nificance, is a high authority from which The whole passage is as follows: "And there can be no appeal. They are text-hunt- surely your blood of your lives will I require; ers, who read their Bible, not to understand at the hand of every beast will I require it, it, but to pick out passages that may be made and at the hand of min; at the hand of every to give an implied support to their preconcep- man's brother will I require the life of man. tions. The danger of such a course must be Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his obvious to all. It has frequently led to the blood be shed; for in the image of God made most deplorable errors, and has always stood, he man." It is part of the words addressed by as it now does, in the way of truth and pro- God to Noah after the flood, when He "said in gress. According to it, the priests were in His heart, I will not again curse the ground the right when they imprisoned Galileo, for any more for man's sake." He had just proclaiming a theory so totally irreconcilable swept the whole race of mankind from off the with the miracle of Joshua. Less than a earth, with the exception of one family, becentury ago, a scientific gentleman felt called cause of their wickedness, and in commenupon to deliver a course of lectures in this cing to re-people it, He made with His creacity, to persuade the literalists of his day tures a new covenant with a better prothat it was not impious to endeavour to pre- mise than that which immediately followed vent injury from lightning by physical means. the fall, and whose glorious sign He set in the It is but a short time since a Methodist clergy- clouds as a token of hope and mercy forever. man in this State mentioned from the pulpit He also gave man the possession of the earth, that the Universalists of his town had put up with dominion over the multitudes of his creaa lightning-rod on their church, and sneering- tures, as the Lord of the creation and first ly remarked that “it showed how much confi proclaimed that great principle which was dence they had in their God!" All theolo- the first step towards, and contained the progians are aware of the grievous error into mise of the idea of the Christian Revelation, which a literal understanding of Matt. xix. 12, that all men are essentially noble and holy, led Origen. The same passage has been sons of God and temples of the Holy Ghost. wrested by the friends of the monastic system This principle is the inviolabilty of human to its support. Acute critics have in this way life. The Lord first expresses His good pleaproved, to their own satisfaction at least, that sure that the race of man should multiply and the Jews had no knowledge either of the im- possess the earth. He then gives him power mortality of the soul or the resurrection of the over the animated creation. He next debody, but were on a par with Epicurus;-thus clares the sanctitity of a man's life, and His going directly in the teeth of the general scope will that it should not be taken, which is exof the whole book. Some of the early Chris- pressed without an exception. He then tians barbarously mutilated those who prac- gives as a reason for this sanctity, his similitised circumcision, alleging Gal. v. 12. Je-tude to the image of God, and concludes by rerome and Chrysostom were among the fathers who adopted this cruel and singular misconception. (Grotius, Annotat.) It resembles the subject of our present discussion in having been made the basis of penal enactments. The Visigoths with the zeal of new converts, punished in this way those who practised and who submitted to circumcision. The same mode of interpretation will legitimately deduce the Loves of the Angels, with all its disgusting lubricity, from Gen. vi. 4, and I Cor. xi. 10, and enrol Tom Moore in the list of theologians. peating the command to "be fruitful and multiply." The first clause of the sixth verse is the one on which the advocates of eapital punishment principally build. It is part of the passage which we consider as declaring the inviolability of human life, and they contend that it is an express command of God to all men in Noah, specifying the mode of punishing the murderer. As the whole biblical controversy turns upon it, it is worth a more extended consideration. It contains no support of the cause it is made to prop, consider it in what light you will. I am willing to make every concession for argument's sake, and desirous of meeting the objections of all. I will therefore undertake to prove: We must therefore regard every passage of Scripture in its connexions, in its circumstances and intent, and in its poetical aspect, if it be poetic. We must inquire to whom it first, that this passage is not of the nature was addressed and for what purpose, ascer- of a command-secondly, that, if the words tain whether it be mandatory, historical or do convey that meaning, Old Testament history prophetical, and distinguish the nice shades and legislation prove that it was not eventhen of the potential mood. We must compare our considered universally binding :-and thirdly our interpretation of it with the general that even if it was binding before Christ, it is sense of the book and those other passages repealed in him. These positions will be conwhose meaning is indubitable, because if it sidered in detail, and I beg all readers under do not harmonize with them, it must either whose notice these unpretending essays shall be an error or else the book an inconsistent fall, to weigh the matter carefully and earnestLet us apply these principles to the ly, and, as the Rev. Dr. Cuyler observes, "bepassage in question and see what it does real-ware," not how they rejoice in their delively mean. It is the one simple sentence on rance from the bondage of the law, but how