Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

suddenly into her plate; and she was simultaneously upon the floor. There were several at the table; and the servant was requested to give no heed to the lady. After a few minutes had passed away, a gentleman who was at the table, whose pharmaceutical knowledge would never make his fortune, feeling a little nervous about the issue of the case, rather anxiously suggested that she might have some Epsom salts, meaning, no doubt, to say smelling salts, given to her. This was quite enough: she laughed very much, and resumed her place at the table; and all went on as before. And it is very pleasing to be able to add that, for the few months longer that she remained with us, she experienced no return of the fits, either at church or at home: her irritability and oddness of manner went off; and she continued well. This is now eighteen years ago; and there has been no actual return of the threatened malady, though she has been extremely nervous at times, many sorrows and trials having attended her. If these fits had been neglected or encouraged by bad management at the first, the probability is she would, with all the predisposing circumstances of the case, have been the subject of insanity at the present time.

We quote this case from a number of others, to illustrate the power of the moral treatment of insanity. We treated the case as one being able to reason; for hysteria is not incompatible with consciousness; and we have no doubt that such power may be judiciously exercised over the insane for their improvement, and even their cure. If the same principle were carried out on all occasions from the first, not only would insanity be less frequent, but our criminal code would be much improved.

In insanity, it is too often taken for granted that, in every case, reason is dethroned, This error arises from wrong psychological views of the mental constitution, and the power exercised by certain properties of the mind, of which reason is one only. In this sense the mind is not a monarchy. In multitudes of cases, even among such as have long since been furnished with certificates of insanity, the reasoning power would put to shame the acts of those who, in possession of their liberty, are constantly taking advantage of the weakness of the law on this point. Long after the will has lost its balance, the power of reasoning upon the consequences of right and wrong is preserved in the mind. Even many of the insane know this practically, and can calculate pretty accurately how far they may go with impunity; and the will here is often weak enough. Yet our courts of law trifle with the question as lightly as if the destination of the case before them was the only matter involved in the computation. When it is convenient we can act differently. If a sailor takes a fancy to call his captain a blackguard, he is hung up to the mast-yard forthwith. All due allowance being made for the fact that no plea of insanity is here put in, it is very remarkable how seldom the officer in command is greeted with this epithet. If the circumstance of being fully aware

a

of the consequence of such step did not entitle the sailor to the plea of insanity, the same plea can be claimed with less reason by those who commit far graver acts without fear of the consequences. In

the case of the sailor, it is at once seen that the trifling circumstances of suspending one or two men in a century is far better than drowning ten times as many thousand at the bottom of the sea. And what is the moral effect? Though it would be impossible to concentrate in the same compass the essence of villany, disorder, and profligacy, which may be found in a man-of-war, yet nowhere is there less crime, less misery, or less insanity.

Let this principle then, which we trust we put in force both firmly and mercifully in the young hysterical lady, standing as she was on the confines of insanity, be applied not only to the insane or those bordering upon it, but likewise to those who, with all their senses about them, think to paralyze the very law itself in the contemplation of their barbarous deeds. We should have fewer candidates in the field. We think this secret, if it be any, of the moral treatment of the insane should be recognized by the law: it would then operate far more extensively for good than when adopted only at those times when the disease comes under the direction of the mental pathologist.

If all persons who urge insanity as a plea for committing crimes, well knowing the nature and the consequences of such, are to be considered of unsound mind, then in justice we ought to have begun from "the fall," and to have included all the murderers from the commencement. For, speaking strictly in a psycho-pathological sense, we ask what man in sound mind would commit murder? In so extended a sense as this, we cannot regard the disease otherwise than as hopelessly incurable. Yet, even for this, the best cure we can find is in made subject to no contingency. the word of Godt. The treatment there given is It is, in the strict sense of the word, final. Now, as we are discussing the question of the moral treatment of the insane, we are anxious to show that that property of the mind which enables us to discriminate right from wrong, which may be termed consciousness, is the last to quit the council-chamber, if we may so express it, previous to the entire break-up of the mental constitution; and, therefore, in those cases which appear to excite the most doubt, we need never be uncertain about their moral responsibility. In all these cases the will appears to be the most weak, particularly in relation to what are called the faculties and feelings; and the way to make it weaker is to put no restraint upon it, whether by law or by custom. We see the consequence of this in drunkenness. There is no law to prevent continued intoxication. tition of the practice, the will ceases to act, and, The consequence is, after a frequent repethough perfectly aware of the sin and the consequences, nothing checks the habit. The law operates more directly upon thieving: the will is here kept in check, and it is consequently far less common for it to lose its balance on this point.

