toward Union." The Philadelphia Convention stated distinctly in regard to Psalmody, "a change in this respect shall not be required;" i. e. each church shall use its own songs of praise. Ten members of the United Presbyterian Church voted in favor, and but one against that basis of Union. Thus a great diversity of opinion exists in that church in regard to what shall be used in the praise of God. The Testimony does not express the belief of all the members. As no notice is taken of those persons who thus argue, by the church courts, we must conclude that on this subject forbearance is to be exercised so far as opinion is concerned.

III. In regard to Close Communion. The testimonies of the two churches heré also agree. There must be union, before there can be communion. Those who eat and drink the emblems of the body broken and blood shed of our Lord, should hold the same truths and practice the same things. Here, too, our Testimony simply expresses the belief of our members. No one has publicly, or indeed privately, so far as we know, questioned the correctness of this position. This is not the case with our United Presbyterian brethren. Any one, who watched carefully the trial of Mr. M'Cune, and the course of the Synod of which he was a member, or who has read the discussions and articles occasioned by Mr. M'Cune's book, must acknowledge there are a number of ministers and members in that church who do not believe the position laid down in the Testimony, and who are desirous of a change. As no attention is paid to such persons, no attempt to exercise the discipline of the church on them, the inference is fair, forbearance here, too, so far as belief is concerned, is to be exercised, and the Testimony in this respect does not express the belief of the entire church. IV. Instrumental Music. The Testimonies of both churches here, too, agree. We believe the members of the Reformed Presbyterian Church are unanimously opposed to the use of instruments in the worship of God. Their reasons may differ. Some object to their use because there is no divine command. Others, because the effect of their introduction has invariably been to do away with congregational singing. The more corrupt the church has become, the more prominence has been given to instrumental music. In regard to the impropriety of its introduction there is no dispute. Any one who reads. any of the papers published in the interest of the United Presbyterian Church, knows there is a great diversity of opinion in that body on this subject. The number who argue in favor of the use of instrumental music in the worship of God, is legion. A correspondent of the Christian Instructor of Feb. 22, thus writes, "Why do we sing at all in offering praise to God? Is it not inseparably connected with praise? We may praise God, and ought to do so, without either singing or playing it; we may speak his praise and live his praise; we sing and we would PLAY, too, just for the music; and this God commands us to do. Why? Because of the power music has over the heart, in elevating our feelings and drawing out their confidence toward God." After such declarations, the subsequent statement "in any other position, than as aid to the voice, "it," instrumental music, "is out of its place, and hence abused," is of no force. We must come to the game con

clusion, then, in regard to this as to the other differences mentioned above.

V. Secret Societies. Here, too, both Testimonies agree. No member of any secret society can be a consistent member of either church. In the Reformed Presbyterian Church there is not known to be a member of such an association. If there is one, the connection is kept so secret as to prevent discovery. This is not the case in the United Presbyterian Church. Both Odd Fellows and Masons, known to be such, are in communion there. A writer in the United Presbyterian of March 21st, who has attempted to enforce the law of the church against secret societies, thus gives his experience: "We are met with allegations like these-in substance, if not in form :-'You misapprehend the laws of the church. The fathers and wise men of the church do not so interpret the statute. You will find members of secret societies in a large number of congregations. The church is full of them. You would not have pursued the course you have, if you had known that many large congregations, with influential pastors, have many such among the members, &c.' the members, &c.' Upon careful inquiry, I am satisfied that there is too much foundation for such allegations.' Here, too, the same conclusion follows as above, the Testimony of the church does not express the belief of the members. The practice and profession are directly at variance.

Such are some of the difficulties, that stand in the way of a Union between these two churches. They relate almost exclusively to the application of principle and to practice. We readily and gladly admit that the great majority of the United Presbyterian Church believe and act in accordance with their Testimony. Their papers, without exception, condemn the course of those who are dissatisfied with its present teachings. Still, the number which is dissatisfied is both large and influential; how large and influential, may be inferred from the fact that they may argue in favor of positions, the very opposite to and entirely subversive of the teaching of the church, and no attention is paid to them by the courts of the church.

