to have settled in the land of Canaan, soon after the dispersion of
Babel. Five of these are known to have dwelt in the land of Canaan; viz.
Heth, Jebus, Hemor or Amor, Girgashi, and Hevi or Hivi; and these,
together with their father Canaan, became the heads of so many nations.
Sina or Sini was another son of Canaan, whose settlement is not so
precisely ascertained; but some authors infer, from the affinity of the
names, that the Desert of Sin, and Mount Sinai, were the places of his
abode, and that they were so called from him. The Hittites inhabited the
country about Hebron, as far as Beersheba, and the brook Besor, reckoned
by Moses the southern limits of Canaan. The Jebusites dwelt near them on
the north, as far as the city of Jebus, since called Jerusalem. The
Amorites possessed the country on the east side of Jordan, between the
river Arnon on the south-east, and Mount Gilead on the north, afterward
the lot of Reuben and Gad. The Girgashites lay next above the Amorites,
on the east side of the Sea of Tiberias, and their land was afterward
possessed by the half tribe of Manasseh. The Hivites dwelt northward,
under Mount Libanus. The Perizzites, who make one of the seven nations
of the Canaanites, are supposed, by Heylin and others, to be the
descendants of Sina or Sini; and it is probable, since we do not read of
their abode in cities, that they lived dispersed, and in tents, like the
Scythians, roving on both sides of the Jordan, on the hills and plains;
and that they were called by that name from the Hebrew _pharatz_, which
signifies “to disperse.” The Canaanites dwelt in the midst of all, and
were surrounded by the rest. This appears from the sacred writings to
have been the respective situation of those seven nations, which are
said to have been doomed to destruction for their idolatry and
wickedness, when the Israelites first invaded their country. The learned
have not absolutely determined whether the nations proceeding from
Canaan’s other six sons should be reckoned among the inhabitants of the
land of Canaan. The prevalent opinion is, that they were not included.
As to the customs, manners, arts, sciences, and language of the seven
nations that inhabited the land of Canaan, they must, from the situation
they severally occupied, have been very different. Those who inhabited
the sea coast were merchants, and by reason of their commerce and wealth
scattered colonies over almost all the islands and maritime provinces of
the Mediterranean. (See _Phenicia_) The colonies which Cadmus carried to
Thebes in Bæotia, and his brother Cilix into Cilicia, are said to have
proceeded from the stock of Canaan. Sicily, Sardinia, Malta, Cyprus,
Corfu, Majorca, Minorca, Gades, and Ebutris, are supposed to have been
peopled by the Canaanites. The other Canaanites, whose situation was
inland, were employed partly in pasturage, and partly in tillage, and
they were also well skilled in the exercise of arms. Those who dwelt in
the walled cities, and who had fixed abodes, cultivated the land; and
those who wandered about, as the Perizzites seem to have done, grazed
cattle: so that among the Canaanites, we discover the various classes of
merchants, and, consequently, mariners; of artificers, soldiers,
shepherds, and husbandmen. We learn, also, from their history, that they
were all ready, however diversified by their occupations or local
interests, to join in a common cause; that they were well appointed for
war, both offensive and defensive; that their towns were well fortified;
that they were sufficiently furnished with military weapons and warlike
chariots; that they were daring, obstinate, and almost invincible; and
that they were not destitute of craft and policy. Their language, we
find, was well understood by Abraham, who was a Hebrew, for he conversed
readily with them on all occasions; but as to their mode of writing,
whether it was originally their own or borrowed from the Israelites, it
is not so easy to determine. Their religion, at least in part, seems to
have been preserved pure till the days of Abraham, who acknowledged
Melchisedek to be priest of the most high God; and Melchisedek was,
without doubt, a Canaanite, or, at least, dwelt at that time in Canaan
in high esteem and veneration.
2. But we learn from the Scripture history, that the Hittites in
particular were become degenerate in the time of Isaac and Rebekah; for
they could not endure the thoughts of Jacob’s marrying one of the
daughters of Heth, as Esau had done. From this time, then, we may date
the prevalence of those abominations which subjected them to the divine
displeasure, and made them unworthy of the land which they possessed. In
the days of Moses, they were become incorrigible idolaters; for he
commands his people to destroy their altars, and break down their
images, (statues or pillars,) and cut down their groves, and burn their
graven images with fire. And lest they should pervert the Israelites,
the latter were strictly enjoined not to intermarry with them; but “to
smite them, and utterly destroy them, nor show mercy upon them,” Deut.
vii, 1–5. They are accused of the cruel custom of sacrificing men, and
are said to have made their seed pass through the fire to Moloch, Lev.
xviii, 21. Their morals were as corrupt as their doctrine: adultery,
bestiality of all sorts, profanation, incest, and all manner of
uncleanness, are the sins laid to their charge. “The Canaanites,” says
Mr. Bryant, “as they were a sister tribe of the Mizraim, resembled them
in their rites and religion. They held a heifer, or cow, in high
veneration, agreeably to the customs of Egypt. Their chief deity was the
sun, whom they worshipped, together with the Baalim, under the titles of
Ourchol, Adonis, or Thamuz.”
