Thus, then, to link tradition with Scripture is to impugn the value of the Scriptures; to make it to be understood only according to Mother Church, and the unanimous Fathers, who were not unanimous, is to give a favour with one hand and to take it away with the other,—to give the Bible, but with a lock upon it. The Romanist (thus permitted the Scriptures) must come to the priest for instruction and submit his judgment and conscience entirely to him. But if thus the Bible could only be comprehended-if the Church of Rome, or the Fathers, or tradition, or the priest, were to be the expounder of Scripture, then that Church, those Fathers, that tradition, and that priest, became of equal importance with the Scripture-without them the Scripture is insufficient. Well, indeed, might Rome fear the Bible. It pronounced her doom. Well might she shrink back from being confronted with the light of truth, and keep her votaries in darkness, lest they should expose her errors. The Bible won the Reformation— and the Bible must keep it. Our Reformers drank deeply of that cistern-its refreshing waters cheered them for the contest with error. They honoured God, and God honoured them. They read there the character and the doom of Popery, and ventured their earthly all for the truth. It was remarkable that Romish and Protestant writers agreed that the Babylon of the Apocalypse, is Rome; and Dr. de la Hogue, in one of the Maynooth books, pointed out the same thing. And though they contended it referred rather to Pagan than to Papal Rome, yet the application to the latter is too close, too striking, and too characteristic to admit of such evasion. Our Reformers treated Rome as Babylon, as Antichrist—and knowing the system to be idolatrous and antichristian, and that the wrath of the Almighty was denounced against the individuals and nations who practised idolatry, they exerted themselves to the utmost to free their country from the blight and curse which ever follows where Popery prevails. The lecture, which was much applauded, occupied above two hours. CASE OF REV. J. SHORE.-CLERKS' CORRECTION BILL, &c. A BILL is now before us, upon which we have been specially requested to offer a few remarks. True, the Bill is at present a rejected one, but it may be revived next session, and that too with the greater prospect of being passed, unless prompt measures are taken to inform those whom it chiefly concerns of the nature of the Bill, the importance of their being on the watch, and prepared to oppose it. We refer to the "Clerks' Correction Bill." The Right Reverend Prelate, on introducing it, stated, we believe, that it was brought in with the approbation of the whole or greater portion of the Episcopal Bench. We trust that such, however, is not the case. We feel satisfied that it ought not to be. Many of the bishops would disapprove of much contained in the Bill; and moreover, if they all agreed, it would but be the agreement of the aristocracy of the Church to bring in a measure for the enlargement and consolidating of their own power, without sufficiently consulting the interests of the inferior orders of the clergy. We are glad, therefore, that a recess has intervened, and that those who are to be brought under the provisions of this Bill will have time to consider its nature, and by Petitions and remonstrances to protect themselves from many of the intended provisions, which we must regard as in themselves of a severe and arbitrary nature, and which, connected with the recent decision in the case of Mr. Shore, and the prospective endowment of the Romish priesthood, will place the clergy of our own Church very frequently in a most painful and perilous position. The case of Mr. Shore, as most of our readers will remember, was this:-Mr. Shore had been licensed by the Bishop of Exeter to the chapel of Berry Pomeroy, in Devonshire. He performed the duties of this chapel during the two incumbencies of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Brown; but on Mr. Cosins succeeding to the vicarage, in 1843, the Bishop of Exeter, for reasons best known to himself, insisted on Mr. Shore having another nomination to the chapel signed by the new incumbent, a mandate, we believe, without a precedent in the annals of the Church. In default of this, the Bishop, in the month of March, 1844, proceeded, without any assignable cause, to revoke the licence he had given, and to monish Mr. Shore not to officiate any longer in the chapel in question. In the meanwhile, the Duke of Somerset, offended at this, caused the chapel to be registered under the 52d Geo. III., c. 155, as a place of meeting for a congregation of Protestant Dissenters, and on the 16th of March, Mr. Shore, aggrieved by such cruelty and oppression, made and subscribed before a magistrate the oaths and declarations provided by the Registration Act, and continued to officiate in the chapel as before. In May, 1845, the Bishop therefore proceeded against him under the Church Discipline Act, as a clergyman of the Church of England. To these proceedings, Mr. Shore alleged that he had seceded from the Church of England upon conscientious grounds, &c. This defence having been overruled in the Ecclesiastical Court, Mr. Shore applied to the Court of Queen's Bench for a bill, calling on the Bishop's secretary, Mr. Barnes, to show cause why a writ should not issue to prohibit further progress in the suit instituted in the Ecclesiastical Court. The rule nisi having been granted, the case was argued at great length in Hilary Term, by eminent counsel on each side, and in May last, Lord Chief Justice Denman declared the judgment of the Court. In the course of his elaborate judgment he observes that the only enactment which exempted any party from any penalty was 52 Geo. III. s. 4. Mr. Shore must, however, to bring himself within that Act, shew, first, that he was a Protestant Dissenter; and secondly, that the proceedings had been instituted against him for nonconformity. As