Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1858-05-26

quire the life. of man. Here is no dis
elimination in favor of him who slays
a man unwittingly or without intent;
nor is there any more discrimination in
favor Of him who, as the avenger of
blood, brings another to his DEATH
They have shed the blood of man.
whether with or without provocation,
by accident or design; and "whoso''-
every person who's not the language
of law that discriminates, excuses any
one of all the shedders of blood, from
the prescribed penalty, 'by man shall
his blood be she'd" We may say
that though the letter of the Law does
not make this discrimination, yet it is
evidently required by its spirit; and
that common sense teaches this. But
then, when we have said it, it is but
our sag, unsupported by any evidence.
l know not how we can. at this far
distant day decide upon the spirit of the
Law, to say what it was meant to be, but
by it's letter; and as for common sense
teaching me that the snirit of the Law
made or makes these determinations
my sense-common or uncommon
teaches me no such thing, but rather,
that God never made any such Law
OF gave any such command as that the
blood Of one man should be shed by the
hand of another, for any cause whatev-
er.
To say that the spirit of the Law is
something different from the letter of
the Law, is to implicate the wisdom of
the Law-giver; for it is, in fact the
same thing as to say: He did not know
how to frame Law whose letter and
spirit should be in harmony: and to
suppose that Law, the letter of which
requires indiscriminate slaughter, was
ever made by God, is to charge him
with the extreme of ffoolishness:-he
| am quite certain that the text was
never meant to teach, either by letter
or spirit, as law of God, either that
men may indiscriminately slaughter
one another, or that any one manor
body of men-may take the life of
another for any cause whatever, with
out being held responsible and guilty
before God for his murder.
2. The supposition that it is a Law
of God, authorizing the taking Of hu-
man life, makes God appear inconsis-
tent with himself. For both before and
subsequent to this we find him express
ing his good pleasure in the form of a
command to the opposite Of this
When human blood had been shed for
the first time, and God expressed his
disapprobation of the crime, he forbade
the killing Of the murderer, and set a
mark upon him or gave him a token
''lest any one finding him should kill
him" Moses, himself a murderer, he
chose to be the leader and ruler of his
people. When, on Sinai's burning
mountain, wrapped in awful grandeur,
he gave laws to his people, he said,
''Thou shalt not KILL" and when, in the
principles and precepts Of Jesus, he
spake to the world his will, he said,
s'Avenge not yourselves; but rather
give place unto wrath, for it is written
vengeance is mine; will repay saith
the Lord
The supposition, therefore, that the
text is law of God, requiring the tax
ING Of life involves this idea that God
may give to man Law at one time.
for his rule of action (for the express,
ion of Gods will in given case is his
Law Of action for many that he may af
terwards require him to act in direct
contrary manner, that he may again
re-enact the first law, and again com
mand its exact opposite to be done
which is certainly to represent God as
very inconsistent and changeable.
!. But the text was not understood as
a command to take life-not even the
life of the murderer-by those who liy
ed Immediately after the time when it
was given; or if it was SO understood
they were not obedient. Jacob did not
require Simon and Levi to be slain
when they had treacherously murdered
the Shechen1ites, although he said
ssCursed be their anger, for it was cru
ell And later David, and all Israel
did not consider it Law of God obi
gatory upon them; for he did not cause
Absalom to be put to death when he
had killed Amnon, nor did they cause
him to be put to death, when, will
success, he planned to take away tht
life of Jriah. This furnishes at least
strong presumptive evidence that the
text was never meant to be understood
as Law of God requiring or author