20 
 
 objections ; that in fact it is such that it must not be adopted as it 
 now stands. I trust the Laity of our Church will come forward* and 
 assert their own " unquestionable rights" — that they shall give such 
 expression to their sentiments of attachment to their Protestant Rights 
 and Christian Liberties as shall secure the abandonment, now and for 
 ever, of every attempt to impose upon them a yoke of bondage which 
 in days gone by, neither they nor their fathers were able to bear. 
 
 Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty. 
 
 Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ 
 hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the 
 
 YOKE OF bondage. 
 
 * I know that there is a very strong feeling on the part of the Laity against 
 those provisions of the Code upon which I have commented. But that feeling 
 ought to assume a definite form. The Sessions and Committees of our Con- 
 gregations should meet and adopt Eesolutions condemning the proposed inter- 
 ference with their rights and liberties. In some instances this has already 
 been done. The following has been adopted, unanimously, by the Committee 
 of my own Congregation : — " Eegarding subscription, in any form whatever, 
 to Articles of Faith, as being opposed to the best interests of religion, and, at 
 the same time, as inconsistent with the Fundamental Principles of the Ee- 
 monstrant Synod; and having seen in the Draft Code of Discipline lists of 
 questions proposed to be put to Candidates for License and Ordination with a 
 view to test their soundness in the faith, — Eesolved : — That we strongly dis- 
 approve of all such questions, and earnestly entreat Synod not to adopt any 
 measures calculated, in any manner, to interfere with the freest exercise of the 
 Eight of Private Judgment in matters of Faith." 
 
 Before the unexpected adjournment of the November meeting took place, 
 Synod had entered upon the consideration of the portion of the Code here re- 
 viewed. The following motion upon the subject was introduced by myself, and 
 seconded by John Miller, Esq. :— " That, while recognising the right and duty 
 of Congregations to satisfy themselves of the fitness, in all respects, of the 
 persons whom they select as their religious Teachers, we believe that Presby- 
 teries ought not, in matters of religious faith, to require anything of Candi- 
 dates for License and Ordination beyond their professing themselves disciples 
 of Jesus Christ ;_and that the Code be altered accordingly." The discussion 
 of this motion will be resumed at the March meeting. 
 
 EELFA.ST ; PRtXTED BY ALEX. MAYNE, HIGH-STBEET. 
 
v>^ 
 
 w 
 
 W \JI • UH,y^ 
 
 REPLY I > 
 
 iOV 7 - 132c 
 
 KEY. DR. MONTGOMERY'S SPEECH 
 
 &c. &c. &c. 
 
 DAYID MAGINNIS 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 E T WHITFIELD, 178, STKAND. BELFAST : H . GREER» 
 HIGH-STREET. 
 
 1858, 
 
1 
 
INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 SPEECH IN SYNOD, NOVEMBER 4, 1856. 
 
 Moderator, I claim permission to offer a few remarks upon tlie important 
 subject now before the house. I concur in all that has been said touching 
 the gTave importance of the present meeting, and the necessity of calmly and 
 seriously deliberating upon the various important subjects treated of in the 
 proposed Code. The section now before us, however, and that relating to 
 ordination, are, in my mind, among the most, if not the most, important we 
 have to consider, — not because of any intrinsic pre-eminence attacliing to the 
 subjects, but because of their ti'catment. You are aware that it is pro- 
 posed to put certain questions to candidates for license and ordination, with 
 a Adew principally to ascei-tain theii* theological opinions. To the proposed 
 catechetical examination I feel constrained to object. And here I wish, 
 once for all, to state that my objections are not to the particular questions 
 here_ enumerated. Upon them I am not to be considered as expressing any 
 opinion. They may be such as I covdd conscientiously answer in the affii-ma- 
 tive, or they may not. My only concern with them is this — they are theological, 
 involving the piinciple of a test ; and, therefore, I oppose them, as I should 
 oppose any other questions having a similar object — the matter of their being 
 less or more searching being very subordinate. It is not, then, to the par- 
 ticular questions proposed I am to be considered as objecting ; it is to the 
 principle involved in the questioning. 
 
 It need not be attempted to be concealed that to adopt the proposed plan 
 is, in effect, to revert to subscription to articles of faith as a condition of 
 
 * As an introduction to my reply to Dr. Montgomery's pamphlet, I print here 
 the few observations I made at the special meeting of Synod, in Nov., I80G, when 
 proposing, and also those which I offered at the adjourned meeting, in March 
 last, when defending, my Amendment on the Draft Code's Provisions relating to 
 "license" and " ordination," that the reader, who has perused Dr. Montgomery's 
 pamphlet, having before him, in these observations and in my published dis- 
 course, all that I have either spoken or wi-itten on the subject, may be enabled to 
 see for himself, 1st, the views I did advocate and the misrepresentation to which 
 they have been subjected ; and, 2nd, whether there is anything, either in the 
 matter or the manner of my advocacy, to justify the violent assault which it 
 becomes noAV my painful duty to repel. 
 
 In reference to these " Observations" I have to add that, believing I was the 
 advocate of a most important principle which might be imperilled by any indis- 
 cretion into which I might be tempted in extemporaneous speech, I took the 
 precaution, on each occasion, of writing out at fuU length what I wished to say, 
 and on each occasion, with a few unimportant alterations, I read as a speech what 
 I had written. I am, therefore, enabled to give ray observations as nearly as 
 possible as they were delivered. 
 
admission to our pulpits. The candidate for license is to be asked, Do you 
 believe this doctrine, that doctrine, and the other doctrine ? And, after a 
 congregation has selected a minister, he shall not be ordained or installed 
 untn he shall have given " satisfactory" evidence of the soundness of his 
 faith regarding a series of doctrines. Nay, more, I find it suggested in the 
 draft Code for the consideration of this house, whether the minister-elect 
 shall not be further required to give a " definite written statement of his re- 
 ligious opinions." Can there be a rational doubt as to the meaning of all 
 this .^ It manifestly aims at establishing a system of testing the theological 
 opinions and consciences of entrants into the ministry, not less objectionable 
 in principle than that of Subscribing Protestant Churches. The articles to 
 which you require assent may be neither so numerous nor so objectionable in 
 themselves as those of surrounding churches ; but the question is not whether 
 they are true or false, nor whether they are nine or thirty-nine — the prin- 
 ciple is the same, and it is to the principle I object 
 
 I object to it, first, because it has proved itself to be opposed to the inte- 
 rests of religious truth and freedom of conscience. Were I addi'essing a 
 different audience, I should endeavour to establish this position by argniments 
 derived from the history of the Christian church ; but on the present occasion 
 it is not necessar}^ to adopt that course, as, perhaps, all whom I address 
 know as well as I — many much better — that subscription to articles of faith, 
 as a bond of Church union, has been most injurious in its influences, in re- 
 tarding the progress of truth, and in encouraging hj-pocrisy and insincerity 
 among those whose office requires that their character should be without 
 spot or blemish. 
 
 Secondly, I object to the principle involved in the testing questions referred 
 to, because it is opposed to the fundamental principles of this Church. To 
 establish this position, I shall quote the 3rd and 4th of the Resolutions adopted 
 by this Synod at its formation, and to which I entreat your serious attention. 
 They are as follows :< — 
 
 " That all exercise of Church power, which attaches rewards to the profession 
 of one class of doctrines, and penalties to that of any other, is contrary to the 
 Holy Scriptures, and directly calculated to undermine that sincerity without 
 which no profession of faith or form of worship can be acceptable unto God. 
 That the imposition of human tests and Confesions of Faith, and the vain efforts 
 of men to produce an unattainable unifoi-mity of belief have not only tended to 
 encourage hypocrisy, but also to restrict the sacred right of private judgment — to 
 lessen the authority of the Scriptures — to create unrighteous divisions amongst 
 Christians — to sanction the most barbarous persecutions — to trench upon the na- 
 tural and civil rights of men — to place undue power in the hands of the few — 
 to throw a shield over the timeserver — to expose the honest to injuries and 
 persecutions — to perpetuate errors in almost all Churches — and to prevent that 
 free inquiry and discussion which are essential to the extension of religious 
 knowledge." 
 
 Do these resolutions leave any doubt as to the spirit and aims of those who 
 laid the foundations of this Synod ? To remove that doubt (did it exist) it 
 were only necessary to reproduce some passages from the eloquent speeches of 
 gentlemen who, in the stormy and trying times in which our Church was 
 founded, manfully, heroically, and successfully contended for the rights of con- 
 science, fuU, free, unfettered inquiiy, and the exercise of the sacred right of 
 private judgment in aU matters of faith, I am sure I express the feelings of 
 my younger brethren when I express my own feeling of sincere admiration 
 and of gTatitude for the important services rendered to the cause of religious 
 liberty, at the period referred to, by the founders of this Church — so few of 
 whom, alas ! are here to-day to assist us in deliberations on questions of much 
 moment to its future prosperity. But, though dead, they yet speak ! They 
 speak thi^ough those resolutions, solemnly adopted as the basis of this Church. 
 They speak to us in the columns of the hberal press of the day (newspaper and 
 periodical), and in none more than in those of The Northern Whig, which gave 
 its services at first, and has continued to give them, to the cause of civil and 
 
religious liberty, in a manner which ought not to he forgotten. One extract 
 and one only, shaU I delay you with. It is in the spiiit of many such, as 
 every one acquamted with the local rehgious history of the period wiU know 
 It IS an extract from a speech of the Eev. Wm. Porter, on his beino- elected 
 Moderator of the meeting of JVIinisters and Elders which formed "the first 
 Remonstrant Synod : — 
 
 " The present meeting, however, is one of no ordinary character It is marked 
 by circumstances of a peculiar nature, and which cau hardly faH to make the 
 breast heave with emotions not easily suppressed. Cold must be the blood that 
 IS not warmed— duU and phlegmatic must be the spirit which is not animated 
 by contemplatnig the situation in which we stand, and the object which we have 
 in view. We have come together on a most interesting occasion. We have 
 come together to lay the foundation-stone of a temple dedicated to reHffious 
 liberty— a temple under whose ample dome every individual who chooses to 
 enter will be allowed to worship, in his own way, the one God and Father of 
 all. After years of patient endurance, we have succeeded iu throwino- off a voke 
 which Avas by no means easy— a burden which was far from beino- Ho-ht We 
 have emancipated ourselves and our Congregations from a state'' of " spiritual 
 tliraldom, and established our claim to those invaluable immunities wherewith 
 Christ intended to make mankind free. The privilege of free and fearless in- 
 quiry IS the groundwork of the Church we are now preparing to build-"" and 
 Trove all things^ will be the motto inscribed on its frout, in characters of'c^old 
 VVe do not associate as Calvinists or Armenians— we do not associate as Uni- 
 tarians or Trimtanans ; we are Presbyterians." 
 
 ^^^^^l^.^"^'. *^®^^ ^^^*^ "^ ^^®'^' ^^^ s^^^ we justify the present proposal ^ 
 Were the change proposed a widening of the basis on which the Synod was 
 tormed, we could understand, and, perhaps, approve of the intended chane-e 
 as bemg m the spiiit of the founders of the Chmxh and the framers of its con- 
 stitution. In then- mmd, if they expressed themselves as they felt, the only 
 Imahty contemplated was an end of human creeds— a death-blow to authority 
 in matters of conscience— in eveiy other direction the way was open, and the 
 motto " Onward." Why reverse that glorious decision .?— why desii^e to place 
 on the neck of your successors that yoke which neither you nor your fathers 
 were able to bear .? j j >= 
 
 I object to this test-principle, thirdly, because its operation in the Churches 
 around us, at the present moment, proves it to be unsuitable to an enlightened 
 Chmxh. Merely to name the Church of Rome— the only Chmxh that cames 
 tlu'ough the prmciple— IS qmte enough for my pui^ose, in the hearing of an 
 inteUigent audience. The Church of England has its Creeds thi-ee, and Ailicles 
 thu^ty-nme ; and yet members of her communion may be found entertainino- 
 almost every pomt of doctrine in the theological compass, from Deism to 
 Popeiy. Surely it is not the condition of the Cahinistic Chmxh that 
 enamours us of the fleshpots of Egjipt ! Never more emphatically than at the 
 present horn- did Subscnbmg Churches proclaim the insufficiency of the Creed- 
 pnnciple— nay, more, never did their circumstances more strongly exliort us 
 to widen, rather than naiTow, the basis of our union. The Methodist Chm^ch 
 nnds its basis too narrow to sustain the superstructure itself has raised- so 
 also, ol the Calvimstic Independents ; and so, also, of the Church of England! 
 which, though Cathohc enough to find room for a great variety of sentunent 
 fias not room enough for all who desii-e to be of her communion. Is oui' 
 Church too large, that we desii-e to naiTow its limits .? Or, do we faH to read 
 the lesson of the times } Do we shiink fi-om the responsibihty our position 
 entails.^ Do we fuii the banner om- fathers unfiuied .? If so, let us take good 
 heed to ourselves. If we are not prepared to go forward, keeping our place in 
 tlie general movement, then let us share the fate of the unfaithful ' We shaU 
 meet om^reward, but the ends of Providence shall not be defeated ; the cause 
 we desert snail find other and more faithful advocates. 
 
 I object, fourthly, to this test-principle because our experience, as a Church 
 doe^s not justify it. Hitherto, you have admitted candidates to the IMinistry 
 on the most hberal terms— I may say on their own terms— and have you had 
 
6 
 
 any good reason to regret having done so ? It is possible there may have 
 "been cases in which you deemed some of your pulpits might have been more 
 usefully occupied. But, would a searching catechetical examination on mat- 
 ters of belief, prior to license and ordination, have prevented such instances ? 
 You all know, full well, that, if you have to deal mth an unprincipled man, 
 all the creeds you coidd invent would not disqualify him, on the ground of 
 doctrine, for entering the Church. He could subscribe three score articles, 
 as readily as your three or four. And when, in the course of one's reading, 
 in the progress of his mental growth, one's views on important points of doc- 
 trine change — as the views of all thinking men do change — it cannot be un- 
 known to the members of the Synod that there are other means of relieving 
 congTegations of the services of such ministers, if not acceptable to them, than 
 the production against them of the proposed written ai-ticles. The SjTiod 
 would lose nothing in dig-nity by assuming that its members were men of 
 honesty and integiit^^, who would not remain in a position where their ser- 
 vices were not acceptable ; and I venture to assert that, in, perhaps, every 
 case in which such change of opinion has taken place, and been openly pro- 
 fessed, the minister has placed his resignation in the hands of his congrega- 
 tion. I can speak for myself. When the views I entertained on entering 
 on the ministry here, being then a youth scarce out of my teens, enlarged 
 with time, I felt bound to give my congregation an opportimity of relieving 
 themselves of my services, if they so desired. I gave them the opportunity, 
 and I am with them still ; and I don't think I was a whit more honest than 
 any other member of the body would have been under s im ilar circum- 
 stances. 
 
 If we are not prepared for the fuU exercise of the right of private judgment 
 and its results, then let us mount the wave that will bear us back to Eome ! 
 I am quite sure that the younger members of this SjTiod will not consent to 
 such a course ; and, is it not melancholy to think that our fears are chiefly 
 for those who know, from experience, the bitterness of the servitude they 
 would impose ? Fathers — ye who arose in giant strengih, and biirst the 
 chains that spiritual despotism had forged to enslave you — render one ex- 
 ception to the rule, by abstaining from re- welding the chains you burst for 
 the enslaving of others ! 
 
 I have to apologise. Sir, for having occupied so much of your time ; but, 
 as the question before the House appeared to me to be one of paramount 
 importance, and as, whatever may be my other failings, I seldom trespass 
 upon your attention by lengthened remarks, I hope that, under the circum- 
 stances, I shall be forgiven, and that the poiats I have so imperfectly raised 
 will be duly considered. I conclude by moving the following Amend- 
 ment : — 
 
 " That, while recognising the right and duty of Congregations to satisfy them- 
 selves of the fitness, in all respects, of the persons whom they select as their re • 
 ligious teachers, we beheve Presbyteries ought not, in matters of religious faith, 
 to require anything of candidates for license and ordination beyond theii- professing 
 themselves disciples of Jesus Chi-ist ; and that the Code be altered accordingly." 
 
 SPEECH IN SYNOD, MARCH 3, 18 57. 
 
 Moderator, Allow me to assure you, that, in rising to address the house on 
 the present occasion, I feel my position to be one of gxeat difficulty and 
 responsibility. Eesponsibility, in that I feel that the interests of a great 
 principle are involved in the character of my advocacy, and difiiculty, in that 
 I have the misfortime to be opposed to men eloquent and skilful in debate, and 
 some of whom have earned a title to the gxatitude of us all for valuable 
 services, rendered in times gone by, to the cause of civil and religious liberty. 
 
still, believing, as I do, that the adoption hy tliis Synod of the testing 
 clauses of the di-aft Code would he highly iniirrious to our Church, and, pro 
 tanio, detrunontal to the interests of religion, I am compelled, — all difficidties 
 notmthstanding, — to oppose the measures submitted by the committee, and 
 to contend for the principle affiiTaed by the Amendment now before us. 
 
 I shall only premise farther, that, in the few remarks I shall now offer, 
 it shall be my endeavour to guard myself against introducing anything irrele- 
 vant to the questions at issue ; and, particularly, to resist every temptation to 
 be personal. If either example or vmgenerous treatment were any justifica- 
 tion, I might indulge freely in personalities of questionable propriety. Such 
 personalities, however, I shall scrupulously avoid,^ feeling assured that, how- 
 ever pungent in discussion, they are beneath the digiiity of the solemn duty I 
 seek to discharge. 
 
 Two schemes, defining the limits of the power of Presbyteries and Congre- 
 gations, respectively, to test the theological opinions of candidates for the 
 ministry, are now before the house. One of these, the Code Committee's, 
 proposes to confer nearly all the power upon the Presbytery; the other, that 
 of the Amendment, proposes to confer nearly all the power upon the Congre- 
 gation. 
 
 Having already* expressed my views upon the scheme of the Committee, I 
 do not consider it necessary, on this occasion, to enter upon any lengthened 
 examination of it ; and, particularly, as I feel that nothing has since been 
 advanced by its supporters to materially strengthen the positions I have 
 assailed. I have shewn that the proposed Code, as a whole, is not what the 
 Synod, in 1848, directed its Committee to prepare. I have shewn that the 
 particular provisions now under re\'iew are in a high degTce objectionable, as 
 being tantamount to the adoption of the old creed system, with all its evils, 
 retarding progTCSS, and encouraging hypocrisy; nay, as being worse than the 
 adoption of a real creed, inasmuch as, while it does not afford the advantages 
 of a creed in being a progTamme of Church principles, it places conscience 
 more thoroughly at the mercy of arbitrary caprice. I have shewn, further, 
 that the antecedents of om- Church, its fundamental and oft-professed prin- 
 ciples, its responsible position as a recogTjised exponent of the principle of 
 non-subscription, together with the ecclesiastical signs of the times, all con- 
 spire in imperatively demanding that this Sjmod shall not allow itself to 
 become accessary to the extension of the dominion of spiritual slavery. All 
 that I have elsewhere said in support of these views, I shall, in order to save 
 the time of the house, consider as if now submitted, and proceed to notice such 
 points and cormnents as appear to requii-e explanation, defence, or refutation. 
 
 It has been alleged that I entirely mistake the nature of the scheme I 
 oppose, and, consequently, do injustice to its promoters. There has been an 
 expenditure of much effort and eloquence to shew that there is no intention 
 to interfere with our religious liberties, — that the spirit which resisted eccle- 
 siastical usurpation in the old Synod is as fresh and healthful in this modifi- 
 cation of our SjTiodical constitution as in the Fiindamental Principles them- 
 selves. Nothing, however, which I have yet heard, either here or elsewhere, 
 disproves the correctness of my representation of the spirit and tendency of 
 these sections of the new Code ; while various additional circumstances and 
 arguments conspire to establish the justness of my estimate. 
 
 Sir, I dissent entirely from the allegation that there is no desire to abridge 
 our liberties. Such desire, I am con-\dnced, does exist ; and so strong is it that 
 it has not always been able to conceal its aims. 
 
 You remember the treatment to which the Synod of Munster and the Pres- 
 bytery of Antrim were subjected by certain members of this Synod, both at 
 om- regTilar meeting in July last, and at om^ special meeting ia November. 
 At the fonner, it was proposed that those two bodies, constituting with the 
 Remonstrant Synod, the " Association of Non- Subscribing Presbyterians in 
 Ireland," should be respectfully requested to co-operate with the Remonstrant 
 
 * In my Discourse, reviewing some Pi-o visions of the new Code. 
 
SjTiod in the preparation of a joint Code for the three bodies; but the pro- 
 posal, from the detennined opposition it encountered, fell to the gTOund for 
 want of a seconder. And, at our November meeting, as many will remember 
 with great pain, a most unusual and imhandsome proceeding was recom- 
 mended in reference to those bodies — that, contrary to all courtesy and 
 custom, any of their members who might happen to be present, should 
 not be permitted to sit with the Sjoiod. And what was the motive, not con- 
 cealed but openly avowed, for all this ? These two bodies, it seems, have 
 peculiar notions about religious liberty. They have not yet lost their first 
 love of it. They would not consent to the re-imposition of the yoke of bon- 
 dage upon the consciences of their brethren. Ajid, therefore, they must not 
 be allowed to enter our coimcils while we are engaged in the preparation of 
 our Code, lest they might influence us, in any degree, in favour of the Chris- 
 tian liberty they themselves love and enjoy. Therefore, the November treat- 
 ment of the Antrim Presbytery, — a body which, by its example at a time 
 when it was something to speak for freedom of conscience, taught us the rudi- 
 ments of religious liberty, and when our own difiiculties came, helped us through 
 them by its sympathy, counsel, and aid. That that body, thi'ough its repre- 
 sentatives present on the occasion, — ^and, especially, in its respected member, 
 the Rev. Samuel C. Nelson, who bears, and does honour to, a name that has 
 long been honoui'able and honoured in the annals of our Irish nonconformity, 
 and who, besides, was himself one of the few who laid the foundations of our 
 Synod, and was, therefore, peculiarly qualified to render valuable assistance 
 in rcmodeHuig oirr constitution, — that that distingnished body and the Synod 
 of Munster should be attempted to be excluded from our deliberations upon 
 the gTound that they might influence us ia favour of liberty of conscience, 
 is evidence too clear to admit of doubt that there is a strong desire, some- 
 where, to put the drag upon the wheel of the advancing cause of freedom 
 of thought. 
 
 And there is something significant in the fact that these recent exhibi- 
 tions are in direct opposition to the formerly declared wishes of the Synod. 
 I find by our printed Minutes of 1850, that at its annual ISIeeting of that 
 year, Sjiiod adopted the following Eesolution : — 
 
 " That the Committee appointed by this Body, at our Annual Meeting, in 
 1848, to draw up a Code of Discipline, be directed to request the Synod of Munster 
 and the Presbytery of Antrim, to give them their assistance and advice, with a 
 view to the production of a Code that might suit the Three Bodies." 
 
