A 
 SPEECH 
 
 Prepared for Delivery 
 
 BEFORE THE 
 
 SYNOD OF NORTH CAROLINA, 
 October, 1839, 
 
 OK THE REFERENCE TO THAT •TVO» 
 
 By the Presbytery of Fayetteville 
 
 OF THE CASE OF 
 
 THE REV. SIMEON COLTON. 
 
 BY THE REV. COLIN M'lVER, 
 
 A MEMBER OF THAT PRESBYTERY AND SYNOD. 
 
 GBERJUPs 
 PRINTOD BY WM. POTTE*. 
 
 Mt>ee««L. 
 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Of the following Speech, only some detached parts were delivered 
 before the Synod. Such parts as the author deemed most important 
 and necessary to the full elucidation of the subject herein discussed, 
 were unavoidably omitted in the delivery, in consequence of a decision, 
 of the Moderator of Synod, on a point of order, by which, all remarks 
 on Mr. Cotton's defence before the Presbytery, were declared to be 
 improper. Although the author considered this decision, as alike er- 
 roneous and unjust; yet, for various prudential reasons, he declined 
 making any appeal to the Synod; and submitted to the Moderator's 
 judgment, even under the serious disadvantage, of making, at the time, 
 a very meagre, and to himself at least, unsatisfactory representation of 
 the case. 
 
 With this simple statement, he sends his speech to the Press, from 
 a desire to make some of his brethren, who have heretofore had no op- 
 portunity of examining this interesting case, somewhat acquainted with 
 its merits. May the Divine blessing attend the effort. 
 

SPEECH, &c. 
 
 Moderator: 
 
 What I said, in reference to the subject now 
 under consideration, when this painful process was before the Presby- 
 tery, was chiefly founded on a few brief notes, which I hastily wrote, 
 at the Clerk's table, during the delivery of Mr. Colton's diffuse and 
 elaborate defence. Since that time, the defence I speak of has, after 
 having undergone its author's revision, and probably his best correc- 
 tions, passed through the press; and I have had, as it is to be pre- 
 sumed, that you, Sir, and the other brethren of this Synod have also 
 had, an opportunity of giving it a leisurely perusal; and 1 think it not in- 
 consistent with the character of my office, as an ambassador of Christ, 
 and the duty I owe to his church, to trouble you, and my brethren of 
 this Synod, with a few additional remarks, on so extraordinary a per- 
 formance. Extraordinary I esteem it, Sir, not from the tendency of 
 any thing that it contains, to inform the inquiring mind, or to enlight- 
 en the darkened or bewildered understanding, (for I find it entirely 
 destitute of every such quality,) but from the rare and conspicuous 
 combination it exhibits, of the distinguishing qualities of the author's 
 mind. — insomuch, that, had it been, like its predecessor, "sent out 
 anonymously," "that it might stand on its own merits," there would, 
 probably, be little or no difficulty in ascertaining its paternity. In this 
 sense, Sir, it has, certainly a just claim to the appellation of an extra- 
 ordinary performance. At all times, Moderator, but especially while 
 acting in the capacity of Judges, we are bound to be just to all. From 
 no one, whatever be his character or conduct, are we at liberty to with- 
 hold his just due. Even from one, whose conduct, I am constrained, 
 from an imperious sense of duty, to view with disapprobation, I never 
 will consent to withhold, that to which he has a lawful and equitable 
 claim. I frankly acknowledge, therefore, that, in my judgment, those 
 productions of The Rev. Simeon Colton's pen, which occupy so large 
 a portion of this pamphlet, are altogether inimitable. He has a style of 
 composition which is peculiar to himself; and if the man is any where 
 to be found, who is capable of being his successful imitator, I must 
 give him credit for a larger share of ingenuity, than is possessed by 
 any, with whom it has ever fallen to my lot to become acquainted. — 
 Yes, Sir: Those productions are, indeed, unique. Whoever carefully 
 analyzes them, will find them to be a singular compound, of glaring in- 
 
 
consistencies, gross perversions, fallacious reasonings, and other kin- 
 dred qualities. That, of whidh, at one time, the author professes his 
 utter abhorrence, and labours to hold up to the abhorrence of all his read 
 ers, at another time, he exemplifies, most conspicuously, in his own 
 conduct. There is scarcely any thing, against which, he labors to ex- 
 cite the indignation of his readers, with more vehement zeal, than dic- 
 tation; and yet, in the productions of his pen now under consideration, 
 we find a variety of specimens of the most arrogant dictation. So prom- 
 inent, indeed, does this characteristic feature appear, that I have heard 
 the remark made, once and again, by men of strong intellect and sound 
 judgment, that a stranger, to hear Mr. Colton's defence read, would 
 naturally suppose, — not that the Presbytery were trying him, but, that 
 he was trying the Presbytery. But, that I may detain you no longer 
 with introductory, or general remarks, I proceed to select, for more par- 
 ticular examination, a few specimens of these singular writings. 
 
 In the printed introduction to his "Defence and Pleadings,'' he tells 
 us, that his "defence was commenced by examining a few witnesses, 
 to shew, that the report of the committee made on the pamphlet at 
 Beth-car chureh, was acted upon, without proper examination.'' The 
 question, here, is. Did he succeed, in proving the fact which he here as- 
 serts? If he did, 1 readily grant, that his defence was, indeed, well 
 begun- But, Moderator, it must be borne in mind, that asserting is 
 one thing, and proving quite another. But, let us inquire into his 
 success, in this particular. The record of the testimony which he here 
 refers to, is printed on Page xi of the pamphlet; and I will take the li- 
 berty of submitting this testimony, together with his comments thereon, 
 to the judgment of this Reverend Synod. Here, Sir, is the testimony. 
 "The following interrogatories were addressed to Mr. McCallum, and 
 answered as follows: — 
 
 "Question." "Were you at Beth-car church, at the meeting of 
 Presbytery in April, sitting as a member?'' 
 
 "Answer." "Yes.' 
 
 '$.' "Did you hear a report of a committee read on the subject of a 
 Pamphlet called Presbuteros?" 
 
 *A.' "I did." 
 
 <$.' "Had you ever read the pamphlet called Presbuteros, previous 
 to that time?'' 
 
 '.#.' "1 had not." 
 
 "The same interrogatories were addressed to Mr. McDonald, and the 
 same answers were given.'' 
 
 On this testimony, Mr. Colton, in his defence, Page 28 of the Pam- 
 phlet, makes the following comments. " You have heard the testimony 
 of two of the members of that Presbytery, given here under oath. They 
 say first, that they voted for the acceptance of the report, and at the 
 same time say, that they never read, or saw the pamphlet, till after the 
 report was accepted. You have also the declaration of the very minister 
 who introduced the business before the Presbytery, that he had not read 
 
the pamphlet till he came to that piace. The space of time intervening 
 between the introduction and acceptance was short, too short for any 
 comparison, or examination of the subject. No comparison was made, 
 and very few could have known whether the references were correct or 
 not. What then shall be said, or thought of men thus giving a vote in 
 a solemn assembly, and professedly in the fear of God, when they did 
 not even know whether the charges they were approving were true or 
 false ? What shall we say of men, who give their vote to condemn a 
 book as false and slanderous, when they had never read a sentence in 
 that book, and could not testify, that a single condemned sentence was 
 there ? The whole proceeding is of such an extraordinary character 
 that it requires the greatest stretch of charity to believe that men acted 
 honestlv, who acted thus. First condemn a book as containg all sorts 
 of evil ; then single out an individual and call upon him to say whether 
 he is the author or not. And this too done by some, who till that time 
 did not even know that there was such a book in existence, and before 
 any had sufficient opportunity to examine and compare the extracts 
 with the original. Even ministers of the gospel, not only countenancing, 
 but directly joining in this short hand proscription, and condemnation, 
 without examination!!" See also P. 39. 
 
 "I cannot, however,'' sajs Mr. Colton, "dismiss this paper, without 
 offering a few remarks upon the manner in which it was got up. Its 
 history is worthy of notice. At the meeting of the Presbytery at 
 Bethcar church, a member, after making some remarks upon the general 
 character of the pamphlet, proposed that a committee should be appointed 
 to examine its contents and make a report at that meeting, and asked 
 that he might be allowed to nominate that committee. This request 
 was granted. The committee was appointed, and the person placed at 
 the head, in whose hand writing the report appeared. In a time far 
 too short to admit of being written at that place, the report was made, 
 thus proving beyond all question, that it had been previously prepared, 
 and got up for the occasion. The circumstances alluded to, also shew 
 that the business had been a matter of previous consultation and 
 arrangement. And judging from the whole complexion of the affair, it 
 is obvious there had somewhere been a caucus, that,' in this caucus, a 
 plan had been concocted, to bring up this pamphlet, pass censure upon 
 it, and endeavour to compel the author to come out and avow himself, 
 and thus cut him oft" from the Presbytery. That such a plan was con- 
 cocted, and known to the leaders of the party, is further proved, from 
 an intimation given in a piece published in the Fayetteville Observer a 
 little time previous to the Session of Presbytery over the signature of 
 *£. bona fide Presbyterian.' That piece is understood to have been 
 written by a person, who is in the secrets of the party. In that, the 
 author, after throwing out a torrent of invective against Presbuteros, 
 and hinting, who the author might be, remarked that he might have an 
 opportunity, at Hhe coming Presbytery, to make his declaration.' The 
 obvious import of the hint thus given is, that such arrangements were 
 
making as would compel the author to declare himself in opposition to 
 the Presbytery. The refusal, however, to answer the question relating 
 to authorship, if put, prevented any decisive action at that time, and 
 compelled the movers of the measure to undertake the proof by a 
 process of adjudication.'' 
 
 Such, Moderator, is the manner, in which Mr. Colton seems to have 
 persuaded himself, and if he could, would persuade the public, that we 
 acted, in this important matter, without due examination. That he 
 might have no ground to complain of injustice, or any pretence to talk 
 about "garbling,'' I have quoted all his comments on our act, respect- 
 ing the pamphlet of Presbuteros. Alas! Sir, How very criminally did 
 the brethren act, in presuming to hold a previous consultation, without 
 first consulting Mr. Colton! But who is there, Sir, in this Reverend 
 Synod, not blinded by prejudice, that cannot at once perceive, that all 
 this vituperative declamation is alike irrelevant and erroneous as well 
 
 as UTTERLY DESTITUTE OF THE SLIGHTEST CLAIMS TO SOLIDITY? It 
 
 is irrelevant, because even without inquiring whether the Presbytery, 
 at Bethcar, acted either on slight or solid ground, the positions on 
 which he here insists, even if he could clearly establish them, could 
 have no application whatever, to the proceedings of the Presbytery, at 
 Fayetteville, before whom, his defence was delivered. For, at that 
 meeting, and sometime before the delivery of his defence, the pamphlet 
 of Presbuteros, at full length, was read, in the hearing of all the Pres- 
 bytery, by the stated clerk, and in a voice so clear and distinct, that 
 it must have been sufficiently impressed on the mind of every person, dis- 
 posed to listen to it,with due attention. The declamation I here notice, is 
 also erroneous, because, it not only takes for granted what remains to 
 be proved, but asserts that, which has not, even the shadow of a foun- 
 dation for its support. Where, Sir, is the evidence, that there was any 
 one in the Presbytery, at Bethcar, "who, till that time, did not even 
 knovj that there was such a book in existence^ as the pamphlet of Pies 
 buteros ? I venture to say, Sir, that, if there be any evidence of this, 
 it is to be found, only in Mr. Colton's fertile imagination. True, there 
 were some of the members, who, till that time, had never read it, and 
 probably, had never seen it, — but all had heard much about it, and 
 about the mischief it was producing; and it was this fact, which crea- 
 ted the necessity for making that famous pamphlet, a subject of inquiry 
 and investigation. And, after all, Sir, what proof has he furnished, 
 "that the report of the committee made on the pamphlet at Bethcar 
 church, was acted upon," as he asserts "without proper examination?'' 
 Wonderful proof, indeed! He has proved, that, out of from 25 to SO 
 members who attended that memorable meeting, there were as many as 
 two, who voted for the acceptance of the report, without having read 
 the pamphlet! ! Does this prove, that there was a majority in Presbyte- 
 ry who had not read it? No one will pretend that it does; and if it does 
 not, with what face can he say, that the Presbytery acted, in this case, 
 without proper examination? He thinks, however, that he has accora- 
 
plished much, in the way of proving his position, when he 6ays, "You 
 nave also the declaration of the very minister who introduced the busi- 
 ness before the Presbytery, that he had not read the pamphlet tillhe came 
 to that place. v True, Moderator : — but, it spoils the triumph of this, 
 To be reminded of the fact, that that same minister, at the same time 
 declared, that he /tad read the pamphlet, and that carefully, so carefully 
 as to be pretty well satisfied of its paternity, before he introduced the 
 subject in Presbytery. But, Sir, aside from this entire failure of proof, 
 it is easy to perceive, that his irrelevant and erroneous strictures on 
 this transaction, are utterly destitute of the slightest claim to 
 solidity. To be convinced of this, it is only necessary to advert, for 
 a moment, to the palpable, and I must add, inexcusable ignorance, not 
 only of the usages prevailing in the Presbyterian church, but even of 
 the universal practice of all deliberative assemblies, civil or ecclesias- 
 tical, which his remarks on this topic so conspicuously betray. Of what 
 use or advantage is it, Sir, to appoint committees to examine documents, 
 and report on them, if no credit is to be given to their quotations, or 
 statements, or representations? And who does not know, that it is the 
 common practice, in secular bodies from the State Legislatures to Con- 
 gress, and in Ecclesiastical bodies, from our Sessions to our General 
 Assembly, to appoint committees for the examination of documents, to 
 act and vote on their reports, without thinking it necessary, previously 
 to read the documents reported on? Is it not possible, Sir, clearly to 
 ascertain the sentiments of an author, by due attention to an expression 
 of these sentiments, embraced in quotations, fairly made, from a book 
 which he has published, — without reading every word contained in 
 that book! The Rev. John Newton, of excellent memory, was once 
 urged to read a book, which, on glancing over a few pages of it, he had 
 discovered to be erroneous, but he declined reading it, and when the 
 question was proposed to him, how he could, with a good conscience, 
 pronounce it erroneous, without having previously read it, he made this 
 very sensible reply. "I know, beyond a doubt, that 2 and 2 are equal 
 to 4. And if the title page of alarge and unwieldy folio were to inform 
 me, that it was the author's design to prove, that 2 and 2 are equal to 7, 
 I should not consider myself under an obligation to submit to the irk- 
 some drudgery of reading 1000 folio pages, before I could warrantably 
 pronounce it an absurdity." Yet, according to Mr. Colton's views, 
 Mr. Newton was guilty of great injustice, in acting under the influence 
 of such reasoning. And so, also, according to Mr. Colton's ideas of jus- 
 tice and propriety, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church in 
 1810, must have greatly erred, when they condemned the doctrines of 
 the Rev. Wm. C. Davis's Gospel Plan, barely on the report of a 
 committee whom they had appointed to examine Mr. Davis's Book, 
 inasmuch as every member of that assembly had not read Mr. Davis's 
 large Octavo, from beginning to end. But will this Reverend Synod, 
 sanction such superficial reasoning? Sir, I trust not. Mr. Colton has, 
 in his defence, made many remarks, with a view of shewing the in.com- 
 2 
 
