of Brechin was inconsistent with that acquiescence which they were obliged to give to the decisions of this Church. He concluded by proposing his motion, which was as follows" (1.) That expressions of formal disapproval of the solemn decisions of the Supreme Court of this Church on the part of any individual bishop or clergyman, under the name of 'protests,' are inconsistent with the 'acquiescence in the decisions of the ecclesiastical authorities, in all questions falling under their spiritual jurisdiction' prescribed by canon, and indispensable to public order. (2.) That the recent protest' against the decision of the highest ecclesiastical authority in this Church, tendered to this Supreme Court of Appeal by the Bishop of Brechin, and his more recent language, ex cathedra, concerning that decision-fieri non debuit -are of that character. (3.) That, therefore, the Bishop of Brechin be solemnly enjoined by the Episcopal Synod, his proper judge,' to withdraw the said protest."

The Bishop of Moray proposed an amendment, to the effect that "the Synod, having become aware that such a protest on the part of the minority as that tendered by the Bishop of Brechin is without precedent; and, believing that the continuance of the formal protest of the Bishop of Brechin on the minutes of this Court, might hereafter injurious by constituting such a precedent, directs that the clerk of the College do erase the said protest from the minutes of this Court."

prove

The Bishop of Aberdeen said he had no wish to press his motion; his sole object was to remove the precedent, and so long as that was done, he did not wish to have it supposed that he was desirous of having a censure upon Bishop of Brechin.

the

The motion of the Bishop of Aberdeen was accordingly withdrawn, and the amendment of the Bishop of Moray became a substantive motion.

The Bishop of Brechin argued that a dissent, or protest, was the only resource of a minority; and he quoted authori ties to show, that such protests were usual in judicial and ecclesiastical procedure. In conclusion, he reminded the bench, that under shelter of that very protest, he had been able to give practical acquiescence and submission to the sentence.

It lay with the majority to deal with the protest, they having command of the records; whether it remained on them must be to him a matter of secondary importance. It was historically true that it had been tendered, and nothing which could now be done could affect that fact, The bishops then gave their opinions seriatim, concurring in the motion, which was accordingly adopted.

The Synod next took up the motion of the Bishop of Brechin, as to the conduct of the Bishop of Aberdeen, in confirming certain persons belonging to the Bishop of Brechin's diocese.

The Bishop of Brechin said: "Brethren, in bringing forward my appeal, I wish, in limine, to assure my right reverend brother and the bishops in general, that I have no personal feeling in the matter whatever. Unless I were persuaded that it is necessary for the good of the Church, to call your attention to this matter, I would gladly have passed the subject over in silence. The facts of the case are these-I appointed a confirmation to be held in St. Andrew's Chapel, Fasque, on the 24th of October, 1858; on arriving there I found only two candidates in waiting, and was informed by the incumbent, that Sir Thomas Gladstone had withdrawn his domestic servants from the confirmation, on the plea of his difference with me on doctrinal grounds; and that the Bishop of Aberdeen had agreed to hold a special confirmation at St. Andrew's, Aberdeen, for the behoof of Sir Thomas's servants. On this I remonstrated by letter with the Bishop of Aberdeen.

If

"The bishops will see from this, that the case is not one of a bishop confirming persons brought to him in the ordinary course from another diocese, and regularly presented to him according to the rubric and canon, by one of his own clergy. On the contrary, it is the case of a bishop deliberately granting confirmation to persons who declare themselves insubordinate to the authority of their own bishop. such an act is allowed to pass without some animadversion, it appears to me that a fatal blow will be struck at the discipline of the Church. This is a case of a bishop wilfully making arrangements with a layman of another diocese, for confirming persons under the influence of that layman, upon no other ground, than that that layman will not recog

nise the lawful authority of his own bishop. It is believed that no such case is known either in this country or in Eng land. It is unnecessary for me to point out what will inevitably follow, if such a proceeding as that of the Bishop of Aberdeen be now even tacitly sanctioned. Every bishop will, of course, assume the same liberty in regard to confirming candidates from another diocese; nor is it improbable that other episcopal functions may come to be performed in the same uncanonical way.”

