our present social life were utterly ignored. "The times of this ignorance," we would charitably hope, "God winked at.' Their education and the spirit of the times in which they lived, may palliate, if they will not entirely excuse in these men what would be utterly intolerable in their descendants. But to tear off this mantle, which that charity which covers a multitude of sins, would throw over these dark spots in their lives, and hold up their deformities to the gaze of posterity, is a work which does no credit to the head or heart of Dr. Smith. The time is not far distant when the fact that they were slaveholders will be as carefully_concealed as the fact that they made and drank whisky. But to hold up their example as a barrier to that tremendous tide of opposition to slavery now setting in, is dishonorable alike to the living and the dead.

SLAVERY IN THE OLD SCHOOL GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

The vexed question was brought before this body by the Congregational delegate from Maine. The moderator of the Assembly responded, and the reporters placed him in a false position. The following is his explanation:

"The moderator (Rev. Francis McFarland, D. D., of the Presbytery of Lexington, Va.,) said: I beg to be indulged in a few remarks upon a subject in which I am peculiarly interested. Last evening I was greatly surprised to find in the Commercial Advertiser of this city a report of my remarks made yesterday in response to the delegate from Maine, in which I am made to say: As to slavery, Sir, I never heard remarks upon the evils of the system which I could not subscribe to.' [Laughter.] The Assembly will bear witness that I never uttered such a sentence. Had I uttered such a . sentence the Assembly would have taken me out of this chair. Had I been considered capable of uttering such a sentence the Assembly would never have placed me in this chair. it were believed that any minister had uttered this sentiment it would destroy his influence in the South."

"Dr. Prime. And in the North, too, Sir."

If

Dr. McFarland also published a card in the Commercial Advertiser correcting the blunder of the reporters. Alluding to the above sentiment which they had put in his mouth, he

says:

"The moderator never uttered such a sentiment-it would constitute him an abolitionist of the first class, from the principles of whom he utterly dissents. He expressed no opinion of his own, but said that he was extensively acquainted in the Southern States, and that he never met with man or woman who did not admit that slavery was an evil, till the Abolition controversy drove them in self-defense to take different ground.'

Can pro-slavery truckling go beyond this? Had the moderator been capable of assenting to remarks on the evils of slavery he would have been taken out of the moderator's chair. Had he been considered capable of uttering a conviction that slavery is an evil, he would never have been placed in that chair. To admit that slavery is an evil is a bar to all promotion in the Old School General Assembly. This statement is made from the moderator's chair, and so far as appears, not a tongue is lifted in dissent to the disgraceful statement. But then it is consistent with the position of that Assembly since 1845. They then declared slavery to be their cornerstone and bond of union, and, of course, no one should be permitted to breathe one syllable of opposition to the peculiar institution. To doubt its Divine origin and holy character is to strike at the foundation of the General Assembly; and if a man, capable of such treason to slavery, should, by mistake, get into the moderator's chair, he must expect so soon as the mistake is discovered, to be dragged out in double quick time! The Old School General Assembly is becoming more and more besotted in its devotion to slavery, year by year. It is literally "drunk with the wine of the wrath of the fornication" of this great American harlot. How much longer will Christian people adhere to such a reprobate body? The statement which Dr. McFarland did make, though very old and stale, is very peculiar and intensely foolish. What he did say was, that he never met a man or woman in the South, "who did not admit that slavery was an evil, till the abolition controversy drove them, in self-defense, to take different ground." That is, they admitted that slavery was an evil until the abolitionists of the North arose and agreed with them in that admission, and urged them to put the admitted evil away! Then, in self-defense, they changed ground, ate their own words, stoutly denied that slavery was an evil at all, and began to swear by it as a household god! And this statement is solemnly put forth before a grave assembly of doctors of divinity and others, apparently without a suspicion that it

represents the men and women of the South as both knaves and fools. Dr. McFarland, of course, would have us believe that they were both honest and intelligent in formerly admitting that slavery is an evil. Did the rise of the abolition controversy, then, change the character of slavery? Is not the present denial by Southern men and women that slavery is an evil, both foolish and dishonest? Or did the magic wand of the abolitionists touch the unclean devil of slavery, and transform it into an angel of light? If the abolitionists have performed this miraculous service for the slaveholders, in all gratitude they should cease to curse them. Just look at the position in which the statement of Dr. McFarland puts the Southern people. There are men and women who freely admit to the world and to themselves that slavery is a great evil. A society of men and women is formed in the North who say to them, Yes, brethren and sisters of the South, slavery is undoubtedly a great evil, and now we propose to do what we can, in a friendly manner, to help you put it away. Let u us set about the great work of abolishing this admitted evil at once. But presto! change! The words of these Northern fanatics, or rather their repetition of Southern words, has instantly changed the whole aspect of the case. The Southern people at once rise up and say, "You Northern fanatics are meddling with what you do not understand. Slavery is not an evil. It is a divine institution. 'It is the corner-stone of our republican institutions.' Our churches are based on the conceded principle, that it is no bar to Christian communion. Away with your intermeddling! In 'selfdefense' we take back our former admission, and affirm that to be good which before we freely and honestly admitted to be evil." It is surely time that men should cease uttering such transparent folly.

