The next Bible argument for slavery, usually adduced, is founded upon the assumption that the patriarchs were slaveholders, and particular stress is placed upon the example of Abraham, “the friend of God,” who, it is confidently asserted, was an extensive slaveholder.

The Harmony Presbytery, South Carolina, “Resolved, that slavery has existed from the days of those good old slaveholders and patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”

The Presbytery of Tombecbee said: “In the Bible the state of slavery is clearly recognized. Abraham the friend of God had slaves born in his house and bought with his money.”

Dr. Fuller, in his controversy with Dr. Wayland, assumed that father Abraham was a slaveholder, and that his example was a sufficient warrant for slaveholding in all ages. The same position was taken by Dr. Rice in his debate with Mr. Blanchard. Mr. Fletcher, author of a late voluminous defense of slavery, takes the same position.

It will be perceived that in this argument two things are assumed. 1st That the patriarchs did hold slaves. 2d That the example of a patriarch is conclusive evidence in the case. If it should appear after an examination of the case, that none of the patriarchs owned slaves, or that the example of a patriarch is not conclusive evidence on all moral questions, and may not, in every case, be safely followed, then this argument will also be found wanting.

Now, I assume the position that neither Abraham, nor any other patriarch, ever owned a slave; and as evidence in support of this position submit the following facts and considerations.

1. The Bible does not record such a fact. In no chapter or verse is Abraham, Isaac or Jacob called a slaveholder, slave-driver, slave-trader, or by any other name indicative of such a relation. Nor is any man, or woman in their employ, either in the house or field, or in any way associated with them, called a slave or by any name indicative of that relation.

2. The Bible records in connection with the history of the patriarchs, no circumstance from which slaveholding may be legitimately inferred. Those inseparable concomitants of slavery, the whip, coffle, chain-gang, whipping-post and overseer, are not named in patriarchal history.

3. Some circumstances are recorded from which we obtain presumptive evidence that they did not own slaves. Take for example, an incident in the life of Abraham. He was sitting in his tent door in the cool of the day and saw at a little distance three strangers whom he immediately approached and invited, in the spirit of genuine hospitality, to tarry with him and partake of some refreshments. When he had obtained their consent, he hastened unto the tent to Sarah and requested her to bake some cakes with all possible dispatch, while he should run to the herd and fetch a calf tender and good and have it dressed. The repast was soon provided, the guests were seated around the wholesome meal, and Abraham stood by them under the tree while they ate. Now, I submit, had this patriarch been a slaveholder, he would have ordered “Cuffee” to the flock after the calf, and had Sarah been a mistress of slaves she would have ordered “Dinah” to the kneading trough. In this incident there is no mention of slaves. A “young man” is respectfully noticed without the slightest hint that he was a slave. Abraham and Sarah went about preparing this entertainment precisely as good people do, who attend to their own work, and have no slaves to order around.

4. We have good reasons for believing that chattel slavery had no existence in the world at the time the patriarchs referred to, flourished. Abraham was born only two years after the death of Noah, and when as yet the postdiluvian world was in its infancy, and it is not probable, leaving history out of view, that slavery could have been instituted at so early a period. But the most ancient and reliable history furnishes evidence that for a period after the flood, reaching down far this side the patriarchal age, universal freedom was preserved.[7]

On the authority of Diodorus, Shuckford says, that “the nations planted by Noah and his descendants, had a law against slavery; for no person among them could absolutely lose his freedom and become a bondsman.” (Shuckford’s Connections, Vol. II, pp. 80.)

“Athenaus, a Greek historian of great merit, observes that the Babylonians, Persians, as well as the Greeks, and divers other nations, celebrated annually a sort of Saturnalia, or feast, instituted most probably in commemoration of the original state of freedom, in which men lived before servitude was introduced; and as Moses revived several of Noah’s institutions, so there are appointments in the law to preserve the freedom of the Israelites.”

From these authorities to which others might be added, we conclude that slavery had no existence among the nations which arose immediately after the flood. Noah, it seems was a good democrat, and gave existence to institutions which secured the personal freedom of his descendants; and absolutely prohibited their enslavement. And it also appears that those institutions were for a long period observed, and finally incorporated by Moses into the Law for the preservation of the liberties of the Israelites. Now, Abraham was contemporary with the sons of Noah, and was a governor of one of the very earliest nations alluded to by the historians above quoted; hence it is clear, that slavery had no existence in his day, and consequently he could not have been a slaveholder.

Against this view it may be urged that slavery existed in Egypt in the time of Joseph, that Joseph was sold as a slave, and that the Israelites were slaves when in Egypt. To this objection we answer:

1. The assumption that slavery existed in Egypt in the time of the patriarchs is without foundation. Herodotus, gives a “true and full” account of the ancient Egyptians, specifies with great care the various classes of men, but does not mention slaves. Diodorus, gives a careful statement of the ancient Egyptian constitution, but is silent respecting slavery.

Rollin says: “Husbandmen, shepherds, and artificers formed the three lower classes of lower life in Egypt, but were nevertheless had in very great esteem, particularly husbandmen and shepherds.” We have the best of reasons, therefore, for believing that the wholesome institutions of Noah were preserved for a long time in Egypt. That a system of servitude existed in that country is true, but absolute slavery was not permitted. Parents possessed great authority over their children, and might sell them or their services, for a limited time, but this was not slavery. A year of release was provided for all, so that no one could, as Diodorus observes, “absolutely lose his freedom and become a bondsman!”

2. Joseph was not a slave. He was doubtless sold as a servant for a limited period, and evidently that period had expired before he arose to the high station of Steward of Potipher’s house.

3. The Israelites were not slaves in Egypt. They maintained their nationality, preserved their family relations, owned property, and were not distributed throughout the country, as chattel slaves are. Their servitude was national. Their task masters were appointed by the government, and they labored for the public benefit. They were not domestic slaves.

The position I think is invulnerable, that in the nations which arose and peopled the earth, immediately after the flood, slavery had no existence; and as the patriarchs flourished in that period, the inference is clear that they did not own slaves, and were not slaveholders. Those holy men would hardly be the first to violate the free institutions of Noah, and disgrace the golden age of freedom, by the enslavement of their brothers.

But it is asserted with a show of confidence that the word servant, as applied in the scriptures to a class of persons, means precisely what our word slave means. Hence, when it is said that Abraham had servants, it is assumed that he had SLAVES. Now, although what has been proved, is altogether sufficient to exculpate that good man and all the patriarchs from the charge of slaveholding, we deem it important that the word translated servant be well understood; and with the aid of the best authorities we shall now proceed to make it plain.

The Hebrew words translated servant, service, and servants, are derived from abadh, meaning to labor, to work, to do work. This word occurs in the Hebrew scriptures some hundreds of times, in various forms of the word, and is never rendered slaves. Occasionally, our translators have prefixed the word bond, and made it read bond-servant, but this was done without authority, as precisely the same word is used in the original. The original word is used to denote the following kinds of service: To work for another; Gen. 29: 20. To serve or be servants of a king; 2d Sam., 16: 19. To serve as a soldier; 2d Sam., 2: 12, 13, 15, 30, 31. To serve as an ambassador; 2d Sam., 10: 2, 4. It is applied to a worshipper of the true God; Nehemiah, 1: 10. To a minister; Isaiah, 49: 6. It is also applied to king Rehoboam; 1st Kings, 11: 7, and to the Messiah, Isaiah, 42: 1.[8]

It is used in Gen. 2: 15. And the Lord God took the man, and put him in the garden of Eden to DRESS IT. Adam was put into Eden, not to serve or dress the garden as a SLAVE, but as a man. The same word is used to express the service performed for Laban by Jacob. The relation of Joshua to Moses is expressed by the same word; Ex., 33: 21. It is also used in the fourth commandment. Six days shalt thou labor, etc.

From these examples of the use of the word it is clear that the idea of chattel slavery is not found in it. It is used to express all kinds of service—the service of God, a king, a friend, or an employer.

The word ama, rendered maid-servant, bond-maid, maid, hand-maid, and the word shiphhah with similar renderings, are applied to Hagar, Ruth, Hannah, Abigail, Bilhah and Zilpah, and evidently mean no more than our English word servant in its usual acceptation. Those women were not slaves, they were free women. It has been very properly remarked that if chattel slavery existed among the Hebrews at any time it is not a little surprising that the language contains no word which expresses the relation.

