God has said, “Thou shalt not kill”; shall we kill so readily for the theft of a bit of small change? Perhaps it will be argued that God’s law against killing does not apply where human laws allow it. But then what prevents men from making other laws in the same way — perhaps even laws legalizing rape, adultery, and perjury? God has taken from each person the right not only to kill another, but even to kill himself. If mutual consent to human laws on manslaughter entitles men freely to exempt their agents from divine law and allows them to kill where he has given no example, what is this but preferring the law of man to the law of God?

[Deus uetuit occidi quenquam, & nos tam facile occidimus ob ademptam pecuniolam! Quod si quis interpretetur, illo dei iussu interdictam necis potestatem, nisi quatenus humana lex declaret occidendum, quid obstat quo minus homines eodem modo constituant inter se, quatenus stuprum admittendum sit, adulterandum, peierandum! Siquidem quum deus non alienae modo, uerum etiam suae cuique mortis ius ademerit, si hominum inter se consensus de mutua cede, certis placitis consentientium, adeo debet ualere, ut illius praecepti uinculis eximat suos satellites, qui sine ullo exemplo dei, eos interemerint, quos humana sanctio iussit occidi; an non hoc pacto praeceptum illud dei tantum iuris est habiturum, quantum humana iura permiserint!]

Thomas More (1478-1535) English lawyer, social philosopher, statesman, humanist, Christian martyr

Utopia, Book 1, ch. 1 “Discourses of Raphael Hythloday” (1518 ed.) [tr. Adams (1992 ed.)]
    (Source)

Regarding English laws that hung convicted thieves, and the Sixth Commandment to not kill.

(Source (Latin)). Other translations:

God commanundeth us that we shall not kill. And be we then so hastie to kill a man for takinge a little money? And if any man woulde understande killing by this commaundement of God to be forbidden after no larger wise, then mans constitutions define killynge to be lawfull, then whye maye it not lykewise by mans constitutions be determined after what sort of whordome, fornication and perjurie may be lawfull? For whereas, by the permission of God, no man hath power to kil neither himself, nor yet anye other man: then yf a lawe made by the consent of men, concerninge slaughter of men, oughte to be of suche strengthe, force and vertue, that they which contrarie to the commaundement of God have killed those, whom this constitution of man commaunded to be killedy be cleane quite and exempte out of the bondes and daunger of Gods commaundement: shall it not then by this reason folow, that the power of Gods commaundemente shall extende no further, then mans lawe doeth define, and permitte?
[tr. Robynson (1551)]

God has commanded us not to kill, and shall we kill so easiliy for a little Mony? But if one shall say, That by that Law we only forbid to kill any, except when the Laws of the Land allow of it; upon the same Grounds, Laws may be made to allow of Adultery and Perjury in some Cases: for God having taken from us the Right of disposing, either of our own, or ofhter Peoples Lives, if it is pretended that the mutual Consent of Men in making Laws, allowing of Manslaughter in Cases in which God has given us no Example, frees People from the Obligation of the Divine Law, and so makes Murder a lawful Action; What is this, but to give a preference to Humane Laws before the Divine?
[tr. Burnet (1684)]

God hath commanded us not to kill; shall we then kill for a little money? And if it be said, the command extendeth not to cases where the laws of the land allow of killing, on the same ground laws may be made in some cases to allow of perjury and adultery. God having taken from us the right of disposing either of our own lives or those of others, if it be pretended that the mutual consent of makind in framing laws, can authorize death in cases where God hath given us no example, that it supersedeth the obligation of the divine law, and maketh murder lawful, what is this but to prefer human to divine laws?
[tr. Cayley (1808)]

God has commanded us not to kill, and shall we kill so easily for a little money? But if one shall say, that by that law we are only forbid to kill any except when the laws of the land allow of it, upon the same grounds, laws may be made, in some cases, to allow of adultery and perjury: for God having taken from us the right of disposing either of our own or of other people’s lives, if it is pretended that the mutual consent of men in making laws can authorise man-slaughter in cases in which God has given us no example, that it frees people from the obligation of the divine law, and so makes murder a lawful action, what is this, but to give a preference to human laws before the divine?
[tr. Burnet/Morley (1901)]

God commandeth us that we shall not kill. And be we then so hasty to kill a man for taking a little money? And if any man would understand killing by this commandment of God to be forbidden after no larger wise, than man’s constitutions define killing to be lawful, then why may it not likewise by man's constitutions be determined after what sort whoredom, fornication and perjury may be lawful? For whereas, by the permission of God, no man hath power to kill neither himself, nor yet any other man: then if a law made by the consent of men, concerning slaughter of men, ought to be of such strength, force and virtue, that they which, contrary to the commandment of God, have killed those, whom this constitution of man commanded to be killed, be clean quit and exempt out of the bonds and danger of God’s commandment: shall it not then by this reason follow, that the power of God’s commandment shall extend no further than man’s law doth define, and permit?
[tr. Robinson (1909 ed.)]

God has said, "Thou shalt not kill," and shall we so lightly kill a man for taking a little money? But if the divine command be held not to apply where the law of man justifies killing, what prevents men equally from arranging with one another how far adultery, fornication and perjury are admissible? For God forbids a man not only to take the life of another but also his own; but if when men by mutual consent have agreed on definite cases where human life may be taken, their will ought to prevail so far as to exempt from the bonds of His law such of their followers who, without any example set by God, yet take the life of those whom human ordinance has commanded to be put to death, will not thus the law of God be valid only so far as the laws of man permit?
[tr. Richards (1923)]

God said, “Thou shalt not kill" — does the theft of a little money make it quite all right for us to do so? If it’s said that this commandment applies only to illegal killing, what’s to prevent human beings from similarly agreeing among themselves to legalize certain types of rape, adultery, or perjury? Considering that God has forbidden us even to kill ourselves, can we really believe that purely human arrangements for the regulation of mutual slaughter are enough, without any divine authority, to exempt executioners from the sixth commandment? Isn’t that rather like saying that this particular commandment has no more validity than human laws allow it?
[tr. Turner (1965 ed.)]

God has said, “Thou shalt not kill,” and shall we so lightly kill a man for taking a bit of small change? But if the divine command against killing be held not to apply where human law justifies killing, what prevents men equally from arranging with one another how far rape, adultery, and perjury are admissible? God has withdrawn from man the right to take not only another’s life but his own. Now, men by mutual consent agree on definite cases where they may take the life of one another. But if this agreement among men is to have such force as to exempt their henchmen from the obligation of the commandment, although without any precedent set by God they take the life of those who have been ordered by human enactment to be put to death, will not the law of God then be valid only so far as the law of man permits?
[tr. Richards/Surtz (1964)]