tend into the Christian dispensation, and confirm and repromulgate there, as of perpetual obligation in that kingdom of heaven, which was to have no end,—the moral precepts of the Jewish dispensation.

3. They contain the great law of love, promulgated anew in the Gospel. It is as really revealed in the Mosaic precepts, as it is in our Saviour's sermon on the Mount. The spirit of courtesy, kindness, and benevolence prevailing in them is remarkable; their protection of the stranger and the poor, the fatherless and the widow; their inculcation of love to God, love to our neighbor, and kindness even to enemies, would have constituted in the Jewish nation, had they obeyed them, a bright transcript of the divine perfections. And as to their penal sanctions, a learned and judicious writer has remarked, after speaking of the offences punished capitally by the Jewish law, that "in the other penal laws of the Mosaic code, there prevails a constant spirit of mildness and equity, unequalled in any other system of jurispru

dence, ancient or modern."-" The Jewish law adjusted its punishments more suitably to the real degree of moral depravity attending different species of guilt, than modern codes."*

4. They were, in that age and generation, a collection of superhuman wisdom, standing out in such bright contrast with the statutes of the heathen world, as to constitute a most satisfactory and conclusive demonstration of their divine original. The calmest profound study of them does entirely justify the declaration of Moses himself to his countrymen in reference to their observance: "Keep therefore and do them: for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the Lord our God is in all things that we call

*GRAVES on the Pentateuch. Part II., Lect. 3.

upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous, as all this law, which I set before you this day?"*

While, therefore, we do not resort to this code as the foundation or necessary support of any part of our argument, we shall have occasion to advert to it as a source of most important light in our examination of the subject. Meanwhile, the inconsiderate manner, in which proof from the Mosaic books is sometimes pronounced upon, has seemed to demand, first of all, these preceding observations.

The direct argument from Scripture commences with the ordinance against bloodshed communicated to Noah; this being the first instance of divine legislation with the punishment of death annexed as its sanction. Taken with the context, it reads thus: "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every

*Deut. iv. 6-8.

man.

man's brother will I require the life of Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."*

WHOSO

SHEDDETH MAN'S BLOOD, BY MAN

SHALL HIS BLOOD BE SHED.

The original of this passage is as follows:

literally, Shedding man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed. In the Septuagint translation the pronoun is distinguished, as in our English translation, Whoso sheddeth, &c. Ὁ ἐκχέων αἷμα άνθρω που, ἀντὶ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ ἐκχυθήσεται. Our common English version is the natural translation of the Hebrew construction; any other translation is forced and unnatural. If the sentence were given forth from our English Bible, Whoso sheddeth man's blood, &c., to be translated literally into Hebrew, the same construction would be used as is used in the ori

* Gen. ix. 5, 6.

ginal text. Our common English version is the one almost universally sanctioned; and where it is departed from, it is not to avoid the application of the passage with the penalty to the murderer, but to extend and confirm it.

Attempts have been made to neutralize the power of this ordinance, by the use of the pronoun whatsoever instead of whosoever, in the translation. We believe there is not a commentator in the world by whom this change has been proposed, as by some legislators of the present time, with the purpose of evading or altering the obvious scope and meaning of the passage. It is utterly without authority and without foundation.

Vatablus has remarked on the context of this passage,* that to require the blood of man from the hand of man is

* Hebraismus, Requirere sanguinem hominis de manu hominis pro supplicio extremo afficere aliquem qui hominem occiderit, et sanguinem ejus fuderit. VATABLUS in Crit. Sac. in Gen. ix.