The Bishop of Aberdeen said, the case was pretty much as the Bishop of Brechin had stated it. He did not justify himself; because he held that he had committed no canonical offence. The only canon which referred to the subject was that which stated, that no clergyman should interfere with the diocese of another.' He did not interfere. A layman, using the liberty he was entitled to, came to him wishing him to confirm certain members of his own household, and he exercised the liberty which he had as a bishop, and agreed to confirm them. Sir Thomas Gladstone's reasons were, that he did not wish these young persons, in any way, to receive instruction concerning the sacraments from the Bishop of Brechin, or to be brought to confirmation by him. He, of course, grounded his opinions of the Bishop of Brechin upon the charge which he had published, and which startled Sir Thomas as well as many others; and as there was no canonical hindrance, he thought he was entitled to exercise his Christian liberty. Cases occurred every day in towns, of persons residing in one diocese obtaining confirmation from the bishop of another diocese. He thought it would be a very dangerous experiment for them to say decidedly, that no layman should avail himself of that liberty, which was not restricted by the canons. In what he had done, he did not mean any wrong.

The Bishop of Brechin; I am quite satisfied of that. This was merely an amicable appeal.

The Bishop of Aberdeen thought that what he had done was an easy way of getting over a difficulty. If he had done wrong, he would not repeat it; and if a rule was laid down against what he had done, he could only say that he would endeavour to conform to it.

The Bishop of Glasgow thought, that when the Bishop

F

of Aberdeen was applied to by Sir Thomas Gladstone, his proper course would have been to have communicated with the Bishop of Brechin, to ascertain how far his confirming would meet with his approval.

The Bishop of Brechin; I would have agreed to it, of

course.

The Bishop of St Andrews said, it seemed to be a very nice point, whether or not the liberty of the laity was to be confined beyond what the canon specified in matters of this kind, where there were particular circumstances which, in the opinion of the layman, justified the course which he took. But when extraordinary things were done on one side, it was needful that extraordinary things should be done on the other.

The Bishop of Edinburgh said, it appeared to him that the Bishop of Aberdeen was wrong, in not communicating at once with the Bishop of Brechin, which might have been at least a step towards the prevention of that motion. The Bishop of Aberdeen denied that he did interfere. The Bishop of Edinburgh; I think you did.

The Bishop of Aberdeen; Then all I can say is, that if I did so, I will not do so again.

The Synod next took up two appeals of the Rev. Patrick Cheyne, against the judgments of the Bishop of Aberdeen, the one on the relevancy, pronounced on the 3rd of May last, and the other on the merits and sentence, pronounced on the 26th and 27th of May.

Mr. Cheyne read his reasons of appeal against the sentence on the relevancy first, which consisted of a recapitulation of the objections stated before the inferior Court, relating mainly to the accusation against him being inaccurate in its designation of the accused, and in certain of its averments.

The Synod retired for a few minutes to consider the reasons of appeal, and on returning,

The Bishop of Edinburgh said, that it appeared to the bishops and they were advised by their legal assessorsthat the arguments used against the judgment upon the relevancy, were so very closely connected with the questions which would arise upon the merits, that it would be ex

he, in the beginning of the year 1858, printed and published the sermons complained of in the said presentment, in which he brought forward erroneous doctrines in highly provocative language, and promulgated them to the world, not merely as those held by himself, but also as those of the Church itself, thereby implicating all who belong to our comunion; and he thus deliberately brought on himself the presentment of April, 1858, which formed the first step towards the termination of his ministerial functions. It is evidently owing to the same line of policy, that the proceedings in the present case have their rise. From the correspondence produced between the bishop on the one part, and the appellant and his curate, Mr. Hutchins, on the other, it will be seen that, after the judgment of the Episcopal Synod, in December, 1858, it was arranged, with Mr. Cheyne's entire concurrence, that all official communications with the bishop, during the time of his suspension, in regard to his congregation, should be made through his curate the immediate cause of this arrangement, being the case of a young man in Mr. Cheyne's congregation, represented as being very desirous to be confirmed as soon as may be, and which the bishop agreed to do at any time, on Mr. Hutchins' certificate of the young man's fitness; yet, in five weeks thereafter, and without anything having occurred to call for a change of procedure, Mr. Cheyne refused to allow his curate to grant such a certificate, and insisted, in an overbearing manner, that his own certificate should be received and acted on; intimating that, in case of refusal, he would direct his curate to receive the young man to the Holy Communion without being confirmed; thus perilling the sacred interests of the young members of his flock, and officiously and unnecessarily, forcing on the bishop's attention his irregular proceedings, so as to compel him to take judicial notice of them. He also, in the same officious and unnecessary way, specially brought under the bishop's notice, that he had been catechising in his clerical capacity, and that he meant to do so again. The urgency of requiring confirmation in the above case was represented to be, that the young man "is a student at College, and

will leave town at the close of the session on Friday next; but it transpired in the course of the trial, that the young