of consecration, and distinguished by a peculiar and splendid dress.* This honour, continues Lowman, which ought to distinguish Jehovah as above all gods, in the perfections of his nature and supreme authority, is further well expressed by the whole ceremonial of the sacrificial rites: whether we consider the things that were to be offered, or the persons who were to offer them, the several kinds of sacrifices, whole burnt-offerings, peace-offerings, sin and trespass-offerings, which were to honour God as the supreme governor of the world, as forgiving iniquities, transgressions, and sins, as the author of all blessings, spiritual and temporal. These are plainly designed to give unto Jehovah, as their God, the glory due unto his name. Thus all the ritual holiness is manifestly designed for the same end, that they might be an holy people, as their God was an holy God.”+ Hence the Ritual distinctions of unclean foods and of several pollutions, as well as the ritual purifications after legal uncleanness, expressed a due honour to the presence of Jehovah; constantly representing how fit, how becoming it was, for those who were honoured with the nearest approach to this presence, to keep themselves pure, purged from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, that they might honourably serve so pure and so holy a God.

66

I will close my remarks on this subject, by removing a very ill-grounded prejudice, too frequently entertained, against the Jewish Ritual as a system intolerably burthensome. I observe, with Lowman, that it is the ritual of a national, and not a personal worship. The whole worship of the Hebrew church, in their sacrifices and festivals, was fixed to the one temple and one altar, at the place where Jehovah dwelt; and it was absolutely forbid upon any pretence to offer any sacrifice on any occasion, but before the Divine Presence or the Shechinah. It was not, then, directed as personal, or as a family worship, or as more public in their towns or cities, throughout their whole land. So great reason there is, to distinguish between their synagogue and their temple worship. As to the general form of devotion, it seems to have been provided for by dispersing the Levites through every part of the Hebrew territory, in order to "teach * Vide Lowman on the Hebrew Worship, p. 253.

Vide Levit. xi. 44 and 45; and many other passages.
Lowman on the Hebrew Worship, p. 203.

66

Jacob the judgments, and Israel the law of their God:"* by setting apart the sabbath for a day of holy rest, when they might receive public instruction, and meet for the purposes of public prayer; and when both in public and in private they would have leisure to fulfil the strict injunction of their God, not only to keep his laws in their heart, but" thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou "sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and "when thou liest down, and when thou risest up." But the particular mode of doing this, the methods of diffusing religious knowledge, as well as for prayers and praises in their synagogues, seem to have been left to the ancient customs of the patriarchal religion, and to be directed by the common rules of reason and discretion. For the Ritual gave no other directions about them, than those general ones above stated; and we know that the mode of worship adopted in the Jewish synagogues, subsequent to the captivity, differed but little from the present worship of Christian assemblies, for it consisted of three parts, reading the Scriptures, prayers, and preaching. But the ritual of the temple worship was only to be used personally, when the Jews were to appear before the presence of Jehovah. In this view, all objections against the Jewish Ritual as personally burthensome, tedious, or expensive, evidently appear to be wholly founded in ignorance and error. While as a system of national worship, it was most wisely adapted to the great designs of the Jewish economy, even to preserve the Law, and the worship of the great Jehovah, in the Jewish race, and to prepare the way for the promised MESSIAH, in whom all the nations of the earth. were to be blessed.

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 between 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 and 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 is 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 thou 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 "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 breatheth; "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. from 10 to 18. N

VOL. II.

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

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 or 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 which 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.

* Joshua, xi. 18, 20.