ought to teach us caution and patience; but ought not in the slightest degree to shake our confidence either in the facts of science or in the statements of revelation; or for a moment to lead us to imagine that there is any real contradiction between geology and revelation. Some of the theories alluded to in these articles, do not, so far as we can discern, directly contradict either geology or Scripture; and should, therefore, teach us that there is no irreconcileable discordance. We are far from affirming or believing that any one of these theories is the true solution of the difficulty; we merely assert that this much they demonstrate, that in the Mosaic narrative there need be no real discrepancy between the facts of science and the statements of revelation: and there is much sound sense in the remark of Dr Buckland, that "after all, it should be recollected that the question is not respecting the correctness of the Mosaic narrative, but of our interpretation of it."

We need be under no apprehension that true science shall ever be opposed to revelation. The Word of God is not contradicted, but illustrated and confirmed by his works. This has ever been the case in past ages; and this will ever be the case in the ages to come. Scripture does not shrink from the strictest scrutiny, nor is it at all afraid that any discovery of science shall either weaken its evidence or contradict its statements. In former ages, religious men were afraid that the discoveries of astronomy were at variance with scripture, and in our days similar fears have been occasioned by the discoveries of geology; the fears to which the astronomical discoveries gave rise have long ago subsided, and astronomy has proved herself the handmaid of revelation; and the same we believe will be the issue of those fears, occasioned by the geological discoveries; nay, we affirm, such ought already to have been their issue, had men but dismissed all unreasonable jealousy and prejudice, and sought after the truth with candour, humility, and patience.

We conclude this article, with the admirable words of Dr Pye Smith, well worthy of the attention of every biblical and scientific scholar. "It follows, as a universal truth, that the Bible, faithfully interpreted, erects no bar against the most free and extensive inves tigation, the most comprehensive and searching induction. Let but the investigation be sufficient, and the induction honest; let obser vation take its farthest flight; let experiment penetrate into all the recesses of nature; let the veil of ages be lifted up from all that has been hitherto unknown, if such a course were possible; religion need not fear, Christianity is secure, and true science will always pay homage to the Divine Creator and Sovereign' of whom, and through whom, and to whom, are all things; and to whom be glory for ever.

THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CANAANITISH NATIONS, BY THE COMMAND OF GOD.

THOUGH there are sufficiently clear indications that the Scriptures,

nature, and the human mind, are the workmanship of one and the same Being, yet between these, there often appear many startling contradictions. Nature in its operations conflicts with the Scriptures and the dictates of the moral sense, or rather of that law engraven on the tablet of man's heart, runs counter to the law engraven on the tablet of stone. Suspicions generated in the mind by the presentation of such anomalies, may be removed in a great measure, by reasoning from analogy. There are many things in the course of nature which appear to us contradictory and irreconcilable, but the truth and consistency of which we are constrained to acknowledge. From this fact, it may be inferred that though there are acts recorded in Scripture, and sanctioned by the Almighty, which cannot be reconciled with reason, that this circumstance does not in any measure invalidate their justice. Our misgivings may likewise be quieted when we revert to past experience. Difficulties which at one time perplexed our pur-blind understandings have evanished before the light of further knowledge and inquiry. The ways and works of God, in many instances regarded as mysterious, have been explained in accordance with reason. A confident hope is thus afforded in regard to existing difficulties that they may yet find a satisfactory solution. No topic presented in the Pentateuch has occasioned greater perplexity to the mind of the pious enquirer, than the command of God to exterminate the inhabitants of Canaan, nor formed a more favourite instrument in the hands of sceptics in their attempts to undermine the truth of Christianity. The Manichians employed it as an argument in proof of their assumption that the God of the Old Testament could not be the God of the New Testament. Deistical writers in England have inferred from it, that the God of the Scriptures could not be the true God, proceeding upon the principle that no act could be sanctioned by a Being of unerring wisdom contradictory to the teachings of that moral nature which he has implanted in our breasts, and writers of the rationalist school on the continent have adduced from it conclusions equally pernicious. In our humble attempts to investigate this subject, we shall discuss the different theories which have been proposed in explanation of the difficulties with which it is encompassed, that in the end we may arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. The first point which claims our consideration is the command itself, which is contained in the following passage from the 20th chapter of Deuteronomy:—

"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 beseige it: And when the Lord thy God hath delivered it unto thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee. Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the

cities of these 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 breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; 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."

Some have inferred from this passage that the Israelites were not enjoined to exterminate the Canaanites unconditionally, that on the contrary, God directed them to proclaim peace to every city whether near or remote (thus including the Canaanites), and only on the rejection of this offer were they to proceed to extremities. The only difference in their treatment of those nations afar off, and the Canaanites, they conceive to consist in this-that the former in case of resistance were to receive a mitigated punishment that the males only were to be destroyed by the edge of the sword, but that the latter in a like case of obstinacy were to be cut off without limitation or restriction. This interpretation is obviously irreconcilable with an impartial view of the narrative, for it is apparent at first sight that an offer of peace was only to be made to remote nations, and that the Canaanites were to be unconditionally extirpated. The passage in the 11th chapter of Joshua is appealed to in support of this view, where it is said in reference to the Canaanites, that "it pleased the Lord to harden their hearts that they should 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 God commanded Moses." Does not this imply, it is urged, that if the Canaanites had not appeared in arms against the Israelites, but submitted to their proposals, instead of being put to death they would have been spared in consistence with the Divine ordinance respecting their excision? This inference cannot be admitted, as it proceeds upon the supposition of an event the occurrence of which was impossible, for the Lord had so ordered, as appears from the passage in question, that the Canaanites would not yield obedience. "A condition," observes Hengstenberg, "the realizing of which is made impossible by him who appointed it, may be regarded as a nonentity." Again, it is advanced in support of this mitigated view, that David and Solomon never rooted out the Canaanites that remained, but employed them as bond-servants, and that they were never censured for so doing. Reference is here made to 1st Kings ix. 20-21. But it is inconceivable that the dealings of Israel towards these nations in the times of Solomon can have any connection with circumstances that occured in Joshua's time, when the state of things was quite different. The command for the excision of the Canaanites devolved exclusively upon the Israelites who entered Canaan, and whatever failure occurred in its execution, could not be remedied by any act of their successors. The posterity of the then existing Canaanites who escaped by flight the fate which awaited them, were not involved in the proscription, and that they should suffer the punishment merited by their progenitors alone, is an un

