&c. or 3803. Ant. Chris. 1451, &c or 1603. A. M. 2553, did not incur the sin of wilful lying, is a question not so very easy to be resolved. Men, as they are members of a civil society, have certainly a right to truth, and the very design of speech is to be the conveyance of our real sentiments to one another; but some casuists are of opinion, that circumstances may so happen, as to make it both lawful and necessary, not only to disguise the truth, but to impose upon others by a false information. Suppose a madman, for instance, with a drawn sword in his hand, should pursue a friend of mine with a full intent to kill him; and my friend, by the benefit of some short turning, gives him the drop, so that, having lost sight of him, he comes and demands of me which way he took; but I, instead of setting him right, point the assasin another way : In this case, I presume, I commit no crime, because the man in these circumstances has forfeited all right to truth, nor could I indeed impart it to him without making myself instrumental to my friend's murder. This, in a great measure, was Rahab's case. Her design was to save the spies from the hands of those that were sent to apprehend them, but in vain had she formed such a design, unless she was resolved to put it in execution; and yet, what other way had she of executing it but by telling a lie? It had been to no purpose for her to have hid them on the roof of her house, if, for the sake of truth, she had thought herself obliged to discover the place of their concealment; if her silence had given any umbrage of suspicion to their pursuers; if she had not, in short, by a bold assertion, diverted their enquiry some other way. In this case the design and the means of executing it were inseparable. And yet, since a design, which could no ways be executed without the help of a lie, is both praised and proposed in Scripture as a pattern for the church to imitate, what right have we to condemn it? Or, upon what presumption can we imagine, that Rahab would have acted more agreeably to the mind of God, in discovering the spies out of respect to truth, than she did in preserving them by virtue of a feigned story * ? But there is another way of accounting for Rahab's conduct, and that is this-(a) The author of the epistle to the Hebrews informs us, that (b)" by faith she perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace;" where the Greek words are not Tois ariarous, with the unbelievers, but Tors drebinaat, with the disobedient, or those that were not persuaded of the truth of what was told them. But how the inhabitants of Jericho can be said to be unconvinced or disobedient, if God had revealed nothing to them, or required nothing of them, we cannot conceive. Some information must have been given both to them and Rahab, otherwise they could not be condemned for disobedience, nor she commended for her faith, i. e. for believing and acting according to the will of God made known unto her. Upon the supposition, then, that the design of God towards the inhabitants of Canaan was some way or other revealed to the king and people of Jericho, and both he and they had been sufficiently warned to save themselves from the destruction that was coming upon them, if they would not obey, but if Rahab did, and acted conformably to the information that was given her, her whole behaviour will not only stand clear of every criminal imputation, but be highly commendable, and justly deserve a rank among those illustrious patterns which the apostle proposes to our imitation, as being a person justified, not only by her faith, (c) but her works likewise, "when she received the messengers, and sent them out another way." The declaration which their kind protectress makes to them, (d) "I know that the Lord hath given you the land, and that your terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint because of you, for the Lord your God he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath," bespeaks the full persuasion of her mind; and therefore, [All that our author has hitherto said in vindication of Rahab is nothing to the purpose. His supposed madman would have no right to the truth, which the magistrates of Jericho unquestionably had. Their right however might be set aside by a higher autho rity, as he shews it to have probably been ; and there- (a) Shuckford's Connection, vol. iii. lib. xii. (d) Josh. ii. 9, 11. not doubting but that the Ruler of the universe had an uncontrollable right to dispose From Josh. i. of all kingdoms and countries according to his good pleasure, she judged it reasonable to the end. "to obey God rather than man," and thereupon endeavoured, as much as in her lay, to deliver up the land to the true owners, to those whom God by his donation had made its rightful proprietors. An order from heaven most certainly releases the subject from his allegiance to his prince, and the citizen from the engagement he lies under to those that are of the same society and therefore Rahab, having such an order (or at least what was equivalent to it), was at full liberty to espouse what party she pleased, and must have been perfidious to God, and forgetful of her own preservation, if she had acted otherwise than she did. For (a) even setting aside her