CHAPTER XXV.

MODERN REVIVALS, CONTINUED.

We continue our objections to the modern revival system.

Our _sixth_ objection is the utter indifference to doctrine that generally goes hand in hand with its methods and practices. To "_contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints_,"

seems to be altogether out of place at a modern revival. There is no "_taking heed unto the doctrine_," or "_holding fast the form of sound words_," or "_becoming rooted and built up in Christ, and established in the faith as ye have been taught_." There is no counselling to "_be no more children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine_;" no warning against false teachers and false doctrines.

Instead of thus following Christ and His Apostles, in insisting on the truth, the faith, and the doctrine; instead of thus warning against error and false doctrine, and showing that it "_doth eat as a canker_," and endanger the very salvation of the soul, the modern revival system habitually inveighs against all such loyalty to the truth, and contending for the faith and pure doctrine, as bigotry, intolerance, lack of charity, if not lack of all "experimental religion." In many quarters indeed the idea is boldly advanced that the more a person stands up for pure doctrine, for Word and Sacrament as channels of Grace, the less Grace he has; and the more he makes light of doctrine, the less positive conviction he has; the less he thinks of creeds, catechism, and confessions of faith, the more religion he has! The popular sentiment is: it makes no difference what a person believes, or to what Church he belongs, or indeed, whether he belongs to any, if only he is converted; if only he means well; if only the heart is right! Now, it is not necessary to show here again that all such indifference to doctrine is directly contrary to the teaching of Christ and His Apostles.

Our _seventh_ objection is closely connected with the last. Where there is so much indifference to the Truth as it is in Jesus, that it often amounts to open contempt, we cannot expect any provision for teaching His saving truths to men. Hence we find but small provision, if any, for doctrinal instruction in the revival system. Those who are expected to be gathered in, converted and brought to Christ, are not first instructed. They do not learn what sin is, what Grace is, and how it is communicated and applied. They are left in ignorance of the great doctrines of sin and salvation. They have the most imperfect conception of G.o.d's Way of Salvation. And yet they are expected to enter upon that way, and walk in it. They are exhorted to be converted, to get religion, and to believe, while it is seldom, if ever, made clear what all this means, and how it is brought about.

Surely it is not necessary that we should show that if ever a person needs to act intelligently--if ever he needs to know exactly what he is doing, why he is doing it, and what is involved in so doing--it is when he is acting in the interests of his eternal salvation. Then, if ever, he should act understandingly and honestly.

And for this he needs instruction. We have shown elsewhere that this is G.o.d's way, the Bible way, the way of the early Church, the way of the great Protestant Reformation, and the way of our Church of the Reformation to this day.

We therefore object to this modern revival system, because it has largely supplanted the old time systematic and thorough indoctrination of the young. And, as we have elsewhere said, we are convinced that, just in proportion as the youth are uncatechised and uninstructed in the great doctrines of G.o.d's Word regarding sin and Grace, in that proportion will doubt, skepticism, unbelief and infidelity infect them, and lead them into the paths of the destroyer.

Our _eighth_ objection to this modern revival system, is that it is so largely built up on the excitement of the feelings. The first and great object of the revivalist seems to be to work directly on the emotional nature of his hearers. If he can stir the depths of the heart until it throbs and thrills with pent-up emotions, if he can play upon its chords until they vibrate and tremble under his touch, until its hidden chambers ring again with responsive longings, until at last the repressed intensity breaks forth in overpowering excitement, he is considered a successful revival preacher. To reach this end the preaching is made up of exhortations, anecdotes and appeals. There are touching stories, calculated to make the tender-hearted weep. There are thrilling and startling experiences, calculated to frighten the more hard-hearted. There are lively, emotional songs, with stirring music, calculated to affect the nervous system and bring about strange sensations. And when the feelings are aroused, when the excitement is up, the hearers are urged to come forward, to go to the inquiry-room, to stand up, or do something to show that they are ready to take the decisive step.

