It is evident to every unprejudiced mind, that Abraham was no saint, but liable to several human frailties; that Isaac was a good man, of quiet and peaceful habits; and that Jacob was deceitful and dishonest, according to the biographies given of them in Genesis. This is the plain truth. Still it pleased God to use them as instruments of transmitting the idea of his unity and providential care to their descendants. Yet it is evident, from what is related of Abraham and Jacob, that their conception of the Deity was far from being as pure as that which has been communicated to us by Christ.

Besides which, neither Abraham, Isaac, nor Jacob, appears to have had any idea of the immortality of the soul, or of a future life. All their thoughts, as it seems, were therefore bent only upon the terrestrial advantages which themselves and their descendants were destined to enjoy. Thus, though entertaining the rational belief of the unity of the Deity and of his providential care, their ideas of the ultimate end of man's existence were indeed far from being as encouraging and sublime as those entertained by many other nations of antiquity.

But Providence, as history teaches us, makes use of different persons and nations for different purposes; and thus, according to His plan, the preservation of the belief in his unity and paternal care, was-from among all the people to the west of the Indus-committed to the peculiar charge of the Hebrew nation. Still nothing warrants us to presume that the Israelites and the Jews were, in a moral point of view, better than any other nation; nay, on the contrary, their history, alas! teaches us, that they were more cruel and blood-thirsty than most other nations of antiquity. We shall also see that they viewed Jehovah as their peculiar God, who they appear to have thought did not extend his care to the rest of mankind, except as to affairs connected with the Hebrews themselves. Surely that Being, the Israelites and the Jews worshipped, was not the spiritual God of the Christians-the benevolent father of the whole human race. It was only—if I may so express myself the shadow of the true God that they worshipped; nor did they concern themselves with the life

like the rest of the Eastern world; they acquired the virtues and the vices of each state of society through which they passed. Higher and purer notions of the Deity, though they tend to promote and improve, by no means necessarily enforce moral perfection; their influence will be regulated by the social state of the age in which they are promulgated; and the bias of the individual character to which they are addressed. Neither the actual interposition of the Almighty, in favor of an individual or nation, nor his employment of them as instruments for certain important purposes, stamps the seal of Divine approbation on all their actions; in some cases, as in the deception practised by Jacob on his father, the worst part of their character manifestly contributes to the purpose of God: still the nature of the action is not altered; it is to be judged by its motive, not by its undesigned consequence. Allowance, therefore, being always made for their age and social state, the patriarchs, kings, and other Hebrew worthies, are amenable to the same verdict which would be passed on the eminent men of Greece and Rome."

that is to come. This is the people whose eminent men have been held up to us as more than mere human beings. Yet I trust that, by the help of God, who speaks through the history of past generations to the living, the truth will at last rise triumphant.

But the task is not indeed an easy one, when palpable allegories have, by the presumptuous chiefs of the Christian church, been deemed real facts. Still Paul himself who I suppose knew something of the real meaning of the ancient writings of the Hebrews-when speaking of Ishmael as born after the flesh, and Isaac by the promise, declares this to be an allegory, thus confirming the opinion that allegories are used in those writings.

LETTER III.

HISTORY OF JOSEPH AND HIS BROTHERS.

"THE seed of Abraham had now become a family"-a tribe-" from the twelve sons of Israel it was to branch out into a nation." But most of Israel's sons very early evinced anything but a virtuous disposition worthy of such a distinction. Reuben, though not a very bad man, had committed a grievous injury against his father, whose affection he had thus lost; Simeon and Levi, faithless and blood-thirsty, had hazarded the peace and tranquillity of their father, and consequently became very obnoxious to him; and all of them, except Reuben, appear combined to commit a most cold-hearted fratricide; Judah, by his levity of manners, was led into another, though less culpable offence.