faith * (for which she is so justly commended in the gospel), if she had heard of the destruction of Pharaoh in Egypt, and of the other two kings on the east side of Jordan, the king of Jericho can hardly be supposed to be ignorant of their fate: And therefore it was as natural for her to be terrified at it, and to provide for her safety, as it was for him to make a brave resistance or perish in the attempt. If therefore what the Scripture seems to intimate be true, viz. that Joshua was obliged to offer peace before he made use of the sword against any of the Canaanitish nations, it was as lawful for her, or any other subject, to accept this peace, as it was glorious perhaps for a monarch to refuse it. At least we cannot but think, that the refusal of such advantageous terms from an irresistible conqueror, at the risk of being all infallibly massacred by him. for the sake of a king, who (for ought that appears to the contrary) might be a petty tyrant, or for the sake of a people whom fear had rendered incapable of making any tolerable resistance; when perhaps the difference of being under the natural monarch (if he was really such) or the conqueror was inconsiderable, or (it may be) on the side of the latter;-we cannot but think, I say, that such a refusal would have been an instance of patriotism not to be expected from a Canaanite, and much less from such a young hostess as Rahab must have been, since we read of her being the mother of Boaz above thirty years after this. So that, upon the whole, she acted a part that might naturally be expected from her, no ways inglorious in itself, and highly agreeable to the will of God, when she adjoined herself to those who, by his Almighty arm, were so visibly supported, and abandoned the interest of those who, upon so many accounts, were very justly devoted to destruction. 66 66 What the Spirit says unto the church at Thyatira, (b) "I gave her space to repent of her fornication, but she repented not; behold I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, and I will kill her children with death, and give unto every one according to his works," is very applicable to the several nations in the land of Canaan. Four hundred years were to intervene between the commencement of the promise to Abraham and this completion of it; and the reason which God gives for this long delay is, that (c) " the iniquity of the Amorites (and by the Amorites he means all the other nations of Canaan) was not yet full :" "And (d) even though (as the author of the book of Wisdom argues) he could have destroyed them all with one rough word, yet, executing his judgments by little and little, he gave them place of repentance, not being ignorant that they were an haughty generation, and that their malice was bred in them, and their cogitation would never be changed." For instead of reforming, the only effect which this delay had was to make them more confirmed in wickedness, and because (e) "this sentence against their evil works was not speedily executed, therefore were their hearts the fuller set in them to do evil.” What the nature and heinousness of their iniquities were, we may best learn from [* This is a foolish observation. If her faith be set aside, her conduct cannot be vindicated; but why doubt of that faith of which we are assured by an inspired apostle?] (b) Revel. ii. 21, &c. (d) Wisd. xii. 9, 10. (a) Universal History, lib. 1. c. 7. (c) Gen. xv. 16. (e) Eccles. viii. 11. Ant. Chris. 1451, &c. or 1608. A. M. 2553, (a) the many precautions which God gives his people against them; "for he hated them &c. or 3803. (as the (b) same author has drawn up the articles of accusation against them) for doing most odious works of witchcraft, and wicked sacrifices, for their merciless murdering of children, devouring of man's flesh, and feasting upon blood;" and if we may suppose that God, some way or other, had given these nations sufficient notice of his intended severity against them if they did not repent; had abundant reason to preserve his own people from the infection of the abominations; and before their extirpation was executed, did, (c) by his servant Joshua, offer them conditions of peace. Though the Divine counsels are a secret to us, yet (even upon this face of things) we cannot find any fault with his treatment of them, since, when he had given them "space to repent, and they repented not," his justice was certainly then at liberty to take what vengeance his Divine wisdom should think fit. And indeed this seems to be one of the reasons why God divided the river for the Israelites, who were to be the instruments of this his vengeance to pass over, viz. that thereby he might inject a terror into the inhabitants of Canaan, and so facilitate the conquest of their country. On the side of Jordan, the kings of the neighbourhood feared no invasion. The depth of the river (especially at the time of its overflowing, which was in the harvest when the Israelites (d) passed it) was barrier sufficient, they thought, against all that the Israelites could do. For in those days pontoons were things never heard of in military expeditions; and the * stream is (even at this day) allowed to be too fierce and rapid for any one to swim over; and therefore, as they expected no danger