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 (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 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