THEFT. When the Israelites were just upon the Point of departing out of Egypt, they borrowed of their Egyptian Neighbours of both Sexes, valuable Garments, Vessels of Gold and Silver, and carried them along with them into the Wilderness. Speak now in the ears of the people, and let every Exod. xi. 2, 3.man borrow of his neighbour, and every woman of her neighbour, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold. And the Lord gave the people favour in the sight of the Egyptians. It is enquired, Whether the Hebrews could lawfully borrow these things of the Egyptians, which they had no Intention to restore to them again? and whether this was not to commit a manifest Theft and Injustice? To this it is answer’d, first, That upon this Occasion God plainly dispensed with that Law, by which he had obliged the Hebrews not to commit any Theft; or rather, that being the absolute Master of every thing, he transferred to the Hebrews that Right that the Egyptians had to these things. The Author of the Book of Wisdom a insinuates another Reason, which is, that God would recompense the Hebrews for the Labours that they suffered in Egypt, and allowed them to pay themselves by their own Hands, by detaining what they borrowed from the Egyptians. This way of paying one’s self cannot be allowed regularly; but in these Circumstances, having no other way of doing themselves justice, and being authorized by the express Command of God, they might have recourse to this Expedient.
Others look upon this, not as a Theft, but as a fair Booty got in a just War. The Egyptians were Enemies to the Hebrews; they had unjustly persecuted them for a long time, and took from them the Means of defending themselves, and of recovering their Liberty: They might therefore lawfully deprive them of their Goods by a Wile, and a kind of Stratagem, by pretending to borrow of them what they never intended to return.
Petr. Lombard. l. 3. Dist. 37.The Master of Sentences here distinguishes between such Israelites who acted in the Simplicity of their Hearts, and sincerely obeyed the Commands of God, and those that followed the Motions of their own covetous Desires. The first are excused from Sin by the Uprightness of their Intentions, but not the second, who were ready enough to rob the Egyptians, if they could do it with Impunity, even though God had not allowed them to borrow any thing from Aug. l. 2. contra Faust. c. 71.them. St. Austin reasons much in the same manner, in his Second Book against Faustus the Manichean.
Iren. l. 4. contra Hæref. c. 49.St. Irenæus observes, that the Egyptians were indebted to the Hebrews, not only for their Goods, but for their Lives also, because of the Benefits they had received from the Patriarch Joseph, when they were under the greatest Necessity. The Israelites were unjustly oppressed by a cruel Slavery in Egypt: The Egyptians exercised all kind of Violences against them, and overwhelmed them with Calamities, even to their rendering their Lives uneasy to them. The Hebrews had built them Cities, and had very much improved the Riches of these inhuman Masters; who, instead of acknowledging these Services, intended even to take away their Lives from them. What Injustice therefore could there be, if the Israelites should take again a small part of that which they had procured for the Egyptians? And if they should receive a small Recompence for so many Services they had done them? They came poor out of Egypt, whereas they ought to have got much Riches together, if they had not been reduced into an unjust Servitude: And, just as a Freeman, who had been stolen away, and sold for a Slave, might, without Injustice, set himself at liberty, and pay himself for his Labour, by taking from his Master a small Reward for his Service: So the Israelites, at their Departure out of Egypt, might receive something as a Recompence, since a great deal was due to them.
The Rabbins inform us,1 that heretofore the Egyptians commenced a Suit against the Israelites before Alexander the Great, to oblige them to restore the Vessels of Gold and Silver, which their Ancestors had formerly borrowed in Egypt. Alexander appointed a Day for the hear-
N2
ing of the Cause, when both Parties urged their Pretensions, and produced their Reasons. The Israelites acknowledged that their Ancestors had borrowed such things, and had not restored them again to the Egyptians; and declared they were ready to make Satisfaction, provided also that the Egyptians, on their part, would pay them for the Labours of many Years, which their Fathers had performed for them in Egypt. When Egyptians heard the Demands of the Hebrews, they durst not attend the Decision of the Judge, but desisted from any farther Pretensions. Tertullian just touches Tertull. contra Marcion. l. 2. c. 20.upon this ancient Tradition of the Hebrews, in his Books against Marcion. Concerning the present Question, the Reader may have recourse to Clemens Alexandrinus, l. 1. of his Stromata; St. Austin against Faustus, and in his Questions upon Exodus; Theodoret, Quest. 23. upon Exodus; and the Commentators upon III. 21, 22. of Exodus.
If any one had stolen away an Israelite, whether free or not, and should have sold him to another, he was punishable with Exod. xxi. 16. Deut. xxiv. 7.Death: Qui furatus fuerit hominem, & vendiderit eum, convictus noxæ, mor-te moriatur. The Hebrew insinuates, that shall steal a Man, and sell him, if he shall be found in his Hands, shall suffer Death. But we may thus understand it, with Glassius: He that shall steal a Man, whether he shall have sold him, or he shall still be in his Hands, he shall be put to death. The Jews are not of opinion, that by this Law they are forbid to steal a Man of another Nation, under the Penalty of Death, but only to steal an Hebrew. The Laws of the Athenians and Romans also punished with Death the stealing away of a Man.
Thieves were sold, who had not wherewithal to make Restitution for their Thefts. Also the Children of insolvent 2 Kings iv. 1.Debtors were sold. The Rabbins tell us, that a Woman might not be sold, though convicted of Theft; and that a Hebrew could never be sold, unless the thing he had stole should exceed the Price of his Person: If he was worth an hundred Crowns, he was not sold for a Theft of fourscore and ten Crowns.
Read this article in its place on the printed pages