authority of public documents, possessed of the ordinary degree of accuracy belonging to such productions, are not to be invalidated or suppressed by the mere assertion of an author, avowedly acting the part of an apologist, and producing no stronger claim upon our belief than that he knew where to apply for intelligence.

In the advertisement prefixed to the second edition of his book, Mr. Norris remarks that of the mass of evidence which the volume contains, "three items" comprise the whole against the fidelity of which any exceptions have been taken. Mr. Dealtry we have already said, has marshalled up no fewer than fifty, and we certainly agree with him in thinking that, such as they are, they might have encreased ad libitum.

The first respects a Grace which voted a sum of money to the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, from the University of Cambridge, soon after the establishment of an Auxiliary Bible Society in the town. Mr. Norris says that the Grace was voted by a majority of ten to one, whereas it appears that, being "grossly misinformed on this subject," and not having read the Christian Observer for January 1814, the majority was still greater than he has stated, there being only one dissentient voice. We give Mr. Dealtry joy on this triumph! What could induce Mr. Norris to say ten to one, when his vernacular tongue supplies so many forms of expression, which would have come much nearer to the idea of complete unanimity? A hundred to one sounds as well, is as good English, has as high authority and good practice to recommend it, and it might perhaps have reduced the number of "mistakes and misconceptions" from fifty to forty-nine. The author of the Examination, when reviewing this case, very appropriately exclaims "parturiunt montes ;" and really at the head of half a hundred charges, gravely brought forward, and seriously urged, it is ridiculous enough to encounter the above. But we have more of the same kind: indeed there is not one of any importance in the whole list; they all respect trifles, the mere outside of the question, the merest slips of the pen or errors of the press. It is, perhaps, an abuse of time to transcribe, and still more to read such matters as them. Yet we shall venture so far upon our reader's goodnature as to lay before him two or three of Mr. Norris's mistakes, with their respective corrections and animadversions. "The Bible Society," it has been alleged, it seems, by Mr. N. "supersedes the regular clergy." Answer, by Mr. Dealtry, "I am a regular clergyman: a society is established in my parish, and it has not superseded me." "Wherever the Bible Society has been introduced," says the Practical Exposition, it has set the flock in opposition to the pastor, and the minister at X X 2

variance

variance with his brother." To this misconception an answer equally satisfactory is given. "In my parish the Society has excited no feelings of pain either in the time of my predecessor or myself." One would imagine that Mr. Deaitry had procured a patent for representing in himself and his parish the whole kingdom and Church of England. The next mistake charged upon the Editor of the Practical Exposition respects Mr. Steinkopff, who, it seems, was sent on a mission to Bonaparte, to promote the views of the Bible Society. Mr. Dealtry loses his temper completely upon reviewing this part of Mr. Norris's book. "The Editor," says he, "finds in a provincial paper a silly paragraph, which he converts into this most marvellous accusation?" to which Mr. D. adds a note, containing this query. "Is it exactly true that any newspaper ever made this assertion? say it with much pain, but I have reason to believe that the statement is incorrect." To this we cannot give a better answer than in the words of the Examiner of Mr. Dealtry's Review.

I

"The Reviewer might have saved himself all the 'pain' of saying this, and all the shame of saying it unjustly, if he had looked (as Mr. Norris expressly directs him to do,) into the Cambridge Chronicle for Dec. 18, 1812. The paper is now before me; and from the conclusion of a conspicuous account of the proceedings at an anniversary meeting of the Cambridge Auxiliary Bible Society, I copy the ensuing sentences: At the same time no circumstance has transpired of so interesting a nature, at this moment, that we trust we need no apology for its insertion. The French Emperor, Bonaparte, from whom this nation were not prepared to expect patronage for its religious institutions, has thought proper to countenance the object of Mr. Steinkopff's mission. That gentleman landed at Harwich, on Sunday, the 6th instant, after an expedition to Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and France, for the purpose of furthering the views of the parent Society.""

"How severely may Mr. Dealtry's question relative to Mr. Norris be here retorted upon himself! Did it never occur to his mind that previous to the advancing of so serious a charge, it might be proper to inquire into the fact! What satisfactory answer the proposer of this question may be able to return to it, I am much at a loss to imagine. The Editor may allege for his answer that the Cambridge Chronicle is professedly in the interests of the friends of the Bible Society, and that the paragraph here noticed has all the appearance of having been inserted with the concurrence of the party themselves."

So much for this mistake, and the boundless charity of the corrector!

We mention but one more of the fifty misconceptions, mistakes, or blunders, with which the Editor is charged, and it is

་

one of the three items,' against which an exception has been taken. In the Practical Exposition it is said that,

"At the Henley Meeting Mr. Cunningham insinuates that the honour and interest of the University of Oxford are at stake, unless an Auxiliary Bible Society be formed there; and that its refusal to sanction such a measure would be an act which he could hardly refrain from considering as a proof that its sight was impaired or extinguished."