The Dr. Prime who holds, as reported above, that a man will lose his influence in the North by declaring slavery an evil, is the editor of the New York Observer, the "Satanic press" of the religious world.

MISDIRECTION OF ANTISLAVERY EFFORT.

It is a curious and undeniable fact, that the success of the Slave Power, in this country, in its aggressions upon freedom, has kept pace with the growth of the antislavery sentiment.

The acquisition of Texas, the Mexican War, the enactment of the Fugitive Slave Act, and the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, have all transpired since the commencement of the antislavery movement. The abolitionists have for years been more numerous than the slaveholders. In 1848 they polled 300,000 votes, while the whole number of slave-owners in the country, including men, women and children, does not exceed 250,000. Yet the two worst acts of slaveholding tyranny— the passage of the fugitive bill, and the Nebraska swindlehave been perpetrated since that time. What adds to our surprise in contemplating this phenomenon, is the fact, that the abolitionists had all the advantages of having truth and conscience on their side, while the slaveholders have been warring against both.

It will be both instructive and profitable, if we can ascertain the true cause of this phenomenon. Without further preliminary, we state our belief that one principal cause has been, the misdirection of antislavery effort. The movement, of late years at least, has been too exclusively political. It has aimed at the defeat and destruction of the slave power through party tactics and political machinery. The stronghold of the system of slavery has not been much disturbed, but the strength of the hosts of freedom has been wasted in skirmishing attacks upon its outposts. And hence, with the advantages of superior numbers, and a righteous cause upon their side, they have been generally defeated. A few points in regard to this matter, are perfectly clear to our mind:

1. Slavery lives and flourishes in this country because the public sentiment of the nation either approves of it, or is indifferent. The great majority of men are governed by the opinions and sentiments of others, and all are to some extent influenced thereby. There are a few who make the law of God the supreme rule of their conduct, but the vast majority shape their course by the popular will. Hence the surest way to compass the overthrow of any existing custom or institution is to make it unpopular. "Better out of the world than out of the fashion," is the motto of millions. It is true that with a strong sense of duty and of the favor of God in their hearts, men may and do brave the terrors of an opposing public sentiment. But it is even then the hardest enemy with which flesh and blood ever grapples. No doubt the stake and the fire are less terrible to the martyr, than the concentrated seorn and contempt of his fellow-men. Mere animal courage can brave the former, but nothing save the

sustaining grace of God can nerve the heart to overcome the latter.

It follows that when men have not this deep consciousness of Divine favor to sustain them, they will abandon any practice against which a determined and hostile public opinion can be concentrated. Now no men know better than the slaveholders, that their system is inherently wicked; an abomination to God, and a loathing to all good men. Hence, having no inward consciousness of rectitude to sustain them, they will give up their oppression just so soon as it can be made thoroughly and universally unpopular.

2. In the second place, the great agencies which create and direct public sentiment in this country, are the Church, the School, and last, but not least, the Press. This proposition scarcely admits of a doubt. The political party may have some influence in molding the opinions of the people, but the politicians are much more frequently the followers than the leaders of public sentiment. Let the Church put the ban of her reprobation upon slavery by refusing to receive those in the practice of it to membership. Let the schools inculcate the love of freedom, and the hatred of oppression in the minds of the young; and let the press speak out in tones of stern denunciation of the great crime, and there is no political party on earth that could sustain it one hour. Slavery is made respectable by taking it into the church, by teaching its divinity in the school (especially the theological seminary), and by marshaling prostituted presses to its support. The slaveholders understand this well. Hence their unceasing vigilance in seeking the control of the great church organizations of the country, in expurgating every word of antislavery sentiment from the school-books, and in pensioning the most influential presses in the land to speak in praise of their institution.

3. It follows from this, that so long as slavery is fellowshiped in the Church, and so long as our schools and presses are the nurseries of proslavery sentiments, slavery will retain its respectability, and its power to rule in the State. It is perfectly idle to talk of denationalizing slavery, until it is unchurched. It is the hight of folly to talk of preventing its ingress into the territories, while it has a free passage into the sanctuary of God. It is worse than folly to try to cast it out of the political party, so long as a seat is freely accorded to it at the communion table.

This is the highest sanction that can be given to any human