No one who takes an enlarged and comprehensive view of the Church of Christ, and what pertains to its best interests, can question for a moment the importance of sound and extensive theological learning; of erudition in the Hebrew tongue, (the original language of full three fourths of the sacred volume);-or of divided Protestant principle, in the Ministers of the Church. The prevailing standard in all these respects should be high: though some will excel in one or other of these qualifications, and few can be expected to excel in all. The question then arises, is the patronage of the Church of England so bestowed as to encourage excellence in all these particulars? or in any one of them?

Our Church is a Protestant Church. The language of her Articles, Homilies, and of her Liturgy too, is decidedly and unequivocally Protestant. We cannot suppose our readers to be so ignorant, or so prejudiced, as to need any proof of this fact. A man must wink hard who does not see it.

Now then, if a Clergyman should be a decided Protestant; if he should enter cordially into the Protestant principles and spirit of our Church, and should preach and act accordingly; if he should witness a good and uncompromising protestation against the Church of Rome in his ministrations; will this man meet with encouragement and promotion?

The throne of these realms is a Protestant Throne; and the Sovereign holds it only by virtue of a solemn declaration, that the fundamental and distinguishing doctrines of the Church of Rome are false, and superstitious, and idolatrous. The Legislature and Government are professedly Protestant. The people are a professedly Protestant people. And, most of all, as we have said before, our Church is a Protestant Church, and every Bishop of that Church has solemnly declared, before God and the Church at his consecration, that he is "ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine, contrary to God's Word; and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same." This vow may be forgotten upon earth: but it is registered in heaven.

Now if Popery be not "erroneous and strange doctrine, contrary to God's Word"-if it be not such, peculiarly and emphatically, we would gladly know what is?

Is then the patronage of our Church under a Protestant Sovereign, by a Protestant Government, and among a Protestant people, and more especially by the Bishops of our Protestant Church (who have taken this solemn vow) so bestowed, as to encourage clergymen to a faithful discharge of their duty as Protestants? If a Clergyman stands fair and unexceptionable in other respects, as to doctrine, learning, diligence, moral character, piety, and he is especially to be noted as a faithful and

uncompromising Protestant, will be encouraged and promoted? and, more especially, by our Bishops?

If not, we put it to the common sense of plain, downright Englishmen, of those whose national characteristic used to be plain common sense and downright honesty, whether there be not, somehow or other, a fearful amount of insincerity in our professedly Protestant patrons. And we leave it to their judgment to determine, what word is strong enough to be applied to the conduct of those, who have taken the solemn vow to which we have referred, and do not fulfil it?

So far as our observation and experience goes, we see but too much to believe, that, if a clergyman should be distinguished as a decided Protestant (unless he have very decided popular talents), he must be set down as a ruined man: so far as the patronage of our Church is concerned, the portion he must expect for himself and his family is beggary and starvation.

Again, let a Clergyman be (as we have supposed before) unexceptionable in regard to doctrine, learning, moral character and piety, (we plead for none other,) but his peculiar excellence is a knowledge of Hebrew and other languages. His taste and talent have led him to apply himself to the sacred and oriental languages. He has made himself thoroughly master of them, so that he might be safely entrusted with the charge of translating the Bible into some foreign tongue, in which no faithful version of God's Word is extant. Surely, if it were merely for the credit of our Church, and its reputation in foreign lands, this man will be patronized and promoted by the learned bench of Bishops! for to what purpose are some of the dignities of our Church, and the emoluments which pertain to them, if some of them cannot be applied to encourage Hebrew learning? And could they be better applied, than by putting such a man in a position, in which he might employ his talents and learning in making or revising a version of the Scriptures, for the use of some benighted nation, in which the people are perishing for lack of knowledge? Would it not be for the honour of our Church, if such men were sought out and patronized? Would it not be for the advantage of religion, (one of whose fairest and most useful handmaids is sound learning,) if Hebrew learning were thus encouraged?

But Hebrew learning is not the only learning. A Clergyman may have no special pretensions in that line: but he may have given his whole mind, and the best of his time and strength, to the acquirement of sound theological learning, in its various departments. He may have shown himself able to grapple with the subtlest forms of heresy, to detect, expose, and refute them. In the present militant state of the Church, surely such attainments in theology will be valued! Surely sound scriptura theology will be patronized and encouraged.

But alas, is it so? is it to any purpose (so far as his advancement in the Church is concerned) that a man should establish his character as a sound scriptural theologian, and a learned Protestant divine? Will he be placed in a position to pursue his studies, and to employ his talents to the best advantage? so that, if he proposes to write a book, he may consider what will be most useful? What will promote sound learning, and increase the stock, or the facilities of acquiring a stock of sound theology? instead of merely inquiring, What will be popular? What will sell? and what will take with such and such a party? We ask again the question, Is sound theological learning encouraged by those who have the Patronage of the Church in their hands?

If not, what will and must be the consequence, but that a meagre, miserable, commonplace, superficial theology, without distinctness, without energy, without extent or variety, without depth or spiritual value, will more and more prevail ?

"The hungry sheep look up and are not fed!"

We only add, that we do not write at random. We have cases in our eye, in every class to which we have referred.

But, indeed, is such reference needed? Will not the observation and experience of every one of our readers furnish instances, in which such Clergymen as those to whom we have referred, are suffering from neglect, and struggling with most painful difficulties?

And is not the general result of this neglect yet more obvious? Is not the theology that prevails in our pulpits, in many respects superficial, and unprotestant? And, if we look to the Bishops and dignitaries of our Church, how many of them can we set down as sound theologians? as Masters in Israel? How many can any of our readers name, to whom we would think of applying for information and guidance on a great question in divinity, or in a case of spiritual or theological difficulty?