The animus that actuates some of those who desire a change, may be inferred from a remark, made by a man of ability, when speaking of the Philadelphia platform: "If we can't go as a church, they can't keep us from going as fragments." The effect failure to exercise discipline on known offenders, has on those who believe their Testimony and are trying to act accordingly, may be inferred from the following extract taken from an article to which reference has already been made: "Are we not ready for Union with other Presbyterian churches now, as they certainly would not object to having our Testimony upon the statute book, provided that it is the EXPRESS understanding that they will not be expected to conform to its requirements?"

.

▲ LIBERAL PROPOSAL-WHO WILL RESPOND?

YORK, April 8, 1868. DEAR MR. EDITOR-I regret that on account of my imperfect chi.rography, which I regret to say is often none of the best, or from some other cause, there was a serious error in the notice you gave of a certain proposal to establish at once the "Fund for Superannuated Ministers and the Families of Deceased Ministers." The esteemed elder who wrote to me on the subject offers to be one of ten persons to give each ($1,000) one thousand dollars to make a sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to begin with; or he will be one of twenty to give five hundred dollars ($500) each, or he will pledge the congregation with which he is connected to raise one thousand dollars ($1,000), if nine other congregations will each raise the same amount. No doubt he might consent to some other modification of his plan. I am not at liberty at present to mention the name of the person who makes the above proposal, but he is well known in the church for many liberal acts. He also suggests that the ministry should contribute more largely than I proposed in my former letter-say $25 at ordination and $25 at marriage. I noticed recently a statement that in the Free Church of Scotland, which has been a prodigy of success in money matters, all ministers give to this fund $50 at ordination, $50 at marriage, and nearly $40 each year subsequently to ordination. The latter amount (I mean the $40) is to be given equally by the married and unmarried-a good way to tax bachelors.

Of course, if the above proposal is carried into effect, and congregations also make frequent collections, as the elder proposes, it will be necessary to throw around the fund every safeguard.

I suppose we have had fun enough with my etcetera and so forth, though I love fun as I love my dinner. Why does not my asterisk friend or the star man take his own advice, and "standing in unmistakable daylight, equally delight himself and his readers?" might as well, as far as I am concerned, have signed his own name. "The ointment of his right hand bewrayeth itself."

He

He will remember the time when in the Seminary he used to accuse me of taking his name in vain. I will not disclose his name, however, and will only thank him for having given me a good, hearty laugh. Yours, very truly, S. BOWDEN.

PROPOSAL FOR PRIZE ESSAY.

Copy of Resolution passed by the "Constitutional Reform Society" of the Reformed Presbyterian Congregations of Pittsburgh and Allegheny, Penn'a.

Resolved, That a prize of fifty dollars be awarded to the party who shall forward within the prescribed time the best manuscript on the following themes:

I. Prove that a nation is a moral person.

II. State wherein, if at all, the present Constitution of the United States is contrary to, or inconsistent with, revealed truth regarding civil government.

III. State the arguments in proof of the propriety and the neces sity on the part of a nation whose people possess the Scriptures, of acknowledging in so many words in their written constitutions:

1. God as the moral Governor of the universe.

2. Christ as the King of nations.

3. The Bible as the supreme law in civil matters.

IV. State what qualifications are necessary in a political candidate to justly entitle him to the votes of Christians.

V. If there be any other principle claimed as essential to what is termed a Christian constitution, state it, and furnish arguments in proof. The following are the conditions:

1. Each theme to be treated separately (reckoning No. III as three themes), and not to exceed in length six pages of foolscap paper.

2. The Document Committee of Constitutional Reform Society to be the judges, and to have the right to publish whatever they may deem suitable to their purpose.

