1825.] 
“The opulence of the clergy,” says the 
Reviewer, ‘‘ their enormous wealth, and 
the implied consequence of rapacity and 
venality, has been the theme of every de- 
magogue, and of every sour and discontent- 
ed pamphleteer during all the recent strug- 
gle with financial embarrassments and 
excessive taxation. It is in vain to detect 
the grossness_ of exaggeration, which is 
as greedily swallowed as it 1s undaunt- 
edly asserted. But though there are seme 
prizes, some situations of splendour and 
riches, we scruple not to assert on the 
other side, that-as a profession, taken ge- 
nerally, none is worse paid.” * And “ hence,” 
says he again, “ those situations which re- 
quire the most eminent talents, the soundest 
discretion, and, in short, all that can con- 
duce to extensive usefulness, are by no 
means courted by those whose splendid 
abilities and high character command pre- 
ferment.’ 
Now, of all this, and a great deal 
more, which the reviewer has said upon 
this subject, we are, we verily believe, 
as conscienciously convinced as the 
reviewer himself. Yet still can we not 
resist certain boding apprehensions that 
even all this is not sufficient to work 
out our salvation ; and we must repeat, 
therefore, our solicitations to the more 
than reverend reviewer to initiate usinto 
higher mysteries. 
But we must tear ourselves, for the 
present, however reluctantly, from these 
infallible guides; for orthodoxy has yet 
another oracle, to which, hitherto, we 
have neglected to pay our due devotions, 
It is called, 
The British Review, ‘and London Cri- 
tical Journal.—So long ago as August 
last, it had reached its forty-fifth num- 
ber. A forty-sixth, we suppose, has by 
this time made its appearance; and it 
has, of course, its devotees, who listen 
to its periodical oracles. Its title would 
be appropriate enough, if Great Britain 
consisted of nothing but its church 
establishment, If the Archbishops of 
Canterbury and York were its twin- 
born kings, the bishops, with their 
* In Ireland more particularly! Wit- 
ness, also, a certain Bishop, who, upon his 
demise a few years ago, is reported to have 
left, to his family, half a million of money, 
prudently saved out of the scanty remwne- 
ration of his pastoral labours :—a remunera- 
tion, undoubtedly, no more than neces- 
sary to maintain, in all its purity, the meek 
and humble religion of the fishermen of 
Galilee. 
+ Query, should not amiable compliancy 
and high connections have been added to 
this catalogue of the clerical attributes 
which sometimes command pfeferment ? 
a 
Philosophy of Contemporary Criticism.—No. XL. 
139 
prebends, archdeacons, canons, &c. were 
the states of the realm, and the parochial 
clergy its only people: for to them 
alone, with one solitary exception, are 
the articles, in the number before us, 
apparently devoted.* The respective ar- 
ticles, in themselves, however, are liable 
to no parallel objection. They have the 
grace, of late so rare, of being actual 
criticisms on the books announced. But 
there is one circumstance conspicuous 
in them all, which thrills our tender 
consciences with a kind of horror; 
namely, that the standard of the ortho- 
doxy of these professed divines does 
not exactly accord with that of the 
Quarterly oracle to which we are 
pledged implicitly to submit our faith. 
That oracle of oracles, ‘‘ Robert Seu- 
they, Esq., LL.D., Poet Laureate, Ho- 
norary Member of the Royal Spanish 
Academy, &c. &c. &c.,”’ has published, 
as we have already noticed, “ The’ — par 
excellence—*T HE Book ofthe Church;” 
and published it, too, under such strong 
convictions of revelation and authority, 
that (like Ezra, when, on the return 
from Babylonian captivity, he restored 
the sacred volume of, the Jewish law) 
he has not deemed it necessary to 
quote a single authority for any fact 
recorded, With this (alack! the in- 
credulity of the age!) the divines of 
the. British Review are by no means 
satisfied. 
““ We confess,”’ say they [p. 315], “ that, 
in an historical work, we are great adyo- 
cates for references. The writing of his- 
tory, even history of that kind which may 
comparatively be called modern, is by no 
means a plain, straight-forward work. Many 
matters of fact, even in the records of our 
own country, may almost be denominated 
matters of opinion.” —“ This is especially 
true of ecclesiastical history; and the re- 
mark applies with singular force to the 
ecclesiastical history of our own country.” 
—Nay, they presume, in some in- 
stances, to confront him with the au- 
thorities to which they suppose him to 
have alluded; and, upon the grounds 
of such reference, contradict his facts, 
p- 316, &c. In page 320, they attack 
his “ comprehension,” for not having 
included “false doctrine” among “ the 
abuses of popery.” In page 322, they 
not only accuse him of inconsistency, 
but 
* That the exception is an elegant one, 
we cheerfully admit. ‘The review of “* The 
Hermit Abroad,” evidently flows from a 
pen capable of giving an accordant grace to 
subjects of polite literature. 
T 2 