10 
 
 petency of the Presbytery to try him, merely because, of the two modes 
 pointed out in the constitution of our church, in which an offence may 
 be brought before a judicatory, the Presbysery have chosen to try him, 
 by common fame. But as most of these remarks, have been fully 
 answered in Presbytery, and especially by my worthy brother, the Rev. 
 Alex'r. M'lver, I do not think it necessary, at this time, to make them 
 a subject of much more animadversion. There is, however, one para- 
 graph which the accused has written, with the design, as I presume, of 
 illustrating this point, which I look upon as in itself so much of a curi- 
 osity, that I cannot resist the desire to make it the subject of a passing 
 notice. It is found on the 20th page of the pamphlet; and is thus ex- 
 pressed: ''Further: The existence of a trial implies a right of appeal 
 in case the judgment does not meet the approbation of the parties. In 
 the present case, the right of appeal can be exercised only on one side. 
 If the defendant wishes, he may appeal from the decision made in this 
 court. But to suppose the Presbytery can appeal from their own judg- 
 ment, is an absurdity; and to talk of Fama C/amosa, as appealing, is non- 
 sense. Had there been only an inquiry into the correctness of a rumor, 
 as ought to have been the case, there would have been no occasion for an 
 appeal on the side of the plaintiff, for all that could happen against that 
 side would be an acquittal of the defendant, for want of evidence.— 
 But, by instituting a charge and trial, is implied that the plaintiff may 
 be aggrieved by the decision as well as the defendant. In that condi- 
 tion, the present plaintiff can have no appeal." 
 
 On this paragraph, it is obvious to remark, that, in its general com- 
 plexion, it has much more the appearance of an objection urged, by some 
 cavilling enemy of Presbyterianism, to a particular provision in the con- 
 stitution of our church, than, to any thing which can properly belong 
 to the defence of a Minister of that church, under trial, complaining of 
 a violation of that constitution, in conducting the process against him. 
 As to the distinction which Mr. Colton makes, in this paragraph, and 
 elsewhere, between an inquiry and a process, it is a distinction, not 
 known to our Constitution. There is, by the Constitution of the Pres- 
 byterian church, no other method known, of inquiring into the truth of 
 any scandal or offence, but the institution of a Process. But, it seems, 
 somewhat singular, that a defendant should complain, that, in case of a 
 decision favour able to himself, there should, in consequence of the mode 
 of trial instituted, be, in his apprehension, no plaintiff, who may be at 
 liberty to appeal from that decision, to a superior court. Methinks, 
 Moderator, this is carrying disinterested benevolence to an extent far be- 
 yond what I should be led to expect, from the man who now stands 
 arraigned, at the bar of this Synod. But, as this seeming defect ap- 
 pears somewhat to distress him, I shall endeavour to afford him some 
 relief, by pointing out to him a constitutional provision, which seems to 
 have escaped his attention. It is, then, one, among the many excellen- 
 cies of the Constitution of the Presbyterian church, that it secures, to 
 every aggrieved individual, a judicial hearing. Even in such a case as 
 
11 
 
 the one now pending before this Synod, this redress is open to any and 
 every person, who may be disposed to seek it. Does Mr. Colton ask, 
 where it is to be found? Let him open our Book of Discipline, ch. VII. 
 S. IV. S, S. Ill and V.; and he will find it, in these words: "The 
 judgment of an inferior judicatory may b« favourable to the only party 
 who has been placed at their bar, or the judgment in question may do 
 no wrong to any individual, or the party who is aggrieved by it may 
 decline the trouble of conducting an appeal. In any of these cases, no 
 appeal is to be expected. And yet, the judgment may appear to some 
 of the members of the judicatory, to be contrary to the Constitution of 
 the church, injurious to the interests of religion, and calculated to de- 
 grade the character of those who have pronounced it. In this case, the 
 minority have not only a right to record, in the minutes of the judica- 
 tory, their dissent from this judgment, or their protest against it, but 
 they have also a right to complain to the superior judicatory. This 
 complaint brings the whole poceedings in the case, under the review 
 of the superior judicatory; and if the complaint appears to be well foun- 
 ded, it may have the effect, not only of drawing down censure upon 
 those who concurred in the judgment complained of; but also of rever- 
 sing that judgment, and placing matters in the same situation in which 
 they were, before the judgment was pronounced.'' You perceive, then, 
 Moderator, that, in regard to this matter, Mr. Colton has hitherto been 
 disquieting himself in vain. He may now, Sir, dismiss his grief on this 
 score, and take consolation from the fact, that, should a maj-ority of this 
 Synod acquit him of the charge and specifications, under which we are 
 now trying him, and should the minority consider the judgment, by 
 which such acquittal may be secured, "contrary to the Constitution of 
 the church, injurious to the interests of religion, and calculated to de- 
 grade the charactor of those who have pronounced it," such minority 
 will have a right to complain to the General Assembly, and that body 
 may reverse their judgment. 
 
 At the close of Page 20, Mr. Colton speaks of what he calls the "In- 
 dictment," as not being "well laid." Possibly, this may be true. It 
 fell to my painful lot, to prepare the instrument he thus designates; and 
 it becomes me to speak with diffidence, of my own performance; and, 
 as I was not bred a lawyer, it is possible, I may not have drawn it up, 
 with careful reference to all those technical formalities usuallv required 
 by civil courts; yet, I believe, that no very essential flaw can be found 
 in it; and if, in the discharge of the painful duty, to which, in the Prov- 
 idence of God, we are now called, we keep constantly before us, the 
 essential requisitions of the great code of laws, which we have adopted 
 to govern our faith and practice, I mean, the statutes of our Divine 
 Lawgiver, as recorded in the Bible, and reduced to a system in the 
 Standards of the Presbyterian church, — we need not be over solicitious, 
 if some small subordinate formalities should happen to be overlooked. 
 But,, let us inquire, for a moment, how Mr. Colton supports his asser- 
 tion, when he affirms, that "the indictment," as he calls it. is not well 
 
12 
 
 laid?" In the commencement of Page 21, he thus speaks of it. "It is 
 said to be founded on chap. XX. S. IV. of the Confession of Faith. 
 That article has reference to the publication of principles, which are so 
 marked in their character as to be subversive of Gospel purity and 
 truth. It relates to the publication of Infidel sentiments, and such no- 
 torious heresies as Antinomianism,Unitarianism, or Universalism; — not 
 to "opinions given upon controverted points, about discipline or church 
 politics.'' Let us now, Moderator, look at the language of the Con- 
 fession of Faith, in the article referred to, and see, how far we may 
 safely confide in Mr. Colton, as an Interpreter ot that book. " And 
 because the powers which God hath ordained, and the liberty which 
 Christ hath purchased, are not intended by God to destroy, but mutu- 
 ally to uphold and preserve one another; they who, upon pretence of 
 christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise 
 of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God. 
 And for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such prac- 
 tices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles 
 of Christianity, whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation; or 
 to the power of godliness; or sucli erroneous opinions and practices, as 
 either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing and maintain- 
 ing them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ 
 hath established in the church; they may lawfully be called to account 
 and proceeded against, by the censures of the church.'' This, Moder- 
 ator, is the passage, in our Confession of Faith, which, Mr. Colton would 
 persuade us, if he could, should be restricted in its application, to ' the 
 publication of Infidel sentiments, or such notorious heresies as Anti- 
 nomianism, Unitarianism, or Universalism.'*' But, Sir, let me ask, is 
 there a candid member of this Synod, who does not clearly perceive, 
 that it extends much further? Does any man inquire, what part of this 
 passage, is properly applicable to what Mr. Colton has published, in 
 the Letters of "Presbuteros?" Let him look at the concluding clause; 
 and he may read these words: — "such erroneous opinions and practices, 
 as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing and main- 
 taining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which 
 Christ hath established in his Church." Mr. Colton's interpretation of 
 this passage, however, is pretty much of a piece with his other interpre- 
 tations of some parts of our Book of Discipline. Somewhere about the 
 middle of Page 21 he says, "The Book of Discipline requires, that, in 
 all cases of charge, there should be frequent conferences with the ac- 
 cused, to endeavour to bring him to a sense of his guilt.'' Where, Moder- 
 ator, does our Book require this? Mr. Colton refers us to ch. V. S. XIV. 
 Let us look at it. "A minister under process for heresy, or schism, 
 should be treated with christian and brotherly tenderness. Frequent 
 conferences ought to be held with him, and proper admonitions admin- 
 istered. For some more dangerous errors, however, suspension may 
 become necessary." Is this, Sir, a requisition of "frequent confer- 
 ences" — "in all cases of charge?'' To me, this is by no means clear. 
 
13 
 
 But, perhaps, Mr. Colton will say, it is a requisition, in one case of 
 charge? and that he has a right to presume or infer front this, that it was 
 intended to extend to all cases, unless I can prove the contrary. Well, 
 Sir, altho' I do not think it altogether fair, thus to throw the onus pro - 
 bandi upon me, when there is nothing, either in the text or context that 
 can give the least countenance to the inference in question, I will even 
 assume the onus probandi in this case, and refer Mr. Colton to chapter 
 III. S. IV. "When any person is charged with a crime, not by an indi- 
 vidual, or individuals, coining forward as accusers, but by general ru- 
 mour, the previous steps prescribed by our Lord in case of private of- 
 fences, are not necessary; but the proper judicatory is bound to take 
 immediate cognizance of the affair." Although Mr. Colton ought to 
 have known, that this article of our Book of discipline clearly proves, 
 that the privilege of being conferred with, in cases of charge, was not 
 at all applicable to his case; yet, in his defence, he complains dolefully 
 of the neglect of it. In Page 49, he says, "None of those steps have 
 been taken, which christian kindness, the Gospel, and our standards 
 require. The end of discipline is the good of the offender, as well as 
 the purification of the church. For this reason, it is suitable, and the 
 gospel requires, that the accused be treated with the utmost kindness: 
 that frequent conferences be held with him, in order that he may be re- 
 claimed. How CAN MY BRETHREN EXCUSE THEMSELVES FOR THIS NEG- 
 LECT, in the present case, if the conduct for which I am censured, is 
 so censurable as is presumed? Will they say they supposed this would 
 be useless? How do they know that? Can any brother on this floor 
 say, he has ever found me unwilling to receive advice?"* But, Modera- 
 tor, although he has made this pathetic complaint to the Presbytery, I 
 presume, he will hardly thus complain, of the Presbytery, to this Synod. 
 It may, perhaps, be proper for me to state, in this connexion, that, al- 
 though I was, all along, clearly convinced' that he hail no right to the 
 privilege here claimed, yet, since the last meeting of the Presbytery, — 
 inasmuch as the process against him was still pending, and inasmuch as 
 he still professed to be accessible and open to conviction, I prevailed 
 upon myself, once and again, voluntarily to extend to him this claimed 
 privilege; and although 1 must do him the justice to say, that he receiv 
 ed me courteously, and seemed to take in good part, the frankness with 
 which I addressed him, 1 must, nevertheless, add, that, in relation to 
 the offence, for which he now stands, arraigned, at the bar of this Sy- 
 nod, I left him, at the close of each visit, just as incorrigible as the Pres- 
 bytery found him, when he stood at their bar. There is, Moderator, 
 one position, taken by Mr. Colton, on which he lays considerable stress; 
 and as he has, by urging it with much zeal, and vehemence, and per- 
 tinacity, made something of an impression on the minds of others, it 
 may, perhaps, deserve a more extended notice, than any to which I have 
 heretofore adverted. The position I here refer to is this: — that, by 
 our act, at Beth-car church, on the 19th of April last, we have prejudg- 
 ed the cause, the trial of which, we commenced in Fayetteville, on the 
 
14 
 
 10th of July last. You will perceive, Sir, that this position, is an infer- 
 ence, which Mr. Colton draws from the character of our act, at Beth- 
 car church; and the question now is, is that inference a just one? Does 
 it necessarily follow, from the fact, with which he would connect it? 
 What, Sir, was the amount of our act, at Beth-car church? We review- 
 ed and condemed, an anonymous pamphlet, — the production of an un- 
 knoivn author, and we told our churches, that, in our opinion, that pam- 
 phlet, contained allegations of a false and slanderous nature. Does it 
 follow from this, Sir, that we, at the same time, pronounced the Rev. 
 Simeon Colton, guilty of falsehood and slander ? You might, with 
 equal justice, infer, that we had pronounced the Rev. Thomas Chal- 
 mers, D. D. of Edinburgh, in the Kingdom of North Britain, guilty of 
 blasphemy. No, Sir, it does not, it cannot, necessarily follow. True, 
 Sir, after we had condemned the pamphlet, we adopted a minute, in 
 which we recognised the fact, that common fame attributed the author- 
 ship of it to him; and, for a very important reason which we stated in 
 that minute, we declared, that we considered it his duty to inform 
 us what the fact was, as to the truth or falsehood of the report: but 
 Moderator, neither does it follow, even from this fact, that we prejudg- 
 ed the cause which is now pending before the Synod. What, Sir! Be- 
 cause we recognise the existence of a report, which is operating to the 
 prejudice of a man's character, and ask that man whether the report 
 be true or false, does it follow, that, by the act of proposing this ques- 
 tion, we virtually pronounce the report to be true, or even believe it to 
 be true? No, Sir: The inference would not be just, even if this ques- 
 tion had been proposed, in the prosecution of a process, instituted against 
 him. What, then, perhaps, Mr. Colton will ask, is the true or just 
 inference, from the institution of a process, founded upon common fame? 
 I answer, the true inference is, that the accusation of common fame is, 
 in our judgment, doing much injury; and that, therefore, we have, from 
 a sense of duty, adopted the determination to prevent the prevail- 
 ing report if possible, from doing further mischief by ascertaining its 
 truth or falsehood, to the end that, if false, the falsehood should be ex- 
 posed, and if true, that the church might be purged from the scandal, 
 which it had created. That this reasoning is not fallacious, appears 
 very evident from the fact, that there have been repeated instances of 
 judicial processes, founded on rumour, which have resulted in the hon- 
 orable acquittal of the parties implicated, and in their restoration to 
 the full confidence and affection of their brethren. But, Sir, aside from 
 this reasoning, let us inquire, what, on this subject, is the present set- 
 tled doctrine of our church? We shall find it, Sir, embraced, in a Re- 
 solution of the General Assembly of 1835, in the following explicit, ab- 
 solute, and unequivocal terms. 
 
