with closed doors; but we have reason to believe that the following account of what took place, extracted from the Greenock Advertiser of 23d July, is substantially correct.

The Presbytery was constituted in the session house; after which, a report of a Committee appointed at last meeting to search for precedents, as to the proper manner of conducting the visitation, was read and approved of. After this, several of the members asked Mr. Campbell how long he proposed to preach, as he must fix a time. He replied, he thought it would take three hours to give what he would feel it needful to say on the subject from which he was to preach. He was told that they would not hear him above an hour, and that if he would not limit himself to a reasonable time, they would instruct the Moderator to stop him. Mr. C. begged that he might not be limited; and said, that especially as they were to judge the sermon, he ought not to be hindered from bringing out his meaning fully to prevent misconception. To this it was replied, that they did not come there to judge of a sermon- -that his preaching at that time was a mere matter of form, and that his case would be neither better nor worse for his sermon. After a good deal of discussion, it was agreed that the whole services should not, if possible, occupy more than two hours.

The Presbytery then proceeded to the church. After Mr. Campbell had concluded the service, the Moderator intimated from the pulpit that the Presbytery would adjourn to the session-house, and invited the elders and those who had signed the memorial against Mr. Campbell, to meet with them there.

Before either the elders or memorialists were admitted, the Presbytery proceeded to discuss the merits of the sermon they had just heard. Some objected, that the sermon ought not to be judged of at all, for having limited Mr. C. as to the time he was to occupy, no judgment, in fairness, could be passed upon it-we have learned, however, that the Presbytery, by a great majority, recorded their detestation and abhorrence of the doctrine contained in two sentences in the sermon, which we believe are to the following purport-" God loves every child of Adam with a love the measure of which is to

be seen in the agonies of Christ;" and that "the person who knows that Christ died for every child of Adam, is the person who is in the condition to say to every human being, Let there be peace with you, peace between you and your God."

The minister having been removed, the elders were first examined. Several of the memorialists were then called in, one after another, by name, and questioned as to the nature of the heretical doctrines of which they had complained in their minister. After the parties were removed, we understand that a motion to the following purport was carried by a great majority that the Presbytery recommend the memorialists to convert their memorial into a libel, and present it, with a list of witnesses, at the ordinary meeting of the Presbytery in September.

Mr. Dunlop, of Keppoch, opposed the motion, in a speech of which we regret we can only give an outline.

He began by vindicating himself from a virulent attack which, he said, had been made on him at the last meeting of Presbytery, from which he was absent. He went on to say, that it had been asserted, that he had adopted the line of conduct he had pursued, in the case now before them, for the purpose of preventing inquiry or creating delay. He said that this was utterly false-that he only desired to see the inquiry conducted as gentlemen and Christians ought to conduct it and that so far from being an enemy to inquiry, it would give him great satisfaction that parochial visitations should take place in every parish within the bounds of the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr-and he expressed his conviction, that a tenth part of the pains that had been taken to get up the petition which had brought them together, would bring memorials from many of the parishes, and abundance of evidence, not only of most improper doctrine. preached by many of the ministers, but of great impropriety in their tempers, lives, and conversation.

With respect to the recommendation proposed to be given to the memorialists-be remarked that they had at last meeting agreed to convert their memorial into a libel, under a guarantee from certain members of Presbytery, that the libellers should not be permitted to get themselves into a scrape. This he considered was a most extraordinary arrangement between judges and parties before them. He not only conceived that no man could honestly act both as ac

