sion to the utterance of this prophecy. Consequently, men have been at a loss to understand, why his name should have been omitted in the denunciation of wrath which followed. And finding that his race, in all its branches, has ever been a low, despised, and barbarous people; they eagerly conclude that this kind of fulfilment proves the true extent of the original denunciation, and shows that Ham, and not Canaan merely, must have been the object of the curse.

And in like manner, beholding such a remarkable event, in subsequent times, as the dwelling of Jehovah among the children of men, first in a tent or tabernacle, and afterwards in human flesh, and in each instance among the children of Israel, the unquestioned descendants of Shem,--they naturally feel strongly inclined to see, in this fulfilment, the real nature of the prediction, and to decide therefrom, that it prophesies the history of the Israelites, the Levitical dispensation, and the incarnation of the Son of God.

But, however tempting these speculations may be, we feel strongly bound to the original translation, and cannot easily consent to use that freedom in setting it aside, which some are ready, without hesitation, to adopt.

One reason for the protrusion of Canaan in the foreground of the picture, in place of his father Ham, may easily be suggested. The

book of Genesis was doubtless written by Moses, and probably, during his sojourn in the wilderness, with the children of Israel. The people whom he was then leading against the Canaanites, were the people for whose use, more especially, he was forming these records. The prediction itself had doubtless been handed down to him through Isaac and Joseph. Joseph had died only about sixty years before the birth of Moses, and his descendants

were doubtless known to the Jewish lawgiver. Joseph had himself been many years cotemporary with Isaac, and Isaac had lived in the lifetime of Shem. The prediction was therefore conveyed to Moses through only three or four persons; but in recording it for the instruction of the children of Israel, it was very natural that Moses should make that point the most prominent which most immediately concerned his own people. Even, therefore, when he first introduces the persons concerned, and states that the " sons of Noah were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth," he instantly adds, "And Ham is the father of Canaan."

He then narrates the circumstance, again using the same phrase, and observing that "Ham, the father of Canaan, saw, &c." And in repeating the imprecation, he omits the father entirely, and makes it run thus," Cursed be Canaan; a servant, &c."

Now to the Israelites this was a most important matter. An ancient and special curse upon Canaan and his descendants, condemning them to be servants to the sons of Shem, was obviously the greatest possible encouragement that the children of Israel, then proceeding to invade the land of Canaan, could possibly receive. As far, then, as we allow the personal character and circumstances of the narrator to have any bearing upon his narration, these circumstances seem to account for the bringing forward, thus prominently, the name of Canaan in the foreground of the prediction.

Still, however, we cannot be content to treat that word which we must receive as the inspired word of God or as nothing, in the unceremonious way in which commentators propose, in this instance, to treat it. The text runs, "Cursed be Canaan," and we cannot be content to read it, "Cursed be Ham;" however plausible the

suggestion may be, of possible error or omission on the part of the transcriber. We must believe that God keeps his eye upon his own revelation, and preserves it from being thus interpolated, curtailed, or otherwise injured, by the carelessness of men. To the received and authorized reading, then, we turn with a declared predilection; willing to receive that, until we can be furnished with one both equally authentic, and at the same time more intelligible.

Adhering, then, to the ordinary text, we have now to consider what instruction is to be drawn from it.

We are first introduced to the patriarch Noah in these words "Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God."

We may hazard the conjecture that the expression, "perfect in his generations," has reference to the impious conjunctions of which the inspired historian had just before been speaking, when "the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and took them wives of all which they chose." We may venture a conjecture that it was in opposition to these impious marriages, that it was declared of Noah, that he "was perfect in his generations;" or, that neither in the case of his progenitors, nor in his own, was there that sinful intermingling to which the increase of the wickedness of the human race is so distinctly ascribed.

In the next place we are informed, that "Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.”

The first thing that strikes us here, is, the singular order in which these names are mentioned. We learn from Gen. x. 21. that Japheth was the elder of the three, and from Gen. ix. 24, that Ham was the younger, and yet we constantly find them enumerated as

matter, when we remember the stress laid throughout the writings of Moses on the first-born, the birthright, and the blessing. See especially, Gen. xlviii. 17-22. for this point. In fact, we are almost compelled, though reluctantly, by this circumstance to consider Japheth as being placed lower in degree than even the condemned Ham. Or, it may be, that Moses names Shem, in the first place, as the progenitor of the Lord's people, Israel;-Ham, the father of Canaan, next, as the head of those against whom Israel' was then marching, and leaves Japheth last, as representing a people almost unknown, the far-off isles of the Gentiles, whose mere existence was all that was then known to the Israelites, Egyptians, and people of Syria.