Judah had contracted a friendship with a certain native of Adullam named Herah; and while on a visit to this person, fell in love with the daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah, whom he married, and by whom he had three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah. When the first of these became marriageable-long after Joseph was carried to Egypt his father provided a wife for him in a Canaanitish woman, called Tamar; but he died prematurely, being cut off, as it is related, for some unnamed wickedness, without leaving any children by her. Now there was a peculiar custom, afterwards admitted into the law of Moses, that in case a married man died without issue, his next brother was obliged to

See Epistle to Galatians, chap. iv. 22, 23, 24.

marry his wife, in order that his line might not become extinct; for as it was deemed the greatest of all calamities to die without children, it was decreed that the next brother of the deceased should marry the widow, with the understanding that the first-born son of this union should be regarded as the son and heir of the man that died childless; the perpetuation of one's name and race, through children being then, as it still is in the orient, the one great object to which all moral laws, even those generally recognized, were to yield. Yet the duty of perpetuating another's name, and, as it were, race, is not always readily discharged. Such was the case with Onan, who, according to this custom, was obliged to marry Tamar, in order "to raise up posterity to his brother;" but he, as is related in an improper passage in the text," died childless, and his death was considered as a punishment sent by Jehovah. It then became the duty of the third son, Shelah, to marry Tamar; but Judah, who appears to have feared that his third son might, if married to her, be subjected to an early death as his two other sons had been, made use of his extreme youth as a plea for desiring Tamar to withdraw to her father's house, and remain there a widow, till Shelah should be of sufficient age. She did so; but observing that her father-in-law manifested no desire to keep his promise, she resolved on a measure by which she might not only punish him for his neglect, but also accomplish her desire of being a mother; a condition which all the patriarchial women ardently desired, but which, with the exception of Leah, was difficult of attainment.

Judah had lately buried his wife; and after the customary days of mourning were over, he went to Timnah with his old friend Herah, to be present at the sheep-shearing, which was in progress at that place. Tamar having obtained information of his intention, presented herself to Judah's notice on the way, in the guise of a harlot, who, being unknown to him, was thus successful in accomplishing her purpose, and became thus the mother of two sons. He had made a promise to send to her

a kid, and as security for the fulfilment of this promise, was induced to leave with her his staff, his bracelets, and his signet-ring. When, however, he sent the kid to redeem his pledge, she was not to be found. But three months afterwards, being informed that Tamar was with child, and perhaps not displeased at being thus released from his fears about Shelah, he at once said, "Bring her forth, and let her be burnt!" She was brought forth, when producing the staff, the bracelets, and the signet, she declared that the owner of them was the man who was the father of the child; designing thus to arouse the conscience and feelings of her inhuman judge, who appears to have considered what she had done as a

* It were indeed nothing but what ought to be expected from a civilized age, that such improper passages were either entirely left out, or given in other words.

just punishment for withholding from her the husband to which she was entitled.

This transaction is instructive, as bringing before us the peculiar manners and customs of those ancient times, and as showing the moral sentiments that prevailed among the worshippers of the Deity in unity. We see Judah, by virtue of his unlimited patriarchal* power, as the head of his own household-though his father still lived-about to inflict the punishment of death on his daughter-in-law for unchastity, which proves that such transgressions were then considered criminal, and that it was the custom among the tribes of the country where the Hebrews dwelt, to punish such offences with death; for we cannot suppose that Judah would have undertaken to inflict a severer punishment than what was sanctioned by custom. It is, however, to be observed, that it is evident had she been a harlot she would not have been punished; but probably being considered as the wife of Shelah, she was consequently to be punished as an adultress. It is, however, remarkable to observe the power which the sentiment of justice exercised over the mind of Judah. He instantly became aware that he could not punish her as an adultress, as he had been the cause of preventing her from consummating the marriage with his younger son, and consequently reduced her to the condition of an unmarried woman. Besides which, it is to be supposed that, as father of the child to which she was about to give birth, the voice of nature was heard within him. Another circumstance worthy of notice is, that the custom of harlots in appearing in a distinctive dress, which now prevails in many countries of the East and in some places of Europe, was then already introduced into Syria, or at least into Canaan. This is another evidence that the time, of which we are now speaking, was long posterior to that when mankind lived in a promiscuous state.

