not mean the tabernacle, but a sort of oratory or house of prayer, which the Ephraimites had erected in this placeselecting it the rather, perhaps, for such an erection, because the Lord had there appeared to Abraham, and promised to his descendants the inheritance of that land in which he was a stranger. This seems to us the least probable of these conjectures. [APPENDIX, No. 20.] 2. The flood.'--The river Euphrates is intended. They served other gods.'--From this it seems clear that Abraham's grandfather and father--and possibly himself in the first instance--worshipped the idols of the country in which they lived. By this, however, we are probably not to understand that they had no knowledge of, or reverence for, the true God, but that they did not render to him that exclusive worship which was his due. In fact, we may conclude them to have been in much the same condition as Laban, who, at a subsequent period, represented that part of the family which remained beyond the Euphrates, and who certainly reverenced Jehovah, but who also had idols which he called his 'gods,' and the loss of which filled him with anger and consternation. The tale of the Jews on the subject is, in substance, that men begau to worship images in the days of Terah; and that he himself became a chief priest, and a maker and seller of images. They add, that he went one day abroad, leaving the care of his shop to Abraham, who, suspecting the impotency of the idols, broke them all in pieces, except one. Terah, on his return, was so enraged on discovering what had been done, that he dragged his son before Nimrod, the king, who ordered him to be cast into a burning furnace, that it might be ascertained whether the God he served were able to save him. While he was in the furnace, his brother Haran was questioned concerning his belief. He said, that if Abraham came forth unhurt, he should believe in his God; but if otherwise, he should believe in Nimrod. On this, he also was thrown into the furnace, and instantly perished; whereas Abraham came forth safe and untouched before them all. This story has been adopted by the Mohammedans, with sundry amplifications and embellishments; and is so common in the East, that it seemed well to notice it here. Terah, according to the same authorities, would seem to have been a sort of founder; for he was not only a manufacturer of images, but is said to have discovered the art of coining money. 12. I sent the hornet before you. This is in fulfilment of what had been twice promised (Exod. xxiii. 28; Deut. vii. 20). The word translated ‘hornet' is ny tzirah, and upon a careful consideration of the etymological reasoning which has been brought to bear on the matter, we are disposed to think that the large and formidable species of wasp which we know by that name is really denoted by the Hebrew word. At what particular time in the wars of Joshua the Lord, in fulfilment of his promise, sent the hornet against the inhabitants of Canaan, and what impression its attack made upon the enemies of Israel, is not recorded in Scripture. This has given occasion to a question whether the word may not have been rather figuratively than literally employed. For the former interpretation Michaelis, Gesenius, and others very strongly contend. Gesenius says: These passages are not to be understood of hornets literally; they are put metaphorically, as a symbol of the terror, panic, sent by God upon the enemy, by which they were agitated and put to flight as if stung to madness.' This view was adopted by Rosenmüller in his Scholia on Exod. xxiii. 28; but on Josh. xxiv. 12 he retracts that opinion, and amply refutes it. His reasonings and refutations have been reproduced by Paxton and other writers; and are to the following effect. Neither the words of Moses or Joshua betray the smallest indication of metaphor: and in a plain narration, we are never, without the most obvious necessity, to depart from the literal sense. The inspired historian could not mean the terror of the Lord, as Augustine is inclined to suppose; for he had mentioned this in the verse immediately preceding:I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee.' Upon which it is added, And I will send hornets before thee.' Nor could any particular disease be intended; for no disease was ever called by this name. Junius gives a different version: I will send before thee fear or disease as a hornet;' but the comparative particle as, is not in the text, and must not be supplied by the caprice of translators. The words of Joshua are express, without either metaphor or comparison:--I have sent the hornet before you.' It is no valid objection to the literal sense, that the circumstances of time and place are not mentioned by the sacred writer, for this is by no means an unusual omission in the rapid narrative of an inspired historian. To mention but one example: the patriarch Jacob gave to his son Joseph a portion of land, which he took from the Amorite by force of arms; but when or in what place this battle was fought, we are not informed. The hornet, it is probable, marched before the armies of Israel, till the five nations that had been doomed, for their numerous and long-continued crimes, to destruction, were subdued; which rendered such a circumstantial detail unnecessary and improper. But