to the first, it had been contended that any person who declared himself a Dissenter, became such by virtue of his declaration. The Court, however, could not consent to this. A person could not so divest himself of the character which had been impressed upon him by his ordination vow, from which he could only be released by the party who had conferred it. Canon 76 declared, that nobody who had been ordained could voluntarily relinquish the character imposed upon him by the reception of holy orders, or ever after use himself as a layman, under pain of excommunication. It was there fore quite clear there was nothing to exempt Mr. Shore from canonical obedience. On the second point, it was clear from the proceedings that Mr. Shore was not sued for nonconformity, but for breach of the discipline of the Church. The rule for a prohibition was, therefore, discharged; and the suit in the Ecclesiastical Court proceeded; and on Saturday, June 20, Sir H. J. Fust pronounced the judgment of the Court of Arches, expressing his conviction that sufficient had been proved against Mr. Shore to render him liable to ecclesiastical punishment. The only question was the degree. He was not prepared to go beyond the sentence first prayed. If Mr. Shore were guilty of a repetition of his former conduct he would not only be amenable to the Bishop, but he would be liable to be punished for contempt of Court. Being a minister of the Church of England he could not of his own authority secede from it. He was not a Dissenting minister, but a minister in holy orders, and from that he could not release himself. The Learned Judge then pronounced that the articles were fully proved; admonished Mr. Shore from offending in like manner in the future, and condemned him to the cost of the proceedings. The admonition was to extend to every parish in the diocese of Exeter, or province of Canterbury. Such are the declarations of the most eminent lawyers in our common Law, or Ecclesiastical Courts, as to the law of the case. It is reported on credible authority that the Duke of Somerset will introduce a Bill in the next session of Parliament, to amend the law as to Mr. Shore's case. It is, therefore, to be hoped that his Grace will be well supported, and that so nefarious a law as that which forbids the exercise of liberty of conscience to a minister, will forthwith be remedied. One most fearful point is the animus which would seem to have characterized these proceedings against Mr. Shore. The law as it at present stands gives power, and that, too, of a tremendous kind, to the Bishop, so much so that all who have once been ordained ministers of our Church are held to be such as long as life lasts; and may be subjected to ecclesiastical censures, penalties, and punishments, of the severest kind, if they act contrary to their ordination vows, and are guilty of breaches of ecclesiastical discipline. But why, it has been asked why is the law to be enforced against Mr. Shore, and him only? If he has departed to the Dissenters, others have apostatized to Rome. Do our spiritual rulers, then, regard schism as more perilous than idolatry? Why is not Mr. Newman followed, and Mr. Sibthorp, and others of that class? But the Bill referred to, viz., the Clerks' Correction Bill, and that which is to supply its place, would give a more despotic power to the Bishop, and a more summary way of proceeding. We do not say that the law, as it now stands, is not defective, but we say, take care that a greater defect is not created by endeavours ill-timed, or injudicious in their nature. We cannot now go into the various clauses of it, as we had intended, but that portion which gives the diocesan, jurisdiction, not only in cases of breach of ecclesiastical regulations, but in all cases wherein any clergyman shall demean himself in any way unbecoming his sacred office as a minister, gives so wide and dangerous a latitude, as to require strict vigilance to be exercised over the Bill, which we have heard is to be introduced into Parliament next session. And, further, should the Romish priesthood be endowed, or in the progress of Tractarianism, compliances be required of our clergy which they cannot assent to, they may be considered to have offended against ecclesiastical laws, to have demeaned themselves in some way unbecoming a clergyman, the cognisance of which shall belong to the bishop of the diocese, and may be proceeded against accordingly! The case of Mr. Kyle and the Archbishop of Dublin is, we have no doubt, fresh in the recollection of our readers. We see there the relative position in which many conscientious clergymen may be placed unable to perform duties in the Church, and not permitted to leave it and officiate elsewhere, they may be silenced altogether, or be exposed to a series of the most vexatious, harassing, and perhaps ruinous proceedings. Thus Popish tyranny and arbitrary power, walking hand in hand, seem going forth again amongst us. The laity, no less than the clergy, will suffer. Their ministers silenced, they must listen to obnoxious teachers, or go without the privileges of public worship. Therefore does it seem of paramount importance that sound, prompt, and public measures should be taken to prevent the infliction of a greater evil, under the plausible pretext of removing one. MOTIVES FOR OPPOSING THE "This [the Maynooth] grant is paying money to undermine the Throne as much as if it had been spent in buying the barrels of gunpowder which were used by Guy Fawkes."