Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

1 Kings xxii. 28. and 2 Kings ix. 31. and xxii. 20.) implies, that he was not to die a natural death: for I fear the promise to Josiah was conditional, and that he failed on his part. See Sherlock's 4th Dissertation, 3dly, p. 385.

David proceeds very differently in his charge concerning Shimei. In the former case, he dwells upon the aggravations of Joab's crimes: in this, he mentions the important service, which the offender had done in being among the foremost in his restoration to the throne, 2 Sam. xix. 16-23., and acknowledges the oath which he had sworn by the awful name of Jehovah, that he would not put him to death: recollections not much like those of a man, who meant to violate the obligations both of gratitude and good faith, though towards a man, who had formerly shewn himself an enemy to the preeminence of the tribe of Judah and the sovereignty of the house of David. It might be prudent to watch such a man: but it is clear Solomon did not consider himself as having received a charge to put him to death: because he only confined him to one city, Jerusalem; a policy not altogether unusual in the Jewish law, (Num. xxxv. 26. 1 Kings ii. 26.) It appears by the prompt execution of the sentence, when Shimei had transgressed the condition imposed upon him, that Solomon did not want much encouragement to make away with him; entering, it should seem, into the sentiments of those,

who had at the first objected to David's clemency, (2 Sam. xix. 21.) and looking upon him as a dangerous character not to be trusted, though now in his power. (1 Kings ii. 42—46.) "David evidently thinking Solomon may be influenced by filial respect to put Shimei to death : he says, do not so, for I have solemly sworn to spare his life; but as he is a turbulent man, it will require the exercise of wisdom to keep him from doing mischief; put him under constraint; but for my word's sake do not kill him." The words of David, if truly interpreted, contain a charge, the direct reverse of that, which they bear in our translation: they have literally the following sense. "And behold, thou hast with thee, (in thy power or in thy party) Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite of Bahurim, which cursed me with a grievous curse in the day when I went to Mahanaim: but he came down to meet me at Jordan, and I sware to him by the Lord, saying, I will not put thee to death with the sword. Now, therefore, do not cut him off and (or) bring down his hoary head to the grave with blood; for thou art a wise man and knowest what thou oughtest to do unto him:" thou knowest how to preserve thyself without violating my oath. The word rendered here in the sense of cutting off is so used, Zech. v. 3. of which a fuller account is given in the note on the word, where it occurs in the second Chapter of the sixth Dissertation. The extract from

Kennicott, in the twenty-fifth Note, clearly proves that when two sentences are joined together by the connecting particle, which we generally render "and," a negative in the first, imparts its negation to the following. This is an idiom very natural in a language, which uses but one particle to express almost all the conjunctions; and an idiom into which our own easily slides. We will take one instance for all, which illustrates it in both languages, Prov. xxiv. 12. "Doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth the soul know it? and render to every man according to his works?" Our translation repeats the word "not" in both the latter clauses; which however appears not necessary in one language more than in the other.

CHAPTER V.

Assassination.-Moses.

THE ministers of God, whose conduct comes next to be examined, are Moses and the Judges. For in the present alarming disposition to contemn every thing, which men have been accustomed to revere, it becomes necessary to defend the truth of Scripture, not only against the cavils of those, who would disprove any Divine agency at all from the imperfection of the instruments employed (and when man is em

ployed how can you expect perfection, except in him who only was without sin?) but also against those, who, though they disbelieve the Scripture altogether, are yet forward to wrest the examples of it to the establishment of their own nefarious purposes. With horror have we seen

the examples of Moses, Jehu and Jael, urged as justifications for that, which must undermine the whole foundation of human society, the right of private assassination; which owns no arbitrement or controul, but the passions of the assassin and his employer. But even did the actions, which these Scripture heroes performed, bear the character pretended, they form no justification of similar practices now: the doers of them lived at a time when the bands of law and government were so loose, that each individual took into his own hands to a great degree the defence of himself and his family both from foreign and domestic, public and private wrongs; like that state of society which prevailed all over Europe, and perpetuated deadly feuds between families, which are hardly extinguished even now in some parts of this United Kingdom. This is apparent from the tacit acknowledgment* of the law of Moses, which does not expressly take from the nearest of kin the right to kill the slayer of his relative, but limits the permission of doing it by winking at it, only if he

*See Note 26.

should overtake the manslayer before he could escape to a city of refuge, where the latter was to undergo an impartial trial in order to determine, whether the deed was done by malice or accident, and the doer was treated accordingly. But we have surrendered all these (if such they were) natural rights, for the protection which we ourselves claim from the present constitution of society, and receive a better security in the judgment of able and upright men, to whose decision every quarrel of this sort must now be submitted. With respect to Moses, his character and situation are any thing but rightly appreciated, when the above inference is drawn. from his example: he was, at the farthest distance possible, removed from being a private assassin. He saw his nation was cruelly oppressed and held in slavery by the Egyptians, contrary to justice and to the terms upon which they settled in that country; he knew that God meant to deliver them, and judged both by the prophecy given to Abraham and the increasing population and power of his countrymen, that the time for their deliverance was at hand; but he did not know, whether God would effect that deliverance by miraculous means, or the ordinary ways of his Providence. He judged it was very possible to do it, if the people could be roused to attempt it; and he felt within himself courage and conduct equal to the undertaking. He was too much the servant of God, as well as too sin

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »