Cheraw gazette. [volume] (Cheraw, S.C.) 1835-1838, 1836-08-23

do we. Where then is the difference be-
tween the two cases? If we are right in in
sisting that slaveholding is one Of the great
est Of all sins; that it should be immedI-
ately and universally abandoned as con-
di,ion 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 to escape from the con-
clusion that the conduct of the modern alb
olitionists, being directly opposed to that
of our religion, must be wrong and ought
to be modified or abandoned.
An equally obvious deduction from the
fact above referred to, that slaycholdlng Is
not necessarily sinful. The assumption of
the contrary is the great reason why the
modern abolitionists have adopted their pc
cu!iar course. They argue thus: slave
holding is under rrall circumstances sinful, 1t
must, therefore, under all clrcums ances, and
at all hazards, be immediately abandoned.
This reasoning is perfectly conclusive. If
there is error any where, it is in the preml-
ses, 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 abolitionlSts need re-
quire, when it is granted that slaveholdlns
is in itself crime. But how can this as
sumption be reconciled with the conduct Of
Christ and the apostles Did they shut their
eyes to the enormties Of great offence
agains. God and man? Did they tempor-
ise with heinous evil, because it was com.
mon and popular? Did they abstain from
even cxhorting masters to emancipate their
slaves, though an imperative duty, from fear
of consequences? Did they admit the per-
petraiors the greatest crimes tothe Chris
trian communion? Who will undertake TO
charge the blessed Redeemer and his IN
spired followers with such connivance at SIN,
and such fellowship with inquiry! Were
drunkards, murderers liars, and adulterers
thus treated? Were they passed over with
out even an exhoration to !orSake their
sins? Were they recognized as Christians!
1t cannot be that slavcholding belongs to the
same category with these crimes and TO
assert the contrary, is to assert that Christ Is
the minister of sin.
= y
The argument from the conduct OF Christ
aud his immediate followers seems to us
decisive on the point, that slaveholdlng, in
iself considered, is not a crime. Let us see
how this argument has been answered. In
the able address to the Presbyteries of
kentucky, proposing plan for the instruc-
ton and emancipation oftheir slaves, by a
committee ofthe Synod ofkentucky," there
is strong and extended argument 10 prove
the sinfulness Of slavery Us 1t erists among us
to which VIC have little to object. When,
however, the distinguished dralter of that
address comes to answer the objection,
"God's word sanctions slavery, and it can
no. therefore be sinful, he forgets the essen
tial Limitation of the proposition which he
had undertaken to establish, and proceeds
to prove that the Bible condemns s'aveEold-
ing, and not merely the kind or system of
slavery which prevails in this country. The
argument drawn from the scriptures, he
says, needs no elaborate reply. If the
bible sanctions slavery, it sanctions the kind
of slavery which then prevailed the afro
cous system which Authorized masters to
starye their slaves, to torture them, TO beat
them, 10 put them to death, and to throw them
into their fish ponds. And he Justly asks,
whether a man could insult the God ofhca-
ven worse than by saying he does not dap
prove Of such system! DR.. Charming pre-.
sents strongly the same view, and says, that
an infidcl would be labouring in his voca-
ton in asserting that the bible does not con-
denim slavery. These gentlemen, howev-
er, arc far too clear 81 gifted not 10 discover,
on a moments reflection, that they have al
lowed their benevolent feelings to blind them
to the real point at issue. No one denies
that the bible condemns all injustice, CRU
eltv, expressions, and violence. And just
as far as the laws then existing, authorized
these crimes, the bible condemned them.
But what stronger argument can be pre-.
sented to prove that the sacred writers dlC
not regard siavcholding as in itself sinful,
than that while they condemn ali unjust or
unkind treatment (evcn thrcatening) On the
part ofmasters towards their slaves, they did
dot condemn slavery itself? While they re-
CURED the master to treat his slave accord
ing TO the law OF love, they did not command
him to set him free. The very atrocty,
therefore, ofthe system which then prevail
ed, instead Of weakening the argument,
gives it tenlold strength. Then, ii ever,
when the institution was so fearfuly abused,
we might expect to hear the interpreters OF
the divine will, saying that system which
leads to such results is the concentrated es-
sence of all crimes, and must be instantly
abandoned on pain of eternal comdemna-