Here let it be observed, that both Israelites and Strangers, belonged indiscriminately to _each_ cla.s.s of the servants, the _bought_ and the _hired_. That those in the former cla.s.s, whether Jews or Strangers, were in higher estimation, and rose to honors and authority in the family circle, which were not conferred on _hired_ servants, has been already shown. It should be added, however, that in the enjoyment of privileges, merely _political_ and _national_, the hired servants from the _Israelites_, were more favored than either the hired, or the bought servants from the _Strangers_. No one from the Strangers, however wealthy or highly endowed, was eligible to the highest office, nor could he own the soil. This last disability seems to have been one reason for the different periods of service required of the two cla.s.ses of bought servants--the Israelites and the Strangers. The Israelite was to serve six years--the Stranger until the jubilee[A].
[Footnote A: Both cla.s.ses may with propriety be called _permanent_ servants; even the bought Israelite, when his six-years" service is contrasted with the brief term of the hired servant.]
As the Strangers could not own the soil, nor even houses, except within walled towns, most of them would choose to attach themselves permanently to Israelitish families. Those Strangers who were wealthy, or skilled in manufactures, instead of becoming servants themselves, would need servants for their own use, and as inducements for the Strangers to become servants to the Israelites, were greater than persons of their own nation could hold out to them, these wealthy Strangers would naturally procure the poorer Israelites for servants. See Levit. xxv.
47. In a word, such was the political condition of the Strangers, the Jewish polity furnished a strong motive to them, to become servants, thus incorporating themselves with the nation, and procuring those social and religious privileges already enumerated, and for their children in the second generation, a permanent inheritance. (This last was a regulation of later date. Ezekiel xlvii. 21-23.) Indeed, the structure of the whole Mosaic polity, was a virtual bounty offered to those who would become permanent servants, and merge in the Jewish system their distinct nationality. None but the monied aristocracy among them, would be likely to decline such offers.
For various reasons, this cla.s.s, (the servants bought from the Strangers,) would prefer a _long_ service. They would thus more effectually become absorbed into the national circulation, and identify their interests with those in whose gift were all things desirable for themselves, and brighter prospects for their children. On the other hand, the Israelites, owning all the soil, and an inheritance of land being a sort of sacred possession, to hold it free of inc.u.mbrance, was, with every Israelite, a delicate point, both of family honor and personal character. 1 Kings xxi. 3. Hence, to forego the _possession_ of one"s inheritance, _after_ the division of the paternal domain, or to be restrained from its _control_, after having acceded to it, was a burden grievous to be borne. To mitigate, as much as possible, such a calamity, the law, instead of requiring the Israelite to continue a servant until the jubilee, released him at the end six years[A], as, during that time--if, of the first cla.s.s--the part.i.tion of the patrimonial land might have taken place; or, if of the second, enough money might have been earned to disenc.u.mber his estate, and thus he might a.s.sume his station as a lord of the soil. If these contingencies had not occurred, then, at the end of another six years, the opportunity was again offered, and in the same manner until the jubilee. So while strong motives urged the Israelite, to discontinue his service as soon as the exigency had pa.s.sed, which induced him to become a servant, every consideration impelled the _Stranger_ to _prolong_ his term of service; and the same kindness which dictated the law of six years" service for the Israelite, a.s.signed as the general rule, a much longer period to the Gentile servant, who, instead of being tempted to a brief service, had every inducement to protract the term.
[Footnote A: Another reason for protracting the service until the seventh year, seems to have been, its coincidence with other arrangements, and provisions, inseparable from the Jewish economy. That period was a favorite one in the Mosaic system. Its pecuniary responsibilities, social relations and general internal structure, if not _graduated_ upon a septennial scale, were variously modified by the lapse of the period. Another reason doubtless was, that as those Israelites who became servants through poverty, would not sell themselves, except as a last resort when other expedients to recruit their finances had failed--(See Lev. xxv. 35)--their _becoming servants_ proclaimed such a state of their affairs, as demanded the labor of _a course of years_ fully to reinstate them.]
