Dake Bible Discussion Board ⇒ Was William Bradford and the brethren of Plymouth righteous OR sinful for executing a 17 year old boy for beastiality?

[Grandfather]

In today's New Testament Christian age... Was William Bradford and the brethren of Plymouth righteous OR sinful for executing a 17 year old boy for beastiality?

William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, Norton Anthology of American Literature, Third Edition, From Book II, Chapter XXXII, Anno Dom: 1642

[A HORRIBLE CASE OF BEASTIALITY]

And after the time of the writing of these things befell a very sad accident of the like foul nature in this government, this very year, which I shall now relate.

There was a youth whose name was Thomas Granger. He was servant to an honest man of Duxbury, being about 16 or 17 years of age. (His father and mother lived at the same time at Scituate.) He was this year detected of *, and indicted for the same, with a mare, a cow, two goats, five sheep, two calves and a turkey. Horrible it is to mention, but the truth of the history requires it.

He was first discovered by one that accidentally saw his lewd practice towards the mare. (I forbear particulars.) Being upon it examined and committed, in the end he not only confessed the fact with that beast at that time, but sundry times before and at several times with all the rest of the forenamed in his indictment. And this his free confession was not only in private to the magistrates (though at first he strived to deny it) but to sundry, both ministers and others; and afterwards, upon his indictment, to the whole Court and jury; and confirmed it at his execution. And whereas some of the sheep could not so well be known by his description of them, others with them were brought before him and he declared which were they and which were not.

And accordingly he was cast by the jury and condemned, and after executed about the 8th of September, 1642.

A very sad spectacle it was. For first the mare and then the cow and the rest of the lesser cattle were killed before his face, according to the law, Leviticus xx. 15 and then he himself was executed. The cattle were all cast into a great and large pit that was digged of purpose for them, and no use made of any part of them.

Sinful.
Where was the love we are to have for our brothers?
Where was an offer to let him repent of his sins?
Where was the forgiveness?

It was love to the remaining brothers to get rid of the influencer of sin (the young man).

He had 17 years to repent.

we must confess and forsake sins... not just confess them.

He was “about 16 or 17 years of age” - so how did he have 17 years to repent?
And while you consider it loving to the remaining brothers to get rid of the influencer, would you extend that same “loving” reasoning to all those whom you consider improper influencers? Perhaps the woman caught in adultery, she was definitely a poor influence. The law required her to be stoned.

It appear you are not consistent in your judgements.

[bibleman]

Again, he followed that particular law, but that does not mean he was righteous, or sinful. That decision is God’s to determine, because only God can faithful and righteously judge the condition of the heart. Looking over some of the laws, supposedly based on the scripture, with regards to the natives and blacks, I would venture to say if Bradford followed those laws as faithfully as he did with this young man, we would judge him as a sinner, without mercy for his treatment of other humans.

Righteousness or Sinfulness is not limited to a single act.

So a person who cuts his wife's throat and kills his three children by burning them alive is NOT Sinful?

[bibleman]

In today's New Testament Christian age... Was William Bradford and the brethren of Plymouth righteous OR sinful for executing a 17 year old boy for beastiality?

William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, Norton Anthology of American Literature, Third Edition, From Book II, Chapter XXXII, Anno Dom: 1642

[A HORRIBLE CASE OF BEASTIALITY]

And after the time of the writing of these things befell a very sad accident of the like foul nature in this government, this very year, which I shall now relate.

There was a youth whose name was Thomas Granger. He was servant to an honest man of Duxbury, being about 16 or 17 years of age. (His father and mother lived at the same time at Scituate.) He was this year detected of *, and indicted for the same, with a mare, a cow, two goats, five sheep, two calves and a turkey. Horrible it is to mention, but the truth of the history requires it.

He was first discovered by one that accidentally saw his lewd practice towards the mare. (I forbear particulars.) Being upon it examined and committed, in the end he not only confessed the fact with that beast at that time, but sundry times before and at several times with all the rest of the forenamed in his indictment. And this his free confession was not only in private to the magistrates (though at first he strived to deny it) but to sundry, both ministers and others; and afterwards, upon his indictment, to the whole Court and jury; and confirmed it at his execution. And whereas some of the sheep could not so well be known by his description of them, others with them were brought before him and he declared which were they and which were not.

And accordingly he was cast by the jury and condemned, and after executed about the 8th of September, 1642.

A very sad spectacle it was. For first the mare and then the cow and the rest of the lesser cattle were killed before his face, according to the law, Leviticus xx. 15 and then he himself was executed. The cattle were all cast into a great and large pit that was digged of purpose for them, and no use made of any part of them.

Sinful.
Where was the love we are to have for our brothers?
Where was an offer to let him repent of his sins?
Where was the forgiveness?

It was love to the remaining brothers to get rid of the influencer of sin (the young man).

He had 17 years to repent.

we must confess and forsake sins... not just confess them.

He was “about 16 or 17 years of age” - so how did he have 17 years to repent?
And while you consider it loving to the remaining brothers to get rid of the influencer, would you extend that same “loving” reasoning to all those whom you consider improper influencers? Perhaps the woman caught in adultery, she was definitely a poor influence. The law required her to be stoned.