However, to recur to the actual history: About one hundred years before the flood, Noah became the father of three sons. Of these three, Japheth was the eldest. The name given him by his father,—and we must again observe that every recorded action of the patriarch has a distinct and a religious bearing, and that these names, like the name of Noah himself, conveyed a prophetic meaning,-the name, we repeat, given to this eldest son of Noah, signified Enlargement, or Extension. A name, which, at the time of the child's birth, when the habitable part of the earth was filled with inhabitants, could scarcely be understood to convey any intelligible meaning.

But a second son was born unto the patriarch; and to him the name of Shem was given. This word signifies, a Name, or Renown. Here, again, the latent meaning of the word would not be obvious; but it was left to the ages to come to observe both the prophecy contained in it, and its accomplishment.

The third son received the name of Ham, which, as it signifies merely hot, or brown, might either

be given with reference to the colour of the child, or might predict the tawny hue, or the torrid zone, to be possessed by his descendants.

We now approach the prophecy uttered by the patriarch, after Ham's transgression, and we shall observe, severally, how all its details have been minutely fulfilled.

First, of Canaan: it is said, "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren."

We have already said that we are loth to take so great a liberty with the text, as to erase the name of " Canaan," and to put that of "Ham," in its room. We prefer the supposition that Canaan was an assistant of his father in the offence, and that Ham was punished in him. In fact, we would suggest to those who are anxious to spread the curse over the whole of the children of Ham, and who see in the present condition of his race, a fulfilment of the prophecy, we would suggest to them this query :—whether at the present moment, and for centuries past, there has not been more of independence, and independent sovereignty, amongst the children of Ham, than among the descendants of Shem? We are of opinion that there has.

But on Canaan the curse was pronounced, and on him it fell. Not merely did it extend to the territory afterwards called by his name, but to all the kingdoms founded by his descendants, among which Tyre and Sidon, and it is often supposed, Carthage, were included. These were first subjected by the descendants of Shem, and in later ages, in strict adherence to the prediction, by the descendants of Japheth.

But now let us turn to the destinies of the patriarch's other sons. Shem received a designation at his birth, pointing him out as one possessing a Name, as one marked for Renown. The meaning of this

designation was explained in the after-prediction. His name, his Renown, was to consist in this, that the Lord should be his God. "Blessed be the Lord God of Shem!" and blessed be Shem, in having the Lord for his God.

This was partly brought to pass in the glory put upon Israel, descended from Shem, by the peculiar choice and presence of Jehovah among them. "The Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people; to make thee high above all nations which he hath made, in praise, and IN NAME, and in honour." Deut. xxvi. 19. "THY RENOWN went forth among the heathen for thy beauty, for it was perfect through my comeliness which I had put upon thee, saith the Lord God." Ezekiel xvi. 14. But, more especially, in the fulness of time it came to pass, that in the tents of Shem was raised up plant of Renown." Ezek. xxxiv. 29. even He, whose "Name was above every name. ." And thus through all the centuries since the flood, and to the present day, and through all the years which are yet in futurity, must this prediction remain in course of fulfilment, affixing to the race of Shem a Name, a Renown, and a Glory, which can never belong to the posterity of his brethren.

But in the last place, we must speak of the eldest born. Japheth preceded his brethren by birth, but the glory of his children arose in the latter times of the earth. They peopled the Isles of the Gentiles, and to the sacred writers they seem nearly unknown.

denotes covering or overspreading; and yet, what, in the ordinary view, could be the propriety of these names? The earth was, at that time, already peopled. It was "filled with violence." Why should one of the holy race, one of those called "the sons of God," give to his child such a name as Japheth?' How, but upon the supposition of a prophetic view, can this circumstance be accounted for? And how wonderful the specific nature of this view into the future. That Japheth, and not Shem, or Ham, that the first, and not the second, or third, should be marked out as the individual whose race was to be characterized by extension, and that one of his sons again should be singled out as the overspreader!

And then observe the wonderful fulfilment. Ham, it is true, retains, in some measure, his allotted portion. And to Shem remains a name and a renown which will never pass away. But Japheth has been enlarged of God, till the earth is filled and ruled by his progeny. Europe, Asia, and America, are alike peopled and governed by the descendants of Japheth, and even Africa is invaded on all her coasts, by the same race. And the tribes of Magog, whose name denotes to cover or overspread,' have above all the other families of the earth, been terrible in overrunning, ravaging, and subduing, from one end of the Asiatic continent to the other.