who can believe, it is asked, that the hornets of Canaan were so vexatious to the inhabitants that they were forced to abandon their dwellings, and seek for other habitations? The testimony of an inspired writer ought to silence all such objections; but, in reality, the same thing has not unfrequently happened in the history of the world. Both Athenæus and Eustathius inform us, that the people about Laconia and Dardania were compelled by frogs to forsake their native country and fix their abode in a distant region. If Pliny may be credited, the ancient city of Troy was forced to open her gates after a war of ten years, not so much by the victorious arms of the Greeks, as by an innumerable host of mice, which compelled the Trojans to desert their houses, and retire to the neighbouring mountains; and in Italy, whole nations were driven from their possessions by the same destructive creature, which in innumerable numbers overran their fields, devoured every green thing, and, grubbing up the roots, converted some of that country into an inhospitable waste. The Mysians, according to Pausanias, were forced, by swarms of gnats, to desert their city; and the Scythians beyond the Ister, are recorded to have been expelled from their country by countless myriads of bees. But since the wasp is more vexatious than the bee, its sting more severe, and its hostility more virulent, it is by no means incredible that many of the Canaanites were forced by so formidable an enemy to remove beyond the reach of their attacks. To this may be added the still more striking fact recorded by Elian (Hist. Anim. ix. 28), that the Phasilita were actually driven from their locality by such means; and Bochart seems to have shewn that these Phasilite were a Phoenician people (Hieroz, iii. 412). Upon the whole, the objections which have been urged against the abstract possibility of such an occurrence must appear very unreasonable when the irresistible power of bees, wasps, etc. attested by numerous modern instances, and the thin clothing of the Canaanites, are considered. It is observable that the event is represented by the author of the book of Wisdom as a merciful dispensation by which the Almighty spared as men the old inhabitants of his holy land,' and 'gave them space for repentance.' Drave them out from before you, even the two kings of the Amorites.-Fortwo kings,' the Septuagint has twelve kings.' As there were such a multitude of kings in Canaan, the reading is not improbable, although unsupported by any other version; and, in fact, the promise in Exod. xxiii. 28, refers to the expulsion by the hornet' of three of the seven nations, each of which seems to have contained several kingdoms. It is commonly understood, that the nations expelled by the hornet emigrated to other countries: and it seems very probable that some part of them were assisted in their emigration by the ships of their maritime neighbours, who retained possession of the coast. One of the expelled nations, according to the Jewish commentaries of Nachmanides, was the nation of the Girgashites, who retired into Africa, fearing the power of God.' In unison with this Jewish tradition is the remarkable statement of Procopins, in his work De Bello Vandalorum. He relates how the Phoenicians fled before the Hebrews into Africa, and spread themselves abroad as far as the pillars of Hercules, and thus proceeds: There they still dwell, and speak the Phoenician language; and in Numidia, where now stands the city Tigisis, they have erected two columns, on which, in Phoenician characters, is the following inscription,"We are the Phanicians who fled before the robber Joshua, the son of Nun."' This is probably the same story as that given by Suidas, whose copy of the inscription, however, uses the word 'Canaanites' instead of Phoenicians,' and omits the son of Nun.' The cause of the difference is probably that Suidas was much better acquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures than Procopius, who, like other mere Greeks, does not distinguish any ancient people of Palestine but the Phoenicians. The Hebrew reference, as above cited, to the Girgashites, seems to be confirmed by the sacred text, in which, although the Girgashites are included in the general list of the seven devoted nations, they are omitted in the list of those to be utterly destroyed (Deut. xx. 17); and also in that of the nations among whom, in neglect of the Divine decree, the Israelites lived and intermarried (Judg. iii. 1-6). Dr. Hales thinks that, of the fugitive tribes, some appear to have fled beyond sea to Italy, where they became the aborigines, or first colonists, as distinguished from the indigenæ, or natives, and quotes in evidence that profound antiquary Virgil' (Æn. viii. 314-329). 29. Joshua, the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, died.'