Page images

when these tribes had "waxed strong," and the uttermost nations quaked at the terror of their name.

The large numbers of the Canaanites as well as the Philistines and others, who became proselytes, and joined themselves to the Hebrews-as the Nethenims, Uriah the Hittite, one of David's memorable " thirty-seven"-Rahab, who married one of the princes of Judah-Ittai, with his six hundred Gitites-David's body guard, "faithful among the faithless."-2 Sam. xv. 18, 21. Obededom the Gittite, who was adopted into the tribe of Levi.-Compare 2 Sam. vi. 10, 11, with 1 Chron. xv. 18, and 1 Chron. xxvi. 45. The cases of Jaziz, and Obil,-1 Chron. xxvi. 30, 31, 33. Jephunneh, the father of Caleb the Kenite, reckoned in the genealogies of the tribe of Judah, and the one hundred and fifty thousand Canaanites, employed by Solomon in the building of the Temple.*

Add to these, the fact that the most memorable miracle on record, was wrought for the salvation of a portion of those very Canaanites, and for the destruction of those who would exterminate them.-Joshua x. 12-14. Further the terms used in the directions of God to the Israelites, regulating their disposal of the Canaanites, such as, "drive out," "put out," "cast out," "expel," "dispossess," &c. seem used interchangably with "consume," "destroy," "overthrow," &c. and thus indicate the sense in which the latter words are used.

As an illustration of the meaning generally attached to these and similar terms, when applied to the Canaanites in Scripture we refer the reader to the history of the Amalekites. In Ex. xxvii. 14. God says "I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amelek from under heaven,"-In Deut. XXV. 19. "Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amelek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it."-In 1 Sam. xv. 2, 3. Smite Amelek and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep." In the seventh and eighth verses of the same chapter we are told, "Saul smote the Amalekites, and took Agag the king of the Amalekites


If the Canaanites were devoted by God to individual and unconditional extermination, to have employed them in the erection of the temple,-what was it but the climax of impiety? As well might they pollute its altars with swine's flesh,or make their sons pass through the fire to Moloch.

alive, and UTTERLY DESTROYED ALL THE PEOPLE with the edge of the sword. In verse 20, Saul says "I have obeyed the voice of the Lord, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and have utterly destroyed the Amelekites."

In 1 Sam. 30th chapter, we find the Amalekites at war again, marching an army into Israel, and sweeping every thing before them and all this in hardly more than twenty years after they had all been UTTERLY DESTROYED!

Deut. xx. 16. 17, will probably be quoted as conclusive, against the preceding view. "But of the cities of these реоple which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheri tance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: but thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perrizites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. We argue that this command to exterminate, did not include all the individuals of the Canaanitish nations, but only the inhabitants of the cities, (and even those conditionally,) for the following reasons.

I. Only the inhabitants of cities are specified,-"of the cities of these people thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth." The reasons for this wise discrimination were, no doubt,

1. Cities then, as now, were pest-houses of vices-they reeked with abominations little practiced in the country. On this account, their influence would be far more perilous to the Israelites than that of the country.

2. These cities were the centers of idolatry-the residences of idolatrous priests with their retinues of the baser sort. There were their temples, and altars, and idols, without number. Even their buildings, streets, and public walks were so many visibilities of idolatry. The reason assigned in the 18th verse for exterminating them, strengthens the idea,-"that they teach you not to do after all the abominations which they have done unto their gods." This would be a reason for exterminating all the nations and individuals around them, as all were idolaters; but God permitted and even commanded them, in certain cases, to spare the inhabitants. Contact with any of them would be perilous, -with the inhabitants of the cities peculiarly, and of the Canaanitish cities preeminently so.

It will be seen from the 10th and 11th verses that those eities which accepted the offer of peace were to be spared. "When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be; if it make the answer of peace and open unto thee, then it shall be that all the people that is found therein, shall be TRIBUTARIES unto thee, and they shall SERVE thee."-Deuteronomy xx. 10, 11. These verses contain the general rule prescribing the method in which cities were to be summoned to surrender, and give the whole process in detail.

