D EFE N CE
OF
REV. JOHN LITTLE,
PASTOR OF THE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCHI WAVERLY PLACE, NEW' YORK,
DELIVERED
BEFORE TIHE PRESBYTERY, OC'. 13,
IN
THEI CASE OF HIS TRIAL FOR HERESY,
WITH
AN APPENDIX,
0ONTAINING A B3RIEF REPORT OF THE TRIAL.
"Our men in buckram shall'have blows enougch,
And feel they, too, are "penetrable stuff."
NEW YORK:
PUBLISHED BY M. W. DODD,
BRICK CHURCH CHAPEL, OPPOSITE CITY IIALL.
1851.
WnVm. C. Bryant & Co., Printers, 18 Nassau st., N. Y.








DEFEN CE
OF
REV. JOHN LITTLE,
PASTOR OF THE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH,'WAVERLY PLACE, NEW YORK,
DELIVERED
BEFORE THE PRESBYTERY, OCT. 13,
IN
THE CASE OF HIS TRIAL FOR HERESY.
WITH
AN APPENDIX,
CONTAINING A BRIEF REPORT OF THE TRIAL.'Our men in buckram shall have blows enough,
And feel they, too, are "penetrable stuff."
NEW YORK:
PUBLISHED BY M. W. DODD,
BRICK CHURCH CHAPEL, OPPOSITE CITY HALL.
1861







PREFATORY NOTE.
In January last, during the excitement consequent on the passage
by Congress of the "Compromise adjustments," Mr. Little, at the
request of members of his own congregation, delivered a sermon,
since published, on " Obedience to Law." The sentiments uttered by
the preacher were, it appears, distasteful to certain persons connected
with a neighboring church, and one of these, either selected by the
others, or moved thereto by the promptings of his own spirit, presented himself at the May meeting of the Reformed Presbytery of
New York, with a libel against Mr. Little. That gentleman, however,
happening not to be present, the libel was only received and sustained
as relevant to censure.  Its trial was appointed to take place in October, at the next regular meeting of Presbytery. At length, as usual,
October arrived, on its seventh day Presbytery met, and its sessions
were continued until the fourteenth, almost the whole of which time
was occupied in Mr. Little's trial.  The nature and result of the trial
will be found in the " Defence" and the "Appendix."  Of the former
it is only necessary to say, it was taken as Mr. Little uttered it by a
competent reporter, and now appears before the public in a condensed
and somewhat revised form. As to. the proceedings of Presbytery,
those who witnessed them will not soon desire a recurrence of such
extraordinary transactions.
New York, Oct. 27th, 1851.








DEFENCE, &c.
REVEREND  Moderator, Reverend Fathers and Brethren,
at once, with trepidation and confidence I rise to make before you my defence. I say with trepidation, for my powers
are far from equal to the exigencies of the occasion, and my
youth and inexperience may well produce within me fear and
trembling, as I contemplate the difficulty of the service on
which I am about to enter.  But I say also, with confidence,
for strong is my conviction of the goodness of my cause. MIy
enthusiastic persuasion is, that it needs but to be put before
you with plainness and simplicity that it may receive from
you the most overwhelming of vindications. From the charges
brought against me, I confidently anticipate a triumphant
acquittal;-an anticipation grounded on that soothing sense of
my innocence which possesses me, on the belief of all, except
the friends of the prosecutor, who have been present during
the course of this trial, and on the evidence adduced. While
conscious, therefore, of my inadequacy for the labor now imposed on me, I yet, like the stripling David, as with sling in
hand he marched over the plain to meet the huge and bantering giant of Philistia, feel that my cause is that of God and
his revealed truth, and that my adversary, smitten by my
feeble power, shall reel, and stumble, and vanquished fall
prostrate on the dust.
Whence this libel?  What its origin and parentage? From
what quarter might we expect it to come up to this Presby



6
tery?  From the members or session of that congregation of
which I am pastor? or from those over whom I have no
ministerial superintendence? Surely from the former. Those
among whom I labor on the Sabbath, and with whom, during
the week, in personal intercourse and parochial visitation, I
constantly mingle have far better opportunity than others of
knowing my opinions and sentiments. Sir, if charges were
to be preferred against me, by any people before your reverend
court, I would have expected them to be brought up by some
members of my own church. But no such charges have come
from them. Though they number among them some of the
oldest and most tried adherents of Reformed Presbyterianism
in this city; though no man here will venture to disparage their
fidelity to their profession; though they knew my mode of
preaching and my doctrine; though they listened with attention to that sermon, on which the present libel is founded, yet
none of them have charged me before your bar with unsound
teaching. No, Sir, this libel did not come up from the people
of my pastoral charge; but it came from an elder of a contiguous congregation, —t congregation alienated from us in
feeling, and supposed to nurse and nourish towards us a spirit
of enmity. It is well known that congregation and this, of
which I am minister, were, a few years ago, one, but owing
to certain difficulties, Presbytery separated them, assigning
to the former the name " Second," and the latter, " Third,"
Reformed Presbyterian Church. Notwithstanding the division,
still considerable hard feeling prevailed among them. And
it is out of that " Second" church that a member now issues
forth and institutes before you, proceedings against me as a
preacher of heresy. I do not assert that the individual in
question, in so doing, was actuated by a lurking rancor of the
eld; but who can deny that the congregational connexion of
my prosecutor affords color for such a suspicion?
But what urged this person to bring up and prosecute




7
against me the libel on your table?  Was it modesty?
JIodesty! Imagining that all the members of my church
were acting unfaithfully, in not reporting me a heretic, that
there was no other man so full of integrity as to face the obloquy inseparable from such a prosecution, complacently
regarding himself as one of the very few in the land who had
not bowed the knee to Baal, did he, as the would-be Elijah of
the day, consider himself specially fitted and chosen for this
unpleasant, but, as he conceived, indispensable undertaking?
Perhaps, measuring his own integrity and qualifications by
that of others, he was conducted to the flattering conclusion
that he only was adequate to the trying responsibilities of this
labor! Oh, sir, whatever may have been the motive of the
prosecutor, our decided conviction is, that at least it was not
modesty! Perhaps, however, in this he has only been obedient
to the urgency of duty. Honor to the man who, moved by
such a feeling, encounters in his course, difficulty and reproach. He, who actuated by duty, brings up to this bar a
charge against a brother for evil conduct or false teaching,
deserves the sympathy of the wise and good. But were there
not many, who, in age and knowledge, might have been the
prosecutor's father, who had unfurled the banner of the covenanted reformation, ere he had learned the rudiments of its
catechism, and who, before he had either "' a local habitation
or a name" in the church in this country, had labored and
prayed for the welfare of their beloved Zion-wept at its sorrows, and were glad in its prosperities and its joys,-were
there not, we say, many such persons, over whose heads as it
were, he brings against me the charges in the libel. Sir, this
man had neither the first right, nor the second, nor the third,
nor the fourth right to introduce before you, if it had been
necessary so to do, these charges.  But there may be, as under the old dispensation, so now, those who run unsent, and
assume to themselves an office, the only appointment to which




8
is to be found in their own vain self-will.  Sir, it would not
be easy to show that duty has prompted to this service. I
recollect in reading the Prometheus Vinctus of AEschylus, the
puzzled chorus inquires from the rock-bound and tortured victim of the rage of Jove, —" Who is the parent of necessity?"
And the response comes from the heart of the sufferer," The triplex Fates and the remembering Furies." Now, Sir,
in this age, the idea of Fate has been merged into that of
Providence; but we have still among us, certain evil and unforgetting feelings and passions substantially correspondent to
the furies of a by-gone mythology, —and we very much mistake their nature, if they do not often urge to a rash activity,
and precipitate us into the accomplishment of that which we
fondly, but falsely, flatter ourselves is necessitated by imperative duty. Sir, whether such feelings, rather than urgent
duty, have been the parent of the necessity of this prosecution,
I shall not assume the province of determining. It is still very
difficult to come at anything like a satisfactory reason for the
course which the author of this libel has thought fit to pursue.
We have not found it in modesty, nor discovered it in duty,
nor will we hazard the assertion that the emotional nature
conceals it in her chamber of antipathies. But who knows to
what a thirst for notoriety might urge? To be brought from
obscurity to public notice, many will suffer and accomplish
much. If it is " pleasant, sure, to see one's name in print,"
not less agreeable is it to hear our name often pronounced
from mouth to mouth. Ergostratus wished to have his name
transmitted to posterity, and he secured his purpose, not by
any great or patriotic achievement, but by burning the noblest
edifice of his time. Now I do not assert that the promoter of
this trial desires mere notoriety. But what can be his motive?
It would be wrong for me to suppose that others, craftier, but
not so honest as himself, employ him as a mere tool.  In this
court, it might be improper to make such a suggestion, and I




9
will not make it. We expect, however, no matter what be
the motive, when charges seriously affecting the character and
standing of a Minister of the Gospel, are made before this
court, the prosecutor should be a person fit for his work,
calculated to do it, not as a bungler, but well. My sermon
being an inquiry into the nature and reason of obedience to
law, that I might be rightly understood, a thoughtful mind and
and close attention were requisite.  The libeller certainly has
misapprehended the spirit and drift of the discourse. Whether
this arose from mental incapacity, inattention, or worse, I
pretend not to say. Possibly, and it is the most charitable
construction, his unacquaintance with my mode of address,
and with the exact meaning of the words of his own language,
as employed by me, may have misled him.
We come now to the libel itself.  As to it, I have pleaded
" not guilty;" and no man ever had better reason to enter
such a plea. In the evidence, it has been proved, and I believe
I will be able to make it apparent in this defence, that from
beginning to end it is a tissue of misunderstandings. As will
appear in the evidence, some things uttered in the'course of
my sermon are to be found scattered through the libel, but
they are so altered in their position, so twisted from their
connection, so convolved with alien sentiments, that an impartial hearer of the sermon would not recognise them in their
altered appearance, and exotic situation.
To the witnesses on whose testimony the final adjudication
of this case must be predicated, with the indulgence of the
court, I will briefly refer.'On behalf of the prosecution, eight
witnesses have been sworn andcl examined. Now, as to the
Christian character of these men, I have not a word to say. In
so far as relates to their moral standing before God and his
church, I presume they are what the Bible requires, and their
own conscience approves. But in the giving of evidence in
such a case as this, we must know more of a man than that he
2




