"consume," "utterly overthrow," "put out," "dispossess them," &c. Did these commands enjoin the unconditional and universal destruction of the _inhabitants_ or merely of the _body politic?_ The word _haram_, to destroy, signifies _national_, as well as individual destruction, the destruction of _political_ existence, equally with _personal_; of governmental organization, equally with the lives of the subjects.
Besides, if we interpret the words destroy, consume, overthrow, &c., to mean _personal_ destruction, what meaning shall we give to the expressions, "throw out before thee;" "cast out before thee;" "expel,"
"put out," "dispossess," &c., which are used in the same pa.s.sages? "I will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies _turn their backs unto thee_" Ex. xxiii. 27. Here "_all thine enemies_" were to _turn their backs_ and "_all the people_" to be "_destroyed_." Does this mean that G.o.d would let all their _enemies_ escape, but kill all their _friends_, or that he would _first_ kill "all the people" and THEN make them "turn their backs," an army of runaway corpses? If these commands required the destruction of all the inhabitants, the Mosaic law was at war with itself, for directions as to the treatment of native residents form a large part of it. See Lev. xix.
34; xxv. 35, 36; xx. 22. Ex. xxiii. 9; xxii. 21; Deut. i. 16, 17; x. 17, 19, xxvii. 19. We find, also that provision was made for them in the cities of refuge. Num. x.x.xv. 15;--the gleanings of the harvest and vintage were theirs, Lev. xix. 9, 10; xxiii. 22;--the blessings of the Sabbath, Ex. xx. 10;--the privilege of offering sacrifices secured, Lev.
xxii. 18; and stated religious instruction provided for them, Deut.
x.x.xi. 9, 12. Now does this same law require the _individual extermination_ of those whose lives and interests it thus protects?
These laws were given to the Israelites, long _before_ they entered Canaan; and they must have inferred from them that a mult.i.tude of the inhabitants of the land were to _continue_ in it, under their government. Again Joshua was selected as the leader of Israel to execute G.o.d"s threatenings upon Canaan. He had no _discretionary_ power. G.o.d"s commands were his _official instructions_. Going beyond them would have been usurpation; refusing to carry them out rebellion and treason. Saul was rejected from being king for disobeying G.o.d"s commands in a _single_ instance. Now, if G.o.d commanded the individual destruction of all the Canaanites. Joshua _disobeyed him in every instance_. For at his death, the Israelites still "_dwelt among them_," and each nation is mentioned by name. Judg. i. 5, and yet we are told that Joshua "left nothing undone of all that the Lord commanded Moses;" and that he "took all that land." Josh. xi. 15-22. Also, that "there _stood not a man_ of _all_ their enemies before them." How can this be, if the command to _destroy_ enjoined _individual_ extermination, and the command to _drive out_, unconditional expulsion from the country, rather than their expulsion from the _possession_ or _ownership_ of it, as the lords of the soil?
True, mult.i.tudes of the Canaanites were slain, but not a case can be found in which one was either killed or expelled who _acquiesced_ in the transfer of the territory, and its sovereignty, from the inhabitants of the land to the Israelites. Witness the case of Rahab and her kindred, and the Gibeonites[A]. The Canaanites knew of the miracles wrought for the Israelites; and that their land had been transferred to them as a judgment for their sins. Josh. ii. 9-11; ix. 9, 10, 24. Many of them were awed by these wonders, and made no resistance. Others defied G.o.d and came out to battle. These occupied the fortified cities, were the most inveterate heathen--the aristocracy of idolatry, the kings, the n.o.bility and gentry, the priests, with their crowds of satellite, and retainers that aided in idolatrous rites, and the military forces, with the chief profligates of both s.e.xes. Many facts corroborate the general position. Such as the mult.i.tude of _tributaries_ in the midst of Israel, and that too, after they had "waxed strong," and the uttermost nations quaked at the terror of their name--the Canaanites, Philistines, and others, who became proselytes--as the Nethenims, Uriah the Hitt.i.te--Rahab, who married one of the princes of Judah--Ittai--the six hundred Git.i.tes--David"s body guard. 2 Sam. xv. 18, 21. Obededom the Gitt.i.te, adopted into the tribe of Levi. Comp. 2 Sam. vi. 10, 11, with 1 Chron. xv. 18, and 1 Chron. xxvi. 45--Jaziz, and Obil. 1 Chron. xxvi.
