preaching is not evangelical.' During his Charge to the Clergy of London, the Bishop contends that the notions of sudden conversion, absolute election, and the utter insufficiency of our own righteousness, are not the means of producing christian innocence and simplicity of life;' to which notions, in his prior Charge to the Clergy of Bangor, he opposed the constant duty, the laborious exercise of repentance, as a proud distinction between the genuine doctrine of his church, and sudden and special conversions. Firmly as I believe myself,' the Bishop adds, in the doctrine, properly understood, that it is faith alone that justifieth, and that nothing less than the blood of Christ can procure remission of sins, yet I believe that the thing most generally useful to the bulk of Christians is to inculcate the necessity of an holy and good life, on christian principles.'

Differing from the evangelical ministers even as to the tenets which they hold, and unreservedly disapproving of the practices to which their followers so frequently resort, with the view of strengthening and supporting their cause, it was naturally to be expected of the present Bishop of London, when he came to this see, that he would omit no methods which might tend, according to his judgment, to check, at least, the further in

crease of the sectarists. Since his lordship felt it his duty to act in this way, was he not bound to abide by what it imposed on him?

Sectarism has provoked this hostility. Whatever may be his own persuasion as to the faith once delivered to the saints, there is not an equitable individual who can approve of the conduct of the new sectaries towards the establishment. Methodism is by them said to be rampant. Glorying in this, and anticipating those measures which might be adopted in order to arrest its progress, it is possible,' say they, that the dignitaries of the Church may be at a loss to decide whether the services of the evangelical class shall be accepted or rejected; but, we are persuaded, the people will feel no difficulty in determining whether to continue their attendance at the places from whence they are banished. Teachers of the opposite description have already lost their hold on the public mind; and they will lose it more and more. Should the secession from the Established Church become so general as that its services are no longer the objects of popular suffrage, it will be deprived of its firmest support.'-Who can approve of language like this? Let the church of this land, however, make the most of the hint. Perhaps she will gather, even from these her foemen, how it is, that, whilst

the office of preaching is by some of her sons styled doing duty, the evangelical clergy excel their contemporaries in the art of preaching. They engage in it,' assume their champions, ' under many advantages. Possessed of the same education with their brethren, they usually speak to crowded auditories; the truths they deliver command attention; and they are accustomed to ascend the pulpit under an awful sense of the weight and importance of their charge. Under such circumstances, it is next to impossible for them not to become powerful and impressive.' Thus plead the friends of this sect; and, yet, what is this their plea? Whilst the evangelical minister is represented as preaching under many advantages, it supposes that episcopal clergymen have no such advantages; that neither are they possessed of the same education with their brethren; that, also, the truths which they deliver do not command attention; and that,-horrible to imagine!-they are not accustomed to ascend the pulpit under an awful sense of the weight and importance of their charge. What can malignity say more?

Conformably then with those sentiments which had been so explicitly avowed by him, and which have unquestionably originated in the religious perturbations of these times, the present Bishop

of London has again unequivocally evinced his disapprobation of the principles and practices of the evangelicists. Whatever difference of opinion may obtain as to the propriety or expediency of the measures he has taken to counteract them, his lordship, therefore, is at least entitled to the merit of conscientious consistency. Devout as Randolph,' indeed, characterizing some of the heads of our establishment, is the praise allotted to him by no mean judge of our nature, and who appears to have written with no intention to flatter a mitre.

Viewed as a preacher, we find Dr. Randolph ministerially inculcating those theological convictions which he maintains in his charges. His style of preaching is quite plain. Energy he certainly has, when the occasion calls for it; but he seems indifferent, at the same time, to the display of any thing like eloquence. His best sermons are rather addressed to the head, than aimed at the heart. Learning has rendered him both thinking and argumentative; but nature seems not to have vouchsafed to him the power of animating the mind, and electrifying the feelings.

Towards the close of August 1810, Bishop Randolph held his Primary Ordination, at Fulham Church, when about thirty candidates for the mi

nistry received Orders. An appropriate sermon was delivered; and the service itself, certainly the most interesting that ever men compiled or composed!—was performed with great solemnity, and with apparent effect.

ISAAC MILNER, D. D.

THE VERY REVEREND THE DEAN OF CARLISLE.

DIGNIFIED sensibility is the characteristic of the institutions of our venerable ancestors. With lofty minds, they had glowing hearts. Contemplated either politically or religiously, our national constitution forms an astonishing monument of the magnificent sympathies of our forefathers. Who would not weep to see this edifice of intellect laid low in the dust of time? Whatever might be the splendour of our second temple, supposing it could be erected, still those who had witnessed the excellence of the first temple, the ancient amongst us, would be constrained to grieve that so much glory was departed. Nothing seems, happily for futurity, more stable. The