We will now return to Joseph, and follow him through the various circumstances, which at last, according to the Hebrew writers, led to his exaltation to the office of prime minister of the reigning Pharaoh. I will remark, that, though there is nothing in the fragments of Manetho's history, nor in the inscriptions on the Egyptian monuments, confirmatory of Joseph's premiership, yet this is no proof that it did not take place; because there are few of the Pharaonic ministers to whom any allusion is made; and besides, it is very possible that Joseph arrived in Egypt during the time that this country was subjected to foreign sway. But though we may be assured that such a man as Joseph lived, and that he attained to a high dignity at the court of the king who then reigned at least over Lower Egypt,

*This word which we have often used, but whose signification is perhaps not known to every reader, is derived from warpia, a family-from warnp, father-and apxoo, a chief; consequently, patriarchal, belonging to the chief of a family.

yet the impartial historian cannot justly assert that all which has been told of him really took place. The truth is, that the lives of most of the prominent men of antiquity have been handed down to us surrounded with webs of fables; and I do not see why the historical records of the Hebrews should not be subjected to doubts, when the careful historian finds reason to suspect that they convey false statements or allegories— which latter are so very frequent in oriental writings

When the merchants-styled in the text Midianites, but singularly enough also Ishmaelites-who had purchased Joseph arrived in Egypt, they exposed him probably in the slave-market;* and it is related that he was purchased by Potiphar, an officer of high rank in the court of the king.

Joseph appears to have applied himself with great diligence and fidelity to the discharge of the duties imposed upon him as a slave. It is also to be observed, that a slave in the Orient is considered rather as a member of the family than as a servant, particularly when his conduct merits such a distinction; and it is not unusual to see slaves mount to the highest dignities, and often rise, by the aid of their masters, to places

* Slavery has existed, as it appears, from the earliest times; and originated, probably, when the cupidity of man prevailed over his thirst for bloody revenge; because it can scarcely be doubted that the first slaves were prisoners taken in war, and who, instead of being killed, became the property of the captors; but as these could not always use their prisoners to their own advantage, they for a remuneration disposed of them to others, to whom they transferred their claim, founded upon the sole right of being the strongest. This right was sanctioned by custom, and has been defended under the plea, that as the victor could have killed his prisoners, the rights of the latter, as men, had ceased to exist, and that they were to be considered as things. I will in another place pay due attention to this important subject.

Egypt has always been, and is still, a great market for slaves. The following extract from Mr. Wilkinson's work on Ancient Egypt, embodies the most of the information on this subject which can be collected from the monumental paintings and inscriptions of Egypt.

"The captives brought to Egypt were employed in the service of the monarch, in building temples, cutting canals, raising dykes, and embankments, and other public works; aud some, who were purchased by the grandees, were employed in the same capacity as the Memlochs of the present. Women slaves were also engaged in the services of families, like the Greeks and Circassians in modern Egypt and other parts of the Turkish empire; and, from finding them represented in the sculptures of Thebes, accompanying men of their own nation who bear tribute to the Egyptian monarch, we may conclude that a certain number were annually sent to Egypt from the conquered provinces of the north and the east, as well as from Ethiopia. It is evident that both white and black slaves were employed as servants. They attended on the guests when invited to the house of their master; and from their being in the families of priests, as well as of the military chiefs, we may infer that they were purchased with money, and that the right of possessing slaves, was not confined to those who had taken them in war. The traffic in slaves was tolerated, and it is reasonable to suppose that many persons were engaged, as at present, bringing them to Egypt for public sale, independent of those who were sent as part of the tribute, and who were probably at first the property of the monarch. Nor did any difficulty occur to the Ishmaelites in the purchase of Joseph from his brethren; nor in the subsequent sale to Potiphar on arriving in Egypt."-Ancient Egyptians, vol. i. p. 403.