3. Manuscripts to be forwarded to any member of the Document Committee previous to the first day of August.

The Committee pledge themselves to judge as fairly as they can, and they earnestly appeal to the ministers of the Reformed Presbyterian Church and all others interested, to assist them in placing before the public a pamphlet containing the best possible vindication of the above truths, by furnishing them with the material from which to make a judicious selection. THOMAS SPROULL, JOHN M. BOGGS, A. M. MILLIGAN, JAMES A. GRIER, JOHN WILLSON, J. R. NEWELL, Chm'n. JOHN HANNA, Document Committee..

SCRIPTURE RIDDLE.

ONE of a class that has passed away
To reappear at a future day;
One of a class prophetical known;
Painters of pictures, that all will own
Did curious pictures paint alone;
And not for all-for a favored few
Their strange, mysterious pictures drew.

Unsummoned I went to a monarch great
'Mid his royal wealth and regal state;
Powerless the king to say me nay,
Powerless to bid me go or stay;
For skillfully chosen was the hour,
His of weakness and mine of power.

Curious pictures then I drew,
Spreading out to the monarch's view
More bewildering things, I ween,
Than e'er the wondering king had seen.
Message of joy and woe bore I

To the earthly king from the court on
high,

But closely sealed; for he might not see
Till another had read the high decree;
Nor might forget the word I bore,
So I told the monarch o'er and o'er;
Yet never a syllable did I say,
But silently came and passed away,
And none might even have known at all
My advent there in the lordly hall.

Not like wilderness prophet bold,
Venturing life for the word he told;
Not like hand on Belshazzar's wall,
Blaz'ning signs of a kingdom's fall;
Not to herald a nation's grave;
Nay! but rather its life to save.
Virtue I raised from low degree
A Saviour renowned and good to be,
And the church and world might well
rejoice

Because of my still prophetic voice.
M. A. T.

PHIL'A., March 16, 1868.

Selections

HOW THE TURKS ENCOURAGE THE BUILDING OF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES.

A BLUE-BOOK was published last summer by Lord Stanley, "On the Condition of Christians in Turkey," which included a paper presented by Fuad Pasha to Lord Lyons. This paper discusses the famous Hattihoumayoun, and shows how fully it has been carried out by the Turks. In article 5 we read: "No impediment has ever been placed in the way of the construction of new churches or the repair of old ones. So far from placing difficulties in the way, the Sovereign and the Government often come to the aid of these religious foundations, either by gratuitous concessions of land or by pecuniary grants.' This statement is explicit enough, and, if true, it certainly shows a decided spirit of toleration. If it be utterly false, it may be taken as a fair specimen of Fuad Pasha's honesty, and of Turkish liberality under the Hattihoumayoun. A few facts, of which your correspondent is personally cognizant, will throw some light on the truth of this statement. Not to go back beyond the present year, applications have been made to the government, within the year, for permission to erect Protestant churches in some seven different cities where there are organized Protestant communities. You shall have the experience of each one.

In Aintab, near Aleppo, there is already one Protestant church, but the community is so large that not half can be accommodated in this; so for several years the second church has worshiped in a low, miserable room. Some two years ago money was raised and everything made ready to erect a second large and commodious church. Application was duly made for permission to build. To this day it has not been obtained. No end of time and money has been expended at Aintab, at Aleppo, and at Constantinople, but all has been of no avail. The most frivolous and ridiculous objections are alleged at every turn. For instance, it is said that no Christian church can be erected in any quarter where there are any Mussulman residents. In Aintab there is no quarter where there are fewer Mussulman residents than the one chosen for this church. The Protestants are ready to take another lot and do anything if permission to build can be obtained; but the simple fact is, the Turks have determined not to allow another Protestant church in Aintab, and the Protestants are helpless. The story of the deceptions, the lying, and the trickery of the Turks in reference to this one church during these two years, would fill volumes.

In Seni Kapoo, a quarter of the city of Constantinople, there is an old house which has been used for a Protestant chapel, and application was made some two years ago for permission to erect a suitable building in its place. To all appearance we are no nearer the obtaining of this permission than when we commenced. So many impossible conditions are thrown in its way, so many people are put forward who decline to move without a bribe, that we are helpless.