3. When the measure of the idolatries and abominations of the Canaanites
was filled up, God delivered their country into the hands of the
Israelites, who conquered it under Joshua. However, they resisted with
obstinate valour, and kept Joshua employed six years from the time of
his passing the river Jordan, and entering Canaan, in the year B. C.
1451, to the year B. C. 1445, the sabbatical year beginning from the
autumnal equinox; when he made a division of the land among the tribes
of Israel, and rested from his conquests. As God had commanded this
people, long before, to be treated with rigour, see Deut. vii, 2, Joshua
extirpated great numbers, and obliged the rest to fly, some of them into
Africa, and others into Greece. Procopius says, they first retreated
into Egypt, but advanced into Africa, where they built many cities, and
spread themselves over those vast regions which reach to the straits,
preserving their old language with little alteration. In the time of
Athanasius, the Africans still said they were descended from the
Canaanites; and when asked their origin, they answered, “Canani.” It is
agreed, that the Punic tongue was nearly the same as the Canaanitish or
Hebrew.
4. On the rigorous treatment of the nations of Canaan by the Israelites,
to which infidels have taken so many exceptions, the following remarks
of Paley are a sufficient reply: The first thing to be observed is, that
the nations of Canaan were destroyed for their wickedness. This is plain
from Lev. xviii, 24, &c. Now the facts disclosed in this passage
sufficiently testify, that the Canaanites were a wicked people; that
detestable practices were general among them, and even habitual; that it
was for these enormities the nations of Canaan were destroyed. It was
not, as some have imagined, to make way for the Israelites; nor was it
simply to make away with their idolatry; but it was because of the
abominable crimes which usually accompanied the latter. And we may
farther learn from the passage, that God’s abhorrence of these crimes
and his indignation against them are regulated by the rules of strict
impartiality, since Moses solemnly warns the Israelites against falling
into the like wicked courses, “that the land,” says he, “cast not you
out also, when you defile it, as it cast out the nations that were
before you; for whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even
the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people,”
Lev. xviii, 28, 29. Now, when God, for the wickedness of a people, sends
an earthquake, or a fire, or a plague among them, there is no complaint
of injustice, especially when the calamity is known, or expressly
declared beforehand, to be inflicted for the wickedness of such people.
It is rather regarded as an act of exemplary penal justice, and, as
such, consistent with the character of the moral Governor of the
universe. The objection, therefore, is not to the Canaanitish nations
being destroyed; (for when their national wickedness is considered, and
when that is expressly stated as the cause of their destruction, the
dispensation, however severe, will not be questioned;) but the objection
is solely to the manner of destroying them. I mean there is nothing but
the manner left to be objected to: their wickedness accounts for the
thing itself. To which objection it may be replied, that if the thing
itself be just, the manner is of little signification, of little
signification even to the sufferers themselves. For where is the great
difference, even to them, whether they were destroyed by an earthquake,
a pestilence, a famine, or by the hands of an enemy? Where is the
difference, even to our imperfect apprehensions of divine justice,
provided it be, and is known to be, for their wickedness that they are
destroyed? But this destruction, you say, confounded the innocent with
the guilty. The sword of Joshua, and of the Jews spared neither women
nor children. Is it not the same with all other national visitations?
Would not an earthquake, or a fire, or a plague, or a famine among them
have done the same? Even in an ordinary and natural death the same thing
happens; God takes away the life he lends, without regard, that we can
perceive, to age, or sex, or character. “But, after all, promiscuous
massacres, the burning of cities, the laying waste of countries, are
things dreadful to reflect upon.” Who doubts it? so are all the
judgments of Almighty God. The effect, in whatever way it shows itself,
must necessarily be tremendous, when the Lord, as the Psalmist expresses
it, “moveth out of his place to punish the wicked.” But it ought to
satisfy us; at least this is the point upon which we ought to rest and
fix our attention; that it was for excessive, wilful, and forewarned
wickedness, that all this befel them, and that it is all along so
declared in the history which recites it.
