might be far more numerous, if parents and teachers understood their
responsibility and did their duty to the baptized children. We verily
believe that thus it might become the rule, instead of the exception,
that the children of Christian parents would grow up as Christ's lambs
from baptism, would love Him with their earliest love and never wander
into the ways of sin. We also firmly believe that those thus early
consecrated, trained, taught and nurtured in faith and love, make the
healthiest, the strongest and most reliable members and workers in
the Church.

Neither can we for a moment doubt but that such is the good and
gracious will of Him who desires the little children to be baptized
into Him. It certainly seems repugnant to all that we have ever
learned of our God and Saviour, that it should be His will that our
dear children, who have been _conceived and born in sin_, and are
therefore _by nature_, or by birth, _the children of wrath_, should
remain in this state of sin and condemnation until they are old enough
to be converted at a revival. Yet it must be either that, or a denial
of the Bible doctrine of original sin, if we accept the teachings and
practices of modern revivalism. For either of these positions we are
not prepared.

Therefore it is our great aim and object to recall the Church to
the old paths. Therefore we are concerned to see the Church firmly
established on the old foundations of the doctrine of original sin, of
baptism for the remission of sins, of training up in that baptismal
covenant by the constant, diligent and persevering teaching of God's
Word, in the family, in the Sunday-school, in the catechetical class
and from the pulpit. In proportion as this is accomplished, in that
proportion will we preclude the necessity of conversions and,
consequently, of revivals.

Who will say, that a congregation made up of such as are
"_sanctified from the womb_," "_lent to the Lord_," from
birth, having "_known the Holy Scripture_" from childhood, would
not be a healthy, living Church? Such a Church would need no revival.

Would it be possible to have such a Church? Is it possible for
any _one_ member to grow up and remain a child of God? If possible for
one, why not for a whole congregation? Are the means of Grace
inadequate? No, no! The whole trouble lies in the neglect or abuse of
the means. With their proper use, the whole aspect of religious life
might be different from what it is. It is not a fatal necessity that
one, or more, or all the members of a church must periodically grow
cold, lose their first love, and backslide from their God. It is not
God's will, but their fault, that it should be so.

While the church at Ephesus lost its first love, and that at
Pergamos permitted false doctrine to creep into it and be a stumbling
block, and that at Thyatira suffered Jezebel to seduce Christ's
servants, and that at Sardis did not have her works found perfect
before God, and that of Laodicea had become lukewarm; yet the church
at Smyrna, with all her tribulation and poverty and persecution,
remained rich and faithful in the sight of God, and that at
Philadelphia had kept the Word of God's patience, and her enemies were
to know that God loved her. While the former five were censured, the
latter two were approved. The former might have remained as faithful
as the latter. It was their own fault and sin that the former needed a
revival. The latter needed none. Which were the better off?

We believe that where there is a sound, faithful and earnest
pastor, and a docile, sincere, earnest, united and active people, many
will grow up in their baptismal covenant; and among those who wander
more or less therefrom, there will be frequent conversions, under the
faithful use of the ordinary services and ordinances of the Church.
Such, we believe, were the pastorates of Richard Baxter, at
Kidderminster; of Ludwig Harms, at Hermansburg; of Oberlin, at
Steinthal; and of our late lamented Dr. Greenwald, at Easton and
Lancaster. None of these churches, after their pastors were fairly
established in them, needed revivals. And such, doubtless, have been
thousands of quiet, faithful pastorates, some known to the world, and
others known only to God. Blessed are those churches in which the work
of Grace is constantly and effectively going on, according to God's
Way of Salvation.




CHAPTER XXIV.

MODERN REVIVALS.

We have shown that it ought to be the great aim and object of the
Church to preclude the necessity of occasional religious excitements.
We also showed, by example from Scripture and from Church history,
that it is possible to attain this end. If parents did but understand
and do their duty in the family, teachers in the Sunday-school and
pastors in the catechetical class and pulpit, children would very
generally grow up in their baptismal covenant; and a church made up of
such members would not depend for its growth and life on periodic
religious revivals.

But--alas, that _but_!--parents, teachers and pastors too often
come short of their duty. Carelessness, worldliness and godlessness
hold sway in too many of the congregations, homes and families. There
is a spirit of love of pleasure, greed for gain and haste to be rich,
that has taken hold of the heart and life of too many professedly
Christian parents. There is no time for God's Word or earnest prayer
with and for the children. There is often little if any religious
instruction or Christian example. The little ones breathe in a
withering, poisonous, materialistic atmosphere. The germs of the
divine life, implanted in baptism, either lie dormant, or are blighted
after their first manifestations. They grow up with the idea that
the great object of life is to gain the most, and make the best of
this world.

