We are glad to meet with Mr. KEBLE, going forth from his own quiet parish, to strengthen the hands of his brethren whose lot it is to bear more of "the burthen and heat of the day." His Sermon, preached at S. Peter, Sudbury, (Hayes,) suggests, in a way contrary to the usual commentaries which are made on our LORD's teaching, how often He addressed Himself to men of high station, both in His teaching and miracles. We observe, with regret, that Mr. Molyneux's free-church system does not produce such pecuniary results as might have been hoped. The Rev. W. S. LEWIS's little volume, The Landmarks of Faith, (Wertheim and Co.) is singularly mis-named. It consists really of eight long, well-composed, and thoughtful Sermons, on subjects as far removed as possible from being "landmarks of faith ;" and, certainly, not leading to any one point. In fact, Mr. Lewis's own acquaintance with dogmatic theology, we should judge to be of the scantiest; for wherever he touches on the confines of it, there are tokens of unsoundOf the Sermons grouped together under this title, four are Apocalyptic, two are Typical, and two are Historical. ness. With regard to the Rev. JOHN RICHARDSON'S volume-proceeding from the same Publishers-on the other hand, the title of Gospel Unities, is most unexceptionable. Here we have seven Sermons on S. Paul's famous text, "There is One Body," &c.; but the whole effort of the Preacher is to contradict the Apostle's assertion. Thus he affirms that the Church is not One Body; but many bodies. That the Faith also, (saving the doctrine of Justification,) is not one, but manifold. While of Baptisms he distinctly affirms that there are two— one when the SPIRIT accompanies the water, and one when it does not. Thoughts on Church Matters in the Diocese of Oxford, (Saunders and Otley,) profess to be "by a Layman and Magistrate for that county;" but we are at a loss to know what the County intended is, inasmuch as the Diocese of Oxford comprises three Counties. However it is not a production that the Counties are likely to contend for the honour of having produced. It is an attack upon the Bishop for an alleged undue love of power, and seems to have been written some time since. The Cuddesden College affair, when it occurred, gave occasion for an appendix: but it does not seem that the Author ventured to print till the Boyne Hill attack seemed further to have stirred up the spirit of the public, which is happily as cowardly as it is mischievous and heretical. The Author of the "Tales of Kirkbeck" is one of our few popular Lady writers, who has not succumbed to the worldly principle of the day. In her new Tale of Agnes Brown (Masters) she is still content to go on recommending self-denial rather than ease and comfort. We wish much that she would give us another series, of which the characters should be taken from middle life. Generally we have Lords and Ladies making grand marriages, or else, as here, the scene is laid in the cottage of a pauper. The expensive form of this little Tale we see is excused by the desire to raise money for a charitable object. Another portion of the Devotional Helps we are glad to see is published, furnishing Meditations for the "Saints' Days." MR. CHEYNE'S TRIAL. 1. The Scottish Ecclesiastical Journal: May, June, July, August, September, October, 1858. Edinburgh: Grant and Son. 2. The Recent Episcopal Decision. By the Rev. Henry Humble, Canon and Precentor of S. Ninian's, Perth. Edinburgh: Lendrum; London: Masters, 1858. In our previous Articles on the Scottish Eucharistic Controversy we omitted altogether any mention of Mr. Cheyne's trial: this we did purposely; we wished to see the conclusion of the matter before we expressed our opinion on the subject. The trial closed on the 2nd ult.; the Court will pronounce Judgment on the 4th of this month; our readers, therefore, will hear of the Judgment shortly after they read our remarks on the trial. year. Before, however, entering on the subject of the trial we wish to put on record the opinion of the Scottish clergy respecting the Pastoral of the Six Bishops, as they have expressed it in the various Diocesan Synods. Six Synods have sat; the seventh, Edinburgh, being accustomed to hold its session at a different time of the Argyle and the Isles sat on August 11; the Pastoral was read, but no vote taken, the Synod virtually ignored it. That of Brechin sat on August 4: the Pastoral was communicated to the Synod, but no vote taken. Aberdeen sat the same day: the Dean moved that the Pastoral be "respectfully received;" an amendment was made that the Synod records its "hearty concurrence with the faithful testimony to sound doctrine on the subject of the Holy Eucharist;" the Dean's motion was carried by a majority of two. In that of Moray and Ross, held August 25, it was moved that the Pastoral be received "with the respect and