without any perception of the point that bears on the question at issue. The fact is, people have been alarmed at the proposal to change the old mode of punishment, and have acted as they commonly do when startled,-laid about them, in their hurry, for the first weapon at hand, without examining what it was, or which way it pointed. It will be our object, in one part of these remarks, to expose the oversight in the argument referred to.

But before we proceed to this, it may be well to distinguish precisely where it is that the weight of scriptural authority for Capital Punishment appears to rest in people's minds. We will begin by observing, that every body, acquainted with the Bible, knows that God did enact Capital Punishments for certain offences, under the Old Testament dispensation. For instance, one of the statutes in the Mosaic code is this: He that smiteth a man so that he die, shall be surely put to death. But, then, the penalty was by no means confined to murder; it was affixed to a great many other offences, which nobody now thinks of punishing with death. Another statute of the same code, was, He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hands, shall surely be put to death a law which we believe is laid aside in some parts of our country, and another rule introduced, viz that he who tries to rescue the stolen man out of his master's grasp, shall be put to death. Again: if one cursed his father or mother, he was to be put to death; all witches were to be put to death, as was the practice in Salem; if any one consulted a wizzard, or fortune-teller, he was to be put to death; if one did any work on the Sabbath, or Saturday, even so much as to pick up sticks to kindle a fire, he was to be put to death; if one spoke blasphemy he was to be put to death; whoso ate the flesh of fowl or beast while there was blood in it, was to be put to death.

But, then, no intelligent person, of any party, supposes that these Mosaic statutes have anything to do with Capital Punishments in our day. And we ought, in justice, to add, that no intelligent advocate even of the penalty in question, ever appeals to those laws, in its support. It is possible, indeed, that some of the more ignorant partizans and violent demagogues make use of them as authorities for the present time. What we mean, is, that no well-informed and candid man ever does. All such leave the Mosaic penalties wholly out of the case, for the two following reasons: 1. Those laws were never binding on any nation except the Jews; nor even on them, after the coming of Christ. 2. Were we to admit

them as authoritative now, every body sees it would bring us into a sad dilemma at once. We should not only have to punish murder with death; we should have to hunt out all our witches, and hang them, together with all who go to consult fortune-tellers, and many of our slaveholders, and all who kindle fires in their houses, or do any work, on Saturday. Nor could we stop here. Admit the present authority of that code, and we should have to practice circumcision, observe new moons, offer sacrifices,—in short, become Jews, and give up Christianity. These are the reasons why no sensible and honest man, even among the advocates of Capital Punishment, ever goes to the laws of Moses for support. It is to the passage we have named that they look. This is the corner-stone of their argument from the Bible. If it! be asked, what this passage has to do with us, at the present day, more than have the Mosaic laws, we are told to mark this one circumstance, viz: that it does not belong to the code of Moses, which was intended only for the Jews. Very true. We acknowledge it does, indeed, stand on different ground, in this respect. It was given nearly a thousand years before the age of Moses, and was addressed immediately to Noah and his family, when they came out of the ark to re-people the earth. And on this account, we are told, it must have been intended for all Noah's posterity, for all mankind, as much as for himself. We do not know on what grounds it is alleged that what was said to Noah and his family, was also said to all mankind, in all ages. We only state that this is what people are pleased to allege, with great positiveness, though without any authority that we have ever heard of. Other communications were made to Noah and his family, that nobody pretends relate to us; and it might be well to prove the relevancy, in the present case, before asserting it. But let this pass; suppose the assumption valid.

Well, then, it is said, here is the rule given us the murderer shall be put to death. Prove that Capital Punishment is barbarous; prove that it is unnecessary to the safety of society, now; prove that it does more harm than good; that every State, which has made the trial, has found that a substitute answers the purpose much better; and still the reply to all our arguments, is, Yes, but here is God's express command. It is not for us to judge what is proper in the case ; he has determined it for us. Here, then, it would seem, our way is completely blocked up. According to this plea, we must not change the law for hanging, let it appear to us ever

so useless, ever so barbarous under present circumstances, ever so hurtful.