Some have endeavored to force into the word translated servant &c., the idea of slavery because it is said that Abraham had servants “bought with money.” But from the ancient use of the word buy or bought we are not to infer that the persons bought became slaves. Wives were procured in the times of the patriarchs by purchase. Boaz said—“Moreover Ruth, the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife.” The same word (kanithi) is used here to express the manner in which Boaz obtained his wife, that is used in Gen. to show how a part of Abraham’s servants were obtained. But the beautiful Ruth was not a slave. Jacob purchased his beloved Rachel, and less beloved Leah, but those wives and mothers of the twelve patriarchs could not have been slaves. Had they been chattels, why, then, according to an essential feature of the American slave code, the twelve patriarchs would all have been born in the same condition. Partus sequitur ventrem. A Hebrew might sell himself on a limited time, and he might be bought by a wealthy neighbor, but no one, I believe, has ever pretended that he became a SLAVE thereby. The contract was voluntary. The employer bought the services of his fellow, and paid in advance for the same, not to a third person, but to the servant himself. God is said to have purchased (kanitha) his people; Ps., 75: 2.

Hence from the scriptural use of the word buy, or bought, we are not authorized to infer that the persons purchased became slaves. Such an inference would do violence to the holy word.

The true state of the matter in respect to Abraham, and his case is mainly relied upon, was without a doubt this. Abraham, being a wise, wealthy and good man, gathered around him many devoted friends who, upon his removal to a distant location, desired to accompany him, to receive the benefits of his friendship and counsels, live under his patriarchship, as he was a prince, (see Gen., 23: 6,) and enjoy the protection of his power. Some of these may have been involved in pecuniary embarrassments or obligations of service to other persons, which made it necessary for the benevolent patriarch to release them by paying them in advance for many years of service.

Many of these servants were doubtless converts from idolatry, which had been made in Haran. In Gen. 12: 5, the fact is recorded of the removal of Abraham, Sarai, their effects, and of “the SOULS they had gotten.” This word “gotten” is translated, says Mr. Carothers, from osa, which is used in Ezekiel 18: 31, to express the work of conversion. “Cast away from you all your transgressions, and make you a new heart and a new spirit.” And this rendering of the word “gotten” is confirmed by the Chaldee paraphrase on this passage, which reads thus: “Souls they had instructed or turned from idolatry and taught in the true religion.” “The Hebrews have a tradition,” says Banberg, “that Abraham brought over many men, and Sarah many women from infidelity to the knowledge and worship of the true God; and thus made them spiritually.” A similar mode of expression is used by St. Paul: “I have begotten you through the gospel.” The idea that Abraham and Sarah made slaves of their converts is simply preposterous.

From the foregoing facts and considerations it is perfectly clear to my mind, that the effort to find an apology for slaveholding in patriarchal servitude is a total failure. The charge that the patriarchs held slaves is wholly without foundation,—is a disingenuous attack upon their reputation, and a miserable subterfuge for hard-hearted oppressors, who are seeking an apology or excuse for sins which loudly cry for the vengeance of heaven! Could Father Abraham arise from the dead, visit the South, and there behold thousands of his spiritual children toiling without remuneration, shut out from the blessings of family and home, denied an education and all means of intellectual improvement, driven by the keen lash of a brutal overseer, and then should he hear an appeal made to the patriarchs in justification of this system of unmingled tyranny, he would indignantly repel the appeal as a base calumny!

It is surprising with what confidence the example of the patriarchs is urged in justification of slavery in the absence of all proof or semblance of proof, that they were implicated in this practice. But our surprise is increased when we consider that, even could it be made appear that the patriarchs did hold slaves, this fact of itself, would afford not the slightest apology for slaveholding now. The patriarchs, it is admitted, had a plurality of wives, but their example is not now a sufficient warrant for polygamy. There is not an ecclesiastical court in the United States and territories, if we may except the Mormon, Utah, which would accept the example of the patriarchs as an apology for the man who should stand up before that court with two wives leaning on his arms. The argument therefore appears utterly worthless and shallow from every point of view.