 Now, I should like to be informed by the Code Co mmi ttee whether these 
 instmctions were ever complied with : if so, with what result ; if not, why 
 not. I have good reason to believe that such request was never made. _Why 
 it was not, will, no doubt, bo explained by those who set aside the unanimous 
 and explicit instructions of this SjTiod. 
 
 In fiu'ther illustration of the correctness of my representation of the real 
 aim of the sections of the Code now imder review, I might refer to instances, 
 unmistakeable and noted, exhibiting a growing tendency to restrict, even by 
 penalties, freedom of thought ; but I abstain, lest I might be drawn mto per- 
 sonalities such as I have determined to avoid. 
 
 There is one patent fact which I must not fail to adduce in support of the 
 correctness of my interpretation of the sections under notice, — and that is the 
 verdict of the pubHc. The di\aft Code has been printed and circulated, the 
 sections before us have been published in the newspapers ; the public have 
 read them and concluded that our SjTiod is abandoning its principles and 
 seeking to take a place in the ranks of creed-bound Churches. This is the 
 verdict of the public. Orthodox and Unitarian. Note the comments upon our 
 November meeting in The Banner of lUsler and The Inquirer. I have had 
 letters fr'om several of the most distinguished members of our denomination 
 on the other side of the Channel, deploring the retrograde tendency our pro- 
 posed Code exhibits. And it is notorious that the collectors for our Manse 
 
Fund have been obliged to suspend their labours until the result of this meet- 
 ing be known, — as the laity are determined, and I believe wisely so, not to 
 contribute to such project, if Synod should prove unfaithful to its position ; — ■ 
 which, while it shews very clearly that I am not alone in my view of the 
 spirit and tendency of these sections, proves that even if a few amongst us 
 desire, in any manner, to " lord it over God's heritage," the members of our 
 Church generally prize highly the " liberty wherewith Christ hath made us 
 free," and are determined, at all hazards, not to allow themselves to be " en- 
 tangled again with the yoke of bondage." 
 
 But, Sir, I refer you to the Code itself. Its provisions afford the fullest 
 confirmation of my representation. It provides that no person shall be 
 licensed or ordaiaed until, among other things, he shall have answered, to 
 the " satisfaction" of a Presbytery, a series of questions upon theological sub- 
 jects. Before being ordained it is intended that he shall be subjected to the 
 catechetical test and the declaratory test, tests oral and tests wiitten, and 
 must pass through all to the complete " satisfaction" of his clerical conscience- 
 triers. The slightest flaw in his Orthodoxy, and he is liable to be rejected. 
 The temper of his mind, the manner of his life, these, though of the utmost 
 importance to ministerial usefulness, are subordinated to Orthodox soimdness 
 of mere behef. The Presbytery is constituted the judge of the Orthodoxy of 
 our young ministers. And even though it might undertake the office without 
 any desire to unduly interfere with the religious opinions of its candidates for 
 the ministry, it is a dangerous power to confer upon any Church Court, a 
 power which, in every Church that possessed it, has been abused ; and I have 
 no doubt would in time be abused in our own. And, even were that danger 
 not imminent, it is not wise, nor proper, to make admission to the holiest office 
 dependent upon a young man's professing religious opinions which shall be 
 '•'- satisf actor ir to a Presbytery, or to an influential party therein. It is op- 
 posed, besides, to the Fundamental Principles of our Body, which declare, 
 Article III. 
 
 ** That all exercise of Church power, which attaches temporal rewards to the 
 profession of one class of doctrines, and temporal penalties to that of any other, 
 is contrary to the Holy Scriptures, and directly calculated to undermine that 
 sincerity, without which no profession of faith, no form of worship can be accept- 
 able unto God." 
 
 It has been alleged, again and again, that the testing proposed is not of the 
 objectionable kind I have represented : that there is nothing inquisitorial in- 
 tended : that it will tread so slightly and press so gently, that the most sensitive 
 conscience will not be disturbed. It is perfectly harroless ; merely designed 
 to enable Presbyteries to ascertain what are the distinguishing views of the 
 persons they license or ordain, — intended for the information of Presbyteries, 
 not to direct or influence the opinions of candidates, 
 
 I cannot. Sir, at all concm^ in this view of the testing powers proposed to be 
 conferred upon Presbyteries. Upon a little reflection it appears obvious that 
 mere information is not what is sought. It is not strangers, persons of whom 
 little is known, that are to be put through this testing procesw ; but persons 
 well known to the Presbyteries and Committees of the Church, — persons who 
 shall have been for at least two sessions under the Association's Professors, 
 receiving almost daily instructions in Doctrinal Theology, Biblical Criticism, 
 Church History, and kindred subjects, and who shall have passed through an 
 extensive course of examinations, and delivered discourses upon almost every 
 important question in Controversial Theology, — and all to the satisfaction of 
 a General Committee of the whole Body at large ; and who, over and above 
 all this, are assumed by the New Code to have been imder the Care of a 
 Presbytery from the date of their flrst session at College, and to have been 
 examined by their Presbytery on the Scriptm-es ft-om Genesis to Revelation, 
 to have delivered before their Presbytery at least /?i'e discourses, {four of them 
 on subjects prescribed by the Presbytery), and to have been examined, at stated 
 intervals, by Presbytery, on Church History, the original languages of Scrip- 
 
 B 
 
10 
 
 tm-ey Pastoral Theology, Evidences of Natm-al and Revealed EeHgion, and 
 Doctrinal and Controversial Theology. And, after all this, it is deemed neces- 
 sary to invent a special machinery for the innocent little purpose of enabling 
 the Presbytery to get just the merest glimpse at the Candidate's opmions ! 
 Su-, I venture to assert that there is not a man in this House who does not 
 feel assured that the Provisions of the Code now rmder re\iew are designed 
 to accomplish a very different piu'pose. 
 
 For these reasons, in connection with my main argument elsewhere presented, 
 and to which these remarks are but supplementary, I am convinced that Sjmod. 
 should reject the testing clauses of the sections now before us ; and adopt my 
 Amendment, which constitutes Congregations, and not Presbj'teries, the judges 
 of the religious opinions and other qualifications of Candidates for their 
 pulpits, — P)-esbyterics resting satisfied vvdth a profession of Cliristian disciple- 
 ship on the part of Candidates for License and Ordination, — and even that 
 restrictive requirement, only because we are a Christian Church. I confess 
 that I feel the force of the argimient from my own reasoning against this 
 requirement. I have, all along, felt it to be my weak point. I am pre- 
 pared, however, to yield up any little advantage to be gained from it by those 
 opposed to me ; and am fully satisfied with the large compensation for a 
 shght logical loss, derivable from the increased moral power resulting from 
 Christian discipleship as the religious condition of Christian union. Such 
 condition gives us a li\ing centre, around which, at any intellectual distance, 
 the soul may freely move ; and, notwithstanding the length of the radius, may 
 still be indissolubly bound thereto, and derive therefrom the most abimdant 
 sujjply of spiritual light, life, and power. It thus combines the largest freedom 
 mth the divinest spirit and the highest law of life. 
 
 ]\Ir. Porter proposes to add to my Amendment a clause requiring the Can- 
 didate, besides professing himself a Christian, to acknowledge the Scriptures 
 to be God's Holy Word. This requirement is sunilar to the second of the 
 Code's testing questions, — which is as follows : — " Do you believe that the 
 Scriptures of the Old and New Testament contain a Di\ine revelation?" 
 Disapproving of this requirement, I tliink it right, from the prominence which 
 it has acquired in this debate, to state, briefly, the gi'ounds of my objection to 
 it. I am opposed to it, 1st. Because it is unnecessary, superfluous. In reahty, 
 it affirms nothing the Chiistian values, beyond what is affirmed by my Amend- 
 ment. The Chiistian Scriptures, it is admitted an all hands, are the highest 
 source of our information respecting Christ, his doctrines, his life. To know 
 anji;hing of these we omist go to the New Testament. Now, I should like to be 
 informed, why the Candidate, after professing Christian discipleship, should be 
 required also to affirm the sole source of his information on the subject. The 
 adoption of tliis pro^nsion would prepare the way for the introduction of any 
 nmnber of superfluous requirements. It would tend to multiply pro\isions at 
 the expense of simplicity' ; and that, so far as I can see, without any coiTcsponding 
 advantage. 2nd. I am opposed to it on tho merits, also. It requires the Candi- 
 date to afirrm that the Scriptures " contain a divine revelation." No doubt they 
 do " CONTAIN " a divine revelation. But how many ordinary readers would in- 
 terpret these words as you interpret them .^ A cursory reading would lead to a 
 veiy erroneous opinion as to the real character of the provision, and ultimately 
 no doubt to a very unfavourable estimate of the Church that could sanction its 
 adoption. While we all prize the sacred Scriptiires as an invaluable heritage 
 of spiritual wealth, there can be but few (if any) in our Church in the present 
 day prepared to adopt them from Genesis to Revelation as a written revelation of 
 God's will. Hence the terms of the question. It is not attempted to define what 
 is the divine revelation in Scriptiu'e. It is left to everj^one to discover that for 
 himself, and when he has foimd it, he has merely to cry, " EurcJca.'" It leaves 
 us all free to deal with the Bible as we choose. We may pare it down until we 
 have not left as a revelation as many lines as it now contains books. But 
 while the initiated will thus view your provision as meaning almost nothing, 
 the uninitiated will regard it xarj differently — as, in fact, good Orthodox 
 doctrine. Sir, I dislike double-dealing, with the pubHc as well as with tho 
 
11 
 
 individual conscience ; and, though I do not for a moHient charge the framers 
 of this proposition with any imworthy motive, I believe that the adoption of 
 their proposal would he injurious to the character of our Church. I cannot, 
 therefore, give my sanction to tliis provision of the Code. 
 
 It is argi.ied that my Amendment would be attended with gTeat danger to 
 the Chiurch, inasmuch as it affords no protection against the admission of all 
 sorts of heresies. Then, if it bo dangerous, it is Christian, nevertheless. 
 Christ himself established no theological test of Church membership. The 
 Apostles were satisfied with a profession of discipleship. No conscience query- 
 sheet was put into the hands of Candidates for the highest offices in the Apos- 
 tolic Chin-ch. They were satisfied to have men of a " holy spuit" and good 
 report, and to such the Church was gladly opened. No conscience-prober 
 stood at the door to test the orthodoxy of those who sought to enter the Chm-ch 
 of Christ And, brethren, are we who are wont to boast of our attachment to 
 primitive Christianity, to followthe crowd in renouncing this good old Christian 
 practice, forgetting that " where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty ;" 
 and that it is a high function of Christianity to preserve perfect " unity of 
 spirit" amidst wide intellectual divergences. 
 
 But, Sir, is not this the very cry that was raised by the majority in the 
 Synod of Ulster agaiast the proposals of the minority' — they would let iondels 
 into the Church ? And what was the reply of the minority } John Mitchel, 
 (who has this day been called the IMelancthon of the Remonstrants,) thus 
 rephed at the Sj-nod in Strabane — " I declare before God that I would rather 
 see in this Body ten ministers unsoimd in the faith than one h)-pocrite." And 
 here, to-day, I adopt the language of ovir Eemonstrant Melancthon, and, ia 
 Grod's name, say. Even so. But why fear ? In any encounter between truth 
 and eiTor, truth must triumph ; and all the sooner, and more successfully, the 
 less it is hampered by expediencies. And even though temporary inconvenience 
 might result from the adoption of a right principle, let us remember that con- 
 sequences are in the hand of infinite wisdorn, and that it is ours the right and 
 true ever to seek after, recog-nise, and obey. 
 
 I shall adhere to my resolve not to indulge in offensive personalities. One 
 or two remarks of rather a personal character I must make. Dr. Montgomeiy 
 has all but said that the articles in the London Inquirer, in support of my ^dews 
 and strongly censuring himself, were written by me. The articles were not 
 written by me. To wiite in the public papers in commendation of myself is 
 an artifice I have never yet stooped to adopt. 
 
 Dr. Montgomerj^ has threatened that if you pass my Amendment he will 
 never again enter this Synod : he has also urged, in a remarkable manner, his 
 claims to your support, on personal gTounds. I need hardly tell you, that 
 these and many other considerations he presses upon you, are entirely beside 
 the question. If he had consulted his own dignity, or the interests of the 
 Church with which he is identified, he would have arg-ued the question at issue 
 entirely on its own merits. 
 
 Allow me. Sir, in conclusion to impress upon' the members of this Synod 
 the serious responsibility of their present position, and of the decision they 
 now make. \Vith deep anxiety the result of this meeting is watched for by 
 the friends of liberal Christianity, both in this country and the sister island. 
 Let your decision be such as shall prove you to be worthy of the position you 
 occupy as a Non- Subscribing Chiu-ch. 
 
 Remember your solemn vows. At the time of the separation you guaranteed* 
 to all such Congregations as might join you, the fuUest freedom in the choice 
 of their ministers. What becomes of that guaranty, publicly and solemnly 
 given, if you adopt the testing clauses of this Code ? What becomes of your 
 own character, and of all the fair promises of your early history as a Chro-ch ? 
 
 I now leave the matter with the House. I may be outvoted ; for I have 
 seldom the good fortune to vote in a majority ; but, whether I have numbers 
 on my side or not, I believe that I have truth and justice ; and with these to 
 
 * Fundamental Principles, x., xi. 
 
12 
 
 sustain me, — however I may regret an unfavourable issue now, I shall not 
 despair of ultimate success. But I do entreat you to prove, by your decision 
 on this question, that you are determined to maintain the rights and privileges, 
 and especially the religious freedom, bequeathed to us by Christ, and confirmed 
 by the blood of the Eeformers. 
 
 Before sitting down, I wish to say that if, feeling as I do, very strongly 
 upon the| subject before ^he House, I have expressed myself so strongly as 
 uimecessarily to give pain to any one, I am prepared, and hereby engage, to 
 make any apology that may be deemed reasonable. 
 
EEPLY 
 
 It will be remembered by those who take any interest in the affairs of 
 the Non- Subscribing Chm*ches in Ireland, that, at the meetings of the 
 Remonstrant Synod, held November, 1856, and March, 1857, for the pur- 
 pose of considering and revising the Provisions of a Draft Code of Dis- 
 cipUne, there was considerable difference of opinion as to the propriety 
 of certain measures relating chiefly to the "license" and "ordination" 
 of Candidates for the Ministry. Believing, in common with several other 
 members, that the measures referred to were unsound in principle and in- 
 jurious in tendency, I felt constrained, by a sense of duty, to oppose their 
 adoption. In my place in Synod, therefore, at the November meeting, I 
 stated briefly my objections to those measures, and proposed others, based, 
 as I believed, on sounder principles. Circumstances occm'iing which 
 rendered it inconvenient, at that time, to proceed with the discussion, 
 Synod adjourned till the following March. At the adjourned meeting, 
 Dr. Montgomery, who had undertaken to reply, made a very long speech, 
 occupying several hours in its delivery ; and which, — instead of being a 
 calm, thoughtful, dignified discussion of the question really at issue,— was 
 an impassioned harangue, largely in praise of himself, and in depreciation 
 and denunciation of those who had the misfortune to differ from him. 
 Myself he singled out as the object on which he seemed to take especial 
 pleasure in venting his indignation. My vieics, when he condescended 
 to notice them, he fau'ly represented in no single instance, and on the 
 main question entu'ely misrepresented, though he had before him, and 
 professed to quote from, the printed Discourse that contained them ; while 
 no opprobrious epithets were too hard to fiercely fling at me, no motives 
 too mean or gross to attribute to me. 
 
 FeeUng well assured that the views I had advanced were not open to any 
 serious objection, when the most powerful arguments with which they were 
 assailed were misrepresentation and vituperation, I bore the assault with 
 far more patience than was due to such a wanton violation of good taste, 
 fair discussion, and Christian feeling. I did not even ask for the protec- 
 tion of the Com*t, which, perhaps, would have maintained its dignity and 
 discharged its duty full as well by prohibiting, as by permitting, a member 
 to indulge m such license of the tongue against a brother minister. And 
 when, towards the conclusion of the debate, it devolved upon me to reply, 
 I will say that, notwithstanding all the provocation I received, I allowed 
 no harsh word to escape from my lips. I did hope, however, that, when 
 the storm of discussion was once over, all ill-feeling would speedily sub- 
 
 * Throughout this reply I speak in the first person singular. My reason for 
 doing 80 is that I am un^villing that others should be considered responsible for 
 anything I may say or omit to say. 
 
14 
 
 side ; and that when any of us should revert in thought to what I deemed 
 our honest differences of opinion, it woukl be, chiefly, for the purpose of 
 re-weighing the arguments in the juster balance of calm reflection. For 
 myself, I declare that even the gross personalities with which I was as- 
 sailed, produced in my mind no permanent unkindly feeling towards my 
 assailant, — being conscious of the purity of my own motives, and believing 
 that those who diftered from me did not doubt my sincerity and integrity. 
 I was vain enough to think that even Dr. Montgomery hunself, did not 
 really believe that I was such a man as, in his manifest excitement and 
 irritation, he represented me. It was without the slightest concern, 
 therefore, I heard from time to time, during last summer and autumn, 
 that the Doctor was about to publish his Synodical speech ; feeling certain 
 that, m preparing it for the press, his own judgment and sense of justice 
 would compel him to expunge its irrelevant and oftensive personalities, 
 and to present only whatever of argument it contained. 
 
 In this reasonable expectation I have been disappointed. At the end 
 of eight long months after its delivery, the Speech, carefully wi"itten out 
 and considerably enlarged, has been published, with introduction, copious 
 notes, and postscript,— forming, altogether, a large pamphlet of nearly 
 100 pages 8vo ; and not only retaining the gross personalities of the spoken 
 speech, but introducing others stfll more gross. Time, instead of mellow- 
 ing, has but imbittered and envenomed the Doctor's feelings. He has so 
 brooded over the subject of his pamphlet, and has Avorked himself into 
 such a paroxysm of terrible indignation, that plainest facts he does not see 
 as they are, and deals with the abnormal conceits of his own fancy as if 
 they were sober realities. The pamphlet itself furnishes ample proof that 
 such was the mental state of its author while composing it, and on almost 
 every page there is evidence that it was written with a pen dipped m 
 bitterest gall. 
 
 Trusting to the rectifying influences of providential arrangements, 1 
 have hitherto— invariably, I might say— allowed the secret whisperings 
 and muttered insinuations of unbrotherly brethren to pass unchal- 
 lenged, confident that, in time, under a righteous Providence, slander 
 would be silenced, and justice done. But when all the calumnies that 
 were ever whispered or insinuated to my disadvantage are brought to- 
 gether and marshalled for my destruction, and that by one whose posi- 
 tion ought to give weight to his act, I owe it as an imperative duty both 
 to my Congregation, who have committed to me a sacred trust, involving, 
 in some degree, the soul's highest interests for time and eternity, and 
 renuirino- for its due administration a man of irreproachable life, and to my 
 family, to whom I may have little to bequeath except my memory, to 
 vindicate my character (which, God knows, is marked by too many real 
 defects,) against the foul charges with which it has been assailed. Neces- 
 sity is laid upon me to defend myself,— painful and humiliating though it 
 be to descend into the mire of personalities, even when one's antagonist 
 is a learned Doctor and professor of ethics and theology. 
 
 I have been fi'equently told of late that had I shewn less torbearance 
 when, on former occasions, Dr. Montgomery chose to be uncourteous 
 towards me, I should not now have forced upon me this disagreeable 
 task. Probably those who think so are right. At the same time, it must 
 be admitted that, if merely to overthrow an opponent were my desire, 1 
 have acted prudently; for, encouraged by impunity, the Doctor has per- 
 mitted hunself to indulge in misrepresentations so palpable and per- 
 versions so gross that he has rendered his defeat the easiest thing imagin- 
 able. Kot even the weapons of the stripling shepherd are needed to lay 
 
15 
 
 our Goliath in the dust. Mine accuser has written " a book ;" and in 
 that boolt lie his weakness and my strength. 
 
 In replying to Dr. Montgomery's Pamphlet I should like, were it pos- 
 sible, to keep perfectly distinct the important question I raised in Synod, 
 and the irrelevant personalities that, for an obvious purpose, have '^ been 
 dragged into the discussion ; but they have been so mixed up together, ' 
 and that in proportions in the inverse ratio of then' relative importance, 
 that I find it impracticable to discuss the fonner on its merits, and, at the 
 same time, to deal with the matter of the pamphlet. And here I must, 
 once for all, enter my solemn protest against such prostitution of the 
 right of free discussion as Dr. IMontgomery has thought fit to resort to. 
 Of course, it was quite legitimate for any member of Synod, who con- 
 sidered the scheme I proposed as impracticable or unsafe, to do his best 
 in fairness to prove it so, — to shew the unsoundness of my views or the 
 inconclusiveness of my reasoning ; but instead of adopting this course, 
 Dr. Montgomery has chosen rather to employ his rhetorical powers in 
 caricaturing the scheme I presented, magnifying himself, and depreciating 
 all who sympathized in my views. Dr. Montgomery was a great man ; and, 
 though slighted by his brethren in England, was not unknown at the Castle, 
 Dublin ; he had got for the Synod some State loaves and for himself some 
 State favours : he had always been the fi-iend of the Remonstrants ; and 
 surely they would not allow him to be put down now, by adopting an 
 Amendment of which he disapproved,— an Amendment, which thougli 
 professing to deal with the constitution of the Synod, was reallv levelled at 
 the Doctor himself,— for it was proposed by an ungrateful, "revengeful, 
 hypocritical, immoral infidel who had the unheard-of hardihood, ere he 
 was five years in the ministry, to form an opinion for himself, and to ex- 
 press it, too, without having previously ascertained whether it was quite 
 accordant with the vicAvs of the Synod's only Doctor ! A declamatory 
 oration in this spirit may be very successful in turning the tide of public 
 opmion against an opponent, but it is neither creditable to the speaker nor 
 complimentary to his audience, and possesses no legitimate claim to being 
 considered fair discussion. I shall protest against every attempt to 
 silence the respectful expression of sincere conviction by a torrent of vile 
 abuse ; and shall resist to the utmost the introduction into our synodical 
 debates of such gross personalities as, thu-ty years ago, so fi-equently de- 
 formed the public performances of certain fathers in the Church, whose 
 weakness on this point tvas then tolerated on account of services to the cause 
 of civd and religious liberty ; services for which we are duly gi-ateful, but 
 which, nevertheless, do not form such a store of supererogatory merit 
 as IS mexhaustible, particularly when the demands upon it, as some 
 thmk, are much larger than are the contributions to it. I believe, how- 
 ever, there are few so far gone in indiscriminating admiration of Dr. 
 Montgomery as to approve of the spirit, temper, and character generally, 
 of his late performance ; and I have good reason to believe, further, that 
 in some quarters where, no doubt, he desired to benefit himself and injure 
 others, he has certainly done injury— but only to himself. 
 
