_To the Editor of the Baptist Magazine._
I have been surprised and pained by the appearance of the paper, headed
"On Revivals in America," in the number of your Magazine for the present
month. Though the paper is headed "Revivals in America," Mr. Clarke has
not confined his remarks to American revivals; he has animadverted with
considerable freedom on revival meetings in England. As I, and several of
my brethren in this part of the country, have sanctioned these meetings,
I trust you will in justice allow me a little space in your next number,
for a few remarks on his very singular production.
Mr. C. commences with some observations on revivals in America. On this
subject, I think, he does not write very consistently. It is scarcely
possible to give a more gloomy, disparaging description of the American
revivals than that which he presents. He represents them as exerting a
most pernicious influence on the churches, on the young, and on the
enemies of religion, rendering "the character of Christians undignified
and uninfluential," and reducing them to a state of "contempt and
ridicule." He says, "The good that they are occasionally the means of
effecting is secured at the expense of the dignity, influence, and
subsequent enjoyment of the church; and at the expense, too, of much
that is lovely and permanent in the character of pure religion." Now, if
this account of American revival meetings be correct, they must be a
very great evil, and ought to be entirely discountenanced by Christians.
Yet Mr. C. says, "Revival meetings may do for America." "The system is
their own, and is almost universally understood and recognized." He also
says, "The correctness of the reports which have reached this country
respecting their revivals, perhaps, ought not to be seriously
questioned." But if the reports of American revivals which have reached
this country be in general correct, I think the description of Mr. C.
must be very defective in that important quality; for there is a very
wide difference between his description and those reports. If we doubt
the correctness of his description, he has himself supplied us with an
apology; for he says, "Things are not always in reality what they appear
to be to the persons who describe them. Besides, truth is seldom naked,
and its dress frequently makes an erroneous impression."
Mr. C. says, "It is not my intention to degrade our American brethren;
indeed, I cannot." True. But I suppose they will not consider that he
passes a very high compliment on them, by first describing their
meetings as he has done, and then saying, "The system is their own, and
is there almost universally understood and recognized." His remarks on
the American revivals "are, no doubt well intended," but I believe it
would be difficult for any one to say what good end they are calculated
to answer.
But I hasten to a consideration of the latter part of Mr. Clarke's
paper, which contains some extraordinary strictures on "revival meetings
in England." He admits that the revival meetings in England may be well
intended, but says, "They appear to have originated in a wish to imitate
the Americans." I trust they originated in a sincere desire to glorify
God, and to promote the salvation of immortal souls. Mr. C. says,
"Religion cannot be imported." Indeed! Was not religion imported into
this country? Was it not imported into America? And has it not been
imported into other countries by our Missionaries? "Revival meetings,"
says Mr. C., "may do for America, but they will not do for England." How
does he know they will not do for England? Has he ever made the attempt?
Has he ever attended a revival meeting in England? If not, I think he
ought to have been less hasty in his conclusion. But they will not do
for England, "because the people here do not understand them, neither do
they heartily approve them." I am not much surprised that people do not
_heartily approve_ that which they do not _understand_. He says in
America the meetings are "almost universally understood and recognized."
Hence it appears where they _are_ understood they _are_ approved, and
that they are _not_ approved only where they are _not_ understood. This
surely cannot be a very powerful argument against such meetings. Another
of Mr. C.'s reasons why these meetings will not do for England is, "Our
country has long been inhabited, and distinguished for religious
institutions." As to the length of time our country has been inhabited,
that can have very little to do with the subject; and as to our being
distinguished for religious institutions, I do not know that we have
such a mighty advantage over the Americans. Some of our religious
institutions, instead of diminishing, greatly increase our need of
revival meetings. Mr. C. next attempts to draw from the Scriptures an
argument against revival meetings. "Besides," says he, "it is said,
'Six days shalt thou labour,' and necessity makes many in England keep
this commandment." And I should think necessity makes many in America
keep it too. I suppose he does not mean to say that this commandment
forbids persons from attending public worship on the "six days" if their
circumstances will allow them to do so. And if he do not mean this, for
what purpose can it be referred to? Once more. He says, "The unconverted
inhabitants of this country are far more likely to raise bitter
persecutions where revivals are attempted, than to feel willing to
engage in them." And suppose the wicked were to raise bitter
persecutions, are they to deter the Christian from doing that which he
believes is for the glory of God? Has not the Saviour said, "Blessed are
ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you," &c.? But experience
has proved to me that Mr. C.'s assertion is far from correct; several
revival meetings have been held in Lincolnshire, each of which was
attended by many unconverted persons, and at not one was there any
persecution. "The slothful man saith, There is a lion without, I shall
be slain in the streets." Prov. xxii. 13.
