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?
"_Second._ It will prove that slavery is the _only_ kind of servitude which the Scriptures approve. At one "fell swoop," it would unchurch the professors at Princeton, and every master and servant in our free states. If the term _servant_, of itself, and necessarily, signifies a _slave_, it follows not only that _the kingdom of God has always been like the kingdom of the devil_, in regard to servitude and personal rights, but that voluntary and requited servitude is a modern innovation, for which there is neither precedent nor example in Holy Writ; and therefore it is at least doubtful _whether a voluntary servant, and the master who pays him wages, ought to be received into the Church_! For if inspired men always passed them by unnoticed--if those whom they instruct and recognise as believers were slaves and slavemasters exclusively, where shall we find example for admitting the voluntary servant and his master, till they qualify themselves by slavery? Thus the assumption in question leads to the conclusion, not that God tolerated slavery, _but that he tolerated nothing else_."!!!
The above paragraph furnishes an admirable specimen of the species of _reasoning_ by which Abolitionists are _deluded_!
The second principle, upon which the Editor builds his arguments, is that as the original word which signifies "_to buy_" sometimes signifies something else, therefore it _never_ signifies what we mean by _buying_ or _purchasing_! I am really astonished at this gentleman's forgetfulness, for to nothing else do I wish to attribute his reasoning on this subject. He will therefore pardon me in _reminding_ him that just in proportion to the poverty of any language, does each word in that language represent numerous ideas; in which case the real meaning intended by the writer can be ascertained, to a certainty, only by the concomitant circumstances, or adjoining expressions. If in our own language, which is so rich, we have numerous words, each representing many distinct ideas, is it at all surprising that such should be the case in ancient tongues? This, the Editor knows far better, in all probability, than myself; and is also aware that preconceived theories not only put _new_ ideas into our heads, but oftentimes eliminate correct ones! Now when we hear of an article being bought "_with money_," these two last words put, beyond all possibility of doubt, and beyond all the possibility of sophistry, the nature of the meaning of the word "_bought_"--viz. "_To acquire the property, right, or title, to any thing, by paying a consideration, or an equivalent_--_to purchase; to acquire by paying a price_," &c. [See Webster's American Dictionary]. The various passages of Scripture quoted by the Editor in page 259, in no way whatever militate against the meaning of the word "_buy_."