1. The offer of peace-if it was accepted, the inhabitants became tributaries—if it was rejected and they came out against Israel in battle the men were to be killed, and the women and little ones saved alive. See Deuteronomy xx. 12, 13, 14. The 15th verse restricts their lenient treatment in saving the wives and little ones of those who fought them, to the inhabitants of the cities afar off. The 16th verse gives directions about the disposal of the inhabitants of Canaanitish cities, after they had taken them. Instead of sparing the women and children, they were to save alive nothing that breathed. The common mistake has been in taking it for granted, that the command in the 15th verse, "Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities," &c. refers to the whole system of directions preceding, commencing with the 10th verse, whereas it manifestly refers only to the inflictions specified in the verses immediately preceding, viz., the 12th, 13th, and 14th, and thus makes a distinction between those Canaanitish cities that fought and the cities afar off that fought-in the one case destroying the males and females, and in the other the males only. The offer of peace and the conditional preservation, were as really guaranteed to Canaanitish cities as to others. Their inhabitants were not to be exterminated unless they came out against Israel in battle. But let us settle this question by the "law and the testimony." Joshua xix. 19, 20.—“There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel save the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon; all others they took in battle. For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, that they should COME OUT AGAINST ISRAEL IN BATTLE, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no favor, but that he might destroy them as the Lord commanded Moses."

That is, if they had not come out against Israel in battle they would have had "favor" shown them, and would not have been "destroyed utterly."

A careful examination of the entire history of the Canaanites, and a comparison of all the passages, which define their relations to the Israelites, together with all the directions given as to their treatment, compared with the attending circumstances, go to show, that the great design of God was to transfer the territory of the Canaanites to the Israelites, and along with it, absolute sovereignty in every respect; to annihilate the existing political organizations, the civil polity and jurisprudence, and their system of religion with all its rites and appendages; and to substitute therefor, a pure theocracy, administered by Jehovah, with the Israelites as His representatives and agents. Those who resisted the execution of Jehovah's purpose, so long known and publicly declared were to be killed: while those who quietly submitted to it, were to be spared. All had the choice of these alternatives, either free egress out of the land; or, if they remained in it, acquiescence in the decree, with life and residence in the land as tributaries, under the protection of the government or resistance to the execution of the decree, with death. That all were permitted to remain in the land, who refrained from idolatrous rites and demeaned themselves as peaceable citizens; and those only driven out or destroyed, who willfully persisted in an opposite course--is plain from divers passages of Scripture. See Jeremiah xii. 16, 17." And it shall come to pass, if they will diligently learn the ways of my people, to swear by my name, the Lord liveth, as they taught my people to swear by Baal; then shall they be built in the midst of my people.'

Suppose that all the Canaanitish nations, when they heard of all the wonders wrought for the Israelites, and that they were, on their march, commissioned by God to take possession of Canaan, had abandoned their territory and migrated to Ethiopia and settled there. Would the Israelites have been obliged by the command to have hunted them out, and chased them to the ends of the earth until every Canaanite was destroyed? It is too preposterous for helief, and yet it follows legitimately from that construction, which interprets the terms "consume," "destroy," "destroy utterly," &c., to mean unconditional individual extermination.

[It is quite unnecessary to say that the preceding Inquiry is merely an outline. Whoever reads it, needs no such information. Its original design embraced a much wider range of general topics, and subordinate heads, and corroboratives with an examination of various additional objections, based upon passages in the Old Testament, besides an Inquiry into the teachings of the New Testament on the same subject, and the alleged sanction of slavery in the example and instructions of Christ and the Apostles. To have carried out and filled up the outline, in conformity with the plan upon which the preceding article was sketched, and the former part of it written, would have swelled it to a volume. On that account, and for another reason, providential and imperative, much of the foregoing has been thrown into the form of a mere skeleton of heads, or rather a series of indices, to trains of thought and classes of proof, which, however limited or imperfect, may perhaps, afford some facilities to those who have little leisure for minute and protracted investigation.]


The attentive readers of Anti-Slavery publications are well aware that the instances of greatest cruelty, are uniformly given on the testimony of slaveholders themselves. So far as our own editorial labors have extended, we have abstained from giving the more outrageous violations of humanity, unless able to quote from southern publications, or to refer to the actors by name. Were we to tell of hunting down men with dogs, burning them to death by inches, with slow fires, and shooting strangers with small shot, on the suspicion of their being run away slaves, on the mere testimony of some northern traveler, we should at once lose the credence of the majority of our readers. But who can forbid us to republish the statements of southern men themselves? Who can refuse to believe the official publication of a chivalrous South Carolinian? The following we take from the Georgia Constitutionalist of a recent date :

AIKEN, (S. C.) December 20, 1836.

"To the Editors of the Constitutionalist

I have just returned from an Inquest I held over the dead body of a negro man, a runaway, that was shot near the South Edisto, in this District, (Barnwell,) on Saturday morning last. He came to his death by his own recklessness.

« PreviousContinue »