The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1880-10-13

unifying power. His great work would
be conserved and carried on, to the bless
ing of his country and the world.
Secret of his Success.
You will remember the predictions
which were so freely made in the early
years of his enterprise, against it's per-
manency. 1t is gratifying to know that
his power in London and Great Britain
has not waned as that of so many pulpit
stars has, and that so long as health con-
tinues it will not decline. To what is
this long lease of extraordinary power
due? Manifestly, not to ability as
preacher, relatively so transcendent as
would solve the question. Mr.. Spurgeon
is a good preacher; an excellently good
preacher; with ust the excellencies
which do not attract the crowd power
fully. He is not sensational; he does
not startle or amuse by violating proprie-
ties; he indulges no novelty Of specula-
ton; he breaches no politics; he sticks
to the gospel, and usually breaches in an
expository strain, with faithful and close
personal applications of the truth That
is to say, he is the kind of good preacher,
of whom you and have heard several,
in our own little churches at home.
Now, so far as Mr. Spurgeon's success
is true, spiritual success, the efficient
cause is ofcourse, to be found in Gods
spirit, working through him. God has
been pleased to use him extensively. But
God customarily uses his instruments ac-
cording to their instrumental adaptation.
To me it seems that Mr.. Spurgeons s per-
manent success is to be accounted for,
under God, in two ways. He is not only
good preacher, but a good organizer.
He has endless industry strong will,
capital good sense, and the talent Of com
mand. He controls men. He energizes
men.
l believe that the other reason for his
permanent success is to be found in the
consistency and aOi8oono a05th a0hich he has
stuck tothe absolute Protestant sinapLcitv
of his initial measures and worship. He
began in dissenting chapel" Now
that his work is famous, popular, rich,
powerful, he is wise enough to keep it the
same The Tabernacle is still but "dis-
senting chapel" " with no pomp of ecclesi-
astlcal architecture, not trace of media
val, papal ornament, not bit of stained
glass, no &" floral decorations, no organ,
no choir nothing at all which either the
world or the prelatist cay say, is loan
from, or an aping of, the prelacy he con-
demns. Therein, you may be sure, is his
wisdom and his strength. The other
great Protestant movements were either
but partially reformed from the "rags of
popery," as the Anglican and the Luther
an, or else they have, at least, done things
WI 1IoH1 L. Il Z
going hankering after some of those
rags" again. Look at the Presbyterian
Churches, at even the Wesleyan, which,
in the days Of its poverty and simplicity,
had such grasp on the masses. But
now that 1t has gotten rich and grand,
In our great cities, it has built itself gothic
cathedrals, has the floral shows. the
choirs, the grand organs, the exclusive
pews, and consequently it has no more
hold on the masses in those places than
the rest of us poor sinners OF the older
denominations.
Aping of Rome.
Some one will say: The things men
toned are none of them naaza per Sc.
How, then, can they be distractions
Why thus: We begin by demanding the
ear of the public to this thesis Popery is
corruption Of Christianity, and must be
reformed. We declare that the primi
tive, apostolic Christians not only had
no pope andno mass but that positively,
they had no surplices, no choirs, no in
strumental music, no saints days, no
prayer books, no pews. We turn learn
ed antiquaries to prove (very thorough
ly,) that their singing was all congre-
gational, and their praying all extern
pore. Thus ne begin. But when we have
gotten rich and genteel, and want to- be
fashionable, we 60 to borrowing surplices.
and choirs, and organs, etc., ETC., from
VhenceP The world knows very well
that it was Popery which introduced all
these (harmless?) things; we had proved
that thoroughly. But Popery is the
great corruptor. The world asks, very
reasonably If these reformers of Popery
are in earnest, why cannot they be salts
fed with the modes of worship which,
they are certain, were the ones establish
ed by the apostles2 If these reformerg
really wanted the scriptural religion, as
they say, why would not the primitive
form suffice them? The question is un-
answerable So, the world takes up a
contemptuous opinion Of our honesty it
concludes, first, that we have proved