Now, as we have shown above, if ever a person needs to be calm and deliberate, it is when about to take the most important step of his whole life. But men don't generally take important steps, or enter upon decisive movements, when they are excited. When one is excited he is very apt to do the wrong thing, and regret it afterwards.

Not that we object to _all_ feeling in religion. We by no means believe in a religion without feeling. We know of no true piety without deep and heartfelt sorrow for sin, and earnest longings for ever closer union and fellowship with G.o.d, together with a childlike trust and a fervent love to Him. We believe, however, that the heart, with its emotions, can only be effectively reached _through the understanding_. Through the mind we work on the heart. Through the judgment we change the feelings. We appeal first to the intellect, to instruct, to enlighten, to give clear and correct views and ideas, then through the intellect to the heart. When Paul was sent to convert the Gentiles, his direction was first of all "_to open their eyes_"--that is, to instruct them--and _then_ to "_turn them from darkness to light_." Paul was not to begin on the feelings, but on the intellect. But the modern revival system reverses this method. It makes a short cut, and goes at once to the feelings, without first enlightening the mind. This is contrary, not only to the Scriptures, but it is also directly contrary to the science and laws of the mind. It contradicts mental philosophy as well as the Bible.

We believe that where there is the proper instruction in the great saving doctrines of G.o.d's Word, where the mind is properly enlightened to know what sin is, what salvation is, and how it is obtained, there, unless there is a positive and determined resistance to the power of truth, the proper feelings will come of their own accord. It will require no heart-rending stories, no frantic appeals, no violent exhortations to bring them about. But we object to the revival system, because it is almost entirely built up on feeling, and thus reaches only one department of man's complex nature. Instead of changing the whole immaterial man--his intellect, his sensibilities, and his will--it spends its force on the sensibilities alone.

Our _ninth_ objection we can state briefly. Because the revival system undervalues sound doctrine and instruction therein, and because it depends so largely on feeling, it not only permits but encourages the ignorant and inexperienced to a.s.sist in exhorting and helping those who are inquiring after life and salvation.

Those who have scarcely "got through" themselves, who have given little earnest study to G.o.d's Way of Salvation, who do not know the alphabet of Grace, and the means and methods of Grace,--these are often the pretended instructors at the anxious bench and in the meetings for inquirers. Now, we object strongly to such procedures.

"_Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall in the ditch?_" Better let these novices themselves sit at the feet of Christ. Let Christ's teachers instruct them in G.o.d's Way of Salvation, before they undertake to lead other lost and groping ones.

We object _finally_ that, at the experience meetings, held in connection with modern revivals, not only novices, as described above, but those who have been the veriest profligates, are encouraged to speak, and are at least permitted to recount and seemingly glory in their former sins. They do not speak as Paul did, when compelled to refer to his former life, with deep sorrow and shame, but often jestingly, flippantly, and as if they imagined that they ought now to be looked upon and admired as great heroes. We believe that this is all wrong, and productive of great harm. The unconverted youth, listening to such talk, says to himself, "Well, if such a person can so suddenly rise and be looked up to and made a teacher of others, a leader of the experience and prayer-meeting, certainly I need not be uneasy; for I have a long way to go before I get as far as he was."

Therefore, we object to all such conduct. It is not only unscriptural, but unbecoming. It is an offense against good breeding and common decency. It does great harm.

But enough. We might still speak of the spirit of self-righteousness engendered and fostered by this system. We might speak of the sad results that follow with so many--how that persons become excited, have strange sensations and feelings, imagine that this is religion, afterwards find that they have the same old heart, no strength against sin, no peace of conscience, none of that bliss and joy they heard others speak of and expected for themselves, and how they gradually fall back into their old mode of life, become bolder than ever, and at last drift into hopeless unbelief, and say: "There is nothing in religion; I've tried it, and found it a delusion." Thus is _their last state worse than their first_. We might show that in sections of country where this false system has held sway, worldliness and skepticism abound. These places have been aptly called "burnt districts." It seems next to impossible to make lasting impressions for good on such communities.

