Slaveholders, and the apologists of slavery, have eagerly seized upon this little passage of scripture, and held it up as the masters' Magna Charta, by which they were licensed by God himself to commit the greatest outrages upon the defenceless victims of their oppression. But, my friends, was it designed to be so? If our Heavenly Father would protect by law the eye and the tooth of a Hebrew servant, can we for a moment believe that he would abandon that same servant to the brutal rape of a master who would destroy even life itself. Do we not rather see in this, the _only_ law which protected masters, and was it not right that in case of the death of a servant, one or two days after chastisement was inflicted, to which other circumstances might have contributed, that the master should be protected when, in all probability, he never intended to produce so fatal a result? But the phrase "he is his money" has been adduced to show that Hebrew servants were regarded as mere _things_, "chattels personal;" if so, why were so many laws made to _secure their rights as men_, and to ensure their rising into equality and freedom? If they were mere _things_, why were they regarded as responsible beings, and one law made for them as well as for their masters? But I pass on now to the consideration of how the _female_ Jewish servants were protected by _law_. 1. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto another nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. 2. If he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. 3. If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 4. If he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out _free_ without money.