-Jahn, in his Hebrew Commonwealth, thus discriminates the public character of Joshua, and of his government: While Joshua lived, the people were obedient and prosperous. Though idolatry was secretly practised here and there' (v. 23) by individuals, it did not break out openly, and the nation remained faithful to Jehovah their king' (v.31). To prevent future degeneracy, Joshua, in the latter part of his life, convened two general assemblies, and earnestly inculcated on the rulers fidelity to Jehovah, and a conscientious observance of his law. At the last assembly he caused a new election to be made of Jehovah for their king, and to be solemnly acknowledged by the people. He erected a permanent monument of this renewal of their homage, and recorded the whole transaction in the book of the law. Soon after, this hero died: a man who devoted his whole life to the establishment of the theocratic policy, and consequently to the preservation of the true religion-services that ought to endear his memory to all succeeding ages.' The character which Joshua sustained is in many respects as peculiar as that of Moses, although of a very different nature. Joshua was not the successor of Moses, nor had Joshua himself any successor. They were both appointed to discharge peculiar and special services by the king, Jehovah. Moses was his minister in the deliverance and in legislating for the Hebrews: Joshua was his general, specially appointed by him to conquer the promised land and portion it out among the people. Not Moses, nor Joshua, but God himself, was the ruler of the state, and they were merely his servants. How eminently Joshua was qualified by his decision of character, his valour and his faith, for the duties confided to him, and how well and worthily he discharged them, has appeared in the narrative. 32. And the bones of Joseph... buried they in Shechem.' -(See the note on Gen. 1. 25.) The bones of Joseph had probably been buried in Shechem as soon as Ephraim obtained possession of its inheritance; but the circumstance is mentioned here as a supplementary piece of information, to which the account of Joshua's death and burial naturally gave occasion. The tomb of Joseph at Shechem seems to have been at all times pointed out to travellers. It is mentioned by Jerome, Benjamin of Tudela, Maundrell, and by most travellers who have visited the place. What is now indicated as the tomb of the patriarch is a small building in a recess between two mountains; it is a Turkish oratory, with a whitened dome, like the tomb of his mother Rachel, VOL. I. 20 [B.C. 1427-1420. Rachel's on the road between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. CONQUEST OF CANAAN.-This seems the proper place to take some slight notice of the interesting questions, which are often asked:-What claim had the Hebrews to the land they were about to invade with the intention to retain it for their own use? What right had they to declare a war of utter extermination against nations who had never given them any cause of offence? The answer which is now much relied upon is that of Michaelis, and, more lately, of Jahn. This answer alleges, that the Canaanites had appropriated to their own use the pasture-grounds occupied by Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and expelled from their possessions those Hebrews who had occasionally visited Palestine during their residence in Egypt; and now the Israelites were about to recover, sword in hand, the lands, wells, and cisterns which the Canaanites had usurped. This is very ingenious, particularly in the attempt to shew that the Israelites had, during their residence in Egypt, endeavoured to keep possession of the pasture-grounds in Canaan. But, from the passage referred to in proof of this (1 Chron. vii. 20-29), it does not appear to us easy to gather this information; and the whole statement seems to us so obviously hollow and insubstantial, that, instead of refuting it, we may be content to dismiss it with the remark, that no such claim, if substantiated, would justify the avowed intention to exterminate the original inhabitants of the land,-who were there before Abraham came from beyond the Euphrates: and that the Hebrews themselves exhibit no anxiety about these pasture-grounds, of which so much is said; but tell us plainly that, intending to become an agricultural people, they wanted the cultivated lands, the fields, the vineyards, the towns of the Canaanites. Besides, those who were most in need of pasture-grounds had already secured them on the other side Jordan. Dr. Hales takes still higher ground. He relies much upon an Armenian tradition recorded by Abulfaragi. This tradition states that Noah, before his death, divided the whole earth among his sons; and the Doctor thinks he can find allusions to this partition in such passages as Deut. xxxii. 7-9; Acts xvii. 26. According to this account, the land of Canaan was in the portion assigned to Shem; but we find it in the actual occupation of tribes descended from Ham; and from this it is argued that the Hebrews, as being descended from Shem, had a prior claim to the land, and were therefore perfectly justified in taking it, if in their power, from the nations by whom it had been usurped. But, in the first place, it does not seem likely that Noah knew much of the world, or concerned himself about dividing the earth among his sons, when, as yet, his descendants were few in number, and remained in their original tents. Besides, an unsupported Armenian tradidition is a very precarious authority to rest upon; and it is hard to find what support it receives from the Scriptural texts which have been adduced. And, if this original partition might be relied on, the Hebrews would have derived no particular claim to the