simply a Hebraism for expressing the extreme punishment of death to be inflicted on the murderer. It avails little, therefore, to alter the translation of the ordinance itself, where its sense has been so explicitly given in the context. The Chaldee paraphrastic interpretation of the passage is as follows: Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man, that is, by witnesses, with the sentence of the judges, shall his blood be shed.

The German commentator Michaelis chose to render it whatsoever instead of whosoever, simply in order to make it include both man and beast, and yet his opinion has with some unfairness been quoted in such a manner as to make the unlearned reader conclude that Michaelis denies the doctrine commonly received from the passage. His translation and commentary are as follows: "Whatsoever creature sheddeth human blood, be it man or beast, by man shall its blood in like manner be shed, Gen. ix. 6; for according to the tenor of the preceding verse, where

mention is made of beasts as well as men, and where God had said that he would require the blood of man from men as well as beasts, and, as he himself declares, not immediately, but through the instrumentality of men intrusted by him with the commission of vengeance, the sixth is not to be rendered whosoever, but whatsoever sheddeth man's blood, so as to include beasts as well as men."*

The

The translation of Luther accords with ours: Wer Menschen Blut vergeusst, -Whoso sheddeth man's blood. Latin Vulgate has the same translation, Quicumque effuderet humanum sanguin

em.

The context makes this translation as necessary as the construction.

We shall only add a short comment from one of the most eminently learned and impartial of the German commenta

Ist der sechste vers nicht zu ubersetzen: Wer Menschenblut vergiesst, sondern, Was Menschenblut vergiesst, so dass die Thiere mit eingeschlossen sind. MICHAELIS. Commentaries on the Laws of Moses. Art. 274.

tors, E. F. C. Rosenmueller, in which he refers to the opinion expressed by Michaelis: "Because is the nominative absolute, there are some persons, who would have it apply not only to men, but also to beasts, so that it may read, whatsoever sheddeth man's blood. But to us the commonly received opinion, which confines the application of p to man only, seems the best. For the sacred writer, having in the preceding verse spoken concerning punishing both man and beast for the taking away of life, repeats now in the sixth verse the ordinance concerning the punishment of homicide, on account of that superior dignity of man, concerning which the last words of this verse are spoken, viz., for in the image of God made he man."*

Were it necessary for the elucidation of this passage, a vast body of authorities might be brought forward, including the

ROSENMUELLER. Scholia in Gen. ix. 6: Nobis vulgo recepta sententia qua de homine duntaxat capitur, potior videtur, etc.

names of Selden, Hammond, Grotius, Leclerc, Calvin, Rivetus, Matthew Henry, Scott, Dr. E. Robinson, and many others. Indeed, the union of the tenor of the context with the necessity of the construction is such as fairly to forbid any other rendering in this case, than that given by our English translators. We shall therefore pass to the consideration of the circumstances in which the ordinance was promulgated.

CHAPTER II.

Argument from Scripture continued.-Circumstances of the human race, when this ordinance was promulgated.

THE Circumstances in which Noah was placed, on taking possession of the earth after the deluge, were in some respects very similar, in others very dissimilar, to those of Adam, when just invested with the sovereignty of the creation. A formal grant was made to him as to Adam. His prerogatives were settled, and his possession confirmed, in the earth redeemed from the deluge, in a form of benediction like that which attended the first proclamation of Adam's Paradisaical empire. But there was this mighty difference:when the earth was given to Adam, there had been no sin; all was simplicity and peace, guilelessness and innocence, fearlessness and security. There had been no evil passions among men, no ferocity among