New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1843-04-20
THE TRIBUN NE.
CAPITAL Punishment.

meet the point presented By e. IN last fndays
T1boue. You do not even approach 1t. "hen
M, do so, | am prepared to meet, without SHRINK
;or all your consequences from the law against
,5ultery. witchcralt, &C. You make no distihc
nm between solemn statute designed Tor PCT
osnent law Of the Nation, and the tyunchon o. a
,,seiol temporary ctsuch as the command TO drive
nj tho Canaantes. IN which the Jews were MADE
No AGENTS or eyccutioncrS of the Divine DIsPensa-
.;on This has about as much TO DO with the
cater under discussion as the question whether
,be Deity acted cruelty in dcluging the world with
!. aood, or sending the angels to destroy Sodom
and Gomorrah by fire, or in shaking down Lisbon
by an earthquake, or in brrying ten thousand per-
sons in Guadalupe by similar means. II these
we're not done by the God Of the Old Testament,
whom Spurzhei,n, ct id omne genus characterize
4, sangtnary, they were at least the acts of that
cod Of Nature, who has all its elements under
his control have yet to learn in what part OF
the laws gwen through Moses, there was statute
10 bew to pieces prisoners taken in war This
looks very much like a reflection on the good old
nouhet Samuel. Whether Just or unjust DO not
now INQUIRE With respect to the barbarlty and
ferocity of the Jews that was the point on which
direct issue of fact was rendered, which you
have totally disrcgardcd and introduced in place
Of il the usual petitio ;principii. Some weight
NAV be attached to thai argument, when any one
furnishes the slightest evidence that one case of
domestic murder or adultery took place among
lad
6 10 make no reply to the point presented and the
question offered (Which | yet deem utterly unan-
swcrabje) it would have been readily attributed to
the fact, that your time and paper were demanded
for other purposes but if noticed at all 1t should
have beer in a proper manner by yourself, or you
should have permitted g Believer to reply to It,
There is no wish to occupy your columns with
this matter, but permit me to say, that the com
muncations sent you have been called forth by
repeated general invitations and that whenever
the discussion has slumbcred, it has been again
and again revived by yourself or some of your
prose or poetica correspondents. close by re-
peating the question: Was the imnutablc God
ever the author of a statute which is rcvcngclul,
sanguinary, tending to render people barbarous
which calls out revengcfu feelings, and appeals to
the lowest instincts Of our nature Z.
Reply.
For at least the five hundrcdtll time, IN one
way kr another,) we reply to the question now re-
iteratcd by our correspondence follows:
|. The immutablc God did not give the Law
of Moses as a perpetual and universal but as
and local code Many of It's provisions
have been expressly abrogatcd by Christ: Matt,
" 81, SO, &c. Sec also Christ's acts and words
relating to the Sabbath Sc
2. The fundamental lar on this subject is
Thou shalt not hH.;' any allowed dcvlations
from that law as in the case of taking life for
crime are in the nature of things exceptional and
founded on specific necessity, which may or may
not exist in another case. The conieunding of IA
lar against some evil decd with the penalty af-
fixed to It's violation is a common error. The In
tent and purpose of the law may to-day be marred
by "a penalty which long ago was fit and proper.
8 The taking of life for many crimes we be
lcvc to have been the only severe, certain and
durable punishment which could have been in
flctcd in the time of Moses. The reasons why it
was then necessary therefore not vindictive) we
endeayored to state yesterday, as well as repeat.
edly before That it is no longer necessary or
expedicnt, but penlcious, we cannot doubt. That
The whole code of retaliation, or rendering evil for
evil, was abrogatcd by Christ, and the law of
Love- or rendering good for evil, substituted, Is
very PLAIN TO our mind; but We do not wish TO
~,
O. says the invitations or provocations to
discussion of this matter came from our side of
the house. This is true, if referring TO the gen
era question of the rghtfulness of Capital Punish
meat; not true, if applied TO the Theological ar
yumcnt, which his side appear to regard as Their
stronghold, We have never provoked or desired
discussion of this aspect Of the question IN The
Tribune, though very ready TO meet in its proper
place any thing our opponents may choose to ad
vance. If O. chooses to discuss that branch OF
he subject in religious journals, VIC volunteer to
Ind HIM a reputable opponent and an uneScep
icnable religious channel of communication with
hepubic; he procuring the insertion OF both sides
II some religious paper of his OWN side, as we in
nat OF ours. But, regarding it as out of place IN
secular journal, we shall be much obliged to our
one and ALL if they will not ask
o publish any thing more of a Theological nature
n The Tribune Believer will please con-
lder tins as an answer to his note OF yesterday.
u Tx WIVES OF ENGL,Np-their Relative
Duties, Domestic Influence and Social Obliga-
ions by Mrs. ELLIS, author of The Women
'i England, &c. has just been published for 25
cents by }. 4 Il. c. Langley. 1t is repletc with
adicious advice and womanly COUNSEL and VIC
presume the Wives of America, as well as those OF
England, may derive instruction from its perusal
u The RAINBOW, or odd.Fellows' Magazine,
No. s, for April Is, is Just published. 1t has