1

with Senna, Muscat, and various Arab tribes, and with Abyssinia, Siam, and Acheen, for the promotion of British commerce and the extinction of piracy and the slave trade; and with Nepal and Burmah, both of which have been conquered in war, and stripped of valuable territory. Sinde, an independent State on the north-west frontier of India, with which diplomatic relations previously existed, was recently invaded, vanquished, and absorbed into the British territory. The Punjaub, another independent State, to the north of the British possessions, with which friendly treaties existed, has, for about the last ten years, since the death of Runjut Singh, been in a condition of internal convulsion, which has resulted in the total subjugation of the country by the East India Company's government. The British India government has no permanent diplomatic intercourse with Siam, Cochin China, or China.

In explanation of the internal political relations of the British India government, it must be borne in mind, that, although England has subdued India, she has not yet appropriated the whole. Numerous native States still exist, all acknowledging, by treaty, her paramount authority, and all relinquishing political relations with one another, and with all other States-internal combinations and foreign alliances hostile to English power being thus prevented. The native States may be divided into six classes, according to the nature of the treaties formed with them. The first class, consists of five native States, who have treaties offensive and defensive, with the right on their part to claim protection, external and internal, from the British India government, and the right on its part to interfere in their internal affairs. The second class, consists of two States, with which there are treaties offensive and defensive, acknowledging the right on their part to claim protection, external and internal, from the British India government, and the aid of its troops to realize their just claims from their own subjects; but no right on its part to interfere in their internal affairs. The third class, consists of at least twenty-five States, with which there are treaties, offensive and defensive: they are mostly tributary, acknowledge the supremacy of the British India government, and promise subordinate cooperation; but they are supreme rulers in their own territories. The fourth class, includes five States, with which there are treaties of guarantee and protection-promising subordinate coöperation, and securing their supremacy in their own territories. To the fifth class belongs only one State, with which there is a treaty of simple amity and friendship. The sixth class includes those States, with which there are treaties of protection, with the right on the part of the British India government to control their internal affairs. These native States. in the aggregate, have a revenue of about £12,000.000 per annum. They maintain armies of their own, more or less effective; and most of them are bound by treaty to aid the British India government in time of war, with the whole, or a specified portion of their troops. The total area which their territories embrace, is about 450,000 square miles, while that of the British territories in India, is about 625,000 square miles. The proportion of the entire population of India subject to native States, is probably about one-third, and the remaining two-thirds are under the British government.

Such, is a very imperfect representation of the extraordinary and anomalous system of government, which England has devised for India-a system, the whole end and aim of which is, to keep about one hundred and fifty millions of people in subjection, and to extract from them as much revenue as possible. In spite, however, of the vices of a European despotism, and of an Asiatic people, the seeds of science and learning, religion, morality and freedom, are taking root, and will, ultimately, produce fruit.

ART. IV-SLAVERY AND THE BIBLE.

[ THis paper has been handed us for publication, and, as it contains a summary of the Bible argument for slavery, we give it place, though the subject is growing hacknied.-ED.]

A VERY large party in the United States believe that holding slaves is morally wrong; this party founds its belief upon precepts taught in the Bible, and takes that book as the standard of morality and religion. We, also, look to the same book as our guide in the same matters; yet, we think it right to hold slaves-do hold them, and have held and used them from childhood.

As we come to such opposite conclusions from the same foundation, it may be well to consider, whether the Bible teaches us anything whatever, in regard to slavery; if so, what is it and how is it taught.

The anti-slavery party maintain, that the Bible teaches nothing directly upon the subject, but, that it establishes rules and principles of action, from which they infer, that, in holding slaves, we are guilty of a moral wrong. This mode of reasoning would be perfectly fair, if the Bible really taught nothing directly upon the subject of slavery: but when that book applies the principles it lays down to the particular subject in controversy, we must take the application to be correct. We think we can show, that the Bible teaches clearly and conclusively that the holding of slaves is right; and if so, no deduction from general principles can make it wrong, if that book is true.

From the earliest period of time down to the present moment, slavery has existed in some form or under some name, in almost every country of the globe. It existed in every country known, even by name, to any one of the sacred writers, at the time of his writing; yet no one of them condemns it in the slightest degree. Would this have been the case had it been wrong in itself? would not some one of the host of sacred writers have spoken of this alleged crime, in such terms as to show, in a manner not to be misunderstood, that God wished all men to be equal?

Abraham, the chosen servant of God, had his bond servants, whose condition was similar to, or worse than, that of our slaves. He considered them as his property, to be bought and sold as any other property which he owned. In Genesis xvii, 13, 23, 27, we are told that God commanded Abraham to circumcise all his bond-servants, "bought with his money," and that Abraham obeyed God's commandment on that same day. In Genesis xx, 14, we are told that Abimelech took sheep and oxen, and men servants and women servants, and gave them to Abraham. In chapter xii, verse 14, we are told that Abraham possessed sheep and oxen, and he asses, and men servants and maid servants, and she asses, and camels. Also, in Genesis xxvi, 14, Isaac is said to have had possessions of flocks and herds, and a great store of servants. In other places in Genesis, they are spoken of, but always as property.

