after the permission given to Noah "And I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood." It was, therefore, partly on account of the physical fact to which I have alluded, but mainly, I believe, because of the sacred and expiatory purposes to which the blood of the animals was turned, that this injunction was given to Noah, and continued, with fresh sanctions, under the Levitical economy. And the injunction in the Acts of the Apostles to "abstain from things strangled, and from blood," I hold to be partly temporary. As far as physical reasons are concerned, it is obligatory from the nature of things, but as far as the moral uses of the blood are involved, that restriction is now withdrawn. It was given under the last remains of the Jewish economy, just to prevent the Gentile giving offence to the Jew; and in order that, as far as possible, Christians should become all things to all men in order to save souls. But I do not believe that there is any moral obligation resting upon us in connection with it now. I do not believe that there is any absolute moral law, or moral reason, strictly preventing this practice. On physical grounds, and other grounds not purely religious, you may upon this injunction or not, at your own discretion.

act

There occurs in this chapter a very solemn injunction in reference to man. Let us mark what God said here. He first encouraged man against the possible violence of the brute creation; but man's experience of man before the flood, when violence governed the earth, and bloodshed was the stain of every day, taught Noah that he had not only the beasts to fear, but, more formidable by far, that he had to fear his own kin, his own race and family. And, therefore, God here arms man against the violence of man, and shows, by attach

ing its dread penalty, in what abhorrence he held the crime of murder. Now, I made the remark, in expounding one of the miracles, that what is called capital punishment may justly be inflicted for the crime of murder, according to the Scriptures. I do not see any evidence that capital punishment should be inflicted for any crime but that of murder — basing my views, not upon, any legal grounds of expediency, but simply upon Scripture. I find I was found fault with because I said that this passage sanctioned capital punishment; and it was said in the public papers I refer to, that I felt pleasure in advocating that opinion. Such is not the fact. I would rather there were neither capital punishment nor crime. I am here, however, as the interpreter of God's word; and it is my duty, as I trust it is my delight, to ascertain, as far as God may enable me, what is here, and what is right by finding it here, and to leave others to adjust the expediency or inexpediency of specific measures. Now, I cannot, as an honest reader of this passage, come to any other conclusion than that the fifth and sixth verses of this chapter do positively sanction the penalty of death, as the just and legitimate penalty for murder. Surely your blood of your lives will I require." That is a very remarkable expression. "The blood of your lives," as if all lives constituted one vast community, and as if the man who took the life of a brother, took away his own as if murder was also almost suicide; the language is strikingly expressive. In other words, it means that man cannot injure a fellow-man without the injury rebounding and injuring himself. "Your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it; " that is, that the beast which destroys a man shall be put to death. It is not the fear of hydrophobia that makes the owner destroy a dog that has bitten a man, but because there is an instinctive feeling of humanity, that if an animal kill a man, the first duty is to go out and destroy it.

66

Whether this be a traditional remain, or an human heart, I do not decide; but so it is.

instinct in the

And God here

says, that the brute, the lion, the tiger, the dog, the eagle, the vulture, that destroys a man- that beast, that bird, ought to be destroyed also.

He says, in the next place, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he him." It was argued, in the critical remarks to which I have already referred, that there is a new and totally different translation of this passage. Now, I have been at some trouble in searching out if this be the fact. I have read the Septuagint Greek version, and I have referred to the original, and have also perused a book by Cheever, an American divine, who has written with great talent upon this subject; and the conclusion I have come to is, that the authorized translation is the most exact, strict, and accurate, that can possibly be given. If rendered literally, it would be as follows: "He shedding man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." That, you perceive, is no substantial difference at all, it is a distinction without a difference. And the only possible deviation, according to Michaelis, the very celebrated German commentator and critic, is, that it might be rendered, not "Whoso," but "Whatsoever sheddeth man's blood." And the reason he gives is, that thus God has comprehended, not simply man, but also the brutes of the field, by saying, "Whatsoever " - whether brutes or men comprehending the previous text in these words. "sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his or its blood be shed."

But what is meant by the expression "require"? I answer, the idea is unquestionably that of punishment. I will give you one single illustration of it. In Genesis 42: 22, you will find these words: "And Reuben answered them, saying, Spake I not unto you, saying, Do not sin against the child' that is, speaking of Joseph- "and ye would not hear?

Therefore, behold, also, his blood is required;" that is, we shall be punished for having murdered him; and understanding evidently, by that punishment, being put to death. And next I called your attention to another passage Deuteronomy 18: 19"And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him." in Acts 3: 22, 23 A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatWell, now, here is Peter's ex"And it shall come to pass,

This you will find explained

"For Moses truly said unto the fathers,

soever he shall say unto you." planation of Deuteronomy: that every soul which will not hear that prophet " — alluding to the very words—“shall be destroyed from among the people." Here, then, you have the plainest evidence that the expression, "I will require it of him," means, simply, "He shall be put to death for so doing."

But, then, you ask, what is meant by the reason or expression, "For in the image of God made he him"? I have looked at the various commentaries upon the passage, and the result of all that I have read is just this, that the magistrate is the representative of God, and so far discharges the functions of God; and, therefore, being made officially in the image of God, and representing God, and wielding a part of his sovereignty deputed to him, his earthly minister, he is the proper party to execute the punishment that God has pronounced. This is what it evidently contemplates; but I mean to turn your attention to it again, for the sake of some important relative questions; for I believe that there is growing up in this day a feeling, which I think is very infidel in its tendency, that all government is merely a state convenience, founded on conventional expediency; and hence, loyalty, and love, and deference to the powers that be, wherever they are, are dissolving and passing away. Amongst other

modern notions, a favorite topic is, that there ought to be no such thing as capital punishment, even for the crime of murder; the horrid abuse of this penalty in the past giving too plain occasion for this feeling. It is also very generally believed that punishment is to be inflicted in order that others may not do the same crime. That is a very low idea of this subject. The high view is, that the magistrate is God's minister for wrath, that he bears not the sword in vain, and that he executes the sentence that God has pronounced, not mainly because it will deter others- though that is a consideration but because it is just and due and right in the sight of God. The sublime thoughts that the Bible gives of all the relationships, responsibilities, and duties of life, cannot be too much pondered, too deeply studied, especially in the time when men are averse to defer to the Bible, and are assigning self-security or self-interest as the only reason for acts that rest on grander foundations. I do not speak of the accompaniments of the execution of this awful sentence. I do not commit myself to anything connected with it, nor do I discuss it at all. I am here simply as the interpreter of a passage; and its meaning I must not hesitate to declare. I am just as certain that this is the true one, and the only one, as I am of any interpretation of any other passage of the word of God.