Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1855-01-16

Hcal 0oNn4stasots WHO'S I have sdduced. Why
sir, you night - web say thst yow translation or
that Of Mr.. O'Sullivan o. Of Mr.. Horace Greedy,
u to upset the translatios made by orty-seves of
most learned Hebrew Scholars Of Great Britain,
and acquiesced in by every Hebrew Biblical Com
mentator since, as to say that the Interpretation
made by one or any number of anti-capital pun.
ishment men, and they not Biblical Commenta-
tors, is to eclipse the light thrown upon this pass
age by those great Luminaries. a-sss--sa,,...
set out at the commencement of this discus
sion, to controvert, First, your denial that the
passage "Whoso sheddeth mans blood By man
shall his blood Be ahsd" has scripture for its au-
thority; or to use your own language ssthat It ev
er ensanated from the Deity. This think have
done efectually. At any rate, am willing to
leave this division of the subject to your readers
with the arguments, pro and CON, which have
been already adduced; and, next, shall take up
your Second averment, to wit: "That you are
opposed to the death penalty, because you believe
it to be directly opposed to the Command of God,
Thou shalt not kill.' CITIZEN.
st. Paul, Jan. IL, 1855. ases.
REPLY.
When we commenced our discussion of this
question, we were constrained to believe, from
the character of our correspondent, that it would
be conducted in a gentlemanly manner, our OBJ
jest being to elicit information on subject which
we considered of vital Importance to the world at
large. 1t is to be regretted that our correspon-
dent has seen fit to deviate from this course, and
to devote his communication to us personally, re-
fecting. we think unjustly upon US, and charging
us with resorting to trick to substantiate our
position. He scarcely alludes to the question at
issue, with the hope, doubtless of attracting the
attention of the reader from the arguments ad-
duced by us in our last, and thus Withdrawing
from the discussion as quietly as possibly. But
in this, as in some other points, we are afraid
that he will be greatly disappointed.
From the very commencement of the discussion,
it was evident that " Citizen" sought to array
the religious world against US, on the ground.
that because we differed with him as to the inter-
probation of certain passage in the Bible, there
fore we were throwing the weight of our intellect
against that Book. We saw through the &c trick, -
and Immediately tore away the mask that hid the
man, for which he retaliates in harsh and unjust
language. We do not propose to adopt the same
course, but to consider briefly one or two inpor-
tant misrepresentation and then to pass our
correspondent over into the hands of the public,
leaving the people to judge who is right and who
is wrong.
In the first communication of "Citizen," he
stated that we were throwing the weight of our
intellect against the Bible. To this we replied
hot
meaning of certain passage in the Bible, was
throwing the weight of our intellect against it,
why every denomination that differed with one
or another, as to the manner of baptism or any
other passage in the scriptures, were also throw
ing the weight of their intellect against it, and
| by this manner Of reasoning, more than one-half
of the religious world would be placed in the same
category in which he desired to place US. Seeing
his dilemma, in his second communication he
stated that the remark, that we had thrown the
weight of our intellect against the Bible, depend
ed on our being able to prove successfully that
the teachings We deduce are the teachings of the
Bible. Now mark; he denied that the teachings
we did deduce, were the teachings of the Bible,
and consequently if they were not, then we GER
tainly had not thrown the weight of our intellect
against the Word of God, and it seems strange to
us, that so plain proposition should or could be
misconstrued or even tortured so as to mean any,
thing else. In his third article he says we have
resorted to &c trick" that we have been &c tri-
fling" that our "professed reverence for the
scriptures is sham" and such like elegant ex-
pressOns, and as last resort, to enable him to
creep out of the corner into which we have driven
him, he says:
| "My language was and first, you think have
been hasty in my remark that you have thrown
the weight of your intellect against the teachings
of the Bible.' of course this (meaning my has
tiness) depends upon your being able successfully
to prove that the teachings you deduce from it are
the teachings of the Bible.'
Now will our correspondent admit that we haze
proven position by the teachings of the Bible
If So the discussion is at an end. If we have not
has he not been hasty in his remark, and are we
not free from the charge he has brought against
US? Take whichever horn of the dilemma he pleases.
he is fixed and cannot get away.
His determination to place US in false position
before the public and his insinuations of our dis
honesty, &c., are unworthy one who processes to
follow the teachings of the meek and iowly Jesus.
Second.-In giving our ideas of the Deity, we
did deny the divine authority of the Noahc pre-
cept, but expressed our belief that the passage as
interpreted never emanated from God. Nor did
we deny that man ever foil from state of inno-
cency, &C., but merely stated that we could not
reconcile this with great and Interchangeable God.
Here again our correspondent misrepresents US and
exhibits spirit unlike that which might be ex-
pected from true follower of Christ.
Third.-Our correspondent wishes to know how
any one "ignorant of the Bible in the Hebrew
tongue can know anything of the Word of God,
except he give credence to passages about which,
among Biblical commentators who are pro6cients
in the Hebrew tongue, there has been but one
voice." Why, my dear sir,-we take it 'sjust as
it unfods itself naturally and consistently to us,
as you wished to have us. But suppose all the
Biblical commentators do agree as to the passage
under discussion, does that make it true?
There was time when nearly all Europe be-
lieved that Kings held their power by the Divine
right; and yet because they believed so, must we
believe SO also? There soas a time when persons
were put to death in England for stealing, and it
was thought to be right,-shal we believe the same
now? Nonsense!