Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1836-02-04
THE TELEGRAPH.
FEBRUARY 4.
FoR THE TELEGRAPH.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

Mr. ED1roR,-I learn from your prospect
US, that capital punishment is one Of the
subjects which will receive attention in YOUR
paper. Wishing 10 contribute mite towards
stopping the progress of what seems to me
dangerous and growing error, | send YOU an
essay upon this subject. l am aware that it
is one, which a writer should approach with
very serious regard for consequences. To
me 1t has appeared to be sometimes treated
with too much recklessness. Do those who
advocate the abolition of capital punishment.
duly ponder the following precept? "a man
that doeth violence to the blood of any per-
son, shall flee to the pit let no man stan
him"
Is capital punishment right? l bring the
question { to the law and to the testimony ,
for | can no more trust erpediencu as a
guide upon this subject than upon that of
slave-holding. l assume that capital pun
lShment, in certain cases, is either necessa-
~, or else it is sinful. If necessary, then
there is an end Of the question, and it ought
to be inflicted. If sinful, we may be sure to
find the sin forbidden or discountenanced in
Scripture. To its decision let US submit, &
not be wise above what is written.
What saith the Scri pture? Open at Num-
bers xxxv. 30" Whose killeth any person,
| the murderer shall be put to death by the
mouth of witnesses: Moreover, We shall
| take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer
| which is guilty of death but he shall sure
ly be put TO death" One would think that
a decision from Heaven, so plain and une-
qulVocal, might supercede all discussion, &
put the question at rest; especially as this
decision is repeated and confirmed in many
parts of the Bible. Shall be told that this
precept, being found only in the Old Tesla
ment, is part of the handwriting of ordi-
nances which was blotted out? They. who
assert this, should prove it. We have no
right to make void any divine precept bv pre-
Stunning it abolished. The appointment of
cities of refuge was no doubt Of typical and
temporary use; but was not the reason as
signed for putting the murderer to death of
perpetual and universal application? "For
blood it dehleth the land and the land can
not be cleansed of the blood that is shed
therein, but by the blood Of him that shed it"
was this dehlement ceremonial? And did
a ceremonial deflement require a human
| sacrlhce! Did 1t require something to be
done which is in itself sinful Are we no,
rather taught that murder is always and ev-
cry where crying sin, which must be expi-
ated by the blood of the murderer? The law
requlrl ng the death Of the murderer, is so far
from being merely ceremonial, that ii is ex-
pressly called statute of Judgment or a
judicial regulation. AS such it was nc
doubt wise one; and if the Bible is a Der,
feet rule of faith and practice-if it was civ
en to teach judges and Legislators, as well as
other men, let them come to this law TO learn
their duty in relation to the murderer.
After all, let US suppose that this law was
ceremonial. What then Does it not still
prove that cpital punishment is right? Does
the ceremonial law ever clash with the NOR
al? 1t would be hard for the temperance
cause, If there could be found even a cere.
monIal PrecePt, repeatedly and explicitly en-
joining the use of intoxicating drinks. Such
precePt would show that drinking rum is
not immoral.
For the sake Of those who have a create,
reverence for the New-Testament than foI
the Old, we will now consult that mart Of
the inspired volume. l do not find that the
New-Testament abrogates the law reouirine
the murderer to be put to death. or that it n
any way dlscountenances capital punish.
ment. On the contrary, one passage occurs
to me, which evidently sanctions its infi;c.
ton. The apostle, speaking of the ruler
says, For he beareth not the s1oo1d IN
vain; for he is the minister of God. = Ieven.
ger to execute wrath upon him that doeth