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 for 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 make 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_." 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_"