that Abraham and Lot had "souls that they had gotten in Haran ;" and "men servants and maid servants" are named as among the things Abraham had in Egypt; and again that Abimelech, king of Gerar, gave him "men servants and women servants ;" and finally, that Abraham had servants that were "born in his own house," and he had others that were "bought with money of any stranger." Yet, although all this be true, the inference is that whether home-born, or purchased, or a gift, these were not slaves. I say the inference is that these servants were not slaves. I infer it from incidental passages. Suppose I should say of some Northern man residing at the South, he is very rich in cattle, in silver and in gold, would it not be asked, What! has he no slaves? Now just so it is said of Abraham (Gen. xiii. 1). "And Abram went out of Egypt, he and his wife and all that he had, and Lot with him into the South. And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver and in gold." Now if the hundred or thousand or more servants he had about him were slaves, how does it

happen that these are not named as a part of his riches? But again, suppose I were to say of some one residing at the North, He is very rich in cattle, in silver and in gold. Would any one infer that he had no servants? On the contrary, would not the inference be that he must have many servants; and would it not be likely that some of them would be indentured, or bound (bond) servants; and would it not be further likely that some would be born upon his estate, grow up thereon and be his labourers or servants? But if this can be under such a government as ours, how much more likely to be so under a Patriarchal government?

Again, I infer these servants were not slaves; because they were armed, and acted the part of soldiers.

Again, I see if Abraham had died childless, one of his servants would have been his heir. Is this consistent with a state of slavery?

Indeed, it is plain that Abraham's servants, whether born in his house or bought with money of any stranger, were treated as his family. (Gen. xvii. 12, 13). His head

servant was called by Abraham's own niece, "My lord." (Gen. xxiv. 18.)

The term servant is so frequently employed throughout the Bible to signify the subjects and officers of a king, it is an easy inference that these servants were to Abraham the Patriarch, what servants were to David the king. When therefore it is said, "One born in mine house is mine heir," it means that one of his subjects would succeed to the government; being born in his house, only signified that they were of his own tribe. Those that were bought with his money of strangers, were such as united with his tribe or household upon his paying a consideration to some neighbouring King or Prince. And so when it is said that Abimelech gave him men servants and maid servants, I presume nothing more is meant than that the king of Gerar transferred to the Patriarch Abram a portion of his subjects, both male and female; and let it be recollected that Abraham was called a " mighty prince." (Gen. xxiii. 6.) Then again, those taken in war became the servants of the conqueror, i. e. his subjects; so it is pre

sumable that Abraham extended his Patriarchate by such acquisition also.

I do not assert that Abraham did not hold men and women in a condition of involuntary servitude; but I do say that there is nothing in the history to prove it; and until such proof can be reached, the advocate of slavery has no right to quote Abraham's example on his side of the question; and I repeat, even if it were proved that he was a slaveholder, it would be no more apology for slavery, than his example affords an apology for lying and adultery.

Gen. xxv. 23-xxvii. 37.

"The elder shall serve the younger." "I have made him thy lord, and all his brethren have I given to him for servants."

This was prophesied concerning the descendants of Esau and Jacob. But I presume no one would rest upon these passages as a justification of chattel servitude. It evidently implied nothing more than natural subjection as the text shews. Nevertheless, should any one be disposed to draw from it an inference in favour of slavery,

I refer him to Deuteronomy xxiii. 7."Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite: for he is thy brother." The Edomites, although as prophesied they became nationally subject to Israel, were nevertheless to be regarded as brethren, and provision was made in the law of Moses ultimately to incorporate them into the Jewish nation on a perfect equality; and Esau was finally to break the yoke of Jacob from off his neck. Gen. xxvii. 40.

Gen. xxvi. 14,

"He had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and great store of servants."

This is recorded of Isaac. Will it be assumed therefrom that Isaac owned slaves? But if the phraseology be closely observed, it will lead to a different inference. Mark! he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds. But it does not say he had possession of servants. He had great store of servants, and I infer that these servants were his followers, of whom he was prince or chief. Can this inference be disproved? I see nothing in