I.

CHRIST'S RELIGION.

"PROVE ALL THINGS; HOLD FAST THAT WHICH IS GOOD." 1 Thess. v. 12.

THE DESTRUCTION OR EXPULSION OF THE
CANAANITIES

Is thus described by St. Paul,-" and when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan he divided their land to them by lot." -(Acts xiii. 19.) Next to the personal character of certain individuals. in Jewish history, no circumstance has obtained so much hostile notice from objectors, or so widely exercised the faith or doubt of believers, as the means of settling Israel in the land of Canaan.

We propose, therefore, to state the whole case, as it is recorded and implied in sacred history: the difficulty is in relation to God's moral government and providence, and, therefore, we only state half the case if we leave out this idea: since what is improper for men to do, or for any being apart from a certain just authority and reasonable motive, may be right for another with such authority and for such purposes.

It is necessary to include this idea, since they who bring this history to condemn the moral character of God as exhibited in the Old Testament, are apt, in stating the case, to overlook his government, and regard the whole as if done by a man, who has no peculiar authority.

We must not forget then, that God is regarded as a moral governor in this case; nor secondly, that the people so punished, are regarded as criminals or sinners; and thirdly, as punished for their sins. Now this, as a moral question, is very different to mere unauthorized general massacre, just as it is different for a magistrate, on legal evidence and by virtue of his office, to punish a criminal, to what it would be for the same evil to be done without any just cause, by one unauthorized: and, as the first element of consideration includes these three things, (without which the case is only misstated,) viz., his authority, the Canaanites' sin, and their punishment by the Israelites as the agents of his just authority; so, the case is misrepresented, unless we add, that the presumed author of this transaction, is the presumed ruler in Providence, and had certain other reasonable ends to answer, of general benefit to the world, still further to justify this interference of severity.

Introducing then these two elements, which some are apt to overlook, -that God is a moral governor, who in this way punished his rebellious subjects; that he is the presiding Providence, intending thereby some important advantages for mankind, advantages to be secured by this severR 3

VOL. II.

ity; it will appear, that the character in which he acted, the character of those whom he punished, and the further providential objects in view, fully justify this occurrence, whilst in itself, apart from these moral considerations, the case is not worse than what passes now into history without blame, as a political necessity, and useful for the progress of mankind.

And this view of the subject, we shall first notice, as trying the case on the principles of political expediency, looking at it simply as a natural occurrence, and supposing it to be done under the leadership of Moses, apart from Divine authority or direction; and by what principles shall we try it, by those that were acted upon by nations then; by those acted upon afterwards by the Greeks and Romans, who in their political rule regarded the world as their prey? Is there anything in the conduct of Israel under Moses, worse than that of Egyptians, Assyrians, Greeks, or Romans?

Was there not something better? namely, that he confined the ambition of his warrior bands within a reasonable territory, allowing the nations beyond to live in peace if they made no aggression? Whilst all others set no bounds to their domination, except their own inability. Shall the Jews be tried by the conduct of modern nations, the conquest of Mexico by the Spaniards; the encroachment of Europeans on the territory of the American Indians? or even by the international wars of Europe? or shall they be tried by the English conquest of India, or China? Or, will you apply to this case, rules and principles that have never been applied by any nation from the beginning of the world till

now?

It may be that objectors try the Jews by principles they disbelieve, namely, those of peace, deduced by many from the New Testament: then if so, they must first allow that THIS book is good; and, secondly, they cannot use it against the other, because it is intended to take the place of that other, and comes to remove all its imperfections; and, in this sense, we also may object to such conduct between nations, as we plainly learn the principles of mercy in the gospel: but we cannot allow men to shoot at the Old Testament, with weapons obtained from the New; this is being Christians and Infidels at the same time.

