waiting for the decision of the judge. But what are those cases? Those in which no ap peal to the law is possible, as in desert islands, where no society exists; those cases in which to wait for the protection of the law would be attended with infinite and irretreivable ruin, as when our life is assaulted and endangered. Here as the law cannot furnish a man with a perpetual guard, nor the magistrate be present to protect the person of every individual in the community, the law allows him to redress his own wrong, and to defend himself even if it lead to the death of the assailant. But even in this case so strongly does it disapprove of the practice of seeking private redress, that every effort must have been previously made to escape, or to disarm the assailant, before we can lawfully have recourse to this expedient. In short, private redress of injuries is allowable in cases where from defect of evidence no redress could otherwise be obtained. Thus in the 22d chap. 2d verse of Exodus, we read this law, which agrees also with that of the English code. "If a thief be found

breaking up, and be smitten that he die, no "blood shall be shed for him: if the sun be "risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for "him." The reason of which appears to be,

that if discovered and recognised, as he might easily be in the day, the fact could be proved and the decision of the law obstained; but if he escaped, which he was likely to do in the dark, no restitution or redress could be obtained. But will it be said that injuries done to honour are in any respect in a similar predicament? What irretrievable mischief would ensue from waiting for the decision of justice? What more effectual vindication of our honour can be obtained than by the impartial and deliberate sentence of the law? What redress more satisfactory can we desire than to have our innocence declared by disinterested and enligthened men, and the brand of falsehood and of infamy impressed upon our adversary?

Besides, if even the case were such as to permit private retaliation, yet this ought to be proportioned to the measure of the offence: the same redress is not applicable in every case. The very principle of this law, is, as expressed in the scriptures," an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." It It may be just and equitable that, whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed, but surely it can never be just and equitable that a slight injury, whether real or imaginary, arising

from some unguarded expression, from some interference of interest, or from sentiments of pride mutally indulged, should be redressed in the blood of the rival or aggressor. Neither is it consistent with common sense, that, from the retort courteous to the lie direct, there should be only one method of redress, the death or maiming of either of the parties. Is it equally as criminal to question the integrity of our neighbour as to plunge a dagger into his bosom? Must an uncivil speech be accounted for as manslaughter; or a passionate blow be punished as premeditated murder?

2. He who challenges another to single combat, for injuries received, violates those precepts of our divine religion which enjoin a meek, patient, and forgiving conduct.

The law of nature permits a retaliation for wrongs, under this restriction, that, except in a few urgent and extraordinary cases, the redress and punishment of wrongs be referred to the magistrate. The law of Moses, which is chiefly a publication of the law of nature, expressly and formally enjoins under the same restriction the law of retaliation. Thus in Exodus, 21st chapter, and 23, 24, 25 verses, "Thou shalt give life for life, eye

66

"for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot "for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." But all this was expressly directed to be as the judges should determine. Besides, there are many clauses additional to and explanatory of this general maxim, to be found in the books of Moses, which greatly soften the rigour of the law, and lean powerfully to the side of justice and mercy. To prevent the fatal effects of sudden resentment, cities of refuge were appointed where the criminal might be secure, till the law had calmly and deliberately decided upon his guilt or innocence. And though we read in the gospel that it was said by them of old time, thou shalt love thy neighbour and hate thine enemy, it must be confessed that no such command as the latter of these is to be found in the Mosaick law, but it must have been the false comment of the Scribes and Pharisees, as a mistaken inference from some express commands of God to the Israelites to destroy and root out the wicked and idolatrous Canaanites. was the true law, that "Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou

VOL. II.

So much the reverse Moses expressly says,

"shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Lev. xix. 18; and again, "If thou meet, thine "enemy's ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt

surely bring it back to him again. If "thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying "under his burden, and wouldst forbear to "help him, thou shalt surely help with "him." Exodus, 23d chap. 4th and 5th verses. In like manner in the book of Proverbs, 24th chapter, 29th verse, "Say not I will do so to "him as he hath done to me; I will ren"der to the man according to his work." And under the Old Testament dispensation," we have on record many illustrious examples of patience under ill treatment, and forgiv ness of injuries. Nay even among the heathen writers we meet with many excellent maxims on this subject. Pythagoras is recorded to have said, that, we ought neither to begin reproaches nor to avenge ourselves on those who reproach us. Menander says, he who can bear injuries patiently is the best of men. Plato, in his celebrated work entitled Crito, observes, that, even when provoked by an injury we ought not to retaliate whatever we may suffer from others.

It must be confessed, however, not only that