1825.] 
For the Monthly Magazine. 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF CONTEM- 
’ PORARY CRITICISM. 
NO, XLIII. 
Sir Egerton Brydges’ Letters on Lord 
Byron. 
E have dwelt so long on the Cri- 
tical Philosophy of the Pulpit, 
that the reader, we suppose, would be 
glad to see us again among the laity. 
We forbear, therefore, all further com- 
ment on the splendid and elaborate 
tirades of the Reverend Dr. Styles !— 
his eloquent Jeremiahds about “ per- 
verted genius, which hides the serpent’s 
yenom under the serpent’s splendid 
garb” (p.11); and “ bloody revolutions, 
that have produced nothing but anarchy 
and despotism” (p. 13); and “ emaseu- 
lated* sensualists, and restless dema- 
gogues!” (p.26), &c.&c. Even upon the 
super-orthodox denunciation (p. 10), of 
the pernicious “ doctrine of universal 
philanthropy—which prevents those who 
adopt it from acting at all, or inevitably 
impels them to act wrong!” we shall 
“ Fine word, emasculated! and delicately 
chosen for the purposes of pulpit oratory ! 
‘Suppese some young lady of Dr. S.’s con- 
gregation, desirous of understanding as 
much as she could of her pastor’s pious 
exhortations, should innocently ask him 
the meaning of this word. ‘The Doctor 
(perhaps) might blush a Tittle, or somewhat 
hesitate ; and, in order to avoid the awk- 
wardness of oral explanation, refer her to 
Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary. But, if she fol- 
jowed his directions, and conned over the 
etymologies and illustrations of our bulky 
lexicegrapher, might the not also blush a 
little, the next time her eyes ‘happened to 
meet those of her spiritual guide? Ladies ! 
fadies! who listen to the flowery deciama- 
tions of pulpit orators, be not over-solici- 
tous of understanding their metaphorical 
phrases ; or your ¢maginations may happen 
to be as much tainted by a pious discourse, 
as by any thing that is to be met with jn 
the avowedly loose pages of a Moore or a 
Byron. And yet there is danger, also, in 
the lack of comprehension, We have wit- 
nessed some awkward titers, in mixed so- 
ciety, from young ladies very innocently re- 
(peating very pretty-sounding words, which 
they had picked up (unexamined) from no 
less grave authorities, Let these meta- 
phors ring upon your ears, therefore, as 
7 mee elo periods, like the tune of an 
talian song, rather than be hunted into 
meaning through a naughty dictionary, or 
treasured in remembrance, as intelligible 
English, fit to constitute a part of your 
eonyersational vocabulary. “* Emasculated 
sensualists,” would sound rather awkwardly 
from the rosy lips of “sweet sixteen!” 
Monrunty Maa. No, 408, 
Philosophy of Contemporary Criticism —No. XLII. 
209 
only say, that hitherto we had supposed 
universal phiianthropy to be the express 
doctrine of religion, as preached by 
Christ himself; and were, therefore, 
little prepared for its denunciation from 
the lips of a Minister of the Gospel.* 
But there is one passage, in particular, 
among a multitude of like complexion, 
in this political sermon,} which we must 
not quite forget; and which, we should 
suppose, will not be forgotten, in another 
quarter, at the next distribution of the 
Regium Donum.t 
“ But what,” exclaims the preacher 
(p. 25), after having exhausted his in- 
vention and his indignation upon the 
minor sins of impiety and immorality— 
“What, if the impious spirit that has 
breathed forth its execrations against God, 
should also” —Mark, reader, mark the cli. 
max /—‘*‘should, also, presume to speak 
disloyally of the king? What, if be should 
denounce every thing established, as an 
infringement upon popular rights; and 
every man of character and influence in the 
state, as an enemy to his country ;—so that 
the great and the good, the wise and the vir- 
tuwous’’—terms synonimous, of course, with 
men of rank and influence—“should be held 
up to scorn and universal contempt ?” 
See CRS Ree re ea 
* Dr. S., indeed, seems to be aware, 
that, in this instance, his rhetorical zeal 
had rather overshot the mark ; and, accord- 
ingly, he subjoms a qualifying note, and 
seems disposed to admit a sort of dimited 
universality to benevoience. But, in domg 
so, whence does this, divine impugner of 
freethinking philosophy extract his saying 
clauses? From the texts of Holy Writ?— 
from the parable of the Good Samaritan, or 
the colloquy with the woman of heretical 
Samaria at the well? No: but from the 
pages of one of those “ Infidels,” as they 
are called, whom he so yehemently repro- 
bates—i. e. from ‘“‘ Godwin’s Political Jus- 
tice,”—of the fundamental principles of 
whith, the note in question is a mere 
ubstract. What! steal from these free- 
thinking philosophers, and ‘then abuse 
them? Is this Dr. §,’s idea of “spoiling 
the Egyptians ?’’ 
+ Political, not religious,. most assuredly 
it is;. as was also the like funeral maledic- 
tion, pronounced by the same preacher on 
the demise of Napoleon,—Sve Sermon X., 
vol. 2. 
{ Regium Donum, A bonus, fixed in 
gross‘amount, but discretionary in distribu- 
tion, annually, or triennially, we forget 
which, dispensed, by the orthodox managers 
of the public purse, to such dissenting 
ministers as may be deemed most worthy / 
Mr. Croker, perbaps, mgy point out some 
equally efficacious. mode of securing th¢ 
independence of the Catholic clergy gf 
Ireland, 
Brig 
