7 ¶ And if a man fsell his daugh- not go out g as the men-servants ter to be a maid-servant, he shall f Neh. 5. 5. the right to his paternal estate. But the design of the other law in giving the impoverished hired-servant his liberty at the next jubilee, was expressly that he might return to his family and again enjoy his patrimonial inheritance. As then these two ordinances appear to be entirely distinct from and unrelated to each other, there is no necessity for interpreting the phrase 'for ever,' as signifying the same as 'till the next jubilee.' do. * ver. 2, 3. ished parents is related in the subsequent history of the Jews, Neh. 5. 1—8. -T She shall not go out as the menservants do. That is, shall not go out upon the same conditions, but upon better. She shall be better provided for at her departure; inasmuch as a feeble woman is less able to protect herself and secure her own welfare, than a strong and able-bodied man. There is an apparent contradiction between this passage, and Deut. 15. 17, where, in speaking of the male servant's having his ear bored in token of perpetual serv 7. If a man sell his daughter, &c. We must still bear in mind what has been said above respecting the importitude, it is said, 'And also unto thy of selling persons under the Mosaic law. maid-servant shalt thou do likewise.' It was simply equivalent to selling one's Michaelis explains this by supposing services. It conveyed no ownership. that the Hebrew legislator, after the It did not recognise the odious doctrine lapse of forty years, made an alteration of modern slavery that a man may be in his laws, and added the ordinance come a chattel, and be held and treated contained in Deuteronomy. 'He did not simply as an article of property. So in patronize slavery; at least he endeav the case before us, a father might be re-ored to mitigate its evils to native Heduced to such an extreme of poverty as brews, and to confine it within certain to be constrained to have recourse to limits of duration. On their departure the measure here mentioned, of dispos- from Egypt, he did so with respect to ing of the services of a daughter, when males, and availing himself of an ancient of a young and tender age, for a con- and merciful usage, which terminated sideration. But it is clear from the con- servitude after seven years, he introtext that when this was done, it was, duced it by a written statute, as an inusually at least, upon some engagement controvertible right. After the people or expectation that the person who had been accustomed to this piece of bought her would take her, when of clemency, he went a step farther in the age, as his wife or concubine. Her pur- law which he gave forty years after, chase as a servant was her betrothal as and established the very same ordinance a wife. This is confirmed by the com- in behalf of females.' But we think it ment of Maimonides, who says; 'A He- more probable that there was originally brew handmaid might not be sold but to a difference in the case of a woman sold one who laid himself under obligations for theft, or who had sold herself beto espouse her to himself or to his son, cause of her poverty, and of a daughter when she was fit to be betrothed.' Jar- sold by her father, in expectation of her chi also on the same passage says, 'He being espoused by her master or one of is bound to espouse her to be his wife, his sons. In this last case, which is for the money of her purchase is the the one here considered, she would be money of her espousal.' An example entitled to peculiar tenderness, and proof this selling of daughters by impover-vision is made accordingly. But in the 8 If she please not her master, | to sell her unto a strange nation he who hath betrothed her to himself, shall have no power, seeing he hath then shall he let her be redeemed: dealt deceitfully with her. former, which seems to be contemplated in Deuteronomy, she was to come under the same regulations with the manservant who declined going out free at the end of his prescribed term. As it is perfectly conceivable that a woman might be influenced by the same motives as a man to remain with her master, and as there is no proof that such was not the case, we think this the most natural mode of reconciling the apparent discrepancy between the two passages. However this may be, it is certain that in the time of the prophet Jeremiah it was conceived that the statutes which gave freedom to the Hebrew slaves in the seventh year, extended not only to the male, but also to the female sex, Jer. 34. 9-16, a passage which may be very profitably read in this connexion. 8. If she please not her master. Heb. 77 7 DN im raah be-ainë adonëha, if she be evil in the eyes of her master; a very common Hebraic idiom, importing, however, not moral evil, but rather the want of personal attractions. 'Good,' in like manner, is in repeated instances used in a sense equivalent to 'goodly,' or as an attribute of the outer man. See Note on Gen. 39. 