The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-04-05
THE DEATH PENALTY.
Reply Of MIR. BOvee to n ''Citizon Of the Com
RnRuNRpu1fhO

purports to be Scriptural argument in favor
of the death penalty. Although the writer is
undoubtedly a "Citizen of the Common
wealth., it is quite evident from the 'foot-
prints" that he is also clergyman Of some
one of our Christian churches; but as the
gallows is becoming very unpopular insttu-
ton at the present time, the writer should
not be censured for desiring to keep his name
from the public.
l rarely take notice of anonymous commu-
nications; but, in this instance, as the article
enbodies the views of our opponents and
are as well stated as they probably can be
upon that side of the question, it matters not
whether the author be layman or clergyman,
which latter he undoubtedly is. And as he
expresses the desire to discuss the question,
not in 'the light of expediency, but in the
higher aspect Of Divine authority" shall
confne the argument closely to the limits
proposed
First It cannot be shown that God estab-
lished the death penalty, or enacted any penal
laws, before the birth of Moses. The pas
sage, Genesis tx, 6, "Whoso sheddeth mans
blood by man shall his blood be shed, was
never intended for penal law; was never a
statute in any sense of that word. At the
time those words were spoken, there were but
eight persons in existence. Noah and his
family had come forth from the ark, and no
organized government existed upon the face
of the earth. Had God intended this passage
as applicable to crime, would He not have
mentioned other crimes than murder, and
affixed penalties to their commission 1t
would be a strange government indeed
which should enact a penalty for murder
and remain utterly silent as to other crimes
This, of itself, ought to be conclusive on
this point. But admitting, Just for the
argument, that this was O broad and
sweeping declaration of Jehovah, and was
intended for the guidance of human govern
ments in Furnishing the mauslayer, will our
Reverend "Citizen" inform us when and by
whom this statute is regarded? How does
the Commonwealth punish manslaughter?
By imprisonment. When the crime is COM
mitted with malice aforethought, it is called
murder in the first degree. The passage in
dispute does not refer to murder at all; nor
does it speak of premeditated murder or
even of criminal intent. Allow me to ask
the Reverend "Citizen whether the Common
wealth hangs the lunatic? He sheds the blood
of his fellow-man, yet no one contends that
the lunatic ought to be hung. You reply
that the lunatic is not morally accountable.
But this is no reason why he should not have
his blood shed if the commandment be Di-
vine one, for it does not speak of account
ability. The simple truth is that I have
never known q government nor have met
an individual that would be willing to uni
formly execute this statute if it be one. This
passage means either something or nothing.
If it be literal, it means that we must shed
the blood of the lunatic, the soldier, the duel
list, and every human being who sheds the
blood of his fellow-man. But the gallows ad-
vocates, including, of course, our
Reverend ''Citizen," declare that if
man be morally accountable
being, and shall a0UJMly and deliberately
murder his fellow-man, and in case the Gov
ernor does not pardon him or indefinitely
postpone his sentence, then he shall be
strangled to death. And it is a noteworthy
fact that the very gentlemen, including gal
believing clergymen, who are SO clamo-
rous for the Di0ine authority of shedding the
blood of the murderer, are the very men who
are ever besieging the Executive Chamber
asking for clemency for these unfortunates:
and especially after they have been converted;
for our clergymen who 6eEie0e in hanging
don't like to encourage the hanging of saints.
and how they can advocate the hanging of
sinners, for whom Christ died, is indeed very
mysterious. And what seems still more strange
is, that while Christ died that sinners might
ice, too many of our clergymen are willing
to lice that this class of sinners may die.
The passage, "Whoso sheddeth mans blood
by man shall his blood be she'd" was never
intended as a penal law, nor can it, by any
forced construction, be made to appear in
that light. The passage is simply declaratory
and prophetic, and has it's counterpart in the
following passages Bloody and deceitful
men shall not live out half their days."
Psalms lv, 23. Again: ''For all they that take
the sword shall perish with the sword. Matt.
XVI, SO. These passages are all of similar i'm
port-the imperative form of the verb being
observable in all, yet all conveying the pro-
phetic lesson that those who are "bloody and
deceitful," ," and those who engage in war and
other bloody pursuits, will be very apt to
come to violent death. The last passage
quoted contains the words of Christ rebuking
Peter for using his sword even in defense.
1t will be noticed that ''Citizen," in quot
ing Scripture, has in no single instance given
chapter and verse. The reason is obvious.
The connection in which the passages he