Cambridge, where he took the degree of B. A. in 1752. He soon gained one of the Duke of Newcastle's medals, instituted by that nobleman as Chancellor of the University, for the best Classical Essay;' and he afterwards acquired, in 1759, the Seatonian Prize' for his Poem on Death. In 1755 he had proceeded M. A.

Auspiciously for Mr. Porteus, and, we may add, for the church, his preaching shortly after attracted the attention of Secker, then Archbishop of Canterbury, who, about 1761, became his efficient and permanent friend. Secker cherished ability, and loved integrity. Singularly yet meritoriously advanced himself to the highest clerical dignity, he seems to have lived only for the clerical vocation. His was the pleasure and the power to do good. Providence first acknowledged, to his "kindness," says Bishop Porteus, speaking of Archbishop Secker, "I owe my first establishment, and much of my subsequent success, in life; to whose instructions, virtues, and example, I am indebted for still

more important benefits; with whose venerable name it is my highest worldly ambition to have my own united here, and with whom (' among the spirits of just men made perfect') may a gracious God render me worthy to be more closely and permanently united hereafter." I will not weaken the effect of these inspiring sentiments by any comment of mine.

Promotion was the natural consequence of such patronage, and, what is not always the case, was as eminently deserved as it was honorably conferred. The public experience of nearly half a century has now ratified this exertion of private munificence. Happy were both parties. It was happy, that a Secker met with a Porteus ; and it was also happy, that a Porteus found a Secker.

While rector of Lambeth, in 1776, the subject of this memoir thought it expedient to solicit the attention of his parishioners towards the religious observance of Good-Friday, which he did by his public Letter to the inhabitants of Lambeth Parish.' It may be useful to notice

this short tract., Unostentatious as were its pretensions, and unquestionable as were its positions, this production excited considerable observation and some animadversion. With quite as much perversity as ingenuity, the author of the History and Mystery of Good-Friday' exerted himself to ridicule the import of Dr. Porteus's Earnest Exhortation to the Religious Observance of Good-Friday.' Better effects ultimately resulted from the letter. Those who valued the pamphlet, and they were not few, began to esteem its author; whose clerical reputation it rapidly extended, and whose clerical· advancement it eventually promoted. Twelve years before the breaking out of the late tremendous revolution, Dr. Porteus, it seems, conceived it necessary for him to caution others against imbibing the modern axioms of philosophical infidelity. "It is not to infidels," he says, in his Letter to the Inhabitants of Lambeth Parish, "I am now addressing myself, but to Christians; under which denomination I am willing to believe that the whole of this

pa

rish may be comprehended. You have not yet, I hope, profited so much by your vicinity to the metropolis as to have imported all those wretched productions of modern philosophy, which, in various shapes and sizes, under the names of essays, letters, novels, history, from the bulky quarto down to the meagre pamphlet, are every day scattering the seeds of irreligion on the other side of the Thames. You have not, I am persuaded, advanced near so far as this in the fashionable refinements of this polished age. Your principles are still uncorrupted; your faith in the gospel is still firm and unshaken," &c. I have transcribed the foregoing sentences, because, while they are abundantly evidential of the clerical character of the writer, they relate the early progress of infidel principles among us; and also as présenting no incurious description of manners and feelings, which have unhappily ceased to prevail in the vicinity of our metropolis.

Dr. Porteus being raised to the See of Chester, shortly after, October 1777, addressed a pas

toral admonition to the Inhabitants of Manchester. He retained this dignity till the year 1787, when, on the decease of the estimable Lowth, he was immediately made Bishop of London. His primary visitation of this diocess, however, did not take place till the year 1790. His account of the reasons which induced him to delay visitation, and his apology for the delay, are admirably satisfactory. His respectful commemoration of his illustrious predecessor will always do honour to him.

Prosperity and sycophancy seem to be, with some minds, terms perfectly synonimous. Supposing that public ascendancy is uniformly attainable by private subserviency, that talent cannot ensure success, and desert never obtains reward, taking this for granted, as such must do, there are those who still roundly ascribe Bishop Porteus's ecclesiastical promotions as flowing only" through the channel of powerful courtinterest." I confess that I cannot bring myself to think in the same way. Reflecting on what the present prelate himself calls his "first esta