Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1836-04-14
"a For the Telegraph
Capital PUNISHMENT.

Teuly to nv essay on capital punishment
cannot, however, perceive the conclu-
siyeness Of your reasoning. We agree In
believing that the question should be bro't
for decision to the law and the testimony;
vet you have unfortunately sustained your
self more by the general sentiment Of
mankind than by this perfect rule. By
the general sentiment Of mankind the pen
al code Of the Old Testament has been
disannnlled, and You avail yourself Of this
circumstance to prove that the murderer
ought not to be capitally punished Have
YOU shown that the penal code Of the Old |
Testament is abrogated in the New So
far from il that you acknowledge it is not
done, unless il be in the spirit OF a certain
questionable passage which will be con-
sIdered by and by.
While you dispose Of the temporal pen
slties Of the Bible, you acknowledge the
obligation of the prscepts which they were
designed to enforce, leaving 1t for hEmGH
legislators 10 add such new penalties as
they please, or no penalties at all. BY a
polishing the penalties of Scripture you
have turned the murderer loose, with the
instrument Of ASSASSINATION in his hand
Icallupou you to takecare of him, When
the handwriting of Jewish ordinances was
blotted out, gospel privileges were Substi
tuted in their room. What do you pro-
pose as substitute for the penalties which
you have abolished Either let us have
the penal code Of the Old Testament, or
give us a better. Something must be done
with the murderer but neither you nor |,
having disclaimed expediency as a guide,
will dare to infict an unscriptural punish
ment. What course then shall be taken?
You say our Saviour, in his sermon on
the mount, mot only allows, but plainly
en- oins mitigation Of penalties under the
new dispensation" But 0hGt miti CATION
YOU have not shown. Whether the muir
derer should be punished with the loss of
an eye, or hand, or a tooth, remains q
question.
An important principle Of Scriptural ju-
risprudence is contained in passage which
you have quoted The same principle is
cnioined in other passages, particularly
Deut xix, 81; life shall go for life, eye
Tor eve, tooth for tooth, hand for hand
foot for foot" Can human wisdom dis,
cover better principle to govern judicial
decisions in those cases Of wrong which
admit of no restitution If there be bet.
ter principle, let US know what it is L
not, then let the general sentiment ofman,
kind be moulded to this principle, and lie
laws be enacted accordingly.
You ask, which Of our Legislators thinl
of annexing to their laws the penalties re
quired in the passage you quote? Yo'
might as well have asked which OF then
think oftnlting the Bible for their guide
In England the thief is punished will
death, while fine suffices for the aduI
terer. Reverse these penalties, and the
will be according to scripture. To u
the absurdity of the English law is su
ticiently apparent; but is there no absurd
ny in sparing the adnlterer, while tn
murderer is hungf
You ask, care oil the temporal pena
ties annexed to transgression of God
righteous laws under the old dispensatior
obligatory under the new'' and you say
the universal answer is, no." Again
this universal negative enter my dis
sent. presume however you mean cir
penalties. There may be in the Old TIE
lament a class oftemporal penalties, whic
are father OF an ecclesiastical or religion
than of a civil character. For the infi
ton Of these under the present dispens'
ton l by no means contend; because Il
New Testament appears to me to hay
abrogated them, by providing other eccl
siastical penalties But so far as pena
ties are needed for civil or political pu
poses, insist that Legislators are boul
to take the penal code Of the Old Test
ment for their guide. That code is diri,
and is certainly the bes, that ever existed
II ought to be every where substantial
adopted with only such circumstantial V
riationS as cases may require.
To all this, Mr. Editor, you will al
your Amen; unless there can be found
the New Testament au evident repeal
the law in the Old Let us then turn
the only passage IN which there is a
chance to find such repeal. I'VE Ia
heard that It hath been said An eve
an eye, and tooth for tooth. Blu
say unto you, that ye resist not o
but whatsoever shall smite thee on
right check, turn to him the other ais
Matt, v. SO, 80. Now, to show whetl
these words Contain arepeal, we need o
ascertain whether Christ was giving n
al and religious instruction to conn
people, or instructing rulers and ma
trates about civil penalties. It appear
me so evident that Christ was giving 1
glous instruction to the common PEG
that know not what could make Il m
SO. II seems they had learned 70 ali
the judicial law TO purposes Of private
venge; and Christ teaches them to I
injuries without retaliating. But sum-
Christ was teaching Judges and rulers
that no renealed thu old r.,,.I :. a. ;,