We might speak of the proselyting spirit that so often accompanies this system. How with all its protestations for charity, brotherly love, and union, it often runs out into the meanest spirit of casting aspersions on others and stealing from their churches. We might speak of the divided churches that often result. As Dr. Krauth once forcibly said, "They are united to pieces, and revived to death."

We might point to the divided households, to the destruction of family peace, to the many sad heart-burnings and alienations that result. But we forbear. The whole system is an invention of man. It is unscriptural from beginning to end. We cannot conceive of our blessed Saviour or His apostles conducting a modern revival. The mind revolts at the idea.

CHAPTER XXVI.

MODERN REVIVALS, CONCLUDED.

We have given a number of reasons for refusing to favor or adopt the modern revival system as a part of the Way of Salvation. We would now add the testimony of others, not only of our own communion, but also of other denominations.

Undoubtedly one of the greatest and most important of these religious movements was that one which swept over Presbyterian and Congregational Churches of New England, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, about the middle of the last century. It is generally known, and spoken of as "_the great awakening_." Its leading spirits were such staunch and loyal Calvinists as Jonathan Edwards, the Tennents, Blair, and others. In the matter of doctrinal preaching and instruction it was certainly very far in advance of the so-called revivals of the present day. And yet in many of its direct results it was anything but salutary. It was the princ.i.p.al cause of the division of the Presbyterian Church into Old and New School.

Let us hear what some of the eminent theologians of these Churches say of the results of "the great awakening:"

Dr. Sereno E. Dwight, the biographer of Jonathan Edwards, and one of his descendants, says: "It is deserving perhaps of inquiry, whether the subsequent slumbers of the American Church for nearly seventy years may not be ascribed, in an important degree, to the fatal reaction of these unhappy measures."

Jonathan Edwards, himself the most zealous and successful promoter of the whole movement, in 1750, when its fruits could be fairly tested, writes thus:--"Mult.i.tudes of fair and high professors, in one place and another, have sadly backslidden; sinners are desperately hardened; experimental religion is more than ever out of credit with the far greater part, and the doctrines of Grace and those principles in religion that do chiefly concern the power of G.o.dliness are far more than ever discarded. Arminianism and Pelagianism have made strange progress within a few years.... Many professors are gone off to great lengths in enthusiasm and extravagance in their notions and practices. Great contentions, separations, and confusions in our religious state prevail in many parts of the land."

The above is from a letter to a friend in Scotland. We give also a brief quotation from his farewell sermon to his church at Nottingham:

"Another thing that vastly concerns your future prosperity is that you should watch against the encroachments of error, and particularly Arminianism and doctrines of like tendency.... These doctrines at this day are much more prevalent than they were formerly.

The progress they have made in the land within this seven years (_i.e._, since the revival), seems to have been vastly greater than at any time in the like s.p.a.ce before. And they are still prevailing and creeping into almost all parts of the land, threatening the utter ruin of the credit of those doctrines which are the peculiar glory of the Gospel and the interests of vital piety."

Dr. Van Rensselaer, in commenting on these and other serious words of the great Jonathan Edwards, says:

"And what was the final result? Arminianism led the way to Socinianism, and near the beginning of the present century there was but a single orthodox Congregational church in Boston. Harvard University had lapsed into heresy, and about a third of the churches of the Puritans denied the faith held by their fathers." And all this he traces back to that "great awakening." He further says: "A work so great and extensive was accompanied by incidents which made many good men doubtful as to its effects on the Church. Special seasons of religious interest are seasons of danger and temptation even under the guidance of the most enlightened and prudent.... Good men differ much in their estimate of the awakening, and the fruits of the work in many places afforded reason of much apprehension.... In its earlier stages the revival was unquestionably the occasion of the conversion of many souls. It was like one of those mighty rains of summer which refresh many a plant and tree, but which are accompanied, in many places, with hail and storm and overflowing desolation, and which are followed by a long, dreary drought. The Presbyterian Church welcomes fair revivals, sent by the Holy Spirit, but is averse to man-made schemes for getting up temporary excitements which have been so prevalent in our day."