10
is pious, and a member of a church. Many good men are
weakminded, biased  by prejudice, easily excited  and led
astray by false reports. Now, I repeat it, I.give honor to all
these men as Christians, I look upon them as the followers of
Christ; but, Sir, we must know more than that these men are
members of a church, and men of piety.  We must understand their fitness for giving testimony in this case.  We
must know that they are free from prejudice and bias, thlat
while giving to us what they believe, and what to them undoubtedly is, a true testimony, no influence of party, or partiality has silently and without their cognizance operated on their
minds. All the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, with
the exception of three, Rev. J. Henderson, John Nightingale, aiid A. Knox, are members of the " second" congregation.  They are not so well circumstanced as my own members are, to judge of my mode of thought, style of speaking,
construction of sentences, division and treatment of a discourse; consequently, they are less likely to come to a right
conclusion as to what I uttered.  Every man, I think, will
perceive the truth of this.  Besides, they are nlembers of a
congregation generally believed in the community, not to be
on the most gracious terms with mine. These men, for anything I know to the contrary, may even to this moment be firm
in the assurance that they have suffered injury or detriment
from us; and, unknown to themselves, they may look both on
myself and sermon with a certain one-sidedness of view. Feeling is often silent and stealthy in its leavening operation, and
while all unconscious of its power, its possessor may have his
thoughts, beliefs and purposes deeply tinged by its ruddy
coloring. This is a consideration which, I doubt not, the
members of this court. will keep before them. Nor, if we are
to judge from the evidence on your table, are the mental
qualifications of some of these witnesses of a very high order.
No one, I think, would deny their fitness to determine on the




*11
quality of things with which in business they are daily conversant. Few would question their opinion on the quality of
shoes or shoe leather, or the nature of a jack-plane, or an umbrella. Sir, no man acquainted with these gentlemen could
hesitate to receive and endorse their opinions on these matters.
But the question is, whether persons accustomed to the leather
business, and carpenter trade, may not be very poor judges of the
soundness or unsoundness of a sermon delivered by a strange
clergyman, a sermon on a difficult and confessedly abstruse subject. Sir, I might deny the fitness of some of these witnesses to
pass upon the doctrines of this discourse, as they would upon the
quality of a pair of shoes, or anything else that comes within
the range of their ordinary business. But it was evident
from the examination of several of them, that the order and
design of the sermon, on which this prosecution is grounded,
were mysteries to them.  One did not know the texts I read.
None have been able fully to trace my train of thought. A few
knew nothing of certain important principles introduced
towards the end of the discourse, rendering more definite and
limiting what I had previously advanced, principles afterwards proved to have been brought forward prominently.
But, whoever gives testimony in such a case as this, should
have understood and viewed my sermon as a whole, should be
able to tell what was in it, the connection of its various parts,
and the conclusions to which it conducted.  In most of the
witnesses, however, we look in vain for such qualifications.
One* stated in his evidence that I taught, when a child could
not obey an ill-conditioned parent, on account of his commands
being sinful, he ought to submit. Yet on being questioned
immediately after, the witness stated, I made no distinction
between obedience and submission. First, it is testified that I
said where a child cannot obey he must submit, and a few
* We have thought it better to omit in some instances the names.




12
moments after, it is also testified, that between obedience and
submission I did not distinguish! But this is not all, most of the
witnesses have told you that they understood me to use the
words obey and submit synonymously. These witnesses must
be well acquainted with the force and peculiar signification of
the words in our English language! Sir, is it necessary when
I go into the pulpit I should turn lexicographer, and expound
to my people the meaning and difference of the simplest words?
We must take it for granted our hearers know something.
Does not every schoolboy who has made acquaintance with his
Walker or Webster, understand that the word obey refers to
an active service yielded to authority, and submit to the passive
resignation of ourselves to power or necessity? Yet, Sir, it is
on the testimony of such men, thus incapable of distinguishing
the use of plain words, the prosecutor hopes to secure my condemnation! This court will \know how to rate the value of the
evidence which emanates from such a source. Again, a most
important witness thus testified before you, "Thinks Mr.
Little's discourse was favorable to the Fugitive Slave Law."
On being afterwards interrogated he thus uttered himself,
" Thinks Mr. L. said Slave Law  was an evil; should take
means to remove it."  Now, Sir, I appeal to you as Moderator of this court, I appeal to all candid men within my hearing, is any weight to be placed upon the evidence of the man
who can come up before this court and make two such statements?*
But what is the general character of the testimony which
these witnesses have borne? The question was asked of each
of them by the prosecutor as to the supposed quotations from
my sermon placed in the libel, under the different charges and
* At this point Mr. L. was interrupted, and there occurred the following
explanation by that witness: " By favorable to the law means, Mr. L. taught,
must submit to the administration of the Fugitive Slave Law."




13
specifications, " Did Mr. Little use these words, or words to
that effect?"  Against this singularly direct mode of examination, as the court permitted it, I have nothing to say. But
it is of importance to bear in mind the answers which it elicited. Except in a few instances, the witnesses declared they
could not testify as to the exact words.  Well, but wordsthe words which I used, and as I employed them, should be
known by this Presbytery, or its members must be in circumnstances unfavorable to arriving at a just judgment in the case.
I could take up at this moment a sentence from any author,
and by striking a word out of it, and placing in its stead
another of nearly the same meaning, entirely alter its original
signification. At least, there would be no difficulty in imparting to it a different shade of meaning. And so the prosecutor,
being unable to prove the words, consoles himself by introducing evidence that something was spoken by me " to the
effect" of the supposed extracts in the libel. What does the
prosecutor mean by his favorite phrase, " words to that effect?"
Does he mean words that have some resemblance in meaning to
his suppositious quotations? If so, how near is the resemblance?
Is it close or distant? It may be very remote, for anything
that appears to the contrary; yet, in nearly all cases, the answer has been, " words to that effect!"  Sir, on the ground
of this indefinite phrase, are the members of this court prepared to find proven the charges in the libel? I hope not.
But if quotations are introduced into this libel from the sermon, they must be in the true sense quotations, or they have
no right to such a name. There is no medium between a quotation, and what is not a quotation.  The extracts, under the
different specifications in the libel are either quotations or
they are not. The testimony does not warrant us in saying
that they are quotations; but only, that in some instances, they
are "to the effect" of quotations.  Sir, no proof has been offered that they are quotations, and we are justified in assert



14
ing that they are not. Let us understand then what we have
got to substantiate these charges against me.  Not the words
I uttered, not the quotations from the obnoxious discourse,
but something which some people think, and have, on their
oath, before you declared they think is "' to the effect" of what
I preached! Well, this " effct," I am afraid, if admitted to
any favor or countenance in the domain of evidence, will lead
to very strange and dangerous conclusions.  Sir, I am persuaded the court cannot be too cautious in weighing and scrutinizing such testimony as this. You have before you, not the
words of the preacher, but something, which to certain minds
who may be prejudiced, or under the influence of feeling, or
only partially acquainted with the English language, is to the
"effect" of what was said! But further than this, it has been
shown that the extracts adduced as proof of the several charges
have been culled and selected from different parts of the
sermon, and by the dexterity of the prosecutor, introduced
into new situations, and wedded into those connections among
which we find them on the pages of the libel. Even Mr. Henderson in two instances said, he was not sure of the connection in which certain words and passages of Scripture were
used. Another witness, after having read to him a series of
these combined extracts, said, he remembered through the
discourse those sentiments, but they were not in that "string."
Now, sir, there is much in the connection in which our ideas
are introduced; so much that in one connection they may be
true and in another false.  If I were permitted to treat the
Bible as the prosecutor has the sermon, I could, to the horror
of all true and orthodox churchmen, here present, educe from
it the Unitarian belief that Christ is not God as well as man.
From its different parts, I might collect such texts as, "My
Father is greater than I."-"I do always those things which
please him."-" The Son can do nothing of himself, but what
he seeth the Father do." —" I must work the work of him




15
that sent me while it is day."-"' Not my will but thine be
done." And from these passages, sundered from their immediate connection, and viewed apart from other Scriptures, it
were easy to arrive at the conclusion that Christ is not a Divine person, that he is only man, or some high Angelic Being.
By adopting the course of the prosecutor, in the construction
of this libel, we may extract from the best books the most
deadly poison, the most pernicious heresy. If I am to be
condemned on the evidence that, through the discourse in question I uttered certain sentiments, but not in the place and order in which they are to be found under the respective counts
and specifications, then no man is safe from the charge of error; you are not safe, and I am not safe, and any sermon we
deliver may, by a disaffected hearer, be twisted into a meaning the very opposite of that which we intended, and be made
to substantiate against us the vilest of accusations.
I will now advert to the witnesses for the defence. These
are eleven in all: eight from this congregation, and three from
that of Mr. Crystie. Some of these are old and well-known
members of the Reformed Presbyterian Church. They are
all well acquainted with me as a preacher, know my peculiar
manner, and my doctrine.  Most of these are my constant
hearers.  It is on the record before you, that at least they
were able to understand my sermon, knew the order in which
it was delivered, and comprehended the distinction between
obedience and submission.  None here will venture to impugn
their steadfastness and integrity as good Covenanters.  They
are presumed to be less in danger of bias, prejudice, or feeling than most of the witnesses brought before you in the prosecution. They are men known and respected in society. In
their evidence is proof of their intelligence; and in substance
all testify my innocence of that with which I am charged.
Yet several of them  stated their non-agreement with my
opinions as to the Fugitive Slave Law, and the duty of sub



16
mission. Still, their testimony is of such a nature, that I am
strong in the assurance it will secure the utter defeat of the
prosecution.
We come now to the charges in the libel. Count first, specification first is as follows:-" Teaching that the providential
existence of a civil government entitles it to conscientious
obedience.  In the following expressions or words to this effect. " But, it may be asked, does the mere existence of a government entitle it to conscientious obedience? We answer in
the affirmative.  God sometimes permits a government to exist for the good of the subjects, sometimes for a scourge; but
no matter for what reason he permits it, the simple fact that
it exists is a sufficient reason why we should yield it conscientious obedience," &c. John A. Bowden examined on the specification, says: —" Not so strong; not to obey under all circumstances." John H. Neilley, testifies, —" Did not use language to justify this charge." Rev. J. Henderson cross-examined, says,-" Cannot tell that Mr. L. made the existence
of a civil government entitle it to a conscientious obedience or
submission." J. Nightingale witnesses,-" Urged submission to existing governments, not as to the moral ordinance of
God, but as a duty under the circumstances." To the same
effect, A. Knox,-" Did not enjoin obedience or submission to
existing governments as the moral ordinances of God." A.
Bowden says, " Mr. L. in some places spoke of a power which
exists in the providence of God, and by his institution, and to
which we are bound to submit for the sake of the Author; in
other parts, he (Mr. L.) referred to governments to which we
are obliged to yield submission." H. Ferguson has told you
I taught,-" The foundation of obligation to obey government is the Divine law."  And J. Glassford,-" Thinks Mr.
L. stated the will of God is the ground of obedience to human
law."  It is unnecessary for me to call your special attention
to this evidence. Coming both from the witnesses for the