which the advocates of the Noahic theory they contradict the express declaration of the ground their opposition to the present move- Lord God, who hath sworn: “As I live, I have no ment. The other passages to which they re-no pleasure in the death of a sinner, but rather fer are only confirmatory or illustrative of this that he should turn from his wickedness and supposed command. one. live." ESSAY IV. the Doctor could only recollect that the Bible is both anterior and superior to the Confession SCRIPTURE ARGUMENT CONTINUED. GEN. IX. of Faith, he would have less cause for sur 6, NOT MANDATORY. prise. Had he waited until he heard the reasons that can be urged for such an interpretation, he would have acted more wisely and prudently. As it is, I would recommend to the careful attention of himself and his friends a proverb of Solomon: He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him. I HOLD that the much vexed question as to the meaning of Genesis ix. 6, may be very easily put to rest. When we read it cursorily we are apt to suppose that it is of the nature of a command from the use of the word "shall," which is now used in a mandatory sense, but is the legitimate old-English sin,ple future. It There is nothing then, in the literal conis employed in this sense throughout the Bible. struction of the phrase to give it the appear Cain said "every one that findeth me shall slay ance of a command. To construe it thus, me," not as an expression of desire for death, moreover, would cause it to contradict the but of fear. In this country, and especially whole scope of the context. The Lord is at the in the middle states, we follow the Scotch idiom moment declaring unconditionally the sanctiin using "will" for the simple future, instead ty of man's life, which he will not have taken of "shall," and thereby frequently mistake pas- by man or beast. It is a sin which he will not sages of scripture for mandatory, which are allow to pass by without a penalty, but will merely prophetic. Such I conceive to be the 'require at the hand' of him who commits it. case with the text under consideration. It de- The word rendered 'whosoever sheddeth' is the clares the inviolability of human life, and the Hebrew present participle answering to shedimportance God attaches to it. It proclaims ding, and having no distinction of gender, may the shedding of blood to be a high offence a- properly be rendered whatsoever or that which. gainst the divine law. Hence Josephus' ver- Michaelis says expressly that it 'must be rension of it is: "Keep yourselves pure from dered, not whosoever but whatsoever.' There be murder and punish those who commit any ing no neuter in the Hebrew, the word transsuch thing." The first clause of the sixth lated his, must follow the gender of its anteceverse is declaratory of the self-muliplying na- dent and should consequently be rendered its. ture of sin and violence, which ever produce The clause would then read "whatsoever their kind. Thus Solomon says: Hatred stir-sheddeth man's blood, by man shall its blood reth up stifes, but love covereth all sins.-be shed," whence Michaelis and others have (Proverbs x. 12.) The marginal reference at this verse in our Bible is to Matt. xxvi. 52; which is considered a parallel passage, and is sometimes referred to by the friends of capital punishment as confirmatory of their notions. It is the rebuke of Jesus to Peter when he drew his sword and smote off the ear of Malchus: Put up again thy sword into its place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. But they cannot surely wish us to understand this passage literally also. If so, then Peter was sentenced to death by his Master, and his crucifixion was no martyrdom, but a righteous execution of the law. On the contrary, it is a general condemnation of violence under all circumstances. It is properly the simple future, and the preposition with would be more correctly given in. Hence according to our mode of speech, the verse should read, "they that take the sword will perish in (the use of) the sword," thus harmonizing with the peaceful and merciful spirit of the gospel. If this be a command, moreover, it is univer. So with the first cited passage. It is a predic- sal and without any exception. There is no tion of the evil consequences that must neces- distinction made between individuals and sosarily flow from wrath and violence. I am ciety. The prohibition is absolute. Hence aware that the Rev. Dr. Cuyler has expressed many have considered this passage as posi surprise that such an interpretation "should tively forbidding the taking away of human enter the mind of a rational being.' There are life under any circumstances whatever, wheth many things, however, both in heaven and er by forms of law or in war, thus making its earth, which are not dreamed of in the worthy operation precisely the reverse of that contendDoctor's philosophy. There was wisdom in ed for by the advocates of the death punishthe world prior to the meeting of the West- ment. I would refer these gentlemen to Grominister Assembly,and will be when that nota- tius' De Jure Belli, with which they are doubtble body is forgotten,or remembered only as a less familiar, for a statement of his argument, matter of 'surprise' that men could ever extin- in the hope that the great difficulty which that guish the light of gospel truth in such marvel- acute critic and logician finds in meeting it, lous darkness. The universal mind of man may teach them more modesty. If the comis as little likely to be chained forever by the mand binds any, it binds all. If it binds indi concluded that it applies exclusively to the beast that sheds a man's blood. Such does not appear to me its true rendering, but I mention it for the benefit of those who consider the passage to