society and the sacredness of human life. The solemn lessons of the past required, not a prediction of retributive vengeance under the social law of self-preservation, but a divine precept demanding it and enforcing it with its logical reason――that “God made man in his own image.” You may take the life of the lower animals for no higher cause than human sustenance――food for man’s wants;――but let no man put forth his hand against the blood of man, for he bears the very “image of God.”――――To make this new law the more solemnly impressive, man must himself be the executioner of this divine behest――“_By man shall his blood be shed._” Society itself must commit to some of its members this solemn function and they must take the murderer’s life. Nothing less can shield the life of man from bloody violence; nothing less will duly honor God’s image in man. * * * * * 2. _The prophecy of Noah._ In Gen. 9: 25–27 we have the first of those patriarchal utterances of prophetic sort, in various strain――blessing and _not_ blessing――of which several examples occur subsequently, as in the case of Jacob (Gen. 49: 1–27); Moses (Deut. 33: 1–29). The form is thoroughly that of Hebrew poetry――the brief parallelism of sentiment and language being the prominent feature.――――The circumstances which called out these prophetic words are given briefly in the narrative. Noah having come forth from the ark soon commenced the culture of the vine and experimented (unfortunately) in the free use of its wine. While he lay overcome and personally exposed in his tent, his younger son Ham, lost to all sense of filial duty, reported the sad spectacle. Shem and Japheth, with filial pity and with the most delicate modesty, covered his shame. When Noah awoke to consciousness and came to know what his younger son had done unto him, he said, “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren. Blessed be Jehovah, God of Shem, and let Canaan be servant to them. Let God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be servant to them.”――――It had been previously said (v. 18), that “Ham was the father of Canaan.” What part, if any, Canaan bore in this transaction, that the curse apparently due to Ham should fall so specially on him, the narrative does not say. The offense of Ham lay in the line of his relation as a son. Perhaps it was for this reason that his punishment lay in the humiliation of _his_ son. Be this as it may, the words were prophetic of the future relations of the posterity of Canaan to the posterity of both Shem and Japheth. The devoted nations of Canaan were terribly exterminated by the Hebrew people, sons of Shem; the remnant (_e. g._ the Gibeonites) were made hewers of wood and drawers of water; and in the age of Solomon, were subjected to the most severe labors. See Josh. 9: 20–27, and 2 Chron. 2: 17, 18 and 1 Chron. 22: 2.