even tho the money was acquired in a way that the church would not be willing to defend; altho in this case there might be some doubt as to the wisdom of accepting, because of the encouragement that the church's action might give to others still living and engaged in accumulating money in the same way.

If one attending a church deposits money in the contribution-box, his identity being unknown, his contribution imposes no obligation upon the church, and there would be no disposition to inquire into the source from which it came. If, however, the money came from one in regular attendance upon the church and came in such an amount as to make the minister hesitate about condemning the source from which it came or the occupation by which it was accumulated, a question would be raised as to the wisdom of accepting it.

Among the things to be considered in deciding this question are, first, the effect that the acceptance of the gift would have upon the donor; second, the effect that the acceptance of the gift would have upon the donee; and, third, the effect that the acceptance of the gift would have upon the public.

We have a concrete case in the Rockefeller gift, and this will serve as a better illustration than any imaginary gift. Here is a gift from a man who is not only not penitent, but, on the contrary, quite boastful of the benevolence of his business methods. He does not come with conscience money, but poses as a public benefactor and as a representative of an industrial system. He is not dead, but very much alive; and his gift, instead of being presented through the contribution-box as if from an “unknown friend," is offered at the front of the stage before the footlights, and with his name boldly written on a card, and the card firmly attached to the bouquet. The acceptance of his gift by a promi

nent religious association, so far from hastening repentance, would naturally strengthen him in his conviction that he is doing the Lord's service not only in his methods of distribution, but in his methods of accumulation. Can a church organization, dedicated to Christianity and teaching the doctrine of brotherhood and brotherly love, afford to put itself in the position of encouraging a corporation so unbrotherly and so destitute of love, compassion, and pity as the Standard Oil Trust has shown itself to be? If Mr. Rockefeller were simply a stockholder who had grown rich by the methods of the company, without personal responsibility for its management, the question might present a little different aspect; but even then we could not shut our eyes to the responsibility of a man who would voluntarily and continuously accept the benefits of wrong-doing.

But even more important than the influence exerted upon Mr. Rockefeller is the influence exerted upon the church. Can a church which accepts money from Mr. Rockefeller take an active part in condemning the methods employed by Mr. Rockefeller? Whether the gift is intended as "hush money" or not, does it not operate as such? A man who was recently asked for an opinion on the Rockefeller donation, hesitated whether he should give it or not, because some of the benevolent enterprises with which he was connected received substantial aid from an official of a great trust. He expressed himself as in doubt as to whether he should give an opinion upon the subject, and declared that it was the first time that it had ever occurred to him that the receipt of money from such a source influenced his own action. And yet he admitted that he recognized that to all intents and purposes gifts from an officer of a trust had on him somewhat the effect of hush money, because he did not feel free to

criticize the methods employed by the Standard Oil Company.

If Christianity is going to do the work that the Master laid out for His church, it must apply Christian principles to every-day life; and Christ's gospel applied to every-day life is condensed into the commandment, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." The church can not afford to proclaim this doctrine to the world and then shrink from the discussion of the violations of it. The methods by which men prove their hatred of their brother are many and various, and probably no man of the present day has shown his hatred of his brother in more ways than Mr. Rockefeller. Is not the church likely to be hindered in its work of restoring justice and inaugurating an era of brotherhood, by reliance upon gifts from men who have a large pecuniary interest in silencing the church's protest?

Neither can the church ignore the influence which its action may have upon public opinion. The church lives in the world and the world is prone to judge Christianity by the conduct of those who profess it. If a church accepts money from a notorious offender against morality, and if the church after accepting the money so acts as to raise the suspicion that the receipt of the money influences the conduct of the church toward wrong-doing, will not many outside of the church doubt the good faith of the church? Will it not be a cause of offense to many? Is not the hypocrite in the church a stumbling-block to those outside? Is not a divergence between profession and performance the most severe charge that can be brought against the church?

Mr. Rogers, one of the controlling spirits of the Standard Oil Company, virtually admits that the business was formerly aided by secret rebates, and the Government is now investigating charges brought against the Standard

Oil Company for recent violations of the law. The anti-trust laws passed by various States indicate the feeling that there is among the people. If the object of the church is the regeneration of the world, and through this regeneration the establishment of love and peace in the place of selfishness and conflict, can it consistently form a partnership with trust magnates?

It is hardly worth while to consider the argument, advanced by some, that the church has no right to reject money offered to it. It would put the church in a pitiful position if it were so helpless that it could be made a partner in wrong-doing without its power to refuse.

But if any preacher is afraid that he will incur responsibility by refusing to accept Mr. Rockefeller's gifts, let him devote himself to the denunciation of the methods employed by Mr. Rockefeller, and he will not have any Rockefeller money offered to him. Let him preach the gospel of the One who, instead of attempting to absorb the wealth of others, gave Himself to the world and went about doing good, and he will never be put to the test, for the men who make millions by exploitation and then give a tithe of their plunderings to church or charity are not likely to embarrass with their gifts those who "cry out and spare not."