land of Canaan from it,that is, no better claim than that which any other of the many races descended from Shem might have produced. Taking all these things into account, together with the distance of time since the supposed assignment of the land, we may very safely conclude that no such claim was made by the Hebrews or was apprehended by the Canaanites. In this transaction there were, so to speak, two parties, God and the Hebrews. It occurs to us that a clearer view of it may be obtained if we consider,-first, the conduct of the Jews apart from their position as a peculiar people acting under the special directions of God; then to view the proceedings of God, apart from any connection with the Hebrews; and, lastly, shew how the interests and objects of both parties concurred in the same course of proceeding. We may then, for the moment, view the Hebrews as an army of oppressed people, escaped from Egypt, and seeking a country in which they might settle down as an agri cultural nation; and whose leaders deigned to keep up among them a particular system of religion and law, through which only the people could be prosperous and happy, and through which only the one peculiar and grand object which they had in view could be accomplished. This being their object, the direction which they did take was the only practicable one in which such a country as they sought could be found. The Nile and the Libyan deserts beyond cut off their retreat westward, as the Mediterranean did on the north, and a southern route would only have involved them deeper in the Egyptian territory. Now in this direction, which was the only one the liberated nation could take, Canaan was the only country which suited their purpose. The Arabian deserts were of course not suited to become the permanent residence of a settled people. The country of Seir, although, as being mountainous, desirable from its capabilities of defence, was not suited either for agriculture or pasturage, and was, besides, in the occupation of a nation closely related to themselves, and whom they had no desire to molest. The country east of the Jordan was less suitable for agriculture than pasturage; and it was too open, and wanted those natural borders and defences which were essential to a people destined to live apart among the nations. Part of it they did however take possession of for pastoral uses; but the remainder was in the occupation of the descendants of Lot, with whom the Hebrews had no desire to interfere. The land of Canaan was in every way most suitable for them. The mountains and the sea, by which it was in every part enclosed, rendered it easy of defence against all invasion. It abounded in corn, oil, and fruits-in all productions and capabilities essential to settled life. Besides, this was the land which attached to itself all the memories capable of exciting the enthusiasm of such a people as the Hebrews. It was the cradle of their race. It was their historical land-the land in which their renowned forefathers fed their flocks for more than two hundred years, and which was still the country of their fathers' sepulchres. Such considerations would direct their attention to Canaan rather than to any other of the neighbouring countries. And, their attention being directed to it, let us consider first the Hebrews in their simple character, as ancient Asiatics who had no country, and felt that they must obtain one, and whom we would not expect to take any other course than other ancient Asiatics would take in similar circumstances. Now in those times the doctrines of international law, and of the balance of power, were certainly in a very crude condition. If we were not very anxious to confine our statement within the narrowest possible limits, we could accumulate instances to shew that long after this date, no nation was considered entitled to hold its territories by any other right than that of being able to defend them. If one people desired the lands of another, the practical law was, You have a right to our lands if you can take them; but if you cannot, we have the better right. You have a right to try, and we have a right to resist. Let success determine the right.' Nor was such a law so injurious as it would be now. In the first place, the actual occupants had such advantages of defence as would suffice to protect them from merely vexatious aggressions; and, as then, for the most part, nations were divided into small independent princedoms, few great monarchies having been formed, the obstacles among them to a combination for any common object were so great, that established nations had little reason to fear invasion from any overwhelming force. Under this system we are convinced that no one questioned the right of the Israelites to try to get possession of Palestine-not even the nations against whom they acted. Let it also be borne in mind that the Canaanites were very far from being a defenceless set of people, whom the Israelites might easily deal with according to their pleasure. They were, for the most part, a numerous, brave, and warlike people, with fortresses and walled towns, with cavalry and chariots of war; and that so far was it from being an unequal match, that all the natural advantages were on the side of the Canaanites, who had to encounter a not very highly