But, farther, if punishing them by the hands of the Israelites rather
than by a pestilence, an earthquake, a fire, or any such calamity, be
still an objection, we may perceive, I think, some reasons for this
method of punishment in preference to any other whatever; always bearing
in our mind, that the question is not concerning the justice of the
punishment, but the mode of it. It is well known, that the people of
those ages were affected by no proof of the power of the gods which they
worshipped, so deeply as by their giving them victory in war. It was by
this species of evidence that the superiority of their own gods above
the gods of the nations which they conquered, was, in their opinion,
evinced. This being the actual persuasion which then prevailed in the
world, no matter whether well or ill founded, how were the neighbouring
nations, for whose admonition this dreadful example was intended, how
were they to be convinced of the supreme power of the God of Israel
above the pretended gods of other nations; and of the righteous
character of Jehovah, that is, of his abhorrence of the vices which
prevailed in the land of Canaan? How, I say, were they to be convinced
so well, or at all indeed, as by enabling the Israelites, whose God he
was known and acknowledged to be, to conquer under his banner, and drive
out before them, those who resisted the execution of that commission
with which the Israelites declared themselves to be invested, namely,
the expulsion and extermination of the Canaanitish nations? This
convinced surrounding countries, and all who were observers or
spectators of what passed, first, that the God of Israel was a real God;
secondly, that the gods which other nations worshipped, were either no
gods, or had no power against the God of Israel; and thirdly, that it
was he, and he alone, who possessed both the power and the will, to
punish, to destroy, and to exterminate from before his face, both
nations and individuals, who gave themselves up to the crimes and
wickedness for which the Canaanites were notorious. Nothing of this sort
would have appeared, or with the same evidence, from an earthquake, or a
plague, or any natural calamity. These might not have been attributed to
divine agency at all, or not to the interposition of the God of Israel.
Another reason which made this destruction both more necessary, and more
general, than it would have otherwise been, was the consideration, that
if any of the old inhabitants were left, they would prove a snare to
those who succeeded them in the country; would draw and seduce them by
degrees into the vices and corruptions which prevailed among themselves.
Vices of all kinds, but vices most particularly of the licentious kind,
are astonishingly infectious. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
A small number of persons addicted to them, and allowed to practise them
with impunity or encouragement, will spread them through the whole mass.
This reason is formally and expressly assigned, not simply for the
punishment, but for the extent to which it was carried; namely,
extermination: “Thou shalt utterly destroy them, that they teach you not
to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their
gods.”
In reading the Old Testament account, therefore, of the Jewish wars and
conquests in Canaan, and the terrible destruction brought upon the
inhabitants thereof, we are always to remember that we are reading the
execution of a dreadful but just sentence, pronounced by Jehovah against
the intolerable and incorrigible crimes of these nations; that they were
intended to be made an example to the whole world of God’s avenging
wrath against sins, which, if they had been suffered to continue, might
have polluted the whole ancient world, and which could only be checked
by the signal and public overthrow of nations notoriously addicted to
them, and so addicted as even to have incorporated them into their
religion and their public institutions; and that the Israelites were
mere instruments in the hands of a righteous Providence for effecting
the extirpation of a people, of whom it was necessary to make a public
example to the rest of mankind; that this extermination, which might
have been accomplished by a pestilence, by fire, by earthquakes, was
appointed to be done by the hands of the Israelites, as being the
clearest and most intelligible method of displaying the power and the
righteousness of the God of Israel; his power over the pretended gods of
other nations; and his righteous indignation against the crimes into
which they were fallen.
CANDACE, the name of an Ethiopian queen, whose eunuch coming to
Jerusalem to worship the Lord, was baptized by Philip the deacon, near
Bethsura, in the way to Gaza, as he was returning to his own country,
Acts viii, 27. The Ethiopia here mentioned was the isle or peninsula of
Meroë to the south of Egypt, which, as Mr. Bruce shows, is now called
Atbara, up the Nile. Candace was the common name of the queens of that
country. Strabo and Pliny mention queens of that name as reigning in
their times. That the queen mentioned in the Acts was converted by the
instrumentality of her servant, and that the country thus received
Christianity at that early period, are statements not supported by any
good testimony. See ABYSSINIAN CHURCH.
CANDLESTICK. The instrument so rendered by our translators was more
properly a stand for lamps. One of beaten gold was made by Moses, Exod.
xxv, 31, 32, and put into the tabernacle in the holy place, over against
the table of shew bread. The basis of this candlestick was also of pure
gold; it had seven branches, three on each side, and one in the middle.
