humanity may be oppressed. In the poetry of philanthropy, they may venture to declare, in general, that "the evils which man has suffered, and continues to suffer, from the abuse of the civil and ecclesiastical powers, ordained for his benefit, are immeasurably greater than those which have befallen him from any other source; and the call for their correction is, therefore, proportionably loud"; in their practical concerns, instead of a direct attack upon these evils, they are chiefly to busy themselves with correcting the dispositions from which they originated. In the poetry of philanthropy, they are to throw out the hint "to the enemies of seasonable and needful changes," "that the horrors of revolution are more to be charged upon them, than upon the immediate agents and victims"; in their practical concerns, they are to be extremely cautious how they wake the angry elements of the human breast, and expose themselves to their cruel and unsparing sweep.

But we have proceeded far enough. Our hearts sicken within us. Pliable himself would have been a fair candidate for distinguished honors in the religious world, where such doctrines as abound in the article under review, prevail. These doctrines contain the seeds of foul apostacy from the christian cause. Their prevalence is the decline of every thing true, and good, and sacred in the church. Our warning voice, however feeble it may be, we cannot but raise. In the ears of every disciple of Jesus Christ, we cry, Beware! Admit the doctrines, which to a fearful extent prevail in the religious world-such doctrines as we have endeavored to expose in the paragraphs, to which we have now invited your attention-and your life-blood is poisoned at the fountain. You will be prepared to be any thing and to do any thing, which a selfish, thoughtless world may demand. To peace of conscience, joy in the Holy Spirit, and the smiles of Jesus Christ you must bid adieu! If you cherish the temper of Demas and of Judas, you ought to expect the retribution which gave them their place among hypocrites and unbelievers.

From those who can read such articles as that, on which in this paper we have been dwelling, without disgust and indignation, the friends of human rights ought to know, that they have nothing of sympathy or assistance to expect. They might as well repair to a "broken cistern" for living

water. In standing up erect on the rock, which eternal rectitude has furnished, they have committed in the eyes of the slave of expediency an unpardonable sin. He can forgive the wretches who fasten an iron grasp on the throats of their helpless, unoffending brethren; nay, he can offer ingenious apologies, and a stout vindication of their crimes. But the deep sympathy with the suffering and the dumb, which the friends of human rights may betray; their earnest and determined efforts in the spirit of the gospel, and in accordance with their obligations as good citizens of the republic, to break every yoke, and set the oppressed free, he can never forgive. He can with a hearty good will misunderstand their motives, misinterpret their language, misrepresent their movements. And when he sees them subject to insult and outrage, to scorn and violence, he can look cooly on, with what he pleases to call a "manly composure." And if they were dragged to the stake, the most they could expect of him would be the expression of a regret which they did not feel, that they had imprudently thrown themselves away!

Let not those who plead the cause of the persecuted negro be deceived. Fiery trials let them calmly expect. If the burdens of their crushed brethren, whom they dare to recognize as men, are thrown upon their shoulders, let them not be surprized or shocked. He, who hates the negro, will never love his advocates. He who can sympathize with men-stealers, will never love their reprovers. He will consent to see them scourged with the lash, which is red with negro-blood. We may as well throw ourselves on the mercy of the negro-stealer of the South as the negro-hater of the North. What good can we expect from either? Be it ours to cut loose from all merely human dependencies. "Cursed is the man who trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm." Be it ours to confide in God. He is the patron of righteousness-the avenger of the oppressed. "Blessed is he, THAT CONSIDERETH THE POOR; the Lord will deliver him in time of trouble. The Lord will preserve him and keep him alive; and he shall be blessed upon the earth:

AND THOU WILT NOT DELIVER HIM UNTO THE WILL OF HIS ENEMIES."

THE HARMONY OF MOSES AND THE APOSTLES.

BY REV. SAMUEL CROTHERS,

Pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Greenfield, Highland Co. Ohio.

THE charges of self-contradiction, and a corrupt system of morals have deservedly consigned many pretended revelations to everlasting contempt. A revelation from the God of truth, and infinite purity, must be pure and true. It is much to be lamented therefore, that christians who acknowledge the slave trade, and slavery to be inconsistent with the heavenly principles inculcated by our Lord and his apostles, should undertake to defend either of them by appealing to the law of Moses. Yet this is, and has been done, ever since the introduction of African slavery into the christian church by the man of sin. Hence it is that the Old Testament has been falling into disrepute ever since the commencement of the slave trade, as is evident from an examination of the writings of divines before, and after that event.