It is important to a clear understanding of the whole subject, to keep in mind that adult Jews ordinarily became servants, only as a temporary expedient to relieve themselves from embarra.s.sment, and ceased to be such when that object was effected. The poverty that forced them to it was a calamity, and their service was either a means of relief, or a measure of prevention. It was not pursued as a _permanent business_, but resorted to on emergencies--a sort of episode in the main scope of their lives. Whereas with the Strangers, it was a _permanent employment_, pursued not merely as a _means_ of bettering their own condition, and prospectively that of their posterity, but also, as an _end_ for its own sake, conferring on them privileges, and a social estimation not otherwise attainable.
We see from the foregoing, why servants purchased from the heathen, are called by way of distinction, _the_ servants, (not _bondmen_, as our translators have it.) (1.) They followed it as a _permanent business_.
(2.) Their term of service was _much longer_ than that of the other cla.s.s. (3.) As a cla.s.s, they doubtless greatly outnumbered the Israelitish servants. (4.) All the Strangers that dwelt in the land, were _tributaries_ to the Israelites--required to pay an annual tribute to the government, either in money, or in public service, which was called a "_tribute of bond-service_;" in other words, all the Strangers were _national servants_, to the Israelites, and the same Hebrew word which is used to designate _individual_ servants, equally designates _national_ servants or tributaries. 2 Sam. viii. 2, 6, 14. 2 Chron.
viii. 7-9. Deut. xx. 11. 2 Sam. x. 19. 1 Kings ix. 21, 22. 1 Kings iv.
21. Gen. xxvii. 29. The same word is applied to the Israelites, when they paid tribute to other nations. See 2 Kings xvii. 3. Judges iii. 8, 14. Gen. xlix. 15. Another distinction between the Jewish and Gentile bought servants, claims notice. It was in the _kinds_ of service a.s.signed to each cla.s.s. The servants from the Strangers, were properly the _domestics_, or household servants, employed in all family work, in offices of personal attendance, and in such mechanical labor, as was constantly required in every family, by increasing wants, and needed repairs. On the other hand, the Jewish bought servants seem to have been almost exclusively _agricultural_. Besides being better fitted for this by previous habits--agriculture, and the tending of cattle, were regarded by the Israelites as the most honorable of all occupations; kings engaged in them. After Saul was elected king, and escorted to Gibeah, the next report of him is, "_And behold Saul came after the herd out of the field_."--1 Sam. xi. 7.
Elisha "was plowing with twelve yoke of oxen" when Elijah threw his mantle upon him. 1 Kings xix. 19. King Uzziah "loved husbandry." 2 Chron. xxvi. 10. Gideon, the deliverer of Israel, _was "threshing wheat_ by the wine press" when called to lead the host against the Midianites.
Judges vi. 11. The superior honorableness of agriculture, is shown by the fact, that it was _protected and supported by the fundamental law_ of the theocracy--G.o.d thus indicating it as the chief prop of the government, and putting upon it peculiar honor. An inheritance of land seems to have filled out an Israelite"s idea of worldly furnishment.
They were like permanent fixtures on their soil, so did they cling to it. To be agriculturalists on their own inheritances, was, in their notions, the basis of family consequence, and the grand claim to honorable estimation. Agriculture being pre-eminently a _Jewish_ employment, to a.s.sign a native Israelite to _other_ employments as a _business_, was to break up his habits, do violence to cherished predilections, and put him to a kind of labor in which he had no skill, and which he deemed degrading. In short, it was, in the earlier ages of the Mosaic system, practically to _unjew_ him, a hardship and rigor grievous to be borne, as it annihilated a visible distinction between the descendants of Abraham and the Strangers--a distinction vital to the system, and gloried in by every Jew.
_To guard this and another fundamental distinction_, G.o.d inst.i.tuted the regulation contained in Leviticus xxv. 39, which stands at the head of this branch of our inquiry, "_If thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee, thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant._" In other words, thou shalt not put him to _servants"
work_--to the _business_, and into the _condition_ of _domestics_.
