Page images
PDF
EPUB

*

carried on from the common motives of conquest, they were forbidden to make any prisoners, or take any spoil. Saul violated this part of the command, saving the king of the Amalekites, and permitting the people to take of the spoil, under the pretence of offering it to God: but Samuel exposes the shallow pretext, for he said, "Hath the Lord as great delight in "burnt-offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the "Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice; and to hearken, "than the fat of rams: for rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, "and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou "hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee "from being king." Thus the original sentence against the Amalekites, and still more its final execution, appears to have tended to impress powerfully upon the Jews, the necessity of obedience to the will, and awe for the majesty of Jehovah; and may therefore have formed a necessary link in the great series of the divine dispensations.

This is the light in which this transaction strikes me. Other writers have observed,+ and certainly with truth, that the apparent severity of this sentence is greatly diminished, when we consider that the Amalekites continued to manifest the most hostile disposition to the Hebrew nation, by attacking them whenever they had an opportunity, and joining their enemies upon all occasions to oppress and enslave them.‡ They joined the Canaanites and destroyed many of the people upon their first attempt to enter into Canaan; they,§ with the Moabites, went and smote Israel, dispossessed them of the city of Palmtrees, and helped to reduce them to an eighteen years servitude: they also joined with the Midianites to oppress them, and utterly impoverished the Jews by their rapines and plunders, || destroying the increase of the earth, and leaving no sustenance for man or beast; and afterwards in conjunction with the Midianitish army, attacked them in battle. Under Saul's reign, they continued their ravages and violence; and when he had re

* 1 Samuel, xii. ver. 22 & 23.

† Vide Patrick on Exod. xvii. 8. and Deut. xxv. 17; also Poli Synopsis, and Dodd; vide also Maimonides More Nevochim, Pars III. cap. xli. p. 466; Leland's Answer to Tindal, Vol. II. p. 36; Chandler's Life of David, Vol. 1. Book I. ch. iv.; and Lectures on the Old Testament, by Samuel Parker, sect. vii. p. 122. § Judges iii. 13 & 14.

Numbers xiv. 45.

|| Judges vi. 3.

66

pulsed them, he proceeded, in compliance with the divine sentence, utterly to extirpate them. Thus from the first step to the last, they appear to have pursued the chosen people of God with a deep and unwearied malignity, originally unprovoked, and never to be satisfied, so that, humanly speaking, they drew their own fate upon themselves. Their conduct being foretold, and their final punishment being authorized by God, can scarcely be matter of surprise, when we consider the peculiar relation in which Jehovah stood to the Jews, as their tutelary God, and even their natural Sovereign: and Dr. Chandler well remarks concerning this order of God, "If he foresaw that the "safety of his people materially depended upon it, the order was wisely and justly given; and if they were ripe for that 66 vengeance, with which they had been threatened above four "hundred years before, and which had been so long mercifully "delayed by the patience of Almighty God, I presume it was no "injustice in him, who best knows the proper seasons of his "own conduct, and is the best judge of the means and instru"ments to execute his own purposes, to put the sword of justice "into Saul's hand, and command him to cut off those whom he thought fit to make examples of, for the numerous vices, op"pressions and cruelties, of which he knew them to be guilty. "Samuel terms them, those sinners the Amalekites, to denote, "that even at that time they were a very wicked people: that "they themselves were ripe for the judgments of the Almighty, "and that they were punished for their own sins, though "mention is made of the evil conduct of their ancestors; and it "had been long predicted that Amalek should be destroyed."

66

The observations here adduced, with regard to the treatment both of the Canaanites and Amalekites, may, it is hoped, diminish somewhat that appearance of contrariety to the benignity of the divine attributes, which at first sight they bear; and tend to develope the connexion of these transactions with the entire scheme of that dispensation, of which they form a part. But the true refutation of the objection derived from these events, is undoubtedly founded on that principle stated in pp. 26 & 27, and defended by Butler and Cumberland in the annexed note. Even the absolute dominion of the Supreme God over the lives and properties of all human beings, and his power to transfer that dominion to whomsoever his infinite wisdom

shall judge meet, by a clear promulgation of his sovereign will; rendering actions performed in obedience to that will, not only innocent, but instances of obedience and piety; which without such an authority, must have originated from unjustifiable motives, and therefore have been deservedly condemned as criminal. To expect that the supreme Governor of the world should, in every instance, disclose to beings such as we are, not only that a particular mode of conduct is certainly commanded, but also all the reasons why it is commanded, is surely most irrational and presumptuous; though, wherever he has thought fit to communicate the reasons of his dispensations, we are bound to trace them with caution, to contemplate them with humility, and to acquiesce in them with gratitude.