from that quarter, and might for that reason draw out no forces to defend that side of their frontier; so the sacred historian has taken care to inform us, that (e) " when all the kings of the Amorites, which were on the side of Jordan westward, and all the kings of the Canaanites, which were by the sea, heard that the Lord had dried up the waters of Jordan from before the children of Israel, until they were passed over, their hearts melted, neither was there spirit in them any more." And as this miraculous passage could not but fill their enemies with confusion, so it added, no doubt, fresh courage to the Israelites, when they came to consider, that the same God, about forty years before, had wrought the like miracle for them in their passage of the Red Sea; that then he divided the waves, (f) to confirm the commission which he had given Moses, and now had parted the stream to strengthen the authority of his successor Joshua, and to give them assurance that (g) "he would be with the one as he had been with the other," and empower the latter to make good their possession of the land of promise, even as he had enabled the former to accomplish their deliverance out of the land of bondage. In all rivers whatever, there questionless are some shallower places than ordinary, (a) Vid. Lev. xviii. 4. Deut. ix. 4, &c. (c) Deut. xx. 10, 11. Josh. xi. 19. (d) Joshua iii. 15. 1 Chron. xii. 15. and Ecclus. xxiv 26. *That the Sacred Writings do constantly represent this river as not fordable, except at some particular places very probably made by art, that the countries on each side may have a freer communication, is plain from the passages to which these several citations-Joshua ii. 2. Judges iii. 28. and xii. 5. 2 Kings ii. 14. do refer. That it was not a poor and inconsiderable stream, such as some have represented it, is evident from the account of Thevenot (in his Travels, p. 193.) who himself went near the place where the Israelites passed over, and describes it to be "half as broad as the Seine at Paris, very deep and very rapid; which agrees very well with what Maundrell (in his Journey from Aleppo, p. 83.) says of it, viz. That its channel is twenty yards over, deeper than a man's height, and runs with such a current, that there is no swimming against it ;" and that (whatever the present condition of Jordan may be) it is certain, when the Israelites came into Canaan, it was a much larger river than now it is, for even in Pliny's time (Nat. Hist. Lib. v.) its channel was much larger than what it now runs in, having then the title of Amnis Ambitiosus; and in the days when Strabo wrote (according to his Geog. lib. xvi.) even vessels of burden night navigate in it. Shuckford's Connect. vol. iii. lib. xii. to the end. or some passages, either by boats or bridges, that may be called fords; but that the From Josh. i. Jordan at this time was either so vastly overflown as to render these fords impassable, or that the Israelites crossed it at places which the enemy never thought of, and where none of these passes were to be found, is pretty evident from the Canaanites making no preparation to defend their coasts on the river side, and from the great consternation we find them in when once they understood that the Jewish army had got over. For (whatever opinion we at this distance of time may have of the matter) they justly inferred, that the suspension of a river's course could be effected no other way than by a Divine Power, either immediately acting itself, or by the instrumentality of its angels. And though there possibly may be some instances in history wherein, by the violence of adverse winds, the course of rivers has either been retarded or * driven back; yet, as we read of no such wind concerned in this event, the prediction of Joshua, and the promises of God concerning this miracle, the time in which he chose to work it, and the analogy it bears with what before was wrought at the Red Sea; these, and several other circumstances, make this transaction beyond compare, and rank it not only among those prodigies which very rarely come to pass, but among those stupendous works which (contrary to the laws of nature) the great Author and Ruler of the universe, for the preservation of his people, and the manifestation of his own glory, is sometimes observed to do. (a)" He that is born in thy house, or he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised, and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant; and the uncircumcised man-child, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant." These are the words of the precept, and they seem to be so very urgent and express, that one would really think the ordinance was intended not only for a distinction between Jew and Gentile, but for an institution likewise to take away the guilt of original sin. And yet, even upon this supposition, (b) the people's frequent moving from place to place, the uncertainty of their decampments, and the inconvenience of their travelling, which would make it dangerous for children to be circumcised before a march, might be some apology for their omitting the observation of this rite, even though they had no Divine dispensation for it. (c) It is one of the general rules among the Jews, that no "precept, (always