In the Persian version it is translated thus, "Thou shalt not a.s.sign to him the work of _servitude_," (or _menial_ labor.) In the Septuagint thus, "He shall not serve thee with the service of a _domestic or household servant_." In the Syriac thus, "Thou shalt not employ him after the manner of servants." In the Samaritan thus, "Thou shalt not require him to serve in the service of a servant." In the Targum of Onkelos thus, "He shall not serve thee with the service of a household servant." In the Targum of Jonathan thus, "Thou shalt not cause him to serve according to the usages of the servitude of servants[A]." In fine, "thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant," means, _thou shalt not a.s.sign him to the same grade, nor put him to the same services, with permanent domestics._
[Footnote A: Jarchi"s comment on "Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant" is, "the Hebrew servant is not to be required to do any thing which is accounted degrading--such as all offices of personal attendance, as loosing his master"s shoe latchet, bringing him water to wash his feet and hands, waiting on him at table, dressing him, carrying things to and from the bath. The Hebrew servant is to work with his master as a son or brother, in the business of his farm, or other labor, until his legal release."]
We pa.s.s to the remainder of the regulation in the 40th verse:--
"_But as an hired servant and as a sojourner shall he be with thee_."
Hired servants were not incorporated into the families of their masters; they still retained their own family organization, without the surrender of any domestic privilege, honor, or authority; and this, even though they resided under the same roof with their master. While bought-servants were a.s.sociated with their master"s families at meals, at the Pa.s.sover, and at other family festivals, hired servants and sojourners were not. Exodus xii. 44, 45; Lev. xxii. 10, 11. Not being merged in the family of his master, the hired servant was not subject to his authority, (except in directions about his labor) in any such sense as the master"s wife, children, and bought servants. Hence the only form of oppressing hired servants spoken of in the Scriptures as practicable to masters, is that of _keeping back their wages_.
To have taken away these privileges in the case stated in the pa.s.sage under consideration, would have been preeminent _rigor_; for the case described, is not that of a servant born in the house of a master, nor that of a minor, whose unexpired minority had been sold by the father, neither was it the case of an Israelite, who though of age, had not yet acceded to his inheritance; nor, finally, was it that of one who had received the _a.s.signment_ of his inheritance, but was, as a servant, working off from it an inc.u.mbrance, before entering upon its possession and control[A]. But it was that of _the head of a family_, who had lived independently on his own inheritance, and long known better days, now reduced to poverty, forced to relinquish the loved inheritance of his fathers, with the competence and respectful consideration its possession secured to him, and to be indebted to a neighbor for shelter, sustenance, and employment, both for himself and his family. Surely so sad a reverse, might well claim sympathy; but there remaineth to him one consolation, and it cheers him in the house of his pilgrimage. He is an _Israelite--Abraham is his father_, and now in his calamity he clings closer than ever, to the distinction conferred by the immunities of his birthright. To rob him of this, were "the unkindest cut of all." To have a.s.signed him to a _grade_ of service filled only by those whose permanent business was _serving_, would have been to _rule over him with peculiar rigor_.
[Footnote A: These two latter cla.s.ses are evidently referred to in Exod.
xxi. 1-6, and Deut. xv. 12]
Finally, the former part of the regulation, "Thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bond-servant," or more literally, _thou shall not serve thyself with him, with the service of a servant_, guaranties his political privileges, and secures to him a kind and grade of service, comporting with his character and relations as a son of Israel. And the remainder of the verse, "But as a _hired_ servant, and as a sojourner shall he be with thee," continues and secures to him his separate family organization, the respect and authority due to his head, and the general consideration in society resulting from such a station. Though this individual was a Jewish _bought_ servant, the case is peculiar, and forms an exception to the general cla.s.s of Jewish bought servants. Being already in possession of his inheritance, and the head of a household, the law so arranged his relations, as a servant, as to _alleviate_ as much as possible the calamity which had reduced him from independence and authority, to penury and subjection.
Having gone so much into detail on this point, comment on the command which concludes this topic in the forty-third verse, would be superfluous. "_Thou shalt not rule over him with rigor, but shalt fear thy G.o.d_." As if it had been said, "In your administration you shall not disregard those differences in previous habits, station, authority, and national and political privileges, upon which this regulation is based; for to exercise authority over this cla.s.s of servants, _irrespective_ of these distinctions, and annihilating them, is _to__rule with rigor_."
The same command is repeated in the forty-sixth verse, and applied to the distinction between the servants of Jewish, and those of Gentile extraction, and forbids the overlooking of distinctive Jewish peculiarities, so vital to an Israelite as to make the violation of them, _rigorous_ in the extreme; while to the servants from the Strangers, whose previous habits and a.s.sociations differed so widely from those of the Israelite, these same things would be deemed slight disabilities.