be one without difficulties. It would make it correspond with the leges noxales of the Romans, with the Athenian law which executed the dog that had bitten a man, and with the gibbeting, banishing and burning of the instrument by which blood was shed, practised by various nations for the purpose of keeping alive the idea of the mystic sacredness of life.' The reason for this sacredness is assigned in the text, for in the image of God made he man. On this account the Creator holds his life inviolate, and will not have it taken either by the steel of the assassin or the murderous grip of the hangman. To declare its sanctity, and, in the same breath, to order it taken by the hand of man as a punishment for crime, is a contradiction in terms. is as much a murderer as the criminal, and | must in his turn undergo the same punishment, and so on, ad infinitum, until the whole human family has been executed. The command. Thou shalt not kill, is also stated without an exception, and unless there can be produced an express abrogation of it, every taking of life must be criminal. It will be answered, that this was allowed under Moses. But the law of Moses applied to none but the children of Israel, and to them only until the advent of the Messiah, who came to abolish "the law of commandments contained in ordinances." (Ephesians ii. 15.) It will be again answered that there was nothing allowed under Moses which in the least contravened the moral law. But we are told by the Lord through the mouth of Ezekiel (xx. 25,) that his laws were "statutes that were not good; and judgments whereby they should not live.' They were adapted to the state and temper of the Hebrew people, who received them, as Jesus tells us in repealing one of them, "for the hardness of their hearts."(Mark x. 5.) Had they been perfect, then righteousness would have been by the law, and there would not have been needed the sufferings and death of the Son of Man to bring in a better covenant. Cannot these followers of Moses perceive that, in contending for the correctness of his law they deny the Lord that bought them? among the firmest and ablest advocates of slavery and the slave-trade in times past, but I cannot think that they will contend for a literal understanding of this perverted verse at this late day. Yet the structure of the two is identical. If one is mandatory, so is the other. If we are commanded to execute the murderer, negro slavery is also a divine institution, and he who would raise his voice in opposition to it, is a rebel against God., Nothing but a desperate text-hunting for the support of established abuses.could have adduced either one passage or the other, in their respective causes. It is easy to find an excuse for the sins we desire to commit, and we are told that the very devil can quote scripture, if necessary, to withstand the progress of truth. I cannot close this article without referring to the effect produced upon some weak minds by the outcry of the soi-disant orthodox clergy upon this subject. They have been labouring with might and main to frighten the advocates of the proposed reform from their position, and it is said that in a few instances they have succeeded. Where they could adduce no arguments, they have assailed their unfortunate victim with denunciation, And doomed him to the bigot's ready hell, Which answers all his doubts so excellently well. It is to be feared that there are some still too As regards the assertion that there firmly bound in the chains of spiritual despotwas nothing allowed in the Mosaic dispensa-ism to rise above the fear of shadows. We tion uncongenial to the moral law, I would ask have heard of one man favourable to us how they reconcile the indiscriminate massain the early stages of this movement, who has cre of the people of Canaan with the comnow fallen back. He is still convinced that mandment: Thou shalt not kill? The very images of the cherubim that overshadowed the mercy-seat were a virtual violation of the second commandment. I imagine it would be very difficult to harmonize the Jewish law of divorce and the practice of polygamy with Christ's idea of the commandment against adultery. Again I say, that if this law had been in entire conformity with the moral law, it would have been perfect and no room would have been left for a new law. The permission of practices not in conformity with the moral law in the peculiar dispensation of Moses, does not affect the general obligation of that law, and proves nothing for us, who are no longer under the discipline of the first covenant as our schoolmaster, but have received the adoption of children, under a dispensation, not of commandments contained in ordinances, but of the Spirit. The naked moral law must be our guide, and it adds no proviso to the solemn injunction, THOU SHALT NOT KILL! To say, then, that the Lord, in a covenant with the human race, gave it a charter to violate his law,in all times and in all places, in a certain way, is to charge him with folly. We cannot believe it without believing that God has contradicted himself and is guilty of variableness and unsteadiness. But if this passage is not mandatory, what is it? Simply declaratory and prophetic. It is of precisely the same character as the 25th verse of the same chapter: Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren! I know that our clergy have been sound policy and the good of society require the change, but then-that biblical question! He takes, forsooth, the advice of his clergyman upon spiritual matters, as he does that of his physician upon medical matters; and will act in opposition to the dictates of reason and humanity, upon the say-so of the Rev. Dr. Humdrum, a theological pedant who is far behind the age, and chained to the past, by a forty-parson power of