 I now proceed to expose the misrepresentations, and refute the charges, 
 with which the Doctor's bulky pamphlet abounds, in so far, at least, as 
 they relate, first, to the question really at issue, and, secondly, to myself 
 personally. 
 
 In relation to the former of these, necessity is laid upon me to expose 
 one of the most unsrcupulous and unblushing perversions of an opponent's 
 views I have ever met with in the records of controversy. Determined 
 
16 
 
 as it would seem, to make my views appear hideous, the Doctor does 
 not hesitate to draw upon his own imagination for the requisite colouring ; 
 and, like a true Raphaelite, sets much less value on conformity with the 
 actual, than on the realization of his " conception." A short statement of 
 simple facts will make evident the enormity of the injustice of which the 
 Doctor has been guilty. 
 
 In the Draft Code, it was proposed that Presbyteries should be em- 
 powered to require Candidates for " hcense" and "ordination" to answer 
 a series of questions relating to their theological opinions, — the replies, in 
 every instance, to be '■'• satisfactorij''* to the Presbytery. It was further 
 proposed that, besides answering '■'•satisfactorily" the questions, the Can- 
 didate for ordination should, in addition to an oral statement now optional, 
 be required to prepare, and deliver up for safe keeping, a " definite written 
 statement of his religious opinions^'"' — both statements to be '■'■satisfactory.''' 
 The Presbytery, though nominally composed equally of ministers and lay 
 elders, is with us in reality a clerical body ; — elders, except on particular 
 occasions, rarely attending ; and, having very little confidence in clerical 
 corporations in matters of conscience, I was strongly opposed to investing 
 Presbyteries with any authority that would constitute them judges over 
 the faith of others. In my speech in Synod, last March, I shewed, clearly, 
 I think, that such catechising and declaring are not necessary for the 
 purpose of information, the whole professional training of the candidate 
 being under the immediate direction of the Presbytery. Having full 
 confidence, resulting not from cut-and-dry answers to prescribed ques- 
 tions, and carefully prepared declarations, oral and written, at the end of 
 his course, but from knowledge acquired in the diligent and faithful dis- 
 charge of its duties to its students throughout then* whole course of 
 studies, that the intellectual, moral, and religious qualifications of the 
 candidate are such as fit him for the sacred office to which he aspires, I 
 hold that the Presbytery's only remaining duty is to send him forth, with 
 its best wishes and prayers, in the name of the great Master, to labour in 
 his spirit in the vineyard of the Lord. But here, I hold, is the limit 
 of the Presbytery's legitimate function. I therefore proposed that, 
 instead of all this catechising and solemn declaring, the Presbytery 
 should issue " license" to the candidate, who had completed his pre- 
 scribed studies, upon his professing himself a disciple of Christ ; leaving 
 it entu-ely to Congregations to judge of the particular opinions, as 
 of other qualifications, of Candidates for their pulpits. This course, 
 while it would, on the one hand, protect the conscience of the Candidate 
 against clerical authority, and on the other, preserve the Christian charac- 
 ter of our Church, would, at the same time, aSbrd our Congregations the 
 fullest freedom consistent with Christian union, in the choice of ministers. 
 Our Congregations have a right to this freedom of choice. It was pub- 
 licly and solemnly guaranteed to them. The tenth of the Fundamental 
 Principles forming the Original Constitution of the Remonstrant Synod, 
 declares : — " We hereby publicly and solemnly guarantee to the Congre- 
 gations which are 7ioiv under our care, and to those which hereafter may 
 form a portion of our Church, ^/i^full, tree, and unrestricted exercise 
 of their unquestionable right to elect, in all cases of vacancy, ministers 
 entertaining such views of divine truth as the congregations 
 THEMSELVES MAT APPROVE." And to cxercisc this right to the best of 
 their ability, is a duty the members of a congregation owe to themselves, 
 to their chikken, and to the Church of Christ. It is their duty, I hold, 
 to adopt every legitimate means to satisfy themselves of the thorough 
 fitness of the man who would become their spiritual teacher — his fitness 
 
17 
 
 in everif respect, in the disposition and temper of his mind, the complexion 
 of his views, and the habits of his life. And when the members of a 
 congregation are satisfied that they have found such a teacher, I hold it to 
 be the duty of the Presbytery at once to sanction their choice, inaugurating 
 the union with such solemn services as may seem best calculated to make 
 the occasion profitable to both pastor and people. 
 
 Entertaining these views of the limits of Presbyterial powers on the 
 one hand, and of the extent of congregational rights on the other, in 
 regard to candidates for the ministry, I embodied them in my Amend- 
 ment and supported them in my speeches. Nothing can be more obvious 
 to those who have read the introduction to this pamphlet, than that my 
 scheme contemplated the distinct action of the Presbytery and the Con- 
 gregation in distinct spheres, and that, while I disapproved of Presbyteries 
 or clerical corporations being invested with authority over the consciences 
 of candidates for " license" and " ordination," I maintained (as I still 
 maintain) the right, and duty too, of Congregations^ as far as possible, to 
 ascertain, by all fair and honourable means, the religious opinions and 
 other qualifications of candidates for their pulpits. The Amendment is 
 itself sufficient proof of this. I quote it here in evidence : — 
 
 " TJiaf, while recognising the right and duty op congregatioxs to satisfy 
 themselves of the fitness^ ix all respects, of the persons whom they select as 
 their religious teachers, we believe that Preshjtcncs ought not, in matters of 
 religious faith, to requii-e an^^^hing of Candidates for License and Ordination, 
 beyond their professing themselves disciples of Jesus Christ ; — and that the 
 Code be altered accordingly." 
 
 Such was my proposal. Let us now see how it stands in the Doctor's 
 pamphlet. 
 
 " What then," wiites Dr. IMontgomery, " is ihe proposal submitted for our 
 acceptance ? Simply this — that any Minister or Licentiate, of any Chm-ch, 
 may claim possession of our pulpits and properties, on asserting that he is '■ a 
 disciple of Christ f and there, in the face oi a people revolting from his opinions^ 
 he may pray to the Virgin Mary and a thousand dead saints^ or teach the gloomy 
 doctrines of Calvinism, which our congi-egutions believe to be dii^ectly sub- 
 versive of Gospel Truth! To be sure, this will vindicate 'the liberty of pro- 
 phesying' demanded for Ministers ; and our congregations wild also enjoy the pleasant 
 option of having vieics which they utterly repudiate thrust upon themselves and upon 
 their children, or of giving up to the enemies of their faith the ecclesiastical properties 
 created by their ancestors and themselves ! Remonstrant Elders^ is this the liberty 
 ivhich you have come hither to maintain^ the liberty of being priest-ridden and 
 plundered by any man who may steal vaioYoxiv pulpits under vague statements, 
 or false pretences, and then tm-n roimd and laugh at yom- g-ullibility ? I do 
 not believe that you are so besotted as to peiToit yourselves and yom- cliildren 
 and your children's children, to be utterly robbed of all genuine Christian truth 
 and freedom^ by the influence of unmeaning phi^ases and idle declamation." — 
 Pp. 46, 47. ^ 
 
 " In relation to the well-being of our perishable properties and bodies, it is 
 admittedly right that we shoidd be cautious ; but, in the estimation of tran- 
 scendent liberals, when we come to that Profession, the enlightened and 
 honest discharge of whose duties not only mingles with all the interests of 
 time, but reaches, likewise, into eternity, we are then to make no inquiry at all 
 respecting the Candidate's opinions, x>rineiples, or purposes ! Brethren, stripped of 
 its peacock feathers, this mockery of common decency, common sense, and 
 COMMON honesty, is what you are called upon to sanation hi your votes this dav '"— 
 Pp. 53, 54. ^' 
 
18 
 
 " ]Mr, Magiimis and Mr. Hall, in their profound anxiety for the liberty and' 
 honesty of ordained Ministers, advocate the arratjing of our Candidates in ' a cloak 
 of darkness :' in other words, thei/ wish them to have an opjjorttmiti/ o/stiIalinq 
 into pulpits, with any principles, or no principles, entirely irrespective of the 
 RELIGIOUS OPINIONS ENTERTAINED BY CONGREGATIONS. This arrangement, I 
 admit, would be very convenient for young Divines of the ' advanced school,' 
 holding views opposed to those of the people : for, though dark and scheming 
 at first, they would be quite free, ever after, to hold their pulpits, to laugh in 
 the faces of their simple dupes, and to tell them, perhaps, as I have heard was 
 once done in this place,* that whilst the Lecturer avowed a sort of speculative 
 belief in the immortality of the soul, 'he wished to gTiard himself against being 
 supposed to rest it in any degree on the authority of the Nazarene ! ' Doubtless, 
 this would be the very perfection of clerical freedom," &c. " I do, therefore, 
 most earnestly and affectionately implore the respectable Elders of this Synod, 
 to spurn the attempts which have been made to enslave their congregations, 
 by hollow declamations, and manfully to stand up in defence of their own in- 
 alienable rights and liberties." — P. 63. 
 
 " I solemnly protest, that I have no conception (!) of the man who declaims 
 about ' honesty* in the abstract, and, at the same time, advocates such base, 
 scheming, practical dishonesty, in the most sacred and important of all human 
 contracts — ^that between pastor and people."— P. 64. 
 
 " Look at the other case, and you will instantly behold the snare which Mr. 
 3faginnis and his liberal snpjjortcrs would lay for your feet. A Candidate under 
 ' a cloak of darkness' and a well-fitted mask . . . might be regularly or- 
 dained ; and thenceforth . . . might preach Popery, Trinitarianism, Cal- 
 vinism, Deism, or Atheism, in the face of a moderate Unitarian congregation, 
 and yet retain its pulpit and emoluments. . . . Noio, Christian Elders, this 
 POSITIVELY IS THE VERY THijirG which Mr. Maginnis and his coadjutors have the 
 effrontery to ask you to sanction .'"—P. 65. 
 
 " Against such foul cheating of the many for the gain of the feiv, I ever have 
 raised, and ever will raise, my earnest voice ; for there is nothing I so scorn 
 and abominate as the wretch who would sneak into a fortress on pretence of 
 aiding its defenders, yet ivith the sole object of betraying it to the enemy. You may 
 sanction such baseness, if it please you ; but, for my single self, nothing shall 
 ever induce me to give Christian wages for Infidel work, or permit our con- 
 gTcgations, if I can prevent it, to be hoodwinked in the choice of their 
 ministers." — P. 74. 
 
 I might fill pages with extracts of this kind, but I have not patience to 
 quote farther. In fact, the whole pamplilet, so far as it attempts to argue 
 the question at issue, proceeds on the assumption that it is my desire to 
 inti'oduce into the ministry men of unsound views, masked and cloaked ; 
 that I am the advocate of concealment, of imposition. This representa- 
 tion is purely a fabrication of Dr. Montgomery's own brain,— entirely 
 opposed to my private convictions and public advocacy. Cowardly, and 
 particularly scheming, concealment of matured convictions, has ever been 
 my abomination ; and, if anything so disagreeable could give pleasure, it 
 would be my delight to unmask the sneaking, self-seeking, time-serving, 
 scheming hypocrite, whether enacting a borrowed part in the pulpit for a 
 small reward, or out of it for the chances of a larger prize. And yet I 
 am represented as having advocated, and urged upon the Synod, the 
 adoption of the very thing I most loathe ! And what is the method 
 
 * " This place" necessarily means the Chapel in which these words purport to 
 have been spoken. That they formed no part of the spoken speech I am almost 
 certain, as, if uttered in their present connection, they could hardly have failed to 
 catch my ear. But whether so spoken or not, I have merely to observe, that if I 
 am " the Lecturer" referred to, the statement is entirely without point, as, so far 
 as I am concerned, it is entirely without foundation in fact. 
 
19 
 
 adopted by Dr. Montgomery to give colour of truthfulness to his repre- 
 sentation y Why, he coolly and deliberately mutilates and falsifies the 
 Amendment which embodies my views, and which would, of itself, vin- 
 dicate my advocacy against the charges he prefers ! The fii-st part of 
 the Amendment explicitly affirms that it is both the right and duty of 
 " Cowjregations to satisfu themselves of the fitness, in all respects, of 
 the persons whom they select as their religious teachers." But this im- 
 portant provision. Dr. Montgomery thinks it fair and honourable not 
 only to ignore in discussion, but even to erase from the Amendment itself 
 At p. 45, of his pamphlet, the Doctor wi'ites of my plan : — 
 
 "Here it is, however, at full length. 'We believe that Presbyterians 
 ought not, in matters of religious faith, to require anything of Candidates for 
 license or ordination, beyond their professing themselves disciples of Jesus 
 Christ ; and that the Code be altered accordingly.' " 
 
 Mark the words— Here it is " at full length r Now, by referring to 
 the Amendment itself the reader will find that instead of giving it " at 
 full length," the Doctor has suppressed one-half of z7,— that part whose 
 absence is indispensable to give colour of justification to the line of criti- 
 cism that pervades his pamphlet. Had he really quoted my Amendment 
 at full length, he could not have ventured to characterize my scheme as he 
 has done; but he draws his pen over what does not suit his purpose, and pre- 
 sents the remainder as my amendment ; and, lest any one should doubt 
 the completeness of his version, the Doctor gives his word of assurance 
 that it is my proposal, whole and entire. Here it is " at full length." 
 Is that honourable ? Is it honest ? To decapitate a system, and then to 
 expose the headless, mangled trunk, hideous to look at, and pass it ofl: 
 as a genuine monster, portending untold evils,— hoping thereby to create 
 a little capital ! 
 
 But Dr. Montgomery's dishonest treatment of my scheme does not end 
 here. He has not only suppressed one-half of my amendment, but has 
 actualhj altered the jdiraseology of the remaining half to suit himself! I 
 place here, side by side, my Amendment, as I proposed it and printed it 
 in my Discourse, from which Dr. Montgomery professed to quote, and the 
 Doctor's improved version of it, prefaced, " Here it is, however, at 
 full length "; — 
 
 THE ORIGINAL. THE DR.'S VERSION. 
 
 " That, while recogiiising the right " We believe that Presbyterians 
 and duty of Congregations to satisfy ought not, in matters of religious 
 themselves of the fitness, in all re- faith, to requh^e anything of Candi- 
 spects, of the persons whom they select dates for license or ordination, be- 
 as their religious teachers, we beUeve yond their professing themselves dis- 
 that Presbyteries ought not, in matters ciples of Jesus Christ ; — and that the 
 of religious faith, to require an>i:hing of Code be altered accordingly." 
 Candidates for license and ordination, 
 beyond their professing themselves dis- 
 ciples of Jesus Christ ; — and that the 
 Code be altered accordingly." 
 
 Let the reader note the words I have italicised, and he will see that 
 for " Preshyteries'' in the original. Dr. Montgomery has substituted, in 
 his version, " Presbyterians,'" which, though apparently a slight change, 
 has the effect of completely altering my scheme, and of making it deny 
 that which it most emphatically afiirms. " Presbyterians" is here obviously 
 equivalent to the Presbyterian body or Church, including both the lay 
 
20 
 
 and clerical element, the Congregation and the Presbytery. Conse- 
 quently, to deny the right of " Presbyterians''' to inquire into the religious 
 opinions of candidates for vacant pulpits, would of course he to deny the 
 right of either Presbytery or Congregation to make such inquiry or inves- 
 tigation. Thus, the apparently trifling alteration of " Presbyteries" into 
 " Presbyterians" makes the Doctor's " full-length" Amendment actually 
 deny vrhat the suppressed clauses of the Amendment, as I proposed it, 
 assert, viz., " the right and duty of Congregations to satisfy themselves of 
 the fitness, in all respects, of the persons whom they select as their reli- 
 gious teachers." And then, after having suppressed one-half of my 
 Amendment, while he professes to give it " atfuLl length,'" and altered the 
 phraseology of the other half so as to force it to bear a meaning at utter 
 variance with the Amendment itself, the Doctor vents his eloquent indig- 
 nation against his own mutilated and metamorphosed version of it. 
 Through page after page he labours to shew the terrible consequences 
 that would result from its adoption, and works upon the sympathies and 
 prejudices of his readers to secure its condemnation. I, too, could 
 sympathize in much of the Doctor's eloquent denunciation of the evils he 
 depicts, did I not revolt at the means resorted to in order to get a theme 
 to be eloquent upon. The simple truth known, and the whole fabric 
 which the Doctor has so elaborately constructed upon the foundation of 
 my Amendment, mutilated and metamorphosed to his own liking, melts 
 away, leaving behind nothing save indignation at the man Avho could re- 
 sort to such dishonest means in order to gain a temporary applause or 
 victory. 
 
 The evidence upon which I have convicted Dr. Montgomery of this 
 gross dishonesty, vindicates, at the same time, the character of my scheme. 
 My Amendment, restored to its original state, is itself the refutation of 
 the calumnious charges the Doctor has preferred against it. Except in 
 one place, hereafter to be noticed, the Doctor's pamphlet, wherever it 
 attempts to reason on the subject, takes as its axiom— Mr. Maginnis's 
 scheme prohibits inquiry into the religious opinions of Candidates for our 
 Pulpits. And how could Dr. Montgomery venture to lay down such a 
 jtremise and reason from it, with my Amendment before him ! Reader, 
 you have but to look at that Amendment to find a comjilete refutation 
 of the charge. So far from prohibiting inquiry into the religious opinions 
 of Candidates for the ministry, the Amendment sets it forth not only as 
 " the TiqhV' but " the duty" also " of Con/jreijations to satisfy themselves 
 of the fitness in all respects, of the persons whom they select as their 
 religious teachers." True, it would not permit a Presbytery, a clerical 
 corporation, to sit in judgment upon the orthodoxy of the Candidate, for 
 such corporations cannot be safely trusted with authority over the con- 
 sciences of men— (Dr. Montgomery himself, as we shall see, by and bye, 
 formerlij entertained this opinion) ; but while it refuses to invest Presby- 
 teries T>^ith such power, it would confirm to Congregations what was 
 "guaranteed" them when the Synod was formed, — '' the full, free, and 
 unrestricted exercise of their unquestionable right to elect, in all cases of 
 vacancy, ministers entertaining such views of divine truth as the Congrega- 
 tions themselves may approve ;" and it represents it as " the duty'' of Cou- 
 gTegations to exercise that right. To refute the charge under notice, I 
 have, then, but to confront itVith the Amendment itself,— not the Doc- 
 tor's garbled, mutilated, metamorphosed, '' full-length" version of it, but 
 the real Amendment, as I proposed it in Synod, and printed it m my 
 Discourse. . i ^ +• 
 
 The evidence I now propose to introduce, besides confirmmg the testi- 
 
21 
 
 mony of my Amendment, completes the proof that Dr. Montgomery has 
 enthety misrepresented my views on the subject in debate. My scheme, 
 according to the Doctor, is so framed as to afford every facihty and en- 
 couragement to men of any views, or no views, to enter the ministry, and 
 to dupe and plunder congregations. (See extracts, pp. 17, 18, and the 
 Doctor's pamphlet, throughout). Such representation is not merely 
 incorrect, but diametrically opposed to facts known to the Synod at large. 
 I take leave to call upon Dr. Montgomery himself to introduce the proof, 
 by evidence that will only need a few supplementary remarks to shew 
 that in this matter, the practice of the learned Professor of Ethics does 
 not harmonize with any very elevated theory of the science he undertakes 
 to teach. On the last page of his pamphlet, after detailing Jiis rejected 
 plan for removing ministers from their congregations on account of any 
 change that might take place in their opinions, the Doctor adds : — 
 
 " There was an absolute rush of opposition on the part of the malcontents ; 
 and some others, whose judgment and sterling Christian princix)les I sincerely 
 respect^ proposed, to my sui'prise, the followiag larger measure of protection for 
 congregations^ to which I at once acceded : — ' That it shall be competent for any 
 Congregation, at any time, by a vote of a SjTiodical majority, to dispense with 
 the ser\'ices of its Muiister ; such vote to he taken by a Committee of Presby- 
 tery, dvily appointed for the purpose, on appHcation from the Co mm ittee and 
 Session of the Congregation, — the JMiuister having the right of appeal.' Doubt- 
 less, this proposition^ which now stands as part of our Code, /s, in many re- 
 spects^ sii,perior to mine," &c. 
 
 There can be no doubt but that this Resolution affords Congregations 
 the means of disposing of ministers who may become unacceptable from 
 whatever cause. It is entirely then* own fault, if day after day, and year 
 after year, they have doctrines obtruded upon them from which they re- 
 volt. This Resolution commends itself even to the Doctor himself. It 
 was proposed by men ^'^ whose judgment and sterling Christian jjrincijjies" 
 he sincerely respects; it is " in many respeets superior" to his own ; and 
 is a " larger measure of protection to our Congregations" than he contem- 
 plated. Now, by whom was this lauded Resolution proposed ? It w^as 
 moved by the Rev. John Montgomery, and seconded by the Rev. David 
 Maginnis! (See Wliig of March 5th, 1857). In reality, however, my 
 relation to this Resolution is even more intimate than appears from the 
 newspaper report. I not merely seconded it, but I am actually its author. 
 I was the first to suggest it. I wrote it out, submitted it to Rev. Henry 
 Alexander, who undertook to second it, and was in the act of rising to 
 propose it when the Doctor's nephew, who had been looking over my 
 shoulder, obligingly saved me the trouble by proposing it, verbatim, as I 
 had written it ! This polite service I publicly acknowledged at the time, 
 the " uncle" and the "nephew" being both present. And yet, with the 
 knowledge that I am the author of that Resolution, which enables Con- 
 gregations to dispense with the services of unacceptable ministers, and 
 which the Doctor has characterized as affording " a larger measure of 
 protection to our Congregations " than he himself ever dreamt of, — under 
 the old Code, ministers not bemg removable, except by the Presbytery, 
 and that only in cases of gross immorality, — the Doctor could sit down 
 and write out for the press, without a word of qualification, the folloAviug, 
 and very much more to the same effect : — 
 
 " You MdU*Lnstantly behold the snare which IVIr. Maginnis and his liberal 
 supporters would lay for yom^ feet. A candidate, imder ' a cloak of darkness' 
 
22 
 
 and a well-fitted mask, avowing no distinct opinions, — talking' plausible gene- 
 ralities and deceiving the people, might be regularly ordained ; and thence- 
 foi-th, save on the gTOund of established immorality, he could not he removed. 
 He might preach Popery, Trinitarianism, Cahdnism, Deism, Atheism, in the 
 face of a moderate Unitarian congTCgation, and yet retain its ])idpit and emolu- 
 ments. To be sm-e, the people might desert him — they might biaild another 
 meeting-house — they might spend £2,000 or £3,000, and leave him the much- 
 lauded liberty of preaching down their piinciples in their old temple ; and, if 
 so, what woTild they gain ? Just another dark man, with another mask and 
 cloak, and the old career to be nm over again ! Now, Chiistian Elders, this^ 
 positively^ is the very thing which Mr. Maginnis and his coadjutors have the ef- 
 frontery to ask you to sanction. They dare to ask you to forge such base chains 
 for yourselves, your children, and your children's children," &c. — P. 65. 
 