disciplined multitude from the desert, encumbered with women, children, and flocks; and of whom not more than one-fourth were fit to take a part in warlike operations. Thus much for the claim or right of the Israelites, if we place them on the same ground as that on which any other nation would at that time have stood in corresponding circumstances. But the leaders of the invaders determined that the in- | terests of the nation required that the prior inhabitants should be totally exterminated. We have not to question the point of view in which such a resolution would be considered at the present day, seeing that the nation by which this resolution was formed was not a modern nor a European people. The only question is, did policy require or recommend this course? For we may be sure of this, that, if any course were in ancient times judged advantageous to a nation, no considerations of humanity or abstract justice were allowed for one instant to weigh against its execution. And we are not now considering the Jews in any other light than as an ancient Asiatic nation. Even at this day it is avowed, as a doctrine of international law, that one nation in its dealings with others is not bound to seek any interests but its own. In ancient times this doctrine was carried out to the full and broad extent, that a nation in its dealings with others had a perfect right to remove, even by the sword, every interest that interfered with its own. Now the leader of the Hebrews, deeming the objects which we have indicated to be essential to the existence and well-being of the nation, was convinced that these objects could not be accomplished unless the Canaanites were entirely extirpated. He knew that the system which he sought to establish could not be upheld, but in a field clear for its operation. He knew that the unsettled couquerors of a settled people generally adopt the ideas and manners of the people they have overcome: and the manners and ideas of the Canaanites were not only so opposed to, and subversive of, those which he desired his people to retain, as to render the co-inhabitation of the land, by the two races, certain ruin to the people for whom he was bound to care, but were in themselves so very evil as to render that extirpation which policy required an act of divine and moral justice. Again, it was certain that if the old, conquered nations were allowed to remain inhabitants of the land, together with the conquerors, and that the land were able to sustain them both (which it certainly was not), they would cherish a very natural hatred against their conquerors, with such a desire of vengeance against them, as would render them watchful of all opportunities which might offer of rising against them, and that with all the advantage which might be derived from an intimate acquaintance with their num bers and resources. This, while it would keep the nation in a state of constant fretfulness and excitement, would prevent them from dispersing themselves abroad properly through the country, and from giving full and proper effect to the spirit of their institutions. We are satisfied that, however unsatisfactory these rea sons may now appear, they are such as would have determined any ancient Asiatic nation to the course which the Hebrews were commanded to take; and this, without these special reasons, operating in the case of the Hebrews, which we have purposely reserved. Now, then, let us look to the part taken by God hiruself in this matter. If we believe the Bible, we must believe that, anciently, it was a part of the Divine plan in the government of the world to visit guilty nations with sudden and overwhelming punishments, by which they were utterly destroyed. Let us think of the deluge, and of the 'cities of the plain." Now God constantly declares that the nations of Canaan were at this time as ripe for such a punishment as Sodom and Gomorrah had been. The patriarchs were repeatedly told by God that the Canaanites generally had not yet reached that point of wickedness as would make their extirpation necessary to prove the world to be subject to moral government: their iniquity was not yet full.' But it was full, as God foreknew that it would be, by the time the Hebrews arrived from Egypt; and then it pleased God to commission the sword of the Hebrews to execute his judgment upon the Canaanites, instead of giving that commission, as he had done in other cases, to the storm, the earthquake, the inundation, or the pestilence. Shall we then allow our minds to dwell so exclusively on the sentence of extermination, and be quite unmindful of the long suffering of God, who withheld his judgments for centuries, till the measure of their iniquities was completed; and who, in the meantime, gave them repeated warnings, through which the doom which hung over them might have been averted? Here, then, the policy of God and the supposed policy of the Hebrews meet; or rather the policy of God, as it respected both the Hebrews and the Canaanites, met in this one point-the extirpation of the latter. While the Jews required a vacant country, the justice of God required that a country should be vacated for them. The course which, in cool abstract terms, would have been good policy for the Hebrews, but which would have been savage conduct in them,-that