reed he preaches, and whose articles
he has subscribed, and whose emoluments he pockets, he knows no other.
His Holy Catholic Church is that which the State pays to and supports.
His successors of the Apostles are those whom Episcopalian bishops
ordain. His redeemed and sanctified ones consist only of those who have
been confirmed. According to him, error from the pulpits of the State
Establishment is sanctified, owing to some mysterious power its pulpits
possess. Pulpits outside the Church are not only destitute of that
power, but, alas! destitute also of all saving grace. I have called
Melville a brilliant preacher. He is that; but his brilliancy, like that
of Sheridan, is the result of intense preparation. I write not this to
disparage him. I consider it much in his favour. In these days, when
the pulpit contains so small a part of the learning or the intellect of
the age, no pulpit preparation can be too intense, or elaborate, or
severe. It is said Melville writes and re-writes his sermons till they
arrive at his standard of perfection. It is said he not unfrequently
devotes a week to the composition of a single discourse. I can quite
believe it. Every sentence is in its proper place--every figure is
correct--every word tells--and the whole composition bears the stamp of
subdued and chastened power.

Considering how rich the Church to which Mr. Melville belongs is, and how
transcendently his talents outshine the mild mediocrities by which its
pulpits are adorned, Mr. Melville cannot be considered to have been very
successful in the way of patronage. His income from Camden-town Chapel,
Camberwell--a place of worship belonging to a relative--was about 1000
pounds a-year: he resigned that when he was made President of Haileybury
College. As Chaplain of the Tower, I believe, he has about 300 pounds
a-year. I have already stated what his Golden Lectureship is worth.
Certainly, he is not a poor man, but, compared with some of his brethren,
he cannot be considered very rich. He has published several sermons.
'Fraser,' some years since, in a severe criticism on them, detected
several remarkable coincidences between passages in them and in Chalmers'
Sermons--of whose style, certainly, Melville strongly reminds one. But I
am not aware that the criticism did Melville much harm; and he is still
in as great request as ever. I am told there is no such successful
preacher of charity sermons in London: no other pre