When Solomon had built the temple, he was not satisfied with placing one
golden candlestick there, but had ten put up, of the same form and metal
with that described by Moses, five on the north, and five on the south
side of the holy place, 1 Kings vii, 49. After the Jews returned from
their captivity, the golden candlestick was again placed in the temple,
as it had been before in the tabernacle by Moses. The lamps were kept
burning perpetually; and were supplied morning and evening with pure
olive oil. Josephus says, that after the Romans had destroyed the
temple, the several things which were found within it, were carried in
triumph to Rome, namely, the golden table, and the golden candlestick
with seven branches. These were lodged in the temple built by Vespasian,
and consecrated to Peace; and at the foot of Mount Palatine, there is a
triumphal arch still visible, upon which Vespasian’s triumph is
represented, and the several monuments which were carried publicly in
the procession are engraved, and among the rest the candlestick with the
seven branches, which are still discernible upon it. In Rev. i, 12, 20,
mention is made of seven golden candlesticks, which are said to be
emblems of the seven Christian churches.
CANKER-WORM, ילק, Psalm cv, 34; Jer. li, 27, where it is rendered
_caterpillar_; Joel i, 4; ii, 25; Nahum iii, 15, _canker-worm_. As it is
frequently mentioned with the locust, it is thought by some to be a
species of that insect. It certainly cannot be the canker-worm, as our
version renders it; for in Nahum, it is expressly said to have wings and
fly, to camp in the hedges by day, and commit its depredations in the
night. But it may be, as the Septuagint renders it in five passages out
of eight where it occurs, the _bruchus_, or “hedge-chaffer.”
Nevertheless, the passage, Jer. li, 27, where the _ialek_ is described
as “rough,” that is, with hair standing on end on it, leads us very
naturally to the rendering of our translators in that place, “the rough
caterpillar,” which, like other caterpillars, at a proper time, casts
its exterior covering and flies away in a winged state. Scheuchzer
observes that we should not, perhaps, be far from the truth, if with the
ancient interpreters, we understood this _ialek_, after all, as a kind
of locust; as some species of them have hair principally on the head,
and others have prickly points standing out.
CANON, a word used to denote the authorized catalogue of the sacred
writings. The word is originally Greek, κανὼν, and signifies a _rule_ or
_standard_, by which other things are to be examined and judged.
Accordingly the same word has been applied to the tongue of a balance,
or that small part which, by its perpendicular position, determines the
even poise or weight, or, by its inclination either way, the uneven
poise of the things which are weighed. Hence it appears, that as the
writings of the Prophets, Apostles, and Evangelists contain an authentic
account of the revealed will of God, they are the rule of the belief and
practice of those who receive them. Canon is also equivalent to a list
or catalogue, in which are inserted those books which contain the rule
of faith.
For an account of the settling of the canon of Scripture, see _Bible_.
The following observations of Dr. Alexander, in his work on the canon,
proving that no canonical book of the Old or New Testament has been
lost, may here be properly introduced.--No canonical book of the Old
Testament has been lost. On this subject, there has existed some
diversity of opinion. Chrysostom is cited by Bellarmine as saying, “that
many of the writings of the prophets had perished, which may readily be
proved from the history in Chronicles. For the Jews were negligent, and
not only negligent, but impious; so that some books were lost through
carelessness, and others were burned, or otherwise destroyed.” In
confirmation of this opinion, an appeal is made to 1 Kings iv, 32, 33,
where it is said of Solomon, “that he spake three thousand proverbs, and
his songs were a thousand and five. And he spake of trees, from the
cedar in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he
spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of
fishes.” All these productions, it is acknowledged, have perished. Again
it is said in 1 Chron. xxix, 29, 30: “Now, the acts of David the king,
first and last, behold they are written in the book of Samuel the seer,
and in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer;
with all his reign, and his might, and the times that went over him, and
over Israel, and over all the kingdoms of the countries.” The book of
Jasher, also, is twice mentioned in Scripture. In Joshua x, 13: “And the
sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged
themselves on their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher?”
And in 2 Sam. i, 18: “And he bade them teach the children of Israel the
use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher.”
The book of the wars of the Lord is referred to in Numbers xxi, 14. But
we have in the canon no books under the name of Nathan and Gad, nor any
book of Jasher, nor of the wars of the Lord. Moreover, we frequently are
referred, in the sacred history, to other chronicles or annals, for a
fuller account of the matters spoken of, which chronicles are not now
extant. And in 2 Chron. ix, 29, it is said, “Now, the rest of the acts
of Solomon, first and last, are they not written in the book of Nathan
the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the
visions of Iddo the seer, against Jeroboam, the son of Nebat?” Now, it
is well known that none of these writings of the prophets are in the
canon; at least, none of them under their names. It is said, also, in 2
Chron. xii, 15, “Now, the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not
written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the seer,
concerning genealogies?” Of which works nothing remains under the names
of these prophets.
