Again:  the objector finds small gain to his argument on the supposition that the covenant respected merely the fugitives from the surrounding nations, while it left the servants of the Israelites in a condition against their wills—­the objector finds small gain to his argument.  In that case, the surrounding nations would of course adopt retaliatory measures, and resolve themselves into so many asylums for fugitive Israelitish servants.  As these nations were on every side of them such a proclamation would have been an effectual lure to men held in a condition which was a constant counteraction of will.  Further, the objector’s assumption destroys itself; for the same command which protected the foreign servant from the power of his master, protected him equally from the power of an Israelite.  It was not merely, “Thou shalt not deliver him to his master,” but “he (the servant) shall dwell with thee, in that place which he shall choose, in one of thy gates where it liketh him best.”  Every Israelite was commanded to respect his free choice, and to put him in no condition against his will.  What was this but a proclamation, that all who chose to live in the land and obey the laws, were left to their own free will, to dispose of their services at such a rate, to such persons, and in such places as they pleased?

Besides, grant that this command prohibited the sending back of foreign servants merely, was the any law requiring the return of servants who had escaped from the Israelites?  There was a statute requiring the return of property lost, and cattle escaped, but none requiring the return of escaped servants.

Finally, these verses contain, first, a command, “Thou shalt not deliver,” &c. Secondly, a declaration of the fugitive’s right of free choice, and of God’s will that he should exercise it at his own discretion; and thirdly, a command guarding this right, namely, “Thou shalt not oppress him,” as though God had said, If you forbid him to exercise his own choice, as to the place and condition of his residence, it is oppression, and I will not tolerate it.

3. We argue the voluntariness of servants from their peculiar opportunities and facilities for escape.  Three times every year, all the males over twelve years of age, were required to attend the public festivals.  The main body were thus absent from their homes not less than three weeks each time, making nine weeks annually.  As these caravans moved over the country, were there military scouts lining the way, to intercept deserters?—­a corporal’s guard stationed at each pass of the mountains, sentinels pacing the hill-tops, and light horse scouring the defiles?  What safe contrivance had the Israelites for taking their "slaves" three times in a year to Jerusalem and back?  When a body of slaves is moved any distance in our free and equal republic, they