From every standpoint the acceptance of the Rockefeller money would seem to be unwise, while its refusal would bring to him, as he has never had brought to him before, the consciousness of his iniquities. The rejection of the gift would also leave the church free to preach a religion unadulterated by commercialism, and would go far to convince the public that the spirit of the meek and lowly Nazarine inspires to-day those who at the communion table recall His broken body and His blood.

By Reuben A. Torrey, D.D., Chicago

You ask me my opinion and the result of my personal experience as to the relative importance in revival work of preaching, prayer, and praise; to what extent preaching is indispensable, and the kind of preaching that is most effective. It is difficult to say what is the relative importance of each factor, for each factor is indispensable. One might almost as well ask what is the relative importance of the different elements that go to make up a wholesome atmosphere: each element is indispensable. In the second chapter of Acts we have God's ideal of a revival, and here we have prayer, preaching, and praise. There had been a ten days' prayer-meeting. Without that the preaching would not have come to much; but the ten days' prayermeeting was followed by the preaching of the Word. If the preaching of the Word had not followed the prayer-meeting, the prayermeeting would have had no results. The preaching resulted in conversions, and this was followed by praise. The praise was inevitable. There must be praise where there is life. In a true revival God's power is the all-important thing, but God's power is given in answer to prayer; but it works through the preaching of the Word, and it results in abounding praise.

Of course, by preaching we do not necessarily mean pulpit discourses. The presentation of the Word of God by an individual to an individual is the preaching of the Word, and oftentimes the most effective kind

of preaching of the Word. I question very much whether there is the absence of preaching in the Welsh revival. There is the absence of pulpit discourses on the old lines, but there is an immense amount of preaching -short sermons and living testimonies; and living testimonies are oftentimes the most effective kind of preaching. But there must be also, sooner or later, if the work is to prove permanent and satisfactory, systematic teaching of the fundamental truths of the Gospel. There can be no permanent and satisfactory spiritual life in the individual or the community without at its basis an intelligent apprehension of truth. Emotion that does not root itself in intelligence is transitory and ruinous. In a satisfactory religious experience there is, first, intelligent conviction of truth, followed by rational emotion rising out of apprehension of the truth, and this is followed by choice and purpose along the line of the intelligent emotion. In our own work I have been criticized freely for addressing myself too exclusively to the reason and conscience, and for restraining mere emotional enthusi In point of fact, I believe in emotional enthusiasm, but I believe that it must be intelligent in order to be morally wholesome. On the Day of Pentecost there was deep emotion, people were "pricked in their hearts," and cried out, "What shall we do?" But this intense emotion was the result of a clear apprehension of the truth that Jesus was Lord and Christ, and that they had been guilty of crucifying their Lord and Christ. The result was steadfast continuance in the apostles'

asm.

teaching and fellowship in breaking of bread and prayer. But no presentation of the truth, no matter how skilful and orthodox and full, will bring about a true revival unless there is in the preaching the demonstration of the Spirit and of power. Therefore preaching must be preceded and prepared for by much prayer in the Holy Ghost.

As to the kind of preaching that is most effective, it must be, first, clear; second, direct; third, searching; fourth, aimed at the conscience. History proves that it must be intensely biblical, and, above all, in the power of the Holy Spirit. The mere telling of stories that play upon the feelings and get people to shed tears will produce no permanent and satisfactory results. Some people think that a sermon is necessarily a great one from an evangelistic standpoint because people are crying all over the room, but any skilful preacher can make people cry by telling touching stories, and crying over touching stories is not conviction of sin and does not lead necessarily to regeneration. It is quite possible for one to tell no touching stories, but to lay bare before men the evil of their own hearts, so that they see themselves sinners and hate their sin and renounce it and accept Christ as the only and all-sufficient Savior. There may not be so many tears, but there will be genuine repentance and regeneration. I find that the kind of preaching that abounds in the presentation of Bible truth along the line of man's sin and ruin and God's abundant provision for man's need in an atoning Savior through whom any one can have pardon, and a risen Savior in whom any one can have deliverance from the power of sin, to be the most effective. I find that ringing the changes upon the divinity of Christ and the awful guilt of rejecting such a glorious Savior is abundantly effective.

May I add that I think that, as a rule, personal hand-to-hand work, the preaching of the Word to individuals by individuals, is the most effective way of preaching the Word. Any community can have a revival if a few of God's children will first get thoroughly right with God as individuals, and then get together to pray to God for a revival, and to hold on in the face of all discouragement until the revival comes, and then present themselves to God to be the instrument used of Him in any way He pleases in carrying the saving truth to others. But there can not be a genuine revival without preaching of the

truth. It is the truth that sets us free; it is the entrance of God's Word that giveth light; it is by the Word of God that we are born again. So the Word must be preached, but it is not at all necessary that it be preached by ordained ministers. It may be preached oftentimes quite as effectively by plowboys, kitchen-maids, washerwomen, artizans, and all kinds of ordinary men, women, and children.

