MOODY AND SANKEY.

Bruce Herald, Volume VIII, Issue 710, 18 June 1875, Page 5

MOODY AND SANKEY.

(To the JSditor of the Bruce jEZ&rald'i)

Sir, — I anticipated the line of argument pursued by " Anti-Bigot," fin my lasij bf declaring that the assertions of the Moodyites were contradicted, and that therefore we should fall back on an examination of the principles of revivalism before its character could be estimated. Notwithstanding tnis, a letter is constructed by stringing together quotations speaking in favor of the work of the Americans. It would be a sufficient reply were I to produce a number of opposite quotations condemning, and even ridiculing not only revivalism but even Moody and Sankey themselves. Your own Xsondoa correspondent and the 'Saturday Review* would be in point. I will, however, merely mentipn a few names which will carry as much weight as the "the Swedish Lady," Mr Dale, Mr Whitmore, *&c. The Bishop of Manchester, a broad churchman, calls the movement "a spiritual dram-drinking.'* Dean Stanley, the most tolerant man I know of, took his staud on Mr Moody's platform to judge for himself*, and he has condemned the revival teaching. A well known minister and author of Scotland, Gilfillan, has applied contemptuous words to the evangelists, which I shall not reproduce. Professor Gibbing, of Dublin, preached against the movement before the University.

I cannot refrain from one criticism on " Anti-Bigot's " poor logic, and I commend his prudence in wearing a mask to hide his blushes. To prove that Mr Moody has reached the church-goers there is a long quotation from Mr Aitkin's letter, showing that there were 11,000 persons in one building. On a subsequent day the question so often asked, but which still seemed so far from receiving a practical solution, " How are the masses io he reached," was the. subject for consideration. Because then, the question of reaching the masses was discussed, therefore Mr Moody has reached the church-goers.: I spare "• Anti-bigot," and will merely, observe that the analysis of the aforesaid 11,000 into .their sociat grades — political parties, religious schools, and secular callings— by Mr Aitkin standing on the . platform, is a right worthy piece of revival literature. It is truly sensational. But do not these immense congregations prove tho divine mission of Messrs Moody and Sankey ? Suppose this arithmetical test he used for the solution of other knotty questions, Dr Kenealy is the first orator of the day, Protestantism must: be vastly inferior to Romanism. In short^oa: populi vox Dei. I may notice the ; singular conduct of those ultrarProtestants, whose motto is "the bible and the bible, only," iv falling back on the (to them) exploded argur ment from authority. O temporal O mores ! I Now what is Moody's theory : of conversion, or I might say of salvation ? "Believe and you are saved," Is not this at variance "with. Acis 16-31, " Believe in the Lord " Jesus Christ and thou shalt; be saved." Even if Moody's theory were true, it is indiscriminately applied, and many, I ; fear, who nerer felt the jailer's penitence are offered the-jailer's peaee.^ Is not this '/ saying peace, peace,, when* there is no peace," These qonsiderationsvio

addition to tho*s giveii compel me to reiterate rag condemnation *>t Moddyifini; I nw^er^U^-that the %htmWfhich^heChuwih of England views a believer is Well ejqpressed in the lines of the ' Christian Year.' . . The grey-haired 6aint may fail at last, ' The surest guide a wanderer prove ; Death only l)ind9 ub fast . : ' To the bright ahorcs of love;. As to my Episcopalian friend, I . beg^ to remind him that at my ordination I promised solemnly ; (vide Ordination Service) s , : to use " ?dl faithful difigence /to and\.idrive away all erroneous and strange doctrine," and that it is a principle of Episcppalianism that a man should keep his promise. In the ex--position of . the parable of the seed growing secretly (which I selected without one thought of Moody and Sankey), I saw plainly that it condemned them ; and I saw. farther that the same law of slow silent growth was .taught 1 elsewhere, and that, the analogy :pf nature supported the doctrine, I saw aB thisrclearly, and warned "the congregation, committed to my charge" not to fall into the ; , prevailing errors. I felt that I was treading on delicate ground, and that I,,was, possibly impugning the opinions, Or rather prejudices, of several: Instead, thoughV of pouring forth their laWentiii. a newspaper, it would .have ?been more in accordance with the relation that is , fiupposed^tQ r exjst ; bet>yeen / a clergyman and, his flock, if they first discussed-; their .grievance with myself ift a friendly manner,. I have npwTddne with this controversy in your columns, Mr Editor, and, thanking you for inserting: my letters of vindication, lam, &c, . -„' R. CorrET. Milton, 16th 1875.

(To the Editor oftheßt^uce Serald.) Sra,— lf your correspondent who is "Trying to be' a Christian " wUI again look at my letter in your issue of the 11th tTune, he will find that his' remarks as io the absence of argument were quite \ uncalled for. . I ', disclaimed; at "the outset; any idea of entering into discussion upon the matter, and confined myself to' noticing the assertions of " Tolerance.""' ' '''■'•;' '■• '■.'"■■. '• . . . r feel grateful that "Anti-Bigot" passed over my letter in that pointless effusion of his, as I should have felt hurt had even my pseudonym appeared mixed up with such a mass of "bigotry and. •, ignorance." These weaknesses, combined with a sickening dose of egotism, and gratuitous / assertion, render his contribution' perfectly harmless. It must be hard upon " Anti-Bigot " that his style of writing isnot' quite so pritent as he seems to think it ; but ' he ought to remember that, now-a-days, people are not so. easily led away by such egotistical declaration and maudlin clap-trap. He must know that against these opinions, from _ which he so liberally quotes, as many of a different nature could be brought. Any >? fool"— his " folly" notwithstanding— knows '■'. that. Though he were to assort for a month that Mr'Chisholm "effectually upset" Mr Coffee's argument, can he believe that the public would accept his statement as fact ? Surely not. Anyone cam' assert; but," of /•what; gpod^i's it? ., Otic thing we all can do—^Mr Coffey even, ing to his.own s]totemeriit:/ i "We r <^"h'Ope'' s thatMoody- aiidSankey are dping 'much good, bringing- many "to a Saviour whom they themselves have already found." 1 I trust that "Anti-Bigot" and his friends .Have already found that Saviour, as their* present frame of mind— should it coritiniie--must -greatly enV danger the possibility of their finding Him w> the future. lam, &c, .' p.S. — "Anti-Bigot" may, or may not, have read a leader in the ' Times ' of Tuesday, and a reply to it by the Rev. Upton Davis, in to-day's issue, the 15th. The opinions of the writers have no weight with me, nor any opinions whatever on such a^subject — people must jud&e for themselves ; 'but a perusal of the articles will show ;' Anti-Bigot " that Others than Sir Coffey and myself differ from himr He can probably find the file at the Athenseum. The reply fromMr Davis states that the writer, while wishing M. and S. every success, is not in-, accord with their systeni of teaching, and that the great majority of converts are drawn from amongst church adherents and Sunday scholars. ;Mr Coffey spoke and wrote to the same effect, only to draw down, upon the unoffending readers of the Herald, two columns of words from. "Ami-Bigot"— what a signature to such a letter! " ; - " . ', /.• ['■ ■ . v Milton, June 15, 1875. .