Let them then discover in the principles of reason and in the general notions and actual conduct of mankind something that clearly condemns the subjugation of Canaan by the Jews, looked at merely as an ordinary natural transaction. This would be rather a hard task, a Roman general would laugh at them, a French general would shrug his shoulders, an English one would stare in wonderment, a Russian one would use the Knout in reply it is only Christianity, that condemns bloodshed and usurpation, and the Bible does not approve of this transaction in any other light than as a Divine judgment on sinners. But as a natural occurrence, and from principles of reason, and international relations all over the world, none can say a word against it.

And when, besides this view from reason and the experience of mankind, in ordinary cases of subjugation, we proceed to regard it not merely as a national expediency but as a political necessity, reason is still more non-plussed to gainsay it. For where could these people go? were they to stop in Egypt as bondslaves for ever? Who would, if they could es

cape? and what nation would take them in, did not some even deny them a passage? Were they then to perish from the earth? They must do so, or fight for a place, and were thus politically necessitated to destroy, conquer, or push forward those races which came in their way.

It was a national struggle for existence, and in this view of it, which does not come in to justify other conquests, reason can say little against it, as a passage in history: whilst in the confining of their ambition, within the reasonable bounds of Palestine, and not seeking to become a dominant military people over various countries, they were equally and honourably distinguished from all powerful nations before their time, at their time, and ever since.

This is simply a view of the question, in the light of common sense, as a natural transaction, apart from any Divine interference; and if it approaches to a justification in this light, if it be more justifiable than any other aggressive war; if it be defensive also, a defence of national existence, there will be more difficulty to condemn it, when those moral considerations are introduced which were formerly mentioned.

If as a natural affair, it is what all nations would do, and better than the most refined have done, as a supernatural intervention it will be more completely justified.

Having thus briefly examined it, by the light of nature, as a natural transaction, we are prepared to TAKE THE SUPERNATURAL VIEW of it, as the one by which it ought to be tried; this being involved in the whole account and if as things go, men would justify men in such a case, who shall condemn God, when, as Moral Governor, he by this means punishes sin, by a signal judgment, and for providential purposes places another nation in the room of one, that had grown too corrupt to be endured?

God, as a Moral Governor, holds a natural responsibility over nations, as over individuals; it is only by truth and justice, that a nation can be highly prosperous, otherwise it is of no use to advocate truth and justice, and the downfall or depression of a nation, is a general calamity in which all are naturally involved, women and children, old and young; though only the real authors of the evil, will be morally responsible before the judgment seat of God.

Now it was the same in kind, so far as the general destruction of the Canaanites proceeded: it involved all ages and both sexes: and this must be remembered, as we look at this transaction,

First, in its relation to the Canaanites: the destruction of innocent children, considered as an act of God, by his agents, is no more in itself than death from ordinary causes, which in Bible language, and in reality, is by the hand of God: and such and no more would it be to those children, who fell in this general calamity. This, we say, is no more (as a part of God's dealings) than the loss of children who die daily, and which, however painful to parents and friends, is no calamity to the children; but an emigration to a better life, being born again to an existence beyond suffering and probation. On Christian ideas, the death of a child is its glorification, "for their angels (their departed spirits) do always behold the face of my Father in heaven," " nor is it the will of our Father, that any of these little ones should perish."

The most lamentable view of death, is the natural decease of a man in

full grown wisdom, on the supposition that he is extinguished; that all his faculties and hopes are buried: there may be a feeling of cruelty or sadness in this, but to chastened reason, the departure of a child for heaven is more a matter of rejoicing, than a young man's emigration under the brightest hopes.

We must, therefore, put out of view the destruction of children in this case, which is God taking their education out of the hands of their polluted and polluting parents; and then there remains nothing to be said on the question of cruelty, except such as applies to all wars; nor will the most refined modern notions, (except those of peace drawn from interpretations of the New Testament, which cannot be consistently urged by those who object to the Old,) the most refined natural notions, will not condemn the other parts of the transaction, the conquering of the Ca

naanites in war.

The death of children then, is, in such a view, no cruelty when regarded as done under his sanction, who in his Providence allows disease and various causes to carry them off.

