Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

PART III.

A REVIEW OF THE CHIEF EFFECTS OF JUDAISM, AS
CONNECTED WITH, AND PREPARATORY

TO CHRISTIANITY.

In examining which, many of the principal Objections which have been advanced against the divine original of the Mosaic Law are considered.

LECTURE I.

SECT. I.-The Objection arising from the treatment of the Canaanites considered, so far as relates to the Canaanites themselves. Objection includes two questions-Doubt as to the extent of the severity exercised against the Canaanites—This severity justified by their crimes-Their idolatry not an error of judgment alone—Cruelties and pollutions it produced-Necessity of expelling them from the land in which the Jews were to settle Their guilt incorrigible. The objection proved to lead to Atheism. Analogy etween the general course of providence, and the treatment of the Canaanites—In the sufferings of the innocent-Connection of this measure with the entire scheme of the divine economy. Review of the considerations offered on the first part of the objection. SECT. II.-Second part of the objection which relates to the Jews. A clear divine command changes the moral character of the action. Jews mere instruments in the hands of God-Series of facts proving this. Jews not actuated by the common passions of conquerors-Avarice ana licentiousness checked by the situation in which they were placed-And sanguinary passions—Abhorrence of idolatry impressed upon them, but not a spirit of personal or national hostility-Proved by their conduct to the Canaanites. Necessity of employing the Jews as instruments of this severity-To alienate the two nations to overturn the grand support of idolatry—to impress a salutary terror on the Jews themselves—to supersede the necessity of a continued series of miracles. Treatment of the Amalekites Nature of their crime-Connection of their punishment with the general scheme of the Jewish dispensation. General answer to all objections of this kind-This dispensation did not encourage a spirit of general persecution or conquest Care taken it should not harden the hearts of the Jews-General laws of war among the Jews merciful- Great care to encourage a spirit of humanity. Conclusion.

DEUTERONOMY, xx. 16, 18.

Of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou "shalt save nothing alive that breatheth; that they teach you not to do after their abominations "which they have done unto their gods, so should ye sin against the Lord your God."

IN reviewing the effects of Judaism, our attention is, in the first instance, necessarily directed to the consequences attending the first settlement of the nation in the country assigned them

by God for their inheritance: a substance of the utmost importance, because this command to exercise such extreme severity against the nations of Canaan, whose land the Jews were to possess, has been always considered as the strongest objection to the divine original of the Mosaic Law; and therefore demands a candid and full discussion. For this purpose it seems necessary to inquire, whether this transaction can be reconciled with just ideas of the attributes and providence of God, so far as it affected the Canaanites; or, in other words, whether the severe punishment inflicted on these nations, was justified by their crimes; and whether it is credible, that their destruction and the settlement of the Jews in their room, should form a part of the divine economy. The next question that arises seems to be, whether the mode in which this punishment was inflicted, and this settlement of the chosen people of God secured, is reconcileable with just ideas of divine wisdom and mercy, so far as it regards the Jews; or, in other words, whether it is credible God should directly command the extirpation of the Canaanites by the sword of the Jews, rather than effect it by any other means. These two inquiries seem to include every question which can arise on this important subject.

Let us then first examine, how far the severe punishment * inflicted on the nations of Canaan was justified by their crimes;

Before my reader proceeds in this inquiry, it 3 expedient to remark, that considerable doubt exists as to the real purport and meaning of the commands delivered by the Jewish Lawgiver on this subject, and the true extent of the severity ordered to be exercised against the Canaanites. The whole passage runs thus: "When "thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And "it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be "that all the people that is found therein, shall be tributaries unto thee, and they "shall serve thee. And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: and when the Lord thy God hath deliv"ered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the "sword. But the women and little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thor shalt eat the 'spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God shall give thee. Thus shalt "thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the '6 cities of those nations. But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God 'doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheťa but thou shalt utterly destroy them, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee: that they teach you not to do after their abominations, which they have done unto their gods, so should ye sin against the Lord your God." On this passage there are † Deut. xx. froin 10 to 18.

N

and whether it is credible, that the settlement of the Jews in their room, should form a part of the divine economy.