cuser and judge, but that an honest judge could have no private communication with parties-urge them to bring forward a suit-advise them how to carry it on-or give them a guarantee against any bad consequences from their doing So, He asked, what would be said of a judge in the court of session, who would come into a district of the country, advise certain parties to bring an action before that court, assure them that they had only to bring an action, and they should have no farther trouble, and might be assured of success or what would be thought of judges who, after an action was brought before their court, permitted private interviews, at their houses and elsewhere, with one of the parties, and gave them their assistance and advice as to the way of carrying on their action? Unquestionably such conduct would cause such an outcry in this country, that such judges must lose their seats on the bench. Mr. Dunlop then asked whether any member of the Presbytery of Dumbarton had come into the parish of Row, and had urged the parishioners to petition the Presbytery against their minister, assuring them that they had only to petition, and that the Presbytery would manage the business without giving them any farther trouble? He farther asked, whether there were not several members of Presbytery who, after the petition had come before them, had had private communication with the petitioners, advised them as to their proceedings, and even concocted along with them the proceedings of that day? He said, if any of them had acted in such a way, he must object to such persons sitting as judges in the case. He mentioned that he knew well how unpleasant it was to some of the members that he should be there. He said he knew well the attempt some of them had made to induce the session of Cardross not to send him there as their representative. He had no doubt the attempt would be repeated, and perhaps successfully; but, while he was there, he must raise his voice in the cause of truth and justice, and therefore could not vote for recommending a libel under such circumstances. No reply was made to Mr. Dunlop's speech, and the decision of the Presbytery having been intimated to the parties, the Presbytery dispersed about 9 o'clock, P.M.

At the next meeting of Presbytery, in the first

week of September, a libel, which will be found at a subsequent part of this volume, was accordingly brought forward by eight of the individuals who had subscribed the memorial which had given rise to the proceedings already recorded. The name of the short-hand writer employed to record these proceedings, having been included in the list of witnesses for proving the libel, he was not allowed to remain in the court, at this and some other meetings of the Presbytery, and in consequence of this, no account can be given of what passed at this meeting. We understand, however, that the resolution which the Presbytery came to, to receive and serve this libel on Mr. Campbell, was opposed by the Rev. Mr. Story of Roseneath; who contended that the libel was not sufficiently explicit, and that the terms in which this charge was couched, might be understood in a sense neither contrary to the Scriptures, nor the standards of the Church. All the other members of Presbytery who were present, took a different view of the libel; and Mr. Campbell, was accordingly summoned to appear before the Presbytery at their next meeting on the 21st September.

The following account of the meeting of Presbytery, on the 21st September, is taken from the notes of another short-hand writer who was present. At the meetings of the 22d September and 5th October, no short-hand writer was present, so that the minutes of Presbytery, which will appear at their proper place, contain all that can be given respecting these meetings.

The parties in this case having been called to the

bar, the libel was read, and then Mr. Campbell's written answers to the libel were also read. Mr. M'George, agent for the libellers, spoke nearly as follows:

"Mr. Campbell has made certain admissions of the minor proposition in the libel; but before adverting to these, I must speak as to the relevancy, because I must first crave the judgment of the Presbytery on that point. And to this point I address myself with diffidence and anxiety, not on account of any difficulty in it, as it appears simple and clear, but on account of the novelty of my situation. This is a question of rare occurrence, solemn in its nature, and one that must excite very great reflection at all times. The defender is, I believe, a gentleman of unblemished life, of respectable talents, and of acknowledged zeal in the discharge of his ministerial functions. A prosecution against such a man for erroneous opinions, is a very delicate and responsible duty, but still it is a duty, and the very circumstances to which I allude, seem to render it more imperative. When error, Sir, is propagated with zeal, and rendered plausible by talents, and when there is no antidote in the party by whom it is promulgated, it then peculiarly tends to excite confusion and disorder in the Church; and the truth of this remark is but too fully verified by the state of the parish of Row. My clients therefore would have disregarded the convictions of their consciences, had they not placed Mr. C. at your

bar.

This is a question of libel against a minister of the established Church, for promulgating doctrines in opposition to the Sacred Scriptures and the Confession of Faith; and the question for you to decide, is the relevancy of the libel. In establishing that point, I am not called upon at all, according to my conception, to enter on the wide field of Scripture controversy; that this doctrine is at variance with Scripture, I shall take leave to hold as true, if it is at variance with the Confession of Faith. I do not apprehend that the Reverend Presbytery will permit the standards of the Church to be called in question by one of her ministers, as not in accordance with Scripture, or to be opposed by other authorities not recognised by the Church: to entertain such arguments