Quote:
Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress  As for OT penalties, Samuel Rutherford opined as follows:[indent] “No man but sees the punishment of theft is of common morall equity, and obligeth all Nations, but the manner or degree of punishment is more positive: as to punish Theft by restoring foure Oxen for the stealing of one Oxe, doth not so oblige all Nations, but some other bodily punishment, as whipping, may be used against Theeves.”[1] | A sad case of poor reasoning. Rutherford can't have it both ways. On one hand, he wants to argue from the judicials for certain things; on others, he wants to defy them. Also, I have read several excepts from the free disputation against pretended liberty of conscience to the opposite effect. For instance: Quote: |
...but the question may draw to this, whether the Laws of England & Scotland be bloody or unjust, that ordains seminary Priests and Jesuits, whose trade it is to seduce souls to the whole body of Popery, to bee hanged. I conceive they are most just Lawes and warranted by Duet. 13. and many other Scriptures, and that the King and Parliament of either Kingdomes serve Christ, and kisse the Son in making and executing these Lawes. page 68
| This contradicts your quotations, and also affirms Pergy's hanging argument 
I see your Rutherford; you want to raise me a Gillespie?
Cheers,
__________________
Adam B., Livermore, California
Grace Church of Pleasanton, PCA
He who was punishable by death under the judicial law, is punishable by death still; and he who was not punished by death then, is not to be punished by death now.
|