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! One or two conclusions drawn from this first principle will, no doubt, be gratifying to the reader. In page 220, the editor proceeds thus: "To keep the South in good spirits, we must believe not only that Abraham kept slaves, but that our _blessed Saviour was a slave-holder_! Of course _heaven must be_, on a larger scale, like one of those establishments which line the shores of the Mississippi. When they find a text which recognises _masters_ or _servants_, they consider it triumphant. "_First._ It will prove that every country in Christendom is a slave region. On every farm in Great Britain there are _servants_. Every statute and every instrument of writing which obliges _tenants_, and _keepers of cattle_, &c., calls them _servants_, and their landlord or employer master. Is Great Britain a slave region? And in our own country every white apprentice is, in his indenture, called a _servant_. Is he a slave?