 " A)iy -minister or licentiate, of any Church, may claim possession of our 2Mlpits 
 and properties, on asserting that he is a ' disciple of Christ f and there, in the face 
 of a people revolting from his opinions, he may pray to the Virgin IMarj^ and a 
 thousand dead saints. . . Remonstrant elders, is this the liberty which you 
 have come hither to maintain, — the liberty of being pjricst-ridden and plundered 
 by any man who may steal into your pulpits imder vag-ue statements, or false 
 pretences, and then turn round and laugh at your gidlihility T' — Pp. 46, 47. 
 
 In his postscript, p. 82, the Doctor assures the reader that — 
 
 " The main object is to get j^ossession of Christian properties and emoluments by 
 any means — by dexterity, word-fencing, concealment — and then, ' in God's 
 name,' possibly to preach infidelity ! Such is the rehgious sincerity and such 
 the moral code, from which our poor Churches have escaped — at least, for a 
 season." 
 
 Comment is hardly necessary to expose the gi'oss injustice of such 
 statements. My Eesolution, which the Doctor's nephew was so magna- 
 nimous as to appropriate, which the Doctor himself has commended, 
 and which the Synotl unanimously adopted (though afterwards not a few 
 ministers, but «o elders., expressed regret that they had sanctioned it), — 
 that Kesolution is a complete vindication of my scheme against the 
 Doctor's serious charges. I wanted to introduce masked men into the 
 ministry, and to saddle them upon unwilling Congregations ! I charac- 
 terize the charge as wantonly and maliciously false — opposed to my 
 Amendment, directly and absolutely opposed to both the letter and the 
 spirit of my Resolution. My Amendment would confirm to Congrega- 
 tions the " guaranteed" right — (of which modern attempts at legislation 
 would deprive them,) to obtain as their ministers persons holding such 
 views of Christian truth as may be acceptable, not to a clerical corpora- 
 tion, but to the Congregations themselves ; and my Resolution, so far 
 fi'om saddling unacceptable ministers upon unwilling Congregations, in- 
 vests our Congregations with power to dismiss such ministers, — a power 
 which they never before possessed, and which, till I proposed it, none 
 else, it would seem, had thought of conferring upon them. My Amend- 
 ment and Kesolution, then, — the former setting it forth as " the right and 
 duty of Congregations to satisfy themselves of the fitness, in all respects, 
 of the persons whom they select as their religious teachers," and the 
 latter enacting " that it shall be competent for any Congregation, at any 
 time, by a vote of a sy nodical majority, to dispense with the services of 
 its minister," — these constitute a complete refutation of the Doctor's end- 
 less charges of dark and sinister designs upon the Church ; and they do 
 more, — they shew that no man capable of comprehending the import of 
 the English language, could, with my Amendment and Resolution before 
 
23 
 
 him, make those charges without ivilfuUy and deliheratehj perverting jdain 
 facts. 
 
 Before passing from Dr. Montgomery's treatment of my Amendment, 
 I haA'e to call attention to another notable proof of his disingenuous- 
 ness in this controversy. In some of the extracts I have made, — and 
 these are but samples of very much to the same effect that might be 
 culled from his Pamphlet — the Doctor paints in very dark colours the evils 
 that would ensue if my Amendment were adopted. Christian disciple- 
 ship would constitute no adequate barrier against dishonest t/ and infidditi/, 
 and the Church would be ruined ! Well, I never said that it could keep 
 out the dishonest. But would Dr. IMontgomery's cumbrous scheme ac- 
 complish that purpose more effectually than my plan ? He knows it would 
 not, and could not be made to do it. A dishonest man, wishing to enter 
 the ministry of our Church, or of any other Church, would have no difH- 
 culty in answering or signing anything necessary to secure his admission. 
 And, because my scheme might let in (what neither Dr. Montgomery's 
 nor any other scheme could keep out) dishonest men, the Doctor was 
 almost ready to " die on the floor of the House" rather than let it pass ! 
 " From such a fate I .shall strain every nerve to defend, not my own good 
 people only, but all present or future Congregations of this Synod." (P. 64.) 
 And, as to obnoxious opinions, — why the Doctor's own scheme is not a 
 whit more efficient than that which he so strongly condemns. He repre- 
 sents it as a capital charge against my scheme that it would not exclude 
 Eoman Catholics and Calvinists, nor even Mahometans and Deists. And 
 yet lioman Catholics and Calvinists, and even Mahometans and Deists, 
 could all as fairly ansAver in the affirmative the Doctor's own four testing 
 questions as profess themselves disciples of Christ. They could readily 
 answer " Yes" to the question, "Do you believe in one God, the Creator 
 and Governor of the Universe ?" They could all, aflixing their own 
 meaning to the query, answer " Yes," if asked, " Do you believe that the 
 Scriptures of the Old and Kew Testament contain a divine revelation ?" 
 And, as fairly as they could call themselves disciples of Christ, even Ma- 
 hometans and Deists could answer " Yes, " if asked, " Do you believe in 
 the divine mission and authority of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of 
 God and Saviour of the World?" Why, after the hue-and-cry raised 
 against my Amendment for its laxity, and the Jeremiad upon the terrible 
 consequences that would ensue fi-om its adoption, who could suppose that 
 the Doctor's own scheme is really quite as defective, — affording no stronger 
 barrier against either dishonesty. Deism, or even Mahometanism getting 
 into our Church ? Be it known, then, as a farther illustration of the fairness 
 and ingenuousness of Dr. Montgomery in this discussion, that he poured 
 out the vials of his fiery wrath upon my scheme because of its inadequacy, 
 while, for the purposes he sought, his own is not a whit more adequate ; 
 and that, consequently, there is not a hard epithet which, on account of 
 such inadequacy, he has applied to my scheme, that is not equally appli- 
 cable to his own. I will, however, do the Doctor the justice of expressing 
 my belief, founded upon the evidence of his own speech, that it is not his 
 fault if the meshes of our ecclesiastical net are too mde to catch any fish. 
 
 Of the wonderful transmuting powers of Dr. Montgomery we have 
 already had a striking example in the transformations which my Amend- 
 ment underwent in his hands. I have now to introduce an operation 
 quite as remarkable, performed upon myself. In some of the passages 
 already cited, the impression is obviously sought to be created that I am 
 not over- orthodox ; in the postscript (with which I shall deal in due 
 
24 
 
 course,) I am a rank infidel ; and throughout the pamphlet generally, all 
 my doctrinal tendencies are latitudinarian ! But, all in a sudden, with a 
 view, I suppose, to display his wondrous powers, our Wizard of the North 
 weaves his wand, and the scoffing infidel stands before the audience a 
 thorough-paced Calvinist, " the genuine brother of Dr. Cooke," only more 
 orthodox, — jeii, more orthodox than "the whole Irish General As- 
 sembly ! " It is a positive fact that Dr. Montgomery represents me as 
 advocating the imposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith, whole 
 and entire, upon our Synod ! 
 
 " As some of you may not exactly know the full extent of the boon which 
 these furious friends of freedom [my hmnble self and others] would have con- 
 ferred upon om- licentiates and incipient pastors, I solicit yotir attention, for 
 a few moments, to their proposals. They proposed then, first, that Presby- 
 teries, before licensing a candidate to preach the Gospel, should be authorized 
 ' to ascertain his soundness in the faith' by requiring him to subscribe, without 
 qualification or explanation, to the "Westminster Confession of Faith, a docu- 
 ment of 174 pages, drawn up in the year 1643, under the dictation of lung 
 Charles I., by a nondescript conclave of diiones and la^Tnen, in a place appro- 
 priately denominated ' the Cock-Pit,' in the city of Westminster. IsTow, my 
 Cliristian brethren, ]\Ir. Maginnis, who declaims so grandiloquently against the 
 absm-d length of oiu- proposed New Code, which contains precisely five lines of 
 doctrinal questions, expressed in purely Scriptm-al phraseology, icould alloiv Pres- 
 byteries to demand., on pain of exclusion from our pulpits^ ''the unfeigned assent and 
 consenV of candidates to thirty-three chapters of a Confession, drawn up in human 
 language, from beginning to end ! And is the matter of these chapters very 
 simple and pleasant ? T shall point out a few of the bon-bons of this favoiuite 
 banquet of llr. INIaginnis, that you may judge for yourselves of the species of 
 spiiitual food which it was desired to force all your future pastors to sivalloio. 
 Here they are." — P. 43. 
 
 After enumerating the principal contents of the Confession, the Doctor 
 proceeds : — 
 
 " Now, Christian elders, what do you think of the men who, whilst canting 
 about liberf)^, and conscience, and progress, advocated our crawling bach into 
 the darkness of 1643, and suhjecting all your future ministers to ' the rack and tor- 
 ture' of the Westminster Confession ? You perceive, my friends, that the genuine 
 brothers of Br. Cooke are David Maginnis and Robert Hall ; but, in point of fact, 
 they woiild go beyond the Doctor and the whole Irish General Assembly, in 
 the stringent exercise of human authority ; for, lest the Confession should not 
 be able to catch all heretics, they advocated, in the second place, the propriety 
 of permitting Presbyteries to test ' the soundness of every candidate's faith,' 
 by a process of unlimited interrogatories !" — P. 44. 
 
 [IMr. Maginnis and his coadjutor] " laboured to perpetuate s\d)Scription to a fixed 
 creed of thirty-three chapters, [and] also to leave in full force the inquisitorial 
 system of capricious interrogation ; ^-^<i permanently to saddle this Synod with a 
 ■fixed Creed, of 174 pages, full of mysteries, and metaphysics, and contradictions."^ 
 —P. 45. 
 
 Here, again. Dr. Montgomery is eloquent against a fiction. As the 
 reader is no doubt prepared to believe, — Dr. Montgomery's statements 
 notwithstanding, — I never had the remotest idea of anything so prepos- 
 terous as saddling the Westminster Confession of Faith upon the Remon- 
 strant Synod. In fact, the Doctor's own speech affords abundant evidence 
 that he himself did not believe that I desired anything of the kind. How- 
 ever, as the fiction is not entirely fanciful, I shall now exhibit to the 
 reader, the small germ of fact out of which this wonderful history has 
 been developed. 
 
25 
 
 The first chapter of the Code is mainly devoted to an attempt to estab- 
 lish Presbyterianism upon a Scriptural basis. That it does not accomplish 
 this object in a very satisfactory or scholarly manner, vrill be the verdict 
 of most persons competent to form an opinion of it ; while many will 
 pronounce it not over-candid. Believing that a form of Church polity is 
 very much a matter of expediency, and that, if we are to have a discussion 
 of the import of Scripture testimony upon the subject, it should be 
 an adequate one, and not a mere collection of texts culled from a Con- 
 cordance ; and, furthermore, that such discussion should be conducted in 
 a tractate rather than in the pages of a Code of Discipline, which, accord- 
 ing to the terms of the Synod's own instructions to the Code Committee, 
 should be ^'- plain, brief, and jiraetical, adapted to the circumstances" of 
 our Church, — I moved * the omission of the sections treating of this sub- 
 ject, and proposed to substitute what I considered a more appropriate 
 introduction to our Code, viz., the Fundamental Principles adopted as 
 the Constitution of the Kemonstrant Synod at the time of its formation, — 
 not meaning thereby to imply that I considered that Constitution as per- 
 fect, or even proper in all respects. Still, it was the Synod's original 
 Constitution, its declaration of independence, the charter of its rights and 
 liberties. I, therefore, did think, and I think still, that the Fundamental 
 Principles, forming the original Constitution of the Synod, would have 
 been a most fitting introduction to the new Code. That I was not singu- 
 lar in this opinion appears from the fact, that, previous to the meeting at 
 which I made this motion, as I afterwards learned, one of our Presby- 
 teries had, unanimously I believe, resolved that the Fundamental Prin- 
 ciples should be prefixed to the Code ; and in Synod, though but three 
 members voted for the omission of Chap. I., 7une, against fifteen, were in 
 favour of printing the Fundamental Principles as a preface or introduc- 
 tion to the Code. 
 
 Now, this statement exhibits the whole and sole foundation in fact for 
 the Doctor's chapter on my efforts to saddle the Westminster Confession 
 of Faith upon the Remonstrant Synod. I wished to preserve the flag 
 under which our Synod was enrolled and fought its earliest and most 
 successful battles. True, but are you " so ignorant" as not to know that 
 the original Constitution of the Remonstrant Synod implied the recep- 
 tion of the Westminster Confession ? *' The tenth rule in the original 
 Constitution of the Synod," writes Dr. Montgomery, p. 32, " bound the 
 Westminster Confession upon our backs, and conferred unlimited and irre- 
 sponsible power upon Presbyteries in the matter of license and ordination.^'' 
 This is quite a modern discovery. So lately as IsTovember, 1856, Dr. 
 Montgomery saw no deadly serpent coiled up in the Fundamental Prin- 
 ciples ; and was then opposed to their being prefixed to the Code only 
 because it would be superfluous ; as it would be found upon an examina- 
 tion of the Code itself, (he said,) that " all the principles of the funda- 
 mental Constitution of the Synod were embodied and detailed in it." 
 {Mercury, Nov. 5, 1856.) Does Dr. Montgomery mean to aflSrm, then, 
 that, " all" the Fundamental Principles being " embodied and detailed 
 in the new Code, the new Code binds " the Westminster Confession upon 
 
 * This motion I made when the frst chapter of the Code was under revision. 
 The Doctor, however, in his Introduction, p. vi, represents it as having been intro- 
 duced, after the discussion of Chap, v, sec. 7, respecting "license," had been 
 entered upon ; thereby leading the reader who has no other means of informa- 
 tion, to form a very erroneous and unfavourable impression of the character of 
 my advocacy on the occasion. Of course, such misrepresentation is purely 
 accidental ! 
 
26 
 
 our backs ?" The tenth of the Fundamental Principles, which has re- 
 cently been discovered to be so very dangerous, is as follows : — 
 
 " That we adopt the Code of Discipline, sanctioned by the General Synod 
 of Ulster, in 1824 ; and to shew that in pm^suing tliis com'se we are not guided 
 by a view to promote the advancement of any set of doctrinal opinions to the 
 exclusion of others, we do hereby, publicly and solemnly giiarantee to the 
 CongTegations which are now under oiir care, and to those which may here- 
 after form a portion of our Chiu^h, the full, fi^ee, and unresti'icted exercise of 
 their unquestionable right to elect, in all cases of vacancy, IMinisters enter- 
 taining such views of di\Tne truth as the CongTegations themselves may 
 approve." 
 
 And this article " /wJ^Zs i/^e Westminster Confession upon our bads!" 
 AVell, if it does, the Remonsti-ant Synod is less free than the old Synod 
 of Ulster was, from which it separated. The Remonstrants revolted 
 against an attempt on the part of the Synod of Ulster to require of its 
 members profession of belief in the doctrine of the Trinity ; and yet, they 
 themselves, afterwards, voluntarily adopted a standard which, according 
 to Dr. Montgomery, "bound" upon them, not only the doctrine of the 
 Trinity, but the entire system of Calvinism— the Westminster Confession 
 of Faith ! But the fact is, the old Code, of 1824, did not authoritatively 
 impose* the Westminster Confession. On the contrary, it left Presbyteries 
 entirely free either to require of Candidates for license, subscription to the 
 Confession, or to substitute therefor any examination Presbyteries might 
 prefer. The Code, as the Doctor himself admits, was but a legalizing of 
 the previous practice of the Synod, under which but four Presbyteries 
 required subscription to the Westminster Confession, while the remaining 
 ten " put such questions to Candidates for License as each Presbytery 
 deemed expedient ;" and, adds the Doctor—" the result of this system 
 was that Trinitarians and Unitarians, Calviuists and Arminiaus, were 
 equally admitted." (P. 30.) In his Outlines of the Historrj of Preshy- 
 terianism, (see Irish Unitarian Magazine, Vol. II., p. 359,) the Doctor 
 shews that, by adopting the Code, the Synod of Ulster laid " aside the 
 Westminster Confession as the authoritative standard of the Churchy If, 
 then, the Code itself did not bind the Westminster Confession upon the 
 General Synod of Ulster, but, as Dr. Montgomery tells us, admitted 
 equally ministers adopting and ministers rejecting the doctrines of the 
 Confession, with what appearance of moral consistency can he assert that 
 its reception by the Kemonstrants " bound the Westminster Confession 
 upon our backs ?" But even supposing the old Code did authoritatively 
 impose the Westminster Confession, (which it did not,) the Remonstrants, 
 in adopting that Code, carefully guarded themselves against the possibility 
 of being fairly chargeable with recognising the Westminster Confession as 
 the standard of their faith. Why, the very article cited against me, (the 
 tenth of the Fundamental Principles,) guards itself against the Doctor's 
 construction being put upon it, by declaring that the Remonstrant Synod, 
 in adopting the Code, does not desire "to promote the advancement of any 
 
 * In a letter published in The Guardian, of June 23, 1829, a member of the 
 Synod of Ulster, writing on this very point, expresses himself in the followuig 
 terms -—The idle pretence that the committee or Synod impose subscription to 
 the Westminster Confession of Faith is so palpable that again I wonder Remon- 
 strants are not ashamed of producing such an argument. I could answer then- 
 lengthened argument by one word—* where ? ' For, it is not in the Code q/ Dis- 
 cipline ; it is not in the Overtures ; but it is in the imagination of Remonstrants, 
 aad nowhere else." 
 
set of doctrinal opinions, to the exclusion of others^ How could it say this, 
 if it " bound the Westminster Confession upon oui' backs ? " Besides, the 
 fourth of the Fundamental Principles condemns, in the strongest terms, 
 '■'■ the imposition of human Tests and Confessions of Faith;" and the eleventh 
 declares, as eligible to our vacant pulpits, " Ministers and Licentiates of 
 the Synod of iMunster and Presbytery of Antrim," Churches which are 
 entirely antagonistic to the Westminster Confession as an authoritative 
 rule of faith. It is absurdly false, therefore, for any one to allege that 
 even the adoption of the Fundamental Principles, (not to urge that I 
 merely proposed to have them printed as an introduction to our Code,) 
 would bind " the Westminster Confession upon our backs." 
 
 But, Dr. Montgomery, I must ask you, are you really serious when 
 you declare that the reception of the Fundamental Principles " bound the 
 Westminster Confession upon our backs ? " Answer Yes, and you stand 
 before the Church and the world a self-accused and self- convicted deceiver. 
 Dr. Montgomery himself drew up the Fundamental Principles, one and 
 all, and passed them off upon the Synod as the charter of its religious 
 freedom ; whereas, now he tells us they were but chains to bind upon the 
 Synod's neck the yoke of bondage, which it believed it had completely 
 broken and cast away for ever ! Answer No, and you stand before the 
 Church and the world convicted of deliberate dishonesty towards an 
 opponent in debate, — representing as a fact what you know to be contrary 
 to fact, in order to carry your point. 
 
 I have now to notice some vapouring talk, in which the Doctor in- 
 dulges, about a "daring attempt" which I made to " forestall the de- 
 liberations" of Synod on the subject of my Amendment. In the interval 
 of the adjournment from November till March, I prepared and delivered, 
 at the request of the Committee of my Congregation, a Discourse review- 
 ing some provisions of the proposed new Code, — particidarly those re- 
 lating to " license" and " ordination ;" and, in compliance with the unani- 
 mous request, and at the expense, of the Congregation, this Discourse 
 was afterwards published; and thereby a gross misdemeanour wsis com- 
 mitted ! It was an attempt " to poison the minds of those who were to 
 deliberate and vote on the subject," and to bring " foul influences" to 
 bear upon them. (P. 10.) The Discourse (which the Doctor gracefully 
 baptizes " Munchausen,"* appending, in explanation of the baptismal 
 name, this note — " ' The History of Baron Munchausen' is well known 
 as the boldest of fictions /") " appropriately concludes with a daring attempt 
 to forestall the deliberations and pervert the decisions of this Synod.'" 
 The Doctor goes on to say : 
 
 " Sir, in oior ordinary Courts of Law, even where the humblest rights of 
 property or personal interest are concerned, an impartial judge and unpreju- 
 diced jury are deemed essential for the ends of justice. So self-evident is this 
 simple principle of common equity and decency, that, if a juror be she^Ti to 
 
 * This, however, is not its only name. It has got a great many aliases; such 
 as, " pamplilet libel," " this thing entitled ' A Discourse,' " " scandalous libel, 
 entitled 'A Discourse,'" "a miserable pamphlet," &c., &c. No one can feel 
 more strongly than I do myself that the Discourse so characterized is a very in- 
 adequate treatment of the theme to which it is devoted. At the same time, the 
 Doctor can hardly have really considered it so very despicable, — else, surely, he 
 would not have bestowed so much time and attention upon it. Besides, that the 
 Discourse is not entirely worthless is evidenced by the fact (of wliich I have 
 lately been informed, on good authority,) that it has been instrumental in pre- 
 venting the young and promising Unitarian Christian Church in India, from 
 adopting a Creed. 
 
28 
 
 have expressed an opinion on the case which is ahout to be tried, he is instantly 
 ordered to leave the jury-box ; and the man who had attempted to bias- his 
 mind would be held guilty of a misdemeanour. Well, then, u-e are here as- 
 sembled as judges and jurors, for important deliberations and decisions in a Coui't 
 of Christ, on whose proceedings the blessing of God has been solemnly invoked ; 
 and tvhat tvill the public think of the man, who has not only attempted to prejudice 
 the minds of both judges and jurors, by ex-parte and unfounded statements, 
 but has even ventured to call upon them to come into this house pledged, 
 by written documents, to support his misrepresentations ! Such an attempt is 
 scarcely credible ; but here are the words of that Discourse with which, tlirough 
 the post and other channels, Mr. IMaginnis and his Committee have had the 
 hardihood to inundate all our Congregations," &c. — P. 33. 
 
