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 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.

it

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.

One is, that a righteous God, who requires all men to deal justly with each other, and who, at Sinai, forbade this very people to steal, and even to covet "anything that is thy neighbors," did command the Israelites to enter Canaan and take possession of it, by the use of all necessary force. This proves, if he was not most grossly inconsistent with himself, that taking possession of Canaan by the Israelites was not stealing, and that their desire to possess the lands then occupied by the Canaanites was not coveting anything that of right belonged to their neighbors and not to themselves. The history of the Israelites and of the Canaanites in relation to that land must have been such as justified the Israelites in desiring it and taking possession of it as their own. The facts which we have quoted from the Scriptures must have been a part of that history; and the other parts of it must have been in harmony with these, and must have been morally equivalent to those which we have inferred.

The second is, that in all these transactions, God had regard to his great and holy name. One of his objects, often expressly declared, was, to manifest himself to all right-minded men, not only as an almighty sovereign, but also as a holy and righteous God. He could not, consistently with that design, exhibit himself as the patron and instigator of robbery and murder, by individuals or by nations. There must, then, have been facts, public facts, then known in that part of the world, in view of which the invasion and conquest of Canaan by the Israelites was an honest transaction. The known history of the Israelites and the Canaanites, and of their relations to that land, must have been such that, in view of them, God, in commanding and enabling the Israelites to conquer and possess the land, gave a favorable exhibition of his own moral character. The Israelites must have had well-known rights in the country, and the Canaanites must have been well-known wrongdoers, who deserved to be dispossessed and driven out. The history, as we have given it, consisting partly of recorded facts and partly of facts inferred, meets this requirement; and this is a strong confirmation of its substantial truth.

This last consideration applies the more forcibly, if the struggle which ended in the expulsion of the Israelites from Canaan

continued many years, and could be remembered by old men at the time of the exodus; and this our chronology very well permits, and even renders probable. One of the last places to be relinquished by the Hebrews would be the pass of Bethhoron, which covered their retreat into Egypt. Elishama, the venerable head of the Ephraimites at the exodus, might well remember when they held that pass, and may even have witnessed the capture and demolition of his cousin Sherah's Fort. As a prominent young man of the tribe to which that region belonged, he may have been the last captain of an hundred, or of fifty, who attempted the defence of Uzzen-Sherah.

ARTICLE VI.

CREEDS.

THE Communion and friendly coöperation of Christians of every type for practical Christian ends must be regarded as important and conducive to the credit and advancement of Christianity in the world. There can be no question, that it is the will of our Master that all his disciples should be “ one," for their own good and for the sake of their influence upon "the world"; a brotherhood, bound together, not by complete uniformity of administration and ceremonial, but by unity of spirit and mutual good-will. This is to be desired and earnestly labored for; to some extent, it is realized. The great conflict in our day, as well as in past ages, is not between one and another of the different sections of the Christian world; it is a contest between those who believe in the Gospel, and those who do not believe in it. The course of providential events, in recent times, has given fresh impulse to the desire of union, and has exercised a reconciling influence on the Christian sects. We rejoice in it; we want a progressive Church, steadily contemplating the glory of the Lord Jesus, and so "changed into the same image" by the agency of the Spirit of God.

There is danger, however, that the earnest effort for hearty Christian union, which is generally encouraged, may be attended by an indifference to Gospel truth, ignoring many of its essential doctrines, and suppressing the distinct utterance of those doctrines in some quarters, where they are not expressly denied. "Not doctrine, but life," is the cry of many. In some instances, the creed is diluted, and fundamental doctrines are carefully eliminated in a well-meant, but misguided effort to fashion "a Christianity large enough to hold all Christians," and to find the truth, which shall make all forms of truth comparatively insignificant. In other instances, the prominent doctrines, set forth in the Calvinistic confessions of the churches, are spoken of in disparaging and contemptuous terms by ministers, or passed over in preaching with cautious and significant silence. In other instances, to evade the opprobrium of being called dogmatist and bigot, there is a practical sacrifice of doctrines of the creed to a show of visible ceremonial uniformity, offering an easy and unquestioning recognition of the Christian name for all who claim it. There are conflicts of opinion among the different sects of the Christian world, and various shades of theological thought among those who fraternize in the same. communion. It is not likely that the wisdom of the intellect will soon fuse them into beautiful unity. They will exist for the present, whether they stand out or not in any formal symbol. The questioning of our times is free and searching; it reaches down to the very foundations of things; it relates to the essential attributes and government of God and the everlasting destiny of the human soul. And it is a poor conceit to deprecate religious discussions as distracting and divisive, or to turn away from detailed articles of faith in churches, as unwarranted or injurious.

Our churches favor the use of creeds. With few exceptions, they have a brief summary of the leading doctrines of Christian faith, which is the exponent of their faith, the bond of their organic union, and the test of church-membership. It must necessarily be brief and synoptical. All readily see the importance of comprehensiveness in standards of faith; but all do not so easily perceive the importance of their being sound, distinct, and complete.