Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1855-01-09

For the Times.
THE DEATH PENALTY,-NO. >.

THE DEATH PENALTY,-NO. ,.
In your paper of Saturday you invite discus
sion in regard to the question of Capital Punish
ment, and join issue with me upon the position
which have taken in former article, that first
the death penalty has scrip pture for its authority
in cases of murder: and ID that this extreme
punishment in such cases is expcdient. have no
taste for controversy as such ; bat when, as you
say, truth may be elected by it, and when as l
believe in this case as public journalist, you
have thrown the weight of your intellect against
the teachings Of the Bible, which believe should
be no less the text book of the statesman than it
course ought to pursue.
You deny lst, the scriptural authority of the
precept '' Whose sheddeth mans blood, by man
shall his blood be shcd.''
Cd, You are opposed to the death penalty, be-
YOU believe it to be directly opposed to the
command of God, Sc Thou shalt not kill.''
Sd, You are opposed to it because you believe
it to be directly opposed to the teachings of Jesus
Christ
4th, You are opposed to it because it is incxpe-
dient.
To each and all these objections, shall at
tempt reply; but as your readers would doubt
less prefer short, to long articles on this subject,
I shall, in this essay, only respond to your denial
under the. first head.
You deny then that the prcccpt, "Whoso she'd
'lcth mans blood, &C., is a prccept from God.--
Your language is, eve believe that that sentence
-Whoso d,eddeth mans blood: by man shall his
L. IL ftn fNn,t
and cannot be substantiatcd by the written word
of Cod How YOU could venture to make such
statement this, when, in my communication,
to which you We're replying, pointed ont the very
chapter and verse in the bible Genesis, 9th, Gth)
from which the prcccpt was taken, is certainly
very surprizing. All then can do 10 remove your
scepticism upon this point, is simply to ask that
YOU will opon your bible to the chapter and verse
named above, and read for yourself the preccpt,
But you may say, 4" the verse of itself does not
show that the Deity uttered it.'' No. it does not
But read the context to find out who did utter it..
Read the first verse of this chapter, and YOU
will find that the speaker God !; and that God
continues to be the speaker through every verse
from the lst to the 18th. But it is a piece of
supercrogation to say any thing more on point
about which it is so easy to satisfy oursclf and
,rhich Inere, before heard doubted; but you have
affirmed that no such precept could be substantial
ted by the written word of God, and have felt
bound. therefore to write thus much on the sub
iect.
In the above YOU will perceive that the careful
analysis which you recommend in the invcstiga
ton of this subject, so far from convicting the
undersigned Of having been led astrav," as you
saw, ''bv false education,' in relation to this
prccept, on the contrary would seem to show, at
least on this point, that you had not been cduca-
ted ut all. CITIZEN.
We think our correspondent hasty in his remark
that we GO have thrown the weight of our intellect
against the teachings of the Bible" Far from
it, we do not seek to repudiate that book of all
books, but merely to "sft the chaff from the
whcat,' and to what really is the word of God.
In doing this, we do no more than the MethOdists,
or the Prcsbyterans, or the Episcopalians, or the
Catholics, who interpret the same clause in the ho
ly writ, differently from each other. If IRE have
thrown our influence against the Bible, they have
thrown theirs, for they differ with each other as to
the true meaning of certain rrccepts, and we differ
with our correspondent as to the one under dis
cus.ion. We feel sure that he would not say that
they had /" thrown the weight of their intcllects
against the teachings of the Bible >" and how can
he, therefore, with justice, apply the remark to
us? But to his first proposition.
He expresses surprise that we should deny the
&C (..>.J hoA-
icth mans blood by man shall his blood be she'd
and refers us to the chapter and verse (Gcn. 9th,
6th.) for proof He requests us to open our Bible
and to read for ourself. We have done so, and
yet we not convinced, and why?
lst. Because we cannot reconcile this command
with the previous character Of GOd-that is, He,
knowing everything from the beginning to the end
thereof f,-knowing that murders would take place
knowing the necessity for this law (granting
for argument sake our correspondents premises)
should, at the very commencement ofthe world,
place mark upon the first murderer, Cain, and
proclaim that ''whosoevcr slayeth Cain. vengeance
shall be taken seven-fold." Now it seems very
strange to us that the Deity, if he intended that
man should take the life Of man, did not, at this
period establish and execute the law himself, as
an example to those who should people the earth.
But our correspondent may say, ''Cain was igno-
rant of the law and therefore ought not to be
put to death.'' If this holds good, then Cain
ought not to have suffered at au-he should have
received no curse from the Almighty and no mark
should have been put upon him to render him an
outcast forever. Again, in the same chapter that
the precept, our correspondent calls it, is quo
ted from, we read:
"23. And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah
and Zillah, Hear my voice, ye wives of Lamech,
hearken unto my speech; for 1 haze slain man
to my roumdins and young man to my hurt -
"24. If Cain shall be avenged seven.fold, tru.
ly Lamech seventy and seven-fold :"
And yet we have no knowledge that Lamech
was ever hung, or that he was in any way punished