Not only is the death of adults sanctioned by the principles of modern warfare, but considered as the action of God by his agents, is also to them no more than death by natural causes, or, what is the same thing, by the visitation of God: whilst the occasion is completely justified as a signal instance of his punishment of notorious offenders.

If, therefore, we examine this case, we must embrace the whole of it, those moral ideas which entered into it, and form a part of the history: we have already referred to the moral government of God, and we shall see from the history, that they were enormous offenders, and punished

for this.

The unnatural vices of the Canaanites were such as it is a shame to mention, and these vices were a custom, and associated with their idolatry: for such they were punished: "Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: and the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations; neither any of your own nation, nor any stranger that sojourneth among you: (for all these abominations have the men of the land done, which were before you, and the land is defiled;) that the land spue not you out also, when ye defile it, as it spued out the nations that were before you. For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among the people. Therefore shall ye keep my ordinance, that ye commit not any one of these abominable customs, which were committed before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am the Lord your God.”(Levit. xviii. 24-30.)

Such a nation surely was not fit to live; they breathed a moral pestilence, and the killing of their children was what they often did in sacrifice to Moloch: it was to put an end to this child murder, and strike terror into their idolatrous abominations that this people was destroyed. It was not merely out of preference to the Jews, but to correct this wickedness which threatened to infect the whole world: and the Jews were

equally threatened with the same calamity, if they committed the same

sins.

We might quote many instances to prove, that it was for the wickedness of this people that they were destroyed; nor are we without grounds for supposing, that many were driven to migrate, and would carry the lesson with them; for there are two descriptions of this calamity-the nations whom God destroyed, and whom he drove out from before Israel. This destruction of the Canaanites for sins, was equally justifiable with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, or of Pharoah and his host in the Red Sea; the one for unnatural crimes, the other for inexorable tyranny; nor should we be far from modern ideas, if respecting Pharoah we said, "may all tyrants thus signally perish!" The downfall of worthless nations, has been the ordinary course of Providence, till Christianity came, in the fulness of time, to renovate them and make them permanent; so have perished Babylon, Greece, and Rome; so will perish others, unless they become impregnated with better principles: or they will be absorbed by the superior power of others, and be lost before Anglo-Saxon Christians, as the Canaanites before the Jews.

In the relation of this to the Canaanites then we see a sufficient vindication of this destruction, in the moral government of God: nay, the very vices common amongst them are death by the laws of England, or were till but of late, whilst now they are justly punished with extreme severity: what then must be thought of a nation so degraded ?

The relation of this transaction to the Jews may also be considered: their subjugation of the Canaanites would no more give them the right to indiscriminate slaughter and uncommanded wars, than a hangman may kill those who are uncondemned, and not placed under his jurisdiction: or, than a soldier may kill in peace and in cold blood, because he is commanded to fight in open battle.

Nor does the Jewish history, as a whole, encourage bloodshed; for even the necessary wars of David prevented his building the temple, that it might be seen that the Jewish religion (though in some cases associated with wars, in the conquest and defence of Canaan,) did not set up a military chieftainship to perpetuate bloodshed, but rather aspired after a settled peace. "But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, Thou hast shed blood abundantly, and hast made great wars: THOU SHALT NOT

BUILD AN HOUSE UNTO MY NAME, BECAUSE THOU HAST SHED MUCH

BLOOD upon the earth in my sight. Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest;-I will give peace and quietness unto Israel in his days. He shall build an house for my name."-(1 Chron. xxii. 8-10.) Thus the warfare necessary in this case, and actual in the founding of most nations, was no characteristic of the Jewish religion, and was directly declared by the God of the Hebrews to be unfit for association with his permanent temple;—a man of peace must build the house to his

name.

Secondly, it trained the Jews to such an amount of military spirit and skill, as was requisite for the defence of their country, to maintain their political existence; which is no more than modern wars, and not so much as our standing armies.

Thirdly, it was a warning to the Jews also, they had executed venge