How absurd is the attempt to take this anathema, construe it to _mean_ and _justify_ chattel slavery, and then _stretch_ it over the posterity, not of Canaan, but of Cush even after the blood of the Cushites (Moses' wife was a Cushite) has been mingled with the blood of the "first families" of Virginia, and of all the Southern states. A large number of slaves are white--much whiter than their masters and mistresses. The first Bible argument for slavery appears, when weighed, "Light as a puff of empty air." Have slaveholders no better? We will see. CHAPTER VIII. Slavery and Religion--Continued. PATRIARCHAL SERVITUDE AND SLAVERY. 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.