It is further objected, that the destruction of the Canaanites by the sword of the Jews, would afford precedent for continued persecution and butchery, under the pretext of religious zeal; and encourage the Jews to invade, pillage, and exterminate all their weaker neighbours, under the pretence of supporting the dignity, and extending the worship of Jehovah. In answer to this, let it be remembered, that the same divine authority which granted the chosen nation the land of Canaan, fixed limits to their conquest, positively restrained them, as well during their approach to the promised land, as after their settlement in it, from attacking the neighbouring nations. The circumstance of the inhabitants being idolaters did not justify them in invading any country; they were allowed only to take possession of such territories as Jehovah expressly assigned to them. Thus, in their march towards the promised land, they were strictly commanded to take good heed to themselves with respect to the children of Esau: "Meddle not with them," saith the Lord, "for I will not give you of their land, no, not so much as a foot "breadth; because I have given Mount Seir unto Esau for a "possession."* With equal strictness were they prohibited from dispossessing the children of Moab and the children of Ammon; yet these three nations were involved in gross idolatry. Indeed the whole constitution of the Jews, religious and political, was admirably calculated to check all spirit of invasion and conquest, though it prepared them effectually for self-defence. The whole

* Deut. ii. 5, & 19.

nation was so busied in agriculture, as to have neither time nor inclination for war; prohibited from multiplying horses, and obliged to assemble three times a year at the place which the Lord should choose, distant conquests and tedious wars were utterly impossible: so that there was no danger the Jews should conceive they had the smallest right to inflict on other nations punishments for idolatry, similar to those which they were made the instruments of inflicting on the Canaanites; and the entire tenor of their history proves that such an idea never entered their thoughts. This objection therefore is refuted by the direct letter of the Mosaic Law, and the whole history of the Jewish dispensation.

*

Still it may be suspected, that to employ the chosen people of God to be the instruments of divine vengeance on a whole nation, however atrocious their guilt, had a tendency to train the people thus employed to deeds of blood, to harden their hearts, and deprave their character. It may be admitted, this objection would have considerable weight, if no care had been taken to guard against this effect: but nothing is more conspicuous than the wise and effectual precautions of the Jewish Lawgiver for this purpose. It has been shewn, that the tenor of the command given to punish the Canaanites, taught the Jews to regard with abhorrence, not so much the persons of idolaters, as the crime of idolatry; while every thing connected with such false worship, animate and inanimate alike, was devoted to destruction. It has been shewn that the thirst of plunder, and the indulgence of licentious desires, were completely checked and defeated in the Jewish soldiery, by the very conditions on which alone they were enabled to subdue the condemned nations; and that the feelings of national hostility, and personal animosity, were controuled and mitigated, by solemnly enjoining the exercise of as great severity in punishing idolatry among the Jews themselves, as they were compelled to exercise against the condemned nations of Canaan; and it is evident from the event, that it was with reluctance, and only by compulsion, they exercised these severities, because, as soon as the impulse of divine control was withdrawn, they ceased to exercise any such severity; and, on the contrary, treated with culpable lenity, and regarded with a

* Vide supra.

dangerous complacency, the remnants of these impious nations, whose total extermination they had been warned was necessary to guard against the contagion of their vices and idolatries. It has also appeared,* from an examination into the established principles and direct precepts of the Jewish Law, that it was calculated to inspire a spirit of universal and active benevolence even to enemies, as far as the peculiar situation of the chosen people would allow; and that it tended to soften and humanize the soul, by cherishing sentiments of sympathy and tenderness, even to the brute creation.

The laws of war of the Jews towards all nations (the Canaanites and Amalekites excepted) were, for that period of the world, peculiarly humane. No enemy was to be attacked till peace had been offered: on conquest, only the males who had borne arms, were permitted to be put to death, and even of these they might make prisoners: women and children were protected: female captives were guarded from abuse and treated with tenderness and respect; all unnecessary waste and havoe were strictly forbidden. Strangers and slaves were objects of peculiar attention in the Mosaic Law, and their interests and rights guarded with the most tender humanity. "Thou shalt "not oppress a stranger," says the Law, "for ye know the "heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt. Ye shall not afflict any widow, or fatherless child. "If thou afflict them in any wise, and they cry at all unto me,

66

Vide Vol. I. Part II. Lect. II. III. IV.

+ Concerning these laws of war, consult Josephus's Antiq. Book IV. sect. xlii. and contra Apion, Book II. sect. xxx. In concurrence with the most respectable rabbies, and the general tradition of the Jews, he interprets Deut. xx. 13, only to imply a permission, not a command, "Thou mayest kill (not thou shalt kill) the "males, that is, the adult males;" or as Josephus interprets it, "those who had borne arms against them," which at that time included all the adult males. Compare 2 Kings, vi. 22, which, however interpreted, shews an instance of mercy to prisoners by express divine authority. Selden, de Jure Gentium apud Hebræos, Lib. VI. cap. xvi. Vol. I. p. 673, quotes various authorities to shew the Jews were authorized to spare all prisoners who would become proselytes (even of the seven nations,) as there would then be no danger of learning abominations from them; Deut. xx. 18; and he proves it was an ancient tradition among the Jews, that in besieging a city, an interval was to be left, to give the besieged an opportunity of escaping. For the treatment of female captives, consult Philo de Charitate, p. 547. And on the Laws of War, vide Jews Letters to Voltaire, Vol. II. Letter III.; and Leland's Answer to Morgan, ch. iv.

« PreviousContinue »