190 GENERAL SIR CHARLES WARREN, G.C.M.G., F.R.S., ON 



nothing could be spared that lire would destroy. Israel was to 

 commence with a new sheet. With the Moslem successful 

 Jihads, the terms were essentially different. It was merely the 

 destruction of idolatry in the country. If the idolatrous inhabit- 

 ants were not submissive they were to be destroyed, but if they 

 submitted they had two alternatives, either to embrace the 

 Moslem faith, or to pay a capitation tax. The comparison 

 between the Moslem and Israelite Jihads cannot be carried very 

 far because of the rise of Judaism and Christianity in the mean- 

 time. It is apparent, however, that whilst that of the Moslems 

 was congenial to the instincts of the people, that of the Israelites 

 could never be acceptable, even if the people were wholly 

 devoted to the service of God, and could only be carried out as a 

 painful duty imposed by the Almighty. 



We may consider, then, why this duty (bound to fail) was 

 imposed upon Israel. I may suggest that it was a test similar 

 to that imposed upon Abraham in regard to his son Isaac. It 

 was to be on record that Israel could not be trained as a perfect 

 people, even when set apart in the desert under the most favour- 

 able circumstances, and that a Eedeemer was required after they 

 had passed through a few more vicissitudes. 



I can see no difficulty in the Israelites killing the Pagan races 

 when once they were domiciled in Canaan, and were attacked 

 by them in their homes, but to wage a war of extermination 

 against people living quietly under their gods, without having 

 given offence, seems to me contrary to the instincts of the people 

 unless ordered to do so by a higher power. 



It seems, therefore, that we want a new conception of these 

 people of Israel. Instead of looking on them as a nation of 

 backsliders we ought to see in them a people who were set a 

 task only possible for a perfect people, and that probably what 

 they did do would stand very high by the side of the exploits of 

 any other nation. Here we must draw the line between the 

 individual and a nation. The former may do what the latter cannot. 



David in his combat with Goliath relied on three sources of 

 strength : (1) His expertness in the art of war. (2) His confi- 

 dence in the righteousness of his cause. (3) His trust in the 

 help of the Almighty. Now, in taking the nation as a whole, I 

 do not think it probable that the bulk of the people could fully 

 rely on more than their expertness as soldiers. The righteous- 

 ness of their cause could only appeal to them, in this act of 

 aggression, in proportion as they had detached themselves from 

 the current Semitic view, and accepted the ruling of the 

 Almighty as their only guide. 