It appear you are not consistent in your judgements.

You said: "He was “about 16 or 17 years of age” - so how did he have 17 years to repent?"

OK make it 16 or 17 years to repent.

You said: "And while you consider it loving to the remaining brothers to get rid of the influencer, would you extend that same “loving” reasoning to all those whom you consider improper influencers?"

Yes I would.

You said: "Perhaps the woman caught in adultery, she was definitely a poor influence. The law required her to be stoned."

We are no longer under the Law.

[Grandfather]

In today's New Testament Christian age... Was William Bradford and the brethren of Plymouth righteous OR sinful for executing a 17 year old boy for beastiality?

William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, Norton Anthology of American Literature, Third Edition, From Book II, Chapter XXXII, Anno Dom: 1642

[A HORRIBLE CASE OF BEASTIALITY]

And after the time of the writing of these things befell a very sad accident of the like foul nature in this government, this very year, which I shall now relate.

There was a youth whose name was Thomas Granger. He was servant to an honest man of Duxbury, being about 16 or 17 years of age. (His father and mother lived at the same time at Scituate.) He was this year detected of *, and indicted for the same, with a mare, a cow, two goats, five sheep, two calves and a turkey. Horrible it is to mention, but the truth of the history requires it.

He was first discovered by one that accidentally saw his lewd practice towards the mare. (I forbear particulars.) Being upon it examined and committed, in the end he not only confessed the fact with that beast at that time, but sundry times before and at several times with all the rest of the forenamed in his indictment. And this his free confession was not only in private to the magistrates (though at first he strived to deny it) but to sundry, both ministers and others; and afterwards, upon his indictment, to the whole Court and jury; and confirmed it at his execution. And whereas some of the sheep could not so well be known by his description of them, others with them were brought before him and he declared which were they and which were not.

And accordingly he was cast by the jury and condemned, and after executed about the 8th of September, 1642.

A very sad spectacle it was. For first the mare and then the cow and the rest of the lesser cattle were killed before his face, according to the law, Leviticus xx. 15 and then he himself was executed. The cattle were all cast into a great and large pit that was digged of purpose for them, and no use made of any part of them.

Sinful.
Where was the love we are to have for our brothers?
Where was an offer to let him repent of his sins?
Where was the forgiveness?

It was love to the remaining brothers to get rid of the influencer of sin (the young man).

He had 17 years to repent.

we must confess and forsake sins... not just confess them.

He was “about 16 or 17 years of age” - so how did he have 17 years to repent?
And while you consider it loving to the remaining brothers to get rid of the influencer, would you extend that same “loving” reasoning to all those whom you consider improper influencers? Perhaps the woman caught in adultery, she was definitely a poor influence. The law required her to be stoned.

It appear you are not consistent in your judgements.

You said: "He was “about 16 or 17 years of age” - so how did he have 17 years to repent?"

OK make it 16 or 17 years to repent.

You said: "And while you consider it loving to the remaining brothers to get rid of the influencer, would you extend that same “loving” reasoning to all those whom you consider improper influencers?"

Yes I would.

You said: "Perhaps the woman caught in adultery, she was definitely a poor influence. The law required her to be stoned."

We are no longer under the Law.

Agreed we are not subject to that law! But Jesus was in that era with that law. And he chose a path of mercy and grace instead of following the law. Jesus never said the woman was not guilty. Nor did he said the law should not be upheld. Again you avoid the subject and reply in order to hold fast to a position that is near impossible to defend.

[bibleman]

Again, he followed that particular law, but that does not mean he was righteous, or sinful. That decision is God’s to determine, because only God can faithful and righteously judge the condition of the heart. Looking over some of the laws, supposedly based on the scripture, with regards to the natives and blacks, I would venture to say if Bradford followed those laws as faithfully as he did with this young man, we would judge him as a sinner, without mercy for his treatment of other humans.

Righteousness or Sinfulness is not limited to a single act.

So a person who cuts his wife's throat and kills his three children by burning them alive is NOT Sinful?

Is that the subject we were addressing? I though the question was about William Bradford and his actions. Are you avoiding the issue I raised by changing the subject?

Your last comment was: "Righteousness or Sinfulness is not limited to a single act."

That is called a blanket statement.

A statement that I am asking further clarification on.

So my question is: "Is a person who cuts his wife's throat and kills his three children by burning them alive NOT Sinful?"

[bibleman]

In today's New Testament Christian age... Was William Bradford and the brethren of Plymouth righteous OR sinful for executing a 17 year old boy for beastiality?

William Bradford, Of Plymouth Plantation, Norton Anthology of American Literature, Third Edition, From Book II, Chapter XXXII, Anno Dom: 1642

[A HORRIBLE CASE OF BEASTIALITY]

And after the time of the writing of these things befell a very sad accident of the like foul nature in this government, this very year, which I shall now relate.

There was a youth whose name was Thomas Granger. He was servant to an honest man of Duxbury, being about 16 or 17 years of age. (His father and mother lived at the same time at Scituate.) He was this year detected of *, and indicted for the same, with a mare, a cow, two goats, five sheep, two calves and a turkey. Horrible it is to mention, but the truth of the history requires it.