reverence due to the Bishops from whom it emanates;" and an amendment followed, that the Synod "begs to thank the Bishops" for the Pastoral; the numbers being equal, no vote followed. On the same day that of Glasgow and Galloway sat; there it was moved that the Synod respectfully acknowledge the receipt of the Pastoral. . . . and tenders its thanks to the Episcopal Synod;" this was carried against two amendments by fifteen to five. That of S. Andrew's sat September 14. The proper time for holding this Synod is August 25, but the Bishop deferred the Session until all the other Synods had spoken. No reason was given for this change, but it was generally supposed by the clergy in the diocese that the Bishop, expecting that the Pastoral would be accepted in the other dioceses, and anticipating considerable opposition in his own, was anxious to come down upon the opponents with all the force of the other SyVOL. XX.-NOVEMBER, 1858. 3 Q nods, both to accept the Pastoral (of which he is generally supposed to be the writer) and to put down also the practice at the cathedral of non-communicants remaining during celebration. In both these matters he signally failed; the failure being chiefly owing to his own arrangements; the examples of the other Synods told upon that of S. Andrew's, though in a totally different way from that which the Bishop anticipated; a motion was made and agreed to by all that the Synod expressed its thanks to the Bishops, and especially its own diocesan for communicating the Pastoral; with regard to the presence of non-communicants the Bishop contented himself in expressing his disapproval of the practice. Thus, out of six Synods, one only accepted it; two "respectfully received it" as a document emanating from the Bishops; three ignored it. congratulate most heartily the Scottish Church for its escape from committing itself in any way on the subject of the Eucharist; the Pastoral is now affirmed by the Church to be nothing more than what it in reality ever was,-the private opinion of six Bishops. We return to Mr. Cheyne. In the Lent of 1857 Mr. Cheyne preached six Sermons on the Holy Eucharist, which he was requested by the congregation of S. John the Evangelist to publish; this he declined to do at the time, "but as I contemplated only the edification of those with whose spiritual interests I am put in charge, and as there was then no special call upon me to go beyond my immediate sphere of duty, I did not comply with the request. Now, however, the circumstances are altered. The danger has come to our own doors. Statements of doctrine concerning the Holy and Blessed Mystery of the Eucharist have been promulgated, which, if not absolutely inconsistent with the truth, fall at least so far short of it, as to be essential error. This seems to leave no choice to those who are, in any way, charged with the safe keeping of the Catholic Faith to bear testimony without respect of persons, or fear of consequences."-Preface to Six Sermons. So in Septuagesima of the present year he published them. On the 23rd of April, the Rev. Gilbert Rorison, of Peterhead; Mr. Bremner, one of Mr. Rorison's congregation; and Mr. Morice, one of the trustees of S. Andrew's church, (the Bishop's,) Aberdeen, exhibited articles of accusation and presentment against Mr. Cheyne for false teaching in the said sermons; charging the latter with propounding Roman doctrine. The Bishop of Aberdeen, on examining the libel, found prima facie grounds for proceeding against Mr. Cheyne. A special Synod being called for June 15, Mr. Cheyne and his accusers were summoned to appear. There were circumstances attending this Synod of a very painful character; Mr. Cheyne had been proposed for the Episcopate on the death of Bishop Skinner; his election had been lost by a narrow majority; and now he had to appear before a Bishop, many years his junior, and not known to be of great theological acquirements; rumour did not fail to add that personal feeling had something to do in the matter. After the death of Bishop Skinner, it was natural that one so long known, whose ministry was so well tried, and whose personal influence in the Church at Aberdeen was so great, should be looked up to more than a man from another diocese, comparatively a stranger, and therefore untried, would have been even though he were a Bishop. There seemed to be, to say the least, a reason for great modesty and forbearance on the part of the Bishop in such a case as this; though the Bishop was a father in GOD towards Mr. Cheyne, the latter was a father in years and experience toward the Bishop; we naturally looked for a corresponding conduct but we looked for it in vain; the Bishop seemed to enter upon each day's proceedings with a determination to stretch his authority to the utmost, nay, beyond its legal limits. We do not hastily give this opinion, we only