1. The first observation which may be made on this subject is, that
every book referred to or quoted in the sacred writings is not
necessarily an inspired or canonical book. Because St. Paul cites
passages from the Greek poets, it does not follow that we must receive
their poems as inspired.
2. A book may be written by an inspired man, and yet be neither inspired
nor canonical. Inspiration was not constantly afforded to the prophets;
but was occasional, and for particular important purposes. In common
matters, and especially in things no way connected with religion, it is
reasonable to suppose that the Prophets and Apostles were left to the
same guidance of reason and common sense as other men. A man, therefore,
inspired to deliver some prophecy, or even to write a canonical book,
might write other books with no greater assistance than other good men
receive. Because Solomon was inspired to write some canonical books, it
does not follow that what he wrote on natural history was also inspired,
any more than Solomon’s private letters to his friends, if ever he wrote
any. Let it be remembered that the Prophets and Apostles were only
inspired on special occasions, and on particular subjects, and all
difficulties respecting such works as these will vanish. How many of the
books referred to in the Bible, and mentioned above, may have been of
this description, it is now impossible to tell; but probably several of
them belong to this class. No doubt there were many books of annals much
more minute and particular in the narration of facts than those which we
have. It was often enough merely to refer to these _state papers_, or
public documents, as being sufficiently correct, in regard to the facts
on account of which the reference was made. The book of the wars of the
Lord might, for aught that appears, have been merely a muster roll of
the army. The word translated _book_ has so extensive a meaning in
Hebrew, that it is not even necessary to suppose that it was a writing
at all. The book of Jasher (or of _Rectitude_, if we translate the word)
might have been some useful compend taken from Scripture, or composed by
the wise, for the regulation of justice and equity between man and man.
Augustine, in his “City of God,” has distinguished accurately on this
subject. “I think,” says he, “that those books which should have
authority in religion were revealed by the Holy Spirit, and that men
composed others by historical diligence, as the prophets did these by
inspiration. And these two classes of books are so distinct, that it is
only by those written by inspiration that we are to suppose that God,
through them, is speaking unto us. The one class is useful for fulness
of knowledge; the other, for authority in religion; in which authority
the canon is preserved.”
3. But again: it may be maintained, without any prejudice to the
completeness of the canon, that there may have been inspired writings
which were not intended for the instruction of the church in all ages,
but composed by the prophets for some special occasion. These writings,
though inspired, were not canonical. They were temporary in their
design; and when that was accomplished, they were no longer needed. We
know that the prophets delivered, by inspiration, many discourses to the
people, of which we have not a trace on record. Many true prophets are
mentioned, who wrote nothing that we know of; and several are mentioned,
whose names are not even given. The same is true of the Apostles. Very
few of them had any concern in writing the canonical Scriptures, and yet
they all possessed plenary inspiration. And if they wrote letters on
special occasions, to the churches planted by them; yet these were not
designed for the perpetual instruction of the universal church.
Therefore, Shemaiah, and Iddo, and Nathan, and Gad, might have written
some things by inspiration which were never intended to form a part of
the sacred volume. It is not asserted that there certainly existed such
temporary inspired writings: all that is necessary to be maintained is,
that, supposing such to have existed, which is not improbable, it does
not follow that the canon is incomplete by reason of their loss.
4. The last remark in relation to the books of the Old Testament
supposed to be lost is, that it is highly probable that we have several
of them now in the canon, under another name. The books of Samuel,
Kings, and Chronicles, were, probably, not written by one, but by a
succession of prophets. There is reason to believe that, until the canon
of sacred Scripture was closed, the succession of prophets was never
interrupted. Whatever was necessary to be added, by way of explanation,
to any book already received into the canon, they were competent to
annex; or, whatever annals or histories it was the purpose of God to
have transmitted to posterity, they would be directed and inspired to
prepare. Thus, different parts of these books might have been penned by
Gad, Nathan, Iddo, Shemaiah, &c. That some parts of these histories were
prepared by prophets, we have clear proof in one instance; for Isaiah
has inserted in his prophecy several chapters which are contained in 2
Kings, and which, I think, there can be no doubt were originally written
by himself. The Jewish doctors are of opinion that the book of Jasher is
one of the books of the Pentateuch, or the whole law. The book of the
wars of the Lord has by many been supposed to be no other than the book
of Numbers.