In the Sunday-school the teachers are often careless and
trifling. They do not live close to Christ themselves, and how can
they lead their pupils nearer to Him? They scarcely pray for
themselves, much less for their pupils, and how can they instil into
them a spirit of prayer?

Many pastors, also, are not as earnest and consecrated as they
should be. They are not burning with a desire for souls. They go
through their ministerial duties in a formal, lifeless manner, and
their labors are barren of results. These things should not be so, but
unfortunately they are. As a result, children grow up ignorant of
their covenant with God, or soon lapse therefrom, and are in an
unconverted state. The communicants of the church lose their first
love, and become lukewarm. An awakening is needed.

If then we admit that, owing to man's imperfections and faults,
_times of refreshing_ are needed, why not have them after the manner
of those around us? Why not adopt the modern system, have union
meetings, evangelists, high-pressure methods, excitements, the anxious
bench, and all the modern machinery for getting up revivals?

We will briefly state our objections to this system.

_First._ We object to the modern revival system, because it
rests on an entire misconception of the coming and work of the Holy
Spirit. The idea seems to be that the Holy Spirit is not effectively
present in the regular and ordinary services of the sanctuary; that He
came to the Church as a transient guest on the day of Pentecost, then
departed again, and returned when there was another season of special
interest. That He then left again, and ever since has come and worked
with power during every revival, and then departed to be absent until
the next.

Now we claim that this is directly contrary to the teaching of
the Divine Word.

When Jesus was about to leave His disciples they were filled with
deep sorrow. He gathered them around Him, in that upper chamber at
Jerusalem, and comforted them in those tender, loving words, recorded
in the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of John. In these
chapters He promises and speaks much of a Comforter, whom He would
send. The whole discourse goes to show that this Comforter was
intended to be substituted for the visible presence of Himself. His
own visible presence was to be withdrawn. The Comforter was to be sent
to take His place, and thus, in a manner, make good the loss. Jesus
had been their comforter and their joy. They would no longer have Him
visibly among them, to walk with Him, to talk with Him, to hear the
life-giving words that fell from His lips. The announcement made them
feel as if they were to be left "comfortless" and forsaken. But he
says, John xiv. 16: "_I will pray the Father, and He will give you
another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever, even the Spirit
of truth_;" verse 18, "_I will not leave you comfortless_:" revised
version, "I will not leave you _desolate_;" more literally still, as
in the margin, "I will not leave you _orphans_." John xvi. 5, 6, 7:
"_But now I go my way to Him that sent me.... But because I have said
these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your hearts. Nevertheless I
tell you the truth. It is expedient for you that I go away, for if I
go not away the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I depart I
will send Him unto you._"

Now, from these words, and others in the same chapters, two
things are plain: First, that the Comforter came as _Christ's
substitute_; Secondly, that He came _to abide_. While Jesus was to be
absent, as far as His visible presence was concerned, the divine
Comforter, the Holy Spirit, was to take His place. His presence was to
substitute Christ's. But if He had come to be present only briefly,
and occasionally, after long intervals of absence, it would be a poor
filling of the painful void. Evidently the impression designed to be
made by the words of Jesus was, that the Holy Spirit would come to
abide. And this is made still more clear by the plain words of Jesus
quoted above "I will not leave you _orphans_;" "He shall _abide_
with you _forever_." He came, then, as a substitute; He came also to
abide forever.

The revival system is, however, built up on the idea that He
comes and goes. He visits the Church, and leaves it again. At
so-called revival seasons the Church has a Comforter. During all the
rest of the time she is left in a desolate or orphaned state. Thus is
the revival system built up on an entire misconception and
misapprehension as to the coming and abiding of the Holy Spirit.

It likewise misconceives entirely the _operations_ of the Spirit.
The idea seems to be that this Blessed One operates without means,
directly, arbitrarily and at haphazard. The Word and Sacraments are
not duly recognized as the divinely ordained means and channels,
through which He reaches the hearts of the children of men. That this
is an unscriptural idea we have shown elsewhere. That the Spirit uses
the means of Grace as channels and instruments, through which He comes
and operates on the hearts of men and imparts to them renewing and
sanctifying Grace, is taught all through the New Testament. We need
not enlarge on these points again, but refer our readers to what has
been written above on this subject.