course was sanctioned, was made imperative, by the righteous and long-delayed judgment of God upon a guilty people. Their guilt has never been questioned. They had no public faith or honour, and consequently no treaties could be formed with them. Their morals were corrupt in the extreme. Incest was common; they practised fornication, and indulged unnatural lusts, in honour of their gods, upon whose altars human victims were also offered. There seems to have been a point beyond which Divine justice and forbearance would not allow the abominations of pagan idolatry to proceed; and as the punishments which followed when that limit was once passed, evinced that the gods which those nations so sedulously worshipped were unable to protect their adorers, they would thus, in their way, suggest that there was a power far above them. after God had established his testimony in the world, first by the Mosaical, and afterwards by the Christian system, this mode of asserting his moral government appears to have been more rarely employed. But The Israelites therefore entered Canaan as the commissioned ministers of the Divine justice; and as such they were under a solemn obligation to take that course which was also most conducive to their own interests, but from which, if it had rested on that ground only, their humanity might have shrunk. It was, therefore, made an inviolable law to the Hebrews that they should enter into no connection with these people; that they should not make them tributary, nor even admit them as subjects or slaves; but should cut off unsparingly all who fell into their hands, and in this manner warn the others to flee from the land where JEHOVAH was king. The decree of extermination must be understood as implying that the Canaanites might leave the country in peace if they chose. It seems that many of them betook themselves to flight, and, embarking on board Phoenician vessels, sailed to Africa, and there planted colonies. All, or at least the greater part, might have taken this course to save their lives and treasures; and although we do not think that the Israelites could enter into treaty with them as idolaters, there is no reason to question but that, if they had chosen to renounce their idols, and to have remained in the country well disposed towards the Hebrews, they might, according to a proper construction of the Law, have been spared. We do not mean that the Hebrews wished to win converts by the sword. That they never did; nor, until their latter days, were they anxious to introduce strangers into their body. But if any nation had been convinced that the God of the Hebrews was the true and only God, in consequence of the wonders which he had wrought for his people, and the victories he had enabled them to achieve, and from seeing the impotence of their own gods before him-that nation would doubtless have been spared. But they seem rather to have chosen to abide the event of a war with the invaders. We pray, then, again, that it may be distinctly understood that, in a conflict between men and men, there was no advantage on the side of the Hebrews, but rather the reverse. Their invasion was not an irruption of the strong against the weak; but an attempt to conquer, with equal arms, a well defended country, occupied by a numerous people of tried and well known valour. The Hebrews did not attempt to reduce the people of the Promised Land with smooth words, that they might oppress them afterwards; but openly avowed their intentions, and thereby exposed themselves to corresponding treatment from the enemy, should they prove successful. No objection can be made to the supernatural assistance afforded to the Hebrews by God; for in all these contests among ancient nations, the gods of the respective parties were understood to be deeply interested, and engaged to protect their worshippers, and to promote their views as far as they were able. And struck as the Canaanites were by the prodigies wrought by Jehovah, they looked to their gods for the same kind of assistance, and expected them to fight on their behalf against the God of the Hebrews. We have no right, therefore, to make a complaint for them which they did not make for themselves. They more probably, in the result of the contest, quarrelled with their own gods for their impotence or insufficient assistance, than objected to the assistance which JEHOVAH rendered to his people. This was the war theology of the ancient nations; and we meet with it at every turn, not only in the Bible, but in all ancient history. APPENDIX. PICTORIAL BIBLE. VOLUME I. NOTE 1, p. 38.