 "Resolved, That, in the judgment of this General Assembly, it is the 
 right, and may be the duty, of any judicatory of our church, to take up, 
 and if they see cause, to bear testimony against any printed publication 
 which may be circulating within its bounds, and which, in the judgment 
 
15 
 
 of that judicatory, may be adopted to inculcate injurious opinions : 
 And this whether the author be living or dead, — whether he be in the 
 communion of the church or not, — whether he may be a member of the 
 judicatory expressing the opinion, or of some other. A judicatory may 
 be solemnly called upon to warn the churches under its care, and espe- 
 cially the rising generation, against an erroneous book, while the author 
 may not be within their bounds, or immediately responsible, at their 
 bar; and while, even if he were thus responsible, and within their reach, 
 they might not think it necessary to arraign him as a heretic. To deny 
 our judicatories, as guardians of the churches, this right, would be to 
 deny them one of the most precious and powerful means of bearing tes- 
 timony against dangerous sentiments, and guarding the children of the 
 church against Hhat instruction which causeth to err.'' The writer of 
 such a book, may reside at a distance from the neighborhood in which 
 his work is circulating and supposed to be doing mischief, or he may be 
 so situated that, even if it be proper to commence process against him, 
 it may not be possible to commence, or, at any rate, to issue that pro- 
 cess within a number of months. In the mean while, if the right in 
 question be denied, this book may be scattering poison, without the 
 possibility of sending forth an effectual antidote. Indeed, it may be 
 indispensably necessary, in cases which may easily be imagined, to send 
 out such a warning, even though the author of the book were fully ac- 
 quitted from the charge of heresy." 
 
 These sentiments of the General Assembly of 1835, it is proper here 
 to remark were formally adopted, by the Presbytery of Fayetteville, as 
 their own sentiments, at their meeting, at Ashpole church, in the 
 Spring of 1836. By these sentiments, then, they were thus, if I may 
 so speak, under a double obligation to be governed, in their own pro- 
 ceedings; and it is easy to see, how strictly conformable to these views, 
 was the course which the Presbytery pursued, in the case, of which 
 Mr. Colton, has, in his defence, once and again, so heavily complain- 
 ed. And here, Sir, I cannot help adverting to a memorable fact, con- 
 nected with the Presbyterial adoption of the Assembly's resolution,just 
 quoted, which, in my opinion, deserves Mr. Colton's serious considera- 
 tion. Before I state the fact, however, I would premise, that, in his 
 defence, and elsewhere, he seems to discover no small ambition, and 
 anxiety to be considered as a man ot kindred spirit with our late belov- 
 ed Brother Douglass, the praise of whose eminent piety, including 
 meekness, modesty, humility, and other distinguishing christian graces 
 is, deservedly, in all the churches. With what justice he sets up a 
 claim to be so considered, is a question of too great delicacy, for me, at 
 this moment, to decide; and therefore, I will not undertake it; yet what 
 I am about to state, may, probably afford some illustration of the point. 
 The fact, to which I advert, is this. At the meeting of our Presbytery, 
 at Ash-pole church, in the Spring of 1836, a committee was appointed 
 to examine the printed minutes of the Assembly ot that year, and make 
 report of whatever might appear, properly to claim the attention of the 
 
16 
 
 Presbytery. It fell to my lot to be the chairman of that committee; 
 and it became, of course, my privilege to draw up the report. The As- 
 sembly had settled several important and interesting questions, in op- 
 position to those loose notions of Ecclesiastical policy, which had, for 
 some previous years, by some restless spirits, been urged, with perti- 
 nacious zeal upon the churches. Among the principles, which the As- 
 sembly had thus established, were these embodied in the resolution I 
 liave now quoted. While drawing up the report I was required to ex- 
 hibit, I had little or no hope of its adoption; for I felt constrained, by a 
 sense of duty, to recommend to Presbytery, the adoption of the princi- 
 ples established by the Assembly, inasmuch as I considered them sound 
 principles, and such as I believed to be required, by a regard to the 
 safety of the church. A majority of the Presbytery had, at the previ- 
 ous meeting, erroneously, in my judgment, rejected the "Act and Tes- 
 timony;" — a proceeding to which, Mr. Colton now refers, with exulta- 
 tion, (see his defence P. 46) as one in which he, and the beloved and 
 lamented brother spoken of, had acted unitedly; and with the recol- 
 lection of this fact, I had no very sanguine expectation of persuading the 
 Presbytery to adopt my views of the subjects, calling for their consid- 
 eration. I prepared the report, however, according to my own consci- 
 entious views of propriety and duty; and submitted it to the Presbytery. 
 After the report was read, and the Moderator had inquired, how it 
 should be disposed of, or what should be done with it, there was perfect 
 silence in Presbytery, for, I believe, something like two minutes. At 
 length, however, very contrary to my expectation at the time, Brother 
 Douglass arose, and, in that deliberate, impressive manner, which was 
 so characteristic of him, he said, "Moderator, I move you, that the re- 
 port which has been submitted, be adopted, without alteration. I make 
 this motion, Sir, — not because the principles therein proposed to be 
 established, are such as I, if I consulted my inclination alone, would 
 desire to adopt; — but, because I have a good reason to believe, that a 
 majority of the Ministers and Office bearers of the Presbyterian church 
 now desire, that we should, henceforth, be regulated by these princi- 
 ples; and I cheerfully acquiesce in their choice, rather than insist on my 
 own." The motion was seconded; and it was carried unanimously. 
 Mr. Colton was present at that meeting; but I am not certain that he 
 was present at this stage of business; for if I recollect aright, he was not 
 with us at the commencement of the meeting. I have been thus min- 
 ute and particular, in detailing the circumstances connected with this 
 fact, and I have called it a memorable fact, because, it has been dis- 
 tinctly and strongly impressed upon my memory, and I doubt not but 
 that many other brethren, who were present on the occasion to which I 
 now allude, will fully confirm my statement. I have said, Sir, that 
 this memorable fact, does, in my opinion, deserve Mr, Colton's serious 
 consideration; and I suppose, he will now fully understand, why I said 
 so. By this time, I presume every unprejudiced member of this Synod 
 will clearly perceive, that, had he been, what he so anxiously desires 
 
17 
 
 the Southern community to consider him, — a man of kindred spirit with 
 the late Rev. James Waller Douglass, he should not have been, this 
 day, before us, on trial. Mr Colton labours hard, to fasten upon us, 
 the blame of this trial; but, Sir, he himself, is the only one, to whom 
 this blame properly belongs. lam sure, that nothing was ever done 
 with greater reluctance, than the institution of this Process; — but it 
 could not have been avoided, unless the Presbytery could have consent- 
 ed to be unfaithful to the great Head of the church, by basely betraying 
 his interests. When we took up the subject of the anonymous pam- 
 phlet, at Beth-car church, much as we disapproved of Mr. Colton's 
 past waywardness of temper, we had no disposition to question his vera- 
 city; and therefore, when we adverted to the prevailing report, respect- 
 ing the authorship of it, and gave him to understand, that we thought it 
 to be his duty to inform us whether he was the author or not, — if he had 
 then denied the authorship, — notwithstanding the report was "accom- 
 panied with strong presumption of truth," we would have taken it for 
 granted, that common fame was mistaken; and we would have published 
 to the world, an authoritative contradiction of the allegation, and ex- 
 horted our people not to believe it, unless accompanied by undeniable 
 proof. We are glad, however, for his sake, that he did not expose us 
 to the temptation of doing this; as it now appears, from his own con- 
 fession that the report was well founded, and I only mention the state 
 of the case I have now given, founded on my knowledge of the princi- 
 ples on which we acted, for the purpose of shewing, how much mistaken 
 he was, as to the disposition of the brethren towards him. And again, 
 on the other hand, if when so fair an opportunity was given him, he had 
 frankly acknowledged the authorship, and had told us at the same time, 
 that he had propagated the sentiments contained in the pamphlet, with- 
 out being duly aware of their injurious tendency; and that he regretted 
 the error, and would not again repeat it, such a becoming course, on his 
 part, would have afforded us all necessary satisfaction; and neither he 
 nor we, should have had any further trouble: Or, even if he could not 
 conscientiously do this, — if he had, at that time, peaceably withdrawn, 
 he would, by so doing, have saved himself and his brethren, a large 
 amount of trouble, vexation, and heart-burning. So that, as far the origin 
 of this process is concerned, he cannot, with the least shadow of justice, 
 blame any one so much as his own restless, unhappy and infatuated self. 
 In Page 22, after having made various exceptions to the action of the 
 Presbytery, some of which 1 have already noticed, he alleges, that the 
 constitution of the church, gives him the privilege of staying our pro- 
 ceedings; and then, affecting an extraordinary degree of forbearance, 
 as if he were granting us a great favour in allowing us to try him, he 
 professes to waive his privilege. But what, Moderator, if it should, on 
 investigation, be found, that this Privilege, is nothing more than a mere 
 creature of his own inventive fancy? Where, Sir, is this privilege 
 granted to him? He refers us to Chapter VII. S. 3. S. S. 4. Let us 
 look at what our constitution there says: and see if it be any thing like 
 3 
 
18 
 
 a privilege to stay our proceedings. "Appeals may be, either from a 
 part of the proceedings of a judicatory, or from a definite sentence.'' 
 Is this, Sir, any thing like a "privilege to stay our proceedings?'' 
 Surely, no one will venture to say so, but Mr. Colton himself; — and 
 yet this is the way in which he seems to have indulged himself in the 
 habit of taking for granted, that we can neither read nor understand, 
 the Constitution of the Presbyterian church. 
 
 Mr. Colton affects to be greatly embarrassed by the necsssity which, 
 he supposes, is laid on him, toplead his own cause before the Presbyte- 
 ry. "I cannot conceal,'' says he, (P. 22) "that in entering upon this 
 defence, I feel no little embarrassment, arising from the peculiar situa- 
 tion in which I am placed. An accused man labours under peculiar 
 difficulties, in attempting to defend himself. Delicacy forbids, that he 
 should say many things of himself which an indifferent person might say 
 for him. Beside this, the very condition in which he stands, renders 
 him an object of suspicion, and causes the remarks that he offers to fall 
 with less weight upon the ear of his judges, than if they came from one 
 employed in his stead. Compelled, however, as I am, by the Constitu- 
 tion of the church, to appear by myself , not having the aid of professional 
 counsel, the court will, I trust, consider the circumstances, and receive 
 the remarks that are made, with candid and unprejudiced feelings, al- 
 lowing to the argument, the full force, to which it may be entitled. 1 ' 
 
 It is, Moderator, enough to excite a smile, to hear Mr. Colton talk 
 about < ' delicacy ;'' for those who are acquainted with him are well per- 
 suaded, that that is a quality to which he is an utter stranger; and, in- 
 deed, Sir, scarcely a more convincing proof of this fact need be desired, 
 than the paragraph I have just now quoted, taken in connexion with 
 his own conduct, during his trial before the Presbytery. "Compelled, 
 as I am" says he, "by the Constitution of the church, to appear by my- 
 se'f. v A person, ignorant of our constitution, might be ledjjto infer from 
 this, that he was, by that instrument, cut off from any opportunity or 
 privilege, of being heard, by any voice but his own. Let us iquire into 
 the justice of this representation. Our Book of Discipline, Chapter 
 IV. S. XXI, contains the following provision. "If any accused per- 
 son feel unable to represent and plead his own cause to advantage, he 
 may request any Minister or Elder, belonging to the judicatory before 
 which he appears, to prepare and exhibit his cause, as he may judge 
 proper. Butthe Minister, or Elder engaged, shall not be allowed, af- 
 ter pleading the cause of the accused, to sit in judgment, as a member 
 ol the judicatory. " If, Sir, Mr. Colton laboured under such mighty 
 embarrassment, for want of counsel, or as he would persuade us and 
 the public that he did, why did he not avail himself of this provision of 
 the constitution? Will he say, that there was no Minister or Elder in 
 the Presbytery, sufficiently favourable to his cause, to undertake such a 
 service? No, Sir, he dare not say so. There was the Rev. Evander 
 McNair, and there was the Rev. William Brobston, both men of pop- 
 ular talents, and both known to be favourable to his cause, and there 
 
