Chapter 6

judges by which to detect _the intent_, in actions brought before them. Their ignorance of judicial proceedings, laws of evidence, &c., made such instructions necessary. The detail gone into, in the verses quoted, is manifestly to enable them to get at the _motive_ and find out whether the master _designed_ to kill. 1. "If a man smite his servant with a _rod_."--The instrument used, gives a clue to the _intent_. See Num. xxxv. 16-18. A _rod_, not an axe, nor a sword, nor a bludgeon, nor any other death-weapon--hence, from the _kind_ of instrument, no design to _kill_ would be inferred; for _intent_ to kill would hardly have taken a _rod_ for its weapon. But if the servant "_die under his hand_," then the unfitness of the instrument, is point blank against him; for, striking with a _rod_ so as to cause death, presupposed very many blows and great violence, and this kept up till the death-gasp, showed an _intent to kill_. Hence "He shall _surely_ be punished." But if he continued a day or two, the _length of time that he lived_, the _kind_ of instrument used, and the master's pecuniary interest in his _life_, ("he is his _money_,") all made a strong case of presumptive evidence, showing that the master did not _design_ to kill. Further, the word _nakam_, here rendered _punished_, occurs thirty-five times in the Old Testament, and in almost every place is translated "_avenge_," in a few, "_to take vengeance_," or "_to revenge_," and in this instance ALONE, "_punish_." As it stands in our translation, the pronoun preceding it, refers to the _master_, whereas it should refer to the _crime_, and the word rendered _punished_, should have been rendered _avenged_. The meaning is this: If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand, IT (the death) shall surely be avenged, or literally, _by avenging it shall be avenged_; that is, the _death_ of the servant shall be _avenged_ by the _death_ of the master. So in the next verse, "If he continue a day or two," his death is not to be avenged by the _death_ of the _master_, as in that case the crime was to be adjudged _manslaughter_, and not _murder_. In the following verse, another case of personal injury is stated, for which the injurer is to pay _a sum of money_; and yet our translators employ the same phraseology in both places! One, an instance of deliberate, wanton, killing by piecemeal; the other, an accidental, and comparatively slight injury--of the inflicter, in both cases, they say the same thing! Now, just the discrimination to be looked for where GOD legislates, is marked in the original. In the case of the servant wilfully murdered, He says, "It (the death) shall surely be _avenged_," that is, the life of the wrong doer shall expiate the crime. The same word is used in the Old Testament, when the greatest wrongs are redressed, by devoting the perpetrators to _destruction_. In the case of the unintentional injury, in the following verse, God says, "He shall surely be _fined_, (_anash_.) "He shall _pay_ as the judges determine." The simple meaning of the word _anash_, is to lay a fine. It is used in Deut. xxii. 19: "They shall _amerce_ him in one hundred shekels," and in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 3: "He condemned (_mulcted_) the land in a hundred talents of silver and a talent of gold." That _avenging_ the death of the servant, was neither imprisonment, nor stripes, nor a fine but that it was _taking the master's life_ we infer, 1. From the _use_ of the word _nakam_. See Gen. iv. 24; Josh. x. 13; Judg. xv. 7; xvi. 28; 1 Sam. xiv. 24; xviii. 25; xxv. 31; 2 Sam. iv. 8; Judg. v. 2; 1 Sam. xxv. 26-33. 2. From the express statute, Lev. xxiv. 17: "He that killeth ANY man shall surely be put to death." Also, Num. xxxv. 30, 31: "Whoso killeth ANY person, the murderer shall be put to death. Moreover, ye shall take NO SATISFACTION for the life of a murderer which is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death." 3. The Targum of Jonathan gives the verse thus, "Death by the sword shall surely be adjudged." The Targum of Jerusalem, "Vengeance shall be taken for him to the _uttermost_." Jarchi, the same. The Samaritan version: "He shall die the death." Again, the clause "for he is his money," is quoted to prove that the servant is his master's property, and therefore, if he died, the master was not to be punished. The assumption is, that the phrase, "HE IS HIS MONEY," proves not only that the servant is _worth money_ to the master, but that he is an _article of property_. If the advocates of slavery insist upon taking this principle of interpretation into the Bible, and turning it loose, let them stand and draw in self-defence. If they endorse for it at one point, they must stand sponsors all around the circle. It will be too late to cry for quarter when its stroke clears the table, and tilts them among the sweepings beneath. The Bible abounds with such expressions as the following: "This (bread) _is_ my body;" "all they (the Israelites) _are_ brass and tin;" this (water) _is_ the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives;" "the Lord God _is_ a sun;" "the seven good ears _are_ seven years;" "the tree of the field _is_ man's life;" "God _is_ a consuming fire;" "he _is_ his money," &c. A passion for the exact _literalities_ of the Bible is too amiable, not to be gratified in this case. The words in the original are (_Káspo-hu_,) "his _silver_ is he." The objector's principle of interpretation is a philosopher's stone! Its miracle touch transmutes five feet eight inches of flesh and bones into _solid silver_! Quite a _permanent_ servant, if not so nimble withal--reasoning against _"forever_," is forestalled henceforth, and, Deut. xxiii. 15, quite outwitted. The obvious meaning of the phrase, "_He is his money_," is, he is _worth money_ to his master, and since, if the master had killed him, it would have taken money out of his pocket, the _pecuniary loss_, the _kind of instrument used_, and _the fact of his living sometime after the injury_, (if the master _meant_ to kill, he would be likely to _do_ it while about it.) all together make a strong case of presumptive evidence clearing the master from _intent to kill_. But let us look at the objector's _inferences_. One is, that as the master might dispose of his _property_ as he pleased, he was not to be punished, if he destroyed it. Whether the servant died under the master's hand, or after a day or two, he was _equally_ his property, and the objector admits that in the _first_ case the master is to be "surely punished" for destroying _his own property_! The other inference is, that since the continuance of a day or two, cleared the master of _intent to kill_, the loss of the servant would be a sufficient punishment for inflicting the injury which caused his death. This inference makes the Mosaic law false to its own principles. A _pecuniary loss_ was no part of the legal claim, where a person took the _life_ of another. In such case, the law spurned money, whatever the sum. God would not cheapen human life, by balancing it with such a weight. "Ye shall take NO SATISFACTION for the life of a murderer, but he shall surely be put to death." Num. xxxv. 31. Even in excusable homicide, where an axe slipped from the helve and killed a man, no sum of money availed to release from confinement in the city of refuge, until the death of the High Priest. Num. xxxv. 32. The doctrine that the loss of the servant would be a penalty _adequate_ to the desert of the master, admits his _guilt_ and his desert of _some_ punishment, and it prescribes a 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--makes a _new_ law, and coolly metes out such penalty as he thinks fit. Divine legislation revised and improved! The master who struck out his servant's tooth, whether intentionally or not, was required to set him free. The _pecuniary loss_ to the master was the same as though he had killed him. Look at the two cases. A master beats his servant so that he dies of his wounds; another accidentally strikes out his servant's tooth,--_the pecuniary loss of both masters is the same_. If the loss of the servant's services is punishment sufficient for the crime of killing him, would God command the same punishment for the accidental knocking out of a _tooth_? Indeed, unless the injury was done _inadvertently_, the loss of the servant's services was only a part of the punishment--mere reparation to the _individual_ for injury done; the main punishment, that strictly _judicial_, was reparation to the _community_. To set the servant _free_, and thus proclaim his injury, his right to redress, and the measure of it--answered not the ends of _public_ justice. The law made an example of the offender, that "those that remain might hear and fear." "If a man cause a blemish in his neighbor, as he hath done, so shall it be done unto him. Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Ye shall have one manner of law as well for the STRANGER as for one of your own country." Lev. xxiv. 19, 20, 22. Finally, if a master smote out _his_ servant's tooth, the law smote out his tooth--thus redressing the _public_ wrong; and it cancelled the servant's obligation to the master, thus giving some compensation for the injury done, and exempting him from perilous liabilities in future.

