TO THE EDITOR OF THE EXAMINER. 58? 



be, intended to be co-extensive in duration with the Christian religion. 

 But if this be truth, and what a man of your acuteness and acquaintance 

 with the Bible cannot deny, you are, Sir, I maintain bound to establish 

 the fact of the voluntary assumption of the apostolic character by the 

 modern clergy as a body, ere you make the grave and serious charge 

 against them of a laxer morality than common, induced by habitual 

 deviation of practice from professions. 



The fact is, as I was obliged to take the liberty of telling you in my 

 first letter, you are totally ignorant of the body of the parochial clergy. 

 You are a man of 'the highest powers in many respects ; but no man 

 can know every thing by intuition; and though you can do more in 

 your study than most men, you cannot by reading there the partial one- 

 sided information of the press, which you are loud in accusing of mis- 

 representation, make yourself acquainted with the parochial clergy of 

 the kingdom. I must beg leave to repeat, that I do know a great deal 

 about them from actual observation, and from conversation with those 

 amongst whom they live ; and I must be allowed to assert that, from all 

 that appears in your writing, you are totally in the dark, both as to the 

 moral character of the parochial clergy, and as to their voluntary and 

 virtual professions, rvibm <ws\ visv adT .yJrrnsnmri bna Awti bs^BTJuc 



Have the goodness, Sir, to bear in mind, just now, that I am de- 

 fending not the clergy of centuries past, nor the comparatively few ob- 

 noxious individuals before alluded to : I am the advocate of the moral 

 character and rational, not sanctified professions of the great body of the 

 English clergy of the present day. 7^3 ygislo srfo *io ^bod sno 9i3L 



A little reflection might enable you to perceive, Sir, that, as civilized 

 society has been long, and still is constituted, it is utterly impossible to 

 clear it from all that may strictly be termed humbug. When, then, you 

 triumphantly ask my clients, " What are we to think of your professions 

 of faith ?" 1 look you cooly in the face, and reply, tl Why, learned 

 brother, think, that in common with all other class professions, they are 

 considerably over-stated, tuned, as a musician would say above concert 

 pitch : think, that in common with kings, lords, statesmen, lawyers, 

 physicians, nay, even with journalists, aye, and Radical journalists, 

 too, as well as Conservative journalists, think that in common with all 

 these, and any other clases, indeed, the professions of the clergy are, 

 and must be, beyond what their practice is or ever could be. Think 

 this, as the professedly candid Examiner may well be required to think, 

 and then you may, perhaps, approximated to a conviction of the gross 

 injustice you do the parochial clergy, by quoting against their moral 

 character the phraseology applied in antiquated church formularies, in 

 silly and presumptuous imitation of the language of Scripture respecting 

 apostles. 



Now, from my personal acquaintance with the clergy, I can, without 

 fear of contradiction from any one competent to speak to the point 

 (as you from peculiar circumstances are not) affirm, that, making the 

 allowances for them, to which all professing classes are entitled, they do 

 not deserve censure on the score of moral pretensions. I think it silly in 

 them to believe, as they generally do, in the necessity of bishops, either 

 in or out of the House of Lords ; or to believe that, if such views as 

 yours were to gain the ascendant in the political horizon, mere belief in 

 the Christian religion would languish and decline within this realm of 

 England: I admit that, in my opinion, my clients are not wise for en- 