By J. Wilbur Chapman, D.D., New York Revivals always adapt themselves to countries, and a work of grace in one land can not be identically repeated in another. God has different ways of manifesting Himself to His people. The fact that there is so little preaching in the Welsh revival is nothing against preaching, for of all the lands in this world I suppose none has had a higher type of preaching than Wales. The Welshmen are preeminently great preachers, and for ages past the people in the church and out have been indoctrinated with the truth. This Welsh revival is simply a reaping of a harvest, the seed of which has been well sown by devout men of God in all the ages.

I am persuaded that America is at the beginning of a new day of evangelism, and, if this new day is to have one distinguishing characteristic, I am confident that it will be personal evangelism. One of the most hopeful signs of the times is that pastors and church officers are being awakened to the sense of responsibility. This does not lessen the demand for evangelists, but rather increases it. An evangelist is not a reaper; he is an evangel, one who proclaims the truth. The pastor is preeminently the reaper, and his officers and church-members are laborers together with him. No evangelistic campaign can be a success unless there has been a good foundation laid in both preaching and praying, and no evangelistic campaign will be a success unless the work of the evangelist is followed by faithful, consistent service on the part of the pastor and his people.

By W. E. Biederwolf, D.D., Chicago

I am not at all surprised at hearing of a great revival in which there is little or no preaching, as that term is used commonly in our day. It makes no difference what a man is endeavoring to accomplish; if he expects to move another man, he must bring to bear

upon him such influences as are best calculated to put him in that frame of mind which is necessary for the decision which it is hoped he will make. Every successful solicitor recognizes this. It is what they call "creating the proper atmosphere.' This is not more true, but just as true of a successful revival effort. The one essential condition of every revival is an atmosphere which most powerfully impresses men with the importance of becoming Christians, most powerfully constrains them to this end, and at the same time makes it easier than it ordinarily would be for them to make their decision for God. The secret of every true revival is the creation of this atmosphere.

In bringing the Gospel to the heathen or those who know little or nothing about it, one can well see how the sermon is indispensable in fully explaining the plan of salvation and the way of man's redemption; but in endeavoring to reach those who know quite well the way, having heard it over and over again, and having only delayed their decision to walk in it, the essential thing is to bring them to a decision concerning that with which they are already acquainted. I have found in my own experience that this can as well and oftentimes better be accomplished in many other ways than by preaching; so much so has this been true that in recent years I have been steadily shortening the length of my discourses, that I might have more time for what is commonly known as "after-meeting work." If I had but one hour, which had to be divided into two sections of fifty and ten minutes each, I would preach ten minutes and reserve the fifty minutes for work of a different character. This time would be devoted very much to what I presume is the distinguishing character of the Welsh revival: testimony, prayer, and song, and personal dealing with individual souls.

Oftentimes what sermon and argument will not do a little touch of personal interest will accomplish. An example from a recent meeting for men only will illustrate. Several thousand men were in the auditorium; the sermon had been preached, and every effort from the pulpit had been made to induce men to decide for Christ. In the audience was a prominent business man, a man of great influence in the community; others had spoken to him personally, but neither what they said nor the sermon nor anything else had moved him, until a man somewhat older than

himself took him by the arm, and, calling him by his first name, said: "George, forty years ago your father led me down the aisle of this church that I might give myself to Christ; I long for the privilege of performing the same service for his boy to-day. Will you go?" That was all, but what everything else had failed to do, that little act of Christian interest and Christian courtesy, fragrant with the memory of a sainted father who had passed into the skies, accomplished.

By the Rev. Rufus S. Underwood, Springfield, Mass.

I never knew of a powerful religious awa kening that was not preceded and attended by a spirit of earnest prayer. The great soulwinners have had the ear of God. They knew how to preach and how to pray. In the great spiritual movements that have blessed God's people, the church has always given to her free spirit the wings of holy song. "Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs" have been the natural and instinctive expression of exalted religious feeling. In this praiseful service no hired sinners can do the singing for the great congregation.

There are, no doubt, times of extraordinary manifestations of the Spirit's presence and power, when the gift of "prophesying" falls upon the whole body of believers, and for the time preaching may seem a less prominent factor in the movement; but in most revivals preaching has been the most prominent and efficient agency.

The preaching that has in my own obser vation and experience been most fruitful at such seasons has had such themes as these: "The unreasonableness of sin"; "The dishonor and guilt of an unchristian life"; "The improbability of future repentance"; "Choice as related to character and destiny”; “The absolute necessity of the new birth”; “Heaven only possible to holy character."

It seems to me that the great need of our American churches just now is a praying revival. The church in humiliation, confes sion, and supplication upon her face before her Lord may expect the largest blessings.

By John H. Elliot, D.D., New York City

I have read carefully and with great inter est the things that have been said concerning the absence of preaching and the prevalence