19 
 
 was, among the Eldership, Mr. Henry Elliott, who, in one of the pulr 
 lie prints, and his own favourite public print too, has recently been re" 
 presented as a "Host in himself." If he had applied to either of 
 these, I douot not, but he could have been readily supplied, with a wil- 
 ling, and an eloquent advocate. As he had been, however, suddenly, 
 it is to be presumed, seized by an irresistible paroxysm of "delicacy," 
 I suppose he could not think of requesting either of those gentlemen to 
 give up the privilege of voting, — but, surely, it would be paying any 
 one of them but a poor compliment, to suppose, that his speech would 
 not outweigh more than one vote. The constitution does, indeed, de- 
 clare, that " No professional counsel shall be permitted to appear and 
 plead, in cases of process, in any of our ecclesiastical courts," and this 
 part of the Constitution is to him so offensive, that he cannot refrain from 
 betraying his dissatisfaction with this prohibitary part of it; first, by 
 misrepresenting it; — then by doing all he could to evade its spirit; and 
 moreover, when he found that he could not succeed in his efforts to 
 evade its letter as well as its spirit, he must needs complain heavily of 
 the Presbytery because they did not co-operate with him, in this un- 
 worthy effort. He misrepresents the constitution, by alleging that it 
 "compelled him to appear by himself," in the very face of a plain provi- 
 sion of a contrary character; and he did all he could to evade its spirit,, 
 by having a lawyer constantly at his elbow, whispering, in his ear, at 
 every convenient interval, hints not fitted to facilitate the progress ot 
 fair investigation, but rather adapted to embarrass the court; and to 
 obstruct the proper exercise of salutary abjudication. And, as if this 
 were not enough, Sir, he has recourse to an ingenious device, to evade, 
 even the letter of the constitution. Observe, Moderator, that the con- 
 stitution, in allowing him to have his cause exhibited by another, ex- 
 pressly requires, that that other, be a "minister or elder, belonging la 
 the judicatory, before which he appears." And how could he continue 
 to evade this ? I will tell you, Sir. At the commencement of the 
 trial, his friend, Mr. George McNeill, makes a motion, that the Rev. 
 Rufus Win. Bailey, a minister not belonging to the judicatory, be in 
 vited to sit with the Presbytery, as a corresponding member. The 
 Presbytery, perceiving the design of this, reject the motion; and Mr. 
 Colton, finding himself thus foiled, gives vent to his resentment, in the 
 following language, which is to be found in Page 50, of the defence. 
 "The unprecedented occurrences that have taken place since the trial 
 commenced, are of a character by no means calculated to induce a be- 
 lief of the existence of kind feelings, and of a disposition to afford a 
 fair and impartial trial. The refusal to admit the Rev. Mr. Bailey to 
 a seat as a corresponding member, is unprecedented in the history of 
 Presbyterian fellowship. It is an intimation of distrust, that amounts 
 to an impeachment of his ministerial character, and manifests a want of 
 courtesy to the Presbytety, of which he is a member. The refusal, 
 also, to receive his explanatory letter, is a still greater manifestation of 
 the want of courtesy, and betrays a suspicious dispositior .altogether 
 
20 
 
 beneath the dignity of christian ministers, sitting in a solemn assem- 
 bly." I do not quote this passage. Moderator, for the purpose of re- 
 plying to it. This, I should indeed think "beneath the dignity of a 
 Christian Minister;" but I presume, Sir, that you, and this Reverend 
 Synod, can be at no loss to judge, whether this language breathes a be- 
 coming spirit, or such as the author's peculiar attitude, and the relation 
 in which he stood to those of whom he thus spoke, ought to have inspired. 
 In the course of his defence, Mr. Colton has, once and again, alleged, 
 affirmed, and re-asserted, with as much seeming confidence as if his as- 
 sertions were accompanied with perfect demonstration, that the Pres- 
 bytery have utterly tailed, in exhibiting the requisite proof of the things 
 they have laid to his charge. In page 25, he says, k 'Here, then, has 
 been an entire failure, in the very outset of the prosecution;" and in 
 page 40, he says, "In a review of the whole evidence, you cannot fail, 
 I think, to perceive, that the prosecutors have entirely failed, in proving 
 every point necessary to sustain their charge." Aloderator, 1 know 
 not, how others may feel themselves affected, or operated upon, by such 
 brow beating as this; but, as for my single self, I am free to say, that it 
 moves me not, even the amount of a feather's weight; and I feel firmly 
 persuaded, that this Reverend Synod will require something far more 
 convincing than the mere ipse dixit of the Rev. Simeon Colton, before 
 they will consent, that the abundant mass of evidence now before them, 
 shall be considered, treated, and pronounced, as amounting to nothing. 
 f I proceed, therefore, directly to inquire, what the Presbytery have 
 laid to his charge; and whether the matter contained in the pamphlet, 
 of which he has avowed the authorship, contains sufficient evidence, to 
 substantiate that charge. He is charged, Sir, with "conduct highly 
 censurable, and very unbecoming a minister of Christ, in giving cur- 
 rency to allegations of a false and slanderous nature, against the church, 
 and her duly constituted authorities, having a tendency to bring the 
 church, and her office bearers generally, into public disrepute.'' The 
 first specification, under this charge, embraces the authorship, charac- 
 ter, and circulation of a pamphlet, bearing the signature of "Presbute- 
 ros," and the second embraces the time, and territorial limit9 of its 
 publication. As the authorship, circulation, and publication of that 
 pamphlet, have all been acknowledged, we need extend our inquiry no 
 further than to the character of that production, as summarily described 
 in the general charge, referred to in specification 1st, and somewhat 
 more systematically described, in the act of the Presbytery, adopted at 
 Beth-car church. I will ask you, Sir, and my brethren of this Synod, 
 to take a candid view of the evidence which the Presbytery has exhibit- 
 ed, in this act; giving all due weight to whatever has been urged by 
 Mr. Colton, in the shape of argument against it; and, if I am not great- 
 ly deceived, by the time we get through a fair investigation of the case, 
 this Synod, or at least a large majority thereof, shall be fully satisfied, 
 notwithstanding all Mr. Colton has said to the contrary, — that the 
 charge is substantiated, beyond all reasonable doubt. But, before I, 
 
 
enter on this investigation, I must spend a moment or two in the re- 
 moval of a stumbling block, by which Mr. Colton has attempted to ob- 
 struct our progress, on the very threshold of our inquiry. It is to be 
 recollected that the charge is prefaced with the statement of the fact, 
 that the Presbytery had found ''considerable excitement prevailing, in 
 various places within the limits of the churches under their care, and 
 especially within the limits of the congregation of Fayetteville; occa- 
 sioned, as was generally believed, by a series of offensive acts of the 
 Rev. Simeon Colton;" and that, to this statement, is annexed, the ex- 
 pression of the Presbytery's conviction, that it was their duty "to in- 
 vestigate the cause of this injurious excitement, to purge the church 
 from the scandal to which she was exposed." From this preface to the 
 charge, Mr. Colton infers, and zealously contends, that it is incumbent 
 on us to "prove the existence of the excitement'''' here referred to; and 
 that, if we fail to prove this, we have no right to institute a charge 
 against him, on the ground of common fame. In other words, he in- 
 sists upon it, that we were bound to call witnesses judicially before us, 
 to testify to this excitement; and to record their testimony. Now, in 
 regard to this singular demand, my first remark is, that Mr. Colton 
 has here mistaken our province for his own privilege. What was inten- 
 ded by our discipline, as a guide for us, to regulate our own course, in 
 some specified cases, Mr. Colton has taken for granted, was designed 
 for his security, and the security of others similarly situated. ]Now, 
 this is an entire mistake. When we charge a person with an offence, 
 on the ground of general rumour, it is incumbent on us, indeed, to be 
 satisfied, for ourselves, that is, to have a reasonable conviction impress- 
 ed upon our own minds, of the existence of that rumour; — but it never 
 was designed, or contemplated, that we should be bound, first to furnish 
 convincing evidence of the fact to the person who was the subject of 
 the rumour, before we could charge him with the offence: for, if this were 
 so, no charge, on this ground, could ever be brought; and the proviso 
 made in our constitution for arraigning persons on this ground, would 
 thus be a mere nullity. My next remark is, that the evidence we had 
 on this subject, was the best evidence we could have had, — evidence 
 even superior to the testimony of witnesses, and such as no testimony 
 of this kind could possibly overthrow, — I mean, the evidence of our 
 senses. And, my third and last remark, on this unwarrantable de- 
 mand is, that the only rumour, with which, at this time, we have any 
 thing to do, is the rumour concerning the authorship of the pamphlet; and 
 as he himself has saved us the trouble of examining witnesses to prove 
 the truth of this, by his own explicit acknowledgment, his demand, of 
 course, falls to the ground. 
 
 The way, Moderator, seems now to be clear, for directly approach- 
 ing the interesting inquiry immediately before us. Has Mr. Colton, 
 in his six letters over the signature of "Presbuteros,'' given currency 
 to allegations of a false and slanderous nature, against the church, and 
 her duly constituted autorities, having a tendency to bring the church, 
 
and her office bearers generally, into public disrepute?" This is the 
 principal question, referred, by the Presbytery of Fayetteville, to this 
 Synod, for final abjudication. In reply to this question, — the Presby- 
 tery affirm; — Mr. Colton denies; — The Presbytery specify; — Mr. Col- 
 ton controverts their specifications. Let us now look at both sides of 
 this question; and, as Judges of a Court of Jesus Christ, let us endea- 
 vour, by lawful and just means, to judge righteous judgment. 
 
 The Presbytery say, 
 
 1. That "the said pamphlet contains charges against those who act- 
 ed with the General Assemblies of 183f and 1838; which they do not 
 hesitate to pronounce false and slanderous. "Of this description," 
 they say, "is the following sentence." P. 7, /. S4 and 35, of the 
 pamphlet before us: " All discussion ivas forbidden, by the demand of 
 the previous question.'''' "This broad assertion'' say the Presbytery, 
 "has reference to the resolutions of the Assembly of 1837, declaring 
 the Synods of the Western Reserve, of Utica, of Geneva, and of Gen- 
 essee, to be no longer any part of the Presbyterian Church; and yet, it 
 will be seen, from the Assembly's recorded and published Minutes, 
 pages 437, 438, and 439, that every thing that was done, in relation to 
 these resolutions, "after debate," and moreover, the delegates of this 
 Presbytery to that Assembly, if called upon, will testify, that the very 
 persons who most loudly complained of the " demand for the previous 
 question" consumed by far the greater part of the time, taken up in 
 such debate." In reply to this plain, unvarnished statement, Mr. Col- 
 ton employs a page and a half of empty declamation, in which, among 
 other quibbles and sophisms, he would endeavour to persuade us, that 
 because, forsooth, the word all, is, sometimes, in scripture, used in a* 
 limited sense, therefore, it must necessarily be understood, in a limited 
 sense, as he used it, in the pamphlet. But it is needless to spend time 
 in refuting his laboured and vain advocacy of a reckless assertion, 
 which so many members of this Synod are able to refute, by the testi- 
 mony of their own senses. I consider it as proved, then, that this as- 
 sertion of Mr Colton's, viz: ''•All discussion was forbidden, by the de- 
 mand of the previous question,'''' is false. "On the same page," say 
 the Presbytery, "the majority of the Assembly are charged with a de- 
 sire to have a majority in a succeeding Assembly, as the governing mo- 
 tive of their acts, in relation to the four Synods. The charge runs in 
 these words: '* Irregularity in their constitution was the alleged excuse; 
 but the real object evidently was, to secure a vote in the Assembly of the 
 following year." "Proof," say the Presbytery, "of the slanderous 
 character of this assertion, is derived from two sources. The first of 
 these, in the language of ihe resolutions complained of; and the other 
 may be drawn from the professions of those who took a leading part in 
 the support of these resolutions; men, whose professions, to say the 
 least of them, are quite as worthy of public confidence, as are the pro- 
 fessions of any of those who oppose their views. '' How does Mr. Col- 
 ton meet this? He says, P. 30, "In reply to this remark of the pam- 
 
23 
 
 phlet, the report refers, for refutation, to the resolutions of the General 
 Assembly on this subject. Now, in these resolutions, no reference is 
 made to the motive prompting the act. They neither affirm nor deny 
 what is said in the pamphlet. They therefore prove nothing, and con- 
 tribute nothing toward either proving, or disapproving the assertion." 
 Moderator, how will this random remark, (for it is the safest name I 
 can give it.) agree with the Assembly's 2d resolution? In that, they 
 say "That the solicitude of this Assembly on the whole, subject, and its 
 urgency for the immediate decision of it, are greatly increased by rea- 
 son of the gross disorders which are ascertained to have prevailed in 
 those Synods," &c. Ts there here "no reference made to the motive 
 prompting the act?" There are, surely, "none so blind, as those who 
 will not see." Another quotation of the same character, which the Pres- 
 bytery make, is the following: "One step more is only wanting, to erect 
 the scaffold, and bind the victim to the stake." In Page 32, he has the 
 impudence to speak of this quotation, as "as a specimen of garbling 
 and false construction" which "shews that the writer was more dis- 
 posed to make a selection for effect, than to give a fair representation 
 of the views of the author.'' This unworthy insinuation, like others of 
 a like description which I shall probably pass over unnoticed, must re- 
 coil on his own head, for none but the slave of inveterate prejudice can 
 fail to perceive, that no quotation was ever more fairly made. 
 
