\ 
8 Rev. Robert Robinson and the late Bishop of London. 
A* . 
-even if that only had been his object, 
what could he wish for more? 
Robinson was not held in low estima- 
tion, by many of his cotemporaries. in 
the establishment. They knew and 
acknowledged his value, as. a man of 
sterling abilities. And more than once 
had he proposals made to hitn, of re- 
ception into that establishment, accom- 
panied with flattering offers of prefer- 
ment therein. But bis honest soul never 
hesitated. He always refused what was 
contrary to his conscience. 
T need not say more about Robert 
Robinson, excepting, that he was a 
staunch friend to huunan liberty, and not 
only thought, but always avowed his 
sentiments. He had put himself out of 
the way of temptation to the contrary. 
He wore no shackles: and loaves and 
fishes could not seduce him. Let the 
respect and affection of the virtuous 
linger on his memory. 
The eulogist of Dr. Pekan men- 
tions a singular circumstance, as matter 
of praise. He tells us, that ‘ fully per- 
suaded himself of the truth of those 
doctrines, so earnestly recommended by 
him, he more easily succeeded in per- 
suading others.” More easily than who? 
Surely he doth not mean other bishops. 
Ta the idea of a bishop we include that 
of a Christian, and must hope that there 
are no such hypocrites as deists upon 
that bench. 
Dr. Porteus was a man of liberal 
thought ; and as such he could not relish 
the Calvinism of the Thirty-nine Articles; 
- nor the quibbling explanations: of them 
by Dr. Burnett. Much less could he 
like subscription to them. It is no won- 
der, therefore, that when a young man, 
tinued liberal in his sentiments, 
he was one of the petitioning clergy at 
the Feathers Tavern, as the writer of 
this, who also had his own name in that 
honourable list, can aver. He.was some- 
thing of a sufferer on this account. ’ The 
late Dr. Owen, of St. Olave’s, Hart-street, 
who was also one of that association, 
declared, that Dr. Porteus stood still 
in his preferment for three years, on that 
account. 
Dr. Porteus, I believe, always con- 
That 
very respectable man, the late J. How- 
Jett, vicar of Dunmow, being appointed 
to preach on a public occasion, took 
Confirmation for his subject, and very 
ingeniously said. every ioe plausible, 
that could be said for a merely human 
fancy. He represented, that it could 
‘voted with 
[A ug. I $ k 
not do harm; and perhaps, in some 
cases, mht do good, by exciting proper 
considerations of duty. He was e€x- 
pected tu present his sermon, when pub- 
lished, -te his bishop. He bad some 
leaves of reiuctance, as expecting a re- 
primand, for not, maintaining the matter 
on a different ground, But he was 
agreeably surprised at receiving very | 
great cominendations, and his ‘bishop 
was — his friend to the day of his 
death. 
. Inthe case of Mr. Stone, I believe no - 
blame can’ .be be justly imputed to Dr. 
Porteus. Mr, Stone had certainly been 
indiscreet : and after the decision of the 
spiritual court, I think the bishop was » 
obliged to act as he did, er officto, in Mr. 
Stone’s degradation. We should like to 
know who was the bishop, that Mr. 
Stone said, bade bim preach so hes 
citly, 
How much more iodo would it 
be to those clergymen who disbelieve 
the Trinitarian articles to withdraw ; as 
Mr. Lindsey, and some few other honest’ 
men, have done! Would all of this 
description openly avow themselves, and. 
honestly withdraw, they would form no 
small phalanx, to oppose orthodox ab-. 
surdity. 
One thing is to be lamented, that Dr. 
Porteus, good and amiable as his. ge- 
neral character appears to have been, 
should have always, right or wrong, 
such ininisters as this an- 
happy country bas had for above twenty. 
years. But he was a bishop; and most 
bishops, like most other men, are frail 
creatures, in some respect or other: be- 
sides, he was the queen’s bishop; of her 
own choice and appointment; on which \ 
account, she has often been called the 
head of the church. 
The writings of Dr. Porteus are not 
many, but are truly valuable. I cannot 
- think a hath been oo studious to avoid 
ornament. The sweet chaste correctness 
of his composition is, to a judicious 
reader, exceedingly captivating. 
Should. the writer of the article which 
T have animadverted upon, think I have 
said any thing wrong, I am ready in- 
stantly to bows to rational conviction. I 
have not intended personal offence. 
Should he wish to know my real sig- 
nature, let him first give public: his 
own, and mine shall immediately succeed 
it. Till then, Sir, T only subscribe my- - 
self, as Lhave done before, 
Edmonton, June 8, 1809. 
tha 
tan 
i ost LD. 