During the years between 1830-1850, another revival agitation swept over the American Church. It was during this time, especially, that our English Lutheran churches caught the contagion, introduced the "new measures," such as the "mourner's bench," protracted meetings, the admission of members without catechetical instruction, and many other novelties. In not a few places, so-called Lutherans vied with the most fanatical sects in their wild extravagances. Those who adhered to the time-honored method and spirit of conservative Lutheranism, who preached the Word in all its simplicity, catechised the young, taught that the Spirit and Grace of G.o.d can only be expected to operate through Christ's own means, through Word and Sacrament, were denounced as formalists, who knew nothing of vital piety. Among the leading advocates of the new way was the Rev. Reuben Weiser. This now departed brother, with many other serious and thoughtful men, afterwards saw the error of his ways, and frankly and publicly confessed his change of conviction in the _Lutheran Observer_. He says:

"In 1842 Dr. J.W. Nevin, of the German Reformed Church, published a pamphlet called 'The Anxious Bench.' It was, for that time, a bold and vigorous arraignment of the whole modern revival system. He warned the German churches against this style of religion, but his warning was not much heeded at the time. I felt it my duty to reply to Dr.

Nevin in a pamphlet called "The Mourners' Bench." At that time I was in the midst of the most extensive revival of my whole ministry. I was honest and sincere in my views, for I had not seen many of the evils that were almost certain to follow in the wake of revivals as they were then conducted. Personally, I respected and esteemed Dr. Nevin highly, but as he had opposed my cherished views, I felt it my duty to write against him. I said some things long since regretted, and now, after the lapse of nearly half a century, make this _amende honorable_. And it must be a source of pleasure to Dr. Nevin, who is still living, that the views which he so ably advocated in the face of much bitter opposition, have been generally adopted by nearly all the Churches."

Dr. Weiser proceeds: "Many of our churches that fostered this system were in the end injured by it.... Under the revival system it was very natural for the people to become dissatisfied with the ordinary means of Grace. There was a constant longing for excitement, and when the ebullition of feeling abated, many thought they had 'lost their religion.' The next move was that as the preacher was so dead and lifeless they must get another who had more fire, and thus the old pastor was sent adrift."

Elsewhere Dr. Weiser has clearly expressed himself as having become firmly convinced that the old churchly method of careful and systematic instruction of the young, is the only sure and safe way of building up the Church. He also quotes Dr. Morris as saying: "The mourners' bench was introduced into Lutheran churches in imitation of the Methodists, and disorders, such as shouting, clapping of hands, groaning, and singing of choruses of doggerel verses to the most frivolous tunes, whilst ministers or members, and sometimes women, were engaged in speaking to the mourners. Feelings were aroused, as usual, by portraying the horrors of h.e.l.l, reciting affecting stories, alluding to deaths in families, violent vociferation, and other means.

At prayer often all would pray as loud as the leader. These exercises would continue night after night, until the physical energies were exhausted."

Dr. H.E. Jacobs, in his preface to Rev. G.H. Trabert's tract on Genuine versus Spurious Revivals, writes thus of the system: "This system, if system it may be called, is in many of its elements simply a reproduction of the Romish errors against which our fathers bore testimony in the days of the Reformation. Wide as is the apparent difference, we find in both the same corruption of the doctrine of justification by faith alone without works, the same ignoring of the depths of natural depravity, the same exaltation of human strength and merit, the same figment of human preparation for G.o.d's Grace, the same confounding of the fruits of faith with the conditions of faith, the same aversion to the careful study of G.o.d's Word, the same indifference to sound doctrine, and the same subst.i.tution of subjective frames of mind and forms of experience for the great objective facts of Christianity, as the grounds of G.o.d's favor.