Now, as Mr. Cunningham actually expostulated with Mr. Norris on this statement, which he represented as incorrect, it certainly would have been no more than honest in Mr. Dealtry to have given the reason for which Mr. N. refused, or deemed it inexpedient to retract it in his second edition. That reason is given at considerable length in a note, from which Mr. Dealtry has made a partial quotation, after doing which, he leaves the matter to the conjectures of his reader, who can scarcely fail to ascribe Mr. Norris's conduct to obstinacy, or to a motive still more objectionable. The merits of the case, however, when properly examined into, will exhibit the latter gentleman's character in a very different point of view. We give it in his own words:

"Mr. Cunningham has stated, in a letter to the Editor, that that passage extracted from his speech, in the Reading Mercury is not his,' and has complained that he should have been judged rather from the unauthorized report of a newspaper, than from the authorized report of the Henley Meeting, which has since been published.' In proof of the accuracy of this authorized report,' he (Mr. C) proceeds to allege that it contains the only PARTS of his wholly unprepared speech, which he could persuade himself to print at the desire of the Meeting,' and this, though the readerperhaps will scarcely credit it, is the reason assigned by himself, and the only one he assigns, for the deference which he demands as due to the report published by authority. In his zeal to secure

the retractation of any charge against the Bible Society contained in the Practical Exposition, he directs the Editor's attention to the authorized report of the Meeting at Hertford. The Editor has paid due attention to that Report, and, amongst other things, he finds extreme caution' recommended by the Committee to the public, in their enquiries, whether the speeches actually delivered have not been 'GARBLED.' In the present instance enquiry is superseded for the garbling of Mr. Cunningham's speech in the authorized Henley Report stands recorded by his own hand. What degree of accuracy characterizes the Newspaper Report the Editor does not pretend to determine; but it is well known to be the practice of Bible Society Auxiliarists to have short hand writers in attendance at their Meetings, and in some instances to have Com

mittees

mittees to prepare for the public paper a full account of the pra cecdings of the day; and the lengthened detail of the speeches at Henley, contained in the Reading Mercury of Oct. 12, 1812, has all the characters of a document of this description. Whether therefore, from that wholly unprepared' state in which Mr. Cunningham professes that he delivered his sentiments on that occasion, the alleged reflection upon the Univerity of Oxford did or did not inadvertently slip from him, is a point to be settled between himself and the conductor of the paper in question, on whose authority it is adduced, and who, as far as appears, has not had such representations made to him as to induce him to retract it."

Mr. Dealtry, in his account of the above affair, carefully avoids mentioning that the authorized Report of the Henley Meeting, contained only such parts of Mr. Cunningham's speech as he had thought proper to publish, and that there were other parts which he could not persuade himself to print in that document; and moreover that the whole was an extemporaneous effusion, "wholly unprepared," and, of course, less likely to be distinctly remembered upon a subsequent effort of reminiscence. So far, then, from there being ground for a charge against Mr. Norris, on this head, he has acted the part of an honest and consistent character. The exception taken against his statement he has thought it due to the party concerned to record in its proper place; and we are certain that the hope which he cherishes will not be disappointed; that the reader will go along with him in thinking that such exceptions as the above give no occasion either to withdraw or to alter the original passages.

We will not proceed farther in this unpleasant business. Well might Mr. Dealtry say that," a controversial spirit is a bad spirit." It is uncharitable, and it is full of deceitfulness. It gradually carries a man from self-defence to the blackest calumny; and the weaker he feels his cause, the more virulent and pertinacious he becomes. Mr. Dealtry knows all this; but he has not been at all times watchful to avoid the danger.

To those who take an interest in this subject, we recommend the 66 EXAMINATION OF MR. DEALTRY'S REVIEW." It follows the Reviewer point by point, and exposes, most completely, his repeated failures in argument, candour, and good nature.

ART.

ART. IX. The Admonition of our Lord to his Disciples, "Take heed therefore how ye hear;" considered in Relation to the present State of the Church. In a Sermon, by a Clergyman of the Archdeaconry of Exeter. Rivingtons.

1816.

WE consider it by no means an unimportant part of a duty, which we should be glad were not so peculiarly left to us, to exmine with attention and respect the numerous single Sermons that daily proceed from the obscure, but most meritorious labourers in the great vineyard, scattered throughout the kingdom. To the fashionable and superficial critic this branch of literary commerce, if we may so say, appears of course very uninteresting, or very unimportant. For those who do not take the interest in this affair which we do, are but little aware of the mass of learning and sense, the flow of eloquence, and the pure spirit of piety that may be found in many of these too little read publications. All that they know of them is, that they are born and die, that they produce little fame and less profit to their authors, that they are discussed at no dinner parties, and are found in no drawing-rooms. To us, upon whom our duty forces the acquisition of a more detailed knowledge, it has been a subject of regret, that they are so little read and so soon forgotten; if the author is rewarded with so small a portion of praise, we have at times thought that there was reason to fear that his work had produced but little good. We believe, however, that this regret was unfounded, we mistook the proper object of such writings. True it is, that in the great sea of public literature, these small and unostentatious adventurers make but little show, and produce in general but little effect; each however has his own small port from which he sails, and to which he returns, where the worth of his cargo is duly appreciated, and its beneficial powers effectually exercised, and where the skill and honesty of him, who provides so well for the sustenance and comfort of his little circle, receive their proper and most grateful reward. Besides, to abandon our metaphor, the real object of such writers is the fixing an impression, which might otherwise fade away in the minds of a peculiar audience; a sermon has perhaps, been heard with particular attention, and produced, for the moment, a more than ordinary effect; by printing it in a cheap form it gets into the hands of those who have a strong interest in it, and the impression is perpetuated by the frequency, and the pleasure with which it is then referred to. General fame on such occasions is, we will not say absolutely no object, or in any sense an illegitimate object with the author, but certainly it is secondary to the

one