Hide Articles List

11 articles on this Page

Advertising

VUANCE.

.GERMANY.

ITALY.

NAPLES AND SICILY.

HOME.

TURKEY.

HUNGARY.

'IRELAND.

[No title]

THE REV. JAMES SHORE.

News
Cite
Share

THE REV. JAMES SHORE. Many of our readers are doubtless curious to know the origin and history of Mr. Shore's persecution. We give the n el following extract from the Rev. Thomas Binney's speech ag Exeter Hall :— Mr. Shore is a deacon and priest of the Church of lng" land. He proceeded to priestly orders in 1829. He was curate of the parish of Berry Pomeroy, in the Archdeaconry of Totnes, the diocese of Exeter, and the province of Canter bury. He was curate of this parish, under the Rev. Mr. Edwards, the vicar, from the time lie became a priest in 1829, when he was ordained by the predecessor of the pre- sent Bishop, Henry, who came into the see in 1830. Mr. Shore continued the curate of this parish to 1832, when the Duke of Somerset built a chapel at Bridgetown, in the same parish, which was licensed for Episcopalian worship, but was not consecrated. When the chapel in which Mr. Shore ministered was built, Mr. Edwards, the vicar, gave Mr. Shore the nomination, the Bishop licensed it, and ho entered upon his duties. In 1831 the vicar died, and Mr. Brown succeeded him. No fresh, nomination was required, Alr. Shore was not informed that he ought 10 be nominated again, the Bishop did not apprise him by any official act, that he continued him in the chapel; but one incumbent died, rfi x another succeeded him, and' Mr. Shore retained his position for nine years afterwards. In 1813, Mr. Brown exchanged livings with Mr. Cousens. When Mr. Cousens was ex- pected to come into the vicarage, the Bishop wrote to Mr. Shore to state what he had not done before, namely, that ho should not continue him as minister of the chapel. Mr. Shore replied, that he should attend to the suggestion. Mr. Cousens arrived on Saturday, the 14th October, and on tho following Monday morning .Alt'. Kliorc "Waltod -upon IrtTI 1 and asked for the nomination. Mr. Shore, speaking of it, said :—" Mr. Cousens frankly told me that the matter was out of his hands, and he had engaged with the Bishop not to give me the nomination. He also told me, and I quote these words from a letter which I wrote to the Bishop, and which the Bishop has not denied that I wrote to him, Mr. Cousens told me that your lordship thought fit to communi- cate to him such an impression respecting me, that he said it was utterly impossible for him as an honest man, with any regard to his character, to nominate me. If he did so, it would only make him ridiculous and contemptible, as your lordship would not license him That was the privarc understanding between the Bishop and Mr. Cousens, while 0 he was writing to Mr. Shore to tell him to get a nomination n from -Air. Cousens. This, then," says Mr. Shore, was my position. I have two letters from the Bishop urging me to n get the nomination, and yet the Bishop knew that Mr. Cousens had engaged with him not to give it me." But stop, that is not all, Mr. Shore adds, On the very day after I applied to Mr. Cousens, I had a letter from the Bishop in the following \vol'ds Having in vain waited in expectation of hearing from Mr. Cousens, that he had determined to give you a nomination, I am bound to consider you as not having his sanction for officiating in the parish of Berry Pomeroy therefore, I am also bound to forbid you continuing to per- form any clerical offices within my diocese. The Bishop does not wait to hear from Mr. Cousens the result of an interview with Mr. Shore; he does not wait to hear from Mr. Shore the result of that interview. Mr. Cousens only came into his residence on the Saturday; Mr. Shore called upon him on the Monday; and the next morning (Tuesday), the Bishop, having waited so long in expectation of a nomi- nation, which he knew Mr. Cousens would not give, he writes to Mr. Shore, withdraws his license, and sends him about his business. Mr. Shore was silent; the chapel was closed for months. There was no fresh nomination by the vicar. Why not ? Because the Duke of Somerset supported Mr. Shore as an injured man, and, under these circumstances, neither the Bishop nor the vicar could send any man in his place. From 700 to 800 people have been deprived of the. ministrations of the sanctuary, and a minister of the Gospel has been silenced for no moral offence whatever, as the Bishop himself admitted on the trial of Mr. Latimer at Exe- ter. As light entered the mind of Mr. Shore, his feelings became loosened to the institution, and on the 26th of Feb- ruary, 1844, the chapel was registered, according to