It may be remarked here, that the political and other disabilities of the Strangers, which were the distinctions growing out of a different national descent, and important to the preservation of national characteristics, and to the purity of national worship, do not seem to have effected at all the _social_ estimation, in which this cla.s.s of servants was held. They were regarded according to their character and worth as _persons_, irrespective of their foreign origin, employments, and political condition.
The common construction put upon the expression, "_rule with rigor_,"
and an inference drawn from it, have an air so oracular, as quite to overcharge risibles of ordinary calibre, if such an effect were not forestalled by its impiety. It is interpreted to mean, "you shall not make him an article of property, you shall not force him to work, and rob him of his earnings, you shall not make him a chattel, and strip him of legal protection." So much for the interpretation. The inference is like unto it, viz. Since the command forbade such outrages upon the _Israelites, it permitted and commissioned_ the infliction of them upon the _Strangers_. Such impious and shallow smattering, captivates two cla.s.ses of minds, the one by its flippancy, the other by its blasphemy, and both, by the strong scent of its unbridled license. What boots it to reason against such rampant affinities!
In Exodus, chap. i. 13, 14, it is said that the Egyptians "made the children of Israel to _serve_ with rigor," "and all their _service_ wherein they made them _serve_, was with rigor." The rigor here spoken of, is affirmed of the _amount of labor_ extorted from them, and the _mode_ of the exaction. This form of expression, "_serve with rigor_,"
is never applied to the service of servants either under the Patriarchal, or the Mosaic systems. Nor is any other form of expression ever used, either equivalent to it, or at all similar. The phrase, "thou shalt not RULE over him with rigor," used in Leviticus xxv. 43, 46, does not prohibit unreasonable exactions of labor, nor inflictions of personal cruelty. _Such were provided against otherwise_. But it forbids, confounding the distinctions between a Jew and a Stranger, by a.s.signing the former to the same grade of service, for the same term of time, and under the same national and political disabilities as the latter.
We are now prepared to survey at a glance, the general condition of the different cla.s.ses of servants, with the modifications peculiar to each cla.s.s. I. In the possession of _all fundamental rights, all cla.s.ses of servants were on an absolute equality_, all were _equally protected_ by law in their persons, character, property and social relations. All were _voluntary_, all were _compensated_ for their labor. All were released from their regular labor nearly _one half of the days in each year_, all were furnished with stated _instruction_; none in either cla.s.s were in any sense articles of _property_, all were regarded as _men_, with the rights, interests, hopes, and destinies of _men_. In these respects the circ.u.mstances of _all_ cla.s.ses of servants among the Israelites, were not only similar but _identical_, and so far forth, they formed but ONE CLa.s.s.
II. DIFFERENT CLa.s.sES OF SERVANTS.
1. _Hired Servants_.--This cla.s.s consisted both of Israelites and Strangers. Their employments were different. The _Israelite_, was an agricultural servant. The Stranger was a _domestic_ and _personal_ servant, and in some instances _mechanical_; both were _occasional_, procured _temporally_ to serve an emergency. Both lived in their own families, their wages were _money_, and they were paid when their work was done. As a _cla.s.s of servants_, the hired were less loved, trusted, honored and promoted than any other.
2. _Bought Servants, (including those "born in the house.")_--This cla.s.s also, was composed both of Israelites and Strangers, the same general difference obtaining in their kinds of employment as was noticed before.
Both were paid in advance[A], and neither was temporary.
[Footnote A: The payment _in advance_, doubtless lessened considerably the price of the purchase; the servant thus having the use of the money from the beginning, and the master a.s.suming all the risks of life, and health for labor; at the expiration of the six years" contract, the master having experienced no loss from the risk incurred at the making of it, was obliged by law to release the servant with a liberal gratuity. The reason a.s.signed for this is, "he hath been worth a double hired servant unto thee in serving thee six years," as if it had been said, he has now served out his time, and as you have experienced no loss from the risks of life, and ability to labor which you incurred in the purchase, and which lessened the price, and as, by being your permanent servant for six years, he has saved you all the time and trouble of looking up and hiring laborers on emergencies, therefore, "thou shalt furnish him liberally," &c.]