17
prosecution and defence, it is remarkably harmonious. You
learn from it that I traced back all obedience to its ultimate
reason —the will and authority of God; that I spoke of civil
government as instituted by God, and existing in his Providence; that I referred to certain governments to which we
were to submit ourselves, as a duty under the circumstances;
and that I did not enjoin obedience to existing governments as
the moral ordinance of God. But this is very different from
the unqualified proposition that the providential existence of
a civil government, entitles it in all cases to conscientious obe
dience.  Sir, it has been proved that I taught it is the Divine
authority and will which alone entitle anything to obedience.
It has also been shown that in all circumstances I did not urge
obedience to the powers that exist. But there is a difficulty
meets us here, which, ere we advance farther, it may be well,
if possible, to remove. Mr. Knox, a witness for the prosecution, says, I used the word'" obedience" very seldom, but submission" frequently. He thinks moreover, in the extracts
from my sermon, adduced under the head of the first specification, I used the word " submit," and not " obey," as there
stated. Several other witnesses for the prosecution declare they
cannot be sure where I used "' obey," and where " submit"words, which to them appeared synonymous. The evidence
produced by the defence distinctly shows that in the present
connection " submission" was the word employed. Now it is
precisely in the use of those words that our difficulty lies.
Some here confound them together. Others believe the distinction between them is unimportant. For myself, I have always regarded them as widely different in import, and throughout my public speaking, have attached to each what I considered its peculiar signification. Justice, therefore, would not
be done to me, if, in the sermon any one should take it into
his head to use them as convertible terms. If ignorance
or perversity confound them together, it is confidently be3




18
lieved such an attempt will never obtain the approval of this
court. The witness, Walter Miller, has told plainly that he
" understood Mr. L. to draw a distinction between obedience
and submission."  J. H. Neilley believes " the distinction between obedience and submission was' clearly drawn."  In the
extracts then adduced, in proof of this first charge, the evidence warrants us to insert the word submission for obedience.
But what do we mean by submitting for conscience sake, or
or "CC conscientious submission" as it has been so often called?
The witness J. W. Bowden will tell you he understood " the
conscientious submission to refer to the fact that God had so
placed the Christian as to render it necessary." A. Bowden
regarded me as teaching,-" Even in submitting to oppressive
governments, conscience must approve the submission; and
that was the kind of conscientious submission (Mr. L.) enjoined."  The evidence, therefore, informs you that I taught,
if in providence we have assigned us our habitation under an
oppressive government, or under any existing power not scriptural in its character, we are nevertheless with resignation,
and for conscience toward God, to yield it submission. And
such submission we call " conscientious," because in the circumstances it is a duty-a duty we owe to him who has ordered our lot in such a place. All this, however, does not prove
the charge in this first specification.  But let us suppose
that in all the extracts under this charge the word " obedience"
actually occurs. What then? Why plainly nothing to the
advantage of the prosecutor; for it has been testified again
and again, that these sentences have been raked here together
from different parts of the sermon, and that when read together
in their new combination they produce a different effect from
what they did in their primitive locations. Detached from
their original connections, and like so many boulders thrown
together and rudely cemented by the conductor of this process,
they present to the eye an aspect diverse from their appear



19
ance in the several parts of the structure of my sermon,
When questioned as to these extracts, A. Bowden " did not
hear Mr. L. use those words in that connection;" and again,
" Thinks Mr. L. uttered part of these words, but not in such
a manner as to produce that effect." J. H. Neillcy " does not
believe these words so connected, were used."  H. Ferguson
says, " these words were used in various places of the sermon."
Sir, if the prosecutor meant to use and not abuse my words and
sentiments, he should not have garbled and misplaced them as
the evidence makes plain he has done. He should have dealt
with them honestly, and as whole. He should not have cut
out from the circle of the discourse a segment, and then make
the awkward attempt to demonstrate that the properties of
that segment are identical with the properties of the circle
from which it came. What though it is proved that in some
instances I used words to the " effect" of those in the libel,
when it is on evidence that those words convey another sense
than that which they did, to intelligent listeners at the time
of their delivery?   What though all the sentences here
quoted had been uttered by me verbatim, if the connection into which they have been introduced, alters in any degree their
original import?  We have here positively nothing to substantiate the charge of this specification.  You glean from
the testimony, that I have taught,-God is the establisher of
government,-that in the Divine authority and will, in some
way made known to us, we ground the reason of obedience,that we are not to recognise and obey as the moral ordinance
of God, any government that may exist, no matter what is its
character,-and that we are to submit, as a duty to God, to
oppressive powers, under whose rule our lot and sphere of
labor may be assigned, until in providence, we are succored
by deliverance. But all this does not reach, much less fully
meet, the point at issue.  I see no other way of attaining to
that point, but by marching up to it of my own accord, and




20
announcing what I did preach, and still believe, as to conscientious obedience and submission.  Without troubling
ourselves with the views taken of conscience by mental and
moral philosophers, it is enough for our present purpose to
regard it with Chrysostom, as "' A Divine principle implanted
by God in our souls." Or with Milton, as, " God's umpire;"
or with others, as " The voice of God within." It is the
Divine Being, by the peculiar moral constitution with which
he has endowed us, teaching us the right, dissuading us from
the evil, scattering peace and satisfaction along the path of
duty, and making hard with fears and remorse, and grievous
disquietudes the way of transgression.  Quickened by the
Spirit and enlightened by the Word, it must be recognized by
the Christian as his guide and dictator. In all his actions
and submissions, he must seek its approbation. Whatever
he does, must be performed, and whatever he suffers, must be
borne according to its direction and for its account.  As
God's vicegerent, it is man's sovereign, and so should be
honored by the continuous loyalty and service of our lives. If
we obey, if we submit, if we are resigned under suffering, if
we are diligent in our daily business, it ought ever to be
because conscience urges to, and approves of such a procedure.
Hence, the Scriptures enjoin, " Whatsoever ye do, do it
heartily, as to the Lord and not to man."   And it has been
told you by one of the witnesses, that I used " God's sake"'
and " Conscience sake" in the same sense.  So in the sermon
on which these charges against me are grounded it is taught,
"Whatsover obedience we render, or submission we yield to
the civil rulers, under whose sway in Providence we exist,
must be as to the Lord and not to man; not only for wrath
but also for conscience sake.'  When we obey the lawful
commands of any government, we do so as a duty to God;
when like Daniel, we refuse to obey a sinful law, and choose
rather to submit to the penalty, it is for the sake of conscience




21
we prefer the submission to obedience.  So saith the Apostle
Peter to the Christians, in his own and all succeeding ages,
" Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's
sake." Certainly the Roman Government, towards the end
of the first century, was little better than a military despotism.
Yet, as God in his providence had placed under it the members
of the early Christian Church, so in resignation to his will, for
conscience towards God, they are commanded to submit to it.
Indeed, this same principle of having respect to God, in all
we do or hear, runs through the whole New Testament, and
underlays the Christian religion. Thus servants, though by
contract or otherwise, bound to serve their masters, are yet
urged to faithfulness by the higher consideration of their duty
to that Master who is in Heaven; and they are taught to submit not only to masters that are good and gentle, but also to
the froward, " for this," saith the Apostle," is thankworthy,
if a man, for conscience toward God, endure grief, suffering
wrongfully." And what is Christianity, but that religious
system which, by enabling us constantly to behold God in the
face of Jesus Christ, by strengthening us, so that we set the
Lord ever before us, and act as those who are responsible to
him for all our deeds, produces within us a growing assimilation to the moral likeness of God. Yes, I have proclaimed,
and will still proclaim, that the true believer, who has been
delivered from  " the spirit of bondage," and rejoices in the
" glorious liberty of the children of God," knows nothing of
obedience for " fear sake,"' or submission for " wrath's sake;"
for all he does is prompted by conscience, and all he suffers is,
for the sake of duty, cheerfully undergone. But even this
does not support against me what is charged. All this is very
different from the naked and unqualified proposition, " The
providential existence of a civil government ENTITLES it to
conscientious obedience."
I now pass to the second specification under count first, name



22
ly.:'That opposition to or bearing testimony against any
civil government, which may exist in the providence of God, is
contrary to the practice of our Saviour and his apostles. In
the following expressions or words to this effect: Our Saviour
says, " Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's."' When he was reviled, he reviled not again."  He made no
opposition to the then existing powers. During his whole life
he carried out the doctrine here inculcated.  The apostles
acted in the same manner," &c. First, let it be observed if
it were proved that I employed these words, and in the connection in which they are here found, they would not be sufficient to substantiate this charge. Second, would not a candid
man reading this for the first time, actually suppose I was
libelled for quoting Scripture? Third, in the sentence,
" During his whole life he carried out the doctrine here inculcated;" uwhat is the doctrine referred to? Is it that contained
in the passage, " Render unto Caesar the things which are
Caesar's?'" and so does it mean Christ yielded to civil power
what was its due, and to God what belonged to him? This no
one will deny, but few will be able to comprehend its pertinency to the case in hand. Or rather, is not the word " doctrine"' so dexterously placed that it might strike a careless
hearer, or a person of little penetration as pointing to the
charge itself as its antecedent, the " doctrine" and the " specification" being thus regarded as identical? If so, although
we can understand the meaning, it is not so easy to be certain
of the honest intent of the prosecutor.  Let us, -however, inquire what the testimony saith on behalf of the charge. J.
H. Neilley deposes, " Mr. L. expressed no such idea."  J.
Napier, " Believes Mr. L. did not teach this."  J. Glassford,
" Did not understand Mr. L. to teach that." J. Nightingale,
a witness for the defence, says, " Here Mr. Little was teaching the duty of not resisting by violence, and urged the example of Christ and his apostles to enforce this." A. Bowden




28
testifies, " Mr. L. did not introduce the example of Christ
and his apostles, to urge submission in every case." And the
Rev. J. Henderson, " Remembered something in the strain"
of the extracts here quoted.  The connection of the sentences
is again a matter on which the witnesses are not agreed. Here
you are told by three respectable witnesses, that I am innocent of teaching what is charged; a fourth witness assures
you that I introduced the meek and submissive conduct of
Christ and his apostles as an example to those who by force
and violence, whenever the effervescing turbulence of their
seditious spirit excites them, resist established governments;
a fifth declares, I did not introduce the example of
Christ to prove that~an oppressed people should forever lie
tame under tyranny; and I might produce the evidence of
almost every one examined to show, that so far from teaching
passive obedience or unlimited submission, I asserted the right
of revolution resides in the community. Sir, it is proved I
did not preach that reproving the bad acts of a government,
testifying against the evils incorporated in the constitution of
any civil society is contrary to the example of Christ and his
apostles. The charge carries with it on its face its own
refutation. From the evidence its falsity is unmistakeably apparent. But were we without testimony, were we only to regard it in the light of probability, its certain dismissal could
be no matter of conjecture.  Would any Presbyterian —any
Protestant congregation tolerate in its pulpit for a day, a
minister who asserted that to testify against evil anywhere,
in church or state, in law or government, is contrary to the
example of the holy Saviour? Can we suppose, particularly, that
in our church a pastor who disseminated such opinions, no matter how beloved and popular he may previously have been, would
not be immediately driven from his station by the torrentuous
rush of an excited indignation? Sir, no man would venture to
utter such doctrine in any of our pulpits. At least, if he did, it




