(Joshua xi. 23, xii. 8, Acts vii. 45.) The special command of God which was often repeated, is the justification of Israel in their destroying that people. It was the execution of vengeance at God's special command, on a people, who in the judgment of God, had filled up the measure of their iniquity (Gen. xv. 16, Deut. xviii, 25.) It was as much a special judgment of God on the Canaanites for their sins, as the waters of Noah, and the fires of Sodom, were on those they were sent to destroy. And there would be just as much reason in inferring from the flood and from the fires of Sodom, that we might drown or burn the Africans, as from the destruction of the Canaanites, that we may enslave them.

And suppose the prophecy of Noah did relate to African slavery, it is a monstrous inference that the prophecy justifies it. The greatest crimes ever committed, have been foretold. The slavery of Israel in Egypt (Gen. xv. 13,) the idolatry of Israel (Deut. xxxi, 29,) the rejection and cutting off of the Messiah (Isaiah liii. Daniel ix. 26,) the persecution of the followers of Christ (John xvi. 2,) the great apostacy in the church (2 Thess. ii. 4—12. 1 Tim. iv. 1—3,) with a thousand things of like nature. A more

monstrous principle never was adopted, than that a thing may lawfully be done, because foretold. Were it then a fact, (which we believe cannot be proved) that Noah did foretell Negro Slavery, it does not go one hair breadth to justify it.

The inference in justification of slavery, drawn from the fact that the patriarchs had servants, is nearly as erroneous. It is not only without proof, but against it, that they practised slavery, like Negro slavery.

The terms rendered servants, and used to express those under the authority of the patriarchs, are used throughout the Scriptures to express subjects under their rulers and kings. The servants of Abimelech (Gen. xx. 8,) of Pharoah (Gen. xli 37,) of Saul (1 Samuel xix. 1,) of David (2 Sam. xviii. 9,) of Rehoboam (1 Kings xii. 7,) with thousands of other cases are expressed by the same words. If these were all slaves; then all the Philistines,

and Egyptians, and Israelites, under the kings whom they elected to gov. ern them, were slaves, which is absurd.

That the patriarchs were as to other governments independent princes, and as such governed those under them, is very evident; but that they held those under them as absolute property-as slaves, I think no man can prove. They are called the Lord's anointed (Chro. xvi. 22.) Abraham was a great prince (Gen. xxiii. 6.) Isaac was more mighty than Abimelech (Gen. xxvi. 16.) They formed alliances (Gen. xiv. 13, xxxvi. 28, xxxi. 44,) made war (Gen. xiv. 15, xxvi. 20, xlviii. 22,) and performed all acts of sovereignty, to that of life and death (Gen. xxxi. 32, xxxviii. 24.)

Those called their servants, were their subjects in peace and their soldiers in war; they were so numerous that the patriarchs could not have held them forcibly in such slavery as Negroes are in. We find Abraham, about one hundred years before his death, engaged in warfare at the head of between three and four hundred of his servants, who were trained to arms; we find Esau afterwards at the head of four hundred. What man at the head of one, two, or three thousand persons, settled to themselves, as an independent colony, surrounded by others, with whom he had frequent wars, could keep the whole in slavery? How could 3, 4 or 5 hundred men, trained to arms, be held with their wives and children as absolute property and be compelled to serve without wages by one individual? The thing is absurd. What slave-holder would be willing to see slaves, when they are not more numerous than their masters, furnished with arms and trained to the use of them?

But supposing the patriarchs had slaves, it does not follow that it was right. Most of them practised polygamy and concubinage. Would the example justify us? Itrow not. They may ignorantly, without much sin, have done things, which if we, under the light of the Gospel do, and continue so to do, will greatly endanger our salvation, see (Deut. xxiv. 1—4. Mat. xix. 8-9, 1 Cor. vi. 9.)

tain various precepts respecting it? I admit that it does. But there is not one passage, unless I am greatly mistaken, that cannot be explained in perfect consistency with that manifest condemnation of slavery, by the judgments on Egypt and the appeals to them as noticed above.

The Mosaic laws, as it appears to me, contemplates servitude or slavery in two points of light. First as a punishment for some kinds of crimes; and secondly, as a practice contrary to the spirit of the law, into which Israel might possibly fall.