 And " what will the public think ? " Why, if they are so blind as not 
 to see the obvious sophistry of the Doctor's reasoning, they will think, as 
 the Doctor evidently wishes them to think, that I have been guilty of a 
 most serious ofience, more criminal than that of tampering with a judge and 
 jury engaged in the administration of justice. But if the public are only 
 half as shrewd as I take them to be, they are in no danger of being 
 carried away by such a shallow affectation of argument. It can hardly 
 be necessary to expose the transparent fallacy that constitutes this dashing 
 reasoning. Every one knows that an assembly convened for the purpose 
 of framiug lairs is not a judicial, but a deUberatiue, assembly; and 
 our Synod met in ISTovember, and again in March, _/br the express and sole 
 jmrpose of framing a system of laws for its government. Ilad it been, in 
 any sense, a judicial asseijiibly, then there would be some point in the 
 Doctor's argument. But, as the case stands, my "misdemeanour" is 
 exactly analagous to that of the man who, by petition or otherwise, ex- 
 presses his views on any question of legislation under the consideration of 
 Parliament ! In this free country of ours, the humblest citizen may, 
 without penalty or censure, freely criticise, and, at any or every stage in 
 their progress, strenuously ojspose, should he feel disposed, the measures 
 of the Imperial Legislature itself. But, when the Remonstrant Synod 
 meets to frame laws, it is, according to Dr. Montgomery, a gross misde- 
 meanour in even a member, to draw the attention of the Church at large 
 to any subject which the Synod may have under deliberation ! It is a 
 thing so "daring" and "foul" as to be " scarcely credible," that, when 
 a Church, which Dr. Montgomery condescends to patronise and direct, 
 meets to frame a Constitution, its Congregations, though largely interested, 
 should dare to express their disapproval of any measure proposed to be 
 adopted. It is not likely to be soon forgotten by any who were present at 
 the commencement of the proceedings of the INIarch meeting, with what 
 arrogant and awe-inspiring airs the Doctor demanded to be informed 
 whether I acknowledged the authorship of the Discourse which bore my 
 name upon its title-page ; and, particularly, how resolutely he laboured 
 to intimidate Elders who might have received instructions from the Sessions 
 or Congregations they represented, to pursue a certain course. " He 
 should like to see the man who had come to that House j'ledged to a par- 
 ticular course of conduct." (P. 10.) Only let the men who have got 
 " documents in their pockets " shew themselves, and for such daring pre- 
 sumption the punishment was ready ! Does not all this look rather 
 despotic ? It is a "foul" and gross "misdemeanour" to discuss, in the 
 pulpit or the press, any measure under the consideration of Dr. Mont- 
 gomery and the Remonstrant Synod ; and any Congregation which, 
 tlu-ough its lay representative, desires to express its opinions, is snubbed, 
 and its representative sought to be intimidated from discharging the duty 
 
29 
 
 committed to him ! Now, if this sort of proceeding is to be tolerated in 
 our Synod ; if the right of free and full discussion is to be suppressed by 
 the arbitrary will of one man, then let us have Popery outright. I can 
 respect the genuine thing, but a Protestant Popery I cannot endure. I 
 am greatly mistaken, however, in my estimate of the Remonstrants of 
 Ulster, if they will permit even Dr. Montgomery to continue long to play 
 such fantastic ti'icks at their expense. 
 
 It has passed into a proverb that circumstances alter cases. In his 
 younger days, Dr. (then Mr.) Montgomery had once, like myself, the 
 fortune to be in a small ecclesiastical minority. At the meetings of the 
 Synod of Ulster, in 1827, '8, and '9, certain measures were adopted of 
 which the Doctor did not approve. In the mtervals that elapsed between 
 the meetings. Dr. Montgomery never ventured to breathe a syllable in 
 condemnation of the system of legislation that was being developed in the 
 Synod ! Of course not ! It would have been a " foul" and " daring at- 
 tempt," a gross misdemeanour, unconstitutional and criminal. And yet, 
 in the local newspapers of those years, I tind many a long letter signed 
 " H. Montgomery," full of all sorts of arguments to influence the majority 
 in the Synod. I find, too, traces of " Remonstrances" circulating through 
 the Congregations of the majority, as well as through those of the mi- 
 nority, for signatures. A minister writes, in The Guardian^ of June 23, 
 1829 — " During about eight months, the Sociniau and Arian members of 
 our body have been both j^rivateJt/ and pubUcli/ at work. They have 
 sent their remonstrances into our Congregations for signatures, and thei/ 
 thus hope to overwhelm the Synod by numerical influenced I also find 
 reports of public meetings held for the express purpose of agitating the 
 public mind on the subject. For example, the Northern Whir/, of Oct. 
 23, 1828, reports at great length the proceedings of a large and influen- 
 tial meeting, held in Belfast, in the preceding week, " pursuant to public 
 advertisement," avowedly for tJie 2)urpose of adopting measures to induce 
 the General bynod to retrace its steps. Dr. INIontgomery assisted in con- 
 vening that meeting, was present at it, and made a long speech, which, 
 by the way, drew forth a reply, as the Doctor no doubt remembers. All 
 this agitation was perfectly irreprehensible, nay praiseworthy, aye, prize- 
 worthy, in the Mr. Montgomery of that day ; in Mr. Maginnis, according 
 to the Dr. Montgomery of the present day, it is "foul," a " hardihood," 
 a " misdemeanour," to utter publicly one word of comment upon the 
 doings of his Church. When Mr. Montgomery disapproved of anything 
 in the Synod of Ulster, he might sjieak against it, write against it ; but 
 when Mr. Maginnis is convinced that the Remonstrant Synod is about to 
 be led into a grave error, it is a crime in him to say a word about it ! 
 
 Having disposed of that portion of the Doctor's pamphlet which treats 
 of the question really at issue, and shewn that, throughout, it is a tissue 
 of palpable misrepresentations, gross perversions, and ad-captandum 
 reasonings, — my very Amendment being mutilated and falsified,* and 
 
 * "With such practical illustrations as we have now had of his own moral code 
 as a controversialist, we should not perhaps deem it strange that Dr. Montgomery 
 exhibits so little confidence in the moral honesty of others, — and particularly of 
 candidates for the ministry in o\ir Church, he himself being their only Professor 
 of Morals. At all events, it will not be considered an extravagant assumption, 
 that, as a result of the exposure I have just made, the reader will hesitate ere 
 implicitly receiving as indisputably correct, Dr. Montgomery's surmises and in- 
 sinuations, and unsustained charges, regarding my private feelings and motives. 
 If his reading of documents which lay before him, and his statement of facts 
 within his knowledge, are quite unreliable, — in fact, utterly false, who will receive 
 him as a trustworthy interpreter of my secret thoughts and feelings ? 
 
30 
 
 my advocacy honestly dealt with m no single instance, I now approach 
 the second, and more disagreeahle, part of my subject, — the personalities 
 ■with which he has thought fit to lavishly bestrew his pages, to supplement 
 their small modicum of argument. Compelled, as I am, to undertake the 
 defence of my character against serious and coarse charges, I feel that I 
 carry with me the sympathy of every right-hearted reader, and I am quite 
 certain that if I do not carry with me, throughout, his judgment also, the 
 fault will be entirely my own. 
 
 In his pamphlet. Dr. Montgomery alleges, over and over again, that I 
 was actuated by revenge in proposing and supporting my Amendment in 
 Synod. My advocacy was not that of an honest, conscientious man, con- 
 tending for a principle, but that of a mean, spiteful, malignant fellow, 
 actuated mainly, if not entirely, by hati'ed of Dr. Montgomery. All who 
 spoke or voted against the Doctor, with the exception of myself, he 
 generously acquits of " blame," for they were " lionest ;" though not over- 
 wise, in forming an opinion of the Code for themselves ! " Neither do I, 
 with a simjle exception^ impute hlame to any of my younger brethren ; 
 for I am convinced that they acted under mere misapprehension of the 
 views of the committee, and from the impulse of an honest, though mis- 
 taken, zeal for Christian liberty." (P. 12.) '•'■ The principal actor m ouv 
 late Synodical proceedings," however, was actuated by a far different 
 motive, viz., '•'' p)rivate sjileen." ''Had David Maginnis been appointed 
 Clerk of the Remonstrant Synod, in the year 184f), we should have had no 
 mischievous dispmtes concerning a Code of Discipline in this year of grace.'" 
 —P. 18. 
 
 The Doctor writes a very long note, (pp. 15-18,) partly historical, and 
 partly argumentative, designed to prove the correctness of his estimate 
 of my character. To the contents of this note I must now call the 
 reader's attention. 
 
 After asserting a double claim to the gi'atitude of the Synod, 1st, for 
 his having obtained from Government an annual grant as remuneration 
 for the services of our Clerk ; * and, 2dly, for his disinterestedness in not 
 appropriating to himself that endowment, when the office of Clerk became 
 vacant by the lamented death of the Rev. William Porter, the Doctor 
 takes further credit to himself for introducing the present system, by 
 which the office is " held, only for three years, by any individual," so that 
 the ministers of "weak Congregations might enjoy its emoluments in 
 succession." Though this is not the most fitting place to criticise this 
 arrangement, I may take leave to express my opinion, m passing, that, in 
 the peculiar circumstances of our Church, it is not a wise arrangement. 
 It may, no doubt, commend itself on account of its seeming benevolence ; 
 but I question much whether the material advantage it confers upon indi- 
 viduals is not more than counterbalanced by the system of patronage, 
 which it is generating. Besides, there are many reasons why the Clerk 
 of our Synod should be a permanent officer. 
 
 In 1846, as the Doctor states, I offered myself as a Candidate for the 
 office of Clerk to the Synod. I announced my Candidature in the most 
 general terms. I made no appeal on the ground of poverty to excite pity, 
 nor did I canvass a single member for his vote. In a small body like ours, 
 the professional income of every clerical member is pretty generally 
 known ; and I would, therefore, have deemed it an insult to solicit either 
 minister or elder for his support. That I had the smallest salary a minister 
 in receipt of Regium Donum, under existing Government regulations, can 
 
 * I observe that the same official comnumication which announces the Grant to 
 the Clerk of Synod, announces also an increase to the endowment of the minister 
 of Dxmmurry. 
 
31 
 
 have, and that I was exposed to all the heavy expenses inseparable from 
 residence in a large town, are facts well known to the Synod, and con- 
 stitute but too ample a justification of my Candidature. It pleased the 
 Synod, however, to appoint to the office a gentleman who was then an 
 assistant minister in a small Congregation, and whose professional income 
 was still less than mine. Of that appointment, considering the terms of 
 the new arrangement, I had no right, and manifested as little disposition, 
 to complain. Dr. Montgomery, however, professes * to believe, with his 
 quondam ■protege and fidus Achates, the Rev. W. H. Doherty, that since 
 that time, I have been endeavouring to avenge myself upon the Synod, 
 and particularly upon the Doctor himself, to whom, it would seem, I 
 attributed my defeat. On three subsequent occasions I was a Candidate 
 for the same office, and with a like result. ISly hatred of the Doctor, 
 consequentlv, now knows no bounds ! Speaking of me, he says :— 
 " Having been uniformly defeated, however, his irritation ariainst me has 
 acquired additional intensitif—o^xing, doubtless, to the ascription of his 
 failure to my exertions, rather than to its true causes— his own past mis- 
 conduct [of which, presently,] and the superior claims of his rivals. I 
 freely acknowledge, however, that I did oppose him," &c. (P. 18.) Now, 
 I challenge Dr. Montgomery to cite a single instance of my having either 
 in Synod or out of it, manifested, either by word or deed, the slightest 
 " irritation," fairly attributable to my defeat, either towards the successful 
 Candidates, or towards any of their supporters. I will not deny that I 
 may have felt disappointed, and I confess that had I known as much as I 
 know now of Dr. Montgomery's secret diplomacy and strenuous exertions 
 to prevent my election, it is more than probable that I might not have 
 entertained the most kindly feelings towards hiui ; but, thanks to my 
 ignorance, I did not cherish the resentful feelings which he attributes to 
 ^e, — the feelmgs, I presume, which lie considers his conduct was cal- 
 culated to excite. 
 
 I must have been resentful,— but I shall let the Doctor state his own 
 case : — 
 
 " Now, I am well aware that ^post hoc' does not invariably sigmfj^ ^propter 
 hoc' ; or, in other words, that a thing which occurs first in the order of time, 
 is not, necessarily, the cause of what follows ; but, as efiects must have causes, 
 few men can avoid di-awing conclusions from facts ; and here is a fact of no 
 small significance. The Rev.. Geo. Hill, who lived a considerable distance from 
 Belfast, was assisted by Mr. Maginnis in editing The Irish Unitarian 3Iagazine ; 
 and, some months after IVIr. Sm>i;h's appointment as Clerk, two anonymous 
 letters appeared in that publication without the editor's sanction, casting gross 
 reflections upon the INIinisters and Licentiates of the Remonstrant Sjmod. 
 .... As the streng-th of Hercules could be inferred sunply ft'om the 
 sight of his foot {ex pedc^Herculem), the preceding libel, though anonymous, 
 was immediately ascribed to Da\dd Maginnis ; every one, as it were instinc- 
 tively, saw the parent in the child, and declared that no other man covild have 
 written it. . . . At the very next meeting of the Xon-Suhscribing Associa- 
 tion {\M1). . . . INIr. Maginnis was compelled to admit his paternity," 
 &c., &c.— Pp. 16, 17. 
 
 * The following is the passage to which reference is here made :— " Until that 
 time, I have reason to believe, I enjoyed the regard and confidence of my brethren : 
 at all events, I had laboured to deserve them: but, as the Rev. W. H. Doherty 
 subsequently observed—' Ever since that election, a tendency has been observed, 
 on the part of a disappointed candidate, to undervalue the body by whom his ser- 
 vices were declined ; to praise the Presbytery of Antrim above the Remonstrant 
 Synod, and to direct, on every possible opportunity, pubHc and private, a series of 
 feeble but ill-natured attacks against Dr. Montgomery, to whom he attributes his 
 disappointment.'" — P. 16. 
 
32 
 
 The Doctor here rakes up the ashes of an old controversy, which, I 
 believed, had long since died out ; but I find that in one breast at least the 
 embers still smoulder. Since the Doctor has thought fit, at this distant 
 date, to revive that controversy, and misrepresent it to my disadvantage, 
 I must ask the reader to go into it with me, — for I am quite certain that 
 to understand it is to acquit me, and to condemn the man who has 
 absurdly and wantonly dragged it forward on the present occasion. 
 
 In the Irish Unitarian Magazine^ for July, 1847, there appeared a 
 short article,* of which I was the writer, calling the attention of the 
 Non- Subscribing Association, whose meeting was then approaching, to 
 the highly important subject of the education of candidates for the minis- 
 try, and dwelling upon the desirability of Presbyteries adopting a high 
 standard, and uniformly adhering to it. That article has been called 
 by very hard names. It evidences great malignity : it seeks to create 
 
 * In order that the reader may see this much-censured article, and judge for 
 himself whether it evidences the malicious spirit that has been attributed to it, 
 I reprint it here at fu.ll length. One sentence, I confess, Avould have been better 
 put in a different form ; but, even as it is, I do not fear that the impartial reader 
 win misjudge its object : — 
 
 *' ON THE EDUCATION OF OUR YOUNG MEN FOR THE MINISTRY. 
 
 " As the meeting of the Association of Irish Non- Subscribers is approaching, 
 I am anxious to direct the attention of the members of that respectable and in- 
 fluential Body to the important subject of the Education of their students for the 
 Ministry. The saying has already become trite, that * the schoolmaster is abroad.' 
 The schoolmaster Vs abroad, — and it behoves every church that is concerned for 
 its stability, to remember the maxim. I do not intend, in this brief note, to enter 
 on the question of ' the necessity of an educated ministry.' I will, however, express 
 my firm conviction, (which, I believe, is the opinion of the great majority — if not 
 of every member — of the Non-Subscribing Association,) that unless we are care- 
 ful to secure a well-educated ministry, our body wiU fall from the high position 
 it has so honourably occupied. It is a fact, that as a body, our laity stand fore- 
 most in the ranks of intelligence ; and unless our ministers are able to lead the 
 van, they will lose that influence which is indispensable to usefulness in the sacred 
 ofiice. I do fear that our church does not pay sufficient attention to this impor- 
 tant subject. On one occasion, no doubt, zeal waxed warm and strong, and a 
 Course of Studies was prescribed for young men preparing for the ministry, with 
 a recommendation (if not an instruction) to presbyteries to enforce the same. One 
 presbytery, distinguished for the attention it pays the young men under its 
 care, did act on the new law ; while the others paid little, if any, attention to it. 
 Ought not this matter to be inquired into at the approaching meeting ? If the 
 course be regarded as too extensive, or injudiciously selected, let it be modified or 
 altered to meet the views of the majority. Let a course be agreed on, — and let 
 it be imperative on all the presbyteries connected with the Association to_ act upon 
 it. Let every young man who comes forward as a candidate for the ministry be 
 obliged to pass through all the examinations prescribed. Let him feel convinced 
 that he can enter only by the one door. Let there be no exceptions. Then our 
 young men will become in reality what they have been hitherto too often in 
 name only — Students. They would put their shoidders to the wheel — and work. 
 Then, we would no longer turn out half-educated men as the people's instructors 
 in concerns of the highest moment, — men than whom the mechanic in his Avork- 
 shop has read more — knows more — has studied more ; and, when we compare our 
 ministers with those of our denomination in the sister island, how far below them 
 do they sink ! We have a few men among us in this country of whose attain- 
 ments we may be proud ; but, as a body, we are infinitely inferior to our English 
 brethren in the amount and variety of our knowledge. But these hurried re- 
 marks are extending beyond the prescribed limits. I therefore conclude, by ui-ging 
 on the attention of the brethren of the three Non-Subscribing Bodies the impor- 
 tance of providing and strictly enforcing a systematic plan for the education of 
 their young men. 
 
 "Jtme 6th, lSi7." "P.P." 
 
33 
 
 jealousy between the PresDy^c/y of Antrim and the Remonstrant Synod ; 
 and, above all, it injures the character and prospects of our students ! 
 Now, I beg the reader to look into this. Because I wish to avenge myself 
 on Dr. Montgomery for supporting a rival candidate for the clerkship in 
 July, 1846, I publish a short article in July, 184:7— almost a full year 
 after — manifesting some anxiety about the education of our students ! and 
 I wreak my vengeance upon unoffending candidates for the ministry and 
 others, because I am angry with the Doctor ! The charge is simply 
 absurd. The fact is that, so far from the article in question having any 
 connection whatever with the election in 1846, it was in reality, as I 
 stated in 1847, in one of my published letters, but the reproduction of a 
 communication on the same subject, addressed to the editor of the Bible 
 Christian, in 1843, and noticed by the editor (Rev. C. J. M'Alester) in 
 the number of that periodical for January, 1844. That article, written 
 in 1843, was, of course, conceived in revenge, by anticipation, of my de- 
 feat in 1846 ! 
 
 But, it seems, I was not only guilty of u'ritincj the article, but also of 
 surreptitiously insertmg it in the Unitarian Magazine ! " The Rev. 
 Geo. Hill, who lived at a considerable distance fi-om Belfast, was assisted 
 hij Mr. Maginnis in editing " that periodical ; and this article was inserted 
 " ivithout the editors sanction:' The Doctor's treatment of facts is here 
 no happier than in former instances. It is not true that I assisted ISIi-. 
 Hill in editing the Unitarian Magazine. I was editor for some time of 
 the Bible Christian ; but never was either editor or assistant editor of the 
 Unitarian Magazine. The article was forwarded to the editor in the usual 
 way. When the value of the Doctor's facts is understood, the reader wiU 
 have little difficulty m disposing of his fancies. 
 
 In the paragraph quoted above, the Doctor alleges that, at the meeting 
 of the Non-Subscribing Association, in 1847, I was '' compelled to admit'' 
 the authorship of the article, as " every one, as it were instinctively, saw 
 the parent in the child, and declared that no other man could have 
 written it." It is not the fact tliat I admitted the authorship under 
 any compulsion or pressure. The acknowledgment was perfectly spon- 
 taneous ! In introducing the article to the notice of the Association, Dr. 
 Montgomery said that, in his opinion, it must have been ^Titten either 
 by a mistaken friend or a secret enemy ; whereupon, with a view to assure 
 the Doctor and the Association that it was written with the best motive 
 possible, I at once acknowledged myself the author of it ; though, I felt 
 certain, at the time, that there was not a human being aware of it, save 
 myself and a brother minister, to whom I had shortly before communi- 
 cated the information. The Doctor, it is well known, has a good me- 
 mory ; but in relation to this matter it seems to be too good ! In 1847, 
 Dr. Montgomery stated in the Association, when speaking of the article, 
 that he did not know who was its author ; his words (as reported in The 
 Whig, of July 22, of that year,) being, " it uas impossible for him to 
 say /" In 1857, Dr. Montgomery states that the article was " imme- 
 diately ascribed to David Maginnis ," and not only he, but " every one, 
 as it were instinctively, saw the parent in the child, and declared that no 
 other man could have written it T The statement of 1847 is quite cor- 
 rect ; at that time I believe it was quite impossible for either the Doctor 
 or any one else, save the parties excepted above, to say who the author 
 was. I leave it to the reader to characterize the statement of 1857. 
 
 The Article charged Presbyteries with neglect of duty in relation to 
 the education of Students. Did Dr. IMontgomery disprove, or attempt to 
 disprove, the charge ? He did no such thing. But, finding in the Article 
 
 E 
 
34 
 
 a certain phrase, which, torn from its connection, might give a disparag- 
 ing idea of the attainments of Students, he fixed attention* upon it ; 
 and, notwithstanding my explicit disclaimer, made on the instant, of 
 having the slightest intention " of cnsthif] any rejiection ivhrf fever" upon 
 the Students of the Body (see Whir/, July 22, 1847), Dr. Montgomery 
 forced forward, and succeeded in carrying, a Resolution pronouncing the 
 statements in my Article " unfounded in fact, and calculated to injure 
 
 * That the reader may learn how my Article, and the treatment it received from 
 Dr. Montgomery and others, were viewed by disinterested parties competent to 
 judge of the whole subject, I reprint here a letter addressed to me at the time, 
 with leave to publish it, by the Rev. W. Bruce, B.A., T.C.D., then Professor of 
 Latin and Greek in the Royal College, Belfast. Such a letter, from such a quar- 
 ter, needs no comment. It is, of itself, amply sufficient to refute all the Doctor's 
 charges as to the character and aim of the Article. 
 
 " Belfast, 2%th July, 1847- 
 
 " DexVU Sir, — On reading in the Xorthom Whig, of the 22nd instant, an ac- 
 count of the proceedings of the Association of Irish Non- Subscribing Presby- 
 terians, I was astonished at the attempt that was made to subject you to odium 
 and censure, for exercising your undoubted right of freely discussing, in the Irish 
 Unitarian Magazine, a matter of great importance to our interests. As my 
 name happened to be mentioned a few lines before, in connection with the disciis- 
 sion on the Marriage Act, I felt that you would naturally be surprised that I 
 should be present and not dissent from such proceedings. I accordingly explained 
 to you on the same day that I was not present, and that if I had been, I should 
 have strongly remonstrated and protested against what I conceive to be an in- 
 fringement of your rights, a suppression of free inqiiiry, and a mode of proceeding 
 calculated to bring upon you the odium of the students belonging to our bodies. 
 
 " As you have asked for my opinion in writing, I have since read over again the 
 article that was made the ground of this attack, and am stiU of opinion that you 
 had not transgressed the limits of fair discussion; and that the condiict of Presby- 
 teries in the Education of Students for the Ministry is a matter of deep interest 
 to our religious community ; and that it was unjust to divert the attention of the 
 Association from that, and convey, with respect to you, the invidious charge of 
 endeavouring to injure the Students. 
 