 The Presbytery have referred to another passage, which represents 
 the reform measures, as leading to Popery, and as muzzling inquiry; 
 and which censures the desire to spread our own peculiarities, as hor- 
 rible bigotry. In referring to these sentiments contained in the pam- 
 phlet, they were not given as specific quotations of the author's very 
 words, but as a correct representation of his views; and any impartial 
 roan who will carefully examine them, will find them so; but, forsooth, 
 because, through oversight a slight mistake was made, in the Presbyte- 
 ry's references to the pages where these views are to be found, Mr. 
 Colton, in his reply, not only repeats his unfounded complaint about 
 ''garbling" but also makes a great parade about the unimportant mis- 
 take made in referring to the pages, although he is constrained to ack- 
 nowledge, that the sentiments referred to are found in the pamphlet, 
 though not exactly in the Pages referred to by the Presbytery. It is 
 thus, Sir, that ik drowning men catch at straws.' 1 
 
 Another passage was quoted, or referred to, by the Presbytery, in 
 which "the minority were made to govern the majority"; and this was 
 said to be "an assumption of power which places the body proposing 
 and defending it, in the rank of Popes and counsels of darker times." 
 In, reply to this quotation, Mr. Colton (P. 33) repeats his stale and un- 
 founded charge of "garbling," and furnishes about half a page of mis- 
 erable sophistry, which I shall not now stop to examine, but leave him 
 to writhe under the lash of the merited castigation which was given 
 him for this, by Brother Smith and Brother Alexander Mclver. 
 
 The Presbytery had said, that, in the pamphlet, the Editor of the 
 
24 
 
 "Watchman of the South," was charged with deliberate hypocrisy. It 
 is true, indeed, Sir, that the very tvords 'deliberate hypocrisy,' in con- 
 nexion with that Editor's name, are not to be met with in the pamphlets 
 but, as I shall presently shew, — that which constitutes the charge of de- 
 liberate hypocrisy, is certainly to be found there, by implication as 
 clear and conclusive, as is the position, that 'a circle may be described 
 from any centre, at any distance from that centre'; — or any other of 
 the Postulates of Euclid. Yet, Mr. Colton, in his reply, (P. 33 and 34) 
 labours hard, by bestowing some forced compliments on Dr. Plumer, 
 to shew that we had misrepresented what he had said, and concludes 
 that part of his defence, with this bare-faced challenge: 'Whoever,' 
 says he, 'examines the passage, to which reference is made, and com- 
 pares it with the language of the report, will find, that it is not only 
 'garbled, but, that the reference drawn from it, has no J oundation in 
 the pamphlets 
 
 Now, Moderator, that this challenge may be fairly met, let us look at 
 the language of his pamphlet. Here, sir, are his own words, in refer- 
 ence to the Watchman. You will find them in Page 8 of the pamphlet 
 now before us. "In one sweeping denunciation, all opposers are set 
 down as Pelagians, and though the charge has been often and publicly 
 denied, and the publisher called on for proof, yet he offers none; but 
 still goes on, with shameless effrontery to repeat his charge, evidently ex- 
 pecting, that the story will gain such credit by repitilion among his rea- 
 . ders, as to be regarded as undoubted truth.'" And again: "These 
 little hints are to prepare the way, to fix prejudices on the minds of the 
 people, and secure their belief in the assured fact, till they shall become 
 ready to sanction all measures against such heretics, under the name of 
 purifying the church," Sir, let me ask, is it not "shameless effrontery, 5 ' 
 in the author of this language, to say, that "the reference drawn from" 
 the passage, by the Presbytery, "has no foundation in the pamphlet?" 
 To what else, Sir, than to "deliberate hypocrisy," could such conduct 
 as is here portrayed, be properly and consistently ascribed? Suppose 
 for a minute, Moderator, without inquiring into the knowledge 1 now 
 possess of your orthodoxy, that I should call you " Pelagian.^ It. is 
 obvious, that I must, necessarily do this, either sincerely or hypocritical* 
 ly. You publicly deny the charge. If I bring the charge against you 
 sincerely, how would any rational man expect me to meet your public 
 denial? Would it not, naturally and justly be expected, that I would 
 meet it, either by proving from sentiments that you had either preached 
 or published, that you were a Pelagian; or, if I could not do this, by 
 stating my reasons, no matter whether cogent or feeble for believing 
 you to be a Pelagian? And, on the other hand, if I had brought the 
 charge against you hypocritically, or knowing you to be orthodox, and 
 could find it in my heart to do so deliberately, what else could be expec- 
 ted from me, than, that I should still go on, with shameless effrontery 
 to repeat my charge, ardently expecting that the story will gain such 
 credit by repitition among my readers as to be regarded as undoubted 
 
25 
 
 truth; and that I should give ''these little hints to prepare the way, to fix 
 prejudices in the minds of the people, and secure their belief in the as- 
 sumed/act, till they shall become ready to sanction all measures against 
 such heretics, under the name of purifying the church?" Sir, Mr. Col- 
 ton in this instance presumes too much upon his own management and 
 draws too large a draft upon our simplicity and credulity. 1 might, 
 Moderator,in this manner, investigate all the other exceptions which the 
 Presbytery have made to the pamphlet, and shew, to the satisfaction of 
 every unprejudiced mind, that they have clearly proved all that they 
 have asserted; but, I do not think it necessary, at present, to proceed 
 to the remaining items, inasmuch as, I apprehend, that what I nave al- 
 ready said will be sufficient to satisfy this Synod, that Mr. Colton has 
 certainly given currency to allegations which to say the very least of 
 them, are not true. But, inasmuch as we have affirmed, of these alle- 
 gations, not only, that they are not true, but also, that they are "of a 
 slanderous nature," it may not be amiss to inquire, whether this point 
 be not also established, as firmly and conclusively as the other. And 
 in order that Mr. Colton may have no cause to complain of injustice or 
 unfairness, I will premise, that I perfectly agree with him, when he 
 says, (P. 25,) that "in all cases where the Constitution has given no 
 determined rule to be employed in a trial," it is proper for us "to be 
 governed by the usages of civil courts, in similar cases." To accom- 
 modate him, Sir, I will even go further, and allow their full force, to 
 the quotations he has given us, from eminent writers on civil law. To 
 this end, I will here repeat his quotations; but I shall also take the li- 
 berty of supplying his lack of service, by adding a few more. In Page 
 26, he cites the following authorities. "The great English Jurist, 
 Blackstone, defines slander to be the maliciously and falsely uttering 
 any slander, or false tale of another, which may endanger him in law, or 
 exclude him from society, or impair his trade. Words spoken in a friend- 
 ly manner, as by way of advice, admonition, or concern, without any 
 tincture, or circumstance of ill will, are not actionable; for, in that case, 
 they are not maliciously spoken." Starkie on Evidence, Vol: II, Page 
 880, says "Malice is essential to the offence. This malice consists in 
 the intention to effect the particular mischief." Chief Justice Parsons, 
 one of the first Jurists of our country, says, il A libel is a malicious pub' 
 lication, tending to blacken the reputation of one, and expose him to pub- 
 lic hatred, contempt, or ridicule."" Mass's Report, Vol. IV. P. 168. 
 Selwyn says, "Although that which is written may be injurious to the 
 character of another, yet, if it be done bona fide, or with a view of in- 
 vestigating a fact in which the party making it is interested, it is not a 
 libel." Wheaton ? s Selwyn, P. 241. "These authorities," says Mr. 
 Colton, "are sufficient to shew, that in order to make out a crime of 
 slander, there must be undoubted evidence of malice, or a wicked in- 
 tention to do mischief. It is not enough, that the declamation made 
 be a misrepresentation: — There must be evidence, that it was made, 
 with a malicious or wicked design." In all this, Sir, I perfectly agree 
 4 
 
26 
 
 with liim; and I will now add a few more authorities, for the purpose of 
 illustrating and confirming a position, which, probably he had no great 
 anxiety to establish, viz. that there may be abundant evidence of mal- 
 ice, and such malice, too, as constitutes slander, where there is no di- 
 rect avowal of malicious intent. 
 
 Starkie, in addition to what is quoted from him by Mr. Colton, says 
 "And as in all other cases, what a man intends, must be inferrred from 
 what he does, so, if nothing appear, from which the intention is to be 
 collected, except the publication of the libel itself, unexplained by any 
 context of circumstances, — if the very terms of the document itself 
 tend to scandalize, degrade, and injure the individual, or to excite to 
 acts of outrage and sedition, the intention, on the part of the defendant 
 to effect those objects must necessarily be inferred, without the aid of 
 extrinsic proof.'' 
 
 Selwyn, who is also quoted by our brother, says, in a subsequent part 
 of his work, "Express malice need not be proved. If the charge be 
 false, malice will be implied." Wheaton's Selwyn, Vol. 2, P. 976. 
 
 Again: "As there is a difference between the malignity and injurious 
 consequences of slanderous words spoken or written, — the one being 
 sudden and fleeting, the other permanent, deliberate, and disseminated 
 with greater ease: many words, which, if spoken, would not be action- 
 able, are actionable, if published, in the way of libel. Hence, the 
 word sivindler, if spoken of another (unless in relation to his trade or 
 business) is not actionable. Hence, also, the publication of a letter 
 containing verses, in which the plaintiff was called an itchy old toad, 
 was deemed a libel. So, the publication of a letter, in which the Plain- 
 tiff was stated to be one of the most infernal villains that ever disgraced 
 human nature, has been held actionable, without proof of special dam- 
 age." "Malice is express, or implied.'' "Where a publication is de- 
 famatory, the law infers malice, unless any thing can be drawn from the 
 circumstances attending the publication, to relent that inference.'' — 
 McNally, on Evidence, P. 650. 
 
 Again: "In an action for oral slander or libel, the proof of malice, 
 either results from the slander itself, or is matter of extrinsic evidence. 
 When the slander or libel stands unexplained by any collatoral evi- 
 dence, which indicates the intention of the party; and no light is deri- 
 ved from the occasion and circumstances attending the publication, by 
 which the mind of the author can be read, the court and jury necessa- 
 rily derive their inference from the words themselves, reading and un- 
 derstanding them, according to their plain import and meaning in their 
 usual, ordinary sense. If the natural tendency and import of the ex- 
 pressions used be, to vilify, defame, and injure, then, according to ev- 
 ery principle of reason and justice, the defendant must be taken to have 
 acted maliciously; that is, with a view to effect those consequences, to 
 which the means which he has used, naturally and obviously tend." — 
 Starkie, Vol. II, P. 861. 
 
 "It is a question for the jury, whether the defendant has not made 
 
17 
 
 false assertions in point of fact, for injurious purposes, or exceeded the 
 bounds of fair and legitimate criticism for the purposes of personal slan- 
 der, or used the occasion, as a mere colour and pretext, for venting his 
 malice." See Starkie and Selwyn. 
 
 "It is no answer to the action to shew, that the words were spoken 
 carelessly, wantonly, or in jest. It has been well observed, that the 
 mischief to the reputation of the party grieved, is in no wise lessened 
 by the merriment of him who makes so slight of it. A wanton disre- 
 gard of the feelings and interests of others, is perfectly consistent with 
 malice, in every sense of the word: and a man does not the less intend 
 to injure another, and therefore his act is not the less malicious, because 
 his primary object is, to derive some private gratification or emolument 
 to himself." 1. Hawk. P. C. C. 73, 34. 
 
 "A libel, is a malicious publication, expressed in printing or writing, 
 tending to injure the reputation ot another, and thereby exposing such 
 person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule. So a publication which 
 renders a man ridiculous, tending either to blacken the memory of one 
 dead, or the reputaion of one who is alive." Jacob's Law Dictionary. 
 Art. Libel. 
 
 "A libel is the greatest degree of scandal; and does not die like 
 words which may be forgotton; but is more heinous, as its circulation 
 of the slander is more extensive, and derives, too, an additional degree 
 of malignity, from its being done premeditatedly." Espinasse, Vol. 2, 
 P. 240. 
 
 "A writing, though with feigned names, may be a libel. So, if done, 
 in a taunting or ironical manner." Espinasse, Vol. 2, P. 244. 
 
 "Whatever renders a man ridiculous, or lowers him in the esteem 
 or opinion of the world, amounts to a libel; though the same expres- 
 sions, if spoken, would not have been defamation, as to call a person, 
 in writing, an itchy old toad.'' Wilson's Report, Vol. 2, P. 403. 
 
 "It is actionable to charge a man, in a public capacity, or office, with 
 prineiples inconsistent with his office; as to say of a justice of the 
 peace, that he was a Jacobite, or for bringing in the Pretender.'' Es- 
 pinasse Vol. 2. P. 227. 
 
 f_A COLLOqUIM OF THE MEMBEKS OF ASSEMBLY.] 
 
 "Libel is a contumely or reproach, published, to the defamation of 
 the government, of a magistrate, or of a private person." Com. Dig. 
 til. Libel A. 
 
 "On indictment for seditious Libels, the word/b/se, in the only sense, 
 in which it seems necessarily applicable, is included in the word ntali- 
 ciousP McNally, Page 650. 
 
 "Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he 
 pleases before the public. To forbid this, is to destroy the freedom 
 of the press; — but, if he publishes what is improper, mischievous or il- 
 legal, he must take the consequence of his own temerity. To punish 
 any dangerous or offensive writings, which shall, on a fair impartial 
 trial, be adjudged of a pernicious tendency, is necessary for the preser- 
 
28 
 
 vation of peace and good order, of government and religion, — the only 
 solid foundations of civil liberty. The will of the individual is still left 
 free; — the abuse only of that free will, is the object of legal punish- 
 ment. To censure the licentious, is to vindicate the liberty of the press* 
 Law Dictionary, tit. Libel IV., Blackstone's com. P. 152-3. 
 
 "If every dreamer of innovations may propogate his projects, there 
 can be no settlement; — if every murmurer at government, may diffuse 
 discontent, there can be no peace; and if every sceptic in Theology may 
 teach his follies, there can be no religion. The remedy against these 
 evils, is to punish the authors; for it is yet allowed, that every society 
 may punish the publication of opinions which that society shall think 
 pernicious." Johnson, in vita Milton. 
 
 I have, Moderator, been thus copious, in my extracts from authors of 
 the legal profession, because Mr. Col ton, in his defence, and particular- 
 ly, in his concluding epeech, in Presbytery, appears to have discover- 
 ed an unconquerable fondness for, what he calls 'the common law.' 
 Here, Sir, I trust, I have given him common law, to his heart's con- 
 tent: And, if we try his letters, by the principles here laid down, I 
 rather apprehend, that his exulting reliance on this city of refuge, will 
 end, in sad and mortifying disappointment. Let us throw a few hand- 
 fuls of his highly valued metal into this crucible; and see, whether it 
 will come out, as worthless trash, or as 'gold tried in the fire.'' 
 