The first, the only case in which the law can be said to approve of slavery, never took place according to the law, but for crime, and after a regular trial and conviction. Such was the punishment for theft (Exo. xxii. 3,) when the criminal was not able to make restitution. This, although a selling into servitude, was not properly slavery, it was nothing like Negro slavery. It could not exceed six years, and might be much less, according to the degree of crime. It was like the sales of English convicts formerly, and vagrants now under the vagrant law in some parts of the United States at present.

In case of persons selling themselves or members of their families, or being sold for debt, (Levit. xxv. 39, xlii. 47,) so far as the result of idleness, extravagance or bad management, (which often deserves some chastisememt) may have been permitted, in part as a punishment; but so far as produced by misfortune or the hard dealings of others towards them, either in withholding those charities which the law enjoined, or exacting from them debts which they could not pay, was clearly against the spirit of the law. It could seldom if ever occur, without the neglect of other precepts, designed to prevent it.

They were, for instance, to lend without interest, yea, to give to the poor as much as he might need; and that although he were a stranger. (Levit. xxv. 35-38, Deut. xv. 7.) To the rich stranger they might lend on usury, but not to the poor. All debts were to be forgiven every six years: and they were most solemnly

charged not to let this prevent them giving liberally to the poor as he might need. (Deut. xv. 1-11.) They were to share the second tithe with the poor and the widow and stranger. (Deut. xxvi. 12,13.) The gleanings of the field, and of the vineyard, and olive yard, were to be left for them (Deut. xxiv. 19-22,) as also the free use of the fruits of the seventh year. (Levit. xxv. 5,6.) While these precepts were obeyed, the poor would seldom if ever be sold for debt, or driven to the necessity of selling himself or any of his family.

It is supposed however that Israel, who had given proof of being a stiff necked people (Exo. xxxii. 9,) might possibly, regardless of the above precepts and examples, and in opposition to the spirit of their laws, imitate the Egyptians in enslaving others. Various laws are given to regulate it should it occur.

Were slavery the only thing contrary to the spirit of the Mosaic law, which that law considers as likely to occur, and in that case instead of preventing it by direct prohibitions to be enforced by the judges, attempts to effect the same thing indirectly, by various limitations and countervailing statutes, there would be more reason in hesitating before we admitted it. But the fact of such a legislation in the Mosaic law, is unquestionable. For instance. The law supposes it possible that Israel would in imitation of the nations about them, change their government from a confederate republic, to a monarchy; and in that case, gives various precepts, regulating the choice, and limiting the monarch when chosen (Deut. xvii. 14-20.) We need but turn to 1 Sam. viii. 4, xii. 16-19, to learn, that Israel greatly sinned 450 years afterwards, in making the very change which was here provided for.

We need but compare the precept (Deut. xxiv. 1-4) respecting divorce, with what our Lord says about it, and the reasons for this precept (Matt. xix. 5-9,) to be satisfied, that except in a special case, divorce is contrary to the spirit of the seventh commandment and sinful in the sight of God.

(To be continued.)

VISIT TO THE CEMETERY OF THEBES, IN '1817, BY G. Belzoni.

Gournou is a tract of rocks, about two miles in length, at the foot of the Lybian mountains, on the west of Thebes, and was the burying place of the great city of an hundred gates.* Every part of these rocks is cut out by art, in the form of large and small chambers, each of which has its separate entrance; and though they are very close to each other, it is very seldom that there is any interior communication from one to another. can truly say, it is impossible to give any description sufficient to convey the smallest idea of those subterrannean abodes, and their inhabitants. There are no sepulchres in any part of the world like them; there are no excavations or ruins that can be

I

compared to these truly astonishing places; and no exact information can be given of their interior, owing to the difficulty of visiting these recesses. The inconveniency of entering into them is such, that it is not every one who can support the exertion.

A traveller is generally satisfied when he has seen the large hall, the gallery, the stair case, and as far as he can conveniently go; besides, he is taken up with the strange works he observes cut in various places, and painted on each side of the walls; so that when he comes to a narrow and difficult passage, or to have to descend to the bottom of a well or cavity, he declines taking such trouble, naturally supposing that he cannot see in these abysses, any thing so magnificent as what he sees above, and consequently deeming it useless to proceed any further. Of some of

*This city is selected by Homer, as the richest then known, to indicate the contempt of Achilles for the proffered gifts of Agamemnon:

Not all proud Thebes' unrivall'd walls contain, The world's great empress on the Egyptian plain,

