that he was still of the same opinion that he formerly expressed, viz. that they ought not to have been sent to proof, seeing that they referred to a sermon which the members of Presbytery had themselves heard, so that they could themselves easily ascertain the truth or falsehood of what was charged in them; and that it was a mockery of judicial inquiry to ask at witnesses about what they had heard with their own ears.

He contended that the 4th, 6th, 8th, and 9th counts were not proven, and that while the 1st, 2d, and 10th were proven in words, or in substance, that they did not include the doctrines charged in the major proposition of the libel.

He stated that Mr. C. had, in his answers, explained that what he meant by pardon was access to God-that the death of Christ had removed the barrier which previously existed between God and the sinner. And the whole evidence had proved that this was his meaning, and that he had always explained that this was his meaning. And this could never be supposed to be the doctrine charged in the major proposition of the libel. Mr. Story then observed, "And we find that it does not require learning or intellectual accomplishments, or individuals of cultivated minds, to understand the meaning of Mr. C.'s teaching. You find the most intelligent witnesses even among the lower orders of those whom he has called. I allude to Douglas's deposition, which gives a very clear and satisfactory explanation of what Mr. C. meant when he used the word pardon; and which could leave no doubt whatever on the minds of his people what he meant when he used the word. You find M'Leod, and also M'Auslen, neither of them men of education, and comparatively in humble situations, but obviously having a clear and precise view of Mr. C.'s teaching; therefore there does not appear to me to be the least foundation for the imputation cast on Mr. C.'s doctrine, that it could not be un derstood there does not appear, to my mind, the slightest appear. ance of misconception as to his terms-they are well defined." And, for the reasons he assigned, he declared, he must dissent from the finding proposed by Dr. Graham.

Mr. Jaffray, and Mr. Carr, both stated, that at that late hour they would merely state that, though with great reluctance, they could not hesitate to agree with the finding proposed by Dr. Graham..

Mr. Sym.

I had been better pleased to give a silent vote, were it not that although I agree almost entirely with the finding of Dr. Graham, yet the grounds on which I arrive at this conclusion are, in some respects, different from his. You will remember, Sir, that, in the beginning of our proceedings, an objection was stated as to leading proof on the general statement of the minor proposition. The more I have considered that objection, the more am I satisfied that it is well founded; and I fear that, if any part of your finding is to proceed on proof so led, that your proceedings must be overturned altogether. It were desirable, therefore, that we should avoid, in our finding, taking any notice of any proof except that bearing upon the nine specific charges. Confining myself, then, to the specific charges, I come to the same result as Dr. Graham; though he has admitted some evidence that I conceive is not admissable: I shall not detain you by going over it. Then coming to the third and fifth charges; there is here the objection, in the first place, of the error in date, which I am afraid is a vital objection. There is also the objection arising from the evidence of Dr. Burns not being corroborated by any other evidence. The eighth charge is in the same circumstances. I am disposed, however, to give not a little weight to the argument given by Dr. Hamilton, that, if you have similar testimony relevantly brought as to the other charges, these may go to corroborate this. Upon the whole, I would agree with Dr. Graham in finding the charges proven.

Mr. Lochore.

Moderator, I cannot conceive a more painfully interesting situation in which ministers can be placed, than when grave and serious charges are submitted to their consideration affecting the doctrine and the character of a brother minister. Such is the situation in which we now stand in reference to Mr. Campbell, Not one of us, I am confident, courted this investigation, but would have been most happy to have prevented it, had that been possible; or to have avoided it had that been advisable: the case, however, having come before us, I am fain to believe, that Mr. C. will admit, that we, as judges, have given to the details of

the evidence a patient hearing, and I trust that human passion and prejudice did not at all warp the mind of any one of us, and that we came to the decision on the merits of this question with unbiased mind. For myself, I must say, that the opinion I have come to, from reading and comparing the evidence, has not been formed rashly, while I rise up here, in my place, and state, that I consider the libel against Mr. C. proven. The question before us is, not what are Mr. C.'s views regarding the Word of God, as understood by him, but whether these views consist with the Standards of our church. Mr. C. is at liberty to maintain and propagate any opinions, on any subject-this is the age and the land of freedom-but, Mr. C. having connected himself with a society whose opinions are defined and recorded for its regulation, he ought to consider himself as bound to stand by the tenets of that church, or honestly to withdraw from that church, to the doctrines of which he had subscribed; but from some of which, I think, he has departed. I conceive that in Mr. C.'s statements, there is much interesting truth-much that is according to life and godliness; but I do likewise say, Sir, much that is opposed to what I have always considered the truth, and to the Standards of the church to which I belong. I do not mean to enter into details as to the manner in which I have ar rived at this finding of mine, as to the proving of the libel; the materials which I had collected for that purpose having been anticipated by those who have preceded me. While I say these things, I do so, I trust, without the least hostile feeling to Mr. C. Not a doubt have I, Sir, of Mr. C.'s sincerity in the adopting, or of his zeal in maintaining, these opinions of his; and not a doubt have I of his great anxiety to be a devoted servant of the Master he is intending to serve; and, as little doubt have I that from this heresy God will cause truth to arise-that the truth will be more inquired after, and pure and undefiled religion will be more appreciated. And cause have we to humble ourselves, and to make it a subject of prayer, that we may not be found in any one thing resisting the will of God, or obstructing the cause of truth-if this counsel be of man it will come to nought-if it be of God we cannot overthrow it, for then shall we be found fighting against God.

