whom he denominates, "the Man of Sin;" or as some copies of the New Testament read, "the Man of Rebellion," or "the Lawless Man," and the "Son of Perdition." These fearful names mean perhaps not so much a single individual, or succession of single persons; as of a collection or incorporated body of de-1 ceivers and teachers of error, combining to extend and perpetuate this apostacy from the faith; and the person who is the spiritual head of this combination of deceivers and false teachers, or new race of apostates, may properly, by way of eminence, be styled THE APOSTATE. This apostacy is similar to the same impiety in the Levitical Church; for he is said to have "fallen* away," yet "burning as it were a lamp!" "a lamp," says Mr. Galloway, "carries our thoughts to the head of one of the branches of the sevenfold candlestick by which the Church is represented............ nor is the light of this dignified member of the Church gone out; but he falls burning! The flame of the orthodox faith remains in him; but he falls notwithstanding. "The name of this star is called WORMWOOD, and the third part of the waters became wormwood, and many men died of the waters because they were made bitter." They died spiritually because they imbibed those uncharitable and false: doctrines, and those persecuting principles, which the error teaching priesthood of an apostate Church had tinged with WORMWOOD.

·

T

Pride, rather than doctrinal heresy, is the cause of this" bishop's fall; but pride is the enemy of love; and the sweet streams of Christian consolation and meekness and brotherly regard, and humble faith, and long suffering, forbearance, are now changed to the bitterness of intolerant pride, exasperation, hatred, and persecution; all in quality, and in consequence of a star burning as a lamp,-an ecclesiastical dignitary still blazing with the profession of orthodoxy; but fallen through blazing; having quitted his true support or security and exaltation which was being upheld in Christ's hand, and haying cast himself to earth to rely on maxims of earthly policy and expediency, and to pursue a course of earthly aggrandizment, by falling like a curse on the ecclesiastical institutions." (1.)

(1) Gate of Prophecy," Vol. 1. p. 38

THE SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE REVEREND CHARLES WAGSTAFF, JUNIOR INCUMBENT OF ST. ANDREW'S CHURCH ABERDEEN, BEFORE THE SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF ABERDEEN.

The Synod of the Diocese assembled on the 21st ult., by order of the Bishop of Aberdeen. The object of the meeting was to hear and determine certain charges preferred against the Rev. Charles Wagstaff by the Bishop; the Rev. John Burnett Pratt, Cruden, having been appointed by the Bishop to state the same. The Synod continued its sittings during three days, namely, on the 21st, 22nd, and 23rd November, on the last of which days its session was adjourned till yesterday, the 4th instant, when the case terminated. We shall now proceed to give an outline of these most important proceedings as fully as our confined limits enable us.

The general charge preferred was that of Refusal of Canoni cal Obedience: which was met by a solemn denial. And we need not do more to point out the vast importance and overwhelming interest of this trial to all ranks in the Scottish Episcopal Church than to mention, that its issue involves the funda mental questions of the nature and the limits of a Bishop's jurisdiction; the measures and extent of the obedience due by Presbyters; and in some degree the constitution and privileges of Diocesan Synods.

After Morning Prayer and celebration of the Holy Eucharist, the Synod assembled in the vestry of St. Andrew's, Church, on Wednesday, 21st November. The first matter taken up was a proposal on the part of the Bishop, that the Bishop of Brechin should sit in Synod along with him, to assist him in directing its proceedings. This was objected to on two grounds; first, as being contrary to the 37th canon of the Scottish Episcopal Church; and secondly on the ground that the Bishop of Brechin would thereby be disqualified from sitting in the Court of Appeal,

The Synod sustained the objection; and took into consideration a claim by Mr. Wagstaff for a public trial; that is, that the same should be open to all the members of the Church within the Diocese, which, after some discussion, was not allowed.

The Synod then had laid before them a claim on the part of chrtain lay members of the Church within the Diocese, to be present to witness the proceedings of the Synod. This claim was negatived as being probably uncanonical; and as being contrary to the practice of the Scottish Episcopal Church.

Mr. Wagstaff then requested that he might be allowed the benefit of the presence of certain of his friends, to whose assistance he had already had recourse in preparing for the trial. This also was refused.

The Synod then proceeded with the case.

It may be here mentioned that a copy of the charges was delivered to Mr. Wagstaff on the 6th of November, seven days prior to the day first assigned for the meeting of the Synod; which, however, in consequence of the proclamation of a National Thanksgiving, was postponed for a week longer.

