Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1838-02-21

0een my Mcdtt r. 1nS h-oia .Seo0 i3 9aN1
and shield Good is love-" 1.-The
Lord is my rock;;"' = !" the seven good ears
are seven years, and the seven good kline
are seven years." "the seven thin and
iil,farored kline are seven years and the
seven empty ears blasted by the east wind
shall, be seven years of famine )" " he
shall be head, and thou shalt be tail -
"the Lord viH be wall of fire." " they
shall be one flesh" "the tree of the field
is mans life = God IS a consuming
fire )" che is bis money" &c. A pas
sion for the exact literaIities of Bible
language is so amiable, it were hard not
to crafty it in this case. The words in
the original are (Kaspo-hu,) Ibis siIver
is he" The objector's principle of in
depreciation is, philosophers stone Its
miracle touch transmutes FIVE feet eight
inches of flesh and homes into solid siiver!
Quite a permanent servant, it not so nim-
Bile with all-reasoning against Is forever,"
is forestalled henceforth, and, Deut. xiii.
Is, utterly outwitted.
Who in his senses believes that in the
expression, q He IS his money!" the object
was to inculcate the doctrine that the SER
want was cAntteI? The obvious mean
ing is, he is a0orth money to his master,
and since, if the master kill him, it would
take money out of his pocket, the pecWn-
iary loss, the kind Of instrument used, and
the fact Of his Icing some time after the
injury, las, if the master meant to kill, he
would be likely to do it while about it,)
za trnn Of
presumptive evidence clearing the master
of intent to KILL But let US look at the
objector's differences. One is, that as. the
master might dispose of his property as
he p leased, he was not to be punished, if
he destroyed it. Answer. Whether the
servant died under the masters hand, or
continued day or two, he was equally
his masters property, and the Director
admits that in the first case the master is
to be "surely punished'' for destroying
his oaon property The other inference
is, that since the continuance of day or
two, cleared the master Of intent to Kill,
the loss of the slave would be sufficient
punishment for inficting the injury which
caused his death. This inference makes
the Mosaic law false to it's own princi
pies. A ?ecwni0ry loss, constituted no
part of the claims Of the law, where a
person took the life Of another In such
case, the law utterly spurned money,
however large the sum. God would not
so cheaper human life, as to balance it
with such Weight Ye shall take no
satisfaction for the life of nsurdt rer, b.:
he shall surely be pat to DEATH" See
Numb. xxxv. 81. Even in excusabIe
homicide, case of death purely accident
al. as where dn axe slippid from the heIye
and killed man, no sum Of money avail
ed to release from confinement in the city
} of refuge. until the death of the High
Priest Numbers xxxv. 80. The doc
trine that the loss of the servant would be
penalty adequate to the desert of the
master, admits the masters gui1t-his
desertof some punishment, audit prescrrbes
} kind of punishment, rejected by the
: law, in all cases where man took the life
of man, whether with or without intent
? to kill. In short, the objector annuls an
integral part of the system-resolves him
self into legislature, with power in the
premises, makes meco law, and coolly
metes out such penalty as he thinks fit,
= both in kind and quantity. Mosaic stat
r utes amended, and Divine Legislation re-
3 vised and improved
8 The master who struck out the tooth
of a servant, whether intentionally or not
/ was required to Set him free for his tooth 5
=. sake. The pecuniary loss to the master
i was the same as though the servant had
i died. Look at the two cases A master
beats his servant so severely, that after a
day or two he dies of his wounds; anoth-
4 er master accidentally strikes out his ser
E wants tooth, and his servant is free-tht
It pecuniary loss Of both masters is the same
. The director contends that the loss of the
= slaves services in the first case, is pun
e ishment sufficient for the crime of killing
e him; yet God com nands the same pun
!, ishment for even the accidental knocking
out Of a tooth! Indeed, unless the injury
e was done Inadvertently, the loss of thu
Il servants services is only part of tht
n punishment-mere reparation to the indi
re viduaI for injury done the main punish
ii ment that strictly judicial, was repara
r ton to the community for injury TO one o
e its members. To set the servant free
and thus proclaim his injury, his right t.
., redress, and the measure Of it-answeret
d not the ends of public justice. The law
s made an example of the offender, tina
IL Those that remain might hear and fear.
e, "Ifa man cause a Nemish In his neigh
'y Dor, as he hath done, so shall 1T be done un
d to him. Breach for breach, eye for eye
f. tooth for tooth; as he hath caused Hem
lie ish in man, so shall II be done to hin
s. again. Yc shall have one manner Of loe
e as yell for the STRANGER as for one 0
,e aour osrn c0untrv." Let xxiv. 10, &c