24
would be his last utterance there. Justly would he deserve
immediate expulsion. With iniquity in one place he had entered into a league of amity, with sin in the constitution and
legislation of governments, with wickedness in high places he
had made a covenant of peace and engaged to seal his lips in
an unfaithful silence, and deepest impiety of all, he had laid to'
his soul the deceptive unction, that thus acting, he was a follower of the Divine Exemplar. Such a minister, it would be
no intolerance to thrust out from perverting by his teaching
the heritage of the Lord. Attached though the people of my
charge are to me, had they heard me preach to them that
with which I am charged at your bar, they would, I feel persuaded, have been the very first to urge my immediate removal
from their midst. Sir, if my prosecutor should again think of
trying his hand in the construction of other libels, he will
pardon me for referring him to the lines:
"Lest men suspect your tale untrue,
Keep probability in view."
We pass on to consider the third specification of this court.
It charges me with teaching, " That our Lord Jesus Christ
approves of the cruel, wicked, and heaven-daring system of
slavery practiced in these United States, so much that he
would tell: a slave who had escaped from his master to go
back and meekly and quietly submit his neck to the yoke of
slavery. In the following expressions or words to this effect:
" They (the abolitionists) have done much evil on all hands,
and even to the slave himself, tending to make his situation
more disagreeable, persuading him to escape from his master,
and opposing all attempts to take him back; whereas, Jesus
Christ would tell him to go back and meekly and quietly submit his neck to the yoke." The phraseology of this charge
is peculiar. Its beginning is as the roaring of a lion roused
from his lair by the sudden swelling of Jordan-deep, awful,
terrific, awakening affrighted echoes among the surrounding




hills; its end is calm and peaceful as the rustic strains of
Tityrus from under the branching leafy beech. Reading the
first two lines, the horrible supposition will intrude itself into
the mind that I have been teaching, Christ " approves of
what is cruel, wicked, and heaven-daring!i"  Taken, however, in connection with what follows, it appears it is only to a
certain extent I am charged with making such a sweeping
enunciation. It is, so far, that in certain circumstances Christ
would tell a fugitive slave to go back to his master and quietly submit to the yoke of slavery. Why not at once charge
me with this latter, seeing it contains the gravamnen of my offence, even in the eyes of the prosecutor, without resorting
to a combination of words of strange and ominous importsusceptible of a blasphemous meaning-and evidently designed to damage me in the estimation of those in this large
and respectable assembly, whose sensibility can be moved, or
judgment influenced by ardent, energetic phrases? M. Henry, J. Long, S. R. McGuire, MI. W. Bartly-all witnesses
for the prosecution —have testified that I did not teach,
Christ approves of anything wicked, cruel, and heaven-daring. But this is not the only instance in which the author of
the libel has been as unfortunate in the testimony of his witnesses, as he has been unhappy in the selection of his phrases.
I beg now to introduce direct proof of the baselessness of this
whole accusation. A. Bowden says: "'Decidedly no such
doctrine or practice was inculcated, according to mly understanding." J. H. Neilley-" No such words were used, nor
any that convey that charge.  W. Miller —" No such sentiment was uttered."  MIVr. Glass —" Does not recollect any
such expressions."  J. W. Bowden-" Thinks such an idea
could only be taken from the discourse by the same process
by which the chemist extracts a noxious poison from a nutritious aliment." Testimony thus clear and decisive requires
from me no elucidatory comments. As to the " abolitionists
4




26
it has been proved, I said, by their injudicious doings they
have injured the cause of the slave.  But whom did I include
under this term?  John A. Bowden understood me to mean" The organised political body known by that name, the Garrison party, the proprietors of the underground railroad."
John Cuthbert-"' The clique organised under that name." J.
H. Neilley and J. Glassford tell you I did not confound emancipationists and abolitionists.  It is plain, then, by " abolitionists" I meant that party which, in its denunciations of the
ministry and churches of our land, is so outrageous, which
numbers among its members the " ultra   and the " anti " of
almost every feather, and which, in its exhortations to the
slave, advises violence and armed resistance.  Sil, by several
witnesses it has been proved I denounced slavery as an evil,
and held the following language: " As earnestly as they (the
abolitionists) do I long for the hour which shall ring the knell
of slavery and scatter over the land the joyful tidings of universal emancipation." Yes, Sir, I am a friend of the slave, for I
am a minister of Him  who came to " proclaim liberty to the
captives, aind the opening of the prison to them that are
bound " But I confess that my friendship does not always
run to the bond-man of the South in the same channel as does
the so much boasted good-will of the abolitionists.  I am so
simple as to believe, that until in providence a way is opened
up for his emancipation, he had best live a quiet and peaceable life in godliness and honesty, and avoid recourse to arms
and violence. His sufferings may be grievous, and I know his
wrongs are manifold and hard to bear, still I would not speak
to him in a tone and manner calculated to weaken his hope
and trust in the God of eternal justice, and in the rectitude
of the Divine administration. I would wait with patience and
earnest hope for, and lend my prayers and peaceful aid to
hasten on the day when he shall come up out of the land of
bondage; but I would not impatiently chide the great Con



27
ductor of the chariot of Providence, because, to my feeble
apprehension, its wheels seem too long to delay in bringing to
the slave the magna charta of his freedom.  I would remember, too, that a man may walk erectly among his brethren,
the possessor of equal rights with them, the citizen of a free
country, and yet be a slave to the basest passions, appetites
and habits — a more degraded slave than any to be found on
your Southern plantations; and hence my efforts to emancipate the bond-man would not be confined to secure his personal liberty, but directed also, and with even a deeper earnestness to introduce him to the freedom of the Son.  But
never would I be found lending the aid of my name or influence to make more secure, by additional bolt and barricade,
the house of his bondage. In relation to the words I am represented as having used, " Christ Jesus would tell him to go
back and meekly and quietly submit to the yoke of slavery."
Rev. J. Henderson " does not remember them.'  A. Bowden
" has no recollection of such a paragraph." Mr. Glass says
— " Mr. L. did not state that Christ would tell a slave to go
back and submit to the yoke." Some of the witnesses for
the prosecution have told you I used words to the effect of
these.  This " effect" is still the concomitant of doubtfuiness.  The only harmonising explanation I can give-and it
is the true one —is, that Christ would rather tell the poor, unaided slave to go back and submit to his many ills than make
a violent and hopeless resistance to the officers sent forth for
his capture.  An opinion in which almost every sound-minded
man will join. llastly, as to the fugitive slave bill, which
most of the witnesses for the prosecution, and all of the defence, tell you I clharacterised as " harsh " and " evil," I will
introduce the testimony of John Nightingale, a witness for
the prosecution, but re-called by the defence.  " Mr. L. did
not approve the slave law; thought it was not a duty of Christians by violence to prevent its administration; said if an at



tempt was made to press us into active measures to assist in
its execution, we must resist, at all hazards, and bear the
penalty, whatever it may be."  Sir, I pass from this charge,
assured of its thorough refutation.
We are now arrived at count second, specification first, in
which I am charged with  " Pursuing divisive courses, by
misapplying and perverting the scriptures, asserting that the
text and other passages of the Bible taught the false doctrine
stated in count one, specification first, and second of this libel;
using the following expressions or words to this effect:'It is
the duty of those living under these governments, to obey
them for conscience sake-that is, for God's sake.' This is
plainly taught in the text,'Let every soul be subject unto
the higher powers; for there is no power but of God: the
powers that be are obtained of God.'' Wherefore ye must
needs be subject not only for wrath but also for conscience
sake.' 1  And again, our Saviour says, " Render unto
Ccesar the things which are Cesar's."  " When he was
reviled, he reviled not again."?  As in another instance,
already adverted to, so here it is not easy to make out the
grammatical sense of the first of these supposed extracts. In
the sentence, " it is the duty of those living under these governments, &c.," to what can we refer as the antecedent of
the " these?" Surely no one will say to the kind of governments intended in the specification, for though that may have
been in the eye of the prosecutor, yet most people will see a
serious impropriety in attempting to fix as the antecedent of
a demonstrative pronoun, th;ought to be used in a passage of
the sermon, words of a charge not for weeks after written!
To do so, would be to introduce into our language such new
customs, that after a pronoun had been uttered a month, its
noun might be seen lagging after it, to impart to it significance.  But the word plainly refers to a certain class of governments described in a previous paragraph. Why was that




29
paragraph not given 1 Until it is, the extracts as they stand,
have no pertinency to the alleged charge.  " These governments" may, for anything to the contrary known by this court,
refer to governments scriptural in their constitution, and
righteous in their administration. To be sure, A. Bowden on
being asked by the prosecution, the rather direct question,
" Do you remember the following expressions or words to this
effect," inquired what this " these" meant, and from aspect
sage and look of gravity, the response came forth, " Of course
to the governments existing in providence —such as are meant
in the charge." " Of course!" This logic may produce
conviction in minds of a certain construction; but I hope, Sir,
for the intellectual reputatation of this Presbytery, they are
not to be found here.  Well, but turning aside from criticising
what is ill-able to bear anything like an examination, let us
suppose all the prosecutor announces is true. We now quote
the following witnesses: Rev. J. Henderson, examined for
the prosecution:  "Is not sure of the connection of these
passages." J Wiggins, also for the prosecution: "' Thinks
these texts were quoted, but does not know whether in the
same connection."  H. Ferguson testifies: " Mr. L. did not
use those words in that connection, but used them in different
places of the sermon."  J. H. Neilley states:  " Mr. L.
did not use the words in the position in which they are here
placed. Did not teach obedience for conscience sake, to any
existing government." Here are witnesses from both the
prosecution and defence, who tell you, though these words and
passages may have been uttered, they were not in the connection in which they are here given. But in this place they are
all joined together, with the design of proving that I have
pursued courses tending to disturb the peace and unity of the
church, by educing a false doctrine from certain scripture
texts. From passages thus brought into unexpected proximity,
and united to a sentence which either has a doubtful or dis



80
honest meaning, it is evident the charge can receive anything
but a confirmation. It will be felt that, if any proof could
have been raked up through the extent of the discourse, recourse would not have been had for it, to this final and
desperate expedient. But then the old proverb comes opportunely  to  our remembrance,-" Necessity  has no law."
These Scriptures, however, though in different places of this
ill-treated sermon must yet have been introduced to establish
something. For what purpose were they introduced? Now,
it is precisely at this point the memory of certain witnesses
has exhibited painful symptoms of feebleness.  Our recollections, we know, are not under the immediate control of the
will. When most anxious to remember a name or an idea, we
often fail in attaining the object of our wish. But it is
strange when some people's memories actually fail; I know the
best memories may be occasionally at fault; I know we may
recollect particular parts of a sermon, and not be so clear as
to other parts; but what appears to me extraordinary, is the
point at which some memories fail.  When anything is said of
government as the ordinance of God, of obedience or submission to it, for conscience sake, the memory of certain persons
is bright and clear; but when inquiry is made as to the limitations of obedience, the connection and order of the different
parts, the apparent design of the quotations of Scripture introduced, memory is either blank, or can but surmise uncertainties. We have heard of memory being treacherous, but our
experience now justifies us in saying, that it is only or chiefly
treacherous when upon certain grounds. We leave this whole
matter however, for the explanation of the psychologists. But
on this subject, the minds of all the witnesses have not been
steeped in forgetfulness.  John A. Bowden was able to tell
you,-" These passages were used as a matter of history, exhibiting submission."  That is as a matter of history exhibiting how  Christ and  his apostles taught and  acted,