Mr. C.'s feelings warm as he advances; and, if I be not greatly
mistaken, they carry him very far beyond the bounds of Christian charity
in the following sentences: he says, "But, perhaps, the secret is this;
these meetings in England look like a burlesque; they appear like a body
without a soul, or like an orator without originality. We cannot,
therefore, expect people to be charmed and benefited by them; for the
mind cannot be wrought upon by what is felt to be a farce, nor will God
bless what is not perfectly sincere." Revival meetings in England, "not
perfectly sincere!" but are "a farce!!" and "a burlesque!!!" Really, Mr.
Editor, I think this is "set forth with a little too much sharpness of
invective," and I fancy all your readers, except Mr. Clarke, will think
the same.
As we proceed we find Mr. C. attempting to describe "the views and
feelings of our churches associated in the capacity of Revivalists." I
will not do our churches the injustice to believe that they would talk
such nonsense as that which he puts into their lips; the language is
much more befitting infidels than Christians. I am quite sure the views
and feelings of our churches in this country, respecting revival
meetings, are as different as possible from what Mr. C. states, and I
believe many of our members are in no small degree disgusted by what he
is pleased to say on the subject. If there be no more truth in what he
says of the American revivals, than there is in his descriptions of
revival meetings in England, he had better never given his "opinion" on
the subject.
Mr. C. says, "I would advise an adherence to _ordinary services_; for
these being evidently scriptural and reasonable," &c. It is a pity he
does not tell us what _are_ the "ordinary services that are scriptural
and reasonable." Our Lord "taught daily in the temple," Luke xix. 47.
The first converts at Jerusalem "continued daily with one accord in the
temple and breaking bread from house to house," Acts ii. 46. Paul told
the elders of the church at Ephesus, "that by the space of three years
he ceased not to warn every one night and day." Acts xx. 31. These are
scriptural services, and I suppose they are reasonable too. As to
"ordinary services," they differ in different churches; some having one,
and others having three or four, on the Sabbath; some having no service,
and others having several, during the "six days." It is frequently
mentioned to the honour of Whitefield and Wesley, that they preached
almost every day in the week. The services that were "ordinary" to these
good men would be extraordinary to most of our churches and ministers.
Mr. C.'s advice to the churches is virtually, "Continue to go on as you
do; quicken not your pace; devise no liberal scheme different from what
you have already in operation; if you hear of other churches doing a
great deal of good, by employing different means from those which you
employ, regard it not; 'no plan can prove serviceable that is learned
only from hearsay.' Above all things, carefully avoid whatever is
extraordinary in the service of God." Mr. C. would make an admirable
reformer!
A statement of a few facts will be the best reply to what Mr. C. says
about revival meetings in England. In this part of the country, six
revival meetings have been held within the last nine or ten months, at
four of which I have been present. None of the evils of which he speaks
occurred at any of these meetings; they were attended by ministers and
members of different denominations of Christians, most of whom
expressed, not merely their approbation of the services, but their
gratitude to God for the great spiritual delight they experienced in
attending them. I believe every church that has held one of these
meetings feels anxious that it should be repeated. Since they were held,
some have been added to our churches, who state that it was whilst
attending them that they first felt the importance of religion. Last
Sabbath, three were added to the church at Lincoln, to whom these
meetings were greatly blessed; and I hope in a few weeks to baptize
three others who can say the same. What are Mr. C.'s flippant remarks
when weighed in the balance with these facts?