making use of privately-expressed opinions, without making Mr Milne aware in a brotherly way of his intention,-how could his scruples about the abstract doctrine interfere with the plain admitted duty? They could get no other explanation, however, than that it was a complex promise which he had made-and that his scruple about one part of it made it difficult to comply, though certainly this was a difficulty that no honest man could ever have seen. Another matter about which they dealt with Mr Anderson, and a matter peculiarly painful, was that alluded to by Dr Buchanan on Saturday in his singularly strong statement, a statement so strong that it must have sent a thrill, almost of horror throughout the Assembly, especially as affecting the conduct of a minister of Christ. The Presbytery of Glasgow on a former occasion had dealings with Mr Anderson in regard to the famous sermon,-in which he had, not by name, but by the plainest possible description and allusion, held up the ministry of certain of his brethren to public contempt. The Presbytery dealt with him in a Committee of privy censure in regard to these offences, which were committed against Mr Somerville and Mr Arnot in particular. After long conference, Mr Anderson admitted certain representations of his sermons to be correct, admitted that allusions had been made to these brethren, professed to see his sin, and to repent of it. That was entered even in the minutes. When the matter was reported to the Presbytery, Dr Buchanan stated that he had never been more surprised or vexed by anything than by the contrast that was presented between the sermon, as Mr Anderson had admitted it to have been, and a sort of sketch which he professed to have got up ex post facto;—and further, the contrast between Mr Anderson's tone and spirit in the conference and when he appeared before the Presbytery. It ultimately ended, however, even in the Presbytery, in Mr Anderson's acceding to the report, and the Presbytery endeavoured to hinder the whole proceedings from getting into the public newspapers, being satisfied with having brought him to the same state of mind as that to which he had been brought in the conference. They even on one occasion gave him the right hand of fellowship, on the understanding that all was settled. Then the Assembly had heard read from the bar a representation of the proceedings, in a pamphlet by Mr Anderson, in which he said, that he had yielded on a former occasion because he was "overborne by numbers," and because "the faithful and stirring appeals which he made were lost upon those to whom they were addressed." If these stirring appeals were at all like those to which they had listened during their conference with Mr Anderson, they must have been of a very singular character indeed. He could not wonder to hear that such appeals had been made in the conference,—but he could testify, that if shuffling, and evasion, and disingenuousness, were stirring appeals, then they had plenty of them, but of nothing else. (Hear, hear.) Mr Anderson further went on to say in his pamphlet, that he was amazed at what he heard in the Presbytery. He had prepared a sketch of his sermon, and a defence of it; for it was not the case that he had any notes of it previously; and he was led in his simplicity, to hope that plain truths would tell on the minds of his brethren. On the contrary, however, Mr Anderson proceeded to say, it only raised such a storm as he had never before encountered. He would not trust himself to characterize the speeches that were made, but they confirmed all that he had previously thought of the state of the ministry of the Free Church, and proved he had fallen short in the description he had given. Mr Anderson further said, he withdrew his statement, not because it was touched by anything that had been said, but because he felt that “it would be thrown

away on men so far gone in blindness and delusion in spiritual things." He was grieved to think that precious truth was so contemned, and was "ready to suffer in silence, when he could not prevail by argument." Upon a comparison of this statement with the facts, Dr Buchanan had informed them that he could come to no alternative but either that the account of the proceedings given by Mr Anderson was untrue and false, or that his conduct before the Presbytery was grossly hypocritical. He must say, that for one he was perfectly prepared to say that he acquiesced in this opinion, as the only alternative the matter admitted of. When this was put to Mr Anderson, they got a sort of acknowledgment that he believed his brethren intended more to be meant by the shaking hands than actually was meant, and that he had some sort of idea, from something that happened after, that his brethren had come to see the matter in the same light. At all events, the grave and serious matter was, that Mr Anderson stated, when asked if he adhered to the statements in his pamphlet, replied unequivocally in the affirmative, -told them that he adhered to his representation of that transaction,—a transaction that brought out most clearly the tenderness with which the Presbytery of Glasgow had treated their confessedly offending brother, and the faithfulness with which they had discharged their duty towards their offending brother, and to the cause of truth and righteousness. The more the conduct of the Presbytery in this matter was examined, the more would it redound to their credit. Greater kindness and forbearance man never experienced at the hand of his fellow-man. And yet Mr Anderson told them that he adhered to the offensive, injurious, and untrue representation given in his pamphlet. It was their intention to propose that the case should be entirely left to the Court below, but seeing Mr Anderson as a fugitive from discipline compelled them to more stringent measures, it was thought that they could not ask the concurrence of the Assembly, or of the Christian community, in the step it was now necessary to propose, without going a little into these matters, from an inquiry into which Mr Anderson was now skulking and shrinking. The charges brought against Mr Anderson were charges that an honest and honourable man would be in haste to meet; and if he could not meet them, he would acknowledge to the full extent their criminality, before God and the brethren against whom he had offended. There was another point in regard to which they had not so much dealing with Mr Anderson-the business was so painful, and Mr Anderson, indeed, abruptly retired without giving them any intimation of his intention to do so. The other matter to which he referred was what was said in the pamphlet regarding the elders. The Presbytery, it would be remembered, were not the only parties at the bar on Saturday. There were also parties who alleged they were personally aggrieved by Mr Anderson's conduct. There were no complaints from Mr Milne, Mr Somerville, or Mr Arnot, though they would have had a perfect good standing in the case had they chosen to bring forward their complaint. They, however, consulted more the dignity of their characters, and did not appear. But it was otherwise with the demitting elders. They were not bound to sit silent, and could not, as men having a character to maintain in the world and in the Church. They complained of a wrong inflicted on them in Mr Anderson's pamphlet, and it was this fact, in a large measure, that made it necessary to have the pamphlet produced. About fifty copies of this pamphlet, it had been admitted, had been thrown off, and it was alleged and confessed that a considerable number of them had got into partial circulation. In any such case this amount of publication-the printing of fifty copies, some

