CRITIQUE ON CLARK.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXXI, Issue 5520, 3 May 1875, Page 3

CRITIQUE ON CLARK.

To the Editor : Sir, — 1 had the pleasure of seeing and hearing Charles Clark on two of the several occasions of his appearing and performing and preaching in the Auckland Choral Hall ; 1st, on the first night of his first visit ; and 2nd, on last Sunday night (25th ult. ), when he was engaged in hehalt of a benevolent institution. On reflection, I judge that the very best heard of him, in point of brilliant eloquence, was the peroration during the last 10 or 12 minutes of his first deliverance here. You will remember that. It was, in substance, a manly assertion that Dickens, though facetious, was religious, (this he was), and that real religion does not demand the sacrifice of common manhood, but rather its cultivation. I think Charles Clark is, perhaps, almost unconsciously o himself, a straight-up, down-right choker to the fanatics. They who think the tius symbol nf religion is timed turning up the ye-whitec, "obseiving days,", ana hating ,}" nature, should, if they would not bo turned inside out and exposed, keep away from diaries Clark. Lately, on the quiet, I have heard some things said ; and have been surprised and annoyed. I dare not trust myself greatly to enlarge on the matter, for fear of feeling indignant ; but, evidently, some pretend tobeleve that lyingatid jealous detraction are venial, oxcusablo, if there bo a presumed abstinence from all sorts of wine, and an ostentations display of outward ceremonious religionism. They have slandered Clark. I fear the heavy rain and gloomy aspoot on Sunday evening emptied all the numerous house-> of public worship. Then the largo Choral Hall was too small. Monday's news-

p.ipurs suqmscd man j. Our man told 1110 he expected to hear that not above htty people wei e at the Hall. There were about 1,400. Then, certainly, Charles Claik nmst be a bad man ! Very ! Only, for goodness sake, do not tell anybody Well, now, 1 observe, his sermon on Sunday night was was exceedingly good ; it was mi extraordinary combination of the sublime, the "high," the sensible, the witty, and, at the expense of the fanatics, the laughable. The woman revelling in " the saints' everlasting rest " whilst her neglected children were running about the streets dirty and untaught, was "a palpable hit." Oh, but, then, lie is an actor! Shocking! An actor, eh J Well, the Bible requires, to do it justice, a representative having histrionic gifts. There arc several incidental dramas in the Bible unsurpassed even by dramatists. Of th s asserted fact C. Clark gave a line exemplification on Sunday last ; first, in "doing the grand old Moses ascending Mount Nebo to finish, and to depart this life ; and, second, the modern Christian crossing the (metaphorical) Jordan with his eye on the glorious promised land, which, acknowledgedlyhedid act, And did act with fire and pothos. An actor ! Yes ; and he is real and unaffected. Now, this I desire specially to note; he is natural. Oh, Jet no speaker ape the orator; let no speaker act, if he cannot naturally and by prompting of genius ; let no speaker, only having done the book -work of elocution at the Bchools, give us, as a beggarly substitute for the real and natural, "the start and stare theatric." Let every speaker be perfectly himself, entirely natural, even thongh he be solid and dry. I quite believe, however, that more profound philosophy has been " done in fire than 111 frost." For one other example of this, take Robert Hall's prelections. It is a popular error that solid philosophy is necessarily dry and cold. No, not necessarily so ; and the fervid, impassioned Charles Clark gives out exalted ideas of man, and propound views of this marvellous world of ours with its gorgeous poetry. Well, now, here is eulogy, yet thoughtful, and I have called it a critique. An intelligent man told me the other day he had ever understood real criticism to mean fair fault-finding. I answered, No, no ; it means duly to estimate, whether the thing examined is good, bad, or indifferent. This criticism of Clark, for instauce, is pretty much an encomium ; aud I silicerely deem it just and proper, and and demanded. Again, relatively, sanctimoniousness is not sanctity, and some Beem not to believe (per Bible teaching) that there are " diversities of gifts " and " divers manners." I perceive the possibility of at least a perfect compatibility, not so say similarity, between the measures of Moody, in Britain and Ireland, and those of C. Clark in Australasia. Finally, Clark's holiday has been only a change of very hard work. But he has been on holiday, a pretty good answer to the grave opponents of his gaiety. Now he resumes his ministerial labours in connection with the same large chapel at MelDourne. Slanderers forwardly affirmed he would not resume, for a reason. I intended to say much more — I am, &c\, W. E. Sadler.