 1. In Letter III, P. 6, of the pamphlet before us, the author, in his 
 efforts to rouse the indignation of his readers, against the leading mea- 
 sures of the Assemblies of 1857 and 1838, and against those who ap- 
 pear in their defence, urges among other objections to those measures, 
 'the precipitancy, with which they were urged and carried;' and calls 
 it, 'such a precipitation as shews, that the actors looked only at the end, 
 without stopping to consider the means for producing it.' What is this, 
 Sir, but a plain intimation, that the authors and advocates of those mea- 
 sures, were acting on the wickid and detestable maxim, that 'the end 
 sanctified the means','' and that it was to them, a matter of no conse- 
 quence what means they used in accomplishing their object, or whether 
 the means used, were lawful, or unlawful, provided their desired end 
 could be secured? And who, Moderator, that knows the character of 
 the leaders of those Assemblies, but must pronounce this intimation 
 the grossest slander? Do not 'the very terms' used here, Sir, to adopt 
 the language of Starlde, 'tend to scandalize, degrade, and injure the 
 individuals referred to; — 'to villi fy and defame' them? Then, mark 
 the emphatical inference, Moderator, for it is the language of the same 
 eminent Jurist. 'Then, according to every principle of reason and jus- 
 tice, the defendant must be taken to have acted maliciously; that is, 
 with a view to effect those consequences, to which the means which 
 he has used, naturally and obviously tend.' And, indeed, Sir, Mr. 
 Colton, elsewhere, more than intimates, — he rather charges, in no ob- 
 scure terms, the detestable principle here referred to, on the Assembly 
 of U37. Towards the close of the 4th Paragraph of Letter V, P. 15, 
 
29 
 
 he says, "If it be said that the exigency of the case justified such a 
 course, what is this but saying that the end justifies the means! And 
 if that be a doctrine, on which men are to act, where is the security of 
 society? What becomes of government, and who can stand as guaran- 
 ty for the rights of individuals?' Who will venture to say, Sir, that 
 there is no slander here? No one, Moderator, will venture to say so, 
 that has any knowledge of the real character of the good men whom 
 Mr. Colton had the hardihood, thus wantonly to assail. 2. Again, 
 Sir, in Letter III, P. 7, we find this bold assertion, having special re- 
 ference to the doings of the Assembly of 1837. "Particular senti- 
 ments were denounced, as heretical, which were never found to be held 
 by those, on whom they were charged.^ Is there a single word of truth, 
 in this reckless sentence? No, Sir; — Not one word. Then, Sir, is it 
 a slanderous, as well as false assertion; for according to McNally, "on 
 an indictment for seditious libels, the word false, in the only sense, in 
 which it seems necessarily applicable, is included in the word mali- 
 cious? and according to Selwyn, 'Express malice need not be proved. 
 If the charge be false, malice will be implied.' 
 
 3. Once more, Sir: Towards the conclusion of Letter V, on Page 15, 
 we find this sentence, having reference to the measures of the Assem- 
 blies of 1837 and 1838. "Confirm the measures of the two Assem- 
 blies named, and you introduce a principle, which, sooner or later, 
 may be brought to bear upon you with tremendous force, and which, in 
 all probability, will become to you, the means of ruin.'' What could 
 be the object of the author, Sir, in penning this sentence, and sending 
 it to the press? Can any man, in his senses, fail to perceive, that he 
 could have aimed at nothing else, than, in the language of Starkie, "to 
 excite to acts of outrage, and sedition" against those Assemblies, and 
 their advocates? It follows, then, most unequivocally, that this is 
 slander of an aggravated character. 
 
 Moderator, if there be any difficulty in exibiting before this Reve- 
 rend Synod, in a perspicuous and striking light, the "allegations of a 
 false and slanderous nature,' to which Mr. Colton has 'given curren- 
 cy,' I am well assured, when I glance over the letters of 'Presbuteros,' 
 that this difficulty arises not, either from scantiness or inaptitude of 
 materials, but only from such an abundance of them, as puts selection 
 to a stand I trust, however, that the few specimens I have here given, 
 taken in connexion with those on which some of my brethren have ani- 
 madverted in Presbytery, will be sufficient to satisfy this Synod, 
 that the charge exhibited by the Presbytery, against the Rev. Simeon 
 Colton, and referred to this Synod, for final adjudication, has been sub- 
 stantiated beyond all reasonable doubt. 
 
 I have said, Moderator, that the productions of Mr. Colton's pen 
 now before us, when carefully analyzed, would be found, a singular 
 compound, of glaring inconsistencies, gross perversions, fallacious rea- 
 sonings, and other kindred qualities. Let me now, Sir, on a slight re- 
 view of the whole, afford this Synod an opportunity of just glancing at 
 
30 
 
 a few of these distinguishing characteristics. And first, let us look at 
 a specimen or two, of his inconsistencies. In publishing his pamphlet, 
 he had a special object in view; and, as he wished not to be disappoint- 
 ed in its accomplishment, he announced that object to his readers, in 
 language sufficiently intelligible. It is manifest, however, that, at that 
 time, he was very far from anticipating a judicial investigation of his 
 conduct, in issuing his publication. But now, since after the lapse of 
 several months, he must meet this investigation, the best expedient his 
 ingenuity can devise is, to presume upon our forgetfulness in relation 
 to his original announcement; and draw our attention to something 
 else, which he could, more easily, and with a greater show of confi- 
 dence defend. Accordingly, in his defence P. 26, speaking of his pam- 
 phlet, he repeatedly tells us, that 'its professed object is to enlighten 
 the public mind.' Yes, Sir: He has 'enlightened the public mind,' 
 with a witness; and he is, doubtless, sufficiently familiar with History, 
 to recollect, that many have been sent to the lower, for thus enlighten- 
 ing: But, Moderator, was this in reality, his professed object? When 
 he sat down to write his six letters, was it his sole design, fairly, calm- 
 ly, and dispassionately, to investigate the leading measures of the Gen- 
 eral Assemblies of 1837 and 1838, and, in a clear, lucid, and convin- 
 cing manner, to shew, that these measures were in conflict with our 
 adopted Ecclesiastical Constitution, and with the genius of true Pres- 
 byterianism? Was this his real — was it even his professed object? No 
 such thing, Sir. At the very outset of his undertaking, he announced 
 to his readers, a very different object. Turn to the 5th paragraph of 
 his first letter, and you will find his object, thus explicitly set forth: 
 'It is not my purpose,' says he, 'to undertake a discussion respecting 
 the constitutionality of the acts of the Assembly of 1837 and '8. 'I his 
 discussion has already become so protracted, that it has become tire- 
 some. My design is, to notice some things in these acts, and connec- 
 ted with them, which seem to strike at the very foundation of those 
 privileges, which, as citizens of a free country, we have deemed inval- 
 uable. ' In other words, Sir, his object was, to influence the public 
 mind: — his design, evidently was, — to hold up the proceedings of the 
 Assembly, in such a light, as to excite a general alarm, and rouse pop- 
 ular indignation against the church. Who can compare what, on this 
 subject, he says in his defence, with what he announces in his pam- 
 phlet, without perceiving in it, a glaring inconsistency? Of the 
 same malicious spirit, Sir, which is apparent in the announce- 
 ment of his object, as just noticed, we find a further specimen, in a 
 part of the 8th paragraph of Letter IV, where he thus expresses him- 
 self: "There is a powerful engine, which, if brought into operation with 
 all its force, will accomplish all that could be done, by the renewal of 
 the grand inquisition. It is public opinion. To get possession of this 
 is obviously the aim of those who advocate the. reform measures.' And, 
 again, towards the close of that same paragraph, he adds, 'And to warn 
 you against the machinations of these professed friends of reform, is 
 
31 
 
 one object I have in view. Beware of a Popery, that seeks the sanc- 
 tion of its measures, in a biassed public opinion.' It would seem, then, 
 Moderator, that, should the judicatories of the church enlist public 
 opinion, in favor of their own institutions, and against those who would 
 innovate upon them, or depart from their true spirit, — to do so, would 
 be highly criminal in Mr. Colton's eyes: — it would be, to resort to 'ma- 
 chinations,' against which, he must needs hvarn'' the people; but, yet, 
 this 'powerful engine,' in his privileged hands, can be wielded against 
 the church, with perfect innocency. He warns the people, against the 
 General Assembly; for presuming to wield this 'powerful engine,' in 
 their own favour; and yet, his sole object, in these letters, is to turn 
 the current of public opinion against the Assembly, and against all their 
 advocates, for attempting to possess themselves of an 'engine,' which, 
 if the public would permit nim, he would claim as exclusively his own!.'! 
 Here, Sir, in my judgment, we may readily recognise, — not only gla- 
 ring inconsistency, but also — malevolence, self conceit, and impu- 
 dence combined. And yet, Sir, the very man, who in his letters, 
 employs this insulting language, — 'To warn you, against the machina- 
 tions of these pro] 'essed friends of reform, is the object I have in view,' 
 I say, Sir, the very man who employs this insulting language, in refer- 
 ence to men, to whom he owes both respect and allegiance, is the same 
 man who, in his defence, Page 44 and 45, has the 'shameless effron- 
 tery' to assail us with this challenge. And is there any thing in- 
 decorous, in the language of the pamphlet? Is there anv thing ap- 
 proaching to coarseness, or vulgarity? Have I used hard names, or 
 treated my opponents in a contemptuous manner?' Surely, Mod- 
 erator, it is with an ill grace, such a challenge as this can be giv- 
 en, by the man, who, not only in his pamphlet, has used the in- 
 sulting language which I have already quoted, but has, even in his de- 
 fence, aggravated this offence, by impudently saying to his judges, as 
 he stood arraigned before them, (P. 50.) "To say nothing of the right, 
 what must be thought of the modesty of a court, sitting in judgment, in 
 a case, where all must admit, they are concerned in the result?' Sir, 
 I do not believe, that, even within the whole length and breadth of this 
 land of liberty, there is to be found, a judge of a civil court, who 
 properly regards the dignity of the bench, who would not punish, with 
 imprisonment, if not with stripes, the man, arraigned before him, who 
 would dare to address him, in such language. Yet, Sir, the Presbyte- 
 ry of Fayetteville, patiently bore this, and much more of a similar cha- 
 racter, from the'Rev. Simeon Colton. Let him remember, Sir, that 
 it is a principle of that common law for which he so fiercely contends, 
 that 'if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must 
 take the consequence of his own temerity;' — and that "tfo censure the 
 licentious, is to vindicate the liberty of the press.' Another inconsis- 
 tency, which appears to me to demand attention, is a short sentence, 
 found in his defence, Page 49, compared with the whole tenor of his 
 six letters. On the page I have just named, I find this language, so 
 
32 
 
 different from what I would naturally expect from the author of the Let- 
 ters of 'Presbuteros.' 4 I love my brethren, and for many reasons, feel 
 strongly attached to them.' What! Love brethren, whom he stigma- 
 tises, as the promoters of 'usurpation,' and as the advocates of 'an as- 
 sumption of power, which can find no sanction, among a people where 
 freedom reigns,' and whom he places 'in the rank of Popes, and coun- 
 cils of darker times?' How can he find it in his heart to love such breth- 
 ren? Yet, he assures us, he 'loves his brethren.' Moderator, I cannot 
 forget, while making this assurance of Mr. Colton's a subject of re- 
 mark, bow grieviously my Brother Peacock offended him, by using some 
 expressions, that seemed to call in question his sincerity, in regard to 
 orthodoxy; and therefore, possibly, it might offend him, still more 
 grievously, were I therefore to follow Brother Peacock's example, by 
 calling in question the sincerity of this profession of love: yet, I con- 
 fess, that, when I find myself, in common with my brethren, represen- 
 ted, in an inflammatory pamphlet, as 'muzzling the spirit of free in- 
 quiry,' as breathing 'the true and genuine spirit of Popery' as exempli- 
 fying 'Popery itself revived,' and as participating in 'an effort that 
 would not disgrace the Pope himself,' 1 cannot help considering such 
 representations, as strange, passing strange evidences of 'love.' 
 I next notice, Moderator, a single instance, out of many to which I 
 might refer you of gross perversion. The Presbytery had charged him 
 with saying, in his pamphlet, that 'moral suasion' is the only way in 
 which a church can be reformed. The evidence of his having said so, 
 is tound in the 2d paragraph of Letter III. There, he says, 'There are 
 two ways, in one of which, all attempts at reformation have been per- 
 secuted. One is through the arm of power; the other by moral suasion, 
 or the force of truth. The former is the mode usually adopted in arbi- 
 trary governments. The latter only is consistent with the condition of 
 a free people.' In his defence P. 36, he maintains, that his position is 
 correct; and for proof, refers to our form of Government, Capter I, S. 
 8, where it is said, that 'Ecclesiastical discipline must be purely mo- 
 ral, or spiritual, in its object, and not attended with any civil effects;' 
 and that 'it can derive no force whatever, but from its own justice, the 
 approbation of the public, and the countenance and blessing of the head 
 of the church universal.' Now, this, I call, gross perversion; for, who 
 does not know, what Presbyterian cannot, at once perceive, that the 
 'moral suasion' for which he contends, both in his pamphlet and in his 
 defence, is very different from any thing spoken of in our Constitution; 
 — that it is restricted to mere advice and instruction, and entirely re- 
 jects every thing like discipline, subjecting persons to exclusion from 
 church privileges? 
 