 "You fixed no imputation on any individual; — you cast no blame on any 
 student : you did state that theie was neglect on the part of Presbyteries, and, 
 consequently, imperfect education on the part of the students ; — a result for which 
 the Presbyteries, and not they, are responsible. You wished this matter taken 
 up by the Association. You had reason to expect that they would do so ; and it 
 was unjust to bear you down by a resolution that evaded the real subject of in- 
 quiry, and assumed the very point that was to be proved — that all you had said 
 was imfoimded in fact. 
 
 " I say that you had reason to expect that the matter would be taken up, and 
 inquired into, by the Association ; because the Ediication of the Students for the 
 Ministry had been a matter for deliberation from the commencement. It was 
 the subject of one of the earHest resolutions in 1835 : and, in 1838, a Committee 
 was named on the subject, which brovight in, as their Report, a sketch of a Course 
 which was printed with the Minvites and recommended for consideration, vv'ith 
 the view of its coming into operation, in 1839. In 1841, this Course was con- 
 firmed and ordered to be printed and ' submitted to the jjarticular attention of 
 Presbyteries.' In 1844, it was again affirmed, and again printed and ' submitted 
 to the particular attention of Presbyteries.' Has this been attended to, or has it 
 been neglected ? This was the kind of inquiry you asked for. It ought at once 
 to have been granted, and the inquiry was easy : for the records of every Presby- 
 tery ought to furnish a full answer with respect to every student that has since 
 been under its care. Our Association disclaims all right of dictating to Presby- 
 teries ; but this was a fair subject for conference; — especially when we consider 
 that this course is the minimum that should be required ; and to gloss over this 
 business by a piece of wholesale and fulsome flattery to the students, was not con- 
 sulting the dignity of the Association, and was treating you with unkindness and 
 injustice. 
 
 " I remain, your.5 faithfully, 
 
 " Rev. D. Magtnxts, &o., &c." " W. Brvci:." 
 
35 
 
 their Students."* A public correspondence ensued, in the course of which 
 I demonstrated from their Minutes that two of the Synod's three Presby- 
 teries (I could not gain access to the Minutes of the third,) had fallen far 
 short in the discharge of their duties to their Students. Mr. W. H. 
 Doherty, then minister of Comber,— /o/' whom Dr. Montgomenfs re- 
 markable letter of recommendation afterwards obtained kind attentions in 
 Liverpool, and a congregation in America., — became the ready and suitable 
 champion of the Doctor's cause; and made a "crushing and complete 
 exposure of every accusation preferred by Mr. Maginuis !" " Mr. 
 
 * The Resolution was passed at the close of the meeting, — after several mem- 
 bers had left. That, in passing it, the majority acted withovit due consideration, is 
 evident from the fact that, in 1851, the Kesolution was rescinded by a tmajiimoxis 
 vote of the Association, — Dr. Montgomery himself being present, — and that with- 
 out any other explanation from me than what had been offered during the dis- 
 cussion in 1847. — Furthermore, Ministers, who were students or Kcentiates about 
 the period of the " P.P." controversy, (some of whom had been worked up 
 into a state of fiery indignation against me,) now that they have had time 
 and means to form an opinion for themselves on the merits of the question, 
 no longer condemn, but approve of the spirit and object of that much- 
 abused article. Within the last few weeks I have written, on this subject, to 
 eleven ministers who were stvidents or licentiates about the period referred to, and 
 from one and all I have received replies, acquitting me of all intention to injure 
 the Students. As my limits will not permit the publication of all these letters, I 
 present here a few extracts. The names of the wi'iters may be obtained on ap- 
 plication. 
 
 ' ' From your invariable kindness to myself as a student, and from the interest 
 which I have known you to take in the welfare of others, I cannot believe that, 
 directly or indirectly, you could do anything, either in 1847 or now, to injure the 
 students, either iiadividually or collectively." 
 
 " It is my firm conviction that such a result [that charged in the Resolution,] 
 was quite unintended by you ; that you were indeed actuated solely and entirely 
 by a sincere desire to render more efficient our Church, and promote its interests, 
 in Ireland. And this opinion I rest in with the greater certainty, because, as far 
 as my individual experience and observation go, you have always shewn our young 
 men the greatest attention, courtesy, and kindness." 
 
 " I have received your note, and wish to say in reply, that I recollect reading, 
 at the time of its publication in JVie Unitarian Magazine, the letter signed 'P.P.' 
 At that time, I was altogether unable to ascribe its authorship to any one indi- 
 vidual more than another, and saw in it only an effort, on the part of the writer, 
 to remedy an evil, viz. ; — to cause the several Presbyteries of the Remonstrant 
 Synod to adopt some plan by which a stricter surveillance would be exercised over 
 their respective students. This was the only object I thought ' P.P.' had in view 
 in Avriting his letter. I certainly never supposed that his aim was either to create 
 jealousy between the members of the Presbytery of Antrim and those of the Re- 
 monstrant Synod, or to injure the students. And when it came to be known 
 who the author of the letter really was, I then felt confirmed in the belief that 
 it was only kindness towards the students, and anxiety for their interests and use- 
 fulness, that dictated it." 
 
 " As to any ' injury' to the * prospects' of students, either intended or inflicted 
 by your comments on the defects (acknowledged as I should have fancied,) of thek 
 academic training — the thing seems to me too absurd to be seriously maintamed. 
 Your sole object, I presume, was to call attention to a state of things injurious to 
 the character and usefulness of the Church, with a view to some improvement ; 
 and, therefore, did you merit the thanks of the Body rather than its indignation. 
 "Whatever might be the ofi'ence arising from the manner of your strictures, there 
 was nothing even in that to occasion lasting alienation among brethren, — much 
 less to require dis-entombing after the lapse often years. In common, I suppose, 
 with most Irish students undertaking the charge of a Congregation in England, 
 I had a painful consciousness of many deficiencies ; and I have often wished that 
 my literary and theological advantages in early days had been superior to what I 
 found them." 
 
 " In reply to your inquiry of the 13th inst. [Dec. 1857], I have to say that I 
 most unhesitatingly acquit you of all intention of injuring the students of the 
 Remonstrant Synod, by the publication of your letter, signed * P. P.,' in The 
 
86 
 
 Doherty," continues the Doctor, " recited ' the entire course of study re- 
 commended by the Code of Discipline,' and irrefutably proved that ' it 
 had never been departed from, in any instance, by the Remonstrant Pres- 
 bytery of Bangor', — the Presbytery most fiercely assailed as neglectful 
 of its duties, because I happened to be its oldest member." (P. 18.) 
 And, Dr. Montgomery, you say that Mr. Doherty " irrefutably proved 
 that the Code of Discipline had never been departed from, in any instance, 
 by the Presbytery of Bangor !" You know, Doctor, that this statement 
 is not true. You know Mr. Doherty proved nothing of the sort. He, 
 no doubt, asserted it. Neither Mr. Doherty nor the Doctor himself 
 coidd prove it. But / 2^roved,* and, if necessary, can prove again, that, 
 during the period referred to m the controversy, the Bangor Presby- 
 tery, accordmg to its Minutes, did not, in the case of a single student, 
 observe the requirements of the Code of Discipline! 
 
 I have now to notice a very serious charge which the Doctor, in this 
 connection, prefers against my moral character. After stating that I was 
 guilty of employing the pages of the Unitarian Magazine, a second time,f 
 in that controversy, " without authority," he makes this weighty accusa- 
 tion : — " To give some colour to these assaults, he stooped to a gross 
 violation of trust .""X (P. 17.) "A gross violation of trust!" This, 
 
 Unitarian Magazine. Evidently, your intention was to call attention to the 
 carelessness of Presbyteries in testing the qualiiications of the students under 
 their charge. I beg, furthermore, to state my conviction that the standard of 
 education adopted by the Bangor Presbytery in reference to its students has not 
 been high; and that La the condemnatory resolution passed by the N on- Subscribing 
 Association against your paper, you were harshly and unjustly treated. What- 
 ever opinion I may have expressed during the continuance of the ' P. P.' con- 
 troversy, I beg the above to be considered as my settled opinions upon the subject 
 to which they refer, noir." 
 
 * I happen to have still remaining a few copies of my Letters, of 1847, which I 
 shall be happy to forward, free, to parties applying for them. These letters 2irove, 
 by the clearest documentary evidence, all that I have affirmed above respecting 
 the great remissness of two of the three Presbyteries, in regaid to the education of 
 students. It seems to me most strange that any man professing to have any re- 
 gard for truth, could either make, or endorse, the statement last cited from the 
 Doctor's pamphlet. Why, I find, from the Minutes, that even the Synod took 
 shame to itself on this subject ; and, in the year 1840, appointed a Coramittee, (of 
 which Dr. Montgomery was himself a member,) for the express purpose of 
 devising " some plan for the stricter and more effectual examination of sttidents 
 connected with this Church." Surely, if the Doctor and his alter ego, Mr. Do- 
 herty, be any authority, this was a very unnecessary proceeding on the part of the 
 Synod,— since, at this very time, as these gentlemen would have us to believe, 
 Presbyteries were discharging their duties to their Students most faithfully, 
 and were strict almost to a fault ! 
 
 t The Doctor is wrong again. Only one article of mine, the first one, signed 
 " P.P." appeared in the pages of the Unitarian Magazine. The other three, I 
 had to print at my own expense, and have them attached as Advertisements to the 
 Magazine; and that they reached the public eveu through that medium was in 
 spite of the Doctor. He was so magnanimous as to do his best to prevent their pub- 
 lication even as advertisements, for which I was paying out of my own pocket ! 
 
 X Surely, if Dr. Montgomery believes himself, when preferring this and other 
 charges, he must feel that the'2n(blic is not the tribunal before which he ought to 
 make his accusations. If the Doctor thinks that I am guilty of the ofiences he 
 charges me with, he is, undoubtedly, guilty of a gross dereliction of duty in not 
 arraigning me before my Presbytery, and doing his best to remove from the 
 sacred ofiice of the Christian ministry one who, if one tithe of those charges is 
 true, degrades his office. But should this charge turn out to be as false as the 
 others noticed, I shall not undertake to say before v>-hat tribunal the person who 
 deliberately preferred it should be tried, nor to measure the amount of his guilt. 
 I am content, however, for the present, at least, to leave the matter with the 
 public. 
 
37 
 
 verily, is a grave charge. But let us hear what this breach of trust 
 was, " Using, mthout permission, in order to calumniate his brethren, 
 the Minutes of the Presbytery which had been contidentially placed in his 
 custody." (F. 17.) Well, I admit the fact of having used the Mniutes 
 of Presbytery " without permission," and I deny, as utterly and wilfully 
 false, the allegation that, in doing so, I was guilty of any violation of 
 trust. It was not till after the publication of the Doctor's pamphlet, that 
 I became aware that this calumny had, for some time past, been privately 
 and sedulously whispered about, to the injury of my character. At length, 
 however, in a luckless moment, it came forth from its congenial darkness 
 into the light of day,— and I am now afforded the opportunity of silencing 
 it for ever. Be it known, then, to every reader, that Dr. Montgomery 
 states what is absolutely untrue, when he asserts that, in using the 
 Minutes of the Bangor Presbytery, in that controversy, without permis- 
 sion, I was guilty of stooping to a gross violation of trust. I Avas but 
 exercising a right secured to every member of our Church by the Code 
 of Discipline. At page 12, the Code contains this provision :— " Glerhs 
 may give extracts from the Minutss, on receiving a reasonable compensation 
 for their trouble:' And this is the onlg provision on the subject. It was 
 competent for me to give extracts fi'omthe Minutes to any extent, and for 
 any purpose, provided only that I was satisfied with the " compensation'' 
 ottered. I made extracts from our Minutes "without permission!" 
 Whose permission? I needed no permission from any one,— not even 
 from Dr. Montgomery. My permission, however, — and only mine, — was 
 sufficient. And, Dr. Montgomery, no one knew this better than yourself 
 at the very time you were jjenning those infamous ivords — " He stooped 
 TO A GROSS VIOLATION OF THUST by using, iiithoutj^ermission, . . the 
 Minutes of Presbytery .'" And if you wish to know my reason for saying 
 so, I am prepared to give it ;— but I don't expect you '11 ask for it. No ; 
 I stooped to no violation of trust in the matter ; but Dr. Montgomery 
 has " stooped" to the turpitude of deliberately attempting to ruin my 
 character by charging me with a gross immorality, of which he knew I 
 was not guiltv. 
 
 For the ottences alleged, the Doctor states that " some thought" that 
 my " removal" from the Church would have been " the fitting reply." 
 That Dr. Montgomery did think so, I am quite prepared to believe, — 
 friends having informed me at the tune of his desu-e to disannex me trom 
 my Congregation. That it was net attempted to " remove" me is to be 
 attributed, according to the Doctor, partly (a wonderful admission !) to 
 some little wholesome fear of public opinion, but mainly to excessive ge- 
 nerosity.* I admit that the former motive may have had some influence, 
 but I cannot, for my life, discover any trace of the latter. 
 
 I have now closed my examination of the method which Dr. Mont- 
 gomery felt hmiself " compelled" to adopt " in order to expose the secret 
 springs which moved the principal actor in our late Syuodical discus- 
 sions." The motive power was " private spleen." As he uill have it so, 
 I was dissatisfied with the Doctor in 1846 ; and, in consequence, endea- 
 voured, in 1847, to secure an improved education for om- students, and, 
 
 * It is with reluctance I notice at all the Doctor's woiild-be complimentary 
 references to my wife. Yet, I cannot refuse to say that she indignantly spurns, as 
 grossly insulting, a compliment from the wilful defamer of her husband ; nor can 
 I refrain from adding an expression of my own conviction, that, had Dr. Montgo- 
 mery been able to disannex me from my Congregation, no consideration of the 
 services of my wife or her family to the cause of liberal Christianity, would have 
 saved me. My good Doctor, forget that I have a wife, and do your worst. 
 
38 
 
 in 1857, an improved Constitution for our Church ! Such was the dii'ec- 
 tion, even according to the Doctor's own shewing, my vengeance took ! 
 To the last, however, he declares his " conviction" that" private spleen" 
 was my actuating motive ; and professes to believe that he has conducted 
 the Christian public to the same conclusion. " The Christian portion of 
 the world," he says, p. 18, " will conclude, on reading my speech, that 
 I adopt no erroneous conviction when I say, that had David Maginnis 
 been appointed* Clerk of the Remonstrant Synod, in the year 1846, we 
 should have had no mischievous disputes concerning a Code of Discipline 
 in this present year of grace." I feel assured that the really " Christian 
 portion of the world" will be about the last to entertain or sanction any 
 such charge. A truly Christian mind is not disposed to attribute a low 
 motive, while it is possible to attribute a higher one ; and all the less so, 
 when the accuser prefers weighty charges with a recklessness and 
 acerbity ill according with a Christian spirit. 
 
 Before parting from this strange " note," I have to remind the reader 
 that it formed no part of the Doctor's " speech," but is an addition to it, 
 written after the speech was delivered. The accusations were not made 
 in the heat of angry public discussion ; but were deliberately and carefully 
 drawn up and prepared for the press, in the private study. I will not 
 trust myself to characterize the Doctor's motive in preferring these 
 charges ; but the reader will bear in mind that I have proved that the 
 note abounds in palpable misstatements, and that its gravest charge is a 
 pure fiction. And I leave the Doctor to account, if he can, to the 
 " Christian portion of the world," for having coolly and deliberately 
 penned an article so false in its facts, so fallacious in its reasoning, and 
 so vindictive and unchristian in its spirit. 
 
 In prosecuting the line of argument which characterizes the remark- 
 able note I have just reviewed, the Doctor, in his postscript, takes upon 
 him to discuss the private relations subsisting between myself and brethren 
 in the ministry, and evidently rejoices in believing, at least in stating, 
 that they treaf me with much coldness, and worse. In proof of the ex- 
 istence of this unhappy relationship, he adduces two circumstances :— the 
 refusal on the part of some ministers to give me letters, introductory or 
 commendatory, when I was going to England, some five years ago, 
 to collect funds towards re-building the Meeting-House of my Congre- 
 gation ; and the alleged fact that I am not on good terms with neigh- 
 bouring ministers of the Presbytery of Antrim. On each of these, how- 
 ever painful to myself, I must say a few words ;— and will then leave it 
 to the reader to form his own estimate of these fresh evidences of the 
 Doctor's generosity and magnanimity. 
 
 Touching the former, I have to inform the reader that the appeal ot 
 my Congregation was more extensively supported by ministers of our 
 Body than any similar appeal ever made to the Unitarian public of these 
 kingdoms. The Presbytery with which my Congregation is connected, 
 unanimoushj and warmly recommended its claims to the generous support 
 of the Body, generally. The Presbytery of Antrim then contained some 
 
 * It is here implied— asserted, in fact,— that for the smaU consideration of 
 £138 9s. 3d. (being the amount of the Clerk's salary for three years,) I might be 
 bought ' I do not affect to despise monev : but if I know myself, I am not ava- 
 ricious, and I would despise and loathe myself, if I thought I should ever become 
 so degraded as to be guilty of unmanly or dishonoiirable conduct for the sake ot 
 gain. No, Doctor, 7ny conscience never was in the market. Though I am a poor 
 man, I can afford to keep a conscience. 
 
39 
 
 twelve ministers, and the Remonstrant Synod tircnty-cight : of the former 
 seven, and of the latter, twenty-one, strongly recommended om* case,— a 
 number, as I have observed, large beyond precedent in the Body. It is 
 true that certain ministers withheld their names, as they had a right to 
 do, and as they had done in other instances I could mention. It is true 
 that Dr. Montgomery was asked— he calls it "importuned"— to add his 
 name to the long list ; and that he refused. I went to England, however, 
 and received more generous support than had ever before been given to 
 any minister from Ireland on a similar mission. I shall never cease to 
 feel deeply grateful for the kindness and liberality manifested towards me 
 by the Unitarians of England, on that occasion. 
 
 The state of feeling between neighbouring ministers of the Presbytery 
 of Antrim and myself, the Doctor entirely misstates. That Presbytery I 
 have "fulsomely eulogized," "flattered," "belauded," "fawned" upon; 
 and, in return, I have been treated with neglect, if not with contempt, by its 
 members. If to entertain respect for, and gratitude to, the Presbytery of 
 Antrim, and to give expression to my feelings, be " flattery," &c., I confess 
 that I must plead guilty to the charge. On both public and ])rivate 
 grounds, I cherish the most respectful and grateful feelings towards that 
 Body ; and those feelings I shall cherish and express, even though its mem- 
 bers should treat me with all the contempt the Doctor would have his 
 readers believe they do. I beg, however, to assure Dr. Montgomery, that 
 the members of that Body and I are not on such bad terms as he affects 
 to believe. At present, I am sorry to say, there does exist a misunder- 
 at^ind in f/,— ami I believe, literally, no more than a misunderstanding, 
 between one member of that Presbytery and myself. And some six 
 or seven years ago, the Rev. John 'Porter and t measured our goose- 
 quill swords, and there was the usual flow of— ink, and high words ; but 
 all this has long since passed away ; and we now meet as friends. This 
 has been the extent of my quarrelling with brethren of the Presbytery of 
 Antrim. Possibly, the Doctor himself has had quite as many and as 
 serious quarrels with the members of that Body. 
 
 It is extremely painful to proceed with this part of my vindication ; 
 but, considering the provocation I have received, I am quite sure the in- 
 telligent reader will bear with me, while I continue, for a moment, a line 
 of observation, which, under other circumstances, would, I confess, be 
 very unseemly ; and, in some quarters, expose me to ungenerous criticism. 
 Then, I take leave to say, that there are some facts not quite reconcilable 
 with the Doctor's representation of the relations subsisting between my 
 ministerial brethren and myself. This fact, for example ; my supporters 
 in the Synod for the oflflce of Clerk have been steadily increasing,*— 
 being at the last election much more numerous than on any former oc- 
 casion. And this fact:— in 1852, the Synod unanimously elected me to 
 the highest and most honourable office in its power to confer, that of 
 Moderator. And this fact :— in 1856, the Synod unanimously passed a 
 vote of thanks to me for special services. And this fact : — when I was 
 absent from home on one occasion for the space of six months, during all 
 that time, my pastoral duties were discharged, and my pulpit supplied, by 
 my brethren in the ministry, without any expense whatever either to my 
 Congregation or to myself. Will the Doctor be good enough to reconcile 
 facts" of this kind with the allegation that my brethren in the ministry 
 
 * The next election for the office will take place in July of tlie current year,— 
 when I intend being again a Candidate. I have some reason to believe the 
 Doctor is already at his acknovrledged old work ;— Avith what success time will 
 tell. 
 
40 
 
 treat me with marked neglect and contempt ? If their dislike never 
 assumes a less agreeable form, may it long continue. Perhaps, a minister, 
 of whom the Doctor entertains a very favourable opinion, and on whom 
 he seems to think the world ought to wait, would have been very glad 
 of such a manifestation of dislike, on a recent occasion, when his pulpit 
 was left vacant for two successive Sundays. If there had been " a will" 
 to oblige that minister, Dr. Montgomery knows there was " a way" by 
 which his pulpit could have been supplied. 
 
 I dismiss this disagreeable subject, with one other remark, which the 
 Doctor will understand, viz., that, in no social relation common to us 
 both, from the most private and intimate to the most public, would I at all 
 fear the result of a contrast between Dr. Montgomery's position and my 
 
 The next point that comes up for notice is the Doctor's representation 
 of my religious opinions. Throughout the pamphlet generally, but par- 
 ticularly in the postscript, the impression the Doctor seeks to leave is 
 that I am an Intidel ; and, moreover, not a very honest one. The charge 
 of infidelity he founds, partlv on the authority of rumour, and partly on 
 his own inferences from my speech in Synod. As to the unreliableness 
 of rumour as evidence in a matter of this kind, I shall not say a word ; 
 nor do I feel any surprise that one who is known to have so ready an ear 
 as the Doctor has, for small gossip on our Church affairs, should have heard 
 a little respecting myself. Perhaps, if we encouraged tattlers, and were 
 known to have a penchanf for scandals relating to brethren, we could, 
 any of us, hear a great deal by no means to their advantage. Attach- 
 ing no importance, then, to fumour as evidence on this point, I proceed 
 to the inferences from my speech on which the Doctor professes to rely 
 most. I quote the passage in which he states this part of his case against 
 me : — 
 
 " The next effort of Mr. Maginnis was still more disastrous to himself ; for, 
 as he allowed us to peep through two little openings in the mask, we were en- 
 abled to see, distinctly, what some only suspected and others possibly believed — • 
 'I object,' said he, 'to the test affirming that the Scriptures contain a Divine 
 Iicvelation, on its own merits ; although he had no doubt they were an invalu- 
 able store of spiritual wealth.' Here was an inadvertent but direct attack 
 upon our recognised and boasted Creed — the Bible — to whose teachings we 
 always refer as ' the only infallible rule of faith and practice ; ' and on whose 
 Revelations, as Divine, we rest our present trust in God's paternal govern- 
 ment, and our everlasting hopes of his abounding mercy ! On this avowal, 
 which dispelled many doubts, it would be a waste of langaiage to enlarge- 
 especially, as it was promptly followed by another, before which it sinks into 
 comparative insig-nificance — ' I have been told,' said Mr. Magdnnis, ' that, if I 
 succeed in my motion, it might introduce Dtjidels into the Church. Well, in 
 God's name, even so!' When these astounding words were uttered, there 
 were not only loud cries of ' No ! no ! ! ' but honest Christian men looked in 
 amazement, first at the speaker, and then at one another. The work, how- 
 ever was done : he had clinched the nail which I drove : all doubt disappeared. 
 My arg-ument was, that his 'discipleship' test might introduce Deists or 
 Atheists into Christian ptdpits ; and this he not only admits as a jwssibiliti/, 
 but actually assumes it as a fact which might be accomplished, ' in God's 
 name ! ' I suspected as much : I feared that an infidel in any of our pulpits 
 would have no great ten-ors for him." — Pp. 81, 82. 
 