-According to Dr Layard, no remains have been discovered among the ruins of Birs Nimroud more ancient than of the time of Nebuchadnezzar; every brick with an inscription, and of such there are thousands, bearing the name of this king. This fact, however, does not prove that he founded the building; he may merely have added to or rebuilt an earlier edifice. With respect to the form of the ruins, Dr Layard states that the resemblance between their outline and that of the ruins at Mosul is easily recognised, and shews that the buildings, of which these ruins are the remains, must have been built on the same plan. The actual form of the mound suggests the idea of a series of terraces, rising from the ground to the top of the building on the east side, and of a perpendicular wall on the west side; of course the number of terraces is conjectural. With regard to the identity of Birs Nimroud and the Temple of Belus, Dr Layard says: Recent travellers, amongst whom, I believe, may be included Colonel Rawlinson, are of opinion that the Birs Nimroud cannot be identified, as conjectured by Rich, with the Temple of Belus, but that it marks the site of the celebrated Chaldean city of Borsippa, which Rich traced four leagues to the south of Hillah, in some mounds called Boursa by the Arabs. Until more authentic information be obtained from inscriptions and actual remains, the question cannot, I think, be considered as settled.'Nineveh and Babylon (London, 1853), p. 500. NOTE 2, p. 169.-Whether the identity of Raamses and Heroöpolis be admitted or not, it is certain that they lay in the same district. The fact stated in the text-namely, that the Seventy render the name Raamses, applied to the city, by Heroöpolis, while the former name is retained for the province-does not prove the identity alleged. The substitution of Heroöpolis for Raamses is equally consistent with the supposition, that the town of the latter name had in the days of the Seventy fallen into decay, and been replaced by Heroöpolis, a city of recent origin, and built in its neighbourhood. Now, there are two places where ruins are found in the locality pointed out in the text, one at Abu Keisheid, and the other at Mukfar, about an hour and a half further east. Dr Lepsius (Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sinai, Bohn's Library) regards Mukfar as the site of Heroöpolis, Abu Keisheid of Raamses, and for the following reasons:-Strabo mentions that Heroöpolis was situated ' in the angle of the Arabian Gulf.' The inference which has been drawn from this statement-that the site of the above town was near to the present Suez-cannot be admitted; for, independently of other reasons, according to the Septuagint, Joseph met his father at Heroöpolis. The Seventy must have known the site of that town, and the fact of their making it the place of meeting, shews that its site could not have been at Suez, which lay entirely out of the route from Canaan to Egypt. The angle above mentioned is, therefore, explained to be the north-west end of the wide basins of the Bitter Lakes, which lay to the north of the Gulf of Suez, and were filled by the canal connecting the gulf with the Nile, so as to present the appearance of a prolongation of the gulf. This expanse of water would precisely extend to Mukfar; Abu Keisheid, on the other hand, is an hour and a half west from the angle on the canal. But, moreover, that we may really seek for Raamses in the ruins of Abu Keshêb is most decidedly confirmed by a monument which was found upon these very ruins as early as the time of the French expedition. It is a group of three figures, cut out of a block of granite, which represents the god Ra and Tum, and between them the King Raamses II. The shields of this, the greatest of the Pharaohs, are repeated six times in the inscriptions on the back.' Dr Lepsins concludes: 'It was, therefore, King Ramses Miamum [Sesostris] who built this town, and was worshipped there, as is shewn by this monument, and he it was who gave his name to the town. NOTE 3, p. 202.-With regard to the extension of the Red Sea towards the north, Lepsius says: 'I do not think it is necessary to believe in such a physical change; and the idea of it seems to me most completely set aside by the remains of an artificial canal more than four leagues in length, which runs from Suez towards the north, and which was pointed out by the French expedition, for no canal could be cut where there was sea; the utmost that was necessary, was to render the passage navigable when it was filled up with sand. But the opening of this canal must have had nearly the same results as those which may be derived from the belief in the extended sea. The wide basins of the Bitter Lakes were filled by the canal, as well as the adjoining lakes to the north, and the low district of Seba-Biar, which extends even to the ruins of Mukfâr..... On account of the natural and extensive shore of the lake, the notion of a sea-voyage was here imparted to the traveller; and, therefore, this part artificially drawn into the gulf might naturally be called the μUXOσтOU NOλTou, the innermost angle of the gulf.'-Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sinai, p. 436. See also last note in this Appendix. The theory of the ancient extension of the Red Sea towards the north, has found an able and ingenious advocate in Miss Corbaux. (See Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal for January and April 1848; the articles have also been published in a separate form.) Miss Corbaux not only maintains that the Red Sea extended 30 miles further north, but endeavours to prove the existence of a branch of the Nile further to the east than any of those mentioned in ancient history. This branch is represented as parting from the Pelusiac arm about ten miles below Heliopolis (which the authoress identifies with Raamses), and along its banks are placed Succoth and Etham, the first and second halting-places of the children of Israel. Heroöpolis (Hero or Hiroth) was also situated |