 As to fallacious reasonings, I may say,^ir, without danger of mistake, 
 that, in his defence, these are to be met with, in rich abundance. Out 
 of a vast multitude, Sir, let me select, but a single instance. In Page 
 22, he says, 'the Presbytery have said, that the pamphlet contains 
 falsehood, slander, and error, and now they bring forward their own 
 
assertiug, to prove the truth of the charge they make against me. Or, 
 in other words, they pass judgment upon what I wrote, condemn it, as 
 false and slanderous, then make out a charge of slander against me, 
 and bring their own former vote to prove the charge. The case, there- 
 fore, is prejudged. The Presbytery first vote that I am guilty, and 
 then proceed to try me, and make their vote the evidence on which to 
 condemn me.' Who. Moderator, cannot see the fallacy of this reason- 
 ing?' 'The Presbytery havcsaid, that the pamphlet contains falsehood, 
 slander, aud error." What pamphlet. Moderator? The pamphlet 
 written by Mr. Colion? Did we say, before the process was insfitWedi 
 that, a pamphlet, written by Mr. Colon, contained these things? No, 
 Sir, lie would not. at that time, acknowledge our right, even to ask him, 
 whether he was the author, or not; '-And now, they bring forward 
 their own assertions, to prove the truth of the charge they bring against 
 me.' •When, Sir, did the Presbytery briitg Forward * their own asser- 
 tions, to prove the truth of the charge they brought against him? Ne- 
 ver, Sir, at any time, did they do so preposterous a thing as this. Mr. 
 Ctdtou himself does, indeed, very often assert; and presumes on the 
 credulity of others to receive his assertions for proofs; but the Presby- 
 tery, in every instance in which tliey pronounce judgment on any thing 
 which tliey have thought proper to assert, invariably accompany their 
 assertions with the requisite proofs. 'They pass judgment upon what 
 I wrote, condemn it, as false and slanderous, then make out a charge 
 of slander against me, and bring their men former vo'e 1n prove the 
 charge. The case, therefore, is prejudged." We did, indeed. Mod- 
 erator,, pass judgment upon what somebody wrote, and condemned it as 
 false and slanderous: but, we passed, at that time, no judgment upon 
 the writer', for we did not, then, certainly know, who he was. Nor 
 was it necessary, in order to ascertain whether the publication was 
 false and slanderous, or not, that we should know, who the author was. 
 The judgment we then pronounced, was altogether independent of the 
 au horship. But. it seems, that because he has, since, acknowledged 
 the authorship, therefore, we pronounced him guilty, when we condemn- 
 ed the publication!! Was ever any proposition more absurd? How 
 was it, Sir, that we did this? Why, he says, we 'bring our own for- 
 mer vote, to prove the charge.' What bare faced assertion! At what 
 stage of this painful process, did we ever appeal to any former vote, to 
 prove any charge? No, Sir, we appealed, in the commencement, of this 
 process, and we appeal now, to the character of the publication', and it 
 is, surely, not the less false and slanderous, because he acknowledged 
 that he wrote it, than it would have been, void of such acknowledg- 
 ment. This, Sir, is a fair sample of his reasoning; and this Synod can 
 be at no loss to judge, whether it be solid or superficial. But, let us 
 take a momentary glance at a few more samples of these rare produc- 
 tions of his pen. 
 
 In Page 27, he says, 'It is a primary law of interpretation, that every 
 man is to be allowed to be his own interpreter: That is, every man is 
 to be allowed to explain what he means, in wnat he says^ or writes.' 
 5 
 
If this be true. Moderator, then, we never can safely ascertain the 
 meaning, intent, or design of any publication, until the author comes, 
 and tells us, what hemeant by it. Phis is, indeed, a very convenient 
 law of interpretation, for one who writes what has a tendency to give 
 offence; for, according to this law, no matter what he writes. — if it be 
 in any way called in question, he has nothing to do, but to explain 
 away its offensiveness. He may write, and publish, tor example, in 
 such a manner as to excite a resistless torrent of popular indignation 
 against this Synod; and, when called to answer for it, all he has to say 
 is, 'Brethren, I did indeed, represent you to the public, as tyrannical, 
 and oppressive; and, in reference to a particular act of yours, I did say 
 it was *an effort that would not disgrace the Pope himself;' — but, all I 
 meant by this was, merely to say, that I love you, as brethren, and for 
 many reasons, I am strongly attached to you " The law of interpreta- 
 tion, Sir, which would admit of his acting such a part as this, may be 
 convenient enough for him; but I apprehend, that this Synod will be 
 disposed to give the preference to that old fashioned law of interpreta- 
 tion, which requires, that every publication should be taken, in lite nat- 
 ural and obvious sense of the language, in which it is conveyed. 
 
 Moderator, I will hurry over a few other little things. In Page P8, 
 in replying to Brother Alex. Mclve-, who had very properly represent- 
 ed the question before us, as simple, and of easy solution, Mr. Colton 
 gasconades, and flourishes, in this manner. 'It is evident, how- 
 ever,' says he, -that the Moderator and others who have spoken on 
 the same side, do not feel quite so well satisfied with this summary 
 course of proceedings, as they would wish others to think tliev are. — 
 There are, evidently, some misgivings in their mind; some qualms of 
 conscience about the correctness .if their course Else why so much pains 
 to defend what, they say, has been proved — why so much pains to make 
 good, former acts, which, they say, are not to be called in question?'* 
 In return, Moderator. I reply, Who need ask, why? Has not Mr. Col- 
 ton produced considerable excitement? And has he not, thus, created a 
 necessity for shewing, how unreasonable it is, to yield to his influmalo~ 
 ry declamation, — to give it no worse name? 
 
 Mr. Colton has repeatedly called upon us, to shew any proof of mali- 
 cious intent, in any thing that he has said. I have already, Sir, re- 
 ferred you to sufficient evidence of ihis, to be met with, in several in- 
 stances, in the Letters of ••Presbuteros." Suffer me now, Sir, to shew 
 you a conspicuous instance of it, even in his defence, where we would 
 naturally expect, that he would be peculiarly careful to avoid every 
 thing of the kind. In Page 37, he uses the following inflammatory lan- 
 guage, the design of which, no unprejudiced man can mistake. "Give 
 to the Church," said he, "the right of excluding members at pleasure, 
 and what more efficient step can be taken toward establishing unlimited 
 authority over conscience and personal liberty? The design of exclu- 
 ding men from the church, is to fix upon them a mark of disapproba- 
 tion, and thus to present the individual in an unfavourable light before 
 the public. The effect is to fix public opinion against him. And wheu 
 
55 
 
 public opinion is brought to bear upon an individual with its full 
 weight* who is sufficient to sustain the load? If, then, the meaning of 
 the expression in t lit* reply be, that the church may use coercise means, 
 it is a fearful assumption of power, and the people of this couiVry ought 
 lo be every where apprised, that there is a new principle to be brought into 
 operation, which threatens destkuction to their freedom." Sir, 
 if this paragraph contains no evidence of malicious intent, it is difficult 
 to find such evidence, any where. And 1 am constrained to conclude, 
 that it is rom a disposition nothing better, that he has so often dwelt 
 upon the Beth-Car act, with the view of insinuating, that, in the pre- 
 sent process, his case is necessarily prejudged. In his last speech, P. 
 102, he thus raves on the subject. ••They write,'' says he, "all sorts 
 of sins against an anonymous author, and now come here and say, that 
 1 am the man who was intended in all they wrote." Once for all I re- 
 ply, to this stale slander, They did not say so, Mr. Col ton, until you 
 first said so yourself. 
 
 In page 51, he furnishes us with an opportunity of ascertaining what 
 sort of a Presbyterian he is. He says, "I would render the General 
 Assembly a mere advisory body, and transfer all the business of an Ec- 
 clesiastical Judicatory to the Synods of the separate States, as better 
 able to understand the wants, and manage the concerns of the different 
 sections, than the present unwieldy body, holding its Sessions, in a 
 distant part of the country." He would, thus, Sir, if he had his way, 
 strip Presbyterian ism of one of her most attractive features; and, in ef- 
 fect, convert the General Assembly into a Congregational Association; 
 or, as our venerable Father, Dr. Green, once expressed it — he would 
 congrega/ionatize the Presbyterian Church. 
 
 In page 99, he complains heavily of my good brother Peacock, for 
 suggesting any doubt of his sincerity, in declaring what are his doctri- 
 nal views, and yet, sir, if you will look at the 5th paragraph of Letter 
 IV, and at his defence of that paragraph, Pape 37. you will, I think, 
 find, some evidence, that is by no means equivocal, of strong, very 
 strong sympathy, with doctrinal error. I maintain, sir, that, how vehe- 
 mently soever a man may preach the truth, and profess to believe it, 
 and rely upon it for salvation, he cannot have a very sincere, or warm, 
 or anient love for that truth, when he is ever ready to defend, and 
 shield from merited discipline, those who assail and vilify it. 
 
 As to his coarse personal abuse of your humble servant, which is found 
 in Paiie 50, I pass it over, as unworthy of reply. I am, 1 trust, too 
 well known to my brethren of this Synod, to need a defence against 
 such low scurrility. I confess, however, that I cannot so easily pass 
 over the unmanly rudeness with which he has assailed some of my 
 younger brethren, who are not so well known to this Synod. 
 
 Bui, sir, it i» no new thing to find Mr. Colton treating his brethren 
 unceremoniously. In every instance, in which his conduct is animad- 
 verted on, with the least severity, it is not enough for him to complain, 
 but he must needs misrepresent, abuse, and vilify. My brother McLau- 
 rin had said, (P. 62 and 63) "The writer of the pamphlet, near the 
 
36 
 
 dose of it, gives you to understand, that, with the reformers, and their 
 measures, he has no fellowship whatever.'' Here, Moderator, you will 
 perceive, is a inert reference to the pamphlet, without any pretem-e to 
 make a quotation from it. "The writer," &c. gives you to understand. '* 
 It is, here, proper to inquire, whether, in the reference, any injustice 
 has been done to Mr. Col ton. Let us see. The passage to which bro- 
 ther McLaurin here refers, is found in Page 18 of the pamphlet. Mr. 
 Colton's very words are these: "With such measures, and with such a 
 spirit as has been exhibited in this miscalled work of reformation, I can 
 have no fellowship." Now, Moderator, let me ask, what great injus- 
 tice has here been done? If Mr. Colton can have no fellowship with 
 the measures alluded to, and if he can have no fellowship with the spirit 
 exhibited in them, can we understand from this, or does this give us to 
 understand any thing less, than that he has no fellowship with the Au- 
 thors of such measures? Or, at least, I would inquire, Is it monstrous 
 injustice to arrive at so natural a conclusion? Yet, this excited the 
 nervous sensibility of Mr. Colton to such a degree, that, in page 99, he 
 broke out upon Brother McLaurin, in the following very polite man- 
 ner: "Another gentleman, (Rev. Hugh McLaurin,) deserves a severe 
 rebuke. He undertook to make a quotation from the pamphlet. The 
 words he used were these: — '•The writer of the pamphlet, near the close 
 of it, gives you to understand that with the reformers, and their measures, 
 he has no fellowship.'' He was told that he had not quoted correctly, 
 and the error was shown to him. He acknowledged it, but he goes on 
 and continues the same assertions. To what can I attribute tins, but 
 to a wilful determination to endeavor to mislead the public, and create 
 prejudice against me? Can a man be honest, who does this? The er- 
 ror does not respect a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact. The 
 gentleman knows it, and in continuing his assertion, furnishes but loo 
 much evidence of a want of moral integrity." I think it proper, Mode- 
 rator, here to inform the Syood, that this paragraph, which, in the pam- 
 phlet before us. appears as a part of Mr. Colton's concluding speech, 
 was not actually spoken in Presbytery, but was afterwards written by 
 him, in preparing that speech lor the press, and was consequently in- 
 tended for tl n e public eye. It therefore, — to use the language of Espi- 
 nasses — "derives an additional degree of malignity, from its being 
 done premeditatedly." It contains, in my judgment, gross misrepre- 
 sentation, actual falsehood, and vile abuse:— gross misrepresentation, in 
 s»j'ing, that Frother McLaurin "undertook to make a quotation from 
 the pamphlet," when his words shew he undertook no such thing, and, 
 after all, gave the true sense of the passage to which he referred; — ac 
 tual falsehood, in ascribing to Brother McLaurin an acknowledgment 
 which he never made — and vile abuse,\x\ wantonly impeaching Brother 
 McLaurin's moral integrity. 1 have already, Moderator, had occasion, 
 more than once, to advert to Mr. Colton's unprovoked attack upon my 
 Brother Peacock. "Whatever be his claims to a knowledge of religion, 
 he gives unequivocal tvidence, that he knows tut huh about decency, or 
 good manners." Let it be remember id, Moderator, that the author of 
 
this language, is (he same man, who, in Pages 44 and 45. hn«, with a 
 confidence which would seem to defy contradiction, appealed to us, to 
 say, whether, in what he had written, there was "-any thing indecorous, 
 or any thing approaching to coarseness or vulgarity. — whether In- had 
 "used hard names, or treated his opponents in a contemptuous manner; 
 and let those who are must Familiar with his writings ami speeches, 
 jndge of his fitness for reading lectures to his brethren, on '"decency'" 
 and "good manners '' And, -Sir, it aggravates the oHeiisiyeness of ihe 
 passage I here refer to, that it was not, as it purports to be. spoken in 
 Presbytery, but written after the adjournment of Presbytery, and 
 printed in the pamphlet now before us, where no reply to it could ap- 
 pear. Perhaps some may be disposed to allege, that, as one of the 
 committee appointed to superintend the publication of the pamphlet, I 
 am myself to blame, for suffering this extraneous matter to appear. I 
 am happy, Sir, in being able to inform this Synod 4 tltat, on this topic, I 
 have satisfied our Presbytery, as will appear from the following record. 
 And here, Sir. it may be worth while to inquire what that Brother had 
 said, to call forth his splenetic ebullition. In Page 60, Brother Pea- 
 cock had expressed himself, thus: *Mr. Colton, on yesterday, made a 
 very zealous profession of love to Calvinism, and to Presbyterian church 
 polity. How, Sir, are we to estimate the value of this zealous profes- 
 sion? We may, possibly, be assisted in the estimation, by connecting 
 it with the remarkable fact, that all the New School have been noto- 
 rious for their profession of orthodoxy. My doctrine is, that a man's 
 principles may be best ascertained, by observing what his practice is; 
 1 or we may always safely take it for granted, that a man's practice will 
 be in accordance with his faith. This is the doctrine of our confession 
 of faith, and also of the Bible. '•By their fruits ye shall know them.'' — 
 'A pure fountain will send forth pure wafer. ' k A go d tree will bear 
 good fruit.' This, Moderator, is the head and front of Brother Pea- 
 cock's offending. And, who, Sir, that has been at all enabled to pro- 
 fit by observation and experience, but must acknowledge, that his re- 
 marks are just v rid appropriate? Nor, Sir, has Mr. Colton, in my 
 judgment, the least ground to complain that these remarks were called 
 forth by his profession of orthodoxy. Has he not, in his pamphlet, un- 
 blushingly appeared, as the Apologist of Mr. Barnes, and of 'other kiri* 
 died erroihls? And need it surprise him, if a recollection of this fact, 
 and a comparison of it with the conduct of errorists. in all aires, 
 should lead to a suspicion, that liis profession of Orthodoxy, is 
 worth but little? Yet, iti Page 90, he suffers his resentment to 
 transport him almost to madness. 
 
