them express permission to commit abominable sin. I affirm that he did give such permission, and will proceed to prove it from the clear and unequivocal declarations of the Bible.

1. God recognized the relation of master and slave among the patriarchs.

My first proof is, that Hagar was the female slave of Abraham and Sarah. The abolitionists tell us that word “servant" in our English version of the Bible, does not mean slave. This word is derived from the Latin word servus, the literal and proper meaning of which, as every Latin scholar knows, is slave. The Romans had two words which they used to signify slave; one was servus, the other, mancipium. In the passage, however, where Hagar is first named, Gen. xvi. 1, she is called "an handmaid”—and in the 2d, 3d, 5th, 6th and 8th verses she is called Sarah's "maid." Sarah calls her "my maid." The Hebrew word shifha translated "maid" signifies a female slave. When the Jews spoke of a female slave, that was the word they generally employed. So it is understood by the best Hebrew scholars and lexicographers. Gessenius defines it by the Latin words famula, ancilla: both of which mean a female slave, a maid-servant, or waiting

woman.

2. The Septuagint version, which is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Greek language, and which was made by Hebrews, renders the word in the Hebrew by paidiske which, my brother will scarcely deny, means a female slave.

3. But that Hagar was a slave is proved beyond contradiction by the language of the apostle Paul, in Galatians, 4th chapter, and 22d and following verses. "For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond-maid, the other by a free woman—which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem wl is above is free, which is the mother of us all. Nev

ertheless what saith the Scripture? Cast out the bond woman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free." Several things are worthy of remark in this portion of Scripture. 1st. The two mothers are here placed in contrast; the one called a free woman, the other a bondwoman. Now if Hagar was a hired servant, if she was not a slave, she was as truly free, as Sarah, who is called her "mistress," and with whose condition in this respect hers is contrasted. 2d. The great truth the apostle designed to illustrate, requires, that we should understand Hagar to have been a slave. These things, he says, are an allegory; the condition of Hagar the bondwoman illustrating the condition of the Jews who had rejected Christ, and were in spiritual bondage or slavery; the condition of Sarah the free woman illustrating the happy condition of true Christians, whom Christ made free. 3d. The Greek word in this passage, translated bondwoman, is paidiske-the same word used by the Septuagint in translating the Hebrew word shifha; and as it here stands in contrast with the word elenthera, free, it must be understood to mean a female slave. It is impossible, without the grossest perversion of language, so to interpret this passage, as to make it consist with Hagar's being a hired servant, or any thing but a slave. The man whom I hire to labor for me, is as free as I am. Every hireling is a free man. He gives his labor for his wages, and receives, as a free man, quid pro quo. Common sense is all that is requisite to enable us to understand the passage under consideration.

4. Hagar was punished by Sarah for contemptuous behavior. "When she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes." Sarah remonstrating with her husband, "Abraham said unto Sarai, Behold thy maid is in thy hand,-do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face." Does this language suit the condition of a free hired servant? Is a hired servant at the absolute disposal of the party hiring, so that he may do as he pleases to him? Is such the

condition of aired servants in Chio? And do hired servants run away from their employers? Apprentices, I admit, sometimes do, but they are under indentures for a time set by law. and they are never spoken of as servants in contrast with free persons, as Hagar is with Sarah. When Hagar had fled as far as to a fountain in the wilderness, the angel of the Lord found her; and what advice did he give her? - Flee, Hagar, as fast as you can, or Abraham will be after you?" No, nothing of the kind. And the angel of the Lord said unto her, return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands." It is plain. the good angel was no abolitionist. What abolitionist, now on earth, would have given her such advice? But the angel was not then in the light of the nineteenth century. He was still in the darkness of remote ages of despotism." of which the brother told us. Had he lived in the nineteenth century, he would doubtless have known better! So we are obliged to suppose, if the doctrines of the abolitionists are true.

My second proof, that God recognized the relation of master and slave among the patriarchs, is drawn from the 17th chapter of Genesis, which contains the institution of circumcision. We read the 12th and 13th verses. He that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generation, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with money, must needs be circumcised." Does not this divine provision prove, that at that time Abraham had servants, who were bought with his money, as well as such as were born in his house?—and were not servants bought with money slaves? If not, what were they? Who would so describe a hired servant? And can we believe, that, if slaveholding were in itself sinful, God could have entered into a covenant with Abraham, requiring him not to liberate his slaves, but to circumcise them?

2. Again, in the 20th chapter of Genesis and 14th verse, it is said: "and Abimelech took sheep, and oxen, and

men servants, and women servants, and gave unto them Abraham." Did he make a present to Abraham of free hired servants? Will my brother say this? No: they were slaves; and as slaves they were transferred by free gift, from one master to another, just as slaves are now given away in the southern States. Abimelech gave, and Abraham received them. If Abraham had been an abolitionist in sentiment, would he have received such a present? Would he not have rebuked Abimelech for offering it to him?

A third passage, to the same effect, is found in the 24th chapter of Genesis, and at the 35th verse. Abraham's pious, confidential servant was trusted to go and bring a wife for his son Isaac, and in executing his commission, he said to Rebekah's relatives, "and the Lord hath blessed my master greatly; and he is become great: and he hath given him flocks and herds, and silver and gold, and men servants and maid servants, and camels and asses." (The brother is much scandalized at the manner in which slave-holders are wont to speak of their slaves, in the same breath with their horses and mules: here they are numbered in the same catalogue with camels and asses: but this I notice in passing.) Abraham's servant says, "THE LORD hath given my master men servants and maid servants." God gave them to him as his own. Now, either this pious man blasphemed God, or slave-holding is no such sin as the brother maintains it to be. That these servants of Abraham were slaves, is evident, not only from the fact, that some of them were bought with money, that they were received as a present, and that they are enumerated as part of his possessions which the Lord has given him, but from the words employed to designate them. Shifha, the word translated "maid servant," as we have already seen, means a female slave. And the word eved, translated man servant, means literally and properly a male slave. This is the word always used by the Hebrews, when they wished to speak definitely of a male slave. Gessenius, one of the most celebrated lexicographers, defines it thus: "Servus quo apud Hebræos mancipium esse

solebat." A servant, one who used to be among the Hebrews a slave. Servus and mancipium were the two Latin words commonly used to signify a slave. Every Hebrew scholar will admit, that the Hebrew word for a male slave, is eved. If the gentleman should deny it, will he be kind enough to tell us, what word the Hebrews used, when they wished to speak of slaves? And since they were surrounded by slaves and slave-holders, it will not be denied, that they had occasion to speak of them.

But in Leviticus, 25th chapter, and 39th and following verses, we have not only the word which definitely means slave; but we have the thing itself so completely described, that there can be no room either for argument or for evasion.

"And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee, be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond servant. But as a hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of Jubilee: and then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen. Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor; but shalt fear thy God.

"Both thy bondmen and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you: of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land; and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession: they shall be your bondmen FOREVER: but over your brethren the children of Israel ye shall not rule one over another with rigor."

I venture to say, there is not language more clearly and unequivocally describing slaves in any slave code on earth, than is found in this chapter. Indeed I know not what