We have one or two questions to ask about this strange plea. We would say to the advocate, Friend, do we understand you, that this passage is a positive command that the penalty of death shall be incorporated in our civil laws? Yes; that it shall be maintained by our State government ? Yes. Will you come forward and just show us the words, in this passage, that mention the civil law, or the public government of this State, or any State under heaven? We have not been able to find them, here. You are a conscientious adherent to the very letter, especially to that auxiliary "shall"; you rigorously strain the verbal form to the utmost tension it will bear; now, will you, who dare not go beyond the letter, place your finger on the words, here, which say that the civil law, or the government, or something tantamount, shall put the murderer to death? If this is not the tenor of the command, it has nothing to do with the matter before us, explain it how you will. For you must observe that the question respects only our public laws and State-action, not individuals. What we are trying to do is, to get the government to remove the penalty of death from its statute-book; and you reply, that this passage forbids it to do so. We think you know not what you are talking of. It may be answered, however, that the passage is, at all events, a command to shed the blood of a murderer. A command! to whom? Not to governments and bodiespolitic; for there were no such organizations when Noah came out of the ark. If it is really a command, of perpetual authority, it is to you, as an individual, and to me as an individual, and to every man and woman as an individual. that case, if I know that any body has shed another's blood, I must go and shed his blood. No government under heaven can obey God's command in my stead; I must do it for myself. Suppose we should treat any other command of God in the way the arguers for Capital Punishment propose to treat this command, as they call it; that is, not to obey it ourselves, as individuals, but to appoint the governmentofficers to observe it for us. There is the first and great command, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart. Would it be proper to say, We will not do this, as individuals; that is not necessary; but we will obtain a law in our legislature, and have the sheriffs and suitable officers meet occasionally, in solemn procession, and do this work for us, while we attend to other business. And so, with the rest of the divine precepts.

In

د,

We do not recollect a grosser blunder, than has been made in the application of this passage, even admitting it to be a command, and to relate to all mankind, in all ages, and in every degree of civilization. But, then, the absurdities in which, as we have just seen, this admission would involve us, show that it is not such a command. Nothing is plainer, than that we must interpret it as we interpret similar forms of expression in other places. In the 6th chapter of this book, the Lord said, just before the flood, "My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh; yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.' Does anybody take this latter clause as a command? or simply a declaration of what was to be, for a time. In the directions given to Noah, preparatory to his entering the ark with other living creatures, the Lord told him, "Take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it unto thee; and it shall be food for thee, and for them." Is this last clause strictly a command? or, simply, a provisional arrangement, to be used or neglected, as circumstances might require. After the flood, when the descendants of Noah began to build the tower of Babel, the Lord said, "Behold this people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do, and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do." Is this a positive command that nothing, of all which they had imagined, should be withheld from them? It would, however, be an endless task to collect the passages in which this form of language is used, sometimes indeed as a command, but oftener as a declaration of what was to be, either as a matter of approval, indifference, or offence. The reader's recollection will supply, from every part of the Bible, examples enough for illustration.

We will now turn again to the passage in question, and take it with its context, which begins thus: "And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. (Is this a command to governments? Is it indeed a positive command even to individuals, such as is not to be accommodated to circumstances?) And the fear of you, and the dread of you, shall be upon every beast of the carth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. (Is this a command? or only a mention of what would be the state of things.) Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. (Does this mean that the civil government shall eat

up every living thing? or compel the people to do it, Grahamism notwithstanding?) But the flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. (Is this a command to governments, or even to individuals of the present day?) 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 man's brother will I require the life of man; whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made he man. (Has the government any part assigned to it here? Is every beast still amenable to this law?) And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein."

Such is the context. The bare reading of it is enough to satisfy every man, who has no prepossessions, that the paragraph is partly a declaration, to Noah and his sons, of the state of things that would succeed, partly injunctions adapted to their condition at that time, without reference to after ages, partly encouragements to multiply, and partly restrictions on their destructive passions. We see, at once, that it has nothing to do with our civil governments, nor with the penalties on our statute-books.

OBITUARY OF MRS. H. BROWNE..

The following notice of the death of Mrs. Brown was written by Rev. A. A. Miner, and first appeared in the Star of Bethlehem, from which it is copied ]

DIED in Nashua, N. H., June 13th, of consumption, Mrs. Harriet, wife of Rev. Lewis C. Browne, aged 31 years, 1 month, and 21 days. To her numerous friends a brief history of her life and religious experience may not be uninteresting. She was born at Sophiasburg, Canada West, April 22d, 1814. Her father was a native of New York, and her mother of Scottish extraction. Her mother died when she was quite young, leaving her the eldest of five children, and she thus became early inured to domestic cares and duties, and this bias in her early education continued through life. After the death of her mother, the family removed to Fort Plain, Montgomery county, N. Y. Some time after, the death of a younger sister was added to her afflictions. These circumstances naturally gave her mind a serious and religious cast, and at the age of seventeen she became a