Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1840-02-19
vERMoNT TELEGRAPH.

money is to be expended. The money
we pay goes to support the government in
all lis acts.
adduce this decision of the Savior in
support of my position that God GpprOce.
the existence Of human government, because
only on this ground, SO far as see, can
the Savior's decision be justified. He
surely did not approve the leading princi
plies on which the Roman government
was administered. If that government
like all others before and slncee. was
wicked usurpation, unnecessary and abom.
Unable, why did Jesus by example and
precept he p TO sustain it, as he certainly
did by paying taxes and teaching others
10 do the same. But if Christ approved
the institution Of human governments, he
might very properly sanction the authori-
ty OF any particular government, though
very imperfect in its administration, Just
as he might sanction the authority of a
father In his family, though he might
very strongly disapprove the character OF
that father, and the use he often made of
his authority. On the ground of nv
position, the Savior's conduct in paving
taxes and teaching others TO do the same,
is easily explained. On the opposite
ground-that all human government is
wicked usurpation. entirely unnecessary
and unauthorized of God-I know not
how TO give any plausible or probable
explanation. A consideration of the in
structlons of the apostles | must defer to
another number. nc.
R E NJ ARKS
The first thing to come under the readers
notice is, his setting forth, from the the 9th
chapter and 9th verse of Genesis, "he
duty Of taking life for life" mention
this point more TO call attention to it than
for anything else. do not design here to
discuss the capital punishment question.
lnasmuch as he has avoided ii. But he has
endorsed the doctrine that duty requires
taking life for life. l only wish to turn
attention to this sanguinary position, and
some things that it inevitably involves, and
leave II for the contemplation Of the reader
II will be seen at once that if friend Chr
tIs' doctrine be correct, all those human
governments which have abolished capiIal
punishment are in open rebellion against
God IN the matter. Now | would moi be
understood as undertaking 10 test the sound
ness OF his doctrine by the practices or
governments. Far from it, only wish 70
call attention TO The position which he occu-
pies, and to the construction which he pu,s
upon scripture. For if he is found putting
constructions on some passages that will
not bear, he must be looked to in his con-
structlons of other passages. But if the
Bible teaches the imperative duty, to all
men, Of all generations, and under all dis
pensatlons, of taking life for life, then
surely those governments which have done
what they have esteemed to be the more
enlightened and Christian thing, to blot Out
the bloody clauses of their codes, are guilty.
IN SO doing, of an enormous violation of
Gods law, and friend Curtis ought by all
means to be forthwith preaching repentance
to them therefor in unmeasured terms. Rnt
this is the fist word or intimation have
heard from him against the high INSIDE
meanor OF these governments, in rejecting
SO important command of Jehovah!
Again: If such a construction is to he
put upon this passage of scripture-ir il is
TO be understood and expounded as incul-
eating the imperative duty of taking life for
iiie' what Is to be done with those plain
passages of later dale, which teach the
duty Of Furnishing with blow for blow. eve
Tor eye, and tooth for tooth? Is it TO bo.
answered that the former was given 10
Noah, and the latter 10 Moses? If 1beso
laws are alike in their nature and their or;-
gin, and there can be no other reason o;vo,
70 snow why the one is not precisely as
much as the other adapted to all generations
and conditions of men, | am sure tba, No
one claiming TO be rational and candid will
pretend that Gods giving the two to two
persons, servants of his, at differ.
ent periods of time, is good reason for
holding TO the one and rejecting the other
for holding to the stronger and
gwen earlier, in ruder state of society
and rejecting the milder, and given in a
later and improved state of society. Does
any one reply by saying that the latter Of
the two laws under consideration was abro-
gated by the express teaching of the Saw
lor, the Prince of Peace himself2 Re
careful. say TO such a one, how you de-
strog your own foundation for defensire
'odr! You will be Non Resistant in
spite of yourself, and before you are aware |