stupidity and prejudice. And this man is called intelligent! Be he what else he may, he is a bigot and a slave, who has never had the first glimpse of the glorious liberty of the children of God, but is sunk in soul-servitude to the depth where pity begins to lose itself in contempt for his imbecility. Thank God, there are few such. The mass of the community are just begining to arouse to a sense of the importance of the subject, and they will not only carry the self-constituted spiritual leaders by what audesired reform into operation, but ask their thority they place themselves forever in the way of social progress. ESSAY V. SCRIPTURE ARGUMENT CONTINUED-GEN. IX. 6. IF MANDATORY, NOT UNIVERSALLY APPLI CABLE EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER NOAH. In my last I endeavoured to show that there is nothing in the literal construction or con nexion of Gen. ix. 5, 6, to give it the force of a command. My second position is, that it was not so considered by holy men of old, as may be amply proved from old Testament history. Were the infliction of death as a punishment for murder moral, in the sense in which theologians use that word, it would be of the essence of the Divine nature, which God would never act contrary to, and which would be as much His law before its proclamation to men as afterwards. In Him there is neither variableness nor shadow of turning, and that which is His will now, was such from all eternity. The law applied to Cain, then, must be the law now, else is God variable, or His law to men capable of modification according to circumstances. Our opponents will not accept the first horn of this dilemma, and if they admit the second, their alleged command loses all its moral force. We are told by the sacred writer that instead of killing, "the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him." (Gen. iv. 15.) The assertion that he was the man slain by Lamech, (Gen. iv. 23,) and that so God's law was carried out in spite of His express orders to the contrary, is too absurd to merit a serious refutation. Moreover, if Lamech had been an instrument in the hand of God to inflict the sentence of His righteous condemnation upon a criminal, why did he complain that he had "slain a man to his hurt?" If, on the other hand, he was himself a guilty culprit, doomed to death by God, why did he denounce a seventy-and-seven fold vengeance upon him who should execute that sentence upon himself, alleging the example of God's protection of Cain? The ease of Cain presents peculiar difficulties to the advocates of capital punishment. Dr. Lightfoot makes the last clause of the 14th verse, an exclamation of his desire for death, and supposes that God reversed His ordinary rule in this case, for the purpose of disappointing and thus tormenting him the more! Matthew Henry supposes that, pre vious to the flood, God reserved the punishment of murder to Himself, but after that event committed it "to masters of families at first, and afterwards to heads of countries;" a gratuitous assumption for which he advances no proof. Throughout his Exposition, he takes it for granted that the government and laws of England are all right, and makes Scripture square to them, as when he interprets the punishment which Judah ordered to be inflicted on Tamar, (Gen. xxxviii. 24,) "to be not burnt to death, but burnt in the cheek or forehead," as was the barbarous custom of his own country. Little less violence is used in making his version of the history of Cain agree with his notions of the punishment of death. No more palpable begging of the question is to be found in polemical history, thickly as it is strewn with such absurdities. the fall. Grotius, in his Annotations, says he expected men to apply to him the "jus naturale talionis;" the natural law of retribution. On the other hand, God expressly for bids such application, and condemns that savage spirit on the very first occasion offered for its exercise. His code and that of man are placed in direct opposition. Which part our opponents have chosen, let the reader judge. But to come down to times posterior to Noah, we find men believed to be acting under the divine direction also disregarding this supposed law. Had it been a portion of the original covenant with the race in Noah as their second federal head, we would not have seen it set aside, from time to time, to suit circumstances; nor would it have failed of its application under governments which we consider immediately inspired. Now it will be perceived that the command, if such it be, applies to all shedding of human blood without exception. The assertion of Henry, that it refers particularly to “wilful murderers," is another of his unfounded assumptions, about as much contained in the text as his succeeding position, so grateful to despots and hierarchs, that "those who shed the blood of princes or saints incur a double guilt.” (Exposition 1. 75.) Moses, however, does make such a distinction, giving him who killed a man in a broil or unawares the privilege of sanctuary in the cities of refuge, thus repealing what Dr. Cuyler so boldly pronounces 'the law of God with respect to murder in half the cases to which it legitimately applies, (Numbers xxxv.) Not only was the mur derer safe while within the walls of the city of refuge, but it appears by the 28th verse, that the death of the then high priest produced an entire amnesty, so that he might" return into the land of his possession." If the verse is of the mandatory character contended for, the Jewish cities of refuge were a violation of the Divine will. I know it will be replied, that God could at any time repeal his enactments. Certainly: but not without "variableness" and considerably more than the “shadow of turning." The same argument, however, cannot be made