not informed us in what the strength of the argument lies, and what are precisely the considerations on which they rest such an appeal. It is possible, therefore, that injustice may be done them in an attempt to state what they would consider the true force of the argument. So far as I can see, however, the only bearing which the example of the patriarchs can have on the question, must consist in the following considerations:

1. That, in the cases referred to, it was truly and properly slavery which was sanctioned by their example. Whatever is essential to slavery; whatever constitutes its peculiarity, and distinguishes it from every other species of servitude, it must be assumed in the argument, existed under the patriarchs. In an attempt to prove that slavery is sanctioned by their example, it is indispensable to show that the slavery which existed then was essentially the same as that which it is proposed to vindicate by it. It is indispensable to make out that whatever is proposed to be vindicated by the example, should be found in the example. If, therefore, the essential thing in slavery, as has been already shown, be the right of property, and it be proposed to vindicate or justify this, it is essential to show that this idea existed in the kind of servi tude recognised among the patriarchs. It would not throw any light on the question, if the condition referred to was one of voluntary servitude; or if it were that of a serf or 'villein,' like the relation in Russia or under the feudal system; it must involve the essential thing in slavery as it exists now. It is necessarily supposed, therefore, in this appeal to the patriarchs, that the idea of property in a human being existed in those cases, or the argument has no force or pertinency. And that this is supposed, is apparent from the argument relied on by the Presbytery of Tombecbee: "Abram, the friend of God, had slaves BOUGHT with money."

2. That the patriarchs were good men, 'the friends of God,' and that we are safe and right in following the exam

ple of such men. The example of a patriarch, it is implied in the argument, must be decisive. Whatever he did, cannot be regarded as morally wrong, or a malum in se, and cannot be improper to be imitated in any relation of society, and at any period of the world. Unless this is implied in the appeal to the patriarchs, the argument has no force. For if it be admitted that they did things which would not be proper now; that they indulged in any thing which is to be regarded as a malum in se, or that they entertained views which are not adapted to promote the best interests of society, and which God does not design to have perpetuated, it is possible that their conduct in regard to servitude may belong to this class. The argument, therefore, supposes that what they habitually did, is not to be regarded as a malum in se, or should not be called in question as morally wrong.

3. The argument must involve this idea also, that as God permitted it, and as he caused their conduct to be recorded without any expression of disapprobation, it must have been therefore right. It is not pretended that he commanded the purchase of slaves in the time of the patriarchs, or that he commended them for what they did. The argument is based on his silence as to any expression of disapprobation, and on his causing the record to be made. The strength of this argument, then, must be, that whatever God permits among good men at any time, without a decided expression of disapprobation; whatever he causes to be recorded as a matter of historical fact, must be regarded as authorizing the same thing in others, and as a proof that he considers it to be adapted to secure the best interests of society.

I can conceive of no other grounds than these on which an argument in favour of slavery can be derived from the example of the patriarchs. It is proposed now to inquire whether this argument is valid. Does it demonstrate what it is adduced to prove, that slavery is a good and desirable institution; that it meets with the approbation of God, and is an institution which he designs should be perpetuated; and that

men are justified in holding human beings as property now? In reply to these questions, I shall consider what were the facts in the case; and then what is the real value of the argument.

(1.) The kind of servitude referred to in the cases of the patriarchs was doubtless common at that time. We have, indeed, no historical documents to prove this, for we have no other records which go back to so remote ages. But there are some circumstances, which, in the absence of historical documents, render this probable. One is, that in the age of Job, who probably lived in the time of the patriarchs, the same kind of servitude is mentioned which appears to have prevailed in the days of Abraham. Thus in chap. i. 3, it is said of Job, that "he had a very great household," (may, ăbăddâ,) ǎbudda,) where the very word is used which, in various forms, is uniformly employed to denote servitude.* This does not determine, indeed, that those referred to were slaves; but it shows that the kind of servitude mentioned in the account of the patriarchs, prevailed in the land of Uz, that is, probably, in Arabia Deserta, and in the country adjacent to Chaldea.

