« PreviousContinue »
of blaming any one.” From which it appears: a. That, so far from doing the Stated Clerk injustice, and making a mistake, we disclaimed all knowledge on the subject; stating that we made the change entirely on the authority of Judge Allison. 6. The Stated Clerk omits the qualifying expression, “it appears," changing our supposition or theory, founded on appearances, into an assertion. .c. He omits our express statement, that we blamed or inculpated no one, of course, not him.
2. Our statement, so far from being made with an intention of injury, was offered for the express purpose of avoiding any charge against the Stated Clerk. Judge Allison believed, that the paper as printed, was not the one adopted, as to a single expression. How then was it printed in the Minutes ? Having confidence both in Judge. Allison and the Stated Clerk, we proposed a probable solution, inculpating no one. We trust the whole matter will now rest where it is.
LETTER FROM DR. PATTERSON.
REV. B. J. WALLACE: · DEAR BROTHER: My letter of September 18, 1857, which appeared in the “Quarterly Review” for December, 1857, was written without any thought of its publication. Perceiving that your variation of the language, in the Answer to the Protest, had been made on the authority of Judge Allison, without consultation either with the Stated Clerk of the Assembly, or with any of the other members of the Committee, I deemed it proper to give you the facts in the case as I understood them. And by way of suggesting that the other members of the Committee should be appealed to, I expressed the opinion that they would confirm my statement as to the main point. Mr. Kendall was not present in the meeting of the Committee, but the paper was shown to him, as modified in the meeting of the Committee, before it was submitted to the Assembly; and, if I mistake not, his attention was particularly directed to the variation from the original draught.
Dr. Allen has fully confirmed my statement, except as to the very unimportant question, who suggested the modification which was adopted by the Committee. The truth on that point is simply this: the conference of the Committee was entirely conversational ; Judge Allison and Judge Hastings wished a change in the language--to which Dr. A. and I objected. I then proposed another form of expression, which Dr. A. proposed to vary a little. This proposition, made partly by Dr. A. and partly by myself, was adopted. There is, therefore, no real discrepancy between Dr. Allen's statement and my own, even as to this little matter.
I have written to Judge Hastings and Mr. Kendall, requesting their impressions touching this question, but have not received any answer as yet. But I have the testimony of the Stated Clerk of the Assembly, which ought to be decisive. He says: “Your statement of the facts in the case of the 'Answer. to the Protest,' &c., is fully confirmed by the original paper before me. It is in pencil, and in your own handwriting, as follows." He then gives an exact copy of the sentence, with the erasures and interlinings, and adds: “I have this moment read in the Presbyterian Quarterly, for the first time, the Note on page 243, of the September No., and have seen, with surprise, the following statement: 'In some way the original paper was placed in the hands of the Stated Clerk, who has printed the paper as originally drawn, but not as passed by the Committee.' The Editors' have done me great injustice in this remark. I took special pains, in the publication of these documents, to collate the Records of the Permanent Clerk with the original papers, in order to the utmost possible accuracy. Had I seen the marginal note of the · Editors' sooner, I should have corrected their mistake at an earlier date. Strange that it did not occur to them, before committing their Article to press, to drop me a line of inquiry."
It is now settled, whatever may have been the impressions of Judges Allison and Hastings, that the paper, as read to the
Assembly by Dr. Allen, and adopted by that body, has been correctly given in the printed minutes. I believe, moreover, that both Judge Allison and Judge Hastings were present in the Assembly when the paper was read and adopted, and they no doubt voted for it. It is too late to change what the Assembly have thus publicly done, by the authority" of one or two or all the members of a Committee.
Of course, Judge Allison has given his real impressions in regard to this matter. But they are not sustained by the original document; and it is certain that the paper adopted by the Assembly has been incorrectly given in the “Quarterly Review."
R. W. PATTERSON. CHICAGO, Jan. 25, 1858.
NOTE FROM JUDGE ALLISON.
PHILADELPHIA, February 20th, 1858. REV. BENJ. J. WALLACE:
DEAR SIR: Inclosed you will find a note from Orlando Hastings, Esq., of Rochester, who was in attendance at the meeting of the Committee, of which he was a member, to prepare an answer to the Protest of the seceding commissioners to the late General Assembly at Cleveland.
