
fession of faith which'ho nas regarded as "weak
ness" is really a manifestation of manhood and
mpral courage. It is the kind of a sermon that
closes the avenue of retreat and compels sur
render. Mr. Sunday makes religion a practical,
everyday thing not a visionary something
vaguely related to a future life.
What does it mean to a community to have
hundreds, not to say thousands, of its citizens
startled into conviction and driven to repent
ance and an upright life? What does it mean
in dollars to this generation and to the genera
tions that follow? And, if it is difficult to cast
up the account in dollars, who will undertake to
estimate the moral value of such an appeal de
livered to seventeen thousand men in an after
noon, and then repeated at night .in order to ac
commodate a new audience?
THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC
, If Mr. Sunday did nothing else, his visit to a
city would be epoch-making because of the con
verts he makes to total abstinence and prohi
bition. His coming into a community always
spreads consternation among those pecuniarily
interested in the sale of alcoholic beverages. In
Omaha they tried to restrain the local commit
tee from using the yacant ground that seemed
most available. In Kansas City it was found that
representatives of the brewing interests had un
dertaken a systematic campaign of personal
slander. And, if devotion to a righteous cause
can earn for a man the hatred of those who
profitby the encouragement of vice, Billy Sun
day deserves the hostility of those who have
their money invested in the liquor traffic, for
he is not only their sworn enemy but he has
proven himself a very expensive foe.
On this as on other subjects his attitude is
uncompromising. He makes no distinction be
tween occasional drinking, moderate drinking
and drunkenness they all come under his con
demnation because occasional drinking leaas
to moderate drinking, and moderate drinking xo
excess. Thoso who begin know or ought to
know after they hear himthat there is no ex
cuse for either beginning or continuing.
There is no word in his vocabulary that win
describe a drinking-Christian, because the two
words can not be brought near enough t0euie
to be linked by a hyphen. According to his logij
a man may be a drinking man or he may oe
Christian, but he. can not bo both at the same
c-f
. V
s
'
vL