* We cannot speak in too high terms of the judgment given by Mr. Baron Rolfe, in the case of William Allnutt, tried (Dec. 15, 1847) for the wilful murder of his grandfather. bench; and its effects will lor g be felt, for the good of society A more cautious or able judgment never came from the in after times.

+ Gen. ix. 6, which was before the giving of the law; and Numb. xxxv. 31, which was contemporary with that event.

Hence the thief has "got his wits about him." Not so the drunkard. From this cause it is that so many drunken persons lose their mind. The same remarks apply to the liar. A person may tell as many falsehoods as he pleases; the consequence is that many lose their minds from this cause. They speak falsely till they believe a delusion. Thus, "even the greatest blessing we enjoy the freedom of our laws-may, in some measure, contribute to those rash actions that often end in dreadful murders of the worst kind, parricide and suicide. Men must be reckoned in the highest class of lunatics who are capable of offending the great Author of nature, by depriving themselves of that life which he only has a right of taking away, because he only had the power of giving it."

The moral treatment is applicable to every stage of the disease, but more so to the early stage, and to every remedy we may have occasion to apply.

There is yet much to be done towards the moral treatment of the insane. Even when, in some measure, they have been regarded by the law in the light of irresponsible beings, they are clearly to be controlled in their actions by a welladjusted application of such treatment; and the bad habit of the mind is often thus overcome. There are so many cases of mental disease where the feelings alone are involved, that it must be obvious that any method, having for its object the healthy regulation of those feelings, must be beneficial. Insane persons have their likings and

so completely out of their province, the government would now and then condescend to call to their councils men who have made the physiology and pathology of the mind their constant study. Without the possibility of its leading to any infringement of that true liberty of the subject, which in a free country is so much kept in view, it would be as possible to provide a legal remedy for such cases as for the more decidedly insane. And this might easily be done by simply extending the number of certificates from two to four, or even six, carefully guarding the form, and by placing such cases under the charge of those only who may have been wisely selected for the trust. At any rate, in the present state of the law, when such cases arise, their doom is marked by the observant physician with as much certainty as any human event can be. And, painful as is the reflection, it is not the less true, that every attempt to treat such cases morally or physically, while at large, is only bringing conviction more strongly to our minds that one of the causes that is operating to swell the ranks of the insane in this country, is the carelessness with which such questions as these are treated by the legislature.

THE IMPRECATORY PASSAGES IN THE

PSALMS:

A Sermon,

their dislikings, as well as others; and, if possi- BY THE REV. IIENRY ARTHUR HERBERT, B.A.,

ble, they feel the privation of any gratification

they have hitherto indulged more than those

whose minds are more completely intact. This is the ground, then, on which they should be met; and it is seldom that even the most desperate

Curate of Elderfield, Worcestershire.

PSAL. lviii. 6-8.

cases will not yield in some measure to a well-"Break their teeth, O God, in their mouths: smite

fimed or wisely-directed application of such means as would tend to withhold the particular gratification most coveted. This is often difficult to discover; but close observation will detect it in almost all cases.

But, if we extend the moral treatment over those periods which precede the attack in the life of every individual who, from hereditary or other causes, may be more peculiarly predisposed to insanity, we shall find here the vigorous application of the moral treatment, when united with others we have just spoken of, will be sufficient to avert the danger of a more complete explosion. Many such cases, not actually regarded as insane, are, nevertheless, so low in the scale of morals, that they have great need to be protected. Still they may become hopelessly lost, both to this world and to that which is to come, before they may commit any acts that would bring them in collision with the law as it now stands. It is painful to reflect that the sages who have hitherto dictated our laws should not have provided some means for facilitating the treatment, and also the restoration of such cases to society. Instead of which, they are allowed to bring irretrievable disgrace and ruin upon others, and misery and disease, and even death, upon themselves. these evils-and they are by no means uncommon -might be averted, if, in legislating upon subjects

* Lord Orrery's letter.

All

the jaw-bones of the lions, O Lord. Let them fall away like water that runneth apace; and, when they shoot out their arrows, let them be rooted out. Let them consume away like a snail, and be like the untimely fruit of a woman; and let them not see the sun. Or ever your pots be made hot with thorns, so let indignation vex him even as a thing that is raw."

