This was not the worst book I've ever read, but there were many moments when all I could do was shake my head. Mainly this was because of the overwhelming feeling of anachronism in terms of how the hero and heroine relate to each other.

Pros:
Generally pleasant, reasonably good grammar (with a few silly errors, like "I believe I have not been formerly introduced to this young man"), unusual secret baby plot, and a plain(ish) and older heroine (late 20s).

Cons:
First, the one unique/interesting characteristic of heroine (her theological bent) is not developed at all. There are references to her writing sermons but little else. This could have been really interesting (e.g., like the woman priest protagonist of Julia Spencer-Fleming). Instead, it was more like window-dressing.

Second, there's obvious sequel bait in supporting characters. That's annoying to me.

Last, the main fly in the ointment: Despite the fact that a big part of the plot revolves around a baby presumed to have been born out of wedlock, at no point do the protagonists consider the possible outcome of their own extra-marital sex. (And there are clear descriptions indicating that no precautions are taken.)

And, despite the fact that the heroine is (at the outset) the virginal spinster daughter and sister of small-town vicars, apparently, she's an appropriate person to have sex with, without ever considering that marriage maybe should be part of the deal. The hero actually reflects, about 80% of the way through the book, "Was he actually thinking of marriage? Surely not." Why "surely" not? He's not concerned about destroying the heroine's life in her village? Impregnating her? "Surely" it should at least be on his mental horizon as a real possibility, no? It's a poor way to stretch out the 'suspense' of the building romance.

Now, I'm not personally (as a 21st century woman) opposed to sex outside of marriage, but I do have trouble believing in these people being fine with it. He's a little rakish, but generally presented as kind, rather than callous and dissipated. She's consistently presented as someone who wants to be a good person. There's some lip service to "sin" and whatnot, but nothing that gets in the way of, say, having sex up against a wall in the vicarage.

I think I have a reasonable tolerance for some flexibility in terms of accuracy in historical romances, but this seemed so implausible I was rolling my eyes more than enjoying it.