p out
one by one. But the preacher is completely master of the situation: no
one may hiss, no one may depart. Like the writer of imaginary
conversations, he may put what imbecilities he pleases into the mouths of
his antagonists, and swell with triumph when he has refuted them. He may
riot in gratuitous assertions, confident that no man will contradict him;
he may exercise perfect free-will in logic, and invent illustrative
experience; he may give an evangelical edition of history with the
inconvenient facts omitted:--all this he may do with impunity, certain
that those of his hearers who are not sympathizing are not listening.
For the Press has no band of critics who go the round of the churches and
chapels, and are on the watch for a slip or defect in the preacher, to
make a "feature" in their article: the clergy are, practically, the most
irresponsible of all talkers. For this reason, at least, it is well that
they do not always allow their discourses to be merely fugitive, but are
often induced to fix them in that black and white in which they are open
to the criticism of any man who has the courage and patience to treat
them with thorough freedom of speech and pen.

It is because we think this criticism of clerical teaching desirable for
the public good that we devote some pages to Dr. Cumming. He is, as
every one knows, a preacher of immense popularity, and of the numerous
publications in which he perpetuates his pulpit labors, all circulate
widely, and some, according to their title-page, have reached the
sixteenth thousand. Now our opinion of these publications is the very
opposite of that given by a newspaper eulogist: we do _not_ "believe that
the repeated issues of Dr. Cumming's thoughts are having a beneficial
effect on society," but the reverse; and hence, little inclined as we are
to dwell on his pages, we think it worth while to do so, for the sake of
pointing out in them what we believe to be profoundly mistaken and
pernicious. Of Dr. Cumming personally we know absolutely nothing: our
acquaintance with him is confined to a perusal of his works, our judgment
of him is founded solely on the manner in which he has written himself
down on his pages. We know neither how he looks nor how he lives. We
are ignorant whether, like St. Paul, he has a bodily presence that is
weak and contemptible, or whether his person is as florid and as prone to
amplification as his style. For aught we know, he may not on