law, for tx jjltiue of rrotestant -Nonconforming worakip, hy +, -r"t; of the agent of the Duke of Somerset. After the chapel had been thus registered as a Protestant place of worship, Mr. Shore preached for one or two Sundays before he qualified himself by a positive act of secession from the Church. On the 16th of March, about a fortnight after the registration n r) of the chapel, Mr. Shore went voluntarily before a magis- trate, took the oath, and signed the declaration, rendered necessary under the Toleration Act. He then stood as a sececler from the Church, and had the rights and privileges of a Nonconformist minister. Being now a Nonconformist minister in his estimation, and the chapel registered as a place for Nonconformist worship, he considered that he was a perfectly free man to do what other Dissenters did, and, therefore, he chose to use the Church prayers as is done by Mr. Sherman, Mr. Thoresby, and Mr. Sortain. He also chose to make an alteration in the prayers, especially in some particular offices, which he felt that he was at liberty to do, and which his conscience and understanding led him to do. He continued his ministrations for a month or two, and then the Bishop gave him a gentle monition, that as a clergyman he was officiating without an episcopal license, and he kindly informed him that he had appointed a Commission of six or eight clergymen, to come to Totnes, and to sit in a room, belonging to the Seven Stars, with power to call him before them to answer for a misdemeanour. Mr. Shore replied that he had nothing to do with the Bishop, nor with the Commissioners. Moreover, Mr. Shore was advised that legally he was right, and there- fore he said, that for the sake of all the clergy of England seeing and knowing the law, he would go before this com- mission but added, I will do that under protest. He did so, and the commission returned to the Bishop a reply OIl the very particular point into which they were called to inquire, namely, that there were prima facie grounds for further proceedings. He was then cited into the Court of Arches, r) and he again appeared under protest. The charges made against him by the Bishop in that court were, that, as a 0 clergyman of the Church of England, he had preached and ny 11 performed worship according to the rites and Liturgy thereof. Mr. Shore's proctor demurred to both points, stating that when Mr. Shore thus preached, lie was not a minister of the Church of England, and he did not conduct the service pre- cisely according to the Service-book; for he took the Liturgy, and made alterations therein. Mr. Shore denied that he did the act as a clergyman; to which it was replied, once a clergyman, always a clergyman. Mr. Shore was ordered to pay nil thA oostw j and he to. offend <1g;11111 by preaching in future, either in the parish of Berry Pome- roy, in the diocese of Exeter, or in the province of Canter- bury. Mr. Shore now felt that there was another tribunal to which he could resort. Mr. Shore determined to have ths matter sifted to the bottom, and carried the case to the Queen's Bench, where Lord Denman pronounced it as his opinion, that Mr. Shore could not divest himself of his character, or the Holy Orders with which he had been clothed by the authority of the Church of England when he was or- dained by one of the bishops, and when he promised canonical obedience, that he could only be released by the same authority which conferred the one, and enjoined the other- Mr. Shore then appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, who said nothing, but referred the case back to the Ecclesiastical Court, just as the judge says, You must go hence to the place from whence you came;" so that be was sent down to Doctors' Commons. For doing that thtf Privy Council bring in a bill for about £ 180 for costs. Sir Herbert Jenncr Fust then gave the final decision. He was called, then and there, -to answer certain interrogatories 0 touching and concerning his soul's health, and the lawful correction and reformation of his manners and excesse- more especially for having, within the said diocese of Exeter-, offended against the laws ecclesiastical, by public reading of prayers," and so on. That is the offence charged; and the judge, in his final sentence, stated, that, should be be guilty of a repetition of this offence, it would be not only again-1 his decision, but against the authority of the Court. He added: "Though this gentleman is, at this moment, It minister of the Established Church of the land, from whose authority he cannot remove, still I do not think I am entitled to depose him from his ministry; yet I admonish Mr. Sboie