upon the subject, and ask explanations. He stated that not one of the memorialists now in court had ever come to him, or had any communication with him on the subject. Two of the memorialists had had some conversation with him on the subject, but they were not present, and that was not a thing that one man could do for another. The form of process is very distinct on this subject,* and the principle of it is, that nothing is to be done which may tend to injure the character of a minister, without the greatest caution. That the duty of complainers to converse with their minister relative to the complaint they purposed to bring against him, was binding on each of them individually. It was not a matter that one could do by deputy, as it was a matter in which their consciences must be concerned, and not a mere matter of form-it was not like serving a notice, but it was in order that if their minister should be able to satisfy them, or to convince them that they were wrong, they should never bring forward the complaint.

* 3. And because a scandal committed by a minister hath on these accounts many aggravations, and once raised, though it may be found to be without any ground, yet it is not easily wiped of; therefore a presbytery should exactly ponder by whose information and complaint it comes first before them; and a presbytery is not so far to receive the information, as to proceed to the citation of a minister, or any way begin the process, until there be first some person, who under his hand gives in the complaint with some account of its probability, and undertakes to make out the libel.

4. All Christians ought to be so prudent and wary in accusing ministers of any censurable fault, as that they ought neither to publish nor spread the same, nor accuse the minister before the presbytery without firs acquainting the minister himself if they can have access thereto, and then, if need be, some of the most prudent of the ministers and elders of that presbytery and their advice got in the affair.- Form of Process, chap. vii.

Dr. Graham and Dr. Hamilton contended that the purpose of this requirement was merely that the minister might have notice of their intention, so as not to be taken unawares, and that this had been fulfilled, inasmuch as Mr. Campbell had admitted that two of the memorialists had conversed with him on the subject; and Dr. G. made a motion, to the following purport:-"The Presbytery, after mature deliberation, find that said memorial contains a serious charge against Mr. Campbell, and resolve to ask the memorialists whether they are willing to convert their memorial into a libel, under all the pains thereof.” This motion having been seconded, Mr. Dunlop made a motion to the following effect:-Seeing it is so important both for the interests of religion, and for the security of the reputation of the ministers of the Church, that no charge should be preferred lightly against the life or doctrine of a minister; that, previous to founding any further proceedings on the memorial now on the table, the petitioners be required to state, whether they have complied with the requirements of the fourth section of the seventh chapter of the Form of Process; and after they shall have answered in the affirmative, that their religious knowledge, and lives and conversation, as well as their preparedness to substantiate the libel, be diligently and strictly inquired into, as enjoined in the Form of Process; and that, for this purpose, the whole of them be cited to appear at this bar, next meeting of Presbytery.

Both motions having been put to the vote, Dr. Graham's motion was carried-seven voting for it, and two for Mr. Dunlop's.

b

From this resolution Mr. Dunlop dissented, and complained to the ensuing General Assembly, to which dissent and complaint Mr. Story adhered.

Before the case came to be heard in the Assembly, the complainers against the resolution of the Presbytery were informed, on consulting counsel, that their complaint was not good, as it would have been quite competent to have brought forward their motion after the Presbytery had put the question to the memorialists which they had resolved to put; and also, that, although the Form of Process was very explicit on the point, it was very doubtful whether it would not be held that the practice was different; and, therefore, it was resolved to withdraw the complaint.

At this sitting of the Assembly several members spoke at considerable length against Mr. Campbell, but as, at the time, it appeared to many scarcely fair or decorous to attack a person who was not properly before the Assembly, and who could not be permitted, at that stage of the proceedings, to say a word in his own defence, the compiler will simply give the minute of the General Assembly on the subject, as it appears in the following record of the next meeting of the Presbytery of Dumbarton.

At Dumbarton, the fifteenth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and thirty years, which day the Presbytery met and was duly constituted:

(Inter alia.) Dr. Graham produced an extract of the judgment of the General Assembly, in the appeal of Mr. Dunlop and others, relative to the case of Row, the tenor whereof follows, viz. :

At Edinburgh, Wednesday, the twenty-sixth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty years.

Session sixth,

Which day the General Assembly of the Church of Scot

land had transmitted to them, by their Committee of Bills, petition from Alexander Dunlop, Esquire, and others, dissenters and complainers against a sentence of the Presbytery of Dumbarton, resolving to call to their bar certain parishioners of Row, preferring a complaint against Mr. Campbell, minister of that parish, as having preached certain unsound doctrines.

The minutes having been read, parties were called. Compeared Mr. Story, one of the complainers, with Henry Cockburn, Esquire, Advocate, as counsel for him and the other complainers, and also as counsel for certain parishioners, who had petitioned the Presbytery in favour of Mr. Campbell, their minister.

For the Presbytery, Dr. Graham, Dr. Hamilton, Dr. Fleming, and Mr. Coltart: and for the parishioners complaining against Mr. Campbell, George M'Lellan, Aulay Lennox, and Peter Turner, three of their number.

Mr. Cockburn, in name of the complainers, craved leave to withdraw the complaint: and the members appearing for the Presbytery, signified their willingness to acquiesce in this proposal, on certain conditions. After reasoning, the General Assembly unanimously grant permission to the complainers to withdraw their complaint-and considering the vital importance of the subject, and that the doctrines imputed to Mr. Campbell, in the memorial presented to the Presbytery, have been condemned by the General Assembly in seventeen hundred and twenty years, and are directly opposed to the word of God, and the standards of this Church, remit this case to the Presbytery of Dumbarton, with instructions that they receive any libel which may be presented to them by the petitioners from the parish of Row, or proceed otherwise in the investigation of the charges against Mr. Campbell as they shall deem just, and for edification, according to the rules of the Church, and that they carry on their proceedings till the cause is ripe for a final judgment, notwithstanding any appeal or complaint on preliminary points.

Parties having been called in, this judgment was intimated to them. Whereupon Dr. Graham, in name of the Presbytery, took instruments and craved extracts.

Extracted from the records of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, by

(Signed),

JOHN LEE, Cl. Eccl. Scot.

The Presbytery agreed to call the memorialists from the parish of Row to the bar.

Compeared, Messrs. Parlan M'Farlan, George M‘Lellan, Peter Turner, John Thomson, James Cochran, Peter Cochran, and A. Lennox.

The memorialists were then asked, whether they were willing to convert their said memorial into a libel, which they declared they were willing to do.

The memorialists were also asked whether they had, previous to the presentation of their complaint, acquainted Mr. Campbell of their intention to complain to the Presbytery of his doctrine-when they declared that two of them, in the name of the rest, had waited on him for that purpose.

It was moved and seconded, that the Presbytery should hold a parochial visitation of the parish of Row, on Thursday the eighth day of July, at half-past eleven o'clock, and require the minister of the parish to preach at that time and place, on his ordinary text: and further, appoint the Moderator to preach there on Sabbath the twenty-seventh current, and intimate the same from the pulpit after forenoon's service, and summon the minister, heritors, elders, and heads of families, to attend the presbytery thereafter, and acquaint them with the state of that kirk and congregation in every point; and if any of them have certain knowledge of any thing amiss in their minister, that they do then acquaint the presbytery therewith:--which was unanimously agreed to.

At this meeting Mr. Campbell asked, whether at the visitation it would be open to inquire into the characters of the memorialists, and was told that no such inquiry could be entered upon, as they were all in full communion with the church of Row.

Agreeably to this resolution, the Presbytery held a parochial visitation in the church of Row; Mr. Campbell preached before the Presbytery, from Matthew v. 1-12, a sermon, which was afterwards published from a short-hand writer's notes.

The Presbytery meeting, on this occasion, was held