AN OBSOLETE CHURCH PRACTICE.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4494, 14 August 1875, Page 2 (Supplement)

AN OBSOLETE CHURCH PRACTICE.

The Fall Mall Gazette of April 30, says ; There was a story in the papers the other day how, at one of /Messrs. /Moody and Saukey’s meetings an “ enthusiastic revivalist,” as he is called, suddenly rose to Iris feet and exclaimed, “ The Spirit of the Lord is upon mo ; I have a message for JMr. Bloody” The narrative adds, “ Of course, the proceedings of the meeting were stopped.” Mr. Bloody gave out a hymn, and, under the cover of the hymn, the bearer of the divine message was turned out of the theatre. Judged by the practice of the primitive Church, this seems to be ha -h treatment. The apostolic rule is : “If anything be revealed to another that sittctli by, let the first hold his peace.” No doubt in ougregations subject to the authority of bishop* or presbyters —or, indeed, of regular law in ai y shape—this ancient freedom of speech has become as obsolete as the gift of tongues or of healing. But to Messrs. Bloody and Sankey the authority of bishops or presbyteries must seem more bondage, checking the free course of the word. It may be because of the yoke of bishops and presbyteries that the gifts of tongues and of healing are obsolete. Mr Moody’s only justi tication for preaching at all is that he believes that ho has a call ; why is it a matter of course that one who also believes that ho has a call should be turned out of his assembly ? He cannot surely plead the low and carnal ground that he had hired the theatre for Ills own utterances, and that the other prophet had not. The words of the Apostle, superior to such grovelling considerations, are distinct. Mr. Bloody ought to have held his peace as soon as something- was revealed to the other who sat by. Setting aside the mere temporal right, Blr. Bloody could have no claim to silence the man who had the message except on grounds which would justify the Bishop of London in silencing Blr. Bloody and Cardinal Maiming in silencing the Bishop of London. “ 'Tis mine to speak, and yours to hear,” is the very essence of Popery, Prelacy, and Presbytery ; the denial of any such right in any class of men is the essence of Mr. Bloody’s position. The forcible turning-out of the new prophet was really a lesser form of the burning of Servetus or of Joan Bochor. Blr. Bloody cannot be acquitted of breaking the apostolic rule which forbids us to “ quench the Spirit” or “despise prophesyiugs.”