6. Who hath betrothed her to himself. As if the purchase under these circumstances was considered as a virtual betrothal, so that no other formalities were requisite. But it is to be noted that the original presents here a various reading, in which our translation has followed the margin (3 lo, to him) instead of the text (lo, not). In the one case the correct rendering is, 'who doth not (3) betroth her;' in the other, 'who hath betrothed her to himself (1). Either mode of reading yields substantially the same sense, only in the latter case 'betrothing' signifies the preliminary engagement or affiVOL. II. 2 ancing, which the master is supposed 9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, hand her duty of marriage shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money. h 1 Cor. 7. 5. her by frustrating her hope of marriage in his own family, he was not to add one injury to another by disposing of her in a foreign connexion, where her principles and her happiness might be alike endangered. 9, 10. He shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. That is, he shall deal with her as a free woman; shall give her a dowry, and bestow her in marriage as if she had been his own daughter. But whether he or his son had married her and then afterwards taken another wife, still this was not to operate to her disadvantage. She was to be suitably maintained, and her due matrimonial privileges continued to her, or else she was freely to be set at liberty. Her duty of marriage. Heb. anothah. Gr. την ὁμιλιαν αυτής, her companying, converse, cohabitation, which Paul, 1 Cor. 7. 3, expresses by the phrase of 'due benevolence,' equivalent to conjugal converse. -T Shall he not diminish. Heb. 12 TiHe that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. 13 And k if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then m I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. i Gen. 9. 6. Lev. 24. 17. Numb. 35. 30, 31. Matt. 26. 52. k Numb. 35. 22. Deut. 19. 4, 5. 11 Sam. 24. 4, 10, 18. m Numb. 35. 11, Deut. 19. 3. Josh. 20. 2. fraud her of necessaries, raiment, and converse.' Chal. 'And her nourishment, raiment, and communion he shall not prohibit.' Sam. 'And her habitation he shall not take away.' Arab. 'And her times he may not diminish.' Syr. 'And conjugal enjoyment he shall not lessen.' 11. If he do not these three. That is, either of the three things mentioned above, v. 10.-¶ Then shall she go out free without money. Upon coming to marriageable age, if the master neither married her himself nor disposed of her otherwise, he was not only to set her free without remuneration, but also, as appears from Deut. 15. 12-17, to furnish her liberally with gifts. Laws respecting Murder and Manslaughter. 12. He that smiteth a man. That is, mortally, as is evident from what follows, and so amounting to wilful murder. See Note on Gen. 9. 6.- Shall be surely put to death. Heb. moth yumath, dying shall be made to die. The sentence is here expressed in the most emphatic language, implying that no ransom was to be taken for the life of the wilful murderer. Num. 35. 31, 'Ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death; but he shall be surely put to death.' to yigra, shall not keep back, as the term is rendered Num. 9. 7, 'And those men said unto him, We are defiled by the dead body of a man: where fore are we kept back ( niggara), that we may not offer an offering of the Lord in his appointed season among the children of Israel?' The Gr. in this place has ovк aπоσтερnoεi, shall not defraud, whence the apostle in speaking 13. If a man lie not in wait. Heb. of the same subject, 1 Cor. 7. 5, says, asher la tzadah, whoso 'Defraud ye not one another (un arooTεpeite adλnλovs) except it be with consent, &c.' Gr. 'And he shall not de hath not laid in wait. That is, whoso hath not done such a deed premeditately; who hath not waylaid another 14 But if a man come a presump-| him with guile; thou shalt take tuously upon his neighbour, to slay him from mine altar, that he may Numb. 15. 30. & 35. 20. Deut. 19. 11, 12. Hebr. 10. 26. in order to take his life. The original term tzadah is closely related to tzud, to hunt, and implies that insidious watching which hunters practice in securing their game. But God deliver him into his hand. Heb. 17 innah le-yado, doth offer by chance to his hand. Gr. napɛdwkɛv, hath delivered. The words evidently have respect to a case where the slayer is not prompted by malice, nor endeavors by covert means to put to death a fellow being, but the catastrophe is owing solely to the special providence of God, which had put one man in the way of a deadly blow from another without any agency or design of his. This constitutes what is called in modern codes accidental homicide or chance-medley, and for which, under the Mosaic system, there was an express provision in the cities of refuge, hereafter to be described. In Deut. 19. 4—6, we have by way of illustration a specified case in which the manslayer was to be entitled to the benefit of this provision; 'And this is the case of the slayer, which shall flee thither, that he may live: Whoso killeth his neighbor ignorantly, whom he hated not in time past; as when a man goeth into the wood with his neighbor to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbor, that he die; he shall flee unto one of these cities, and live; lest the avenger of the blood pursue the slayer, while his heart is hot, and overtake him, because the way is long, and slay him; whereas he was not worthy of death, inasmuch as he hated him not in time past.