abolitionists. They found
slavery authorized by the laws of the land. So do we. They were called
upon to receive into the communion of the Christian Church, both slave
owners and slaves. So are we. They instructed these different classes of
persons as to their respective duties. So do we. Where then is the
difference between the two cases? If we are right in insisting that
slaveholding is one of the greatest of all sins; that it should be
immediately and universally abandoned as a condition of church
communion, or admission into heaven, how comes it that Christ and his
apostles did not pursue the same course? We see no way of escape from
the conclusion that the conduct of the modern abolitionists, being
directly opposed to that of the authors of our religion, must be wrong
and ought to be modified or abandoned.

An equally obvious deduction from the fact above referred to, is, that
slaveholding is not necessarily sinful. The assumption of the contrary
is the great reason why the modern abolitionists have adopted their
peculiar course. They argue thus: slaveholding is under all
circumstances sinful, it must, therefore, under all circumstances, and
at all hazards, be immediately abandoned. This reasoning is perfectly
conclusive. If there is error any where, it is in the premises, and not
in the deduction. It requires no argument to show that sin ought to be
at once abandoned. Every thing, therefore, is conceded which the
abolitionists need require, when it is granted that slaveholding is in
itself a crime. But how can this assumption be reconciled with the
conduct of Christ and the apostles? Did they shut their eyes to the
enormities of a great offence against God and man? Did they temporize
with a henious evil, because it was common and popular? Did they abstain
from even exhorting masters to emancipate their slaves, though an
imperative duty, from fear of consequences? Did they admit the
perpetrators of the greatest crimes to the Christian communion? Who
will undertake to charge the blessed Redeemer and his inspired followers
with such connivance at sin, and such fellowship with iniquity? Were
drunkards, murderers, liars, and adulterers thus treated? Were they
passed over without even an exhortation to forsake their sins? Were they
recognized as Christians? It can not be that slaveholding belongs to the
same category with these crimes; and to assert the contrary, is to
assert that Christ is the minister of sin.

This