of Bethlehem) is the blood of the men who went in jeopardy of their lives;” “I am the lily of the valleys;” “a garden enclosed is my sister;” “my tears have been my meat;” “the Lord God is a sun and a shield;” “God is love;” “the Lord is my rock;” “the seven good ears are seven years, and the seven good kine are seven years;” “the seven thin and ill-favored kine 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 shall be tail;” “the Lord will be a wall of fire;” “they shall be one flesh;” “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 Bible language is so amiable, it were hard not to gratify it in this case.  The words in the original are (Kaspo-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 with all—­reasoning against “forever,” is forestalled henceforth, and, Deut. xxiii. 15, utterly outwitted.

Who in his senses believes that in the expression, “He is his money,” the object was to inculcate the doctrine that the servant was a chattel?  The obvious meaning is, he is worth money to his master, and since, if the master killed him, it would take money out of his pocket, the pecuniary loss, the kind of instrument used, and the fact of his living some time after the injury, (as, if the master meant to kill, he would be likely to do it while about it,) all together make out a strong case of presumptive evidence clearing the master of 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.  Answer.  Whether the servant died under the master’s hand, or continued a day or two, he was equally his master’s 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 slave 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, 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 cheapen human life, as to balance it with such a weight. “Ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, but he shall