31
how. their quiet and submissive lives were but the living
record of their teachings as to governments and submission.   And A. Bowden  testified,-" Understood Mr. L.
here to teach, even in submitting to oppressive governments,
conscience was to approve the submission, and that was
the kind of conscientious submission enjoined." But quoting the before-mentioned texts in this connection, is forsooth a misapplying  and perverting of Scripture!  The
Bible it appears does not command us to do every thing
for God, for conscience's sake!  We pervert it when we
say it does! In some instances, it withdraws our obedience from the rule of conscience, and rests it on certain low
servile reasons of fear and of expediency!! Well, tile prosecutor in his Scripture exegesis, seems to be guided by other
than the generally received principles of interpretation.  Is
there a chair of biblical criticism about to be established in
connection with the new Mormon University? If so, there
are certain acquaintances of ours we would strongly urge to
turn their face towards Deseret, and aspire to the academic
honor of its occupancy.'The second specification under this count charges me with,
-'" Pursuing divisive courses by misinterpreting and perverting our confession of faith, asserting that it taught the false
doctrine stated in count 1st, spec. 1st of this libel, using the
following expressions or words to this effect.  The Westminster Confession of Faith teaches this doctrine: It says,'infidelity or difference in religion doth not make void the
magistrate's just and legal authority, nor free the people from
their due obedience to him.' That is if the magistrate is of
a different religion, or even if he is an infidel, he ought nevertheless to be obeyed for conscience sake," &c. What the prosecutor believes is the meaning of these words from the confession, I cannot conjecture.  The paragraph itself is as
strong as my comment on it. The sentence appears to me




32
very plain. It mentions two things which do not make void
the magistrate's just and legal authority, nor free the people
from rendering due obedience. These two things are infidelity
and difference in religion. In other words, persons who live
under a government administered by rulers infidel or heretical
are not thereby freed from the duties of obedience and submission; but must live peacably, excite no sedition, obey the
law where there is no sinful compliance in so doing, and patiently suffer, if the will of God be so, for well-doing. It was
in this connection, taking into view the fact that the measure
of order preserved and justice dispensed among the nations
of the earth, is to a great extent secured under the presidency
of rulers who are unbelieving and wicked men; I said, acting
on a principle contrary to this, would produce disorder and
chaos in the world. Such is my explanation. Is it a perversion of our Confession? So far from it, I think it is its
only consistent interpretation.
The testimony is not decisive on this charge. On both sides
it is little more than " thinks" and " conjectures." As a fair
sample of it, we quote J. Nightingale for the prosecution, who
states, " Mr. L. taught that under some circumstances, the
Confession of Faith taught submission to infidel powers;" and
J. W. Bowden, for the defence, " supposed Mr. L. referred
the words of the Confession to the case of a heathen land,"
meaning, it is presumed, they apply to Christians living under
a heathen government.
The third specification under this second count is as follows:
" Pursuing divisive courses by urging the hearers to become
active politicians, and use the elective franchise, in the following expressions, or words to this effect:' Let us take constitutional means to have the law repealed,' (meaning the Fugitive Slave Law.)' Let us use our influence to send in good
men to Congress to have the law repealed.' " Now, among
others, A. Bowden, J. W. Bowden, J. A. Bowden, testify, I




did not urge my hearers to become active politicians.  There
has not been one witness before you who has declared I did so
encourage them. But more, there is not proof that I urged
them to exercise the elective franchise.  If the paragraphs
quoted were shown to be true extracts, they would not prove
it.  I might say to my audience, "take constitutional means
to repeal this law,"'and yet not urge them to the ballot box.
The time I uttered these words was one of great excitement.
The abolitionists were attacking the Fugitive Slave Law as
" a covenant with hell, and an agreement with death," and
urging the slave to arm himself, resist the officers who might
attempt his capture, and die rather than yield. The clouds
in the political firmament were dark and lowering; and to
many, more skilled in such auguries than myself, they seemed
to portend disastrous civil and servile conflict.  Then, Sir,
feeble though my voice was, it was yet raised in concert with
those patriotic men who, on the appearance of danger, rallied
around the unity, the peace, and the order of the country.
And hence, though I saw there was not wanting a cause of
irritation, yet knowing in the light of history the lamentable
excesses to which popular violence almost invariably conducts,
I urged on my hearers rather to seek the removal of the obnoxious law by methods of peace, than by exciting disturbance
or resorting to arms. Peaceable means, as distinguished from
those which are violent and law-defying, may be designated
" constitutional." I was in Ireland during the time of the late
attempted revolution. At that period, among those who wished
to deliver Ireland from her dependency on England, and to
conduct her to greatness and freedom, there were two parties
-those who actedon the advice of O'Connell, to agitate and
pursue their object, but always so as to avoid a direct collision
with the law and government-and those who, sick of oppression, and inflamed by the stern utterances of Mitchell, and the
impassioned eloquence of Meagher, followed Smith O'Brien into
5s




34
the field. Both were alike the determined foes of British domination, the sworn enemies of that lordly feudalism which, by its
miserable spies and agents, and by its system of rack-renting,
ground to the dust the faces of the poor and needy. Both kept
steady in their view the same object, and resolved to live and
die in the pursuit of its attainment.  But the means by which
they attempted to secure it were diverse. The former followed
it by adopting plans not inconsistent with law and peace; the
latter sought it through sedition, conspiracy and warfare.
The means employed by the former were " constitutionall —
those by the latter, "unconstitutional."  So in a period of
great excitement, when an audience is exhorted to use " constitutional" means, it is to be expected they will understand
means consistent with law and order, as opposed to those of
tumult and force.  Those best acquainted with the nature and
causes of the late excitement, will be slow to censure on account of such inculcations, a minister of the gospel of peace.
And at the utmost, the ballot-box is only one among many
means undoubtedly "'constitutional."  All this while I have
been reasoning as if it had been proved that the word " constitutional" had been used, and used in the identical sentence
read from the libel. But J. Nightingale "believes Mr. L.
said, let them who object, take proper measures to have the
law repealed."  A. Bowden understood me to say, " those
dissatisfied with the law should use all proper measures to have
it repealed.  Did not understand Mr. L. to say that we-any
of his ordinary hearers —should use the elective franchise."
A. Knox says, " these words, as taken down by me at the
time, are, let us use the means in our power." J. Glassford,
" did not understand Mr. L. to say that Covenanters were to
send members to Congress." Such is the evidence of two witnesses from each side of this case; and all four concur in refuting what is charged against me. As to the other words
imputed to me,-" Let us use our influence to send good men




35
to Congress to have the law repealed.)  Some witnesses have
told you I uttered those words; others say I put them in this
form: " Let those wishing the law repealed, use their influence to send good men to the halls of legislation.'
In the testimony there is much diversity as to their exact
shape.  But suppose we take them  as they are found in the
libel, though it is by no means certain I uttered them in that
form, we will soon discover the charge in this specification
can derive from them no confirmation.  I ask, can I not as a
good member of the church to which I belong, lawfully use
whatever influence God may have bestowed on me, in sending
a proper person to the legislature of the country? There are
various ways of employing influence. I may do so by writing
an article, which I can have inserted in some widely circulated newspaper or periodical.  I may do so by speaking in
public, or in private conversation on behalf of a good man,
without ever resorting to the meeting at which he is nominated as a representative to Congress, or to the assembly
where it is expected his election will be secured. I may do
so by disseminating sound moral and religious sentiments,
where I have the opportunity.
Are we Covenanters not to use in every proper way our influence to improve the character of our legislators and laws?
If we mourn over their defects and perversities, why not by
every method duty will sanction, work for their improvement.
Has Christ given us any talent, any moral influence, any
power of speech to stir men's minds to the pursuit of what is
righteous, and has he told us to bury that talent in the earth
or hide it in the napkin? If so, I have misunderstood the
spirit of Christianity. The Gospel, I have always believed,
makes it not a matter of choice, but of peremptory command,
that its professors should use all their energy and influence in
opposing and rooting out evil in themselves, in the church
and in the state.  The sincere Christian is the foe of iniquity




36
everywhere, and in every legitimate mode is he bound, and
this up to the point of his utmost ability, to wage against it
an uninterrupted warfare.  Suppose then I counselled my
auditory to use their influence, to send the proper kind of men
to the halls of legislation, it does not follow I urged them to
resort to the ballot-box.  Without this, it is undeniable,
they might do much to secure for the country representatives
of high moral reputation. And several members of my congregation have testified I did not exhort them to exercise the
elective franchise.
The last count of the libel charges me with, " Breaking ordination vows by teaching false doctrine and urging divisive
courses."  As this is simply the introduction under another
aspect of charges, against which I have already defended myself, it is unnecessary now to bestow on them  further notice.
The libeller has shown considerable diligence in making the
most and the worst out of his scanty materials.  Under the
first count he included what was supposed erroneous in my
teaching; under the second he considered these erroneous teachings as to what he believes in their divisive tendency; and under this last he views them as contrary to certain of my ministerial engagements. The gentleman however, might have viewed
these teachings under still other points of view.  In a fourth
count he might have regarded them as particularly unpalatable
to himself and some of his worthy friends, owing to the place
in and the congregation to which they were delivered. And
in a fifth count he might have referred to them as tending,
owing to the phraseology in which they were couched, to intolerantly force enlightened minds to study the exact meaning
of the words of their mouther tongue, yea, to advance so far in
such laborious plodding, as to be able to distinguish between
"obedience" and " submission."  Possibly, however, at the
end of the count third, the gentleman's pity for me miserable,
so completely overmastered him, that, let who like blame his




faithfulness, he magnanimously resolved not to add to
the libel another syllable of charge! And thus it may
have come to  pass that  here is its  conclusion.  Yet,
truth compels me to say that this supposed touching
forbearance is by most regarded as simply an unrealized
imagination, a fiction of the fancy; and that many believe,
while the prosecutor had an item, or to the " effect" of an
item to add to the libel, it ceased not to " drag its slow length
along."
Moderator, thus have I answered, satisfactorily as I hope,
the charges contained in the several specifications. And such
and so strong is the proof of my entire innocence of the matters charged. You have patiently listened to my defence;
the evidence is before you; and the whole case is now submitted for your decision. Permit me to say, it is a case of
much importance, and on the issue of which, momentous interests are suspended.  It is important to me, involving as it
does my very standing in your church as a Christian minister,
and my relation to and usefulness among my own congregation.
It is important to my people, nearly touching as it does their
welfare, and the permanency of their pastoral connection with
him on whom they have lavished their esteem and confidence.
It is important to you, inasmuch as in public estimation your
character as a court for justice and impartiality will very
much depend on the nature of your finding.  And an opportunity is now presented for you to demonstrate the baselessness
of the accusation, that prejudice and party spirit often in
church-courts overbear the right.  Yes, it is important for
you if you would continue to be held in respect and honor5 if
you would maintain and increase in you the confidence of the
members of the church, if you would before the world not cast
reproach on, but glorify Him in whose name you are here met,
it is important for you, we say, you should so deliberate and
decide that no room will be left for the wise to blame, or the