 Although the general tenor of his defence, exhibits abundant manifesta- 
 tion of a contumelious spirit towards his brethren of the Presbytery, yet in 
 page 23. with characteristic consistency, he makes a very affecting appeal 
 to their sympathy. '-My character," says he, 'my prospects in life, and a 
 family dependant on my daily exertions, are at issue; and it is for you to de- 
 cide, whether 1 shall go on peaceably in endeavoring to discharge my duty 
 in society, or whether I shall be constrained to buffet the troubled waters 
 till I can find a place of security, or perhaps during the remaining short period 
 
38 
 
 of my life." To this pathetic paragraph, two remarks, each of them very 
 brief, by way of reply, naturally occur. The first is. that the sympathy due 
 to distressed individuals and families, and the justice due to the suffering 
 church of Christ, are altogether separate and distinct topics of reflection and 
 action; and the other is, that, a reasonable foresight of the sad prospect to 
 which he here refers, and which he so pathetically deprecates, is a consid- 
 eration which ought to have dissuaded him from a course, so likely to bring 
 about what he has so much dreaded, rather than a consideration, which he 
 could, with any propriety, address to us, as an inducement; basely to betray 
 the best interests of the Redeemei's Kingdom. In page 24. he says, "The 
 great Head of the church will not. leave his house unprotected, should the 
 measures you wish to establish, utterly fail; but you have no assurance, 
 that the evils occasioned by a wrong decision, can ever be repaired"! Here, 
 he takes for granted, two things: One is. that what we deem essential to the 
 best interests of Zion, is a matter of small consequence, in comparison with 
 the protection of his individual reputation: and the other is, that any deci- 
 sion against him, must, of necessity, be a wrong decision; and consequent- 
 ly must be fraught with incalculable evils. Sir, the question is here a per- 
 tinent one. What could, possibly, conduct him to either of these conclu- 
 sions, but the most consummate self conceit? 
 
 In page 27, after making several abortive efforts to support his unjust 
 and unfounded complaint of 'garbling' his pamphlet, he says, 'These posi- 
 tions, I admit, indicate a liberty taken with another, which, not only shews 
 an unfairness of dealing but such a license, as borders upon a defect in mor- 
 al principle.' 1 '' Moderator, I confess, I can fix no softer terms, in which to 
 qualify this language, than to call it a flippant ebullition of shameless impu- 
 dence. 
 
 In page 99, speaking of the Moderator of Presbytery, he says, "He seems 
 evidently to labour under an impression, that his coadjutors have entirely 
 failed in their argument; and under this impression, he deems it his duty to 
 leave the chair, and step forth to help them in their weakness." For this 
 language, Sir, I have no milder title, than to call it the language of unbri- 
 dled insolence. 
 
 Mr. Colton would have you to believe, that he is very unwilling to be con- 
 sidered as connected, doctrinally at least, with the New School party. In 
 page 47 of his defence, he says, 'with the New School party, so far as er- 
 rors in doctrine are concerned, I have no fellowship, or sympathy of feel- 
 ing? And yet, in his last speech, p. 103, he appears to discover no small 
 ambition to be looked upon as holding a conspicuous rank, and making a 
 considerable figure among them. And, in order that, in thus shining as a 
 chief of the party, he may be found in honourable company, he ventures, 
 with characteristic modesty, to compare himself with the Apostle Paul, 
 whom he calls 'a zealous New School Preacher? and the Presbytery with 
 the persecuting Jews, whom he speaks of under the title of 'the Did S< hool 
 party? What, Molerator, will this Synod think of the temper and dispo- 
 sition which would prompt one holding the commission of a Minister of 
 Christ, to make such a profane misapplication of a portion of sacred histo- 
 ry, as Mr. Colton has here made, of a passage contained in the 24th chapter 
 of the Acts of the Apostles? Such conduct. Sir, is, in my judgment, open 
 to the severest reprehension. Let me ask. Sir, in this connexion — for I 
 think the question is certainly pertinent. — Why should a man. who. like him 
 who now stands at. our bar, — openly and perseveringly rebels against the 
 decisions of the highest court of the church to which he belongs, and whose 
 ingenuity has been taxed, to bring its authority into contempt, — I say. Sir, 
 
S0 
 
 —Why should such a man, think it modest, or appropriate, to associate him- 
 self with the Apostle of the Gentiles, whose whole life and writings exhibit 
 a pre-eminent example of support of, and submission to the powers that be, 
 both civil and ecclesiastical? O, Modesty! whither hast thon taken thy flight? 
 
 It may, perhaps, Moderator, shed some further light upon the character 
 of this extraordinary man's writings, to select a few short sentences from 
 his letters, and contrast them with some passages in his defence. In Letter 
 I, he says: 'Yield to no man's dictation, but read and decide for yourselves.' 
 In Letter III: 'No man has a right to dictate to others, what he shall be- 
 lieve.' 'There is so much of the spirit of dictation accompanying these 
 measures,' (meaning the measures adopted by the Assemblies of 1837 and 
 183S); — there is such an appearance of coercion, as to render them the just 
 subject of jealousy to all who regard the rights of conscience, and the value 
 of their privileges, as citizens of a free country.' 'Terms, it is true, were 
 dictated to them, but with these, they must comply, without, asking a reason, 
 or remain for ever in a separate state.' 'All these things have gone forth 
 in a spirit of dictation, resembling more the decrees of the Star-chamber, 
 than the doings of an Assembly, collected peaceably to consult on measures 
 for building up the Redeemer's kingdom.' In Letter IV. 'Yes, among the 
 wonders of the 19th century, and in a country boasting of its freedom, 
 there have been measures. adopted, of so clear and decided a character, as to 
 leave no doubt that there are those in the church, and that professedly a 
 Protestant church too, who are willing to undertake to dictate to men, not 
 only what they may think and speak, but ready to proscribe those who dare 
 to act, and think, and speak in opposition to their writings and feelings;' and 
 in Letter VI. 'In carrying out Che plan, a spirit of proscription and dictation, 
 nearly resembling that of Popery has been exhibited:' 'The Assembly claims 
 the rijrht, not only of advising, but of dictating to the inferior judicatories, 
 what they shall do' and has 'undertaken to control and prescribe terms and 
 rules which are at variance, with all the principles of a free government.' 
 To read these extracts, Sir. one would naturally suppose, that there was 
 hardly any thing conceivable, more offensive to their author, than a spirit of 
 dictation, and that no consideration whatever could ever induce him to devi- 
 ate a hair's breadth from the strictest modesty. Py looking at his defence, 
 however, we are led to a different conclusion, and find that in relation to this 
 matter, he considers himself a privileged man. Listen, now. Moderator for a 
 moment, and hear how this hater of dictation can himself dictate. In Page 
 46, he gives utterance to the following dictatorial language. 'Were I to offer 
 you my advice concerning the best means of putting an end to this agitation, 
 and the evils you apprehend, I would say, dig a grave, and bury the whole 
 matter as quick as you can.' And in Page 51, he further says, 'If you say the 
 charge is not sustained,' (which, of course he would advise us to say) 'the 
 whole excitement of which you complain in the preamble, will probably soon 
 die away, and we shall soon see things returning to the quietness of a calm. 
 We may then go on to co-operate with each other, in our respective 
 callings, and labour unitedly in building up society, and promoting the welfare 
 of the Redeemer's Kingdom.' In Page 49. he says, 'To be put down by dicta- 
 tion or authority, is not my nature.' No, Mr. Colton: We know it is not. It 
 is much more your nature to dictate. But who, Moderator, has attempted to 
 put Mr. Colton down, by dictation or authority? Surely, it was not the 
 Presbytery; for, so far were they from this, that they listened to his inflamma- 
 tory speeches, with a degree of patience and forbearance, truly astonishing. 
 
 Let me give you, Moderator, a few more brief extracts from his defence, 
 illustrative of his predominant temper, and I have done. In Page 48, he 
 
4fr 
 
 makes a shew of submission to those measures which he has so strenuously 
 opposed, on the ground of their being now settled by legal decision; but, 
 from the limits he proposes to himself, it will be found, that this is but a mere 
 shew of submission. He says u The measures of reform proposed by the 
 Old School Assembly. I have never considered as settled, till the decision of 
 the Court in Bank, in May last. That decision established the character of 
 the Assembly, and of course, gave the sanction of legality to their acts. 
 And shall that decision remain unaltered, by the decision of any higher court 
 of review, the acts of the Old School Assembly must be taken as taws, by 
 which the church is to be governed." Here, you perceive, Moderator, is the 
 limit ofhis submission; for, we are herein given plainly to understand, that, 
 should the existing decision hereafter be altered, by the decision of a higher 
 court of review, he will no longer regard, the acts of the Old School Assembly 
 as laws by which the church is to be governed; and consequently, he will not 
 be governed, by them. In Page 51, he says, in reference to the present pro- 
 cess. "If you say the charge is sustained, you place all those who differ in 
 opi iion from you. on the defensive, and compel them to use every possible 
 exertion to sustain themselves before the public." In Page 53, speaking of 
 his publications, he thus boasts of their effects. "Already, the seed sown 
 has taken deep root; it will spring up — it will produce an effect, which no 
 effort can restrain." In the same spirit, he thus expresses himself in his last 
 speech in Presbytery, Pajes 101 and 105. "Possibly," says he, "you have 
 expected I should come before you, as a high court, to beg for mercy. No, 
 Gentlemen, I have done you no wrong. I have offended, neither against the 
 law, nor against the church, nor against Cfesar. I am not here as a felon, 
 to plead guilty, and sue for mercy. I am before a court constituted of my 
 equals. I am here with those, whom, notwithstanding all that has been 
 said to the contrary, I regard as a party in the case. I stand herewith my 
 accusers, face to face. No man can look on these proceedings, and he at a 
 loss whence all these accusations against me originated. The miserable sub- 
 terfuge of putting forth Fama Clamosa. as the scape goat, to bear all the 
 sins of this trial, is u uvorthy of the high minded disciple of Jesus Christ. It 
 shows a want of courage to meet the contest, or that the real prosecutors 
 are ashamed to appear in their appropriate character." Moderator, I seri- 
 ously propose the question to you, and to my brethren of this Synod, is it 
 becoming, in a Presbyterian Minister, thus, not, only to abuse the court be- 
 fore whom he stands arraigned, but also to stigmatize the constitution of 
 the church, to which he belongs, and to whose judicatories, he is answera- 
 ble for his conduct? In Page 105, he goes on to say, 'I have, all along, con- 
 sidered the Presbytery as a party. If you say you are not, why, then.have 
 you tabled these charges? Why did you not take the ordinary course of a 
 court of inquiry?' In reply. Moderator, I ask, in my turn, why is not Mr. 
 Colton better acquainted with the Constitution of the Presbyterian church? 
 He concludes his last speech, in the following language, Page 105 and 106. 
 'All I ask of you, gentlemen, is, that you give a decision founded on evi- 
 dence, on such evidence as you would take to guide your proceedings, were 
 you sitting as jurors under a solemn oath, on a trial, involving the life of a 
 fellow being. I ask, that you will be guided by the eternal principles of jus- 
 tice, laid down in the Bible, and drawn out into practice, in the COMMON 
 LAW of the land. A decision, founded on such principles, and an evidence 
 according to their principles, is all I ask; and such a decision, I trust, you 
 will have the magnanimity to give.' Yes, Sir, for once at least, in his life 
 he acted wisely, in making his appeal to our magnanimity; for, to shew him 
 any clemency or mercy, after the anterperation and abuse, in which he has 
 
41 
 
 so liberally indulged himself, does indeed require a degree of forbearance, to 
 which he can have no just claim, and which can only be the result of genu- 
 ine christian magnanimity. 
 
 Thus, Moderator, have I endeavored, by taking a plain, common sense 
 view of these productions of the Rev. Simeon Colton's pen, to ascertain, and 
 exhibit before this Synod, their true character: and I persuade myself, that I 
 have presented ! sufficient evidence, not or'y of the fact, that he has 'given 
 i^i-rericy 'to allegations of a false and slanderous nature, against the church, 
 ;.ivi duly 'constituted authorities, having a tendency to bring the church and 
 i i er office bearers generally, into public disrepute;" but, moreover, that his 
 .vhole demeanor, during the progress of this painful trial, has been marked, 
 by such an unbecoming, unsubdued, unhumbledj unhallowed and contuma- 
 cious spirit, as imperiously demand of this Reverend Synod tosubjeet him, 
 to that wholesome discipline, provided by the church, for the correction of 
 those who have offended against her laws. I pray God, that this whole af- 
 fair may terminate in the adoption of such measures, as He may bless, for 
 the promotion of his own declarative glory, the effectual conviction, reforma- 
 tion, arid return to duty, to comfort and to usefulness of the brother who 
 now s f nds at our bar, and the ultimate purity, spiritual prosperity, united 
 h •-> mony, p -d permanent peace of our beloved Ziort. 
 

 i