The Pulpit Commentary — 2 Kings — Section 241

the.t men a.re, e.ll of them, more or less imperfect. He requires that parents shall be "honoured," not imitated. II. TrrE ETIL EXAMPLE OF A FATHER IS A WARNING TO SONS, WHIOB SHOULD LEAD ~ AVOIDANCE, NOT IMITATION. The sight of a drunken father should disgust sons with drunkenne8:'. Blasp~emous and violent words should so shock them as to suggest an exactly opposite behaviour. Looseness of morals should breed in them a determina- tion never to offend in a way so absolutely revolting. Given that simplicity which is natural to youth, and every fault of a father should so keenly wound and vex their souls as to bend them in the exactly contrary direction. Sin is so ugly, so offensive, so coarse, ~h~t in another it naturally disgusts us ; and the more plainly it is revealed, the closer 1t 1s brought to us, the more are we naturally provoked and angered by it. !IL 'l'HE PU1fJSHME?.""T WHICH SIN DRAWS AFTER IT SHOULD COME ESPEOIALLY HOME TO THOSE WHOSE HOMES ARE CURSED WITH IT, AND AOT AS A DETERRENT. Disease, decay, the loss of others' respect, the severing of friendships, general dislike and aversion, in some cases contempt, dog the footsteps of sin, and mark it as a thing to be avoided. Sons are naturally sensitive with regard to their fathers' honour, and keen to mark whether they are held in respect or no. There can be no natural deterrent from evil courses stronger than the perception that one with whom we are bound up is deterio- rating from day to day, not merely in character, but in reputation, falling in men's esteem, becoming a mark for their scorn. The father's fall should thus not produce the son's, but rather stimulate the son to rise to greater and greater heights of virtue. Vers. 5, 6.-.Ajather's sins not to be visited by the civil magistrate on his chi1dren. Human legislators have differed greatly in their judgments upon this point. In the East, and in early times, the idea was generally accepted that the guilt of the father attached to all his descendants, and was justly visited on them. "Lege cantum erat," :;ays Q. Curtius ('Vit. .A.leL,' vi.11), "ut propinqui eorum, qui regi insidiati assent, cum ipsis necarentur." The family was regarded as the unit of society, and the crime of one member tainted the whole of it. What the Egyptian practice was is uncertain; but we find the Israelites, shortly after the Exodus, putting to death the whole family of Achan on account of their father's sin (Josh. viL 24, 25), and the usage seems to have continued long afterwards (eh. ix. 26). The Greeks and Romans adopted 11 different line of action. Recognizing the separateness of the individual, they never executed a family en ma.sse, but only the guilty member or members of it. Yet, in secondary punishments, the contrary idea to some extent prevailed. At Athens, when the sentence on a man was degradation from his rights of citizenship (&Tip.la.), the penalty was shared by his children. A similar disability attached to the children of those who were executed. So, even by our own law, attainder and forfeiture, which mainly affect the children, are attached to the crime of treason, and the property of felons escheats to the Crown. It is very remarkable that the Law of Moses should have anticipated the ultimate judgment of the human conscience upon the point, and have laid down so clearly and strongly the humane principle that the criminal alone should be punished for his own crime. To us at the present day the principle may appear axiomatic;. b~t at the time when Moses enunciated it, the contrary idea was prevalent; and 1t 1s doubtful whether the broad assertion, "Every man shall be put to death for his own ains," had ever been heard previously. Even now, though in the letter the principle is universally accepted, infractions of its spirit are common enough- I. BY NATIONS. Nations infringe it when they cashier a royal family for the fault, 01 even the crime, of the reigning sovereigu. In an _her~tary monarc~y the son _has a right to succeed, though his father may by unconst1tutJonal acts have Justly forfc1tccl the crown. Still more unjust is the perpetual exile_ of all those whose ancestor~ have ever reigned over a country. Such per~ns are pUillShed, n_ot so much fo: the. sr?s as for the merits-the wisdom, prowess, high renown-of their forefathers, srnc? 1t 1s for their merits, ordinarily, that persons are first placed upon thrones. Con~scatlon of the property of exiled princes is still more indefensible, since it is at once unJust and mean. It may be added that forfeiture and attainder, as they exist in our own law, seem to_ be contrary to the spirit of the rule, which \e that no one should be punished for anythmg but his own acts. Il. BY 1:rnJVIDUALS. Individuals infringe thie rule when they maintain a family en. xiv. 1-29.] THE SECOND BOOK OF THE KINGS. 287