blishment in life," on the exalted metropolitan to whose "kindness" he likewise acknowledges himself gratefully indebted for "much of his subsequent success;" it should at least be told how court-interest" became "powerful" in the cause of Bishop Porteus, and through what kind of "channel" he really "succeeded to a bishopric." The seeming difficulty of this explanation is not great. Strange would it be, something still stranger than court-interest itself, if he who performed the "ceremonials of marrying and crowning their present Majesties;" who had even " baptized" our present" Sovereign," and who " was afterwards called upon to perform the same office for the greatest part of his Majesty's children," it would be strange, one must think, if this exalted individual possessed no legitimate introduction to " powerful" yet honorable" court-interest." Archbishop Secker, the first and firm friend of Bishop Porteus, was the exalted individual just adverted to and is it to be wondered at, much less insinuated as a crime, that Bishop Porteus, setting

his capacity and integrity far aside, should, after years of probation as a divine, have “ succeeded to a bishopric?" Any thing the exact reverse of all this might have been the subject of wonder. Bishop Porteus early evinced his attachment to those religious principles which conduced to his eventual eminence. His genuine opinions, coupled with the ability with which they were asserted, first acquired him the assistance of patronage; and his subsequent successfulness was the natural consequence of those exertions, on his part, which had been so propitiously discovered and fortunately estimated. If indeed unaffected orthodoxy, in any church, lays not the strongest claim to promotion, especially when combined with leading talents, I know not the principle by which the distribution of ecclesiastical preferments should be regulated. While censuring then the progress of this prelate, his oppugners appear to be insensible to the dilemma in which they thus place themselves. They condemn him for his avowal of truths, which he most religiously engaged

himself to promulgate; and they condemn his patrons because they have chosen, as the object of clerical distinction, a divine whose head and heart entitled him to the highest honors of the church.

Respecting its possessor, however, what is even the highest of clerical dignities? When I had proceeded thus far in the revision of these sketches of the clergy, and when I hoped to have borne my individual testimony to public merit, it was for me to find (Monday, May 15, 1809), that him whom it had been my choice to respect in life, it was become my lot to regret in death!

He had long contemplated his change. Even in the year 1803, when he delivered his farewell address to his clergy, he apprehended that his "advanced period of life" would not permit him again to meet them as usual. Severely as he suffered from his augmenting infirmities, yet, alive to duty, he stood forth, during last summer, in his place in the House of Peers, and, though then in a " very infirm state of health," as him

self said, ably and eloquently vindicated the measure entitled the Curate's Bill. This was his last great speech.

Corruption has put on incorruption. Released from the labours of the church militant, he is summoned to the glories of the church. triumphant; and he, who, had our times, as was once thought, taken some sad turn, would have laid down his life for his faith, has now joined the noble army of martyrs, and the glorious company of apostles and prophets and patriarchs. Having worn the wedding-garment below, he is admitted to the marriage-supper above! Be such the end of those who tread in his steps; while, anticipating immortality, they still pray, as he did,

"Forgive the tear

That feeble nature drops; calm all her fears,
Wake all her hopes, and animate her faith,
Till the rapt soul, anticipating Heaven,
Bursts from the thraldom of incumbring clay,
And, on the wing of ecstacy up borne,
Springs into liberty and light and life!"

3

Requesting the reader to pardon this digression, to which circumstances unavoidably led me, I now resume my account of Bishop Porteus.

Minutely as he was known to discharge the higher duties of his station, his sermons, which abundantly attest his attention to the ordinary functions of the christian ministry, naturally suggest the consideration of his pulpit powers. As his lordship, commonly with the clergy of the establishment, preferred written to spoken sermons, one is brought to ask, which method of preaching is best adapted to the end of popular instruction? Each kind has its use. If it is the effect of extemporary discourses to attach the attention and interest the feelings, it is for written sermons to inform the judgment and impress the memory. When Felix trembled, Paul, we are told, reasoned on the great truths which he laboured to inculcate.

Reflecting on both systems of preaching, and considering the importance of each, is there no steering between extremes? While numbers of divines content themselves with the cold