natural and unwarrantable supposition. Again, it is argued that a great, and perhaps the greatest proportion of the doomed people saved themselves by flight, but this fact proves nothing more than that the Israelites were not in a condition to carry into full effect the Divine command for their extirpation, a condition which might equally have existed, if the proffered terms of peace contended for had been rejected. While, therefore, the arguments in support of this interpretation are unsatisfactory, equally cogent and conclusive are the arguments against it. Supposing that terms of peace had been offered and accepted, the cause assigned for the excision of the Canaanites, viz., "that they teach you (i.e. the Israelites) not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods," would still exist, for submission on their part does not imply a renouncement of their idolatrous practices. Again, how can this interpretation be reconciled with what is recorded of the Gibeonites." We are informed that this tribe of Canaanites under the pretence of coming from a far country, which they supported by assuming the habiliments, &c., of travellers, obtained a league with the Israelites. If the Israelites were enjoined to offer terms of peace to all nations without exception, what occasion had the Gibeonites to employ such a subterfuge? It is said that this artifice was prompted by an erroneous apprehension which obtained among them, and that nothing more was required than their voluntary submission that their lives might be spared. But that this supposition is erroneous, is evident from verse 15th, where it is said by way of censure, that Joshua hastily granted them their lives, and that the princes swore unto them, and also from what is stated further on in the same chapter, that the people of the congregation murmured against the princes for so doing. But all doubt in regard to this interpretation is excluded when we appeal to the passages in Exodus xxiii. 32, 33, xxxiv. 12-16, Deut. vii. 1-5, &c., where the Israelites are expressly forbidden to make any league or covenant with the doomed nations. That they were impressed with this belief is evident from Joshua xi. 1-4, where they are severely censured by an angel of the Lord for their negligence in not executing the Divine command to its full extent. Upon these grounds we are constrained to reject as erroneous this mitigated view of the narrative, notwithstanding the support which it has received from many able writers, among whom are to be classed Grotius, Le Clerk, and in modern times Dr Findlay of Glasgow, who need not, we conceive, have travelled so far out of his way, for an argument to confute the silly scoffs of Voltaire.

Having thus endeavoured to dispose of the objections to the unconditional nature of the command, the next point which claims our consideration is its justice. Here many difficulties present themselves, and Christian writers in their zeal to vindicate the inspired page, have invented theories more plausible and ingenious than sound or pertinent. Some find an explanation by appealing to the sovereignty and power of God. The nations of the earth in his hands are as clay in the

Joshua ix. 3.

hands of the potter. What he created he has an absolute right to destroy. But this truth does not of itself meet the difficulty. Every act performed by God reflects his sovereign power, but the act itself, as also the method of its performance, must be shown to harmonise with the benevolence, justice, and other immutable attributes of the divine nature; otherwise the sceptic will still assert that the Bible is uninspired, and Christianity a fable.

Others regard it as an inexplicable enigma designed for a trial of man's faith. It does not become us, it is said, inquisitively to pry into the "hard things" in Scripture, but to receive them with implicit reverence and faith, as proceeding from a Being of unerring wisdom. But it must be remembered that such difficulties were also designed for the trial of our intellect, and that the rewards of faith come not with an indolent reception of the truth. Moreover, such an argument would have no weight with a sceptical inquirer, who has no faith to be tried. His objections must be met and refuted, and the ways of God vindicated. It may be impossible to explain every doctrine, yet when it is accompanied with sufficient evidence in its favour, we are as imperatively called upon to acknowledge its truth as if no difficulties existed.

A third solution has been proposed by assuming that Palestine was the rightful property of the Israelites, inasmuch as according to a tradition of a partition treaty entered into by the sons of Noah, this country was assigned to the descendants of Shem. They were therefore justified in expelling the Canaanites, who were its unlawful occupants. This view is maintained by Bryant in his " Authenticity of the Scriptures," but the insufficient historical evidence for the truth of the story-the amount of geographical knowledge which it presumes the sons of the patriarch to have acquired-the improbability of their imagining that any knowledge of such a treaty could have existed 2000 years after, to determine the territorial rights of their descendants living at that time, as the art of writing was then unknown, and other cogent objections stated by Michaelis sufficiently show its erroneousness. Equally untenable is the hypothesis, that irrespective of the Divine authority it was lawful to declare war against a nation enormously wicked, without provocation, since in disgracing human nature by its crimes, it insults humanity, as also that of Mr Oepke, who asserts that the Canaanites, by wrongs inflicted on the Israelites, had provoked them to war, and were themselves the aggressors.

The view advocated by Michaelis is as exceptionable as any of those already mentioned, but from the deference due to so high an authority, and more especially since it has been reproduced by Jahn in his Antiquities, it claims a more attentive consideration. It is thus briefly enunciated: "Palestine was from time immemorial a land of Hebrew shepherds, and the Israelites, who had never surrendered their rights, required it again from the Canaanites as unlawful possessors." The descendants of Eber, (thus Michaelis supports his assertion) by suc

Calmet's Dictionary, Vol. iv. p. 95.