foolish to cavil.  The effect of your action will be felt for
good or evil, throughout all our congregations.  If those dissatisfied interlopers, who moved by curiosity or worse, attend
an occasional sermon of any us, and feel or pretend to feel a
dislike towards its teachings, are encouraged by the verdict of
this Presbytery to drag up the preacher before your bar, and
force him through all the petty and vexatious annoyances of a
tedious trial, then our respective charges may soon bid farewell
to peace and comfort in the enjoyment of their pastors.  But
I confidently anticipate the decision of this court will at once
promote the harmony of our churches, and impart a signal, a
scorching rebuke to this whole class of meddlers and " busybodies in other men's matters,) —a rebuke which shall compel
them to burrow in their obscure recesses, and no longer court
the public observation.  At this moment too, the eyes of
various sections of the churches are fixed upon you and on
your conduct at this time, depend to a great extent the
amount and complexion of that influence, which henceforth as
a religious denomination among them, you are to possess. Sir,
it is no exaggeration to say, if I, who stand here as the advocate of the rights of conscience, if I who assert its supremacy
over all our faculties and actions, if I who proclaim that purified and enlightened by the spirit and the word it must sanction with its approval every act of our obedience or submi.sion to government, if I am to be visited by the reprehension
of your censures you will place yourselves in an attitude of
hostility to and draw down on yourselves the condemnatory
frown of the whole Christian community.  The various nmembers of the great household of faith, will naturally look with
suspicion upon that body which sanctions the withdrawal of
any part of man's political conduct from under the immediate
dominion of conscience; and will conclude that such a body,
whatever may be its other characteristics, is destitute of an
apostolic succession in the truth from  him who taught,



89
Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's
sake.  This is thankworthy if a man for conscience towards
God endure grief suffering wrongfully.  I entreat you then
to pause, to consider, to deliberate ere you commit yourselves
to a deliverance fraught with disaster to the cause you advocate, and to the church you love  a deliverance over which in
future years you may in vain weep anguished tears, as you
contemplate how it has blighted your influence, injured your
reputation, disquieted your peace, and alienated your brethren.
The effect of this trial will be felt when the passions evoked
by it have ceased to agitate, when the animosities it has kindled shall have been forever extinguished. And assembled as
you are in the name of Christ, standing as you do in the presence of the Eternities, and before the stern and sacred
majesty of Justice may your decision be such as will meet the
approval of posterity, bear the scrutiny of the final Tribunal,
and make your names honored when you have passed from the
cares and conflicts of this mortal scene! Moderator, 1 have
done.








APPENDIX.
A Brief Report of the Trial of Rev. John Little, extracted from
the New York Herald, of 15th and 18th of October.' Damnatus inani judicio."
Juv.
TRIAL OF REV. JOHN LITTLE,
PASTOR OF THE REFORMED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, WAVERLY PLACE, BEFORE THE PRESBYTERY, FOR HERESY.
Some time in January last, Rev. Mr. Little, at the request of several members of
his church, delivered a sermon on the subject of " Obedience to Law," in which he
was understood by some who were present, to teach doctrines at variance with the
long established principles of the church upon that subject.
It may be well here to explain the position taken by this denomination in regard
to obedience to civil governments. Reformed Presbyterians, it will be understood,
are more commonly known under the name of "Covenanters;" and the sect to
which the church in Waverly Place belongs, is called " Old Lights," who hold it to
be sinful for Christians to maintain intimate and approving connection with civil
governments that are not founded on strictly moral and Christian principles; consequently, they are not found holding office, or exercising the elective franchise,
either in Great Britain or America. But not only do they refuse to vote or hold
office, but they go so far (at least the stricter sort) as to refuse to yield obedience,
for conscience sake, even to the righteous laws of a wicked government. Such we
distinctly understand to be their position; and the question of heresy was involved
mainly in this last point, as appears from the proceedings of the trial.
The first count in the libel was, "Teaching false doctrine."-Specification first:
"Teaching that the providential existence of a civil government entitles it to a conscientious obedience."
The following word, or words to this effect were charged in the libel, as having
been uttered by the accused:-" But, it may be asked, does the mere existence of a
government entitle it to conscientious obedience? We answer in the affirmative.
God sometimes permits a government to exist for the good of the subjects; sometimes for a scourge; but no matter for what reason he permits it, the simple fact
that it exists, is a sufficient reason why we should yield it conscieneious obedience."
Also, other expressions of a similar import were charged.
The witnesses upon this and other charges contained in the libel, were examined
last week, and the court adjourned to Monday, Oct. 13, for the hearing of the summing up. Mr. Little appeared, and defended himself in a very able and eloquent
speech of nearly two hours in length. The speech itself would not, perhaps, be of
sufficient interest to our readers to give it, even in a condensed form. One of his
main points, however, was, that some of the witnesses for the prosecution were
unable to distinguish, as appeared in the evidence, the difference between "obey"
and " submit;" thereby evincing that they were better judges of shoe leather and jackplanes, (alluding to the trades they followed,) than of metaphysics, the discourse in
question being of a metaphysical nature. The defendant also made another point,




by contending that if he obeyed the laws of a wicked government, he did it not for
the sake of that government or its officers, but for conscience sake, as towards God,
and not towards man.
No rejoinder having been made on the part of the prosecution, the case was about
to be submitted to the court, when
i-H. Little objected to the Moderator (Mlr. Carlisle, of Nelwlburg) adjudicating upon
his case, because, in the first place, he had expressed an opinion before his congregation in regard to the discourse in question, (it having been written out and published after its delivery by the author,) characterizing it in terms that amounted to a
condemnation of it.
The Moderator.-The court have the objection of Mr. Little, now presented to
them-what course will they take upon it?
Mir. Little.-I have another objection; that on last Friday evening, Mr. Evans
said to Mr. Carlisle that he could not stay any longer, and would move an adjournment of the court till January; to which Mir. C. replied, that he wanted Mr. E. to
stay, so as to have a majority.
The Aloderator.-In reference to the last charge, the Moderator has no recollection
of having made use of such sentiments in conversation with Mr. Evans.
MJr. Little.-It is not the recollection of the Moderator that is to be taken, but the
proof that I am prepared to bring.
The Moderator, (indignantly, and striking his fist upon the table)-I never yet
asked a man to vote, and never will; and for any man to charge the Moderator, before this court, with uttering such sentiments, is an insult, not merely to him, but to
the court itself:
Xi. Little.-I hope the Moderator will not allow himself to get into a passion. If
he does not know what he has said or done, the evidence will settle it for him. We
do not wish to involve ourselves in an unnecessary contest. I hope I have been
sufficiently respectful.
A Mfember.-Mr. Little has certainly a right to challenge any member.
The M1oderator. —He has no right to say that I asked anybody to vote either for or
against him.
Another Milzber.-I am afraid the Moderator is setting a poor example of moderation.
A discussion here arose as to the right of the accused to challenge any member by
whom he had hitherto submitted to be tried. Some contended that he had no right
to say a word against the Moderator, unless he brought forward a libel or censure, and
that could not be tried while another libel was under trial. Others thought that Mr.
L. had a right to challenge any one who had prejudged his case, and ought to contend
for that right. When the challenge was made, and he said lie had the proof, he
should be allowed to prove it; and if he was unable to do it, the charge would rest on
his own head, and the Moderator would be exculpated.
Rev. Mr. C(rystie contended that the right upon which Mr. L. insisted was one of
great moment, and it would be a very gross act of injustice to deprive him of it.
Any member of this court who had previously, distinctly, and publicly avowed his
condemnation of the sentiments taught by the party under trial, was not a fit member to sit in judgment upon his case.
The Clerk.-Is it true that Mr. Carlisle is charged with pronouncing an opinion
upon this libel?
Mr. Little.-There is no charge. I wish to have a member set aside, and I assign
my reason. There is no libel nor charge. I have stated my objection merely, and
have used no impropriety of language.
The Clerk.-I would like to know if Mr. Carlisle is said to have given an opinion
on the sermon in question, or on some published sermon purporting to be the same
as that delivered?
A Member.-I think as the Moderator is charged, he ought to wait for his proof.
eMr. Little.-I call that member to order, and ask him to retract his language. I
did not charge the Moderator with anything. I have a right to come forward, and
for reasons to be shown, to object to any member.
The.Moderatolr.-Did I say you charged me with anything?
Mr. Little.-I so understand you. Possibly, however, my ears were not in a proper state to hear, owing to the excessive sounds about me.




iii
lir. Crystie.-I understand Mr. Little to have simply entered an objection against
any person sitting on the final adjudication of his case, if it can be proved that such
person has distinctly avowed an opinion upon the case.
Rev. Dr. Wilson, (late President of a Covenanter College in Ohio, but not a member of the court) —Can a person object to a member without bringing a charge
against him?
M'P. Crystie.-I apprehend he can.
The Clerk.-I put my question again to Mr. Little, whether he says distinctly that
Mr. Carlisle expressed his opinion on the sermon or on some published document?
H%. Little.-The Moderator can speak for himself; but if it be necessary for me to
answer the question, I will do so. The sermon which I preached, and which is made
the ground of the libel brought against me, was committed to press. I published it
because there had gone forth certain reports about it, representing it as something
very monstrous. That sermon, by some means or other, was wafted to the village of
Newburgh, to Mr. Carlisle, who perused it, and afterwards took it into his pulpit, and
read extracts from it to the edification of his hearers, commenting upon the positions
therein taken, some of which are substantially those brought before this court. That
was the sermon to which I had reference. The other objection to Mr. Carlisle, is
that, in a conversation with Mr. Evans, he expressed to him this idea; that he
wanted him to stay, in order to have his vote, so that there might be a majority.
Mr. WFeans.-I deny that as an untruth.
lMs. Little. We have the evidence here.
The Clerk moved that the objection of Mr. Little be not sustained.
lMb. Little entered his protest against the motion, and demanded his right to present his evidence. The statement of Mr. Evans was not satisfactory.
The Clerk (acting as Moderator for the time) stated the motion.
MX. Little.-The case is not made out. I must have these witnesses called. This
is a very strange procedure.
Mi. WFylie did not think the expression of an opinion in regard to the printed
sermon had very much to do with the question before the court; at the same time, it
was rather a singular course of procedure to make a motion that the objection be
not sustained before they had heard any evidence in the case, particularly in regard
to the second part of the objection. He was not prepared to vote till he had heard
the evidence.
The Clerk.-Suppose it were all true-it was spoken after Mr. Carlisle had sat and
heard all the evidence; and if he had expressed an opinion on Friday evening, when
the testimony was all closed, it was no reason why he should not come and vote on
the Monday following.
Mrl. Little.-I tell the Moderator that the testimony was not all in on Friday, when
this was spoken by Mr. Carlisle.
The Clerk.-We had then spent three or four days in taking the testimony.
Rev. Dr. Wilson. —Was it ever known in any civil court, that after a jury was
empanelled, and the trial had gone on nearly to its close, the culprit at the bar had
the privilege accorded to him of objecting to a juryman? I would like to be shown
an instance.
Mr. Little.-If a juryman were to express an opinion during the course of the
trial, he could be set aside. That is law.
The Moderator was about to put the question.
Mir. Little.-I hope the question will not be put. I assert that this has been prematurely hurried through.
The question was put and carried in the affirmative, amidst some confusion.
After a little while, a consideration was moved.
Mfr. Crystie proceeded to make some remarks upon the subject of the first objection. With regard to the second objection, he would leave it optional with the
Moderator himself to judge whether he had expressed any opinion, publicly, adverse
to Mr. Little.
The Moderator.-The Moderator has done so. He has said that he is not aware
of having expressed any opinion upon the libel, or upon the evidenee before the
court. If he had been inclined to do so, he would have done it to Mr. Williams,
with whom he had spent much of the intervening time.
Mr. Williams stated that Mr. C. had not expressed any opinion to him.