By a large majority of christians of the present day, it is treated as an obsolete book. In many pious families it is seldom or never read. The exposition of it is rarely attended to in any of our pulpits, in most of them never. There are few theological seminaries, if any, where the careful study of it forms any part of the ordinary course of preparation for the gospel ministry. And among all the volumes under which our shelves are groaning, we never find a book professing to exhibit the gospel of the law of Moses. This is not surprising. No man is more consistent with his principles, than he who believes that the law given at Mount Sinai justifies the slave trade, or that system of slavery to which it gave birth, and for that reason has no wish that his ehildren should be familiar with it. How could it be otherwise if he wished them at the close of life to look back and say with pious Job-"If I have withheld the poor from their desire, or have caused the eyes of the widow to fail. If I have lifted up my hand against the fatherless when I saw my help in the gate; then let my arm fall from my shoulderblade, and mine arm be broken from the bone."

It would not mend the matter to tell our children that though Moses encouraged making property of human beings, Jesus Christ and his apostles were opposed to him in that particular, and therefore they must not mind him.

What

would be the inference if they were capable of reflection, and possessed of common sense? That Moses was a bad man; that the apostles were not much better when they recommended his writings; that the bible contradicts itself; that its divine author is not particular about our morals; that the question whether it be right to commit sin, is a mere question of expediency, to be determined by the dispensation under which we live, or the circumstances in which we are placed; and that nothing is to be gained by being trammeled with the religion of the bible. If the detail of such frightful inferences makes us shudder, what must the principle be from which they are legitimately drawn?

We shall endeavor to shew that THERE MUST BE A PERFECT HARMONY BETWEEN MOSES AND THE APOSTLES, IN FAITH AND HOLINESS, AND PARTICULARLY IN REGARD TO THE SIN OF SLAVEHOLDING.

The contrary suppostion is infidelity, and absurd in itself. It is a species of infidelity, however, which is very prevalent. We often hear such questions as the following: "Why did God license the Jews to put away their wives and marry others when they pleased? Why did he legalize polygamy? Why did he encourage, among the Israelites, a thirst for war and shedding of blood? Why did David, and other good men, in their devotional exercises, breathe a revengeful spirit, and curse their personal enemies? Why did God direct his people to make slaves or involuntary servants of their brethren, and of the heathen around them?" Some infidels carry such questions about them as a sort of oiled daggers. Some professors of religion have them always at hand, to be used in case any of their favorite lusts should be attacked. And perhaps some are fond of them, for a reason not unlike that which induced many pagans to carry about with them, long lists of the crimes of their gods-their quarrels, and debaucheries, and thefts, and murders-to show that they were as good as the objects of their worship.

But, weak and uninformed christians often propose questions in the spirit of honest inquiry. Instead of shewing them, that they assume, as facts, gross slanders, invented, originally, for the defence of infidelity, and scandalous immoralities, the following is the spirit of the popular reply, and it is taken nearly verbatim from a respectable religious

periodical-"The law which God gave by Moses, at Mount Sinai, was intended for a dispensation which was dark and severe in its character. It, therefore, authorized some things which are very inconsistent with the spirit of the gospel, and blessed and peaceful dispensation under which it is our privilege to live." This is unvarnished infidelity, and its effect on the minds of the young and ignorant must always be deplorable.

The fact, however, is as unquestionable as it is distressing, that the advocates of slavery generally, and a few of the friends of emancipation, occupy common ground with infidels. They both assume that God and Moses are opposed to God and the apostles, as regards the unversality and inalienability of the right to be free. The latter admit that slaveholding was licensed in the Old Testament, but contend that it is irreconcilable with the golden rule-all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you do ye even so to them. The former profess greatly to admire that rule. They consider it a most happy improvement in the science of morals. But they insist that it was unknown to Moses when he made the law given at Mount Sinai.* If this be true, they ought both to be excluded from the communion of the church; the former not for holding slaves but for whining about conscience, and asserting their hatred of the principle; the latter for agreeing with them in charging the Almighty with self-contradiction. Far as it may be from their intentions, they do, in fact, unite in a conspiracy against the character of the righteous Judge of all the earth. They agree in charging him with licensing, in one part of his word, a certain practice as agreeable to the moral law, and therefore as christian; and with forbidding the same practice in another part of his word, as contrary to the same law, and thererefore a soul-destroying sin.

Are those who mention the discrepancy of the Old and New Testament, as it regards purity of morals, aware that God is the author of all the scriptures? Do they know that the same Holy Spirit guided the pens of all the inspired writers? Do they recollect that it was by proving the charges of inconstancy and self-contradiction, that some of the worst impostors have been detected and convicted? In

*It will be well if some writer on Archeology does not give us a chapter of the interesting incidents when Moses was making the world.