meaning no ceremonial precept, for some precepts there are that were to be observed even at the expence of their lives) whose observation occasions death, is to be attended to, because the Scriptures say, that "he who observeth these laws shall live, not die, by them." But how frivolous soever this reason may be, it is certain that, in case they apprehended any danger from the operation, they carried this dispensation so far as to exempt the next child from having this ordinance pass upon him, if so be that his brother before him died of the wound which he received in circumcision. And, for a farther excuse, they add, that during their sojourning in the wilderness, for one crime or other, their forefathers were generally under the Divine displeasure, in which condition it would have been a profanation of the sacrament to have administered it. Something of this nature seems to have happened in Augustus's time, according to that known passage in Horace : Vidimus flavum Tiberim, retortis Templaque Vestæ. Lib. i. Ode ii. [But granting the truth of this poetical story of the Tiber, and supposing it possible that the waters of Jordan could have been completely kept back by the force of a wind blowing against the course of the stream; could an immense multitude of men, women, (a) Gen. xvii. 13, 14. (b) Saurin's Dissert. sur la Prise de Jerico. A. M. 2553, But then, if the other notion of this ordinance be admitted, viz. that it was no more &c. or 3803. than a note of distinction between the Israelites and other nations, as the Israelites Ant. Chris. 1451, &c. or 1608. were now alone in the wilderness, there was no danger of their mixing with others, and consequently less reason for their observation of this distinguishing rite, until they should enter upon the possession of a country where every kind of idolatry surrounded them on all hands. Thus, whether we look upon the rite of circumcision as a sacrament of initiation into the Jewish church, or a character of distinction only between them and other people, the Israelites might, without the imputation of much guilt, omit the outward observance of it, if so be that they did but attend to what was the true intent and meaning of it, viz. (a)" the circumcising the foreskin of their hearts; (b) for he is not a Jew (as St Paul excellently argues) who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men but of God." In like manner, the observation of the Sabbath day was a precept of severe injunction; but whether the destruction of Jericho happened on that day, or any other of the week, (as the Israelites were ordered to compass the city for seven days successively) it is certain that one of these days must necessarily have been the Sabbath; and yet we must not suppose that they committed any offence in what they did, because the same authority which made the law for the observation of it, gave now a full licence for the profanation of it. The person who met Joshua, and prescribed the form of the siege of Jericho, by his assumption of Divine honours and appellations, was doubtless the same who delivered the law from Mount Sinai; and therefore we need not question but that now he acted in as full power, in suspending, (since his orders could not be executed without such suspension) as he then did in enjoining the observation of the Sabbath; and it is in allusion (as some imagine) to this very passage that our blessed Saviour pronounced that maxim in the gospel, (c) "the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." However this be, it is certain that, before our Saviour's days, the Jews carried the observation of the Sabbath to a great degree of rigour. In the time of the Maccabees, they would not so much as defend themselves against the assault of their enemies on that day, (d) but yielded their throats to be cut, rather than stir an hand in their own vindication: whereas this example of their forefathers investing, if not sacking Jericho on the Sabbath day, might have taught them, one would think, that, in cases of this nature, it was allowable not only to defend themselves, but to prevent their enemies annoying them, nay, even to fall upon and destroy them, whenever a favourable opportunity presented itself on that day. In the conquest of Jericho, however, some have imagined that rams horns were not proper materials whereof to make trumpets; that they are not so easily perforated, nor can they ever be brought to make a sound shrill and extensive enough for their particular purposes; and therefore they conceive that brass, or silver, or any other metal, had been more convenient for this use; whereupon (e) they derive the word Jobel, in the singular, (which we render a ram's horn) not from the Arabic, which signifies a ram, but from Jubal, the name of him who was the first inventor of musical instruments; and, according to this sense, the trumpets which the priests upon this occasion used, may be said to have been fashioned" according to those which Jubal first invented." This interpretation of the words (which is no bad one) removes all the incongruity (a) Deut. x. 16. d) Prideaux's Connection, part ii. vol. iv. and Calmet in locum. (b) Rom. ii. 28, 29. (c) Mark ii, 27. (e) Masius in Josh. vi. 4. Bochart's Hieros. lib. ii. c. 43. |