The Israelitish servant, in most instances, was released after six years. (The _freeholder_ continued until the jubilee.) The Stranger, was a _permanent_ servant, continuing until the jubilee. Besides these distinctions between Jewish and Gentile bought servants, a marked distinction obtained between different cla.s.ses of Jewish bought servants. Ordinarily, during their term of service, they were merged in their master"s family, and, like the wife and children of the master, subject to his authority; (and of course, like them, protected by law from its abuse.) But _one_ cla.s.s of the Jewish bought servants was a marked exception. The _freeholder_, obliged by poverty to leave his possession, and sell himself as a servant, did not thereby affect his family relations, or authority, nor subject himself as an inferior to the control of his master, though dependent upon him for employment. In this respect, his condition differed from that of the main body of Jewish bought servants, which seems to have consisted of those, who had not yet come into possession of their inheritance, or of those who were dislodging from it an inc.u.mbrance.
Having dwelt so much at length on this part of the subject, the reader"s patience may well be spared further details. We close it with a suggestion or two, which may serve as a solvent of some minor difficulties, if such remain.
I. It should be kept in mind, that _both_ cla.s.ses of servants, the Israelite and the Stranger, not only enjoyed _equal natural and religious rights_, but _all the civil and political privileges_ enjoyed by those of their own people, who were _not_ servants. If Israelites, all rights belonging to Israelites were theirs. If from the Strangers, the same political privileges enjoyed by those wealthy Strangers, who bought and held _Israelitish_ servants, _were theirs_. They also shared _in common with them_, the political disabilities which appertained to _all_ Strangers, whether the servants of Jewish masters, or the masters of Jewish servants.
II. The disabilities of the servants from the Strangers, were exclusively _political_ and _national_.
1. They, in common with all Strangers, _could not own the soil_.
2. They were _ineligible to civil offices_.
3. They were a.s.signed to _employments_ less honorable than those in which Israelitish servants engaged; agriculture being regarded as fundamental to the prosperity and even to the existence of the state, other employments were in far less repute, and deemed _unjewish_.
Finally, the condition of the Strangers, whether servants or masters, was, as it respected political privileges, much like that of unnaturalized foreigners in the United States; no matter how great their wealth or intelligence, or moral principle, or love for our inst.i.tutions, they can neither go to the ballot-box, nor own the soil, nor be eligible to office. Let a native American, who has always enjoyed these privileges, be suddenly bereft of them, and loaded with the disabilities of an alien, and what to the foreigner would be a light matter, to _him_, would be the severity of _rigor_.
The recent condition of the Jews and Catholics in England, is a still better ill.u.s.tration of the political condition of the Strangers in Israel. Rothschild, the late English banker, though the richest private citizen in the world, and perhaps master of scores of English servants, who sued for the smallest crumbs of his favor, was, as a subject of the government, inferior to the veriest scavenger among them. Suppose an Englishman, of the Established Church, were by law deprived of power to own the soil, made ineligible to office, and deprived unconditionally of the electoral franchise, would Englishmen think it a misapplication of language, if it were said, "The government rules over that man with rigor?" And yet his life, limbs, property, reputation, conscience, all his social relations, the disposal of his time, the right of locomotion at pleasure, and of natural liberty in all respects, are just as much protected by law as the Lord Chancellor"s. The same was true of all "the strangers within the gates" among the Israelites: Whether these Strangers were the servants of Israelitish masters, or the masters of Israelitish servants, whether sojourners, or bought servants, or born in the house, or hired, or neither--_all were protected equally with the descendants of Abraham._
Finally--As the Mosaic system was a great compound type, made up of innumerable fractional ones, each rife with meaning in doctrine and duty; the practical power of the whole, depended upon the exact observance of those distinctions and relations which const.i.tuted its significancy. Hence, the care everywhere shown to preserve inviolate the distinction between a _descendant of Abraham_ and a _Stranger_, even when the Stranger was a proselyte, had gone through the initiatory ordinances, entered the congregation, and become incorporated with the Israelites by family alliance. The regulation laid down in Exodus xxi.
