to be the hiring of the voices of-two women, a man, and a boy. We hope the anticlimax will do some good.

We are opposed to paying the members of choirs, except the organist and the leader. Let them cultivate music and teach the people. But God's Church should sing themselves. If some half dozen singers are hired, the "young men and maidens" will not sing with them, and the whole becomes a "performance," paid for and duly executed.

The praises of God cannot be suitably sung without volume as well as melody. Say what we may of the heart, no man worships thoroughly who does not use his voice. Why not receive the communion with the heart only? These fashions of letting the minister stand up by himself to pray as if it were his business, and three or four people in the gallery to sing as if it were their business, are ruinous to the very idea of devotion. When God's ambassador says, "Let us pray," let the people rise and stand up uncovered and reverent before God; aud when he says, "Let us sing to the praise of God," let a thousand voices swell to heaven like the sound of many waters. We go to church to worship God; to worship together; that heart may enkindle heart; to feel the communion of saints; to gaze at the throne of our Father, Saviour, Comforter, through tears of joy and longing. A cold, formal service robs God and man; as a bright, rich and affectionate one, makes the church the home of God, and the very gate of heaven.

NOTE.

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S ANSWER TO THE PROTEST ON SLAVERY.

ONE principal object in the establishment of our Review, was to preserve the passing facts of Presbyterian history for future reference. A newspaper is ephemeral; its files very perishable. A Quarterly can be bound and preserved. We have kept this constantly in view, in the insertion of Articles which some of our readers may have deemed heavy. To show how mistaken even sensible men may be, we will here mention that we recently received a letter from one of our ministerswho in this perhaps speaks the sentiments of others-objecting to our Articles on the General Assembly, as merely reprinting the Minutes. Now, in our last Article on this subject, the following documents are found, none of which are in the Assembly's Minutes: The Report of the Committee on Bills and Overtures, Mr. Cutler's Paper, Dr. Allen's Paper, as presented before Mr. Kendall's Amendment, and the Call for the Southern Convention. Each one of these is an essential step in the progress of history, and without them, the action of the Church, in this most eventful year, cannot be understood. But only a person who has searched for such documents, knows how difficult it is to find them when a few years have passed.

In No. XXII of the Review, p. 243, in printing the Answer of the General Assembly to the Protest of the Southern members, we made an alteration, on the authority of Judge Allison-who was one of the Committee that drew up the Answer to the Protest-stating, at the same time, in a note, the fact of the alteration, together with the authority on which it was made. We have received letters from Drs. Patterson and Allen, who were also upon the Committee, stating their opinion. that the paper, as printed by the Stated Clerk, is correct, as adopted by the Committee, and sanctioned by the Assembly. We submitted these letters to Judge Allison, who has given

his view in a note to us. Before presenting the three letters we will state the case, that our readers may exactly understand it.

We quote first the Answer, as printed in the Minutes of the Assembly:

"In reply to the Protest against the action taken by the Assembly on the subject of Slavery, the Assembly make the following remarks:

"1. The present action of the Assembly on this subject, is in perfect harmony with the testimonies of former Assemblies, and consists chiefly in a reaffirmation of those testimonies. The General Assembly has never affirmed, that the slaveholder was so controlled by State laws, obligations of guardianship, and humanity, that he was, as thus situated, without censure or odium as the master.' It has only conceded, that certain exceptional cases may exist, such as are defined in the resolutions of the Assembly of 1850, and approved by this Assembly.

"2. We see nothing in the present action which is unconstitutional, or which 'degrades,' or even reflects upon, any portion of the Southern Church, which still abides by the old doctrine of the Presbyterian Church in relation to this subject.

"3. With respect to the complaint, that such action is, under present circumstances, the virtual exscinding of the South,' the Assembly observe, that no such exscision is intended; and we cannot perceive that it is in anywise involved, even by remote implication. We have simply reaffirmed the established views of the Presbyterian Church on the subject of slavery, and distinctly condemned the new and counter doctrines which have been declared and defended by some within our bounds.

"4. With regard to the allegation, that our action in this case is 'unrighteous, oppressive, uncalled for,' usurpatory, and destructive of great interests, we need only say, that it rests on the groundless assumption that this action is an 'indirect exscision' of the South. If our Southern brethren shall break the unity of the Church because we stand by our former posi

tion, as in duty bound, the responsibility for the consequences will not rest on the Assembly."

The words inserted in single inverted commas in the first section are contained in the Protest of the Southern brethren, and in this section the Assembly is replying to them. Now, the difference between the members of the Committee related only to about as many words as would go into a printed line. There are three forms of the expression in question:

1. "It" (the Assembly) "has only conceded the possibility of certain exceptional cases, such as are defined in the resolutions of the Assembly of 1850, and approved by this Assembly." 2. "It has only conceded that certain exceptional cases may exist, such as," &c. 3. "But it has conceded that exceptional cases exist, such as," &c.

The second of these three is the one printed in the Minutes of the Assembly, as the official record. The question is, Which words were adopted? or, What did the Assembly mean to say? And to that point are the letters, which we now publish. There were five members of the Committee: Drs. Allen and Patterson, Mr. Kendall, Judge Allison, and O. Hastings, Esq.; but Mr. Kendall, it appears, was not present at the meeting of the Committee.

LETTER FROM DR. PATTERSON.

DEAR BROTHER:

I have just taken the last number of the "Review" from the Post-office. There is an error as to a matter-of-fact on page 243. I drew up the Answer to the Protest, and know whereof I affirm. The language before modified by suggestion of Judge Allison and O. Hastings, Esq., stood thus: "It has only conceded the possibility of certain exceptional cases, such as," &c. The modification was as follows: "It has only conceded, that exceptional cases may exist, such as," &c. Dr. Allen and Brother Kendall, and, I have no doubt, Mr. Hastings also, will confirm my statement. Dr. Allen, at first, contended for the original draft. Judge Allison insisted on saying, "certain exceptional cases exist," so as to assert, that the

Assembly have conceded this as a fact, and not merely that they have admitted the bare possibility of such a fact. Dr. Allen still objected to such an affirmation as to the actual fact. At length, Dr. Allen proposed the modification "that certain exceptional cases may exist," leaving every other part of the sentence as before. To this the whole Committee agreed. The Stated Clerk, no doubt, has the paper as modified, in his possession. The modified paper differs from the original as representing the Assembly as conceding that the exceptional cases may be in existence as an actual fact, instead of representing the Assembly as only admitting the natural possibility of the exceptional cases, without acknowledging that there may be ground for the belief that there are really such cases. It differs from Judge Allison's reading, as the concession that an alleged fact may be such, differs from the explicit admission, that it is a fact. There was thus a compromise as to the expression in question. Had there been no such compromise, the sentence would have excited controversy in the Assembly. The point in question is not very material in itself. But it is desirable that our ecclesiastical documents should be preserved in their integrity wherever published, and especially in our only Church Quarterly.

Very truly and fraternally yours,

CHICAGO, Sept. 18, 1857.

R. W. PATTERSON.

LETTER FROM DR. ALLEN.

LANE SEMINARY, Oct. 7th, 1857.

DEAR BROTHER WALLACE:

Allow me to call your attention to that part of your Article on the General Assembly, which relates to the Answer to the Protest, and the note to the same. You would not of course consent to have the Quarterly falsify history, even in a small matter, if you knew the facts. In this matter, Judge Allison is certainly mistaken. The original paper, drawn up by Brother Patterson, contained the words "the Assembly has