_Slavery_ is derived from _slave_; as _servant_ comes from _service_. In the English language the two are distinct from one another; the former term being applied to _involuntary_, the latter to voluntary, servitude. But this is not the case in either the Hebrew, Greek, or Latin tongues; one and the same word, in each language, signifies both voluntary and involuntary service. Thus "_obed_," in Hebrew--"δουλος," in Greek--and "servus," in Latin, signify what we mean by the terms, _servant_ and _slave_. Hence in works written in any of these languages, we can never tell from the word _itself_ whether the person to whom the term is applied was a _slave_, or a _servant_: it is therefore only by concomitant expressions or circumstances that we can come to a conclusion as to the actual nature of his situation. This is the case both in the Old and New Testament.
For instance, when we read of individuals having been _sold_, having been _purchased_, having been "bought _with money_" &c., we cannot doubt for a moment the propriety of applying to such persons the term _slave_: and that, no matter whether their servitude was temporary, or for ever--whether they had sold themselves, or were sold by _others_; they were _slaves_ to all intents and purposes--from the moment they were sold they became subject to _involuntary_ servitude.
Again, while it by no means follows that every servant ("_obed_"-- "δουλος"--"servus,") mentioned in the Bible, was a slave, it does follow that every slave was a servant!
Ere I make the next statement, I request it may be distinctly understood, 1st, that I consider the "_Slave-trade_," and "_Slave-holding_," two distinct things: 2d, that I do not consider "_slave-holding_," "_cruelty_," "_oppression_," and "_tyranny_," synonymous. While therefore I pronounce the former, that is _the slave-trade_, to be barbarous, iniquitous, and _unscriptural_, I _cannot_ find a single passage in the whole word of God which either denounces _slave-holding_, or commands the owner to liberate instantaneously his slaves. And I fearlessly defy all the Abolitionists on earth to produce one such passage. If therefore the Bible is to be the umpire, and to its authority alone I ever consent to strike, that sacred book announces that "WHERE THERE IS NO LAW THERE IS NO TRANSGRESSION;" (Rom. iv. 14): and as there is no law prohibitory of _slave-holding_, it cannot be considered _sin_ (for sin is the transgression of the law) by any, except those who aim at possessing a higher degree of moral worth and righteousness, than the Lord Jesus Christ himself; and, "who by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple."