Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

76

Poetry.

ON THE NEW YEAR 1847.

SOFTLY upon the frosty air

The bells salute mine ear, And with a tuneful peal prepare To welcome in the year.

But ere that gladsome sound shall ring,

A wholesome pause shall be, And varied recollections bring

Thoughts deep to you and me.

Many there are who hail'd the sound

Of its first dawning day,

Who peaceful sleep beneath the ground-
From earth have passed away.

But we who yet awhile remain,
Are travelling homewards too:

A lesson useful let us gain

And keep our end in view.

Look down, but not in dull despair,

Thy friends again shall live;
Faith decks the grave in colours fair,

And bids thy hope revive.

Look round! what num'rous blessings still
Thy daily pathway cheer.

May Providence in mercy fill
Thy cup this coming year!

Look up towards Heaven above-
There view thy place of rest;
And let thy prayers in filial love
To God be oft addrest.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

To be sung at the tea-meeting at the school-rooms of the Independent chapel, Stratford-upon-Avon, on the occasion of Miss Welmore's departure for Africa.

Go, Christian sister, fare thee well,

To Afric's distant land,

And join, with faith, and hope, and zeal,
The missionary band.

The untaught heathen wait to know
Immanuel's dying love;

Go, point them to the cross of Christ,
And brighter worlds above.

Instruct the young, and train them up
In truth and virtue's way,
And bring them to the Saviour's fold
To go no more astray.

Should dangers in thy path be found,
And fears thy heart appal,
Remember that thy Father's near,
And he is Lord of all.

Our hopes and prayers together rise
Before th' eternal throne,
That God, thy God, thy father's God,
May all thy labours own.

Beneath his all-protecting wing
Go, till thy work is done:
And may we all in glory sing

The triumphs Christ has won.
March 10, 1846.
M. C.

Review of Books.

The PUNISHMENT of DEATH for the CRIME of MURDER, RATIONAL, SCRIPTURAL, and SALUTARY. By WALTER SCOTT, President and Theological Tutor in Airedale College, Bradford, Yorkshire.

Ward and Co.

The subject of capital punishment for the crime of murder is treated, in the pages of Mr. S.'s pamphlet, as a grave theological question. This we aver is its true character. The anti-capital interpreters of the law aim to divest it of this character, and thus clear the way for reaching bold and plausible conclusions, and for enlisting public sympathy with views which they so zealously advocate. On the other hand, the author of the work before us has carefully and devoutly examined the scriptural argument for the practice of taking away life, and has made a direct appeal to the law and to the testimony. He strongly eschews the method of many in dealing with this portion of our penal code. They speak of it in terms of unmeasured reprobation; they profess to fortify their statements by the ceaseless reiteration of a few scriptural passages, wrested in frequent instances from their legitimate connection; they speak of the genius of our common Christianity as inimical to capital punishment under any circumstances; they represent execution as a lingering remnant of a barbarous age, or the custom of savage feudalism, unworthy of a civilized state; and in the terms of a prevailing but morbid sensibility, coupled with the calculations of a politico-moral utilitarianism, they contend that putting to death according to law, is an ill-judged, evil-working expedient, and is worthy of no higher designation than " legalized mur der." The subject is often treated in this fashion from honest conviction; and good motives we would respect, though they may take a wrong direction. But for the abolition of a great law which was originally framed by direct divine authority, and for the repeal of which we think we have no decisive intimation in the Bible, we cannot accept as a warrant loose and declamatory statements. The pamphlet of Mr. S. we regard as a timely and powerful contribution towards the settlement of a question which men in general would dispose of without a direct appeal to the Scriptures. We view the subject as a pure Bible question, requir ing considerable biblical knowledge and power for its satisfactory elucidation. It has fallen into the hands of one who has the needed requisites for its full and im

partial discussion. A brief outline of the author's argument may be given :

"The infliction of capital punishment for the crime of murder, is right in itself, or accordant with the principles of justice, and is even required by them."

This first proposition is not largely expanded. It is supposed to embody a view too obvious to be denied-a view confirmed by the fact that God established capital punishment amongst the Jews, and therefore the law must have been right in itself, or "accordant with the principles of justice," and also from the nature of the crime of murder. The loss of life by the hand of violence, is the loss of all earthly good, and oftentimes the loss of well-being in the life to come. "In endeavouring then to ascertain the nature and the degree of the punishment which the murderer deserves, and which the civil magistrate ought to inflict, the intrinsic enormity of the crime should be considered and estimated; and if this is done, it surely must be granted that murder deserves death. The punishment is not too great for the offence,-does not rise above its demerit. Universal conviction seems to have pronounced-a universal verdict, that equity requires eye for eye, life for life. The most polished and humane nations have adopted the law of capital punishment for the shedding of human blood."

[ocr errors]

The next proposition, to the illustration of which Mr. S. has brought the weightiest arguments, and has occupied the largest portion of his pamphlet, is, The legal infliction of death in the case of murder, is sanctioned, nay, required, by the Scriptures."

Great stress is laid on the passage in Genesis; it is placed as the basis of the scriptural argument: "And surely your blood of your life will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; and at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made he him." Had this passage been found in the category of judicial laws enacted by Moses, and found nowhere else, like them it might have been regarded as the expression of a repealed law; but existing long before the Jewish theocracy commenced, and containing a great principle of the divine government, it must be of unceasing authority and universal application. To regard the passage as an early prophecy relative to what would take place for many ages to come, seems contrary to the whole drift of the chapter, and

involves the supposition that men are now attempting to make God a false prophet. A very weighty reason for the infliction of death on the murderer is given in the words just cited, "For in the image of God made he man.' In almost all nations where capital punishment has existed, this reason has been entirely overlooked; it has had nothing to do in the appointment of the punishment, and therefore if the words are a prophecy, the prophecy is yet to receive its fulfilment. The language indicates God's abhorrence of a deed which erases his own image from man, also the care and sacredness with which he has fenced human life from the assaults of violence; and we cannot but think a permanent and immutable threatening of righteous retribution to every one who wantonly deprives a fellow-creature of his existence. The taking away life for the shedding of blood was one of the earliest institutions of divine appointment among the post-diluvians. It existed for nearly a thousand years prior to the Mosaic economy; and it stands forth recorded as an enactment apart from everything ceremonial. What, we ask, was there so very peculiar in that early age of the world which demanded the existence of capital punishment? and what is there so peculiar at the present time that demands the repeal of that law? It is affirmed, that all preceding dispensations were preparatory to the gospel. We admit this; but the great principles of the divine government are invariable in their nature and application, and mercy, neither under the law nor under the gospel, is ever dispensed at the cost of justice. If the law in question were adopted by God in the earliest period of the world, and were inviolably upheld for so many ages, and that while mankind were comparatively in a rude and barbarous condition, we ought to pause ere we lift up our hand for its immediate and final abrogation, under a dispensation of augmented light and privilege. The increase of spiritual blessings increases the desert of punishment. If God saw right to take away life in the case of murder long before the economy of the gospel was established, we see not how it is wrong under the gospel to do so, unless it can be shown that there is an annulment of that law. there are special reasons which can be assigned against its continuance, as there can against many of the judicial laws of Moses, or if there is any direct command in the New Testament to that effect, then we ought earnestly to contend for the repeal of capital punishment. If this cannot be done, attempts at repeal are man's weak efforts to improve upon God's legislative wisdom. To maintain that executions have a degrading tendency, and a positively baneful influence on public morals, has appeared to us a re

If

flection on the divine character. If such is their influence on society in a highly cultivated state like our own, its influence must have been far greater on the post-diluvians and the Jews who were comparatively ignorant and barbarous. The preceding remarks embody Mr. S.'s arguments derivable from the passage in Genesis.

Another passage on which he lays considerable stress is in the Book of Numbers

"More

Xxxv. 30, "Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death." over ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death." "So you shall not pollute the land wherein ye are for blood, it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it." Mr. S. contends that many of the judicial laws of the Israelites were founded on the nature of things, and on the permanent relations of society, and are on that account such as all nations might and indeed should adopt. Our opponents have taken exception to any argument for capital punishment derivable from the preceding passage. The objection stands thus. The judicial laws of Moses, which made the violation of the sabbath, adultery, and disobedience to parents, punishable with death, have, it will be admitted by all, been repealed. Why, it is asked, make the law in the case of murder an exception to this act of repeal? It stands in the same category as the preceding Mosaic enactments, and has therefore the same authority for its annulment. We reply, that the method in which the sacred writers speak of the crime of murder, and the various reasons which they advance for its punishment, show it to have in it something special, something which does not belong to the judicial laws in general.

Should the argument derived from the speciality of the case be rejected, we think the whole force of the preceding objection is lost, from the fact that the law in relation to murder was established long before the Jewish economy existed, and therefore does not stand on the same footing as the enactments concerning adultery, breaking the sabbath, &c. This is a distinction which the opponents of capital punishment find it very convenient to overlook. The great argument for taking away life is not derivable from the consideration that such a law is to be found in the judicial code of Moses, but that such a law had a long previous existence; and from the position which it occupies in the Bible, it appears to us to assume a permanent and immutable shape. Taking the preceding view, we see not how Mr. S.'s logic compels him, as it has been somewhat boastingly and flippantly affirmed, to advo

cate the putting to death "the murderer, the adulterer, the blasphemer, the profane swearer, the sabbath breaker, the idolater, the disobedient son, witches, wizards," &c. To confound two things so radically distinct indicates either unfairness in argument or dulness of discrimination.

But leaving the Old Testament, we may observe, that however much of mercy there may be in the constitution of the gospel, we think there is nothing to warrant the abrogation of the law in relation to murder. The present dispensation is not a system of unmingled mercy, nor the manifestation of mercy at the expense of justice. Its anathemas against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men are as fearful as any that can be found in the writings of Moses. Entertaining the views already unfolded, and regarding capital punishment as the law which God established with Noah and his descendants, and the operation of which He deemed essential to the government of the world for so long a period prior to the Jewish dispensation, and then occupying a prominent place in the penal code of the Mosaic economy, it seems perfectly natural for us to expect, according to the view of opponents, that the gospel should possess special reasons for the repeal of this law, or a plain command to treat it now as null and void. We think that neither the one nor the other is to be found in the New Testament. Several passages are currently cited, and loosely applied, by the opposers of death-punishment. To these Mr. S. has referred, rescuing them from forced and unnatural interpretations, and giving to them a plain and intelligible exposition. "It is often urged that the capital punishment of the murderer is inconsistent with some parts of our Lord's Sermon on the Mount, and is, indirectly at least, prohibited by them. Nothing, however, can be more evident than that it was far from being the design of the Saviour to advance anything contrary to the moral spirit or precepts of the law of Moses, or to abrogate any of its enactments. Attend to his own solemn declarations: Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.' Is it possible, that after uttering such language he should immediately proceed to disannul one of the most important and explicit injunctions that God had ever given under either the patriarchal or Mosaic dispensations, and one relating to the punishment of the greatest crime that man can commit? On the contrary, he proceeds to vindicate the law from the false interpretations and glosses of the scribes and pharisees, and to point out its spiritual meaning. That this is his intention is plain from his own language: For I say unto you, that except

[ocr errors]

your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.' This may almost be called the text of his Sermon on the Mount. What preceded was the introduction; at the least, it is the proposition which he proceeds to illustrate in what immediately follows. And does he intimate that the Jewish doctors had interpreted the law too rigidly, and denounced unmerited punishment against those who violated its precepts? Quite the contrary. He asserts in the plainest terms its spirituality, and gives the most appalling views of the doom of those who fell under its malediction, intimating that they had cause to fear inflictions more terrible than the scribes and pharisees had threatened. And his explanation of the command which relates to murder deserves particular attention, (verse 21,) 'Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment,' that is, of being brought before the Jewish court, by which he would be condemned to suffer death, verse 22. But I say to you'-what?that this punishment is too severe ? it should be mitigated? it is barbarous, and should be abolished? Far indeed is he who had God's law in his heart, and who came to labour and die in order to vindicate its honour, from giving any such intimation. The substance of his answer is, that even causeless anger and reviling words, which indicate and foster the spirit of the murderer, expose to a punishment more severe than that which was denounced on him by the Mosaic law. But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother, without a cause, shall be in danger of the judgment. But whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.' Most assuredly there is nothing here which looks like the disapproval of the infliction of capital punishment on him who should wickedly and wantonly take away the life of a fellowcreature." The general view Mr. S. has given of the Saviour's Sermon on the Mount is the correct one, as will appear from an examination of the different passages in the Sermon to which the anti-capitals ever and anon make their appeal.

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; but I say unto you, That ye resist not evil." Here we have the doctrine of equivalents, which these words were intended not to invalidate but to confirm. The whole drift of the discourse on the Mount was not an exposition of the letter of the law merely, but a faithful inculcation of its spirit, thus assigning to it a spirituality and extent far beyond the notions of the scribes and the pharisees. When stress is laid upon not

resisting evil, the argument proves too much,, private revenge-a recommendation to over

and therefore proves nothing, because, according to this mode of interpretation, resistance in any shape would be contrary to the spirit of the passage. "This law, in the hands of the magistrate, was equitable and adapted to general good; nor was it our Lord's design to undermine its authority. But by the glosses of the Jews, it had been perverted in favour of private retaliation and revenge. Against this principle the Saviour inveighs." "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy; but I say unto you," &c., &c. In these words we have a perversion of the Rabbins, for in no part of the Old Testament are we commanded to hate our enemies; and good-will to them is inculcated as strongly in the Old, though not as frequently as in the New Testament. The law approves of love to our enemies as truly as the gospel does, and in this respect there is no variance between the one and the other. Christian writers have sometimes conceded that the Jewish gloss was founded on the spirit of the Mosaic dispensation; have made incautious comparisons between the many maledictions of the Psalms of David and the many merciful admonitions of our Lord; and have represented the doctrine of love to enemies as the peculiar doctrine of the gospel economy. To affirm that the law of capital punishment should be abolished because the gospel is a system of love, is to mistake the nature both of the law and the gospel. The sum of the second table of the law given on Mount Sinai was, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,' and yet the Jews were expressly commanded to take away, by the sword of the civil magistrate, the life of the wilful murderer. Did God then give a command which was directly opposed to the whole spirit and sum of the law, which he gave them in the most solemn and public manner, so that they could not obey the former without violating the latter? Yet the design of the whole discourse on the Mount was to guard us against the loose and relaxing interpretations of the law by the Jewish Rabbins, and also from the wilful perversions of the law, in using it for the purpose of private revenge, as the magistrate used it for the public security of the commonwealth of Israel.

Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord," is a passage frequently cited in the controversy, but very vaguely understood. It is a quotation from Deuteronomy xxxii. 35, and was primarily addressed to the Jews, when they were required by God to take away the life of the murderer. If its spirit is at variance with capital punishment now, it must have been so formerly. The passage, as appears from the whole context, is a prohibition of the practice of

come an enemy by acts of the purest charity-opposing deeds of the greatest good to deeds of the greatest evil. If we have enemies, we are not always to seek redress by demanding righteous retribution, but to leave them in the hands of God, that he may be both judge and executioner. All this does not apply to the conduct of the magistrate in the punishment of daring offenders; the Jewish law required the life of the murderer, though the Jewish people knew that God had said, "To me belongeth vengeance and recompense."

So far in our examination of the New Testament we see nothing in the shape of a repeal of a law which had existed so long, and which was so well known among the Jews; but as we advance, we meet with several passages in which we have distinct implication of the propriety and justice of capital punishment. "But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is a minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." "The sword, as borue by the legitimate authority, like the axe which was carried before the chief magistrate of the Romans, was the instrument and emblem of capital punishment, and was used to deprive of life. Will our opponents inform us when and where, in any age or nation, or by any writer, the sword was employed as the instrument or emblem of chastisement, or of minor punishment? And that this was far from being the idea of the apostle, is evident from the other terms which he uses. The power that bears the sword is represented as the 'minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath.'" We deem Mr. S.'s reasoning on this passage sound and conclusive. He has made no reference to the apostle's defence of himself, which, by implication, has an important bearing upon the question: "For if I be an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die; but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Cæsar." The apostle heartily accords to the commission of crime the punishment of death, and declares, be fore Festus, his willingness to surrender his life into the hands of the executioner, on the conviction of his guilt. If capital punishment is unjust, or contrary to the genius of the gospel, or a barbarous and degrading public act, which it is represented to be, how can we reconcile this with the fact that the apostle lent the weight of his influence to the propriety and perpetuity of the pe nalty, by a cordial consent to endure its infliction in his own person, when his criminality should be established?

Another general thought which Mr. S.

« AnteriorContinuar »