 Here again the Doctor is at his old work — misrepresentation. That the 
 reader may be convinced of this, I beg of him to turn back to that por- 
 
41 
 
 tion of my Speech (pp. 10, 11), in which I treat of the points to which 
 the Doctor here refers. 
 
 The first of these is my criticism of Key. J. Nixon Porter's proposed 
 Amendment, and of the Code's second question to Candidates for J' Ucense" 
 and " ordination," requiring an acknowledgment that the " Scriptures of 
 the Old and New Testament contain a divine revelation." The reader 
 who has referred to my Speech will find that I opposed this require- 
 ment on two grounds ; 1st, because it is superfluous ; and, 2ndly, because 
 it is calculated to mislead. It is superfluous, inasmuch as, if we are dis- 
 ciples of Christ, we must go to the Scriptures to learn of Christ; and it is 
 calculated to mislead, by appearing to aflirm a great deal more than it 
 actually aSirms. A cursory reading of the Code's requirement would 
 leave the impression that the Scriptures are aflirmed to be a divine re- 
 velation ; whereas they are only said to contain a divine revelation ; and, 
 therefore, the general opinion would be that the Scriptures were recognized 
 throughout as a divine revelation. To the initiated it would mean one 
 thing, to the uninitiated another. This was the purport of my remarks,— 
 which Dr. Montgomery, with his usual accuracy in this discussion, re- 
 presents as denying that th& Scriptures contain a divine revelation. Why, 
 the fact is, that instead of denying that they contain a divine revelation, I 
 aflirmed, in these explicit terms, " No doubt they do contain a divine 
 revelation.''^ 
 
 The other point in my Speech, on which the Doctor rests his allegation 
 of my infidelity, is that in which he reports me as expressing approval, 
 " in God's name," of the admission of infidel Ministers into our Church. 
 Here, again, there is a complete perversion of my reasoning. In my Dis- 
 course, I had shewn that the Creed-system had been productive of great 
 evils in subscribing Churches, and that it had failed, besides, to accomp- 
 lish the good desiderated. I had also shewn, as I believed, that the Re- 
 monstrant Synod, in adopting the Draft Code as it then stood, would be 
 virtually adopting that Creed- system, and, in some respects, in its most 
 objectionable form. In my Speech in March, I did not demonstrate anew 
 these propositions, but in relation to them and some other points, I stated, 
 "All that I have elsewhere said" (referring mainly to my Discourse), 
 " in support of these views, I shall, in order to save the time of the House, 
 consider as if now submitted ;" and then I proceeded to off'er such sup- 
 plementary observations as seemed necessary to explain my views more 
 clearly, and to meet objections. One of the objections I endeavoured 
 to meet was, that my scheme might let Infidels into the Church. This, I 
 observed, was the very argument employed by the majority in the old 
 Synod of Ulster against the views of the Remonstrants,— and that the 
 Rev. John Mitchel (characterized by Dr. Montgomery as " the strong- 
 headed and sweet- souled John Mitchel, of Newry, the Melancthon of our 
 Synod,") had replied to it in these terms :—'' I declare before God that 
 I tcoidd rather see in this Bodij ten ministers unsound in the faith than 
 one hypocrite:' After quoting Mr. Mitchel's words, I added ;— " And 
 here, to-day, I adopt the language of our Remonstrant Melancthon, 
 and, in God's name, say Even so." Mr. Mitchel, I need hardly ob- 
 serve, did not concede that his views of Church Government favoured 
 infidelity. On the contrary, he held that his scheme was far more likely 
 than that which he opposed, to secure a pure-minded, thoroughly -honest 
 and truth-loving ministry for the Christian Church. And, even if, in some 
 instances, it should let in, what no system of testing ever invented could 
 keep out, men whose views Avere not quite orthodox, this, Mr. Mitchel 
 argued, would be a far less evil than to adopt a system which had always 
 
 F 
 
42 
 
 tended to produce hypocrisy and countless other evils in every Church 
 that had ever tried it. And such, exactly, was my argument. In view 
 of the great evils resulting from the imposition of Creeds by Churches, and 
 from investing clerical corporations with authority over the conscience, I 
 argued for the largest freedom for our Synod compatible with the recogni- 
 tion of Christian principle, believing that such freedom would tend most 
 to promote the spiritual interests both of the individual and of the Church, 
 and that any occasional inconvenience resulting from its exercise would 
 be but a small disadvantage in comparison with its inestimable blessings, 
 and not to be thought of in comparison with the great evils that attach 
 to systems that " lord it over God's heritage." And, in this Hue of 
 argument. Dr. Montgomery finds evidence of my infidelity. Then, Mr. 
 Mitchel was an infidel : the Kemonstants, including the Doctor himself, 
 were infidels : all Non- Subscribers, the world over, are infidels ! 
 
 The foregoing remarks upon the Doctor's representation of my religious 
 opinions, clearly demonstrate that he has entirely perverted my advocacy 
 in order to be able, with some shew of plausibility, to call me an Infidel. 
 Having shewn this, I have done all that is needful to justify me in flinging 
 back the opprobrious* epithets with which the Doctor has thought fit, for 
 an obvious purpose, to stigmatize my religious opinions. My views I 
 have never concealed. As occasion required, I have stated them with 
 frankness in private ; I have fully and freely proclaimed them in public ; 
 and the same course I am resolved, with God's blessing, to pursue in the 
 future. But my whole soul revolts at the idea of " confessing" under any 
 compulsion. I do not acknowledge the authority of Dr. Montgomery to 
 demand of me in any form. What thinkest thou ? If he would have me bend 
 at his bidding, and for his satisfaction rehearse the articles of my belief, I re- 
 fuse ; and rebuke, with indignation, the would-be lord over God's heritage. 
 I acknowledge only one earthly tribunal, to which I am accountable for 
 my religious opinions — and that tribunal is my Congregation. Time was, 
 by the way, when the Doctor himself entertained the same opinion. In his 
 speech in Synod, at Strabane, in 1827, he declared, "I will account for 
 my views of it [the Bible] to no human tribunal but my Com/regation." 
 
 Time was, too, when the Doctor held it as no light offence to prefer 
 such charges as he himself now prefers, without compunction, against me. 
 Personally, I care little by what name I am called — infidel or atheist ; 
 but, for the sake of mine office, I do complain of the attempt to fix upon me 
 the stigma of an opprobrious name. But,— the attempt is only a continua- 
 tion of that melancholy chapter in the history of Churches, which exhibits 
 human nature in one of its most unpromising aspects, — the victim of yester- 
 day, victimizing to-day. It is melancholy to think that one who felt so 
 keenly the charge of infidelity, when preferred against himself, should 
 exhibit such desire, and adopt such means as I have described, to fix it 
 upon another. In the Discussion preceding the Separation, it was a 
 charge brought against the Remonstants, that they Avere " Infidels," — 
 that they desired to " undermine the foundations of the everlasting Gos- 
 pel," &c. Now, how did Dr. Montgomery characterize that charge ? 
 In his speech, at the " Presbyterian Meeting," already referred to, and 
 reported in Whig, of Oct. 23, 1828, a certain Mr. Montgomery spoke 
 
 * I had made a pretty extensiye collection of ^vhat I deemed rare flowers of 
 oratory, cuUed from the Doctor's pamphlet, with a view to present it as a nose- 
 gay to the reader,— but, on examination, I feel that it would be oppressive and 
 sickening, and I therefore withhold it. Besides, I find that such flowers could 
 be no curiosities to readers of the Doctor's polemical publications. 
 
43 
 
 of it as '•'' the most horrible charge, murder not excepted, WiicA. they 
 could bring against a minister of the Oospeiy If Dr. Montgomery could 
 discover anywliere tlie Mr. Montgomery wliom I have just quoted, I vrould 
 venture to recommend liim to cultivate his acquaintance, that he might 
 acquire a little of his spirit. Tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis ! 
 Connected with the charge of infidelity is another which the Doctor fre- 
 quently insinuates, and even asserts, viz : — dishonestg in the profession of 
 my real sentiments. I wear a mask, &c., &c. This, certainly, is not 
 very charitable, to say the least of it. Nor is it possible for me to prove 
 to others that it is false, — inasmuch as none but the Searcher of hearts 
 can really know whether I am a hypocrite or an honest man. The world, 
 however, can calculate probabilities ; and the world, I believe, will not 
 decide that a scheming hypocrite is likely to deliberately adopt and pursue 
 a course of action obviously opposed to his own worldly interests.* No ; 
 if I had been a little more calculating and pliant, I know that it would be 
 far otherwise with me to-day. But if I have lost favour and fortune, I 
 complain not, — having, what I prize infinitely more, the testimony of con - 
 science, that, whatever my short-comings in other respects, I have always 
 professed and proclaimed none other than my actual convictions. If I 
 have anything to regret in relation to the publication of my opinions, it is 
 that I have sometimes, perhaps, professed and proclaimed views before 
 they were sufliciently matured in my own mind. But that I have dis- 
 honestly concealed my real opinions, or professed opinions that I did not 
 entertain, is a charge which I can meet in no way but by declaring it to 
 be absolutely untrue. 
 
 Before closing my examination of the charges affecting my character, 
 there are at least two others which I must notice. 
 
 The first is that of Ingratitude. The Doctor seems to feel very sore on 
 this point. His beneficiaries, in general, he confesses, have not been grate- 
 ful, while those whom he has selected for special favour^ have been 
 specially unworthy. Contrary to my expectation, he dwelt largely on 
 this subject in his speech ; for, though I knew it was a favourite theme, 
 I believed that he had become more cautious in its treatment, in conse- 
 quence of certain penitential exercises through which he had, once upon a 
 time, been obliged to pass. As far, however, as his charge relates to my- 
 
 * Will the reader only think how Dr. Montgomery used to reason on this point. 
 In a speech, before the Unitarian Society, reported in Bible Christian, for 1843, 
 p. 391, the Doctor says; — " Our opponents, with their usual regard for decency, 
 are in the habit of denouncing us before the world, as ' atheists and infidels ;' 
 
 . . but were we unbelievers indeed, as they have foully misrepresented us to 
 be, we should like themselves, 6e standing in the ranks of popularity and profit." 
 And, again, in a Speech at General Meeting of Non-Subscribing Preshyterians, 
 in 1841 (p. 37), he says:— "If, from the spirit of the times, or the interests of 
 the world, unbelief should deem it prudent to assume the garb of religion, it Avill 
 not put on the simple robe of Arianism. It will go, as I have known it go, to 
 the popular and established Churches of the land. It will nestle on the high and 
 palmy jjlaces of ascendency or cant amongst the ignorant crowds of the conven- 
 ticle. But, assuredly, the unbeliever will not incur the odimn ofprofessing a creed 
 far more obnoxious to the evangelical than even infidelity itself. No, no. Fools 
 ice mag be — knaves and hypocrites ice are not. If we tvere, we shoidd be sailing, 
 like others, with the favouring breeze of popxdarity and interest." 
 
 t " Most of you are aware that I have been rather unfortunate in -mj proteges, 
 doubtless from want of judgment on my part." (P. 67.) Then, Doctor, why not 
 take the hint ? But if you 7nust have proteges, remember that pliant obsequious- 
 ness, however flattering to a patron, is but a poor material out of which to expect 
 a Man to be formed. 
 
44 
 
 self, the whole thing is simply ridiculous. The only favour, as far as I can 
 remember, for which I am indebted to Dr. Montgomery, is a little hospita- 
 lity. In my College days, it was the practice with several of the Pro- 
 fessors to invite the students of their respective classes, once a year, to 
 their houses ; and, in common with the other students, I enjoyed the 
 Doctor's hospitality, in this way, a few times while attending College, 
 and also once, possibly twice, after I became a minister. This has been 
 the extent of the personal favours he has conferred upon me. ^ He claims 
 credit for another favour, however. IS^early thirty years ago, a fund was 
 raised for the " Protection of the Ptights of Conscience ;" and the Doctor, . 
 it seems, rendered some assistance* in collecting subscriptions towards it. 
 The capital was invested, and the interest is applied mainly in assisting 
 weak Congregations to secure the Pegium Donum. My Congregation 
 receives from that fund an annual grant of £10 ; and, therefore, I am 
 under deep personal obligations to Dr. Montgomery. In reality / am 
 not the beneficiary, but my Congregation ; for, if the grant were with- 
 drawn, the Congregation would have to contribute £10 per annum, 
 additional, in order to retain the Regium Donum. This, then, being the 
 extent of the services the Doctor has rendered me, it will not be con- 
 sidered, I believe, that I am under such a weight of obligation to him 
 that I should be his to command — body and soul — for life ; and that, 
 for acting upon my own convictions, when they happen to differ from his, 
 I should be held up to the scorn of the world, as an ungrateful wretch. 
 It seems, in fact, that when Dr. Montgomery confers a favour, he expects 
 his beneficiary to be ever after a pliant slave. After the exhibition he 
 has made of his motives and expectations in rendering services, no man 
 of independent feeling could now accept of a favour from him. I 
 was loath to beheve, what I now find so many behoved all along, 
 that, in Dr. jMontgomery's motives, self-interest, in one form or another, 
 has always constituted an important ingredient. He may talk, in reply, 
 of his sacrifices for the Church. Dr. JMontgomery's sacrifices ! What 
 were they ? There are ministers who have made sacrifices for their prin- 
 ciples ; but the Doctor has always managed to make his sacrifices pay If 
 
 * The Doctor says it was he who raised this fimd. From the Bible Christian,^ 
 for 1830, p. 251, it appears that it was first proposed by John Alexander, Esq., of 
 l«Tewto\\ nlimayady, and Leonard Dobbin, Esq., of Armagh. And Dr. Mont- 
 gomery stated in Spiod, in 1831, {Bible Christian, vol. II., p. 430), that " of the 
 £1,800 that had been early subscribed, he believed that at least £1,500 had been 
 contributed by the Presbytery of Antrim ;"— and that an additional £1,000 had 
 been collected in Enghmd by a deputation of which the Doctor was but one,— 
 the other members of it being Revs. F. Blakely and John Mitchel. So that, after 
 all, but an infinitesimal share of our obligations for the £10 a-year may be due to 
 the Doctor,— if any gratitude could really be morally due, or rather any merit 
 attach, to the man who, in conferring favours, seeks to enslave his beneficiaries, 
 and blows so fearfully loud and long the trumpet of his beneficence. 
 
 t At present, his "sacrifices" bring him an income of £600 a-year. But he 
 boasts that, not long since, he abandoned a full £100 a-year for the good of the 
 body. Yes, he certainly did seem to relinquish Sir R. Feel's pension for " good 
 services" of £100 a-year ; but it was to receive, in exchange, £150 a-year as Profes- 
 sor of Pastoral Theology, Moral Philosophy, &c, ; and rumour tells its own tale 
 about that said £100 a-year ; and, if it tells truth, the Doctor clidnot lose the reward 
 of his "good services." Without doubt, the votes of the House of Commons 
 shew an increase of £100 a-year to his salary, as distributor of Regium Donum, — 
 the Doctor now receiving £230 a-year for filling some three dozen cheques once a 
 quarter. " Sacrifices" of this kind are not so very terrible things. Do I grudge 
 Dr. Montgomery his success ? By no means. But I detest this cant about 
 sacrifices, where, if the balance were accurately struck, the canter would be 
 found the gainer at evciy turn. 
 
45 
 
 The only remaining charge is, that I have represented the Doctor as 
 " a traitor" to the principles of his early life. In fact, he applies to him- 
 self, personally, what I said in my Speeches and Discourse, respecting the 
 objectionable provisions of the new Code. And this, assuredly, is very 
 unfair. My advocacy related to measures, not men. But if he will 
 have it otherwise, so be it. And, in reference to this subject, I have to 
 observe, at the outset, that his extreme sensitiveness on this point is very 
 suspicious ; and that the forcing himself into the place of a principle, is, 
 furthermore, a matter of very questionable taste. However, as he will 
 have us see Iwm elf rddhev than the Constitution of our Synod in this dis- 
 cussion, let himself be the theme. Within the last "thirty years has 
 the Doctor changed? If we ask the citizens of Belfast, or the landlords 
 of Down and Antrim, we shall be told that, whether his political prin- 
 ciples are changed or not, his relations to political parties are very much 
 changed. If we ask really liberal Roman Catholics, they will tell us 
 that, in his principles of toleration, the Dr. Montgomery of 1850 is not 
 the Mr. Montgomery of 1828-9. If we ask the representatives of Pres- 
 byterian Orthodoxy, the reply will be that, the Mr. Montgomery of 
 l'827-30 was the friend of unbelief, and that the Dr. Montgomery of 
 1857 is on the straight way to orthodoxy.* If we ask the Unitarian 
 Body, they will tell us that, though they admire his talents, and respect 
 him for past services, they have not the contidence in him they once had, 
 — that, in fact, they could wish, both for his own sake and theirs, 
 that the history of his public life had closed with the passing of 
 the Dissenters' Chapels Bill. And if we ask himself, we shall find 
 the utterances of Dr. Montgomery in the Eemonstrant Synod of 
 1857 very different from those of Mr. INIontgomery in the Synod of 
 Ulster in 1827, and later years.-f- It may be distasteful to the Doctor to 
 hear these things, and it may seem ungracious to repeat them, but I am 
 compelled to afford him a glimpse of himself as others see him. In rela- 
 tion, particularly, to the question that occasioned this controversy, viz. : — 
 the imposition of restrictions upon our guaranteed rights, I can assure 
 Dr. ]\Iontgomery that, for years, the opinion has been becoming more and 
 more general in our Body, that, with age, his views have been con- 
 tracting. He has told us, no doubt, that they are, in all essential points, 
 what they were thirty years ago. Well, we are bound to believe him ; 
 but I must add, that if his views in 1827-30 were what he now says they 
 were, we have been led, by reading his speeches of that period, to form k 
 very erroneous opinion of them. The fact is, however, that Dr. Mont- 
 gomery appears in the Remonstrant Synod in 1857, very much in the 
 same position that Dr. Cooke occupied in the Synod of Ulster in 1827. 
 The very charges that Dr. Cooke preferred against the Remonstrants, 
 Dr. Montgomery now prefers againt me ! 
 
 f The Banner of Ulster (Not. 6., 18o6), reviewing oiir proceecliugs in Synod, 
 rejoiced to see that Dr. Montgomery had " proposed to impose a test of ortho- 
 doxy;" and hoped that he would " not be deterred, by the ch^ivge oi inconsistency , 
 to which he is open, from following the new and better light which has begun to 
 dawn upon him." Members of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church are boasting 
 that the Doctor is returning to them. Statements like the following, taken in 
 connection M'ith manifest tendencies, afford some justification of the boasting : — 
 " If believing, then, in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as co-operating in the work 
 of human salvation, be Trinitarianism, I am, and always have been, a Trini- 
 tarian."— P. 60. 
 
 t That the reader may see what the Doctor used to say on matters that have 
 been often noticed in this controversy, I present, in an Appendix, some extracts 
 from his old Speeches, &c. 
 
46 
 
 111 his postscript the Doctor parades the names * of the ministers and 
 eklers who supported my Amendment ; and evidently exults in the fact 
 that the minority was so small, f In a cause that I feel to be so just, 
 however I may regret the want of support, I have no reason to be ashamed 
 of being one of a small minority. And Dr. Montgomery, one would think, 
 ought to be among the last to make such a position a matter of reproach. 
 From the Minutes of the General Synod, of 1827, 1 find that on the division 
 on the great debate at Strabane, which led to the formation of the Remon- 
 strant Synod, the numbers were 135 against 2,-8 ministers having de- 
 clined to vote, and 4 having withdrawn before the roll was called. And 
 the protest against the vote of the majority was signed only by 10 minis- 
 ters and 5 elders. At that time, the Synod of Ulster contained 211 
 ministers; and but 2 voted, and 10 protested with Dr. Montgomery. 
 The Remonstrant Synod contains some 30 ministers, and, of these, 4 voted, 
 and 6 protested. | Relatively, then, our minority was very much larger 
 
 * "Why does Dr. Montgomery not give the list correctly ? He represents the 
 Rev. John M'Caw as voting for the Amendment, Avhereas he voted against it. 
 And the Rev. Wm. Hall voted/or the Amendment, and yet his name is entirely 
 omitted from the Doctor's Hst. One of the elders is described as " the elder of 
 Mr. Maginnis." There was no such person in the Synod. 
 
 t And he Avonld have the reader believe, that some, who voted in the minority, 
 now regret having done so. He believes that his " excellent old friend Robert 
 Rowan," for example, Avould not vote against him to-day. Mr. Rowan writes to 
 me, expressing his surprise that the Doctor should make any such statement. 
 Mr. Miller,— "my thoroughly honest friend, John Miller, of Comber,^ ^ —the 
 Doctor would fain reckon among his supporters. But, to the Doctor's " own 
 provisions in the Draft Code— those relating to the Holy Ghost, and the written 
 creed of candidates for ordination— Mr. Miller was, and is still, as strenuously op- 
 posed as myself. The Doctor also tries to turn to his own advantage the tact ol 
 the Rev. F. Blakely\s not voting with the minority,— Mr. Blakely s ill-health 
 having prevented him from remaining to the close of a very protracted debate. 
 "My worthy old friend Fletcher Blakely, who had been assailed on his weak 
 point, by dexterous flatteries, in the hope of securing an honourable leader tor 
 the malcontents, was too conscientious to stand up in opposition to his own ter- 
 mer acts and friends, when he saw the true bearings ol the question. (F. I'd-) 
 No Doctor,— your great effort failed to carry the consistent old man along with 
 you. He will not give up his first love. Mr. Blakely was anxious to join m the 
 protest; but it was believed that his doing so would be informal, because he was 
 not present at the division ; and, therefore, his name was not received. He has 
 addressed the following note to me for publication : — 
 
 " Moneyrea, Dec. 3, 1857- 
 
 " Dear Sir,— In reply to your letter, I have simply to say that I was ^"able, 
 from ill-health, to remain to vote on the Test Question discussed at the March 
 meeting of Synod. Had I, however, remained, I tooidd not have voted with the 
 
 ^"T think it right to add that I tvas never asked, by any individual, to vote 
 either in one way or another.— Yours sincerely, 
 
 " Rev. D. Maginnis." " F. Blakely. 
 