Magog, as is well known, was the progenitor of the Tartar race. And what people have ever shewn themselves so dreadful in overrunning, overspreading, and covering the face of the earth, as the Tartars? Originally settled in the wilds of central Asia, they have subdued and possessed, in turn, every kingdom on that vast continent; Asia, Persia, and China, have been for centuries ruled by their

Tartar conquerors. The Turks are of Tartar origin, and their conquests have reached even into Africa and Europe.

The tribes of Shem held formerly the fairest portion of Asia. But Japheth was to be enlarged, and to dwell in the tents of Shem. Most exactly has this prediction been fulfilled. Cast your eye over the whole continent formerly ruled over by the sons of Arphaxad, Ashur, and Aram, Shem's children, and you find that in every corner of their former dominion the sons of Japheth are now seated. What but the eye of Deity could foresee and foretell this result! What but the word of prophecy could forewarn us, that "God should enlarge Japheth, and that he should dwell in the tents of Shem!"

Thus far has this prophecy been wondrously accomplished:-something remaining behind, which, as it ranks among the "unfulfilled prophecies" of Scripture, must not on the present occasion

attention.

occupy our

Japheth was to "dwell in the tents of Shem:" an expression which hardly describes a permanent enslavement of the latter by the former; but rather an occupation which may not be continual. And we find in the thirty-eighth and thirty-ninth chapters of Ezekial, a prediction which no commentator has yet been able to explain, of a time when a part of the children of Shem, the descendants of Abraham, shall again inhabit their own land, and when the sons of Japheth shall be discomfited before them. We recommend our readers, before they quit the subject, to read over again these chapters, and to observe, that the distinction appears as apparent in "the latter days," the times which are still future, as it was four thousand years ago, that to Japheth pertaineth enlargement, or multitudes, while Shem enjoys the distinction that the Lord is his God.

MR. EDITOR-In the hope that some of your Correspondents may throw light upon a subject of no inconsiderable importance, and respecting which the parochial clergy are by no means agreed, I beg leave to submit the following query to their serious consideration.

Is it, or is it not, lawful and expedient for the minister, at the celebration of the Holy Communion, to deliver, first the bread, and afterwards the cup, to the communicant, WITHOUT REPEATING THE WORDS (which are to accompany such delivery) TO EACH

INDIVIDUAL?

In many churches, as well in town as country, it is now usual to repeat the words once only to a certain number, as for instance, to six, or more-in OTHER churches, to as many as the rails will accom modate at one and the same time. In few, it is believed, (where the number is considerable) are the words now addressed to EACH OF THE COMMUNICANTS SEPARATELY. The exhaustion (so far as the minister is concerned) which is consequent upon the latter mode of administration, and the inconvenient length to which the service is protracted, (to say nothing of the irreverent haste with which it is, almost necessarily, some times, hurried over) are thus obviated; whilst the slow and solemn pronunciation of the appointed words, on the delivery of the consecrated elements to as many as have approached the holy table, appears well calculated to promote the edification of all. I have not forgotten the effect produced on my own mind, in attending the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper some forty years ago, at Cambridge, in the Church of the Holy Trinity. I then saw, for the first time, the approach of its excellent and exemplary pastor from the

But

as

table to the rails, and heard him pronounce the words with his accustomed solemnity to a whole railful at once, then proceeding to deliver, in silence, first the bread, and then the cup, to each individual before him. No alteration whatever of the words is pleaded for. The substitution of the plural pronoun for the singular, is deemed unauthorized and improper. may not, it is inquired, the officiating minister be considered addressing himself with perfect propriety, to each communicant separately, whether many or few? The words spoken being addressed, and INTENDED to be addressed, no less to every one, than to all those who kneel around him. The Visitation queries, seem, indeed, to discountenance this mode of administering the Holy Sacrament, by requiring the Churchwardens to state whether their ministers address the words (when delivering the elements) to each communicant separately; whilst on the other hand, it may surely be considered as sanctioned by the example of our bishops themselves, in their Laying on of Hands' at the time of confirmation. The Churchwardens, however, it is believed, generally make no reply to the Visitation queries on this head; either, as not considering themselves bound to answer such interrogatories-or, as being satisfied that those ministers who contend for the more summary mode of administration, do literally comply with the direction given in the rubric, and consequently are, in no sense, presentable.

The serious discussion of this subject, and of others connected with it, in your valuable publication, will much oblige several of your readers, and one especially who, for very nearly a quarter of a century, has regarded it as one of