¶ I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. This place, during the sojourn of Israel in die. • 1 Kings 2. 28,-34. 2 Kings 11. 15. the wilderness, was the tabernacle, as appears by the mention of the altar in v. 14; but after their arrival in the land' of Canaan there were six cities of refuge appointed, as we learn, from Num. 35. 6, et. seq. From the case of Joab, 1 Kings, 2. 28, it would appear that the temple was occasionally resorted to for this purpose even after the cities of refuge were established. 14. If a man come presumptuously, &c. Heb. 7 yazid, deal proudly, presumingly, high-handedly. Chal. 'Shall do 'or act impiously.' The Heb. verb 77 zud, which properly signifies to deal proudly or presumptuously, is applied also to the person who sins, not ignorantly or inadvertently, but wilfully, knowingly, of set purpose, inasmuch as such an offender is considered as disobeying the known law of God through the pride, self-sufficiency, and presumptuous elation of his spirit. Accordingly Moses, Deut. 17. 12 and 18.22, speaks of presumptuous sins under the denomination of 17 zadon, which comes from the same root, indicating a kind of transgression entirely different from sins or errors of ignorance, inadvertence, or infirmity. Joab's murder of Abner comes clearly within the scope of this statute, and accordingly we find that his fleeing to the sacred asylum of the altar availed him nothing. 2 Sam. 2. 19-23.-3. 26, 27. 1 Kings, 2.28— 32,- T Thou shalt take him from mine altar. That is, if he has fled unto the altar for protection. But the Jerus. Targ. gives another turn to the expression; "Though he be the High Priest who standeth and ministereth before me, from thence shall ye take him and kill him.' We may perhaps safely admit that both senses are included. It would certainly be important to teach 15 And he that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. 16 And P he that stealeth a man, P Deut. 24. 7. that no official sanctity would be allow ed to screen the wilful murderer from justice. Law respecting the Smiting of Parents. 15. He that smiteth his father or mother, &c. He was to be put to death even though the blow should not be fatal, but merely leave a wound or bruise; otherwise the crime mentioned in this verse is included in that specified in v. 12. The crime of parricide is not expressly mentioned in the code of Moses, any more than it was in that of Solon, and probably for the same reason; the law did not presuppose a sin of such horrid enormity. Law respecting Man-stealing. 16. He that stealeth a man, &c. Gr. ὃς εαν κλεψῃ τις τινα των υιών Ισραηλ, whosoever stealeth any one of the sons of Israel. Chal. 'He that stealeth a soul of the sons of Israel.' And thus it is explained by Moses himself, Deut. 24. 7, 'If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandize of him,' &c. This was no doubt the primary drift of the law. It had respect to a crime committed by an Israelite upon the person of an Israelite. For this crime the punishment of death was expressly denounced; and that with the utmost degree of rigor. The alleviations which operated in the case of other thefts was precluded here. In other cases, if the article stolen had not been alienated, or if there was reason to look for repentance and restitution, some mitigation of the punishment ensued. But the manstealer was absolutely doomed to die, whether he had already sold the person stolen, or whether he still had him in and a selleth him, or if he be r found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. q Gen. 37. 28. r ch. 22. 4. his own hands, neither alienated nor used for service. Comp. Deut. 24. 7. But the spirit of the interdict undoubtedly applies to all cases of man-stealing or kidnapping. In the sight of heaven it is a crime charged with the blackest guilt. This is clear from the penalty annexed to it, especially as contrasted with the penalty for stealing property, Ex. 22. 14. If a man had stolen an or and killed or sold it, he was to restore five oxen; if he had neither sold nor killed it, two oxen. But in the case of stealing a man, the first act drew down the utmost power of punishment; however often repeated or aggravated the crime, human penalty could do no more. The fact that the penalty for man-stealing was death, and the penalty of property-stealing, the mere restoration of double, shows that the two cases were judged on totally different principles. This will appear still more evident from the remarks on this passage by Mr. Weld in his tract entitled "The Bible against Slavery.' 'If God permitted man to hold man as property, why did he punish for stealing that kind of property infinitely more than for stealing any other kind of property? Why punish with death for stealing a very little of that sort of property, and make a mere fine the penalty for stealing a thousand times as much, of any other sort of property-especially if by his own act, God had annihilated the difference between man and property, by putting him on a level with it? The guilt of a crime, depends much upon the nature, character, and condition of the victim. To steal is a crime, whoever the thief, or whatever the plunder. To steal bread from a full man, is theft; to steal it from a starving man, is both theft and |