vant 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 (_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 p