"Your letter of the 23d of last month I have just received, and I was gratified to see the evidences of an upright, honest dependence upon the only standard of right to which man can appeal pervading your whole letter. There is no other standard than the Bible, but our translation, though so excellent, is defective sometimes in giving the true meaning of the original languages in which the two Testaments are written; the Old Testament in Hebrew, the New Testament in Greek. Therefore it is that in words in the English translation about which there is a variety of opinion, it is necessary to examine the original Hebrew or Greek to know what was the meaning attached to these words by the writers of the original Bible.... I make these observations to introduce a remark of yours that the Bible does not contain anything like slavery in it because the words 'slave' and 'slavery' are not used in it (except the former twice) but that the word 'servant' is used. "Now the words translated 'servant' in hundreds of instances are, in the original, 'slave,' and the very passage you quote, Noah's words--'Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren'--in the original Hebrew means exactly this--'Cursed be Canaan, a _slave_ of _slaves_ shall he be.' The Hebrew, word is _'ebed'_ which means a bond slave, and the words _'ebed ebadim'_ translated 'slave of slaves,' means strictly _the most abject of slaves_. "In the New Testament too the word translated 'servant' from the Greek is _'doulas,'_ which is the same as _'ebed'_ in the Hebrew, and always means a bond slave. Our word 'servant' formerly meant the same, but time and custom have changed its meaning with us, but the Bible word _'doulos'_ remains the same, 'a slave.'" It seems strange that a man of such a gentle, kindly disposition should have upheld the outworn institution of slavery, but he honestly believed, not only that it was ordained of God, but that it was calculated to benefit the enslaved race. To Professor Christy, of Cincinnati, he gives, on September 12, his reasons for this belief:-- "You have exposed in a masterly manner the fallacies of Abolitionism. There is a complete coincidence of views between us. My 'Argument,' which is nearly ready for the press, supports the same view of the necessity of slavery to the christianization and civilization of a barbarous race. My argument for the benevolence of the relation of master and slave, drawn from the four relations ordained of God for the organization of the social system (the fourth being the servile relation, or the relation of master and slave) leads conclusively to the recognition of some great benevolent design in its establishment. "But you have demonstrated in an unanswerable manner by your statistics this benevolent design, bringing out clearly, from the workings of his Providence, the absolute necessity of this relation in accomplishing his gracious designs towards even the lowest type of humanity."