Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

that is spent in meditations upon sin, increases the power of the dangerous object, which has possessed our imagination. The desire of evil, which leads its possessor to offend against the laws of morality, Jesus, in symbolical language, calls the right eye, and the right hand; and as it is better that a member, however ornamental or useful, when infected by a disorder that endangers the whole frame, should be amputated, though it leaves the body maimed and unseemly; so it is better that any favourite passion, which is the disease of the soul, should be eradicated, rather than be suffered to spread the contagion, and thus to occasion its moral death, and its future punishment.

Other moralists judge of men by their actions. Christ brings them before a more awful and correct tribunal, and

[ocr errors]

judges them by their feelings and motives. Fornication and adultery, with other evil actions, proceed from desire, and desire is seated in the heart; and he who habitually cherishes any impure affection, and wants only an opportunity of gratifying it, is as guilty in the sight of God, as if he had committed the deed. It is to the heart, therefore, that our Lord constantly directs our attention; and the heart he constantly enjoins us to guard, as the primary seat of good and evil. It is not to be doubted then, but that many will be punished for crimes that were never done, but only intended; and many, rewarded for virtues which, for want of opportunity, have ever ripened into action.

Taylor's Fragments, p. 224. Wolzogenius, Campbell, and John Jones on the text. Раley's Evidences, Vol. 2d. of his works. Bost. Ed. p. 229.

REMARKS ON THE REPORT OF GOD'S TREATMENT OF THE FIRST MURDERER.

MR. EDITOR,

In the Disciple for April appeared an essay styled "Re'port of God's treatment of the first murderer." The editor having given his opinion that the writer was a person of talents, and approved his sentiments, I enter with diffidence upon the task of animadvert. ing them. I am however encouraged by a belief, derived from your liberality in admitting strictures upon editorial and communicated articles, you that labour for truth rather

For the Christian Disciple. than for a system, or a party.

The subject of capital punishment is exciting great attention in the civilized world. Writers of celebrity are engaged in the discussion, and it is quite possible that a fùture and more enlightened age may outlaw them entirely.But premature, overstrained condemnations of them may frustrate the object in view. It was with deep regret therefore that I saw introduced into your pages what I deem illogical and injudicious re:

marks upon this topic, An attempt is made to prove from the scriptures that God forbade inflicting death upon murderers, and that he has denounced vengeance on those who should take away the life of a murderer. No evil can arise from temperate discussions on this important theme. But while a great majority of mankind believe in the utility of capital punishments, and statesmen and christian moralists are divided in opinion respecting their necessity and lawfulness, it appears highly reprehensible to lessen the respect due to the laws of the land, and to magistrates, by denouncing the vengeance of the Almighty upon the makers and administrators of these laws.

[ocr errors]

Your essayist instances God's trial and punishment of Cain, and argues from the clemency shown to the first murderer, that life was not to be taken, even from a man slayer. He says truly that “civil tribunals pay great veneration to ancient usages and immemorial customs; and especially to precedents taken from higher courts in similar cases." Is it not going too far to say that this example stands recorded for our imitation ? When Cain slew Abel the world was in its infancy, the crime was committed in the only family on earth, and God did not see fit to appoint the parent the executioner of his son. Besides, it is also a custom of courts of judicature implicitly to obey a statute in preference to any precedent, partic

ularly when the written law bears date subsequent to the record of the precedent. If you will turn to the "reports of Moses," Exodus, xxi. chap. you will find that when our race had increased in numbers, and God had seen fit to enact laws for the government of his people, He declared that "he that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death." Not only so; death was denounced upon the smiters merely of their parents, upon kidnappers and slave dealers, upon all who cursed their parents, &c. We see then that the authority is on the other side, and that God authorized taking away life for life..

But the writer of the essay goes farther. He says God left on record "a most solemn declaration and warning to civil magistrates, and all others, not to shed the blood even of a murderer ;" and this is the proof, "Whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him seven fold." Because God, for purposes unknown to us, saw fit to spare Cain, and set a mark upon him, or gave him a sign, that no one should slay him, and afterwards decreed that murderers should be put to death, are we to understand that the " cedent" is solely obligatory upon mankind now, and that it is unlawful to inflict death as a punishment for murder? What reasoning! To threaten the vengeance of the Almighty on magistrates for administering the laws of the land ap. pears to me highly reprehen

"pre

sible. It is "scattering ambiguous words among the vulgar; it is exhibiting laws, approved by the majority of christian moralists, in an odious light; it is exposing the upright Legislator and Judge to obloquy. Let every argument be employed to change the minds of the community on this subject, and I wish the advocates God speed, but forbear denunciations, unauthorized by holy writ, and of dangerous tendency.

The essayist avers that God's clemency to Cain resulted in his reformation, and argues from it the inutility of sanguinary punishments.

This is

an important topic. Writers of great ability are discussing it. Leaving it then to enlightened philanthropists, statesmen, and christians to discuss the subject, it should be the duty of writers on moral or religious themes to inculcate a high respect for the laws of civil society, and for the magistrates who administer them.

This writer terms Cain's fratricide a "violation of a civil duty." A mild phrase surely, when as he himself remarks, the crime was aggra vated in many respects. Why this sympathy for Cain, in the breast of this advocate for the abolition of capital punishments? Where is his fellow feeling for the murdered Abel, or his afflicted family? Where is his tenderness for others among whom the murderer would roam, the terror of mankind?