of which were professedly put into circulation—would have been enough, he supposed, to establish the libel in any court of justice. Dr Candlish then read a paragraph from the copy of the pamphlet on the table of the Assembly, to the effect that Mr Somerville might think it humiliating that ten of his elders, after adhering to him during the events of the Disruption, and others hardly less trying, after professing unlimited attachment to his ministry, in spite of reproaches, and earning to themselves the reputation of men of judgment, discernment, and piety, should, after all, suddenly turn round and labour to defeat one of the principle ends of the ministry-the separation, by the faithful exposition of the Word of God, of the chaff from the wheat,―venture upon an act of barefaced injustice in putting out a catechist to put in a favourite of their own in his place, to draw his salary, and eat his bread; and, when they could not thus accomplish their fondly cherished scheme of bringing down the minister, and standing by their friend, gave up their office, in a vain attempt to damage their minister, and make him capitulate on any terms they might be pleased to dictate. Mr Anderson, in the conclusion of the extract, expresses his conviction, that this will yet appear a very serious matter to "these infatuated men" themselves; and that the screen with which the Free Presbytery of Glasgow sought to shelter them, would be found to be no protection from the piercing rays of truth from without, or from the agonizing voice of conscience within. This was the paragraph of which these men justly complained. It held them up as being guilty, first of labouring to defeat one of the principal ends of the ministry, that of separating chaff from the wheat. They were charged, secondly, with an act of vengeance, inasmuch as when they found themselves baffled at all points, they ventured upon an act of barefaced injustice in turning a catechist out of his situation, without a reason given or received, and putting in a favourite of their own. Thirdly, they were charged with having, when defeated in this, in order to accomplish their fondly cherished scheme of bringing down the minister, and standing by their friend, throwing up their office with the disingenuous purpose of forcing their minister to capitulate and submit to them on any terms they might dictate. They were further held up as being obnoxious to the piercing light of truth without, and of conscience within. The Presbytery, moreover, were expressly charged with screening these men in their audacious acts. He thought it beyond all question that Mr Anderson was guilty of contumacy in the Court below, indeed, he could give no reason that could be held at all satisfactory for refusing to lay the pamphlet on the table. There was something like contumacy in his non-appearance before the Assembly on Monday; and he was clearly guilty when, in answer to the question of the Moderator, he refused to lay his pamphlet on the table. What effect his subsequent acquiescence might have, it would be for the Assembly to decide. But, above all, he had been guilty of contumacy to-day,-guilty of contumacy in not appearing, and, still more, in attempting to stop the progress of discipline, and arrest ecclesiastical procedure by resignation of his connection with the Church. He had thus manifested himself as guilty not merely of contumacy, but of being a fugitive from discipline, to which, in painful and solemn expressions of exaggerated humiliation, which did not convey conviction to his mind, Mr Anderson had expressed himself so anxious to submit. He would now indicate the sentence which he thought ought to be pronounced by the Assembly. He did not know that it might be possible to have it immediately written down accurately; but it might be remitted to the same Committee to prepare it in a formal manner, and bring it up

