Lord however shewed his impartiality by maintaining him for a time in that dignity, to which he had appointed him; but in the end destroying his family for their unfaithfulness by a judgment, as exemplary as that, which he had inflicted on the family whose seat he occupied.

CHAPTER VII.

The Judges.-Ehud.-Jael.

In order to come to a right decision concerning the Judges, it will be proper to make a few preliminary remarks on the state of the Israelites. They had a title by divine grant to the land in which they were settled, and had been commanded to take possession of it by the destruction of the natives; but they having neglected to obey the command, and having also complied with the impious practices of those, whom they ought to have expelled, God suffered their enemies to prevail against them, to keep them out of part of their country, deprive them of part and cruelly harass and rob them in other parts. But this did not abrogate the claim of the Israelites, who considered them as unjust invaders of their rights, nor their confidence that God would deliver them, whenever they sincerely returned to their allegiance to him. Secondly, Under these circumstances there would arise

K

bold men, fit instruments of Providence, who would endeavour to seize the occasion and deliver their countrymen, or when need was, God might particularly appoint some one for that purpose: but whether he saved his people by a direct commission to one, or by prospering the attempts of another, the benefit done to the nation, which was under his especial Providence, was equally the effect of his blessing, and the whole proceeding would, in the language of the He. brews, be ascribed to him; for their custom was (as is observed by a judicious translator and critic1) to speak of God as the immediate efficient cause in all the events of the world, and not accurately to distinguish his direction of the most free human actions for the attainment of good ends, from the actual performance of the actions themselves. Thirdly, Those, whom we call judges, do not appear to have been regular governors of the whole people, or persons invested with authority as magistrates or directors of their religious and civil manners, like Moses or Samuel, but occasional leaders or generals raised up for the particular office of conducting the people to battle and conquering the enemy; which when they had done, the purpose of Providence in raising them up was answered, though they generally ruled the part, which they had delivered, during the rest of their

1 Dathe, Jud. ii, 16. Not. d.

2 Michaelis and others.

lives but few or none of them, till the kings, seem to have had the whole country under their command. Fourthly, The historian, who relates these wonderful interferences of Providence, is not from that circumstance to be considered as expressing approbation of all, which each of these judges did; nor are the historians, who record the stratagems or battles of other generals coneerned to vindicate the morality of what they do. Least of all is the Supreme Being, who uses their agency, to be supposed by such a record to sanction their unlawful deeds; any more than he approved the ambition of Benhadad in the conquest of the adjoining countries, when it is said of Naaman, the captain of his host, that "He was a great man with his master and honourable, because by him the Lord had given deliverance unto Syria3. Neither is the divine approbation at all more to be inferred because the fact has been foretold. "The prophet conducts himself with respect to future as the historian to past events: both relate themthe one before and the other after they happen; but their relations do not make actions lawful or

consonant to morality." In the last place, where a person, who is in some respects under the direction of Providence, violates the plainest rules of morality; it is not a safe solution of the

32 Kings v. i.

4 Michaelis's Commentary on the Laws of Moses, Art. liv.

difficulty to suppose he felt a divine impulse to do it, for this invalidates the evidence of religion altogether. God has spoken to us and established his rules in the most uncontrovertible manner; but this supposes that he gives private license to set them aside. When he commands a thing to be done the command is given in plain terms, and attended with satisfactory evidence both to the persons receiving the command and to all others. There is no reason to hesitate here in order to determine by what impulse he is moved*. This solution also makes Scripture useless as a rule of life; for how can it be an invariable guide of moral conduct, if it is to be set aside by the strong presumption of any individual, that he is under a superior controul; of the reality of which he can neither give satisfactory evidence to his own reason nor to that of others? And the history of the world displays mischief enough, which has arisen from fanatic delusions, one should think, to deter any sober-minded man from giving them authority by such interpretations of Scripturet. Let us proceed to these inquiries with sufficient reverence, and we shall easily distinguish the passions and frailties of men from the work of God; who "hath commanded no man to do wickedly: neither hath he given any man license to sin"." To begin with the case of Ehud: he was thus

See Note 28. + See Note 29.

5 Ecclus. xv. 20.

far in a similar situation, with Moses; he knew that his nation had a divine grant of the land; that Eglon had unjustly usurped a dominion over them, and tyrannically oppressed them, and that whenever they would turn from the worship of the false gods, their God would give them victory over their oppressors. He saw the necessity of the case; he observed the opportunity, and felt within himself the confidence to seize it. Whether therefore he reasoned within himself, that the time of the wished for deliverance was come, or was prompted to offer himself as the deliverer by divine suggestion, no objection can be urged against the Scripture in this stage of the business. Eglon, who was the head of the usurpation, was no more exempt from the attack than any other Moabite: "he had no legitimate authority over the Israelites, and was justly liable to be punished with death by any of the people whom he oppressed." But as no special command was given to Ehud directing how he should proceed; if he employed unjustifiable means to take off Eglon, they rest with himself, and are not to be charged to the Supreme Being. Rather than act wickedly, he should have reasoned as David did in the case of Saul: "The Lord shall smite him, or his day shall come to die, or he shall descend into battle and perish.""

6 Grotius.

7 1 Sam. xxvi. 10.