I have one more objection to the essay. He says this

"half enlightened age" would have sentenced Cain to death, and perhaps for form sake, it might be added, "and the Lord have mercy on your soul!" soul!" This sneer at the most solemn manner in which our venerated judges pronounce the awful sentence of death cannot be too much censured. The insinuation that the prayer with which it ends is insincere, is untrue. I hopethe time will come when men will have more humane and correct views on this subject, but I feel persuaded that such efforts for the accomplishment of this object will thwart the success of it, and prolong the custom he professes so much to abhor.

Reply of the Editor.

This admonitory address. has been freely admitted, as the effusion of friendship and fidelity Still it is believed that most of the remarks would have been spared had our correspondent been acquainted with the whole Tract, from which the Report was taken, and with the character of its author. Perhaps, it was injudicious to give the Report without accompanying it with the Author's answer to some objections.

If we have been correctly informed the Author is a man venerable for his years and standing in society, amiable in his disposition, and was formerly a Judge of a county court in Connecticut. We can hardly believe that such a man would designedly say any thing to "lessen the respect due to

the laws of the land and to magistrates;" and on carefully reviewing the Report we have not been able to find, except in a single sentence, any thing of which such is the apparent tendency. We do not understand the writer of the Essays as having done any such thing as "denouncing the vengeance of the Almighty upon the makers and administrators of the laws;" but as merely expressing his serious belief respecting the design of God's treatment of Cain. This perhaps under a free government, he had an unquestionable right to do, however incorrect may have been his opinion.

Our friendly Monitor appears to be willing that the subject of capital punishments should be discussed; and we agree with him that it ought to be done in a prudent manner-in a manner as little as possible adapted to wound the feelings of those in authority. and to "lessen the respect due to the laws of the land." But two persons who have an equal respect to the laws in general, may disagree as to the utility and justice of a particular statute and "the respect which is due" to it. Our Monitor says, "Let every argument be employed to change the mind of the community on this subject, and I wish the advocates God Speed." But surely we need not tell a writer of his discernment, that it is impossible to use any argument which is adapted to change public opinion on that subject, which is not equally adapted to "lessen Vol. VI. No. 5.

20

the respect" which is now entertained for the laws which require the punishments in question He must also be aware that every argument which can be used for the purpose of changing public opin. ion, will be interpreted, by one or another, as adapted to "lessen the respect due to the laws and to magistrates." Has not this objection been uniformly made to the attempts to abolish the law in England, which inflicts death for stealing goods from a shop to the value of five shillings. Indeed we may ask, when was an attempt ever made to abolish or change a penal law. and the same objection was not urged? On similar ground the attempts which have been made to correct the common version or translation of the Bible, have been reproached as tending to "lessen the respect" which is due to the whole volume.

"Philanthropos," the "Essayist," was aware of the objection which would be brought from the other "Reports of Moses," and he attempted an answer, which may perhaps hereafter be given in this work. At present we shall only ob serve in general, that in his opinion, christians are no more bound to adopt one statute of the penal code of Moses, than they are to adopt the whole; that if any of those laws are now obligatory on christians, we are as really bound to take the life of the sabbath-breaker and the adulterer. as that of the murder?

In regard to the "mild

[ocr errors]

phrase" to express Cain's fratricide, we ought to say, that Philanthropos has explained his meaning. He regards murder as a heinous crime, and Cain's fratricide as an aggravated murder; but in his opinion men have no right to punish crimes considered as sins against God, but only as violations of civil duty.

The last objection of our Monitor is better founded. We regret that even oné re. mark of the Essayist was so much adapted to wound the feelings of humane Judgesand such we believe to be eminently the character of the present Judges of our Supreme Court Yet perhaps a less answerable interpretation may be given to the passage than seems to have occurred to the mind of our correspondent.

The best writers are liable to use language inadvertently, which implies, or may be understood to imply, more than they ever intended. There is no writer, not excepting the friendly Monitor, who does not need the candor of his readers in their interpretations of his remarks. Every man in writing on such subjects is liable to be influenced by circumstances with which he has been acquainted; and under this influence to speak in a manner which implies blame, even where there is none in his own opinion, or a greater degree of blame than he means to impute. It will not be pretended by any one that all Judges of Courts have been equal to our present

[ocr errors]

Judges in regard to purity, benevolence, wisdom or humanity Let it then be admitted that Philanthropos wrote his Essays, after having been repeatedly shocked by the apparent indifference with which he had heard the sentences of death pronounced, or after he had witnessed, on the part of a Judge, evidence of prejudice against a criminal, and an anxious desire to pronounce a sentence of guilty. Would it be too much to say in reference to such conduct-" And perhaps, for form sake, it might be added, And the Lord have mercy on your Soul ?" Is it not very possible that in remarking with such occur. rences impressed on the mind, the most impartial writer might adopt the language of Philanthropos, without a suspicion that his readers would consider it as applicable to judges in general? Let the Monitor imagine such to have been the impression under which the unguarded language was used-read the words again, placing the emphasis on "perhaps," and then whether it be certain that the writer's conduct "cannot be too much censured."

say,

Our correspondent, we be lieve, wrote his remarks under the influence of a just and high respect for our Judges, and an apprehension that Philanthropos intended a “ sneer.” These circumstances probably led him to adopt the strong language just quoted, by which he probably intended no more than that the conduct of the Essayist was very reprehensi

« AnteriorContinuar »