iv
AiM. Evanzs endeavoured to explain, and said something to the effect that Mr
Crystie might just as well be charged with giving an opinion as Mr. Carlisle.
Mir. Little.-That is not the point. It is thisThe Clerak.-I think Mr. Little has said enough. He has presented his objection
and his argument.
Xr. Little.-But I have not introduced my witnesses.
The Clerkc.-It is not necessary to do it. It would not alter the mind of any in
this court.
A Member.-Mr. Evans has declared it is not true.
iXr. Little.-Thatis not the question.
A division of the question was called for; and the question being taken on the first
objection, it was not sustained.
Mr. Little asked to have his exceptions noted to this proceeding.
The second objection, in relation to Mr. C.'s conversation with Mr. Evans, was
stated.
Mit. Little hoped the Court was not ready to vote upon it.
llir. Wylie thought there might arise a very serious question as to impartiality, if
it could be proved that a member of the Court desired another to stay in order to
have a majority one way or the other.
The Clerk (acting as Moderator) proceeded to put the question.
fif. Little.-I do think there is a manifest injury done to my rights byThe Clerk.-We have begun to take the question, and, according to rule, we
cannot stop.
The objection was not sustained.
Mr. Little expressed his dissatisfaction, and entered his exceptions. He then objected to another member (Mr. Thompson) for using the following words:-" Mr. L.
must be suspended, for the good of the church."
Mir. Thompson hoped the Court would indulge Mr. Little, by letting him bring
forward his witnesses.
Mf'. Little called for Mr. Stirritt, who, not being present, he desired the Moderator to issue a citation.
Ma'. Thompson demanded a trial now, inasmuch as the prosecutor was considered
always ready for trial.
fri. Little said he could not achieve impossibilities, unless he got the assistance of
Prof. Anderson. (Laughter.) He had not himself got an instantaneous trial, and
an instantaneous habeas co'pnus could not be issued here.
Mf'. Thizopson.-Mr. Little knew what he was bringing up, and ought to have had
his evidence at hand.
Mr. Williams said that Mr. L. had but one witness, which was not enough. He,
therefore, moved that the objection be not sustained.
The Cerk said that if the court voted not to sustain the objection, it would be
equivalent to saying that if Mr. Sterritt were here, inasmuch as he is the only witness, they could not sustain the objection.
Mi. C(rystie remarked that this was one of the unavoidable hardships that a person
had to encounter. Still, he did not see how they could exclude Mr. Thompson on
the evidence of one witness. There was no remedy for Mr. L. in this case.
AM. Thompson was willing to take his oath that he had not uttered what Mr. L.
charged.
The question being taken on not sustaining the objection, it was carried.
lMr. Little entered his exceptions for not sending for the witness.
The case was then submitted to the court.
Mr. Stevenson had his doubts whether Rev. Dr. Wilson, (who was only a consultative member of the court,) had any right to open his mouth.
Rev. Dr. Wilsosi.-If there be any objection, I will leave the house.
AMr. Stevenson. —I have my doubts.
Mr. Wylie concurred in expressing his doubts.
Dr. Wilson.-Well, there are enough to manage this trial without me. (Exit Dr.W.,
muttering out something, amid considerable merriment on the part of the audience.)
Mr. Crystie then proceeded at some length to maintain that the charges in the
libel had not been proven, and made a motion to that effect.
The Clerk asked for a division of the question, by taking up each specification
separately.




The question then came up on count first, specification first, as given at the commencement of this report, which was discussed for some time, the evidence reviewed
and commented on, until the hour arrived for the members to go to tea, when it was
moved and carried to take a recess till half-past seven o'clock in the evening.
EVENING SESSION.
The discussion in relation to the first count and first specification was continued.
Nothing of interest to our readers in general was spoken until Mr. Wylie made a
remark that if Mr. L. had taught false doctrine, he (Mr. W.) had done the same
thing, and would do so again. The expression of this sentiment was responded to
by loud applause from the audience.
Mr. Thomnpso. —That tells the story where we stand, exactly. I would move an
adjournment.
JM. /Wylie was exceedingly sorry such a demonstration had been made.
Mr. Little requested the congregation to withhold the expression of their feelings
in future, and assured the court, from what he knew of the character of the congregation, that it would not be repeated. Those who applauded did so in a moment of
thoughtlessness, and the court need not tremble at a breath.
The Clerk.-We have had plenty of evidence as to what the character of the congregation is.
Mr. Thonzpson.-It is an insult to the Lord Jesus Christ.
iMr. S. M. Wilson had no apprehension of being disturbed again in the least. He
thought that the persons engaged in the outbreak would see, upon a little reflection,
that it was improper, and refrain from it in future.
Mre. Shaw asked the privilege of having the reading of such report of the testimony as related to the question before the court.
The Moderator would grant the privilege, as far as it related to any specific
testimony.
Mr. Shaw wanted the testimony of two or three witnesses for the defendant read
entire.
The (lerk.-I will not read it entire. I am not going to read what nobody has a
right to ask.
The Moderator.-Whose testimony is it?
fMi'. Shaw.-Some two or three of the witnesses for the defence.
The Clerk.-Is it for yourself or somebody else?
Mi%. Shaw.-For myself, not that I have any hesitation in my own mind, but I
have not before me now that testimony which I think more than covers the extracts
from the testimony made in behalf of the prosecutor. Mr. S. then proceeded, at
some length, to explain Mr. Little's position, saying that he (Mr. L.) evidently had,
in the entire sermon, taken a peculiar view of conscience and its operations, and
seemed to take for granted that his hearers understood him, which, it seemed now,
every person did not; and here was the great cause of the difficulty. Mr. L. had
taught that conscience operated between God and ourselves, and did not make the
constitution or law of the nation, the basis of its operation.
After further debate, the question was taken, by yeas and nays, on count first,
specification first, of the libel, and resulted in the sustaining of the charge, the vote
standing as follows:Yeas, (or those in favor of sustaining the charge)-S. M. Wilson, A. Stevenson,
J. M. Wilson, R. L. Wilson, J. B. Williams, J. Douglas, W. Thompson, J. Wiggins,
John Evans, C. Brown-lO0.
NAYS.-J. Crystie, S. O. Wylie, S. O. Fleming, H. Glassford, W. Sterritt, J. W.
Shaw-6.
Not voting, J. M. Beattie, J. Smith, S. Carlisle, W. Brown —4.
The court then adjourned to the next day at nine o'clock.
TUESDAY, Oct 14, 1851
The Presbytery assembled at 9 o'clock. After the opening prayer, the Clerk proceeded to read the minutes of yesterday's proceedings. Upon coming to the objections made by Mr. Little to Mr. Carlisle's adjudicating on the case, he expressed his
doubts as to the propriety of leaving them on the record,




vi
Mr. Crystie entirely coincided with the clerk; the objections had been clearly
overruled, and he would record them simply as having been made by the defendant,
but were overruled.
ar. Shaw thought they ought to be recorded.
M2. Wylie coincided with that remark. If the case should be appealed, the
record might be shown, to prove that injustice had been done.
On motion of the Clerk, the objections were removed from the minutes-ayes 7,
noes 3.
The next specification of count first of the libel was then taken up, as follows:"That opposition to, or bearing testimony against any civil government, which
may exist in the providence of God, is contrary to the practice of our Saviour and
and his Apostles."  In the following expressions, or words to this effect, our Saviour
says, " Render unto Coesar the things that are Caesar's," " When he was reviled he
reviled not again," " he made no opposition to the existing powers," &c.
The Clerk remarked that he did not think Mr. L. intended to teach, in the absolute form, the doctrine which was here charged, but believed he did use language
that might bear this interpretation. He thought Mr. L. misinterpreted Christ's
doing and example. Christ and his apostles did assail national institutions, and
the Roman government so understood them; hence they were said to "turn the
world upside down."  Covenanters had maintained, as a church, that it was right
and dutiful to declare their dissent from whatever they believed was opposed to God
and his Christ, and point out distinctly who the parties are that are guilty of this
opposition. Mr. L.'s teaching was calculated to discourage that kind of spirit.
Mr. C'rystie thought the evidence upon this article of the libel remarkably clear
and decided. In certain circumstances, quiet submission, as exemplified by the
Saviour and his apostles, was a duty. But there was another view of the subject.
It was the duty of a Christian teacher to caution against popular and tumultuous outbreaks. So Christ would not be made king by the multitude. Popular violence
was not the way to seek a remedy. That was probably the view of the subject which
Mr. L. inculcated.
Mr. Williams called for the reading of the testimony of Mr. Neilley, which was
as follows; —Mr. L. said the apostles submitted to the government of the day without questioning its origin.
AMr. Stevenson said he would be guided by the evidence. The Presbytery had said
that if Mr. L. taught what was there charged, he taught errors in doctrine; and if it
was proved that he used the words charged, or words to that effect, he did teach false
doctrine. Mr. S. cited the evidence of Mr. J. A. Bowden, that Mr. L. said that
" Christ and his apostles did not go about bearing testimony against any existing
government, or creating dissatisfaction among the people."
Msl. Little denied that that was the testimony.
The Clerk read as follows:-" Said Christ and his apostles did not go about testifying against the existing government, exciting the people and raising revolt."
lrP. Little.-Is there any Christian but does the same?
1Mr. Stevenson insisted that he had given the evidence as it was. Now (said he,)
if I testify against any existing government, am I not put in opposition to the practice of Christ and his apostles? Is not such a doctrine calculated to bring contempt
upon the whole witnessing church of the Lord Jesus Christ (meaning the convention?)
XM/. W;ylie thought that Mr. S. had made a very strange application of the testimony. Mr. L. evidently meant to teach that Christ did not go about testifying
against existing governments in such a way as to excite revolt. That doctrine he
(Mr. W.) believed, and the testimony showed that Mr. L. was urging the example of
Christ, for not resisting by violence, but for submission.
After some further discussion, the question was taken, and resulted as follows:
For sustaining the charge, 6; for not sustaining it, 7; not voting, 2; excused from
voting, 1.
The third specification was as follows: —
" That our Lord Jesus Christ approves of the cruel, wicked, and heaven daring
system of slave-holding practised in these United States, so much that he would tell
a slave who had escaped from his master, to go back, and meekly and quietly submit to the yoke of slavery," in the following expressions, or words to this effect:" They (the abolitionists) have done much evil on all hands, and even to the slave