Dr. Fleming.

I am exceedingly unwilling, at this late hour, to detain you: still I cannot give a silent vote. In a case, where the character or the office of a minister is at stake-where the peace and edification of a whole parish are concerned-where the religious feelings of a large district are interested, and in which the doctrine and discipline of our national Church are involved, it is surely right for all of us to be cautious in coming to a conclusion, and be ready to give to all who may ask it, a reason for the conclusion we have come to. The proceedings have been of unpar alleled length, and I think we may say, that we displayed great patience in conducting the case; and while there might occasionally be some symptoms of impatience, yet, considering the great length of the proceedings, these symptoms are by no means to be wondered at. And now, I am sure, that all these feelings are over, and that every one of us is ready to do according to truth and justice. For myself, I have not a single wish in the matter, except the wish to give righteous judgment-to award, on the one hand, to the prosecutors such redress as the merits of the case will warrant; and to the defender, on the other hand, that calm and charitable construction of every thing tending to exculpate, to which he is entitled. Much of what I should have felt inclined to say, has been said already; but, Sir, I happen to differ, fortunately or unfortunately, in some respects from many of my reverend fathers. Indeed, I am not sure that any one of them agree with me in what I consider a very important point in this case. This libel, after stating, in general terms, that the defender holds and has promulgated certain doctrines. These charges were found, by this Court, to be relevant charges. Now, the time and place are first stated generally, and then the statement of time and place is broken down into ten separate charges; and, in deliberating on the relevancy of the minor proposition of the libel, the Presbytery gave no deliverance on the relevancy of any thing in the minor of the libel, previous to these ten charges -they passed on to the consideration of the separate charges, and found all of them, with one exception, relevant. Now this fact, of the Presbytery not having found the general statements of the minor relevant, has a very important bearing. You will see, from the printed proof, that the counsel for the defender

objected, that the Presbytery had remitted nothing to proof but such portions of these ten charges as had been found relevant by them; and, therefore, that nothing beyond these limits could properly be investigated or proved. On this point I gave the best judgment I could, on the spur of the moment-that the libellers were entitled to lead proof on the general statement; but I added, unless there was some technical objection. Now, I am still of opinion, that if we had found these general statements relevant, we might have admitted them to proof; but not having found them relevant, I am afraid we are precluded from admitting any proof of them. I am, therefore, for giving the defender the full benefit of that objection; and, in making up my mind, I excluded entirely from my view any thing that was said under that head of the proof. It is scarcely necessary for me to go over the separate charges, because my opinion still coincides very much with that expressed by almost all the members of the Court.

Dr. Fleming then went over the various counts, and the evidence relative to them, dwelling at considerable length upon that referring to the sixth charge. He then proceeded :

"Now, Sir," Mr. Story says, after having gone over all these charges, "let Mr. C. explain his own words." Most assuredly.What have the court been doing, while hearing Mr. C.'s witnesses in exculpation, but hearing his own explanations. If the examination was intended to take the edge off the accusation against Mr. C., it has completely failed. So far as I could understand the drift of the defence, it was that what Mr. Campbell meant, when he said that all were pardoned, was, that by the -death of Christ the barrier, that existed between God and sinners, was broken down, and they had now free access to him: and, certainly, if it could have been made out, that he had taught that all men are put merely into a pardonable state, a very important point would have been gained in behalf of Mr. C. It would have been happy for him, and for the parish of Row. But what is the effect of this exculpatory proof? The amount of it, to my mind, is, that the witnesses understood him to state, that, by the death of Christ, the sins of all men are actually forgiven forgiven, whether they believe or not and that they who are at last condemned, are condemned for disbelieving the fact of