Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1838-01-24

The ancient Jewish Doctors agree in the testi-
mony, that the servant from the strangers who at
the close of his probationary year. still refused 10
adopt the religion of the Mosaic system, and was
on that account cut off from the family and sent
back to his own people, received full compelsa-
ti0a for his services, besides the payment of his
expenses. But that PostpOneEnezt of the circum
cison Of the foreign servant for year Tor eUen at
all after he had entered the family of an Israee)
of which the Mishnc doctors speak, seems 10 have
been a mere usage We find nothing of II in the
regulations Of the Mosaic system. Circumcision
was manfestIY rite strictly izlitidtOry. Wheth-
| er il was rite merely national spiritual, or
both, comes not within the scope of this inquiry.
Nor does It at all affect the argument.
As though God had said, TO deliver
him up would be to recognize the right
of the master to hold him. His fleeing
shows his choice, proclaims his wrongs,
his masters oppressive acts. and his own
claim to legal protection" You shall
not force him back, and thus recognize
the right ofthe master to hold him in such
a condition as induces him to flee to others
for protection. 1t may be OBJECTED, that
this command had no reference to servants
among the IsraeLites, but only to those of
tons. We answer, the regulation has no
restriction. Its terms are unlimited But
the objection, even if valid merely shifts
the pressure of the difficulty to another
point. Does God array his infinite au-
thority to protect the free choice of SIN
gle servant from the heather, and yet au-
th0rize the same persons, 10 crush the
free choice Of thousands of servants from
the heathen2 Suppose case. A tor-
eign servant fees from his master to the
Israelites; God speaks, He snail dwell
with thee, in that place which he shall
choose, in one of thy gates where it tiketh
him best" They were strictly charged
r not TO put him in a condition which he
did not CHOOSE. Now, suppose this same
servant instead of coming into Israel Of
his own accord, had been dragged in by
c some kidnapper who 6o~gh: him of his
=, master, and forced him into a condition
? against his will Would He who forbade
: such treatment OF the stranger, who col
i. unfairly came into the land, sanction the
r same treatment Of the same person, provid
= ed in addition to this last outrage, the
r precious one had been committed of fore
:. ing him into the nation against his ooiH
. To commit violence on the free choice o
h a foreign servant is horrible enormity
e forsooth, PROVIDED you begin the violence
J after he has come among you. But
you commit the first act on the other sid
s of the line; if you begin the outrage b,
It buying him from third person 0gains
d his toitt, and then tear him from home
IS and drag him across the line into the LAM
of Israel, and hold him as a slave-ah
81 that alters the case, and you may perpe
> trate the violence now with impunity J.
B, Would greater favor have been shown t
- this new conner from the heather tina
to the old residents-those who had bee
6, servants in Jewish families perhaps for
E generation2 Were the Israelites con-
manded to exercise toward him uncircun
is cised and out of the covenant, justice an
kindness denied to the multitudes VIII
lie arere circumcised, and 11ithin the covenan
= Again: the obiector finds small gain
; his argument on the supposItion that tn
&c covenant respected merely the fugitive
H. from the surrounding nations, while it lie
&c the servants of the Israeites in conditio
II against their WILTSHIRE oblector fine
u small gain to his argument In that cas-
~ the surrounding nations would of courS
~ adopt retaliatory measures, and resol,
~ themselves into so many ylums for fug
y tive lsraelitish servants. AS these nation
&c were on every side of them, such procI
:" NATION would have been an effectual lure
u men held in condition which was a CO..
u nc slant confirmation of 10iU. Further, tt
n0 objector's assumption destroys itself, fl
u the same command which protected Il
rs foreign servant from the power of
E master, protected him equally from Il
n power Of an Israetite. 1t was not mer
y; Iy, Thou shalt not deliver him to
~ MASTER" but he (he servant) shall DIVE
nc with thee, in that place which he sha
nG choose in one of thy gates where it like
Gu him best. Every Israelite was comman
ed to respect his free choice, and to p
vi him In no condition against his soiU.-
81 What was this but proclamation, that &
&c who chose to live in the land and OBJ,
To- the laws, were left to their own free wi
to dispose of their services at such rat
as to such persons, aud in such places
oa they pleased?
Or Besides, grant that this command pr
NJ hibited the sending back of foreign Sc
tSs wants merely, was there any law requi
-, ing the return of servants who had esca
~ ed from the IsrGelites? There was
. statute requiring the return of proper
~ lost, and cattle escaped, but none requi
n. ing the return Of escaped servants.
Finally, these verses contain, frst
er command, Thou shalt not deliver" &
ou Secondly, declaration of the fugitiv,
err right of free choice. and of Gods will th