education, their temperament, their views of truth, and from what they
have seen or heard regarding the "revival movements," they have been
led to question the reality of sudden conversions, the evidence of the
instrumentalities and means ordinarily employed to effect them, and
the correctness of the teaching imparted, either to awaken or build
up; while other things which appeared always to accompany "a revival,"
as if essential to it,--such as the extravagant and exaggerated coarse
addresses of some, the impudence, conceit, and spiritual pride of
others, the thrusting aside, as if of no value, all that was quiet,
sober, and truthful, and the bringing forward all that was noisy,
demonstrative, talkative, and excited,--has had such an effect on
their minds that the very name of "a revival meeting" produces a
feeling of repulsion and aversion as against a falsehood.

Now, we do not profess by any means to defend whatever has presented
itself to public notice in any village or district as "a revival." A
good name, whether assumed by men, meetings, or movements, does not
necessarily make either of them good or worthy of their name.[A]

[Footnote A: It is very unfair to represent those clergy as opposed to
revivals who may not have attended "revival meetings." These meetings
were often summoned and managed by self-appointed committees of
laymen, whose names were unknown to the clergy, and no guarantee
whatever was afforded as to who would address them, or how they would
be conducted. Clergymen, therefore, were unwilling either to attend
as mere spectators, or to appear on the platform, where they might be
placed in the unpleasant position of either opposing or acquiescing
in what was said or done. They, therefore, confined their labours to
their own flock, thankfully acknowledging the good which may have
been done by others in the way which seemed best to _them_; and also