where he then dwelt, eastward to Hebron and northward to Shechem and Dothan. These may well have increased, in the time of Sherah, to a formidable number.*

Jacob took with him into Egypt, all his lineal descendants, not already there; but it is not said, nor is it probable, that he took with him all his people, collected from all parts of Canaan. They also took their cattle, and their goods which they had gotten in the land of Canaan." Probably they took, not all their cattle, carefully gathered from all the land, but only what they had with them at Beer-sheba. The language, (Gen. xlvi. 5-7,) is not so strongly universal in respect to their cattle and goods, as it is in respect to Jacob's descendants, of whom we are very carefully told that he took "all." He may have left some of his people at Shechem and elsewhere, to subsist as they could, and as their Canaanitish neighbors did, and may have aided them by supplies sent from Egypt. Or, if literally all went down, many may have returned five years afterwards, when the famine had ceased; and they may have multiplied greatly before the time of Sherah.

And as for wealth of other kinds, Shechem belonged to the heirs of Joseph, who was "a first-rate business man," and who could hardly fail to become immensely rich during his long viziership of eighty years, from his first standing before

*Patriarchal slavery seems to have originated soon after the flood, when each family was an independent government, and its head needed as many sons as his neighbors had, for defence against them, and for equality with them in wealth. Those who had not children enough of their own, would gladly give something for the privilege of adopting those of their neighbors, much as they gave something for their neighbors' daughters, as wives for their sons. These adopted children, "souls gotten" with money, had an interest in the prosperity of the family, and some one of them, in default of natural heirs, would become the head of it. Such was the prospect of Eliezer of Damascus, while Abraham was childless. Still, they were only servants, bought with money, or children of such servants, reared at the expense of the family, and constituting a part of its wealth. Very naturally, in the hands of unprincipled men, this practice degenerated into that of buying slaves of any one who offered them, asking no questions as to how the seller came by them. In the time of Jacob, there was a mart of this kind in Egypt, known to Midianish traders and others as far as Dothan and Damascus; as appears by the sale of his son Joseph. Africa seems to have invented this form of sin, and has been punished for it ever since by being made its victim. The Mosaic institutes concerning slavery seem intended to restrict it, as nearly as the hardness of the people's hearts and other circumstances would permit, to its original patriarchal character. The transition from these patriarchal families to petty "kingdoms" of a thousand or a few thousand souls, was very natural. It had evidently begun before the death of Abraham, and was far advanced, and in many cases might be said to have been completed, in the time of Jacob.

Pharaoh at the age of thirty, to his death, aged an hundred and ten.

Or we may come at an estimate of their numbers from an opposite direction. At the time of the exodus, their fighting men were 603,550, which, if it was one fifth of the whole number, the usual estimate, implies a total population of more than three millions, besides the Levites. (Num. ii. 32, 33.) If they had been doubling once in twenty years, which is scarcely credible, there must have been, at the birth of Moses, 37,721 fighting men, and 188,605 in all. If they doubled only once in twenty-five years, which is much more probable, their number at that time must have been about twice as large.

The language and conduct of the Egyptians, about this time, fully justifies these estimates. The statement of the king, (Ex. i. 9,) that "the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we," was doubtless extravagant. Had it been literally true, the subsequent oppression would not have been. attempted, much less executed. But the whole course of action shows that the Egyptians regarded them as formidable in numbers and in power. The next verse expresses the apprehension that if they continued to increase, they would be able, by taking advantage of the next war, when the Egyptian army would be engaged with other enemies, to fight their own way, "and so get them up out of the land.”

The Egyptians knew, it seems, that they had a country to go to, and that their country was "up" from Egypt. In the phraseology of those days, people always went "up" from Egypt to Canaan, and "down" from Canaan into Egypt. They evidently thought that they saw signs of such an intention on the part of the Hebrews, and must guard against it. If it should be accomplished, they would lose, not only a large and useful population, but the constant influx of the productions of Canaan, which the Israelites, probably, were in the habit of bringing down from their possessions in that country, and expending in Egypt. The operations of Sherah, in building towns and forts, might very naturally excite, or at least strengthen, this apprehension. Their increase must, therefore, be checked.

The most violent repressive measure, that of destroying the

male children, was adopted after the birth of Aaron, eightythree years before the exodus, and before that of Moses, who was three years younger. It appears to have been too atrocious to be executed to any considerable extent, or for any considerable time. The existence of the generations of men to which Eleazer, Phinehas, Nahshon and Joshua belonged, shows that the attempt was abortive. Nor did the severe labors to which they were forced, prevent their increase; though the oppression to which they were subjected, must have seriously embarrassed them in their protection and use of their possessions in Canaan.

