eral obligation of the ordinance given to Noah, would also displace the decalogue itself from its throne of divine authority and supremacy. We believe that this enactment possesses the same rank with reference to all penal enactments, that the commandments in the decalogue possess, with reference to all moral duties. It stands at the head of the science of social and criminal jurisprudence, just as the statutes in the decalogue stand at the head of the science of Christian ethics.

Now if any man will deny the evident universality of this ordinance, it is for such an one to show proof either of its limitation or its abrogation; but this cannot be done. Where is the law, or the authority, repealing it? Will any man assert that it was binding only upon Shem and his posterity, or that in process of time it became obsolete with the other lines of Noah's posterity, and continued only with the Hebrews? If its obligation ceased at any time, or with any race, when did its

obligation cease, and by what sign or message from God did men know it? These are questions that no man can answer. Not a trace of the abrogation of this ordinance can be found, either in the course of God's providence, or in the tenor of God's word; either in sacred or profane history; either in the Old or the New Testament. On the contrary, there are plain intimations of its continuing in force through every successive dispensation.

The reason, which we have not yet considered, given by the Divine Being for the ordinance itself, is one of the strongest arguments for its perpetual obligation: For in the image of God made he man. Now whether we take this, as some have done, to signify that image of God as a governor and legislator, of which the magistracy, divinely constituted, is a representation; or, according to the more common and probable opinion, that image in the individual being, of which God speaks in the beginning; in any case it is manifest that the reason it contains is not tran

sitory, not a matter of expediency, not limited to any age, country, or generation, but coeval and coessential with the race. It recognizes in the crime of murder, not an injury to man merely, or to society, but to God; the highest possible violation of his authority, the greatest possible insult, through his violated image; a degree of turpitude and enormity, of which the Divine Majesty requires the highest possible punishment of human law.* The reason of the ordinance appeals to the attributes of God, and to the existence of man in God's image; the obligation of the ordinance endures, as long as the reason on which it is founded; consequently, it is perpetual. As long as there are men in God's image, so long will the ordinance

* Quum homo ad Dei imaginem sit factus, æquum est ut qui Dei imaginem violavit et destruxit, occidatur, cum Dei imagini injuriam faciens, ipsum Deum, illius auctorem, petierit.-ROSENMUELLER, Scholia in Gen. ix.

Imago Dei non potest impune destrui, Deus enim ipse læditur, in imagine sua læsa; ergo ab homicidio, et destructione imaginis Dei, abstinendum est.--A. RIVETus in loc. Opera, Tom. I. p. 237.

be in force, that whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man. Calvin, in his commentaries, has well observed, that though men are unworthy of his wonderful goodness, the Divine Being doth here reveal the grounds of his care for the sacredness of human life; and most seduously should the doctrine of this passage be marked, that no person can injure his neighbor, but he injures God; a truth, which, if men would remember, there would be much less violence in human society.*

* Sedulo autem notanda est doctrina, neminem posse fratribus suis esse injurium, quin Deum ipsum lædat. Quæ si probe in animis nostris infixa esset, longe tardiores essemus ad inferendas injurias. CALVIN in Gen. ix. Opera, Tom. I. p. 53.

CHAPTER IV.

Argument from Scripture continued. The Mosaic statutes, a luminous commentary upon this ordinance. Proof that it is not abrogated, but confirmed, in the New Testament. Proof from Paul's writings and experience. Proof from the consentaneousness of Divine Providence.

THE Whole Jewish code proceeds on the ground of this previous legislation. To that code we do not resort for argument; it is unnecessary; we do not rest the right or duty of capital punishment on any part of it; nevertheless, it forms a luminous commentary on the ordinance revealed to Noah. The existence of this ordinance is just as much taken for granted, as the continued authority of the permission to eat animal food; nor was there any more need of formally republishing it, than of prefixing to the decalogue the acknowledged genealogy of the Hebrews from Abraham. In the thirty-fifth chapter of Numbers, in the