-Speech of Rev. E. Bickersteth. THE Committee of the Protestant Association have recently adopted the following Address, which contains urgent motives to Christian men to resist the advances made in favour of Popery : To all those who in England or Wales, Scotland or Ireland, feel an interest in the various religious Societies for maintaining and promoting Protestant Christianity, whether at home or abroad, the following suggestions are offered, as of special and practical importance, in the present critical position of affairs, with regard to measures now in contemplation for the Endowment of the Romish Priesthood in Ireland. The known and avowed inclination of Her Majesty's Ministers to endow the Priesthood of the Church of Rome in Ireland, if the people of this country should be favourable to such a course, imposes upon you the duty of exerting yourselves to the utmost of your power to prevent so dangerous a measure being passed into law. It to be the special duty of appears this Association to request the various religious Societies in the metropolis and the country, to use their instrumentality, through their various agencies and publications, for prominently pointing out the rapid advance of Popery, its real nature and tendency, as opposed to the glory of God, the salvation of souls, the peace and happiness of families and empires, and its injurious influence upon all Missionary labours. You justly esteem true religion to be the "pearl of great price." You regard the Bible as your best earthly treasure, and are engaged in a great and good work, whilst endeavouring to circulate that blessed Book, and to make known to others those glorious truths which have imparted peace to your own consciences. You desire that the Word of the Lord should have "free course and be glorified." How, then, can you consent, directly or indirectly, to support the Church of Rome, which everywhere seeks to obstruct the progress of "the everlasting Gospel," and to cast before it the dark shadow of tradition? The faithful missionaries who return from heathen lands, and Christian travellers who have visited the Continent, bear united testimony to the_idolatrous ceremonies exhibited by Popery, and its restless opposition to the truth. Are not many of these ceremonies as dishonouring to God, as dangerous and destructive to the souls of men, as the superstitions of Pagan countries? How often has the Jew, when exhorted to embrace Christianity, stumbled at witnessing the idolatries of the Church of Rome? He identifies Christianity with Popery, which he sees to be idolatry :— and what must be the result? Do not those who are employed to circulate the Holy Scriptures in benighted countries where Popery prevails, report constantly the fierce opposition raised against them by the priests of Rome ? Are not the proceedings of religious Societies in Great Britain and Ireland oftentimes, either openly or indirectly, obstructed by the active energies of Roman Catholics? Do not the reports, occasional papers, and officers of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, the Missionary Societies, the Scripture Readers' Society, the Bible Societies, the Society for Promoting Christianity amongst the Jews, the Pastoral-Aid, the Foreign-Aid, the City Mission, and other Societies, bear ample testimony to these facts? Not to speak of the manner in which Rome stealthily works her way, what exhibitions have we recently had of her fixed determination to establish her superstition on the ruins of scriptural and primitive Christianity! What but Popery has been the latent, if not the avowed, cause of the evils brought upon Tahiti? What but Popery has been instrumental in blighting there, for a season, the bright harvest of missionary labour? Is not the same spirit exhibited in the proceedings which have lately Do not taken place at Madeira?* * Popery in Madeira, or an account_of the persecution and oppression of Dr. Kalley, and other Protestants, by the Portuguese authorities at Madeira. By James Lord, Esq. 1843. The "Times" of the 8th September has the following: Many points are corroborated by private information which has reached us. "MADEIRA, AUGUST 17, 1846.-The religious agitation which has been carried on in this island for some years has at length led to the committal of serious outrages on British persons and property. "On Sunday, August 2d, a body of Portuguese subjects being assembled for religious purposes in the house of Miss Rutherford, a crowd collected and demanded that their countrymen (the Calvinistas) should be given up to them. This was of course refused; the mob maintained their position, and at length, at eleven o'clock, P.M., broke into the house, and searched it thoroughly, and having found their countrymen in the kitchen violently assaulted them. At this moment the police and soldiery appeared, and at once dispersed the rioters, taking several of them into custody; the prisoners were, however, discharged from confinement the next morning on the pretext that no one had appeared to make a complaint against them! "During the following week it became generally known that more serious attacks on British residences were meditated; and on Sunday, August the 9th, at mid-day, a crowd collected round Dr. Kalley's house; the Governor, the Administrador do Concelho, and the British Consul, were on the premises with a guard of soldiers, but no opposition appears to have been offered to the entrance of the rioters, who, having searched the house in vain for Dr. Kalley, proceeded to burn his books, prints, medicines, &c. Dr. Kalley, who had been much alarmed during the previous night by various occurrences, had left the house at three, A.M., and was during the early part of these disturbances concealed in the house of a friend, but, on the arrival of the Royal Mail steamer in the bay, escaped to it, disguised as a female. The mob having missed their prey threatened to search the British Consulate, but desisted from this on the Consul's consenting to go off in his boat at their head, and show them that Dr. Kalley was actually on board the steamer. That gentleman was shortly joined by his family, and proceeded in the ship to the West Indies. "Several other British families have been threatened. Miss Rutherford, Dr. Millar, and Mr. Tate, with their families, are living on board the William, a Glasgow ship, in the bay, the Consul having declined to answer for their safety, even in |