vii
himself, tending to make his situation more disagreeable, persuading him to escape
from his master, and opposing all attempts to take him back, whereas Jesus Christ
would tell him to go back, and meekly and quietly submit to the yoke."
Afl. Stevenson reviewed some of the testimony, to show that the charge was sustained, and said that there was a wonderful coincidence in all of it, as regarded that
phrase, "to go back and meekly and quietly submit to the yoke."  If then, Mr. L.
uttered these words, it was equivalent to sayting that Christ approved of slavery so
much that he would tell a slave to go back to his master.
Mir. Shazo remarked, that there were some two or three witnesses who said that
Mr. L. made use of this expression, while some seven or eight believed that he did
not; so that it was rather difficult to come to a conclusion as to what he did say.
He did not think that Mr. L. taught that Christ approved of slavery, but on the contrary, that he denounced it.
Air. Williams said this appeared to have been a very queer sermon, and it required a better understanding of metaphysics than he (Mr. W.) had, to really tell
what Mr. L. did mean to teach. He taught that a slave ought to submit, and that
he ought not; that he ought to submit, for conscience sake, and, in some instances,
to make his escape, provided he can do so. He seemed to think that slavery was
right, and that it was wrong. Any slaveholder would coincide with such views.
The Olerk conceived there were instances in which a Christian man would tell
a slave to submit, as for instance, when he was in the hands of the officer. Such
might have been Mr. L.'s view. As to the allegation that abolitionists had made
the condition of the slave worse, it was untrue; nor had he heard of a class of persons called emancipationists, as distinct from abolitionists. Many of the Garrison
party were undoubtedly infidels, and he would have no fellowship with them. Then
there were the political abolitionists, headed by Gerrit Smith, and other classes of
abolitionists connected with the liberty party, or free soil movement. All these,
with the exception of some free soilers, were for immediate emancipation. Mr. L.
ought to have kept silent upon this point, and left it to others who had lived in this
country longer, and knew better what the character of the,labolitionists was.
M1Ai. W Vyle wished to give Mr. L. the advantage of the testimony. One of the
witnesses said that the attempt to extract material out of Mr. L.'s discourse to show
that he taught any such doctrine as that, was like extracting a noxious poison from
a nutritious aliment. If Mr. L. had denounced the schemes of the abolitionists, that
was no ground for church censure. The Garrisonian party were infidel, anti-government, anti-marriage, anti almost every thing that was good. Other members of
this body had denounced them. The Clerk himself had (lone it in the magazine of
which he was editor.
Mit. Crystie said the term emancipationist was distinct from abolitionist in the
British empire, during the whole controversy on West India emancipation. Abolitionist was a term of more general import than emancipationist.
M1/r. Steveebsose thought that every slave ought to have the liberty of choosing between " give me liberty or give me death."  The Lord Jesus Christ had not robbed
him of the very elements of manhood.
ir'. Wylie called the gentleman to order.
The Moderator said the question was on the third specification.
Mir. Stevenson. —It would be charging a wicked thing to charge a man to submit
quietly to that system, which makes it penal for a man to read the Bible, and takes
away his right to his own wife and children; and anybody who advises another ito
submit quietly to such a system, advises a wicked thing. The Lord Jesus Christ
would not so teach.
Mi. Wylie insisted on the point of order; it had not been proven Mr. L. taught
that Christ was in favor of the heaven-daring system of slaveholding.
MAh. Glassforl thought the prosecutors had attempted to make out too strong a
case, when they introduced the words " heaven-daring."
The question was then taken on sustaining the charge, and it was decided in the
affirmative.
The next count ia the libel was for " pursuing divisive courses"-specification first:
"By misapplying and perverting the Scriptures, asserting that the text and other
passages of the Bible taught the false doctrines stated in count 1st, specification 1st
and 2nd, of this libel."
This charge was sustained by a vote of 10 to 5.




The next specification, "by misinterpreting the confession of faith," &c., was also
sustained.
Also the 3d specification-" By urging the hearers to become active politicians
and to use the elective franchise," was also sustained-yeas, 8, nays 7.
After having disposed of the different charges, and finding the accused guilty of
all but one, it remained for the court to give a judicial expression of sentence.
MrI. C7rystie said he interdel, though the matter had been decided adversely to
the clearest convictions of his own mind, to acquiesce in that decision, and hoped
Mr. Little would do the same. At the same time, he would give notice that he intended to bring this cause before the supreme judicatory of the church.
The clerk moved that the court call upon Mr. Little either to retract, or explain
to its satisfaction, his views on the points of the libel which had been found proven
against him.
The motion was agreed to.
MArf. Little said he had but a very few remarks to make. He had, in his defence,
stated his views plainly, as he thought, though perhaps not quite to the satisfaction
of some members. He considered the evidence clear enough to warrant the court
in coming to a conclusion the very opposite to what they had done. In regard to
count first, specifications first and second, the evidence was direct that he did not
teach submission to any government that might exist, as the moral ordinance of
God. The Clerk of the court (Mr. Wilson,) had acknowledged that all the difference between them consisted in some variation about the phrase "for conscience
sake," saying that he (Mr. L.) meant one thing, and Mr. W. and the church another.
And notwithstanding this statement of that member, a majority of this court had
voted that he was guilty of that specification. He had no explanation to make in
regard to that. Mr. Little explained what he held in regard to submission, that
whatever obedience or submission a Christian yielded, it must be as to the Lord,
and not to nlan, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. He did not tell his
people to submit to a bad law, for fear of that law. It was submission to God that
they *were to render in certain circumstances. They were to keep quiet, till He, in
his wise providence, opened up a way by which that evil should be removed. If
that was error, lie was guilty. No amount of persecution would move him from
that position. That was all the explanation he had to give; and the court might
proceed to its extremity. If it chose to fix its pincers, produce its inquisitorial implements, and re-enact the scene of the middle ages in this enlightened nineteenth
century, let it do so. He trusted he should not be forgotten, before that high tribunal, where the members of this court and all must appear, and where he confidently believed his adversaries would be covered with shame and contempt. The
remarks of the speaker produced a great sensation, and many of the audience were
bathed in tears.
The Clerk said he agreed with the greater part of what Mr. L. had said, but considered that he had not touched the issue. The question was, whether any government that exists in the providence of God, while it stands, is to be recognised with
a conscientious obedience and regard.
Mr. Little replied, that he did not teach that submission or obedience to an immoral government was to be yielded as submission to the moral ordinance of God.
After some further debate, Mr. Brown put the following question to Mr. Little.
Does he believe that any power which deprives the subject of civil liberty, and
which intentionally squanders his property, is properly actingMr. Little interrupted the gentleman before he had completed the interrogatory,
by saying, he should answer no questions.
A motion was made by Mr. Crystie that Mr. L.'s explanation be received as satisfactory.
Aiv. Stevenson was not satisfied with Mr. Little's explanation. There had been an
attempt to cast odium on the court. Mr. L. had told them to " fix their pincers" as
if they were a body of inquisitors, and he had attempted to intimidate members.
Ajr. Little denied the charge. There had been no attempt to intimidate any but
lily-livered women-men.
Mi. Stevensonm.-Covenanters do not care much about the world, if they have the
approbation of God. I am not satisfied that the Lord's house should. be addressed
by the accused in such language as " fix your pincers."
The Moderator requested Mr. S. to proceed to other matters.




ix
rt. Thomp)son. had been a member of the church over thirtyyears, and had never
heard such alln insinuation asMr. Little.-I will not be the butt of this member's remarks.
The MXoderator.-Proceed, if you please, to something else.
Mr. Thoimpson.-I am using words that have been used before.
The 3Xoderator.-The member will keep to the motion.
2Mt. Thomnpson.-It is not necessary for a man to be learned-to understand Latin
and Greek, grammar and metaphysics-in order to judge of preaching. He had
reason to believe that Mr. L. had endorsed more than what was contained in the
libel, as was evidenced by his speech.
The Jloderator (resigning the chair to another) said, that he had more acquaintance with Mr. L., perhaps, than.any other member of the court. At the period of
Mr. L.'s exanlination before the church in Ireland, he was sound in the faith. When
a student at Belfast, he was very exemplary; also at Paisley. The period of his
examination was one when strictness was required for every young candidate.
Now, though in his explanation of conscience Mr. L. had taught something erroneous, yet he (Mr. Carlisle) had no hesitation to sustain him, after the explanation
that had been given.
Messrs. ShLaw and Glassford were for accepting the explanation as entirely
satisfactory.
lr. C(rystie said it was the duty of Christians to bear with one another, and
thought by the time Mr. Little had lived as long as he (Mr. C.), he would acquire
more wisdom, and learn to be more guarded in his language. He considered that
Mr. L. had indulged in a little too much warmth of expression.
A1ir. Little.-We are not all stoics here. (Laughter.)
JID.  vans had been pleased with a great deal Mir. L. had said, as well as what
had been said by the members of the court.
The Clerk would have been pleased if Mr. L. had said less. He thought Mr. L.'s
difficulty with the court arose, to a considerable extent, from a disposition to exhibit
something novel in his teachings, or at least in his illustrations. That method of
exhibition caused many to consider him unsound.
The question being taken on receiving Mr. L.'s explanation as satisfactory, it was
agreed to.
Mr. Willians then submitted the following resolution:" Whereas, it is the judgment of this Presbytery that Mr. Little, while it appears
from his own explanation that he has not been hostile to, has not clearly presented
the doctrines of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in relation to civil government,
in the sermon referred to in the libel-therefore
" Resolved, That he is hereby admonished in future, to be careful so to exhibit
the doctrines and testimony of the Reformed Presbyterian Church as to occasion no
suspicion that he does not intend to be faithful in this matter."
A question here arose as to the propriety of admonishing by a resolution, when
the rules of the church required the admonition to be given through the Moderator.
Mr. grystie moved to strike out "admonished" and insert " recommend."
The Clerk said, to "recommend" a man to be careful would be an absurdity.
Rev. -Dr. Tilsoaa.-I have declined being here, because it was suggested that I
was not a member. But now I beg leave to observe, that thirty-five years ago, Dr.
McLeod said that the business of the court was not to recommend. If you go on in
this way you make a congregational trial of it. I hope this court will not, out of a
sickly sensibility, pass by our established law. I believe Mr. Little has taught doctrines contrary to the standards of the church, and so you have decided. l'he doctrine that we shall not yield a conscientious obedience to a bad government is the
great central doctrine of the church. Take away that, and it is not worth a straw.
The ffoderator.-O, Doctor, we don't want to hear such talk.
)Dr. W1Vdisonz.-As soon as you have decided that the charges were proved, you
you ought to sayHere the Doctor was interrupted, so that he did not finish the sentence.
The amendmlent was withdrawn.
3ir. Steveensoan said there was no authority for administering an admonition by a
resolution merely.
The resolution was adopted, only one member voting in the negative,
7