Mr. Pratt opened the case in an address of some length. The charges were stated under five heads, and were mainly founded on certain letters between the Bishop and Mr. Wagstaff during the past year; and on certain acts of alleged disobedience within the same period. The principal matters charged were-That, in said correspondence, Mr. Wagstaff had shewn a want of due respect to his Bishop; that he had not followed his admonitions with a glad mind and will; that he had shewn a determination to claim and maintain "his own sole right, as Incumbent, to direct all the services of St. Andrew's Church," irrespective (as alleged) of the directions of his Ordinary; that specially, among other things, he had been guilty of a refusal of canonical obedience in regard to the musical services; and to the use of an anthem after the third Collect at Evening Prayer; and in having refused, in intimating the Festival of St. Luke (Thursday the 18th of October), also to intimate that said Thursday was to be kept as a day of religious observance throughout this city. Farther, that Mr. Wagstaff had not conducted the services of the Church in ac

cordance with the wishes of the congregation; and had made many rash and unnecessary innovations upon the practices which formerly prevailed in St. Andrew's Church.

Mr. Wagstaff then commenced reading his answers to the charges. These answers form a large document, extending to upwards of a hundred printed quarto pages. He admitted, generally, the specific facts on which the principal charges were rested; but maintained that they did not warrant the accuser's conclusions.

He stated his regret for any hasty or unguarded expressions which he might have used in the course of his correspondence with the Bishop, and offered to explain them.

censure.

In regard to the specific acts of disobedience laid to his charge, he contended that he had done nothing but what was warranted by the plain Rubrics and Canons of the Church; and that, in most of the points in question, had he acted otherwise, he would have rendered himself liable to the gravest ecclesiastical He entered into a minute and specific detail of the forms of worship and practises used in the congregation of St. Andrew's, from its commencement to the present time; examined the Canons on the subject of the celebration of Divine Service, enacted at the different General Synods of the Church; and contended that the changes introduced by himseif were not only in conformity with these Canons, but positively required by them in most cases, and sanctioned in all-that these Canons, indeed, were made for the purpose of checking the very abuses which he had endeavoured to reform and remove. More especially, he maintained that he was justified in doing what he did, inasmuch, as the Synod of Bishops, held at Dundee in February, had expressly condemned the practices which had prevailed in the congregation; and had recommended to the Bishop to bring the use in that congregation into closer conformity with the written documents of the Church.

He went on to argue that no Incumbent was entitled to set aside the plain laws of the Church to which he had promised obedience in the most solemn manner; but that disobedience to those laws could not be commanded even by a Bishop to meet the wishes of a congregation; much less could an Incumbent be The obedience due by a punished for obeying those laws.

Presbyter to his Bishop is Canonical obedience; not that abso→ lute subjection to the will of his superior which a Dominican ora Jesuit is bound to yield to the General of his order. He laid down the four following propositions:

1. That the Bishops of the Church are bound, along with the Clergy, by her laws and Canons; and in particular that this applies to the Scottish Church;2. That there is no general power of dispensing with these laws vested in the Bishops; and that in the case of the Scottish Bishops it is excluded by express canons; 3. That the Rubrical directions of the English Liturgy, in the order for Morning and Evening Prayer, form part of the daws of the Scottish Church; and 4. That the laws of the Church must supersede the order of a Bishop when not comformable thereto.

The reading of Mr. Wagstaff's answers was not finished till the 22nd November; when Mr. Pratt was then heard in reply. He substantially admitted the correctness of the propositions laid down by Mr. Wagstaff, in an abstract point of view; but contended that the latter had entirely mistaken his true position as a Presbyter, by acting against his Bishop's orders, even though inconsistent with the law of the Church. His only proper course was to submit to the Bishop, by acting on the orders given, and then appeal to the Episcopal College. A Bishop may issue un→ dawful orders; but they must be implicitly obeyed in the first instance; and the only remedy which the incumbent has is that of appeal. In regard to the number of changes on the usages in St. Andrew's, and restorations of Rubrical order introduced by Mr. Wagstaff, since January, 1848, and made matters of charge against him, as rash and unnecessary innovations, Mr. Pratt now referred to them as having been sanctioned by the Bishop; and he took credit to him for the great amount of reformation thereby made.

The sitting of 22nd November closed here. On the 23rd, Mr. Wagstaff was allowed to answer Mr. Pratt's reply; and his answer contained an examination of the principle of implicit obedience, daid down by Mr. Pratt. He argued that this opinion, if acted on, would lead to consequences at once most pernicious and most absurd; for it superseded the plainest rules of the Church, which required Bishops to obey the law as expressly as Presby