record the opinion of the Bishop's own chosen assessors, Mr. Clyne, his chancellor, and Mr. Ross, the other assessor. These two gentlemen not only refused to sit with the Bishop after the second day, but Mr. Clyne resigned his office as chancellor, and Mr. Ross joined with Mr. Grub (Mr. Cheyne's counsel) in a presentment against the Bishop. On the first day Mr. Grub objected to the presentment as being irregular in form, and being so loosely drawn up, that there was no· specification in the passages quoted as to their alleged unsoundness, and appealed to the Episcopal Synod against the presentment, and prayed for an adjournment of the Synod until the Appeal was heard. On this being refused, he declined to plead on the merits of the case until the Appeal was heard. On the second day occurred a scene which we would gladly pass over in silence; the Bishop, determining to proceed in the face of the Appeal, called upon the clergy to give their opinion; nine refused to do this until the Appeal was heard: the Bishop, commencing with the youngest of the nine, endeavoured to frighten him into compliance: all, however, stood firm, and one of them, on behalf of the others, succeeded in lodging a protest against the illegality of the Bishop's proceedings; the latter made every effort to reject the protest, but the firmness of Mr. Webster prevailed. This refusal to give an opinion was construed by the Bishop into an act of contumacy, and he solemnly admonished each of the nine presbyters, warning them that a second admonition would involve deprivation of their parochial charges. It was chiefly on account of these arbitrary proceedings of the Bishop that his assessors left him, and a presentment was lodged with the Episcopal Synod. The presentment stated that the Bishop "did, notwithstanding the appeals and protests which had been made in the said Synod regarding the relevancy of the said presentment, pe remptorily demand from nine of the clergymen of the diocese. . . that they should then and there give their opinion on the merits of the case although the said Rev. P. Cheyne had declined to plead on the merits till his appeal on the relevancy should be disposed of: and did threaten them, in the event of their refusal, with the infliction of penalties, &c." A Special Episcopal Synod sat at Edinburgh, June 21, to hear the case. The Bishop made answer that the presentment was an interference with his office as Bishop, and the proper power over presbyters. The court, however, dismissed this and other appeals on the ground that it could not interfere while the trial was going on; that the presentment was made by persons not parties to the suit then pending. The Bishop of Aberdeen afterwards pronounced judgment, depriving Mr. Cheyne of his charge of S. John's, and forbidding him to officiate or preach in the diocese of Aberdeen. Against this Mr. Cheyne appealed, and the appeal was heard at Edinburgh, September 28. The court assembled at S. George's Hall: the Bishop of Argyll presided as the next senior Bishop; the Primus being prevented from being present by a severe attack of illness. Mr. Cheyne objected to the Bishop of Argyll sitting in judgment, from his having in a charge addressed to his clergy at the diocesan synod on ·August 11, expressed his approbation of Mr. Cheyne's condemnation, thereby prejudging the case: the court repelled the objection, but the Bishop voluntarily retired, as did also the Bishop of Aberdeen : Mr. Rorison objected to the Bishop of Brechin presiding or sitting as judge, the court repelled also this objection; the Bishop of Brechin voluntarily retired from the presidency, giving up the chair to the Bishop of Glasgow, but continued to sit as judge. Hereupon the Bishops of Argyll and Aberdeen entered a protest against the Bishop of Brechin sitting at all. The trial then proceeded. Mr. Cheyne argued against the presentment, pointing out the irregularity of the form, and exposed the indecency and hastiness of the proceedings: "If it was thought necessary for the vindication of orthodoxy that the author of the sermon should be accused, the points involved in the charge certainly called for the most careful and deliberate consideration. Yet those sermons were published in the beginning of March. On the 23rd of April the Presentment was signed; on the 26th of that month, without any explanation being required of the author, and without any communication whatever with him, a prima facie case was found by the Bishop, and a Trial was ordered in the Diocesan Synod. The Synod met on the 15th of June. On the forenoon of that day, the relevancy and all other preliminary points were disposed of. On that evening and the following day, the Presenters were heard. On the third day twelve of the clergy gave their opinions, and nine were judicially admonished for declining to do so: and on the fourth, the |