« 이전계속 »
according (o (lie custom of these times, generally given and taken at a' public sacrifice, where the parties to the treaty swarc solemnly to each other by their respective gods ;p so it is hard to say how the Israelites, who were in no wise to allow the idols of Canaan to be gods, could take this public faith from the worshippers of them. And this, I think, is hinted in the command given them: Thou shalt make no covenant zcith them and their gods.1* According to the forms of these times, a covenant could hardly be made with a people, without admitting their gods into it, to be their witnesses, and avengers of those Who should break it. But (he Israelites could not so far recognize the false objects of the worship of those nations; and therefore could not thus enter into covenant with them. But, 2. The Israelites were not only to demolish and destroy the idols of Canaan, but were to take away from the people both their place and nation. All the lands and cities of the several nations which inhabited Canaan, were to be divided by lot among the tribes of the chil
p Sec and compare Genesis Xxt'i. 28—31. with xxxi. 4Mj—53; and in this manner (he heathen nations made truces and leagues with one another, as might be proved from many places in Homer and other ancient writers.
i Exod. xxiil. 3"2. Our English version of the text is injudicious, and not strictly agreeuble to (he Uebrcw particle. One thing only is here forbidden, the making or confirming a league with them, for the doing of which it' was necessary to proceed according to the religious ritet used for that purpose.
dren of Israel, to every family of each tribe a suitable , part and portion of them ;r and in order hereto the Israelites were, as God should enable them, to dispossess tbe inhabitants, ond take possession of them. God had indeed determined not to drive out all the Canaanites before the Israelites in one year, immediately upon the Israelites entering into their land; because such a procedure would have had its inconveniencies.' But the Israelites were, as they increased, to be enabled by little and little to subdue them,' and were strictly commanded, as they grew able, to take from them their possessions, and not suffer any of them to retain wherewith to live as a pepple among them." From the xxth of Deuteronomy, it may, perhaps, at first sight seem as if the Israelites had power, when they summoned the cities of these nations, if they had an answer of peace from them, to let the inhabitants hold their cities upon condition of paying tribute for them;x but the text duly considered gave no such liberty." If a city opened unto them, then it was to be, that all the people who veere found therein, were to be tributaries, and to .serve them.'' It is not said, that the Israelites were to put such cities under tribute, which would have been the expression, if they were to have treated them as political bodies, and to have continued them in that capa
'See Numb, xxxiii. and xxvi. 1-53: «.
• Exod. xxiii. 29. « Vcr. 30.
» Vcr. 33. Deut. vii. 22, 23. Josh, xxiii. 5,7, II, 18,1.'?.
* Deut. xx. 11; j Id. ibid
city, only raising a tax or tribute upon them j" but all the people found therein, were to be tributaries and servants. The terms to be given were, not to a city or people in their collective capacity, but to the indivi* duals; to the several persons who had composed it. And they were to become tributaries and servants, in the manner that Solomon afterwards dealt with their children in some particular cities, where he found them.' He made them pay tribute,6 or, as it is otherwise ex* pressed in the book of Kings, he levied a tribute of bond-service upon them ;c the nature of which is sufficiently explained by what follows. Of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen, but they were his men of war, and his servants, and his prin* ces, and his captains, and bare rule over the people, that wrought in the work;d consequently, those tributaries who paid him the tribute of bond-service, were, under the direction of these Israelites, obliged to perform the work and service, which was required of them. Now that this was the true intent of the direc
* When Pharaoh Necho, after the death of Joslah, sent for Jchoahaz, whom the pcoplo had made king at Jerusalem, and sent him prisoner to Kgypt, and set up Jchoiakiru king in his stead; as ho did not take away from the Jews their being a people, though he raised a tax or tribute upon them; so it is not said, that all the people became tributaries unto him and served him, but that he put tho land to a tribute. 2 Kings xxiil. 32.
» % Chron. viii. 7, 8. b Ibid.
e 1 Kings ix. 21. 'Vcr; 22, 23.
tiontothe Israelites in the text above-cited;* is evident from what appears to have been the failure, when afterwards they did not execute what had been given in charge to them. Thus after the death of Joshua, the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jcbusitcs from Jerusalem ;f the children of Manasseh did not dispossess the inhabitants of Bcth-shean, and several other towns, of.their respective cities.* Ephraim was faulty in like manner, with regard to the Canaanites of Gezcr," Zcbulun to the inhabitants of Kitron and Nahalol,1 Asher and Naphtali to several other < ities ;k though in all these cases, as the several tribes grew strong enough, they reduced these communities so fur, tis to compel them to pay tribute for their possessions.' But because herein they came to terms with them, contrary to what God had commanded, to make no league with them ;m therefore what Joshua had before threatened," was now denounced against them; that God would not drive these nations out from before them; but that they should be as thorns in their sides, and their gods a snare unto thorn." This, -I think, is a true representation of what the Israelites were enjoined, with regard to the treatment which the inhabitants of these nations were to have from them; and from all this, I think, it evidently appears, that the Israelites could enter into no alli
• Dent. xx. 11. 'Judges.!; 41. « Ver. 27.
Ver. 29. "Ver. 30. "Ver. 32, 33.
1 Ver. 30, 33, 35. m Exod. xxiii. 32. Deut. Tii, 2.
"Josh, xxiii. 13. • Judg, ii. 2.
VOL. III. 17 f
ancc, could ntakc no f league, no covenant with them. They had indeed liberty to give them quarter, and grunt them their lives, upon condition they would become their servants; but this, I think, cannot pro* perly be called making a league, covenant or alliance with them; for a league is one thing, and servitude quite another.1 The word league is indeed used in a larpje sense by the Civilians. The Romans admitted that it signified a grant of any favours to conquered nations;' and Diodorus Siculus uses a word of like import, where a conqueror had reduced the persons he had subdued to accept such terms as he thought fit to give them.* In like manner the men of Jabesh-Gilead were offered a league with the Ammonite, by which they were to submit to serve him, and to have '- ■
* I'.xml. and Dout. ubi sup.
i Dedititii non propria in firdere, sod in ditione esse dicuntur, undo illud Latinorum do Cum pan is apud Livium: Campanoram aliam conditloncm esse, qui non foedcro, sod per ditlonom in fidom venissent. Item do Apulia, ita in socictatem eoR esse acceptos, ut non aequo fcedere, sed ut in ditione populi Ilomani cssent. Vid. Calrln. Loxic. .lurid. In vorbo focdus.
"Esse nutora tria genera fonlonim: unum, cum bello vie. tis dicerentur leges: ubi enim omnia ci, qui armis plus potest, dedita essent, qua: ex iis habere victos, quibus mulctari cos vclit, ipsius jus atque arbitrium esse. Livii Hist. lib. 34, c. 67.
Kwi». Diodor. Sic. Ed. p. 839. edit, Khodomau.