FOR the scriptures to be able to make us wise unto salvation, it is absolutely necessary that they be considered under one view, and read with an unprejudiced mind. If we neglect "comparing spiritual things with spiritual," some parts will be sure to appear contradictory to other parts, or inconsistent with their general design, and thus lead us into serious mistakes, especially if we come to their perusal previously disposed to take advantage of the least expression, in order to countenance a bad feeling in us. These remarks are justly applicable to the spirit of malice and revenge which the verses in my text, and other passages throughout the psalms, represent David as indulging. Can these, it may be asked, be portions of the same volume which so earnestly enjoin us to bless, pray for, and do good to our enemies, persecutors,

grounds is the New Testament so much more express in forbidding a malicious spirit, and inculcating the very opposite than the Old? Is this difference between them to be ascribed to any change in the divine mind respecting social duties? Is it requisite that, like a human code of laws, the bible needs additions and improvements, as the light of each succeeding age suggests them, or according to the talents and virtues of each succeeding law

and slanderers ? What pretensions can David have to be called the man after God's own heart, who so totally differs from that Being, the peculiar feature of whose character is love and mercy? Is it surprising that we should act up to these harsh expressions, when they are so often brought before our notice in the psalms read during public service? And, since we never hear that David was reproved or punished for having uttered them, may we not plead his example to ex-giver? Far otherwise: God, the Author of cuse or even justify the like? Such language, if suffered to pass unheeded, would certainly lead him who uses it directly into sin, and ultimately into scepticism and disbelief; and to guard you, therefore, against the guilt and danger of this course, I shall make the seemingly uncharitable wishes occurring throughout the above book a special subject of my discourse; and may it, through the divine blessing, be the means of preventing you from wresting the words of life to your own destruction!

To this purpose I shall first attempt to show that, granting David really expressed these unkind feelings, we are hereby by no means warranted to copy his example; secondly, to prove he never at all expressed them; thirdly, shall point out the real meaning of the passages in question; concluding, fourthly, with a few short practical observ

ations.

I. To bear out my first proposition, I may remark that the New Testament much more fully dwells on, and more earnestly enforces the duties of forgiveness and forbearance than the Old. Indeed, on the very first glance at each, you will agree with me. Christ and his apostles warn us against the slightest tendency to malice and revenge: they affirm the mere rising of them in the heart partakes of the nature and guilt of murder, and insist on the kindliest feelings to persons of every country, sect, and party. The law of Moses, however, which was the sole rule of David's conduct, is comparatively silent on these branches of religion. It prescribed indeed the love of our neighbour, but did not define who that neighbour was; and accordingly we may conclude, from what our Saviour says on one occasion, that the Jews were so blind or so perverse as to suppose it authorized the hatred of all not immediately connected with them. It directed, at the best, a good action should be done to others; but as for calling down God's blessing on the evil-doer, and praying for his forgiveness and amendment, on these points and in these, be it remembered, the very essence of love consists-it scarce said any thing. Now it may be asked, on what

scripture, is "the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever," the same benevolent and gracious Being; and his notions of moral rectitude have ever been the same from the creation. We must ascribe then the above difference to the peculiar circumstances of the nation, for whose especial use the Old Testament was for a time designed-I mean the Jews. Independently of that hardness of heart, in consequence of which God, as Christ informs us, was, as it were, constrained to bear with them in many things, and possibly in an uncharitable spirit among the rest, there were a multitude of drawbacks to prevent them cherishing the contrary, were it ever so fully or forcibly enjoined. These drawbacks were peculiar to and inseparable from their civil constitution. They owed their establishment to the judgments inflicted upon Egypt by their great lawgiver before their eyes; and they afterwards extended their power by either the subjection or extermination of the adjoining nations. Surely these circumstan ces were very far from recommending a mild and forgiving disposition. Their laws, moreover, had a tendency to discountenance it. They were forbidden any communication with the surrounding states: the idolater was stoned without respect to age or sex; and the same severe punishment was prescribed for the infidelity of a wife, and the irreclaimable disobedience of a child. Besides, their frequent intestine disputes and quarrels and the putting to death of individuals by the divine permission or command, would deaden the Jews in a great measure to social feelings. God forbid this representation of their government should tempt us to cavil at the conduct of its heavenly Ruler! far be the impious thought! Every proceeding of his springs from and tends unto the truest love and mercy, though the why and wherefore may in some cases be hidden from our short-sighted faculties. But I ask, whether, living as he did under this preparatory, and therefore, in a sense, imperfect dispensation, it should appear surprising that David was wanting in what we should consider a truly Christian temper, especially when we take into consideration the great provocations he received, many of

which he complains of in the psalms. I allude to Saul's unrelenting malice, the insults and ill-treatment Shimei poured upon his low estate, and, above all, the unnatural rebellion of his indulged son Absalom, which drew with it the insurrection of the chief ministers of state, and nearly dispossessed David of the throne.

Surely, then, to shelter ourselves under his example, and plead the laws of Moses to excuse or justify our own revengeful conduct, is most absurd, insomuch so that carrying the like mode of reasoning and acting into the ordinary affairs of life would convict us of a want of common sense. For who would listen to us, if, found guilty of any crime, we should demand a reversal of the sentence from the case of one who could plead certain circumstances in extenuation of his offence? if, condemned to death for robbery or murder, we should argue, because another who stole a trifle under strong temptation, or shed his neighbour's blood in self-defence, escaped with a light penalty, that therefore we ought also to be leniently dealt with? Brethren, let us subject ourselves to David's dangers and persecution before we presume to plead his example. Divine mercy might have "rejoiced against judgment," in consideration of the many trials to his temper he underwent; but assuredly "judgment without mercy" will be ours, whose wrongs are nothing compared with his. Again: should any one among us, on being condemned under a recent act of parliament, assert his innocence, because all earlier acts were silent on his crime, would not this defence be deemed most frivolous? I ask you, then, if the spirit of meekness and benevolence so strongly marks the gospel of Jesus Christ, not hinted at here and there, as in the Old Testament, but enforced in every book, I had almost said in every page; if he, its great ornament and subject, would not, like Moses, blunt that spirit by deeds of vengeance, but encourage it by the conduct exemplified in his life, his death, his intercession for us; when his kingdom is not, as the Jewish was, established and extended by carnal weapons, but by spiritual, by mild persuasion, and selfdenying charity-I ask you, whether, these circumstances considered, it is not this gospel of peace whereby you are mainly to regulate your social intercourse?

I trust I have satisfactorily proved that, granting David did express the unkind feelings imputed to him, they admitted some excuse, on account of the dispensation under which he lived, and the provocations he received. The former of these pleas, however, none of us can urge, and very few the latter;

and therefore it may be as a general rule laid down, that we have no warrant to follow his example.

II. But what, my brethren, if I also prove, what I proposed secondly to do, that he did not at all express these feelings? Then away with even the shadow of an apology in our behalf. To appeal to David's sentiments and language as a precedent for ours is not mere presumption, it is folly; for that precedent has no existence. David nowhere uses them. "I speak as to wise meu: judge ye" the truth of my assertion from what I am about to say.

Now the benevolent spirit that breathes through several of the psalms, forms a presumptive evidence in his favour. If there be any duties which, next to the worship and love of God, he singles out for commendation, they are those of kindness and goodwill to man, and the contrary qualities repeatedly incur his severest reprobation. To cite all the passages to the purpose would exhaust your patience; a few only will suffice. No less than six times does he pronounce the meek the favourites of heaven, with reference both to this world and the next. The fifteenth psalm is intended to point out the quali fications for an entrance into the celestial Zion. Of these, charitable words and actions are stated to form an essential part, since it is implied therein that not only he who "back. biteth with his tongue," but in any way "doeth evil to or taketh up a reproach against his neighbour," shall be excluded from his Maker's presence. The whole of Ps. cxxxiii. is taken up in recommending the loveliness and benefit of brotherly affection; and the very first verse plainly shows how transported its author was with the delightful theme: "Behold, how good and pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" Besides, the psalmist declares himself to be the merciful and forgiving man, whom he so repeatedly commends. In Ps. vii., after having besought of God deliverance from his enemies, he pronounces the most tremendous curses against himself, had he at any time injured or dealt vengeance on them: "0 Lord, my God, if I have done this; if there be iniquity in my hands; if I have rewarded evil unto him that was at peace with me (yea, I have delivered him that without cause is mine enemy); let the enemy persecute my soul and take it; yea, let him tread down my life upon the earth, and lay mine honour in the dust." I may observe, in passing, that David here declares he had absolutely returned good for evil: for more on this feature of his conduct, presently. To the same effect he speaks in Ps. xxxv. To this I would di

rect your particular attention, being one of those against which the objection, whose un soundness I am now exposing, is often raised. After the verses at which offence is taken, straight follows a style of speaking most strikingly contrasted with their seeming drift. How generously does David tell us he behaved towards his ungrateful persecutors! What grief did the thought of the ruin impending over their heads occasion him! What care does he take to recommend his intercessions for them at the bar of heaven by special religious exercises! "They rewarded me evil for good, to the spoiling of my soul. But as for me, when they were sick my clothing was sackcloth: I humbled myself with fasting; and my prayer returned into mine own bosom. I behaved myself as though he had been my friend or brother. I bowed down heavily as one that mourneth for his mother." Is it likely, I ask, that David, who here and in several other places not only recommends benevolence, but assures us he practised it in all its branches, could be capable of offering up the most malicious execrations? Would any, save a downright hypocrite (which David unquestionably was, if the charge against him remains disproved), be found in the same breath extolling love with the utmost rapture, and calling down hot burning coals on the heads of his fellowcreatures? Should we not rather presume (since charity hopeth all things) that the former character alone is David's, that the latter is imputed to him by some mistake?

dom from the Philistines, pursued him from place to place, drove him into banishment, and took every opportunity of destroying him, in violation of repeated promises of security. But how different was David's conduct! Twice he spared his enemy when in his hands, and he could have safely cut him off; nay, he mourned over him at his death, composed an elegy in honour of him, and slew the Amalekite, who had presumed to stretch forth his hand to destroy the Lord's anointed.

Again: when obliged to send an army against Absalom, who had stirred up the whole nation in rebellion, and aimed at David's crown and life, the tender-hearted father charges his captains to spare his ungrateful son, and on hearing of his death is so overwhelmed with grief as to declare he would gladly have suffered in his stead. "And the king was much moved, and went to the chamber over the gate, and wept; and, as he went, thus he said: O, my son Absalom! my son, my son Absalom! would God I had died for thee. O, Absalom! my son, my son!"

Take one instance more: during David's retirement from Jerusalem, Shimei, a kinsman of Saul, was rude enough to insult over his sovereign's fallen fortunes, accused him of murdering Saul's family, vented curses at him, even cast at him stones and dirt. This treatment he bore with the utmost resignation; and, ascribing it to the hand of God, and looking for redress to him alone, forbad the attendants to punish the reviler, whom eventually he freely pardoned.

forgiving temper in my public conduct, this would be the clearest proof of my private prayers and wishes being consistent with it.

III. It remains therefore, thirdly, that I point out the real meaning of those passages which give less favourable views respecting David's character.

Presumption, however, amounts to certainty on further investigation. If David really possessed a malevolent disposition, we We find then David, under every variety shall detect it in full action during his long of fortune, proof against the fairest temptaand chequered life. We shall find him tions to revenge. The inference is plain, from bursting into pettishness at the slightest the conclusion we should draw from a simiaffront or injury, or returning grosser treat-lar case in common life; for, if I shewed a ment with personal violence or instant death. But do facts confirm this supposition? Far otherwise. Single out the graces which most distinguish him, and without a moment's hesitation you will fix on meekness and forbearance. Save in the murder of Uriah, when, hurried on to it by an unruly passion, he was almost, so to say, beside himself, and for which he paid most dearly, no hasty word (at least scripture is so far silent) ever escaped his lips, no malicious action was ever committed by himself or at his suggestion. Nay, he kept his temper under probably the severest provocations that ever fell to the lot of man. The jealous Saul, so far from protect ing and rewarding the saviour of his king*There seems but one exception-his passionate purpose against Nabal, which he did not carry into execution (1 Sam. xxv.).

Now the greater number of them may be set in a charitable light by the alteration or omission of one little word. Take these expressions, for instance, in Ps. xxxv. and cxl., "Let hot burning coals fall upon them: let them be cast into the fire, into deep pits, that they rise not up again; let them be confounded and put to shame that seek after my soul: let them be turned back and brought to confusion that devise my hurt." In these and many other places, of which part of my text forms one, the whole force of the

« AnteriorContinuar »