admitted the possibility of certain exceptional cases," or words to that effect. Judge Allison and Mr. Hastings objected that the term "possibility" was not strong enough. They had admitted that such cases exist in fact. Brother Patterson and I thought not. The question between us was not what we supposed to be the facts in the case, for on this point we should all have agreed at once (I certainly have never doubted the existence of such exceptional cases), but what is the correct interpretation of the Assembly's action at Detroit. Brother Patterson and myself (Brother Kendall was not present), supposed that the action laid down principles and did not affirm facts. That it did not say that any cases of actual slaveholding in the Church, came under those exceptions, nor did it say that every case did not come under them. What the facts were, was left to Presbyteries to determine. As we could not agree on that point, Brother Patterson suggested the words, as reported and entered on the Minutes. To those words all agreed. The former were erased and those inserted; the paper read again and adopted. It was in Brother Patterson's handwriting. Judge Allison must have misunderstood the import of the words. I am the more disposed to think so, from the fact that he called my attention to it, the next morning, as reported in the papers; and I stated to him then that I believed the printed paper correct. I very much regret this misunderstanding, because I have no doubt we could have so modified the sentence as to have made it entirely acceptable to all, and I am sorry to have so harmonious an action of the Assembly marred by the slightest misapprehension of its terms. I can account for such misunderstanding, only on the ground of the haste with which we were then pushing ahead. I have taken the liberty of writing thus fully my understanding of the matter, and will only add that I hope you will in some way correct the error. Yours truly, D. H. ALLEN. NOTE FROM JUDGE ALLISON. REV. BENJ. J. WALLACE: WEST PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 26, 1857. DEAR SIR: I have read the letters of Doctors Patterson and Allen, which you were kind enough to send for my perusal before inserting them in the Review. They correctly state the point upon which the Committee disagreed, namely, the proper interpretation of the Detroit resolutions. The paper which was presented by the chairman, Dr. Allen, was objected to by Mr. Hastings and myself, because in our judgment it did not truly state the action of previous Assemblies. The answer affirmed such action to be no more than an assertion of an abstract principle, while Mr. Hastings and myself contended for a recognition, by the Detroit resolutions, of the innocence and lawfulness of the relation, in cases as they at that time existed in the Church. We held that what was said by the Assembly of the obligations of humanity, the duties of guardianship, &c., was said in view of the fact that slaveholding, to a considerable extent, existed in the Church; that the assertion was not a mere naked abstraction, as the report contended for, but the recognition of an existing reality among our slaveholding membership; and that the Assembly intended to take its stand upon this ground, as a practical and substantial fact, and not upon a mere myth. After considerable discussion, we refused to concur in the report. Various modifications were suggested, which were rejected until the paper was so altered, as to express in substance, the view contended for by those who objected to it in its original form. I never would have agreed to the Answer, as it appears in the report of the Minutes of the Assembly, and when I saw it in print the next morning in the cars, after we had left Cleveland, I called Dr. Allen's attention to it, and told him that as reported, it was not the paper finally adopted by the Committee, and that if it appeared in that form authoritatively, I would publicly correct the error, as a wrong done to the Assembly. What Mr. Hastings's recollection of the matter may be, I know not, as I have not communicated with him upon the subject. I state my own decided conviction, in opposition to the impressions of the two gentlemen whose letters are before me, who manifested at Cleveland, as they seem to do now, an earnest desire to sustain a paper prepared and reported by them to the Committee. They may be right and I wrong; but if I am in error, I entirely misconceived the character of the amendment to the report, which was agreed upon, and which it was left with Dr. Allen to insert. Upon one point Dr. Patterson's memory is sadly at fault; he says, "Mr. Kendall will no doubt confirm my statement," &c. The Committee had but one meeting, and Mr. Kendall was not present; of anything that transpired at that time, he consequently can have no knowledge. Truly yours, &c., Jos. ALLISON. Some of the Articles in this Number are longer than we expected, leaving us no room for Book Notices. We will endeavor to make up for this in our next Number. THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY REVIEW. . MARCH, 1858. No. XXIV. ARTICLE I. 1. Petri Abaelardi Abbatis Rugensis Opera omnia. [Patrologiae, Series secunda, Tom. CLXXVIII.] Accurante J. P. MIGNE, fol. Paris. 1855. pp. 1895. 2. The History of the Lives of Abeillard and Heloisa, with their genuine Letters, from the collection of Amboise. By Rev. JOSEPH BERINGTON. New edition. 2 vols. 12mo. Basil. 1793. 3. Abelard, sa vie, sa philosophie, et sa theologie. Par CHARLES DE REMUSAT. New edition. 2 vols. 12mo. Paris. 1855. 4. The Romance of Abelard and Heloise. By O. W. WIGHT. 12mo. New York. 1853. 5. Abailard et Héloïse, Essai historique. Par M. ET MME GUIZOT. Suivé des Lettres d'Abailard et d'Héloïse, traduites sur les manuscrits de la bibliotheque royal. Par. M. ODDOUL. Nouvelle édition entièrement refondue. Paris. 1853. THERE is something in the story and character of Abelard VOL. VI.-34 |