But so far from the Bible condemning _slave-holding_, I maintain it recognizes the practice by giving laws, and directions, both for Master and for slave--and so far from encouraging the slave to run away from his master, as the principles of Abolitionism teach, it unequivocally exhorts and commands "_every_ man to ABIDE in the same calling wherein he is called"--"if called, _being a slave_, care not for it; but if thou _mayest_ (i. e. if thou lawfully) be _made_ (set) free, use it rather." (1 Cor. vii. 20, 21.) This is my _guide_, this is my _principle_, this would be the foundation of my advice to all.--But how opposite are the principles, the advice, and the conduct of Abolitionists, to the inspired Apostle! Paul says to the slave, "be obedient to your Master--care not for being a slave"--_abide_ in it, unless "_lawfully_ you can be made free." The Abolitionist says to the slave: "your Master has no lawful control over you--run away from him the first opportunity--take with you whatever of his property you can, _for it is yours not his_!--and I will shelter you!" Thus it will easily be perceived, that a very different spirit actuated Paul, from that which now actuates the Abolitionist! More about this hereafter. If it be now enquired whether I consider slave-holding a sin and an evil, I readily reply, I do consider it an _evil_; but I do _not_ consider it a _sin_! I am aware Abolitionists confound the two terms together, some through design, and, no doubt, many through want of reflection or ignorance. Now although every _sin_ is an _evil_, yet every evil is not a sin--I hesitate not to pronounce slavery one of the _effects_ of sin--hence an _evil_: for all evil is the effect of sin. Disease, famine, poverty, &c., are all evils; but who will venture to affirm that they are therefore _sins_--I would use means to the best of my judgment to assuage those evils--yea to remove them; but I would not in order to remove _suddenly_ a disease, adopt a remedy which if it would not _instantly_ cure it, would in all human probability destroy the individual, or produce a greater disease--this would be Abolition practice! Nor would I desire the poor man, in order to get rich _instantly_, to go and plunder a bank--this would be Abolitionism! But I would in the former case, adopt such remedies as would, with the least possible danger to my patient's life, be calculated to assuage or _remove_ the disease; and if it could not be removed, without having recourse to a measure which would put his life in _jeopardy_, I would not, provided life could be sustained at all, adopt any such measures; but use every means in my power, to mitigate his sufferings--allay all pain--and make his life as comfortable as possible. As to the latter case (the indigent person) while I would relieve him to the best of my ability, I would exhort him, not to have recourse to violent measures--not to commit evil; but to put his trust in an all-wise and