tion Sermon which was preached at Christ Church, Oxford, in 1779; and a Sermon delivered at the Consecration of the late Dr. Lewis Bagot, to the Bishopric of Bristol, in 1782.

Being translated to the See of Bangor, during the year 1807, the present Bishop explicitly avowed those sentiments which have regulated his episcopal conduct. These are contained in a Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Bangor, by John, Lord Bishop of that Diocese, at his Primary Visitation, in 1808, and published at the Request of the Clergy;-a document which was considered to be of real moment at that time, but which has since obtained additional weight. After adverting to the circumstances of surrounding nations, coupled with those of this country, the Bishop comes openly to the consideration of that which is called the Catholick Question.' Conceiving that the Catholics of Ireland are already possessed of all common civil rights,' and that they have the full and free enjoyment of their religious worship, at which point toleration ends,' his lordship points out the delusions' of the Catholic Religion; the means which it has of imposing upon the multitude; the influence it gives to its priests; its intolerant spirit with regard to those of any other persuasion, on all of whom it peremptorily fixes the brand of heresy,

and excludes them from salvation;' and, he adds, that it is not easy to give, in all respects, to persons so bigotted, the right hand of fellowship. But I object farther to giving them an equal share of power,' observes the bishop, because I conceive that it invades a fundamental principle of the constitution,-even that, by which the civil power incorporates with itself that church of which it most approves; so as to maintain religion and good order amongst its subjects by the instrumentality of the same, inviting and encouraging them to uniformity with it. It is a consequence of such incorporation, that it gives not only establishment, but also superiority and ascendancy to it, so as to maintain its authority, and secure it from the attacks of those, who, by acquiring power, might take advantage of any sudden opportunity, or fluctuation of opinion, to weaken or overthrow it. In this view it is, that I think we are all, both Clergy and Laity, concerned in this question; as we value our happy constitution, and seek to preserve it in the entire unimpaired.'

Proceeding to the consideration of the distinctive pretensions of protestant religionists, his lordship enters into the comparative characteristics of the Whitfieldeans and Wesleyians, obe serving that it is the latter sect which over-runs

the country and perverts the principles of the people;' animadverting, at the same time, on those who have arrogantly taken to themselves the name of Evangelical Ministers, whose abettors are' not untruly represented as numerous, powerful, and wealthy, throughout the kingdom at large, and who,' we are told, under cover of that very name, lead after them many followers, alienated, in the whole or in part, from their proper Ministers.' This last, and more modern sect' of Evangelical Ministers, are said by his lordship to 'shelter themselves under the wing of the Church wherever they can; to covet her orders, if attainable; to solicit and purchase, by their friends, the patronage of her livings; and to attend the church, till they have seduced the members' from her. The bishop here pronounces them convicted of the most direct and plainest schism.' Schism seems not perfectly understood in our days. Religious separation, without evident and clear warrant from some divine precept, is unquestionably improper. Modern schism proceeds without any such warrant. Schismatics of this stamp, adopting the words of a good old theologian, gather Christians, Protestant Christians, from amongst Christians; and such as they find fitted to their own hands, without any pains of theirs, but by the sweat and labour and care and

prayers of some other faithful pastors and ministers of Christ, under whose hands they formerly have been, to whose charge they have been committed, and under whose ministry God hath prospered them. These, amongst others, they either persuade to be of their congregations, or if they offer themselves voluntarily, they admit them, and this to the great grief of their own faithful pastors. When they accept of these, they neither teach them any new article of faith, which formerly they professed not; nor press upon them any new duty according to the commandments of Christ, which is either necessary or conducing to salvation.'

Translated to the metropolitan see, in September 1809, shortly after the death of bishop Porteus, the present Bishop of London availed himself of the earliest opportunity for repeating those official opinions which he had so recently professed. His lordship's Charge, delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of London, at his Primary Visitation, towards the close of May 1810, either recapitulates or corroborates those statements on which he had formally laid the greatest stress. Circumstances occasion, however, incidental variations. Whilst the clergy of Bangor are warned against the practices of those evangelical ministers who not only covet the orders

of the church, but who purchase, by their friends, the patronage of livings in counties where such means are open to them, the clergy of London are also admonished that attempts have lately been made to introduce preachers of this stamp,' the evangelical stamp, as lecturers into the London churches.' Is not the Bishop of London at liberty to decide for himself on these points? Even those who stand opposed to him respecting his estimate of evangelical clergyman, deplore, with him, the great separation from the establishment; especially as it respects those non-descript dissenters, who, while they inveigh against the church, still observe some of its discipline, wear its vestments, use its form of prayer, and find their account in drawing away disciples after them.'

Throughout his Charges to the Clergy, whether at Bangor or London, the Bishop also repeatedly touches on those doctrinal conceptions as to which he differs from his opponents. Evangelical ministers have, his lordship says, ' assumed this name most arrogantly as to themselves, and uncharitably as to others; for every good Minister will insist most on that part of Revelation which he thinks most edifying to his audience; and if he teaches, on the whole, the whole of Christianity, no man has a right to say that his