30, 31, 33. Jephunneh the father of Caleb, the Kenite, registered 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[B]. Besides, the greatest miracle on record, was wrought to save a portion of those very Canaanites, and for the destruction of those who would exterminate them. Josh. x. 12-14. Further--the terms employed in the directions regulating the disposal of the Canaanites, such as "drive out," "put out," "cast out," "expel," "dispossess," &c. seem used interchangeably with "consume," "destroy," "overthrow," &c., and thus indicate the sense in which the latter words are used. As an ill.u.s.tration of the meaning generally attached to these and similar terms, we refer to the history of the Amelekites. "I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amelek from under heaven." Ex. xxvii. 14. "Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amelek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it." Deut. xxv. 19. "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." 1 Sam. xv. 2, 3. "Saul smote the Amelekites, and took Agag the king of the Amelekites, alive and UTTERLY DESTROYED ALL THE PEOPLE with the edge of the sword." Verses 7, 8. In verse 20, Saul says, "I have brought Agag, the king of Amelek, and have _utterly destroyed_ the Amelekites." In 1 Sam. x.x.x. we find the Amelekites marching an army into Israel, and sweeping everything before them--and this in about eighteen years after they had _all been_ "UTTERLY DESTROYED!" Deut. xx. 16, 17, will probably be quoted against the preceding view. We argue that the command in these verses, did not include all the individuals of the Canaanitish nations, but only the inhabitants of the _cities_, (and even those conditionally,) because, only the inhabitants of the _cities_ are specified,--"of the _cities_ of these people thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth." Cities then, as now, were pest-houses of vice--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. Besides, they were the centres of idolatry--there were the temples and altars, and idols, and priests, without number. Even their buildings, streets, and public walks were so many visibilities of idolatry. The reason a.s.signed 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 G.o.ds." This would be a reason for exterminating _all_ the nations and individuals _around_ them, as all were idolaters; but G.o.d 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 pre-eminently so. The 10th and 11th verses contain the general rule prescribing the method in which cities were to be summoned to surrender. They were first to receive the offer of peace--if it was accepted, the inhabitants became _tributaries_--but if they came out against Israel in battle, the _men_ were to be killed, and the women and little ones saved alive. The 15th verse restricts this lenient treatment to the inhabitants of the cities _afar off_. The 16th directs as to the disposal of the inhabitants of Canaanitish cities. They were to save alive "nothing that breathed." The common mistake has been, in supposing that the command in the 15th verse refers to the _whole system of directions preceding_, commencing with the 10th, whereas it manifestly refers only to the _inflictions_ specified in the 12th, 13th, and 14th, making a distinction between those _Canaanitish_ cities that _fought_, and the cities _afar off_ that fought--in 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 guarantied 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." "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." Josh. xix. 19, 20.
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._" The great design was to _transfer the territory_ of the Canaanites to the Israelites, and along with it, _absolute sovereignty in every respect_; to annihilate their political organizations, civil polity, and jurisprudence and their system of religion, with all its rights and appendages; and to subst.i.tute therefor, a pure theocracy, administered by Jehovah, with the Israelites as His representatives and agents. In a word the people were to be _denationalized_, their political existence annihilated, their idol temples, altars, images groves and heathen rites destroyed, and themselves put under tribute.
Those who resisted the execution of Jehovah"s purpose 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[C]; or acquiescence in the decree, with life and residence as tributaries, under the protection of the government; or resistance to the execution of the decree, with death. "_And it shall come to pa.s.s, 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."
[Footnote A: Perhaps it will be objected, that the preservation of the Gibeonites, and of Rahab and her kindred, was a violation of the command of G.o.d. We answer, if it had been, we might expect some such intimation.
If G.o.d had strictly commanded them to _exterminate all the Canaanites_, their pledge to save themselves was neither a repeal of the statute, nor absolution for the breach of it. If _unconditional destruction_ was the import of the command, would G.o.d have permitted such an act to pa.s.s without rebuke? Would he have established such a precedent when Israel had hardly pa.s.sed the threshold of Canaan, and was then striking the first blow of a half century war? What if they _had_ pa.s.sed their word to Rahab and the Gibeonites? Was that more binding than G.o.d"s command?
So Saul seems to have pa.s.sed _his_ word to Agag; yet Samuel hewed him in pieces, because in saving his life, Saul had violated G.o.d"s command.
When Saul sought to slay the Gibeonites in "his zeal for the children of Israel and Judah," G.o.d sent upon Israel three years famine for it. When David inquired of them what atonement he should make, they say, "The man that devised against us, that we should be destroyed from _remaining in any of the coasts of Israel_, let seven of his sons be delivered," &c. 2 Sam. xxii. 1-6.]
[Footnote B: If the Canaanites were devoted by G.o.d to 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 pa.s.s through the fire to Moloch.]
[Footnote C: Suppose all the Canaanitish nations had abandoned their territory at the tidings of Israel"s approach, did G.o.d"s command require the Israelites to chase them to the ends of the earth and hunt them out, until every Canaanite was destroyed? It is too preposterous for belief and yet it follows legitimately from that construction, which interprets the terms "consume," "destroy," "destroy utterly," &c. to mean unconditional, individual extermination.]
[The original design of the preceding Inquiry embraced a much wider range of topics. It was soon found, however, that to fill up the outline would be to make a volume. Much of the foregoing has therefore been thrown into a mere series of _indices_, to trains of thought and cla.s.ses of proof which, however limited or imperfect, may perhaps, afford some facilities to those who have little leisure for protracted investigation.]
THE
ANTI-SLAVERY EXAMINER NO 4.
THE
BIBLE AGAINST SLAVERY.
AN INQUIRY INTO THE
PATRIARCHAL AND MOSAIC SYSTEMS
ON THE SUBJECT OF
HUMAN RIGHTS.
Fourth Edition--Enlarged.
NEW YORK:
PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY,
NO. 143 Na.s.sAU STREET.
1838.
This No. contains 7 sheets:--Postage, under 100 miles, 10 1/2 cents; over 100 miles, 14 cents.
Please read and Circulate.
CONTENTS.
DEFINITION OF SLAVERY,
NEGATIVE,
AFFIRMATIVE,
LEGAL,
THE MORAL LAW AGAINST SLAVERY
"THOU SHALT NOT STEAL,"
"THOU SHALT NOT COVET,"
MAN-STEALING--EXAMINATION OF EX. xxi. 16,
SEPARATION OF MAN FROM BRUTES AND THINGS,