Mr. Hastings' testimony is the more valuable, as it was called out by no suggestion or communication from myself, or from any other person, so far as my knowledge on the subject extends. His recollection agrees, substantially, with my own; and of the correctness of that recollection, as stated in my former note, I feel the more confident, from the additional consideration and reflection I have been able to give to the point in issue between the different members of that Committee, supported as it now is by the memory of Mr. Hastings.
I am, very truly, yours, &c.,
Jos. ALLISON. VOL. VI.-44
LETTER FROM ORLANDO HASTINGS, ESQ.
ROCHESTER, December 22, 1857. Hon. JOSEPH ALLISON :
DEAR SIR: My attention has been directed this morning to a Note at the close of the December number of the Presbyterian Quarterly, containing letters from Drs. Allen, Patterson, and yourself, in reference to the Assembly's Answer to the Protest of the Southern members, in regard to its action on the subject of Slavery.
My recollection of the action of the Committee agrees entirely with yours.
The facts, as I remember them, were these: You and I were first at the place appointed for the meeting of the Committee, and waited until about the time when the Assembly was to resume its business, before any other one of the Committee appeared.
Dr. Allen came in with a paper and submitted it to us, saying, that the other members had seen and approved it. Both you and myself (which spoke first I do not remember) objected to the clause which referred to the former action of the General Assembly, as conceding only the possibility that cases might exist in which the holding of men in bondage, would not be wrong; maintaining, that the Assembly had conceded that such cases did in fact exist—such as were specified in the Assembly's action in the Resolutions adopted at Detroit. Dr. Allen, at first, seemed to be strenuous in maintaining the position assumed in the Answer as drawn.
After discussing the question for a few minutes, Dr. Allen, upon our explicit declaration that we would not consent to the Answer, as drawn, yielded, as I understood it, to our views, and consented to modify the paper accordingly. I do not remember that the precise language of the paper, as modified, was read to us; still it may have been.
fecise language of cordingly. I do notews,
NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS.
I. Elements of Logic; designed as a Manual of Instruction. By
Henry Coppée, A.M., Professor of English Literature in the Uni. versity of Pennsylvania; and late Principal Assistant Professor of “ Ethics and English Studies," in the United States Military Academy, at West Point. Philadelphia: E. H. Butler & Co. 1858. pp. 275.
The basis of Captain Coppée's Logic is acknowledged to be Whately, on whom he pronounces the true eulogy: "As the clear expounder of Aristotle, and the originator of much that is valuable, Whately must stand at the head of the logicians of this age."
Professor Coppée's work has the great merit of clearness. It must be acknowledged—although we agree in much that Sir William Hamilton has said as to the overrating of the value of mathematics—that it has one sigual advantage; it leads to care in statements, and in our estimate of precise values. Captain Coppée's West Point education here stands him in stead. It is natural that he should make much of his subject, and that he should venerate Aristotle; but certainly right reasoning lies at the basis of truth. It is not a new, but it is a valuable remark, that the art of logic is more useful for the preservation of truth and the detection of error, than for the discovery of truth. Kept within its own sphere, it is important, especially, in the manifesting of fallacies. It may be questioned whether it be worth while to spend much time upon most of the technics of scholasticism.
Professor Coppée's remarks on the history of logic are, in the main, cor. rect and valuable. The abuse of Aristotle was not his legitimate use; and the disgust which Protestants entertain of the scholastic logic, is to be at. tributed, in much, to the fact that, for ages, it was found in bad company. The author has, evidently, not studied philosophy with the same care as logic, or rather he looks at philosophy too much from a logical position : there are greater things than logic in Plato and Zeno.
As a text-book, we very cordially recommend this work. Its merits are clearness; keeping close to the point in hand; method and candor. A little overrating of the value of the subject matter, will supply the requisite enthusiasm to put the student through a dry subject.
We are happy to hear that this work has been adopted as a text-book in Yale College.
II. Two Years Ago. By the Rev. Charles Kingsley, author of
“Hypatia," &c. Boston: Ticknor & Fields. 1857. pp. 540. It certainly is not a priori the best thing that a minister can do to write