to apply to our distinction of murder into degrees, the Mosaic code being altogether foreign to us. Our opponents must, for consistency sake, oppose also this great triumph of humanity and justice. For the same reason, they should contend for the reenactment of the statutes against beasts that shed human blood, the command being equal in the two cases. Henry boldly adopts this alternative, and so was Dr. Cuyler understoo₫ in his discourse as preached, although in the printed copy, he sees fit to soften it down, and represent the Lord, while engaged in the awful task of entering into solemn covenant with his creatures, as introducing the incidental remark that they had better slay the This affair of Cain presents a lesson worthy beast that killed a man, because "there would our serious consideration. On the one hand, be danger, that, having tasted of blood, he we see the criminal expressing a fear of this would thirst after more!" (Sermon, p. 10.) very punishment of death, not because of How often do men, in their zeal for the supGod's threat, but contrary to it. He appre-port of preconceived opinions, labour to make hends it because men are actuated by a spirit their all-wise Creater appear as foolish as charged upon them, "to batter down the om nipotent truth of God." They are convinced that they have that truth on their side, and are therefore resolved to go on, and "batter down" the last relic of the bloody code of their barbarous ancestors which yet disgraces the statute book of a commonwealth claiming to be civilized and Christian. command of God, how can we explain the fact that He allowed His chosen servants to disobey it, and even selected its violators as His special messengers to the children of men? Moses laid in wait for the Egyytian and slew him at unawares. (Exod. ii. 12.) In his terror he fled into Midian, urged by the same apprehension which distressed Cain, and caused him to cry out that his punishment A writer in the Westchester "Independent was more than he could bear. Yet he died Journal," of March 15th, has noticed the first peacefully upon Pisgah a hundred years after of these communications and ventured a very the commission of his crime, and the children small sneer at the "talk about charity, philanof Israel wept for him thirty days. Jacob is throphy and benevolence." If he had any represented as an eminent servant of God, personal experience of these qualities, he and yet he did not punish Simeon and Levi would probably not have considered them for their treacherous and cruel murder of subjects of ridicule. As it is, the jibe may Hamor and Shechem with their people; be allowed to pass and die of its own inherent (Gen. xxxiv. 25;) although he expressed his weakness. He has promised some arguments abhorrence of it at the time, and even years on a future occasion, if he "can get leisure." after, on his death-bed, when he said: Cursed And it is to be hoped that his occupations be their anger, for it was fierce, and their may not be too pressing, though if his logic wrath, for it was cruel! There is not a more is not more forcible and pointed than his horrid or bloody tragedy on record in any sarcasm, the editors might as well save their criminal calendar than the murder of Uriah paper. I cannot leave him without thanking by command of David, and yet he gave up him for the assurance, that "it is not true the ghost in peace. Neither did he execute that all the clergy are opposed to this meathe law upon his son Absalom for killing sure." If this is the case, it is better than Amnon; (2 Sam. xiii. 29;) nor upon Joat for appearances in this quarter led us to expect. the murder of Abner; (2 Sam. iii. 27;) al-The "evangelical" clergyman who can muster though he left the punishment of the latter as a legacy of vengeance to Solomon. Joab, being next of kin, doubtless thought himself anthorized to slay Abner, as avenger of blood," because he had slain Asahel, his brother. If he was not, David should have punished him forthwith; if he was, it was both unjust and cruel in the old king to exclaim, with his dying breath, "let not his hoary head go down to the grave in peace." How clearly does this dismal catalogue of crimes prove that Revenge and wrong bring forth their kind; It also shows the fulfilment of the prophetic sufficient courage to plead the cause of truth and reform in the face of his caste, will deserve and receive the thanks of the community. It seems doubtful whether there are any such: but there may be. There was a Lot in Sodom. ESSAY VI. SCRIPTURE ARGUMENT CONTINUED THE DIS- BUT, admitting for arguments sake, that this verse is of an imperative character, I next assert that the law is abrogated by the establishment of the Christian dispensation. I have already alluded to the annulling of the Mosiac law, not only as regards ceremonial observances, but also matters of morality. Our opponents, however, fall back upon the Noahic covenant, which they say was not repealed by Jesus. To this it is answered, that the dispensations of God to the children of men have been progressive; the first being vouchsafed, even then in mercy, in the thick night of degradation which immediately followed the fall, and the succeeding becoming better and better, until, in the fulness of time, they shall usher in the millennial glory, growing brighter and brighter unto the perfect day. Each contains all the good of its predecessors, with some superadded blessing of its own. Thus the Bible history will be found to bear out fully the great and inspiring doctrine of progress. The covenant with Noah was better than that with Adam, because it had the promise that seed-time and harvest should continue to recur, and the race of man be no more swept from the earth, with the bow as the sign of that promise. The covenant with |