"In both cases, all spiritual strength, which is inseparable from complete dependence solely upon the Word and promise of G.o.d, and not in any way upon human sensations and preparations, is either withheld, destroyed, or greatly hindered; and uncertainty and vacillation, despair, infidelity and ruin, often end the sad story of those who are thus left without any firm support amidst the trials of life, and under the strokes of G.o.d's judgments.

"The same Church which in the days of the Reformation raised her voice against these errors, when she found the entire life of Christianity endangered by them, can be silent in the present hour, when the same errors appear all around her, only by betraying her trust, and incurring the guilt of the faithless watchman who fails to give alarm."

Let us hear also the testimony of our late lamented Dr. Krauth.

He says, as quoted by Rev. Trabert: "How often are the urging that we are all one, the holding of union meetings, the effusive rapture of all-forgiving, all-forgetting, all-embracing love, the preliminary to the meanest sectarian tricks, dividing congregations, tearing families to pieces, and luring away the unstable. The short millennium of such love is followed by the fresh loosing of the Satan of malevolence out of his prison, and the clashing in battle of the Gog and Magog of sectarian rivalry. There is no surer preparation for bitter strife, heart-burnings, and hatred, than these pseudo unionistic combinations.

One union revival has torn religious communities into hateful divisions which have never been healed.... And none have suffered so much, by these arts, as our Lutheran people, who, free from guile themselves, did not suspect it in others. Well might we ask with the 'Apology:' 'Are they not ashamed to talk in such terms of love, and preach love, and cry love, and do everything but practice love?'"

In conclusion we wish to present the testimony of some of the most eminent divines of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Of all others they will certainly not be accused of being prejudiced against modern revivals. And of all modern revivals, those conducted by the Evangelists, Moody and Sankey, are probably the least objectionable.

At the close of the celebrated "Hippodrome revival," in New York City, conducted by Messrs Moody and Sankey, in the spring of 1876, the Methodist Episcopal ministers, at a stated meeting, reviewed the revival and its results. The New York _Herald_ gave the following account of their meeting, which we copy from Rev. Trabert's tract: "The Methodist ministers had under consideration the question of the value of special evangelistic efforts in regular Church work, with particular reference to the number of Hippodrome converts who may have united with their churches. For two weeks a member of the Hippodrome committee had distributed cards to the preachers with the names of persons who declared themselves converts of Mr. Moody's meetings. Four thousand had been reported as the fruits of the ten weeks special effort. Ten thousand inquirers had been reported.

"Dr. Robert Crook took the ground that special evangelistic agencies are not necessary, and that the work is more permanent and successful when performed through the regular church channels. Rev. J.

Selleck, of Lexington avenue church, had sent about sixty of his members as singers and ushers, and had not only received not a single convert from that place into his church, but had been unable to gather in the members he gave them, who were still running here and there after sensations! Rev. J.F. Richmond had received a number of cards, and could report two or three converts who would unite with his church, but in connection with Hope Chapel he had not much success. He had gone to five places indicated on the cards as residences of converts, but could find none of them. This was his experience also with many others whom he had sought out. Rev. John Jones had received many cards, and had found out some direct frauds, and many others nearly so. He did discover eight persons converted at Mr. Moody's meetings, six of whom would unite with his church. Rev. C.G. Goss did not think any one effort or kind of effort was going to convert the world. We could not measure religious efforts by financial or numerical measurements. As to the general question, he had the history of ten city churches always known as revival churches. In 1869 they had reported one hundred probationers each. In 1870 they reported a net loss of five hundred, making, with the probationers reported, a _loss_ of fifteen hundred in one year, in ten churches.

"Bedford street church was an example of a revival church: St.

Paul's the opposite. The former reported, in twenty years, twenty-five hundred probationers. But the increase of her membership for that period was only one hundred and twenty-eight. He could not account for this. On the other hand, St. Paul's reported four hundred and forty-eight probationers, for twenty-five years, and her increase in membership has been two hundred and eighty-six. This was to him an argument in favor of regular church work."