again to-morrow, with a view to its being passed as the finding of the Court. Mr Anderson would, of course, have an opportunity of withdrawing or of explaining his letter, as he would be regularly cited in future proceedings. In strict law, he would almost say in strict justice, they might be prepared to proceed immediately to the high censures of the Church; or they were prepared simply to accept of his resignation, and declare Mr Anderson no longer a minister of this Church. This course, however, he would resist. The letter could not relieve them from the duty of going on in the ordinary process of libel, in order to bring out his offences in such a manner as might, by the blessing of God, strike his conscience; and they owed this to the brethren who had been assailed, the elders who had been maligned, and the Presbytery whose forbearance and kindness were so miserably requited, as well as to the cause of truth and righteousness. Mr Anderson could not cease to be a minister of the Church till they accepted of his resignation, or in some other way terminated his connection with them. What he intended to move was, that the case be remitted to the Presbytery of Glasgow, with instructions to prepare a libel, embracing all the charges competently brought before them by Mr Anderson's procedure in the Court below or in the Assembly, instruct them to use all expedition, to disregard protests and complaints till they ripen the case for final judgment, and reserve the value of these complaints till they bring up the matter before the Commission, which should be empowered finally to pronounce sentence. It was also absolutely indispensable that the General Assembly should proceed, on the plain evidence of contumacy before them, at once to suspend Mr Anderson from the office and functions of the ministry while his case was under dependence. Under the act, now a standing law of the Church, every case in which a Presbytery should resolve to order a libel, the accused minister ceased to exercise the duties of his office till the libel was finally disposed of. The resolution of the Presbytery to libel would therefore have the effect alluded to, only, however, on the footing of an expedient arrangement instituted by the Church and not necessarily inferring guilt. But he was not prepared to leave Mr Anderson's suspension on the footing of a mere necessary consequence. It should be put on the footing of a judicial finding of the House. They had enough before them to warrant such a finding; and the ends of justice required that he should be suspended by a special sentence. Mr Anderson would still be cited and summoned in the usual way, and have all opportunities and facilities for defence or explanation. He proposed this as the very least that would vindicate the discipline of the Church, be honourable to God, or beneficial to their brethren. Discipline they believed to be ordained of God, for his glory and for the preservation of the purity of his Church, as well as the special good of those on whom it might be exercised; and if anything was to be done in the way of opening the eyes of their brother on the grievous extent to which spiritual pride had blinded him to the ordinary duties of life, it must be, not the Church's going out of its ordinary course of procedure, and dealing with him in a very special way, but simply and calmly going on to exercise that discipline which was ordained by God, and which God had promised, in answer to prayer, to bless for the recovery of the fallen and the honour of His own great name.

Principal CUNNINGHAM rose chiefly to assure the House of the entire unanimity of the Committee, and to give his thorough confirmation to the statements of Dr Candlish. The Committee were of one mind, in virtue of all they saw and heard, in entertaining a very strong and a very cordial approbation of the wisdom and forbearance in this case of the Presbytery of Glasgow and a very strong and decided sense of disapprobation of the whole

N n

course of conduct pursued by Mr Anderson. They had been more confirmed by all they saw and heard in the conviction that the Presbytery of Glasgow manifested great kindness and forbearance in the matter; and though many members of that Presbytery had been foully slandered and bitterly calumniated by Mr Anderson from the pulpit, not the slightest indication could be detected of their having violated the dictates of forbearance and brotherly kindness. The object of the conference was either to get such explanations from Mr Anderson as might influence their view of his conduct, or to endeavour to bring him to a right sense of his guilt, induce him to confess his sin, and to express penitence for his offence. In both these objects, the meeting with Mr Anderson entirely failed. He denied some of the facts alleged; brought forward nothing to explain these facts differently from their prima facie aspect, and they could not bring him to anything like a right sense of sin. They dealt with him in the way of showing the manifest dictates of the laws of integrity, honesty, and fair dealing, hoping thereby that he might be brought to some sense of his guilt. In this, however, they failed. In regard to some points, Mr Anderson did make a formal expression, to the effect that he had violated the law of God: but, even then, there was evidently nothing like a right appreciation of the sinfulness of his conduct. It just seemed as if he had been merely intellectually convinced of its being sinful. He admitted that his conduct in adopting the minute was an act of sin, and a violation of the ninth commandment, but it was clearly because he felt the moral impossibility of saying one word in answer to the grounds on which the Committee maintained the true view of that transaction. Even then he seemed to have no true sense of the right nature of the offence. In regard to the contrast between Mr Anderson's statements in the Presbytery and in the pamphlet, they got nothing from him but what had justly been characterized by Dr Candlish as shuffling, evasion, and disingenuousness. He declared that he adhered deliberately to all the statements in that pamphlet,-an admission which involves him in the fearful alternative that has already been before the House. The whole seemed to him just a very offensive specimen of practical Antinomianism-(hear)—a man evidently priding himself on being possessed of far higher spiritual gifts and graces than other men, and a far higher discernment of Divine truth than any other minister of the Church, and yet indulging habitually in the practice of deliberate violation of the plainest principles of morality, and the clearest and most express violation of the law which requires that integrity, adherence to promise, and fair and honourable dealing The Committee were unanimous in this judgment, and were prepared to propose that it should be remitted to the Presbytery of Glasgow to proceed with the case, in the possession of the pamphlet which threw such a fearful light on the subject. It was plain that they could not accept of the resignation. That would be a virtual admission that they had no moral charges against him. Mr Anderson, with all his spiritual pride, his self-conceit, and his self deceit, must have felt, as the result of the conference, in his inmost soul, that he was occupying a dishonourable and a degraded position. He must have felt that he was in a position which he could not and dared not face, and in which he could entertain no reasonable expectations of satisfying the minds of honourable and honest men. Finding this, he had taken the course of fleeing from discipline; and this act was of such a nature that they might at once have proceeded to cut him off from connection with the Church, or suspend him sine die, were they so disposed. He concurred in the opinion that it was more expedient that they should still leave room for penitence on Mr Anderson's part. That certainly was not very hopefu!