their having been so pardoned, and so being found in their unrighteous state.

"If the evidence we have heard does not prove that Mr. C. has been using the language that was condemned by the Act of Assembly, I do not see how it can be proved at all. Then in regard to assurance, I could not see any attempt that was successful to take the edge off this charge. I think that neither the Scriptures nor the Standards maintain that assurance is essential to true faith-and it is denied by the Act of 1772, that assurance is of the essence of faith. Dr. Fleming, after a few more remarks, concluded by proposing the judgment of the Presbytery which was ultimately adopted."

Mr. Dunlop.

i

I will not take up much of the time of the Presbytery with the few observations I have to make.. I must first express my surprise that the Court should be led by three Rev. Drs. into the supposition that Mr. C. debarred certain people from coming to the Lord's table. I have read the evidence with a good deal of attention, and I do not find that any one witness swore that he debarred any person from coming to the Lord's table. He may have warned certain descriptions of people, and I always heard clergymen so warn them, and tell that under such and such circumstances, they would be unwelcome guests at the Lord's table.

There seems to be a very general opinion in the Presbytery, that Mr. C.'s admissions, in his answers, were a sufficient proof of the libel. This was the opinion of the majority of the members in September, when the answers were given in; but, in December, these members seemed to have taken a new view of it, and did not then consider that the answers of Mr. C. were sufficient to prove the libel. This was my opinion from the beginning. But the question I now ask is, if, by the admissions of Mr. C., in his answers, the libel was not proven, is it proven` now by the examinations which have been gone into, while it has not been asserted that this evidence proves any thing more than what Mr. C. has himself admitted?

A good deal of weight has been given by some of the members to Dr. Burns' evidence. I am disposed to pay no attention to

his evidence. There are circumstances, in regard to Dr. Burns, which appear to me to make him rather an improper evidence. He had written a pamphlet against Mr. C.-perhaps made money by it he was a party man-it was Burns versus Camp bell. I might make some observations on the evidence of another Reverend gentleman, who, I think, had most improperly prejudged the question. I have learned that he, and some other clergymen, made an attempt to debar Mr. C. from preaching in the Floating Chapel, at Greenock; and, I consider this a highly improper interference, while Mr. C. was on his trial before this Court. It does not appear to me that the case has been made one bit better for the prosecution in consequence of the evidence that has been led: and when I take into consideration the highly respectable body of evidence for the defence-when I find from it what he really preached-I am perfectly satisfied that there is no proof of heresy; and I can lay my hand upon my heart and declare, as I shall answer in the day of judgment, that I consider the libel not proven.

After some conversation among the members, Dr. Graham expressed his willingness to alter the finding he had proposed, to meet the views of Mr. Sym and Dr. Fleming, and it was accordingly altered to the form in which it appears in the extract from the Presbytery record, given at page 165.

FINIS.