but perhaps it would be fairer to look further back to this Bishop of London who, in an age when Churchmen were, for the most part, exceedingly worldly, sought honestly and fearlessly to advance his Master's cause with all his power.

A short study of his life and doings should be interesting, as bringing us into touch, not only with an exceptional man, but also with many characteristic movements of the century.

II

Born at York in 1731, Beilby Porteus was educated at that city and at Ripon until he proceeded to Christ's College, Cambridge, of which institution he became Fellow and remained one until 1762. In that year he became domestic chaplain to Archbishop Secker, from whose methodical work and charity he doubtless learnt much. The Archbishop (whose biography he afterwards wrote) gave him various small livings in Kent; in 1767 he became Rector of Lambeth; in 1769 a Royal Chaplain, and Master of St. Cross, Winchester; in 1776 Bishop of Chester; and in 1787 Bishop of London, ruling that diocese until his death in 1808. All his ministerial life he was an exceedingly hard worker-at sixty-four years of age he still rose daily at five-and exercised real influence for good.

The portion of his life which will most interest the reader is his London episcopate. He found the diocese in a terrible state of neglect and unspirituality, and set himself to stem the heavy tide of sloth and worldliness. He sympathised deeply with the activities of the Evangelicals, though he did not commit himself to their views; keenly advocated the Sunday-school system, still in its infancy; was a warm supporter of Foreign

I

Missions, of the British and Foreign Bible Society, and of the Anti-Slave Trade campaign; and worked hard to promote a better observance of Sundays, and of Lent, which had long been ignored in his diocese.

III

What courage and zeal it required in an ecclesiastical reformer to support these various movements may be seen in some degree from the state of the diocese of London, and of the Church at large, as reflected in his Primary Visitation Charge in 1790.

The bishop opens his charge by explaining that he had deferred his visitation for two years until he had been able to investigate diocesan matters fully. He goes on to refer, in terms of regret, to the death of his predecessor. Bishop Lowth had been a cultured gentleman and scholar of the old school, to whose credit it is recorded that on a certain occasion when he met John Wesley at a dinner-party, he refused to sit above him, saying "Mr. Wesley, may I be found sitting at your feet in another world." He admired in another the evangelistic zeal which he would readily have confessed was not his own. It is significant that in Porteus' eulogy of the bishop (who was so respected in his day that he was offered the Primacy) there is no mention of any episcopal activity on his part except opposition to one particular abuse in the matter of clerical resignations. The eulogy runs in the following terms:

We may justly admire the universality of that genius which could apply itself and with almost equal success, to so many different branches of literature; to poetry, to grammar, to criticism, to

theology, to Oriental learning. In each of these he has displayed the talents of a master, and the originality of the true genius. But in that admirable work, the Prelections on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, he has described and illustrated the distinct properties and excellencies of each particular species of that poetry with such admirable taste and skill, with such exuberant richness of imagery, such variety, copiousness, elegance, and rotundity of style, as few writers have ever yet equalled in a language not their own.

With such various and distinguished talents in almost every branch of literature; with a conduct perfectly inoffensive and irreproachable; with a temper naturally mild and even; with manners the most gentle, unassuming, and conciliating, it can be no wonder if he attracted the notice and the patronage of the great, whose friendship gradually raised him through the various honours of his profession to that high station which he was so peculiarly qualified to dignify and adorn.

So much for the apostolic labours of Dr. Porteus' predecessor! In such language could be described the work of the bishop of the greatest city in the world! It is a picture which might serve equally well as a portrait of many of his episcopal contemporaries.

The rest of the Charge is taken up with the good bishop's demand upon his clergy for urgently needed reforms.

First of all, he tilts against the current evil of nonresidence. Non-residence (which went hand in hand with the prevalent system of pluralities), was, of course, one of the great abuses of the day. It was a common thing for an ecclesiastic to accumulate several

benefices, and put a curate at starvation wage into each, whilst he himself rarely, or even never, came near his cures. Archbishop Secker himself, when Bishop of Bristol, held also the rectory of St. James's, Piccadilly, and a prebend in Durham Cathedral ! Later, he held the deanery of St. Paul's in conjunction with the see of Oxford! Bishop Watson of Llandaff, the worst pluralist of all, drew the income of two benefices in Shropshire, two in Leicestershire, two in his diocese, and three in Huntingdonshire-in each of which he maintained a curate. This bishop is said to have entered his diocese but once or twice during his thirteen years' occupancy of the See. What wonder if the lesser fry among the clergy, when opportunity offered, followed such examples, and, with little thought as to the performance of duties, looked upon preferments in the Church chiefly as the reward of merit.

To return to Bishop Porteus' charge - he has observed, he says, that many excellent parochial clergymen reside constantly on their benefices; but, alas, this is not always the case. Much too large a proportion lived away from their cures to the great detriment of their parishioners' welfare and morals.

"

The prevalence of the evil1 is clearly seen from the bishop's somewhat pessimistic tone in deprecating it.

There are, indeed, two impediments to constant residence which cannot easily be surmounted; the first is (what unfortunately prevails in some parts of this diocese) unwholesomeness of situation; the other is the possession of a second benefice. Yet even these will not justify a total and perpetual

1 The Bishop himself had not hesitated, when Bishop of Chester, to continue to hold one of his Kent livings,