Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1853-12-03

in breahloss admiration Of such sublime faith, an
admiration only diminished by slight suspicion
that If they slaves instead of theOriZcrs about
slavery, they might not attain 70 such heroic con-
lusions. Though the spirit should be willing, the
esh might be weak especially il it should lc sol
rom recent scourgng How easy it is to sui
nit the care of oMcr men 70 prUVidencel What
resignation we evince under the Affections which
come upon our nciglbors Now rs sl0yChOlding
exists in the church it would seem to lie peculiarly
proper TO discuss the question tf abolition in eCclc-
sastical bodies, and as the S,nCd discouncnanoe es
It there, We must conclude that they opposed to
its agitation anywhere in church Orin state. What
have we, then. but a third edition of the Baltimore
platform, tic first being Democratic, the second
Wing and the third Prcsbyterian- MI aimed Mt tie
suppression Of the slavery agitation. But then
thc original Baltimore platforms said nothing about
leaving the matter to Providence, it was the happy
thought of ccclcsasti,s 90 DO that. But perhaps
the politicians meant the same, for we never knew
tncm aycrsc to allowing Providence TO do up all the
troublesome good that was TO lie accomplished
But 1t Is little strange that the Synod did not hint
at the results which they wished orcxpectcd Proy-
dcncc TO secure. That omission, however, may lc
only an additional proof of their faith. We once
heard Of a man who, in attempting to make sul-
missiyc yet earnest prayer, said, " . Lord, we do
not presume to dictate but only to ddcisc.' The
Synod were too good the0lugians to fall into that
biundcr: but was their escape owing to their su-
peror submission, or to their lack of earnestness!
Bat why is not their doctrine applicat0ry to 9TH
er questions in which ccclesmslical bodies ure in
tcrestod? Why not commit Sabbath-bi eaking,
dancing intempcrancc Romanism, MUhammedan-
ism, hcathcnism and infdclity to the sole care Of
Divine Providence? l. God unable to take charge
of so many subjects oris human assistance mu, h
more necessary to him in these latter cases? Would
it not be rather astounding 20 the good people II
the American Board should initiate the Synod, and
Mt the next annual meeting sUlomnly commit the
whole subject Of missions to Divine Providence. de-
prccating any human interference? If Providence
is to become sole operator in reform, what need is
there of the church, and hence of the Synod? can
not God assume the charge of religion well rs
ui philanthropy, five must separate the two? We
imagine we hear the voice Of old Leo Y sounding
through the ages, and amid the agitation caused by
LutLer's attempts to reform abuses out of tie
church, pously dcprceating contention and com
hitting the work Of rciOIm cNclusely to Divine
Providence. Alas ! If such wishes and counscls
had prevailed, the Synod Of New York and New
Jersey would not have been in existence the other
day to attempt to bury the slavery agitation in the
grave Of their spurious submiss on. And then to
think that the resolution should have been moved
by minister who once claimed to be an abolition
list But that was in his carly days, before the
degree of ID. ID. had come like a mantle of conser-
yatism upon his shoulders When next he dis
courses to his people ON Il doctrine Of u universal
Providence, and attempts to reconcile it with hu-
man agency and responsibility, or when next lie
breaches from the text " For as the body without
tho spirit is dead. so faith without works is dead
also" may We he there to hear him rccant the sol
cmn nonsense Of his Synodical resolution.