The Canaanites, whose hostile proceedings had compelled them to fight, with loss of life, for the defence of their cattle, and to build towns and forts for the protection of their travel and possessions, would not fail to make the most of this advantage. They would naturally push on their encroachments with greater energy than ever before. And the Israelites in Egypt could not reinforce their posts in Canaan. Pharoah was already apprehensive that they would "get them up out of the land," and "would not let the people go" to Canaan for such a purpose. The heads of the tribes were rigidly detained in Egypt. The herdsmen and other retainers, without leaders, without instructions, without support of men or means from Egypt, must gradually succumb to superior force. These are details of which we have no recorded history; but, from the nature of the case, they must have happened. The result was, that before the time of the exodus, the Israelites had been dispossessed of every town, every fort, every rood of land, every hoof of flock or herd, throughout Canaan. The Beth-horons remained, for they were needed for the accommodation of travel; but Uzzen-Sherah was not needed for the protection of the Canaanites against themselves, and disappeared from history.

What became of the numerous population of herdsmen and other "servants" of the Israelitish nobility, we can only conjecture; but we may conjecture with a good degree of probability. Many of them must have fallen in defending themselves, their families, and their possessions against the Canaanites. Many would naturally fly to their masters in Egypt, if they

could; and there is no evidence they could not. But on the other hand, the Canaanitish victors would naturally, according to the custom of the age, retain many of them in bondage to themselves; and this may have been the fate of a large majority; especially of the women and children. Certainly, when Joshua arrived, they had disappeared as a distinct people.

We are perfectly aware how many of our facts rest on no historic record, but are merely inferred from other facts. But we submit it to the reader, whether our inferred facts are not fairly inferred; are not perfectly in harmony with those that are recorded; and whether those on record do not necessarily imply the occurrence of these, or of others substantially like them. If So, it appears that Abraham and his seed came into possession of a large part of Canaan by fair, lawful, and righteous means, and retained their possession and use, even during their residence in Egypt, till they were unrighteously dispossessed by violence; and that, according to the laws of nations, as understood and admitted always and everywhere, they had a perfect right to return and repossess their inheritance, and to use such force, and to inflict such damage and destruction on all opposers, as might be necessary for that purpose.

The original plan of Moses was, to have entered Canaan on the south, by way of Hebron; but the opposition of the inhabitants of the land and the craven spirit of the Israelites compelled him to change it, (Num. xiii., xiv.,) and, after long wanderings in the wilderness, to beg a passage through Edom, which was refused. (Num. xx.) They were then attacked by the Canaanites under Arad, (Num. xxi.) and fought in their own defence. Then, after a long circuit round Edom, as they approached the Jordan from the east, first Sihon, and then Og, made war upon them, and suffered the result of unsuccessful war. The principal campaigns of Joshua, too, were made necessary by the hostile movements of the Canaanites themselves, who, making war on the Israelites, to keep them from repossessing their inheritance, were justly, by the laws of war and of nations, punished by the loss of their own. The record makes this plain in respect to his most important conquests; and if it is not expressly stated in relation to some of his minor operations, fairness requires us to presume it.

If any object, that God gave the command to destroy those nations and possess their lands before they had made any attack on Israel, we reply, that it was not given before he knew that they would do it, nor without the foresight and consideration of their guilt in doing it. He gave the Israelites commands, which it would be right for them to execute in the circumstances in which he knew they would be placed. As he had said to Abraham, (Gen. xv. 16,) the Israelites were not allowed to take possession of the whole land, while "the iniquity of the Amorites" was "not yet full." But God knew when they would have filled up the measure of their iniquities, and he gave his promises and commands accordingly.

Doubtless, the Israelites, in their conquest of Canaan, did many things which God had not specifically commanded, and some of which were wrong; and doubtless many right things were done, which we are unable to justify, because, in the lapse of more than thirty centuries, the knowledge of the justifying facts has been irrecoverably lost. Some may think that God ought to have preserved that knowledge for our use, so that we might be able to see and prove the righteousness of every one of his acts and commands. But he is not careful to apologize with such minuteness, to those who have no confidence in him, for what it pleases him to do, or to command. If he has graciously enabled us to see his justice in the leading features and general course of these transactions; to show that the Canaanites deserved their doom, and brought it upon themselves by their rapacious and murderous injustice to the Hebrews; and that the Israelites, in reclaiming their possessions, acted in accordance with the universally acknowledged principles of international right, as well as the express command of God, this ought to be satisfactory, and to silence all misgivings as to the righteousness of any particular commands which we are unable to justify from our ignorance of all the facts, and from our inability, after so long a time, and such changes, social, moral, and intellectual, to appreciate the facts if we knew them.

There are two facts, which some may reject from such an investigation as being theological, but which are as really facts, to be taken into consideration in making out the history, as any others on record.