OBJECTION III. "_Both thy bondmen and bondmaids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you, of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land, and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen forever._" Lev. xxv. 44-46.

The _points_ in these verses, urged as proof, that the Mosaic system sanctioned slavery, are 1. The word "BONDMEN." 2. "BUY." 3. "INHERITANCE AND POSSESSION." 4. "FOREVER."

We will now ascertain what sanction to slavery is derivable from these terms.

1. "BONDMEN." The fact that servants from the heathen are called "_bondmen_," while others are called "_servants_," is quoted as proof that the former were slaves. As the caprices of King James' translators were not inspired, we need stand in no special awe of them. The word here rendered bondmen is uniformly rendered servants elsewhere. The Hebrew word "_ebedh_," the plural of which is here translated "_bondmen_," is often applied to Christ. "Behold my _servant_ (bondman, slave?) whom I uphold." Isa. xlii. 1. "Behold my _servant_ (Christ) shall deal prudently." Isa. lii. 13. "And he said it is a light thing that thou (Christ) shouldst be my _servant_." Isa. xlix. 6. "To a _servant_ of rulers." Isa. xlix. 7. "By his knowledge shall my righteous _servant_ (Christ) justify many." Is. liii. 11. "Behold I will bring forth my _servant_ the BRANCH." Zech. iii. 8. In 1 Kings xii. 6, 7, it is applied to King Rehoboam. "And they spake unto him, saying if thou wilt be a _servant_ unto this people, then they will be thy _servants_ forever." In 2 Chron. xii. 7, 8, 9, 13, to the king and all the nation. The word is used to designate those who perform service for _individuals or families_, about thirty-five times in the Old Testament. To designate _tributaries_ about twenty-five times. To designate the _subjects of government_, about thirty-three times. To designate the worshippers both of the true God, and of false gods, about seventy times. It is also used in salutations and courteous addresses nearly one hundred times. In fine, the word is applied to all persons doing service for others, and that _merely to designate them as the performers of such service_, whatever it might be, or whatever the ground on which it might be rendered. To argue from the fact, of this word being used to designate domestic servants, that they were made servants by _force_, worked without pay, and held as articles of property, is such a gross assumption and absurdity as to make formal refutation ridiculous. We repeat what has been shown above, that the word rendered bondmen in Lev.