[ocr errors]

What then were the crimes, which, it is asserted in the

two opinions: one, that the injunction, "When thou comest nigh unto the city, to 'fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it," extends only to the cities of the nations afar off, but does not apply to the cities of the seven nations; who, according to the opinion of these commentators, were to be utterly destroyed without any offer of peace. The other, that this injunction applies to every city alike, which the Israelites approached against, even of the seven nations; and that the difference of treatment was not to take place until after this proffer of peace was rejected, and the city in consequence subdued; when, if it were a remote city, they were permitted only to put to death those who bore arms against them, who, at that period, were all the adult males; but that if it were a city of the seven nations, all its inhabitants should be utterly destroyed; lest if permitted to remain, they should infect the chosen people of God with the contagion of that obstinate idolatry, to renounce which was always one of the conditions of that peace which they had presumptuously rejected. On this last supposition, the Israelites were to offer peace to the Canaanites and spare their lives, on condition of their emigrating for ever from their country, or renouncing idolatry, adopting the principles of the patriarchal religion, contained in the precepts of Noah, resigning their territory, dissolving their national union, and submitting to become slaves. For it is evident that they could not tolerate idolatry, nor enter into any equal leagues with the idols, who were worshipped as the guardian gods of the adverse party, must be supposed to witness and sanction; nor leave in the possession of their cities and lands those nations, whose country the great Jehovah had assigned to them as their peculiar inheritance, to be entirely divided among their several tribes. But that if the nations of Canaan had renounced idolatry, and submitted to slavery or emigration they might have been saved from extermination, is strongly confirmed by that passage of the sacred history, which after relating the war carried on by Joshua against the confederated kings of these nations, and stating that "all the cities of those kings, "and the kings of them, did Joshua take, and smote them, with the edge of the sword, "and utterly destroyed them, as Moses, the servant of the Lord commanded;" adds this remarkable observation; "Joshua made war a long time with all these kings: there "WAS NOT A CITY THAT MADE PEACE WITH THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, save the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon: all other they took in battle. For it was of the "Lord to harden their hearts, that they might come against Israel in battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favour, but that he might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses." This passage evidently implies, that it was in the power of these nations, by accepting peace, to escape extermination; but that they were permitted to harden their hearts against all the wonders of divine Providence, in behalf of the Jews, and by this obstinacy exposed to suffer the full weight of that punishment which their crimes deserved, and which God had denounced against them. All who are conversant in the language of the Old Testament know, that it speaks of every event which God permits, as proceeding directly from him; and describes him as hardening the hearts of those who abuse the divine dispensations, to harden their own hearts in guilt; though these dispensations display a plain natural tendency to soften and reform them.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Joshua, xi. 18, 20.

Mosaic History, drew down upon the nations of Canaan that punishment which the Jews were commanded, nay, compelled by God to execute? In the first place, a total apostasy from the worship of the true God; substituting in his room the sun

If this interpretation of the various commands, relating to the conduct of the Israelites towards the nations of Canaan, be admitted, the true state of the question will be, whether it appears consistent with the divine attributes to dispossess of their country a nation sunk in idolatry and vice, in order to place in it another people, selected to preserve a knowledge of the true God, and the principles of moral virtue? And if the guilty nation refused to renounce idolatry, or to submit to the settlement of this chosen people, whether it was inconsistent with the divine mercy to authorize the affliction of the severest punishment, even to extermination?

If, on the other side, we adopt the rigorous interpretation of the passage before us, and suppose the total extermination of the nations of Canaan commanded, without offering them any previous choice of renouncing idolatry, and submitting to the settlement of the Jews, it will remain to inquire, Whether we can reconcile with the divine attributes, this infliction of the severest punishment, in consequence of the long continued and incorrigible impiety and profligacy of this idolatrous race, without affording them at that time any farther probation, any immediate offer of pardon and mercy? I am indeed myself persuaded, that this was not the real state of the case. But the commentators who maintain a contrary opinion are so numerous, that I should not think it right to rest the defence of the Jewish Law on the former interpretation, which I adopt, though this is supported by still stronger authorities.