2-6, is an ill.u.s.tration, _"If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years shall he serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then, his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have borne him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master"s, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant should plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children, I will not go out free: then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door-post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall serve him forever."_ In this case, the Israelitish servant, whose term expired in six years, married one of his master"s _permanent female domestics_; but the fact of her marriage, did not release her master from _his_ part of the contract for her whole term of service, nor absolve him from his legal obligation to support and educate her children. Nor could it do away that distinction, which marked her national descent by a specific _grade_ and _term_ of service. Her marriage did not impair her obligation to fulfil _her_ part of the contract. Her relations as a permanent domestic grew out of a distinction guarded with great care throughout the Mosaic system. To permit this to be rendered void, would have been to divide the system against itself. This G.o.d would not tolerate. Nor, on the other hand, would he permit the master, to throw off the responsibility of instructing her children, nor the care and expense of their helpless infancy and rearing. He was bound to support and educate them, and all her children born afterwards during her term of service. The whole arrangement beautifully ill.u.s.trates that wise and tender regard for the interests of all the parties concerned, which arrays the Mosaic system in robes of glory, and causes it to shine as the sun in the kingdom of our Father. By this law, the children had secured to them a mother"s tender care. If the husband loved his wife and children, he could compel his master to keep him, whether he had any occasion for his services or not, and with such remuneration as was provided by the statute. If he did not love them, to be rid of him was a blessing; and in that case, the regulation would prove an act for the relief of an afflicted family.
It is not by any means to be inferred, that the release of the servant from his service in the seventh year, either absolved him from the obligations of marriage, or shut him out from the society of his family.
He could doubtless procure a service at no great distance from them, and might often do it, to get higher wages, or a kind of employment better suited to his taste and skill, or because his master might not have sufficient work to occupy him. Whether he lived near his family, or at a considerable distance, the great number of days on which the law released servants from regular labor, would enable him to spend much more time with them than can be spent by most of the agents of our benevolent societies with _their_ families, or by many merchants, editors, artists, &c., whose daily business is in New York, while their families reside from ten to one hundred miles in the country.
We conclude this Inquiry by touching briefly upon an objection, which, though not formally stated, has been already set aside by the whole tenor of the foregoing argument. It is this,--
_"The slavery of the Canaanites by the Israelites, was appointed by G.o.d as a commutation of the punishment of death denounced against them for their sins."_--If the absurdity of a sentence consigning persons to _death_, and at the same time to perpetual _slavery_, did not sufficiently laugh in its own face, it would be small self-denial, in a case so tempting, to make up the deficiency by a general contribution.
For, _be it remembered_, the Mosaic law was given, while Israel was _in the wilderness_, and only _one_ statute was ever given respecting _the disposition to be made of the inhabitants of the land._ If the sentence of death was first p.r.o.nounced against them, and afterwards _commuted_, when? where? by whom? and in what terms was the commutation? And where is it recorded? Grant, for argument"s sake, that all the Canaanites were sentenced to unconditional extermination; as there was no reversal of the sentence, how can a right to _enslave_ them, be drawn from such premises? The punishment of death is one of the highest recognitions of man"s moral nature possible. It proclaims him _man_--intelligent accountable, guilty _man,_ deserving death for having done his utmost to cheapen human life, and make it worthless, when the proof of its priceless value, lives in his own nature. But to make him a _slave,_ cheapens to nothing _universal human nature,_ and instead of healing a wound, gives a death stab. What! repair an injury done to rational being in the robbery of _one_ of its rights, not merely by robbing it of _all,_ but by annihilating the very _foundation_ of them--that everlasting distinction between men and things? To make a man a chattel, is not the _punishment,_ but the _annihilation_ of a _human_ being, and, so far as it goes, of _all_ human beings. This commutation of the punishment of death, into perpetual slavery, what a fortunate discovery!
Alas! for the honor of Deity, if commentators had not manned the forlorn hope, and rushed to the rescue of the Divine character at the very crisis of its fate, and, by a timely movement, covered its retreat from the perilous position in which inspiration had carelessly left it! Here a question arises of sufficient importance for a separate dissertation; but must for the present be disposed of in a few paragraphs. WERE THE CANAANITES SENTENCED BY G.o.d TO INDIVIDUAL AND UNCONDITIONAL EXTERMINATION? That the views generally prevalent on this subject, are wrong, we have no doubt; but as the limits of this Inquiry forbid our going into the merits of the question, so as to give all the grounds of dissent from the commonly received opinions, the suggestions made, will be thrown out merely as QUERIES, and not as a formal laying down of _doctrines_.