Chapter 23: The "Rivulet" Controversy

Chapter 23.
"The Rivulet" Controversy

Origin of the Dispute—Thomas Toke Lynch—James Grant and The Morning Advertiser—Dr. Campbell—Mr. Spurgeon speaks in The Christian Cabinet—Mr. Lynch's Reply—Results of the Controversy.

The Rivulet" controversy, which belongs to this period, was so far associated with Mr. Spurgeon that he was one of the combatants, so that no biography of our great preacher would be complete without a chapter devoted to this "passage-at-arms" in the theological field, which once shook the religious world in a way which now excites one's wonder as one looks back upon it. It is not necessary to enter into such a matter at length; it will suffice to state succinctly the main facts as illustrating the part which Mr. Spurgeon himself took in the dispute. In November, 1855, appeared a small volume entitled "Hymns for Heart and Voice, The Rivulet." The author, Thomas Toke Lynch, was pastor of a chapel in Grafton Street, the congregation being a small one. Born in 1818, he was still hardly more than a young man; he had become known as a contributor to the monthly magazine, The Christian Spectator; but the poetical pieces which created such a furoreh had been composed during a time of domestic affliction in 1854, and some succeeding months. It is said that the author found much solace in the work of composition. The volume did not attract any extraordinary notice until the review by Mr. James Grant appeared in The Morning Advertiser. In that article the writer admitted, as he no doubt considered with generous frankness, that Mr. Lynch was amiable, intellectual, cultivated, and was even largely imbued with the poetic spirit; but at the same time the work was calculated to inspire sadness in the minds of those who knew in what true religion consisted. Mr. James Grant then continued:—

"It is with regret and pain we are compelled to say that, though the volume in many places displays much fine feeling, there is not, from beginning to end, one particle of vital religion or evangelical piety in it. At least, if there be, we have not been able to discover it. Occasionally—but even that is comparatively seldom—the name of the Saviour is introduced; but there is not one solitary recognition of His divinity, of His atoning sacrifice, or of His mediatorial office. Neither is the inherent depravity of man, nor the agency of the Spirit in the work of conversion and sanctification, even indirectly recognised from the first to the last page of the volume. Nearly the whole might have been written by a Deist; and a very large portion of the Hymns might be sung by a congregation of Freethinkers.... The hymns of Watts, of Doddridge, of Hart, of Cowper, of Newton, of Montgomery, and others, have, in innumerable instances, proved the source of unspeakable consolation to believers in seasons of sorrow, and on the bed of death; but what a cruel mockery it would be to put into the hands of believers, in such circumstances, such a book as this, or to repeat to them any of its verses! The author, if such were his pleasure, had a perfect right to pen and publish the contents of this volume; but, then, instead of palming them off as 'Christian Poems,' which he expressly does in his preface, he should have given them their proper character of mere tributes to the beauties and beneficence of Nature; or, if he liked the expression better, as endeavours to 'look through Nature up to Nature's God.'"

Referring to this review, the biographers of Dr. Campbell remark: "Such is the marrow of that criticism which gave rise to 'The Rivulet' controversy." They speak of the dispute in a dispassionate common-sense manner, like Christian men whose literary training sufficed to preserve them from violence in expression either on one side or the other. In this respect Drs. Ferguson and Morton Brown set a more worthy example to writers who, after the noise and smoke of battle have passed away, seem desirous of reviving some of the worst phases of "The Rivulet" controversy itself. It is conceivable that Dr. Campbell, of The British Banner, and James Grant, of The Morning Advertiser, may have made mistakes, but that they were bad—ignorant and unscrupulous—no one less than a far-gone fanatic on the other side could ever suppose. The first to reply to Mr. Grant's notice of "The Rivulet" was The Eclectic Review, which in former years had been associated with the honoured names of Robert Hall and John Foster. Just at this time The Eclectic had a new editor, which probably occasioned the opinions put forth to be looked upon with the greater misgiving. In due course The Morning Advertiser reviewed the notice in The Eclectic, and then, in answer to this, the latter published a protest signed by more than a dozen of the leading Nonconformist ministers. "This was a new feature in the case—a new feature, indeed, in relation to reviewing," remark the biographers of Dr. Campbell. "Here was a rush into the field of a whole band of helpers to overpower the opinion and to condemn the condemnation of one man." Of course, Mr. Grant, as the chief of a great daily newspaper, was not to be easily suppressed. He republished the Protest, and made remarks upon it, and, after quoting some of the hymns, asked certain of the Protesters whether they would give out such pieces to be sung by their congregations. As the body of Protesters included such men as Henry Allon, Newman Hall, and Thomas Binney, the commotion increased.

Dr. Campbell was the last of the Nonconformist editors to enter into the fray; but when he did speak the excitement greatly increased. There was no indecision or hesitation: "The Rivulet," taken as a whole, was "the most unspiritual publication of the kind in the English language." The doctor published "Seven Letters," and addressing these to the "Principals and Professors of the Independent and Baptist Colleges of England," he insisted that there was less of distinctive evangelical truth in Mr. Lynch's pieces than in the hymns used by the Unitarians.