We have Bishops who are diligent and exemplary in superintending their Dioceses, and in stirring up their Clergy to pastoral diligence, both by precept and example, and we are thankful for them. But have we Bishops to whom we can look up as sound divines, as thorough scriptural and Protestant and learned theologians? who are worthy successors of Jewel, and Usher, and Davenant?

These are the men that we want. But is the present system of bestowing the patronage of our Church (if system it may be called) such as is calculated to raise up a body of Clergy, from which such Bishops could be chosen? And when a Bishop is appointed, is it on account of his scriptural piety, his Protestant principles, his Hebrew learning, or his sound and extensive knowledge of theology, that he is placed upon the Bench?

Let us look this matter full in the face. Let the common

sense and honest principles of Englishmen be brought to bear upon the momentous subject of Church patronage. And let us not be afraid of looking at Episcopal Charges and Sermons, and bringing them (as the Bereans did the preaching of Paul) to the test of Scripture. And a main question to be asked, in reference to these Charges and sermons is, how many of them, (looking back on the last ten or twelve years) have evinced either such soundness of Protestant principles, or such soundness of theological learning, as might prove the writers to be able to grapple with Tractarianism. V. D. M.

EXCOMMUNICATION BY BELL, BOOK, AND CANDLE, IN THE NORTH OF IRELAND, IN THE YEAR 1846.

Verdict of 70%. Damages against the Rev. Luke Walsh, P. P., at the late Carrickfergus Assizes, for having "cursed," and excommunicated Charles M'Loughlin, one of his Congregation.

SINCE the article in our preceeding number for April was printed, the following report of a most important trial has been sent us. It is a case so important in itself, and so entirely illustrative of the statements in our former article, that we do not scruple to give it at full length. For the one case of this man who is bold enough to encounter the danger of opposing the priest, there may be hundreds and thousands who quail beneath his power in abject and unscriptural servility.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a miller, in the parish of Culfeightrin, and an Irish Scripture reader, against the parish priest, the Rev. Luke Walsh, for injury and damages received, in consequence of being cursed from the altar by the defendant. The case excited very great interest, and the Court was crowded to excess during the trial. The declaration contained two counts-first, that the plaintiff was a parishioner of Culfeightrin, and the defendant parish priest of that parish; and that the plaintiff, as a teacher of the Scriptures, in the Irish language, and the owner of a mill, had lived on terms of intimacy with, and possessed the good opinion of his neighbours, and made gain by his mill; and the defendant, intending to injure the plaintiff, &c., on the 18th of August, 1844, during divine service in a Roman Catholic chapel, pronounced the plaintiff excommunicated, meaning, thereby, that the plaintiff was unworthy of the general society of the parishioners, and that they should not have any dealings with him. The second count set out the words in which the excommunication was alleged to be made, viz :— My curse and God's curse on Charles M'Loughlin, Hugh Shields, and John M'Cay, and on all who will work with, and hold any communication with, the accursed teachers of the Irish Bible"-and alleged special injury. Damages, 500l. Defendant pleaded the general issue.

66

He said that the jury

Mr. Tomb, Q.C. stated the plaintiff's case. had heard the pleadings opened, and were aware of the nature of the action they had to try. It now became his duty to lay before them an

outline of transactions and circumstances which, if he had been correctly instructed, would be proved in evidence. The case excited great public interest; and he did not wonder that it should be so, for it involved a question of great importance to all the inhabitants of these countries, and especially of vast importance to the Roman Catholic portion of them, whether the clergy of that church possessed the power claimed and exercised by the reverend defendant in this case-whether the law suffered any individual to have the power to denounce another from the altar-to curse him, and expose him to the hatred and execration of his neighbours and friends-to exclude him from social intercourse, and deprive him of the means of earning his bread, because he had displeased some Roman Catholic clergyman, and had committed no offence or crime known to the laws of his country or the laws of God. If this tremendous power were possessed, his client must go out of court to remedy it; and he (the learned counsel) would only have to lament that such a power as was claimed and exercised by the reverend defendant could be exercised in this country; and to regret that Roman Catholics were what some people said-said, he believed, unjustly-namely, what they were not, the meanest slaves on the face of the earth. He did not believe that the law recognised any such authority as was claimed by the defendant; and he was convinced that their verdict, would show that no clergyman, bishop, or other individual could with impunity act in the manner his client complained of. The plaintiff, Charles M'Loughlin, was a man in an humble situation in life; he was a miller, and resided at Culfeightrin, in the glens-the lower part of this county. He had been brought up as a member of the Roman Catholic Church-a faith which, he (the learned counsel) believed, the inhabitants of that district were almost exclusively of. They were the descendants of some Highland clans, which had come to this country under the protection of one of the ancestors of the Antrim family; and they still. continued their native language, the Gælic or Erse, to which they were much attached. His client was better educated than most of his neighbours; he understood the Irish language, and could read and speak it well and grammatically; he was a man of good character, and of honest and industrious habits. About 1843 he became what is called an Irish Scripture teacher, in the employment of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in this country, which was the governing body of that Church in Ireland. It consisted of clergymen and laymen, who believed in the written Word of God; and held that it was not only the privilege, but the duty, of every person to be acquainted with the contents of that book. They also held that it was their duty to communicate to others the precepts contained in that Sacred Volume-a book which was recognised by every branch of the Church of Christ, and which should be recognised by all God's rational and accountable beings. The General Assembly employed certain persons to read the Scriptures in the Irish language to as many individuals as were inclined to receive instruction, and those teachers also communicated such information to those who desired to be educated, as enabled them to read the Scriptures themselves. One of those persons was the plaintiff, M'Loughlin; and he undertook that