That spreads her conquests o'er a thousand

states,

these tombs, many persons could not withstand the suffocating air, which often causes fainting. A vast quantity of dust arises, so fine that it enters into the throat and nostrils, and chokes the nose and mouth to such a degree, that it requires great power of lungs to resist it and the strong effluvia of the mummies. This is not all: the entry or passage, where the bodies are, is roughly cut in the rocks, and the falling of the sand from the upper part or ceiling of the passage, causes it to be nearly filled up. In some places there is not more than a vacancy of a foot left, which you must contrive to pass through in a creeping posture, like a snail, on pointed and keen stones, that cut. like glass. After getting through these passages, some of them two or three hundred yards long, you ge nerally find a more commodious place, perhaps high enough to sit. But what a place of rest! surrounded by bodies,-by heaps of mummies in all directions; which, previous to my becoming accustomed to the sight, impressed me with horror. The blackness of the wall, the faint light given by the candles or torches for want of air, the different objects that surrounded me, seeming to converse with each other, and the Arabs with the candles or torches in their hands, naked and covered with dust, themselves, resembling living mummies, -absolutely formed a scene which cannot be described. In such a situation I found myself several times, and often returned exhausted and fainting, till at last I became inured to it, and indifferent to what I suffered, except from the dust, which never failed to choke my throat and nose; and though, fortunately, I am destitute of the sense of smelling, I could taste that the mummies were rather unpleasant to swallow. After the exertion of entering into such a place, through a passage of fifty, a hundred, three hundred, or perhaps six hundred yards, nearly overcome, I sought a resting place, found one, and contrived to sit; but when my weight bore on the body of an Egyp tian, it crushed it like a band box. I naturally had recourse to my hands to sustain my weight, but they found

no better support; so that I sunk altogether among the broken mummies, with a crash of bones, rags, and wooden cases, which raised such a dust as kept me motionless for a quarter of an hour, waiting till it subsided again. I could not remove from the place, however, without increasing it, and every step I took crushed a mummy in some part or other. Once, I was conducted from such a place to another resembling it, through a passage of about twenty feet in length, and no wider than that a body could be forced through. It was choked with mummies, and I could not pass without putting my face in contact with that of some decayed Egyptian; but as the passage inclined downwards, my own weight helped me on: however, I could not avoid being covered with bones, legs, arms, and heads, rolling from above. Thus I proceeded from one cave to another, all full of mummies piled up in various ways, some standing, some lying, and some on their heads. The purpose of my researches was to rob the Egyptians of their papyri; of which I found a few hidden in their breasts, under their arms, in the the space above the knees, or on the legs, and covered by the numerous folds of cloth that envelope the mum my. The people of Gournou, who make a trade of antiquities of this sort, are very jealous of strangers, and keep them as secret as possible, deceiving travellers, and pretending that they have arrived at the end of the mummy pits, when they are scarcely at the entrance. I could never prevail on them to conduct me into these places, till my second voyage, when I succeeded in obtaining admission into every cave where mummies were to be seen.

My permanent residence in Thebes, was the cause of my success. The Arabs saw that I paid particular attention to the situation of the entrance into the tombs, and that they could not avoid being seen by me when they were at work, digging in search of a new tomb; though they are very cautious when a stranger is in Gournou, not to let it be known where they go to open the earth; and as travellers generally remain

only a few days in that place, they used to leave off digging during that time. If any traveller be curious enough to ask to examine the interior of a tomb, they are ready to show him one immediately, and conduct him to one of the old tombs, where he sees nothing but the grottoes in which the mummies formerly had been deposited, or where there are but few, and these already plundered; so that he can form but a poor idea of the real tombs, where the remains were originally placed.—Narrative of the operations and recent discoveries within the pyramids, temples, &c. in Egypt and Nubia.

REVIEW.

1. Of a practical view of the present state of the state of slavery in the West Indies, or an examination of Mr. Stephen's Slavery of the British West India colonies, &c. by Alexander Barclay, lately, and for twenty-one years resident in Jamai

са.

2. Of the observations on the above work, in the third number of the American Quarterly Review.

Few things can appear more easy and natural, than to relate without palliation or enlargement, those facts which have fallen under the cognizance of our senses. I have seen, and therefore ought to know, has the air, and often the effect, of a conclusive argument. Yet, how frequently is curiosity compelled to rest upon partial indulgence with regard to facts and circumstances which all profess to know. The character and situation of a community with which we are constantly conversant, may be supposed to be so completely portrayed upon the mirror of the mind as to reflect a perfect image of the original; but in this, as in every other case, the tints and lineaments of the image will depend, not only on the lights and shades by which the original is sur