The San Francisco call., 1905-06-04


i3o-h great pulpit orators AID great
preachers. two subjects whose distinction
from each other the author vel Illus
trstes in his criticism q that popular
iccl. Henry Ward Beecher who was one
q the worlds greatest pulpit orators
but hot great preacher according 70 the
nigh ideals OF this student Of pulpit dis
course Spurgeon - here estimated 10 be
a greater preacher. though less an orator
than Beecher. These TWO head their re-
slective classes. TIE valuation OF Spur
Eecn is veDtured that he ranks as the
greatest preacher since apostolic times.
and = sentence used about this mans
greatness Is good 10 quote here fer the
purpose Of early calling attention TO the
worth Oi the subject OF this book. TO be
The greatest Of preachers is greater than
10 o. the greatest Of orators
Ne are told that SpUrgeon possessed in
ful measure every natural qualification
for being . great statesman-especisil
that special qualification. the orators
SIT. -Bus ne chose wisely 70 be preach
er. Now this volume IS much more
about great preachers than il is about
great orators. although pulpit oTauory was
one q the potent means BY which they
made their greatness far-reaching IN its
effectiveness
The book Is 10 exslt the art OF using
language Tor It's superia1ive ends-the
binding OF men in that bond ne name
religion To say that about Professor
Nilkinson's work is 10 give you the heart
cf the whole matter II Is in that feature
OF his performance that his heart is. He
Is q lover of language. and in all his study
O. The great preachers their personalities,
their influences. their powers the perma-
nence of their work for Christ, their
faults. blemishes. deficiencies. are chiefly
estimated as they revealed themselves by
= -4-
measure may be Z right way Of judging
al men. but in the case Of preachers il
seems true test in Z peculiar sense For
them 20 50 develop their lives and live
them out that the very essence Of their
best obedience 10 their Divine Master viii
II natural outflow be given 10 his world
in their pulpit uttersnCe. or their report
ed WGro for the SICK or absent from the
pews. Is e work 50 close 10 their souls that
fts more or less perfect performance and
al the trait and manner and individual
ity of II make an image Of their mental
selves By which they should more willing
d be judged ihsn sught else that men
can see
Whatever else they NAY add 70 their
work they must be SUpremeiy emulators
of the prophet. greatest among those
horn cf women. who defined himself
By saying. Il an a voice. and fmita-
tors OF their Teacher who was the in
csrnste Word. All through the book,
like q gold thread n a varied texture.
goes this authors clew 10 mems char
scter-the use they make Of the gift OF
speech.
one of the reasons given for this
kind Of criticism is thus explained by
the writer. when he is talking about
Philips Brooks
Do I seen 70 be applying literary
standard &c what Is homiIeticaI rather
istence here OF g valid distinction. But
I insist there is true ethical. and even
religious teaching force in what I
have elsewhere called strict literary
conscience applied 70 such things as
are now pointed out And this series
of criticisms had a faithful and serious
aim 10 help make the prevalent prac-
tice of the pulpit, even in subordinate
things, better and better. Is not the
aim worthy
The book is perhaps as useful as a
study o. literary values as IL is Of great
preachers. II would be well worth
reading by any one who loved the pow
ers and beauties OF language. even
though his interest II religion or biog-
raphy were 100 little for the title OF
the work 10 attract him. The author
not only gives you accounts OF the
methods OF great masters OF language.
but he writes mssterfully himself. II
& reader felt no esgeFness to learn
about Phillips Brooks, Richard Salter
storrs. Newman. Sturgeon, Eugene
Bersier. Moody Pere Felix. Alexander
McLsren. OF John Hall. but did delight
IN examples OF consummate art in ex-
preston, he could enjoy this book for
fts extracts from the great discoursers.
and its own word mastery in describ
ing them
This predilection OF the author for
"the strict literary conscience" and his
keen search for verbal blemishes and
beauties. does not set aside from our
realization the hrn purpose which he
holds 70 throughout the volume Of
writing criticisms OF these masters of
pulpit discourse from the point OF view
OF man with strong and clear-cut re-
iigious convictions We can get q good
idea OF where ne places himself for
thus purpose BY beginning with the
paragraph at the very hack of the
book No persuasion enters more
deeply into my mind. my conscience
and my heart. than the persuasion that
I press the message chiefly needed by
the church OF to-day. when I present
Paul as the highest human model for
all preachers. and in especial when
most commandingly present him as
above ali things else the apostle Of
obedience 10 Christ"
Il Is by this standard our critic
measures every man who stands in the
pulpit: and fine example Of his appli-
cation 20 the rule is in the chapter
where ne puts Beecher 70 the test OF IT,
and that greatest Of pulpit orators
sinks away into comparative insignifi-
canoe when measured with the greater
preachers. who. though less orators.
had more obsdieDtiy sought TO know
the mind OF their Master and 70 teach
II 10 the multitu0es OF men who came
10 hear them. This study Of Beecher
IS an interesting example OF the meth
eds of our author ss combination critic
OF both z mans religion and his Ian
cuaee, and a showing OF how closely
linked IS 3 mans use Of language 10
his ethics and HIS religion II is as II a
man prscticed in such criticism could
have listened 10 the words that fell
from Beecher's lips and propheeied that
he would fail. and explained Just why
he x-oald fan. with only his pulpit
words 10 judge by He could also tell
you BY this test why the preaching Of
Bcecher appealed 20 such multitudes.
although he was not teaching sound