Mr. Spurgeon had something to say on the controversy, and though he may have made passing references to the subject in speaking or preaching, his chief utterances concerning the matter were given through The Christian Cabinet, for which, as already explained, the pastor of New Park Street Chapel wrote pretty regularly through friendship for his friend Mr. Charles Waters Banks. Unhappily for itself, The Cabinet appears to have reviewed "The Rivulet" favourably before Mr. Spurgeon undertook to examine the matter for himself, with very different results. Hence we find Mr. Lynch remarking, "The Cabinet is getting now a little more self-consistent. Its conduct towards me has been ridiculous; but wishing it, under its new management, more wisdom, I can heartily wish it, as wiser, a good success." Mr. Lynch himself thus refers to the part which Mr. Spurgeon took in this dispute:—

"Amongst the oddities of this controversy, the conduct of The Christian Cabinet deserves a word or two. Did the reader ever hear of The Christian Cabinet? Truly it is a cabinet not without curiosities. It is a little penny journal, just big enough to make a paper boat of to swim for a moment's sport, and then perish. The wind is very inconstant, but not so variable as this paper, which, indeed, changes its mind, like the wind its direction, without any very discoverable reason. On December 28, 1855, just after the appearance of 'The Rivulet,' its opinion was that the volume abounded with passages adapted 'to brighten and exhilarate the mind—to recover it when it is losing the proper tone of feeling, to exalt it with happy, holy thoughts—to clothe the waste and desolate places of the soul with fruitfulness and verdure, and prepare it for doing brave battle amidst the trials and discouragements of daily life.' The Cabinet quoted three hymns in illustration of these sentiments, and concluded, as well it might, by cordially wishing the volume a wide circulation.' But on March 21 The Cabinet discovered that it had never seen the volume, and on May 16 called it 'a little penny rattle of rhymery by one Mr. Lynch.' This was somewhat of a descent both for it and me. However, when things get to the worst, they begin to mend. So on May 23 out came 'Mine opinion,' that is to say, Mr. Spurgeon's opinion, which was communicated to the world through this important organ. Mr. Spurgeon acknowledged that he could 'scarce see into the depths where lurked the essence of the matter.' 'Perhaps the hymns,' said he, 'are not the fair things that they seem.' He saw enough in the 'glistering eyes' of the mermaids to suspect they might have a fishy body and a snaky tail. But he confessed that he did not see the said tail. In fact, it lay too deep for him to see, or for anybody else. This review of Mr. Spurgeon's enjoys the credit with me of being the only thing on his side—that is, against me—that was impertinent, without being malevolent. It evinced far more ability and appreciation than Grant or Campbell had done, and indicated a man whose eyes, if they do not get blinded with the fumes of that strong, but unwholesome, incense, Popularity, may glow with a heavenlier brightness than it seems to me they have yet done. Mr. Spurgeon concluded by remarking that 'the old faith must be triumphant,' in which I entirely agree with him, doubting only whether he is yet old enough in experience of the world's sorrows and strifes to know what the old faith really is. He says, 'We shall soon have to handle truth not with kid gloves, but with gauntlets—the gauntlets of holy courage and integrity.' Ay, that we shall, and some of us now do. And, perhaps, the man who has a soul that 'fights to music,'

'Calm 'mid the bewildering cry, Confident of victory,'

is the likeliest to have a hand with a grip for battle, and a grasp for friendship alike strong and warm. Mr. Spurgeon spoke on May 23; and now in October The Cabinet scarce knows what to think. A week or two ago it compared me to Apollos, and recommended Priscilla and Aquila to invite me to tea, and 'teach me the way of the Lord more perfectly.' And in the last number that I have seen, it expresses a hope that I 'shall turn out well.' I am sure I hope I shall, and that soon, and the controversy too, for time loiters not." As the controversy widened, "The Rivulet," which had started the disputants, was no doubt in the main lost sight of, and the battle centred around the standards of orthodoxy and negative theology. Thus, the controversy, on the whole, had the effect of clearing the air, the general result being, as one authority tells us, "an untold amount of good to the Church of God," Neither the severe criticism nor the abuse was confined to one side; but it is pleasant to find that many of the combatants who were at open war afterwards became good friends. In a general way the bulk of these would probably have united in confessing that good had come to the churches all round. In common with Dr. Campbell and Mr. Grant, Mr. Spurgeon desired nothing different from this; they sought neither fame nor aggrandisement by what they did. Hence, when they found that truth had been the gainer by what they had done, these leaders must have felt themselves compensated for all their pains. "I am able to testify that the agitation has proved a mighty impetus to the ministry," said one; "the cardinal elements of the Gospel have had more prominence than for many years." In some instances it appeared that the ministry itself had been revived. "Never did I feel so concerned clearly and unmistakably to set forth the atoning sacrifice of Christ in all its fulness as now," wrote one preacher; while another added, "Emerging from painful discussions, we shall enter on new and united plans of Christian usefulness." The gain was on the side of truth.