Now it appears to me evident that the editor of this periodical acted on the former principle--he first came to the conclusion, that "_to own_," "_to buy_," or "_to sell_," a human being, was wrong and unscriptural; and then went to the Bible to _make_ it prove that his opinions were correct. And so far has he been carried away with his preconceived opinions, and so much did he labour under the "_spell_" of Abolitionism, that he frequently confounds the act of purchasing a man, with the act of stealing a man! using synonymously the terms "purchasing" and "stealing!" Thus when he attempts to prove that purchasing a man is unscriptural, and that all slave-holders ought to be put to death, he refers to the twenty-first chapter of Exodus and sixteenth verse! (See said Magazine, page 247-249). But how does this read, "He that STEALETH a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death." It does _not_ read, "he that stealeth, OR selleth:" no, no! the whole and only crime condemned here was, "STEALING the man;" but retaining or not retaining him, or selling him, did not exculpate the thief!
This is one of the most unhappy passages in the whole Bible, the Abolitionists could have selected: for while it incontrovertibly sanctions "selling men," by making "the selling" no excuse for "the stealing," it condemns _to death_ the African traders, for their conduct, and the American Abolitionists, for theirs.[45:A]
The editor builds nearly the whole of his arguments, which occupy 126 pages, on TWO ERRONEOUS PRINCIPLES--which principles, if I prove to be really erroneous, I need not wade through his numerous conclusions to show the fallacy of each and every one of them; "for every argument built upon a false position necessarily ends in an absurd conclusion."
The two principles or pillars of his edifice are, 1st. That as the same word (both in Hebrew and in Greek) signifies both slave and servant, and as every slave is a servant, therefore, every servant, is a slave! This species of logic reminds me of the syllogism, that, "as, every man is an animal, and a horse is an animal, _therefore_, every man _is_ a horse!" Is it necessary to spend time in exhibiting the folly and fallaciousness of this first principle? A child would laugh at it; yet this work is held up by Abolitionists, as of almost equal authority with the Bible itself!