Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1842-03-02

/
to this subject, which 'pleased" him We s
all of it such attention as he would have
given to it-that the especial discourses
preached upon it, were all in favor Of
"eye for eye, Tooth for tooth" blow for
blow, blood for blood, slaughter for slaugh-
ter. Let those who hold to this unchrist-
ian anG barbarous practice persevere in
agitat;ng the question. Those who dsa-
gree with them on the subject will never
complain of the agitation, but will help
them on with it. Il
TO help along the discussion, ask the
supporters of Capital Punishment, ,oiat
Christ meant 0hsm he forbade the taking
of "eye for eye and tooth for tooth p
With view 10 arriving at the truth in
answering this question, | propose three
more questions:
l.. Does the spirit oftbls prohibition ex-
tend only to the conduct of individuals to-
wards each other, Of which human laws
take no cognizance? Or,
2. Does it extend only to that conduct
of individuals towards each other, of
which human laws do take cognizancea
Or,
g. Does it extend to both2 .
This division of the matter is not made
with view to accommodating the dis
, cussion to any views held by myseIf--buI
to meet others on their own ground.
} Those who are governed by what is pop
ular among men. more than by what is
) right in the sight Of God make many
5 aoise distinctions where they are wholly
unable 10 show any differences. With
} such, reason, revelation, and common
y sense are nothing. Their notions-no
E matter how they come by them-are the
f things to which everything else must be
/. adjusted For instance : if they have
O some how imbibed the notion that we
o have right 10 do through the hands O
others what we have no right to do with
b our own hands, you reason with them III
If vain, while your reasoning Conflicts with
St popular practices.
d But to the examination of the questions
- First: If the prohibition to take "ey'
e for eye and tooth for TOOTH extends onl1
h to that conduct of individuals towards eacI
other, of which human laws take no cog
il nizance, then of-course the old dispense
n ton law-"eye for eye and tooth 70
St tooth"--is not abrogated, but now stands il
il full force; and all who take the Bible 70
IS guide are bound toskeep it in practice
IS Now it is plain that this is not the view
se taken by human Legislators, for none G
e. them carry out this principle in framin
J. their codes.
e. Secondly: ftheprohbitioa extends onl
1t to that conduct of individuals towards eac
- other Of which human laws do take cog
re nizance, then this teaching of Christ doe
is not forbid any resentment or retaliatio
t. which human laws will allow. So iftw
s, men meet alone, and the one strikes tn
n other on the right cheek, the man s
err struck instead of turning the other chez
be is to strike back blow for blow, Wi
Sc any one pretend to put this constructio
he on the prohibition 2
ne Thirdly: 1t is plain that the prohib
he ZION is confined 10 neither ofthese cIasse
I'd of conduct; and equally plain that it e,
T. tends to both-that it is forbidden 10 talk
ID "eye for eye and tooth for TOOTH" eithe
III by the use of ones own hands or by tn
"a use of human laws. 1t was Ian vhic
al Christ abrogated. Not merely an unlav
nd ful practice which had obtained anon
is the Jews-but prominent part Of the
he penal code, that had been. executed, nj
by individuals against individuals merel,
but by the constituted authorities
%, against individuals. Nothing can {
lit, palmer than tina: the spirit OF che prohib
ed ton is this:-If my neighbor, from ma
o. ice aforelhought, comes and strikes 0
Of one of my arms from my shoulder, it
not for me to turn upon him and strike 0
ne his arm, either by the use of my remain
is ing arm OF BY tie use Of lao. The la
3D. that would allow such thing abroga
wv ed by the words of our Divine Maste
~ and Lord already so often quoted. Nc