Jacob's sons sold Joseph, their brother, to the Ishmaelites for twenty pieces of silver. They agreed with each other that they would sell him, when the Ishmaelites were afar off, and before they could have known that the Ishmaelites would buy him; only they knew, that such sales were common in the country at the time. The narrative of Joseph's life in Egypt, shows that the sale of slaves was common there.

No one can doubt, that Abraham regarded his servants as his property, and that they were so regarded in the country in which he lived. Not only was the bond-servant of Abraham considered his property, but the condition of the bond-servant was hereditary, or his child was a servant. In Genesis xvii, 13, God not only commanded Abraham to circumcise his servants, bought with his money, but also, those born in his house, and those which, at any future time, should be born in his house, or in that of any of his descendants; and in the twenty. third and twenty-seventh verses of the same chapter, we are told that Abraham did circumcise all his male servants, born in his house, on the same day. In chapter xiv of Genesis we are told, that Abraham took three hundred and eighteen trained servants, which had been born in his house, and pursued the kings who had carried off Lot. These three hundred and eighteen servants were born servants.

Let us now see what control Abraham exercised over these servants born in his house and bought with his money. God commanded Abraham to circumcise all his male servants-those born in his house were so numerous, that he had of them three hundred and eighteen men fit for battle. The command was, not that Abraham should use his influence over them and persuade them to be circumcised, but the and all his descendants are commanded to circumcise them-the crime and punishment for a disobedience to this command, were to fall on

him or his descendants. Now, in order that God could have required. this from Abraham, with any degree of justice, it was necessary that Abraham should have had both the power over his servants, which was necessary to enable him to do this, and also, that he should have had the legal and moral right to exercise that power.

Circumcision was a requirement, until then, totally unknown. Abraham's servants must have regarded it as a foolish whim of his own. Nothing else could have been considered more degrading to them, or more absurd in him. Yet, no one of all the immense number of his servants, refused to permit the circumcision to be performed. We may well suppose, that Abraham might have required anything else which his fancy dictated, and equally have enforced obedience, if it were not more absurd, painful or degrading.

When Sarai, Abraham's wife, complained to him of the conduct of Hagar, her maid servant, he answered, "thy maid is in thy hand, do to her as it pleaseth thee," showing that she only wanted her husband's consent to punish Hagar as she pleased. We are then told, that, when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face into the wilderness— there the angel of the Lord found her; but, instead of relieving her distresses, and sending her to some free country, he told her to return and submit herself to her mistress.

When Abraham pursued Chederlaomer, the king of Elam, he took his three hundred and eighteen servants, and his three friends, Aner, Eschol and Mamre, and recaptured a large amount of property which had been carried away from Sodom. But when the king of Sodom offered him all the property which he had taken, he refused everything, except what his servants had eaten and the portion of his three friends-answering immediately for himself and his servants, and refusing everything, but reserving the right to his friends to answer for themselves.

From the passages which I have recited and referred to, we can obtain some idea of the condition of Abraham's servants. They were property bought and sold for money; their services belonged to him, and was disposed of without their consent. Their condition was hereditarythe master could punish or chastise the slave, and even maim him, at his pleasure. He exercised rights which no southern planter would dare to exercise, and which a southern negro would not submit to.

Abraham was a worshiper of God; he had direct and immediate communication with him. He showed his willingness to obey God's commands, even in offering his only son a sacrifice to God. He is spoken of by all the sacred writers, as one who was selected, from the whole human race, as the father of the faithful. God would not have so highly honored

him, had he been living in constant and habitual violation of his laws: nor would he have required from him the performance of immaterial ceremonies, or of painful things not required by the moral law, and left him ignorantly to continue to violate his duties to his fellow men. Had our abolition friends been in God's stead, they would have certainly acted in a very different manner. Is there one of them who

will dare to say, he would have done better than God did?

But God, instead of teaching Abraham, his chosen servant, that it was immoral to use and buy his slaves, demanded from him the performance of certain things, which required that the relation of master and slave should be kept up, not only during Abraham's time, but in all future ages. And when the angel of the Lord interfered between Sarai and Hagar, it was to cause the slave to submit to the punishment inflicted by her mistress. Under like circumstances, our slaves are persuaded to go to Canada.

From what I have written, if it stood alone, I would infer that the holding of slaves was right, in some cases. But this is, by no means, all that is found in the Bible upon the subject. After the Israelites had been a long time in Egypt, they became servants to the Egyptians. At this time, God sent Moses, as a messenger, to bring them out of Egypt. Through Moses, God gave them laws by which they were to be governed. No law which came directly from him (the fountain of morality), can be considered morally wrong; it might be imperfect, in not providing for circumstances not then existing-but, so far as it does provide, its provisions are correct. Nothing which God ordained can be a crime, and nothing for which he gave express permission can be considered wrong.

In Leviticus xxv, we are told, that the Lord spake to Moses, saying: "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them"-after various provisions of the law, the 39th verse reads as follows, in regard to servitude: "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 an hired servant," &c.-clearly showing that there was a distinction between bond-servant and hired-servant. After providing for the case of a Hebrew servant, verses 44, 45 and 46, of the same law, read as follows: "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 for ever."