(2.) A second circumstance is, that we have mention of an historical fact pertaining to those times, which shows that the buying and selling of men was common. Thus when it was proposed by the brethren of Joseph to sell him to the traveling Ishmaelites who were engaged in commerce, they made no more scruple about buying him, than they would have done any thing that had been offered for sale; and the same thing occurred when he was exposed for sale by them in the Egyptian market. He was readily bought by Potiphar, Gen. xxxvii. 27, 28; xxxix. 1. This whole transaction looks as if the buying and selling of men was then a common thing, and was as allowable as any other species of traffic.

(3.) A third circumstance is, that servants appear to have been in the market, or to have been held by those who dwelt

* Gen. xxvi. 14; xxx. 26; xii. 16; xvii. 23; xxxix. 17, et al.

in the vicinity of Abraham, for it is said that he had "servants bought with money," Gen. xvii. 12. This would seem to show that they were held for sale by others, that is, that servitude of this kind prevailed there.

(4.) The fourth circumstance is, that as far back as we can trace the history of nations, we find the existence of slavery in some form. We find it represented in the historical paintings of Egypt, where nothing is more common than drawings of slaves or captives. We find it in the earliest stages of the history of Greece and Rome. We find it in the practice of conquerors, who were accustomed to regard the captives taken in war as the property of the captors, and who were supposed to have a right to kill them, to sell them, or to retain them as slaves at their pleasure. We find it in the earliest laws, and in the claims set up under those laws to certain persons held to servitude. Those laws are but the expressions of the early opinions on the subject, and an exponent of the prevailing practice. Thus these causes are assigned by Justinian as laying a foundation for slavery, or as making the enslaving of others proper. Servi aut fiunt, aut nascuntur: fiunt jure gentium, aut jure civili: nascuntur ex ancillis nostris.* According to this, slaves are said to become such in three ways: by birth, where the mother was a slave; by captivity in war; and by the voluntary sale of himself as a slave by a freeman of the age of twenty. Blackstone examines these causes of slavery, and shows them all to rest on uncertain foundations; and he insists that a state of slavery is repugnant to reason, and contrary to natural law. The foundation of this claim was undoubtedly wrong; but the fact that it was made, shows the state of feeling in the earliest times, and may be regarded as proof that slavery prevailed in the remotest periods of the world. Whatever may be said, therefore, about the state of servitude in the

* Just. 1, 3, 4.

† Comm. i. 423, 424. Comp. Kent's Commentaries on American Law, i. 427, seq.

time of the patriarchs, and whatever conclusions may be drawn from the fact that they held slaves, it cannot be held that they originated the system, It was a system which they doubtless found in existence, and they acted only in accordance with the customs of all the surrounding nations.

In order now adequately to understand what was the real character of the servitude which existed among the patriarchs, on which so much reliance is placed by those who attempt to sustain the system by an appeal to the Bible, it is of the utmost importance to understand what is the exact sense of the word used to designate this relation in the Scriptures. If the word rendered servant in the Old Testament necessarily means slaves in the modern sense of the term, it will do something to settle the question whether slavery as it now exists is in accordance with the will of God. It must be assumed by those who bring the example of the patriarchs in support of slavery, that the word had the same signification then which it has now; for if the word, as used in their times, meant an essentially different thing from what it does now, it is obvious that its use furnishes no argument in support of slavery.

The Greeks, accustomed to exact distinctions, and favoured with a language so refined as to distinguish the nicest shades of thought, discriminated accurately between various kinds of servitude, and designated those relations in a way which is not common in other languages. To serve in general, without reference to the manner in which the obligation to service originated, whether by purchase, by contract, by being made a captive in war, as a subject, a dependent, they expressed by the word dovλsvw-douleuo; to serve as a soldier for reward, or to serve the gods, they expressed by the word harpeúw-latreuo, (Passow); to serve as a domestic or household servant, under whatever manner the obligation arose, they expressed by the word oixerów-oiketeuo; to serve in the capacity of a hired man, or for pay in any capacity, they ex