One is suggested by Winthrop’s view that “the Torah had only a limited number of set punishments for specific crimes and, thus, God had implicitly left sentences of other crimes to the discretion of leaders. So Winthrop: ‘I would knowe by what Rule we may take vpon us, to prescribe penaltyes, where God prescribes none.’”

This raises at least two issues:

1. Is the “regulative principle of the civil magistrate” (can only legislate where authorized positively) a la Bahnsen adequate to the case? That is, if “God has prescribed none,” does that end the discussion (in the negative) as to what the civil magistrate should do about a problem?

2. How to adapt the “general equity” of the case law to new social and economic conditions? If this is always possible in principle, then Winthrop’s statement misses the point a bit.