Our _second_ objection to the modern revival system arises out of
the first. Because of the errors concerning the coming and the
operations of the Holy Spirit, the system undervalues the
divinely-ordained means of Grace. Little if any renewing Grace is
expected from the sacrament of Christian Baptism. Few if any
conversions are expected from the regular and ordinary preaching of
the Word. Little if any spiritual nourishment is expected from the
sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Who that has attended such meetings
has not heard the idea of Grace bestowed through Baptism ridiculed?
Who has not heard so-called revival preachers scout the idea of
"getting religion"--which must mean receiving divine Grace if it means
anything--through catechising the young in the doctrines of the divine
Word? Are not these divine means often entirely set aside by the most
enthusiastic revivalists? Who does not know that often at these
revival services the reading and preaching of the Word are entirely
omitted? Thus God's means, the means used by Christ and His apostles,
are undervalued. While they are used at the ordinary services, when
there is no revival going on, not much is expected of them.

Our _third_ objection again arises from the second. Because
the regular Church ordinances are undervalued, they are largely
fruitless. Because people have not much faith in their efficacy, they
do not receive much benefit from them. Few conversions are expected or
reported during the ten or eleven months of regular or ordinary church
services, while many, if not all, are expected and reported from the
few weeks of special effort. Even the work of sanctification is
largely crowded into the few weeks. It is during these few weeks that
saints expect to be quickened, refreshed, strengthened and purified,
more than during all the rest of the year.

It is doubtless both as a cause and a result of this undervaluing
and general fruitlessness of the ordinary Church ordinances, that we
find so much levity and irreverence in many so-called revival
Churches. Because the Holy Spirit is not supposed to be effectively
present, is not in the Word and Sacraments, does not bring His saving
and sanctifying Grace through them; therefore there is nothing solemn,
awe-inspiring, or uplifting in these things. Therefore the young, even
if they are members, and sometimes older ones, go to these churches as
to places of amusement, to have a good time, to laugh, to whisper, to
gaze about, write notes, get company, and what not.

A careful observer cannot fail to notice that in Churches which
believe in and preach Grace through the means of Grace, there is an
atmosphere of deeper solemnity and more earnest devotion than in such
revival Churches. The above objection to the revival system we believe
will explain the difference.

_Fourth._ We object to the so-called revival system because, as a
natural result of the above, it begets a dependence on something
extraordinary and miraculous for bringing sinners into the kingdom. As
we have seen, these Churches expect nearly all their conversions from
"revivals." It naturally follows that the unconverted will shake off
and get rid of all serious thoughts and impressions, under the plea
that they will give this matter their attention when the next revival
comes round. We have more than once heard persons say, in effect, "Oh
well, I know I'm not what I ought to be, but perhaps I'll be converted
at the next revival." Thus the gracious influences of the blessed
Spirit, as they come through the Word, whether from the pulpit, the
Sunday-school teacher, or Christian friend, or even when that Word is
brought to a funeral or sick-bed, are all put aside with the hope that
there may be a change at the next revival. And we verily believe that
such ideas, fostered by a false system, have kept countless souls out
of the kingdom of God.

We object _fifthly_ that at these so-called revivals there
is a dependence on methods not sanctioned or authorized by the Word of
God. As we have seen, God's means are generally slighted. On the other
hand, human means and methods are exalted and magnified.

The anxious or mourner's bench is regarded by many otherwise
sensible people, as a veritable mercy-seat, where Grace is supposed to
abound--as though the Spirit of God manifested His saving and
sanctifying power there as nowhere else. But this is a purely human
institution, and has no warrant in the Word. On this point it is not
necessary to enlarge.




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 God'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 God'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 God'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 God, 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 God'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 assist 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 God'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 God'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 principal 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:--"Multitudes 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 godliness
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 space 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 God 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 hell, 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 God's Grace, the same
confounding of the fruits of faith with the conditions of faith, the
same aversion to the careful study of God's Word, the same
indifference to sound doctrine, and the same substitution of
subjective frames of mind and forms of experience for the great
objective facts of Christianity, as the grounds of God's favor.

"In both cases, all spiritual strength, which is inseparable from
complete dependence solely upon the Word and promise of God, 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 God'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."




CHAPTER XXVII.

TRUE REVIVALS.

In the preceding pages we have seen that the Church ought
constantly to aim at keeping up such a state of spiritual life as to
render revivals unnecessary.

We have also admitted that, owing to human infirmity,