Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1838-01-10

4
city, wasted and thunder-scarred, lying in /
/ desolation, and the doom of oppressors |
traced on her ruins in the hand writing of
God, plaring in letters of fire mingled with |
blood blackened monument of wrath |
Ito the uttermost against the stealers of
| men. .-.>
No wonder that God, in code of laws
prepared for such people at such time,
should light up on its threshold blazing
beacon to fash terror on shareholders.
!" He that stealeth man and selIeth him,
or ifke be found in has hand, he shall be
suielv put to death'' Elk. xxi 16. Gods
cherubim and flaming sword guarding the
entrance to the Mosaic system! See also
Deut. xiv. Z.
The Hebrew word, Gaunab here rem
dered steateth. means the taking from an
other what belongs to him, whether it be
by violence or fraud; the same word is US
I'd in the eighth commandment, and pro-
hibits both robbery and theft.
i The crime specified is that of depriciag
SOMEBODY Of the ownership Of a man, Is
this somebod master and is the crime
that of depriving master of his se1cGnt?
Then it would have been he that steal
eth" seroGnt, not "he that steaeth a
man" If the crime had been the taking of
an individual from another, then the term
used would have been expressive of that
relation, and most especially if it was the
relation of property and proprietor!
The crime, as stated in the passage, is
three-fod-man stealing, selling and hold
ing. All are put on level, and wheIm-
ed under one penalty-DEATH. This
somebody deprived of the ownership of a
, man, Is the man himself robbed Of per-
sonal ownership. Joseph said to the ser
wants of Pharaoh, Indeed | was stolen
t away out of the land of the Hebrews
Gen. xI. Is. How stolen? His breth-
. rem took him and sold him as an article
e of merchandise. Contrastthis penalty for
S man-steaIing with that for property-steaI-
J, ing. Exod. xxi. If man stole an or
e and killed or sold it, be was to to restore
IS five oxen; if he had neither sold nor
a killed it, the penalty was two oxen.-
y The selling or the killing being virtually
s deliberate repetition of the crime, the
- penalty was more than doubled.
IS But in the case of stealing man, the
!, first act drew down the utmost power of
e punishment however often repeated or
S. however aggravated the crime, human
Ut penalty could do no more The fact that
J. the penalty for man stealing was death,
Re and the penalty for pro2ertystealing, the
mere restoration of double. shows that tine
e two cases were ad Judcated on totally dit
IS ferent principles. The man stolen might
e. be past labor, and his support a BURDEN
lie vet death was the penalty, though not a
n, cents worth of property value was taken.
it The penalty for stealing property was a
n mere property-penaly However large
h. the amount stolen, the payment Of doubi.
10 wiped out the score. 1t might have a
f greater money value than a thousand men
of yet death was never the penalty, MOI
m manning, nor branding, nor even stripes
re Whatever the kind, or the amount stolen
r. the unvarying penalty was double of IT,
S. same kind. Why was not the rule uni
at form2 When a man was stolen why no
he require the thief to restore double of tn
Mt same kiad-tOo men, or if he sold him
r fue men2 Do you say that the man
H. thief might not haze them? So the on
K thief might not have two o1en or if he hat
ut killed it, foe. But if God permitted mer
h. to hold men as property, equally witt
hit ore~, the manthef could get men will
1g whom to pay the penalty, as we'll as th
ut Ozthief, oIen
pt Further, when property was stolen, tn
gs whole of the legal penalty was a com
% pensation to the person inj ured. Blu
IN when man was stolen, no property
eir compensation was offered To tende
e. money as an equivalent, would have beeI
to to repeat the outrage with the intolerabl'
CHI aggravatlons of supreme insult and i'm
es, piety. Compute the value of MAN i,
hy money! Throw dust into the scale agains
ire Immortality! The law recoiled from
les such outrage and blasphemy. To hav
Ia crime by restoring double, would hav
Mt, been making the repetition Of crime it
he atonement But the infection of dealt
en- for man-stsaltng exacted from the guilt,
NJ wretch the utmost possibility of reparation
nd 1t wrung from him, as he gave up tn
ghost, testimony in blood, and dealt
ne- groans, to the infinite dignity and wort
lat of man, a proclamation to the universe
he voiced in mortal agony, that MAN Is IN
of vIoLABLE,-a confession shrieked il
by phrenzy at the graves mouth" di
III accused. and God is just"
BE If God permitted man to hold man
LY property, why did he punish for stealth;
Is. that kind of property infinitely more thai
ypt for stealing any other kind Of property
w. Why did be punish with death for steal
NV ing very little, perhaps not a sixpenc
be- worth of that sort of property, and maxi
ed mere fine, the penalty for stealing
on thousand times as much, Of any other sor
cir of propery-especialIy if God did by hi