 + The following is a copy of the Protest :— 
 
 " We the undersigned Ministers and Elders, protest against the resolution 
 adopted', this day, by a majority of Synod, prescribing certain questions to be put 
 to Candidates for License, for the following and other reasons :— .^ , ^- . ,1 
 
 " I. Because we consider the principle of testmg, involved m the catechetical 
 examination, opposed to the best interests of religious truth and freedom ot 
 
 ^'^u'll^'^Because, judging from the history of other Churches, we regard this testing 
 as but the beginning of a system which will lead to greater encroachments. 
 
 " III. Because we consider the plan adopted opposed to the spirit of the 1 un- 
 damental Principles of this Synod, and savouring of the spirit of the old ecclesias- 
 tical tyranny, against which the Synod itself is a protest. 
 
47 
 
 than Dr. Montgomery's in 1827. To protest with him, he had not one- 
 twentieth of the Synod ; we had one-fifth. All the circmnst^ices con- 
 sidered, our minority was enormously large. If the reader could only 
 form any adequate conception of the Doctor's performance on the occasion, 
 he would really be greatly surprised that so many had the courage to vote 
 with me. Throughout, his speech was a series of appeals to almost every 
 passion of human nature. The question in debate he narrowed down 
 from a great principle into a petty personality. My advocacy and even 
 my Amendment he absolutely perverted. I myself was everything that 
 is bad, — mean, revengeful, hypocritical, — a knave, an infidel. The Amend- 
 ment was not what it professed : it was full of mischief and malignity, 
 and levelled, really, at the Doctor himself. And then the remarkably 
 skilful appeal to the prejudices and sympathies of the House. Some 
 he flattered by direct appeals ; some he tried to win through old memories 
 which he sought to awaken ; some he magnanimously reminded of what 
 he had done for them. He frowned and he smiled, he denounced and he 
 eulogized, he threatened and he flattered. Would the Synod allow him 
 to be put down ! If they did, it would be to their shame and disgrace ! 
 If they passed my Amendment, he would never enter their assembly 
 again ! He commenced in tears, which had a most desirable eftect, and 
 he ended with a piteous lament. To see the old man * crying, like a big 
 baby, and to hear him begging a favour for pity's sake, was enough to 
 melt the hardest heart, and draw down universal indignation upon the 
 object of the Doctor's disapprobation. Why, I wonder that even six were 
 found to vote for my Amendment ; and am almost surprised at myself 
 that, forgetting entirely the question really at issue, I was not carried 
 away by the torrent. But the reader will ask, what had all this exhibition 
 to do with the question ? Nothing under the sun. It was well ma- 
 naged, however ; and it accomplished its object, — it got the Doctor a 
 majority. 
 
 But, let it not be inferred that, though the Doctor managed, by the 
 means described, to secure the rejection of my Amendment, he was able 
 
 '^ IV. Because nothiug in the experience of the Synod justifies the adoption of 
 such testing. 
 
 Ministers. Elders. 
 
 *' D. Maginnis. " Robert RowA>r, 
 
 John M'Caw. Elder for Ballymoney. 
 
 John Jellie. Robt. M'Millan, 
 
 Robert Hall. Elder for Belfast. 
 
 William Hall. 
 " In addition to the foregoing reasons, we protest, becavise, the second question 
 alone being retained, all the others are superfluous ; and, being superfluous, they 
 can do no good, but may be made a precedent for much future evil. 
 
 " J. N. Porter. '< "Wm. Gordon, Elder for Ravara. 
 
 " Dated at Belfast, this 3d day of March, 1857." 
 
 * The Doctor complains that at his great age he should be compelled to under- 
 take a defence of himself. Age is venerable, no doubt ; but if it be found on the 
 side of illiberality and wrong the more culpable is it, and the severer should be 
 its punishment. I quite agree with the Doctor, when he said, in vindication of 
 himself for having handled rather severely the late Dr. Hanua, then (1841) a very 
 old man — " There is but one age, i.e., dotage, which ought to screen a man from 
 responsibility for his acts. All age short of this only aggravates his offences, — for 
 age, which brings experience, ought also to cool the passions, to temper the judg- 
 ment, and to increase the forbearance of man to man. Those, therefore, who 
 speak of Dr. Hanna's ' age and venerableness' only add to his reproach ; for what 
 would he venial at seventeen is unpardonable at seventy.'^ — Speech in Institution 
 — Appendix, p. 44. 
 
48 
 
 to prevail upon the Synod to sanction his measures. His proposal to 
 exclude from " sitting" in the Synod, the members of the Presbytery of 
 Antrim and of the Synod of Munster, vtas rejected, on my motion, by an 
 overwhelming majority, — the Doctor and one other constituting the 
 minority. In his proposal to make his declaration of belief in the Holy 
 Ghost a condition of obtaining " license" and "ordination," he was all 
 alone in his glory — unsupported by even a single person, minister or 
 elder ! Feeling his position, he deemed it expedient to offer no opposition 
 to the substitution of "affirmative" for "satisfactory" in relation to the 
 answers of Candidates respecting their belief in certain doctrines. And 
 on that which, after all, was his main point, — and but for which I have 
 reason to believe we should never have heard of a new Code, — the 
 requiring from young ministers, j)rior to ordination, a written statement 
 of religious opinions, to be carefully preserved, with a view of its being 
 brought up against them if they should ever change an opinion it con- 
 tained, — he was in a minority still smaller than mine. Though, I should 
 say, nearly every member of the House expressed his views on the subject, 
 but one young minister and two elders supported the Doctor. The fact 
 is, the Doctor was regularly defeated on each and all of his favourite 
 points, — save and except the single one of the Amendment ; — and of his 
 victor}' in that instance, considering the means by which it was achieved, 
 I wish him much joy. 
 
 I have now done. The writing of this pamphlet has been to me ex- 
 tremely painful, on both personal and public grounds. The present con- 
 troversy cannot fail to be injurious to our Church. It is a sad sight to 
 see so small a Church engaged in internecine warfare. The intelligent 
 reader will perceive that the blame rests not with me, but with Dr. Mont- 
 gomery, who,=^ instead of discussing the important question really at issue, 
 like a gentleman and a Christian, assailed me with every species of contro- 
 versial weapon, save fair argument. Necessity was laid upon me to 
 reply. In doing so, I could wish that I had been always able to preserve 
 that thorough self-command and calmness, which I had from the first de- 
 termined to maintain. But, reader, if, either from experience or from an 
 exercise of imagination, you can in any degree realize the feelings of one 
 in the position I occupy, — my words and acts misconstrued, my motives 
 misrepresented, my honesty denied, my character unscrupulously assailed, 
 all personal to me that I hold most dear wantonly and savagely attacked, 
 I am quite sure you will judge leniently of any little severities which I 
 may have used in self-defence. If, in warding off the blow that was 
 evidentlv meant to destroy my character, I have turned the weapons of 
 my assailant against himself, I feel assured you will deem it a very 
 pardonable offence, in consideration of the provocation I received. 
 
 * What finally determined the Doctor to publish his pamphlet, he says, was 
 the appearance of The Non- Subscriber. That our harmless little sheet should 
 alarm the Doctor, is somewhat significant. It is said there are those who " fiee 
 when no man pursueth." I can assure Dr. Montgomery that, in projecting the 
 little journal, I never once thought of him.] 
 
APPENDIX, 
 
 CONTAINING BRIEF EXTRACTS FROM FORMER SPEECHES, &c. 
 OF DR. MONTGO^IERY. 
 
 "tests" TJXPROTESTANT, UNCHRISTIAN". 
 
 " It is vain to tell me, that ' this is only a declaration of opinion, not a test 
 of belief.' It is a distinction without a difference ; for whatever a man declares 
 at the bidding of his fellow-man, he virtually subscribes. Now, I do say, 
 without fear of rational or scriptm-al contradiction, that any body of fallible 
 men, who demand assent or subscription to any declaration or test of faith, in 
 human language, imder the fear of any penalty, or the hope of any reward, 
 are trenching, not merely upon the fundamental principle of Protestantism, 
 the right of private judgment, but also upon the sacred prerogative of the 
 Great Head of the Church." — Speech in Synod at Strabane, in 1827. 
 
 " Until some one had procured a patent of infallibility, he had as good a 
 right to maintain his opinions as others had to state theirs. . . These mea- 
 sures now proposed were calculated to lead to absolute Popery in the Presby- 
 terian Church." — Speech in Synod at Strabane, in 1827. 
 
 " I do aver that your whole overture is directly opposed to the first prin- 
 ciples of the Reformation — the right of free inquiry^, without penalty or priva- 
 tion. Should it be passed into a law not a single student can be educated, or 
 licensed to preach, without risk of injury, and submission to human authority 
 in matters of faith." — Speech in Synod at Cookstoivn^ in 1828. 
 
 " I put it to you, ' fathers and brethren,' is it honest, is it seemly, is it 
 Christian in you, to prescribe stricter terms of communion than those appointed 
 by the Spirit of God, or to put men to inconvenience for maintaining opinions 
 which would have gained them free admission into the Churches of the 
 Apostles." — Speech in Synod at Cookstown, in 1828. 
 
 DETESTS INTERFERENCE WITH CONSCIENCE. 
 
 " "When I witness such an attempt, I blush for the weakness or the wicked- 
 ness of man ; but I will neither be a partaker in the shame nor in the crime. 
 So truly do I detest all human interference in matters of conscience, and so awful 
 have been its effects in the world, that were you this moment to lay before 
 me a human creed, every word of xchich I believed, I woidd not subscribe it, lest 
 I should thereby sanction the interference of man with the sole prerogative of 
 the Redeemer. Indeed, what are all such attempts but a manifestation of the 
 impious vanity of man," &c. — Speech in Synod at Strabane, in 1827. 
 
 EVILS OF THE TESTING SYSTEM. 
 
 " Why are Christians of the same communion arrayed against each other .^ 
 Why } Because men presumptuously interfere with the conscientious belief 
 of their brethren, and spend that time in forming plans of annoyance which 
 ought to be dedicated to offices of peace ! I do appeal to my brethren whether 
 these be times in which any Church, and especially any Presbyterian Church, 
 should occupy itself in devising schemes for the curtailment of Christian 
 liberty ? . . Is it at such a time, that we should retrograde, and surrender 
 the fundamental principles of our Church } If we do, a death-wound will be 
 inflicted upon Presbyterianism ; division wiH follow usurpation; weakness 
 will succeed division ; and though individuals may chiefly suffer in the begin- 
 ning, the Church must suffer in the end." — Sp)eech in Synod at Cookstown, in 
 1828. 
 
50 
 
 " How is real uniformity to be produced ? Not, sir, by loading the mind 
 witb trammels, or teaching it to writhe under the weight of the shackle, but 
 by gi"VTng full play to its powers, by leaving it fair and free discussion. . . 
 If either penalty or reward be attached to the holding of a particular creed, 
 then must truth and pure religion be injured. Such a mode of coercion may 
 alter our profession, — does it alter our belief .►* Why seek to constrain the 
 opinions of men ? It but adds one crime to another, and aggravates moral 
 guilt by creating religious hypocrisy." — Speech in London, Whig, Jan. 15, 1829. 
 
 " You may make h}T)ocrites of the weak, and the crafty, and the worldly ; 
 you may make martyrs of the finn, the upright, and the siacere, but every 
 child who hears me must know that you cannot change the conviction of a 
 single mind, or alter the feeling of a single heart." — Speech in Synod at Stra- 
 bane, in 1827. 
 
 " Another of the external obstacles to the advancement of our opinions is 
 found in the creeds, the authority, and the emoluments of Churches. .^ . 
 Human wickedness never devised a more ingenious plan for the subversion 
 of truth, and the ensnaring of souls. . . It is a melancholy sight to see the 
 slave of man in the pulpit of Christ — ^that place, which, above all other 
 places upon earth, ought to have its dignity sustained by men of high minds 
 and elevated purposes — with no fear in their breasts but the filial fear of offend- 
 ing God by faibng in duty towards his children. . . It is humbling and dis- 
 tressing to reflect how systematically and perseveringly the power of Churches 
 has been exerted to prevent religious inquiry, to undermine Christian integ- 
 rity, and by the unhaUowed influence of earthly powers, emoluments, and 
 penalties, to alienate men from the direct service of their God." — Sermon^ — 
 " We Persuade Men" 
 
 CREEDS DO NOT SECURE ITNIFORMITY OF FAITH. 
 
 "We do differ, and we know that we shall continue to differ, but we will 
 hold out false colours to the world, we wiU cast dust into the eyes of the mul- 
 titude, and try to make them believe that 'there is peace when there is no 
 peace.' This may seem very fair in the eyes of some, but to me it appears to 
 be rank Jesuitism and hypocrisy. . . Uniformity of faith ! Oh, that such 
 a phrase had never been heard by the ears of man, — ^that such a vain idea had 
 never flitted across his imagination ! What dungeons has it crowded 1 _What 
 tortures has it inflicted," &c. " Were uniformity of faith, however, desirable, 
 (which, to me, seems exceedingly doubtful,) I am persuaded that creeds, and 
 confessions, and other ' devices of men,' are not the means adapted to produce it .'" 
 — Speech in Synod at Strahane, in 1827. 
 
 CHURCH AUTHORITY AND HONESTY. 
 
 " There may be persons who admire this mode [subscription to a creed] of 
 producing a uniform and Orthodox faith ; but to me, it seems awful to think 
 that a man should be excluded from the ministry, or any other ofiice, for 
 avowing the truth, who would be considered duly qualified for admission, by 
 putting his solemn signature to a Yi^rSpeech in Synod at Strahane, in 1827. 
 
 " We are not charging him [the Eev. W. Porter, whose re-election as clerk 
 had been opposed on the gTOund of his being a Unitarian] with any derelic- 
 tion of duty as our clerk, but we are about to punish him for having, when 
 on his oath before a Parliamentary commission, honestly confessed what he 
 believed to be the truth. AVe are about to injure a man for his honesty. Oh, 
 fathers and brethren, is this the conduct of the foUowers of Chnst .= Pause 
 before you so commit yourselves as preachers of Christian mercy and peace 
 among men." — Speech in Synod at Strahane, in 1827. 
 
 " IMr. Cooke, and others, have been pleased to denominate those who differ 
 from them, ' wolves in sheep's clothing.' This impUes, that we have assumed 
 a false character. So far as I am concerned, I treat the insmuation with 
 contempt." — Speech in Synod at Strahane, in 1827. 
 
 PRESBYTERIES HAVE NO RIGHT TO INTERFERE WITH MNISTERS' OPINIONS.^ 
 
 " —The propriety of ministers of the Gospel avowing, openly, their real senti- 
 ments on reHgious subjects. In this principle he [the Kev. Wm. Porter] heartily- 
 concurred, provided the avowal was required by the parties who had a right 
 
51 
 
 to demand it, — and such parties, lie irresistibly contended, were tlie Congre- 
 gations of ministers alone, and not Presbyteries or Synod, to whom they 
 owed no allegiance. He tben shewed that submission to such unauthorized 
 claims upon the part of Churches, had produced all the corruptions that have 
 dishonoured the Christian name, and all the havoc of conscience which is still 
 going on in creed-boimd Churches." — OiUUnes^ ^-c, Unitarian Magazine^ vol. 
 II., p. 387. 
 
 THE RIGHTS OF PRESBYTERIANS. 
 
 At the first meeting of the Remonstrant Presbytery of Bangor, the Rev. H. 
 IMontgomery moved the following resolution, which was adopted : — " That 
 the people under our care shall have their inalienable 2)rivileges amifixj secured to 
 them in the free choice of their Ministers according to their owx views of 
 Christian truth." — Bible Christian, for 1830, p. 39. 
 
 " Ererj^ man has a right to maintain and support whatever opinions he may 
 conscientiously hold. We will not bind any man down to this or that creed, 
 if he acts in accordance to the Divine Word of Tv\ii\i.r —Speech at Neivry, 
 October 14, 1829. 
 
 " The proposed measures are eminently calculated to violate the rights of 
 the people. You tell them that the privilege of choosing their own pastors is 
 one of the gTeatest that men can enjoy ; but should your overture^ pass into a 
 law, this privilege will be only a name. Whatever may be their views of 
 Gospel truth, you will permit them to elect no pastor but one that has been 
 measured by the standard of faith erected by your committee." — Speech in 
 Synod at Cookstown, in 1828. 
 
 IS CHARGED WITH UNDERMINING THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 " We have made a wily attempt to undermine the fundamental truths of the 
 everlasting Gospel imder colour of a regard for the true principles of Protes- 
 tantism I Yes, sir, all these atrocious accusations, which are as foul as they 
 are false, have been preferred by men called ministers of the Gospel against 
 their brother ministers of the same Chui'ch, &c. . . I tell those who auda- 
 ciously and falsely accuse us of a wily attempt to undermine the foundations 
 of the everlasting Gospel {the most horrible charge, murder not excepted, which 
 they could bring against a minister of the Gospel), that they are themselves 
 much more justly chargeable with that ofience, inasmuch as they wouldabro- 
 gate the authority of the Head of the Chiu-ch, and place themselves in his 
 room. I shall conclude my remarks on this point by reminding our accusers 
 of a homely proverb and a scripture text, ' As you lead your lives, you judge 
 youi' neighbours,' and ' Charity thinketh no evil.' Oh, but they say, ' they 
 are sincere fiiends of Christian liberty !' I should much prefer deeds to words. 
 They are just as much friends to liberty as a driver of a gang of galley-slaves, 
 who might say to the wretched beings under his tyranny — ' I impose no restric- 
 tions upon you ; I exercise no control over your liberty ; you may freely go 
 to the full length of your chain.' So it is with our would-be clerical masters. 
 They are gxaciously pleased to permit us to think with them, to take their 
 meaning out of the Bible ; but if we dare to think for ourselves, or judge ot 
 what the Scriptures teach for ourselves, — then comes calumny, penalty, the 
 deprivation of our inalienable rights, and every species of insult and annoy- 
 ance. Yet the forgers of these vile fetters have the hardihood to say that 
 they are the sincere friends of Christian ]ihQvtjr— Speech at " Presbyterian 
 Whig, October 23, 1828. 
 
 IS CHARGED VnTVL UNBELIEF IN CHRISTIANITY, 
 
 " Dr. Edgar's allegation that INIr. Porter and myself are teachers of a system 
 confessedly twin-sister to Deism, is a calumny as reckless as any which even 
 he has ever uttered. . . I confess, sir, that in reading this atrocious libel, I 
 should be ashamed of myself if I did not feel deeply indignant. . .1, 
 therefore, hurl back this foul calumny upon its hardened author, telling him, 
 that, in every point, it is not merely without foundation, but directly opposed 
 to truth, . . This wretched man continues his libellous denunciations with 
 a perseverance of malice altogether unparalleled, and farther avers that IMi-. 
 
52 
 
 Porter and I are workmg sedulously to promote unbelief in all that distin- 
 guishes Christianity, &c. . . The heart really sickens iu contemplating a 
 malignity so deadly, and a violation of decency so enormous, cloaked under 
 the guise of zeal for religion. Talk of imputations upon character ! What 
 imputations could be more atrocious than chargiug two ministers of the Gospel, 
 before their own Congregations and the world, with sedulously working to 
 promote unbelief in all that distinguishes Christianity ? Is there a man, of 
 any party, in this Assembly, having a human heart in his bosom, who does 
 not, inwardly, cry ' Shame !' upon the unprovoked traducer ?" — Speech in 
 Academical Institution, in 1841, pp. 29, 30. 
 
 "It has been said that ' Arians hold that there is nothing essential in Chris- 
 tianity.' If this assertion has been made in ignorance, I pity the persons that 
 have used it ; if in wickedness, and with a deliberate purpose of misrepre- 
 sentation, I hope that I can forgive them." — Speech in Synod at CooJcstoivn, in 
 1828. 
 
 " In direct opposition to God's Word, and to their own knowledge, some of 
 our brethren have had the hardihood to brand us in a public journal with the 
 appellation of 'Anti- Christians, and men of sin.' I now call upon those mi- 
 nisters and that journal to retract the groundless calimmiy which they have 
 circulated against men, to say the least, as respectable and as Christian as 
 themselves !" — Speech in Synod at Cookstoivn, in 1828. 
 
 IS CHARGED W^TH DEISM AND ATHEISM. 
 
 " I come now to a very painful, but necessary part of my duty, namely, to 
 refute the calumnies uttered against our opinions by Mr. Elder and others in 
 this house, and which had been most industriously circulated in tlie world. 
 We have been directly charged with being ' no Christians.' We shall not 
 fling back the uncharitable denvmciation upon our accusers, though we might 
 remind them that ' if any man have not the spirit of Christ' (the spirit of 
 charity, of love) ' he is none of his.' . . The inconsistency and absirrdity 
 of another charge preferred against us, namely, that we are both Atheists and 
 Deists, at the same time, has been powerfully exposed by my friend, INIr. 
 Blakely. No man acquainted with the meaning of words, could seriously 
 bring forward such an accusation ; but the object being to inflame the multi- 
 tude, Atheists and Deists will produce as much mysterious horror as any other 
 terms which they don't xmderstand. It is melancholy, however, to think 
 that Christian ministers should submit to such acts ; for surely the cause of 
 truth cannot be promoted by deliberate misrepresentation ; neither is it lawful 
 to do evil that good may come. . . Such a shocking and unfounded impu- 
 tation only reflects disgrace upon its author." — Speech in Synod at Cookstown, 
 in 1828. 
 
 THE OBJECT OF CALLING HARD NAMES. 
 
 " The gentlest epithet applied to us has been that of heretics. I never ex- 
 pected to hear the word used in a Protestant assembly ; but its reiterated 
 application, on the present occasion, has taught me, that no mode of faith can 
 change the evil propensities of human nature, and that the hateful passions of 
 men are never so malignant as when they put on the sacred garb of religion. 
 Those, however, who have adopted this vulgar system of abuse, which only 
 reflects discredit upon themselves, and the cause which they espouse, have 
 not the merit of originality in the course which they pursue. The attaching 
 of odious names to opinions and persons marked out for persecution has al- 
 ways been the favourite plan of the exclusively righteous." — Speech in Synod 
 at Strabane, in 1827. 
 
 ALEX. MAYNE, PRINTER, HIGH-STREET, BELFAST. 
 
Princeton 
 
 Theological SeminarY Libraries 
 
 1 1012 01219 4116