He was first discovered by one that accidentally saw his lewd practice towards the mare. (I forbear particulars.) Being upon it examined and committed, in the end he not only confessed the fact with that beast at that time, but sundry times before and at several times with all the rest of the forenamed in his indictment. And this his free confession was not only in private to the magistrates (though at first he strived to deny it) but to sundry, both ministers and others; and afterwards, upon his indictment, to the whole Court and jury; and confirmed it at his execution. And whereas some of the sheep could not so well be known by his description of them, others with them were brought before him and he declared which were they and which were not.

And accordingly he was cast by the jury and condemned, and after executed about the 8th of September, 1642.

A very sad spectacle it was. For first the mare and then the cow and the rest of the lesser cattle were killed before his face, according to the law, Leviticus xx. 15 and then he himself was executed. The cattle were all cast into a great and large pit that was digged of purpose for them, and no use made of any part of them.

Sinful.
Where was the love we are to have for our brothers?
Where was an offer to let him repent of his sins?
Where was the forgiveness?

It was love to the remaining brothers to get rid of the influencer of sin (the young man).

He had 17 years to repent.

we must confess and forsake sins... not just confess them.

He was “about 16 or 17 years of age” - so how did he have 17 years to repent?
And while you consider it loving to the remaining brothers to get rid of the influencer, would you extend that same “loving” reasoning to all those whom you consider improper influencers? Perhaps the woman caught in adultery, she was definitely a poor influence. The law required her to be stoned.

It appear you are not consistent in your judgements.

You said: "He was “about 16 or 17 years of age” - so how did he have 17 years to repent?"

OK make it 16 or 17 years to repent.

You said: "And while you consider it loving to the remaining brothers to get rid of the influencer, would you extend that same “loving” reasoning to all those whom you consider improper influencers?"

Yes I would.

You said: "Perhaps the woman caught in adultery, she was definitely a poor influence. The law required her to be stoned."

We are no longer under the Law.

Agreed we are not subject to that law! But Jesus was in that era with that law. And he chose a path of mercy and grace instead of following the law. Jesus never said the woman was not guilty. Nor did he said the law should not be upheld. Again you avoid the subject and reply in order to hold fast to a position that is near impossible to defend.

NOPE Jesus was not under the Law.

Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

[bibleman]

Sinful.
Where was the love we are to have for our brothers?
Where was an offer to let him repent of his sins?
Where was the forgiveness?

It was love to the remaining brothers to get rid of the influencer of sin (the young man).

He had 17 years to repent.

we must confess and forsake sins... not just confess them.

He was “about 16 or 17 years of age” - so how did he have 17 years to repent?
And while you consider it loving to the remaining brothers to get rid of the influencer, would you extend that same “loving” reasoning to all those whom you consider improper influencers? Perhaps the woman caught in adultery, she was definitely a poor influence. The law required her to be stoned.

It appear you are not consistent in your judgements.

You said: "He was “about 16 or 17 years of age” - so how did he have 17 years to repent?"

OK make it 16 or 17 years to repent.

You said: "And while you consider it loving to the remaining brothers to get rid of the influencer, would you extend that same “loving” reasoning to all those whom you consider improper influencers?"

Yes I would.

You said: "Perhaps the woman caught in adultery, she was definitely a poor influence. The law required her to be stoned."

We are no longer under the Law.

Agreed we are not subject to that law! But Jesus was in that era with that law. And he chose a path of mercy and grace instead of following the law. Jesus never said the woman was not guilty. Nor did he said the law should not be upheld. Again you avoid the subject and reply in order to hold fast to a position that is near impossible to defend.

NOPE Jesus was not under the Law.

Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Oh! So William was under the law?

Nope, since William lived AFTER the ministry of John the Baptist... he was NOT under the Law.

[Grandfather]

Your last comment was: "Righteousness or Sinfulness is not limited to a single act."

That is called a blanket statement.

A statement that I am asking further clarification on.

So my question is: "Is a person who cuts his wife's throat and kills his three children by burning them alive NOT Sinful?"

Indeed the statement of righteousness or sinfulness is not limited to a single act may be considered a blanket statement. But your original question of determining William Bradford’s state in either condition was requiring a universal, or “blanket” judgment based on a single act.

Can a sinful man preform a righteous act? Is an act righteous because of the outcome, or because of the intent? I was simply point out that there is not enough information to judge. In doing so I presented situations that would say NO he wasn’t, but there could be similar situations presented to say YES he was. Speculation is all we are left will. I refuse to judge based on speculation, perhaps you want to judge based on speculation.

[Grandfather]

Nope, since William lived AFTER the ministry of John the Baptist... he was NOT under the Law.

Oh, so he had no legal right to do what he did…. Then that should answer your question.

[bibleman]

Nope, since William lived AFTER the ministry of John the Baptist... he was NOT under the Law.

Oh, so he had no legal right to do what he did…. Then that should answer your question.

Yes he had the legal right.

"In 1636, Plymouth Colony adopted a set of laws that included a sentence of death for sodomy and *, although the law made no mention of gender, unlike the male-only English law."