The chief objection to this interpretation appears to arise from the Gibeonites having judged it necessary, in order to obtain mercy, to pretend that they came from a far country; which seems to imply, that had they been known to have formed a part of the seven nations, they could not have obtained it. But to this it is answered by Maimonides, that the Gibeonites had, in common with the other Canaanites, refused the first offers of peace, and were therefore exposed to the same fate with them; but that afterwards, terrified by the miraculous destruction of Jericho, and the fate of Ai, they determined to sue for mercy, and had recourse to the artifice related, lest their former rejection of peace should be objected to them. Vide Maimonides, Halack Melakim, cap. vi.; also Cunæus de Republica Hebræorum, Lib. ii. cap. xx. Another reason why the Gibeonites had recourse to this artifice appears to have been, that they might form an equal league with the Jews, which was not permitted to any of the seven nations. This is the opinion of Masius, vide Poli Synopsis in locum. The error of the princes of the Jews, in granting the requests of the Gibeonites, appears to have been, in not consulting the oracle, and thus being led to form an equal league with this part of the seven nations, without insisting on the possession of their territory; but the Gibeonites had certainly therefore must have renounced idolatry. Belli et Pacis, Lib. II. cap. xiii. sect. iv.

acknowledged the authority of Jehovah, and Vide in confirmation of this, Grotius de Jure

In confirmation of the milder interpretation which I prefer, Selden de Jure Naturali Juxta Hebræos, Lib. VI. cap. xii. Vol. I. p. 665, remarks, that in the old com

Joshua, ix. 9.

and moon, and host of heaven, as well as the fire and air, and the other elements of nature, in process of time deifying their ancestors; and finally, worshipping stocks, and stones, and creeping things-idols the most absurd and abominable. But their

[ocr errors]

mentaries of the Jews it is related, that Joshua, before he invaded any of the seven nations, accompanied his declaration of war with a threefold proclamation, which he quotes from the rabbi Samuel Ben Nachman, who says, "Joshua sent three letters to the land of the Canaanites, before the Israelites invaded it, or rather proposed three 'things: Let those who choose to fly, fly; let those who choose peace, enter into "treaty; let those who choose war, take up arms. In consequence of this, the Gir"gashites, believing the power of God fled away, retreating into Africa; the Gibeo"nites entered into a league, and thus continued inhabitants of the land of Israel; the "one-and-thirty kings made war and fell." Selden remarks, "That what is here re"lated of the flight into Africa, wonderfully agrees with the history in the Talmud, "according to which, the Africans applied to Alexander the Great, and laid claim to "this part of the land of Israel, as their paternal territory, on this very pretence; and "also agrees with that ancient manuscript in Mauritania Tingitana, preserved by Pro"copius, which declares, that the ancient inhabitants had fled thither from the face of "Joshua the son of Nun. But this emigration of the Girgashites may not have been "universal, as their name occurs in the list of the nations who fought against Israel, "Joshua xxiv. 11." Yet as it occurs only this once, while the other six nations are constantly enumerated as carrying on the war, this mention of them seems a recapitulation of the nations whose land God delivered into the hands of the Jews, according to his promise, Deut. vii. 1, and Joshua iii. 10, rather than a positive assertion of their having been perseveringly engaged in the war. If they fled at its very commencement, this accounts for having been mentioned exactly as they are, before the invasion under Joshua began, in the divine promise that the seven nations should be cast out, and in this recapitulation, but no where in the distinct history of the war; a coincidence which strongly confirms the tradition of their flight, and of the cause to which is is imputed, the warning given them by the proclamation of Joshua mentioned above. If the reader wishes to see the arguments for the milder interpretation stated mo☛> at large, he will find them in Maimonides, Cunæus, Selden, and Poli Synopsis, quoted in this note; the Universal History, Vol. I. p. 531, note p; Grotius de Jure Belli et Pacis, Lib. II. cap. xii. sect. ii. and iii.; Bibliotheca Biblica on Deut. xx. 10, 15 and 16; Patrick on the same texts, and Joshua xi. 18; also Calmet on the same texts, who states fully the reasons for both interpretations, but appears to lean to the rigorous one, as does Leydeker de Republica Hebræorum, p. 257 and 259; Le Clerc also, in his notes on Deut. xx. 10, &c. adopts the more rigorous interpretation: yet in a note on Joshua xi. 18, he admits, "That if any city of the seven nations had "wished for peace, they might have had it, according to Deut. xx." Dr. Gill agrees with Le Clerc. Vide also Dodd's Commentary on the above passages, particularly his Reflections on the destruction of the seven Nations of Canaan, annexed to the twentieth chapter of Deuteronomy, with a citation from which I shall conclude this already too long note: "Since therefore, as has been remarked, neither David with "all his power, nor Solomon, did destroy this people, since they subsisted in the country from the days of Moses for upwards of four hundred and fourscore years; "since they were so far subdued as to become tributaries of service as well as of

[ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »