philosophers, at the period of its establishment, were, among many excellent principles, advocating some of the worst features of revenge, Christianity, the child of heaven and the friend of man, lifted up its voice and proclaimed the Divine law, "OVERCOME EVIL WITH GOOD." A comment on this law was given by the Friend of sinners and the Saviour of the world. What was that comment? Was it like the conduct of David, who stole the beloved wife of his bravest general, yet whose justice compelled him to indignantly condemn that rich man, who with great flocks around him, took by force the only lamb of his poor neighbour? Was it like the kiss of Judas, the smile of treachery, the sting of ingratitude? Very far from it. Throughout all his ministry, He met his foes with benevolence. And when, by the influence of perjured witnesses, his condemnation was effected; when He had endured the nailing to the cross; when his enemies were adding insult to murder, by mocking and jeering Him in his agonies; then it was He prayed, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." This was the Saviour's illustration of the law, "Love your enemies." And the illustration is more sublime, if possible, than the law itself—more glorious in practice than in theory. For who can remember that this prayer was uttered by the Saviour for his foes, when enduring the excruciating pangs of a crucifixion which those very foes had brought upon Him, without admitting, not only that He was the "Son of God," but that his conduct was the perfection of kindness?

The interesting question now arises, What influence has this law and its comment upon us? Brought

up and educated in the school of our Saviour; living in a land which, above all others, calls itself Christianized; existing beneath the banners of the Gospel, incomparably the most noble system of doctrine and moral ethics extant; how are we influenced by the law of kindness? Do we love our enemies, and overcome evil with good? Far from it! We deliberately fold up the banner of Christ, put aside the laws which God has made for us, voluntarily submit ourselves to the requirements of the Mosaic Law, and are governed by the principle of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth." How many thousands are spent in our halls of litigation simply to satisfy revenge! How many individuals will pursue, with untiring industry, the most questionable means to compass the destruction of another person, against whom a grudge is cherished! And how many persons there are who subscribe to the law of revenge written in the code of duelling, and demand blood as a satisfaction for a real or supposed injury! Some of these instances are most horrible in their consequences, developing blight and misery, sacrificing useful lives, and throwing helpless widows and orphans upon society without a supporter or protector. Let the following facts demonstrate this dreadful position. In the early part of March, in 1803, a duel was fought for a very trivial affair in Hyde Park, between a lieutenant in the navy and a military officer. The distance was six paces. The third and fourth fingers of the right hand of the naval officer were torn off by the first fire. Wrapping a handkerchief around it, he grasped his pistol in his left hand. At the second fire, both fell. The military officer was shot through the head,

At

and instantly expired. The lieutenant was shot through the breast. On being told that the wound of his opponent was mortal, he thanked Heaven that he had lived thus long. And a few minutes before he died, he requested that a mourning ring on his finger should be given to his sister, with the assurance that the present was the happiest moment of his life. In 1806, Mr. Colclough, of Wexford, Ireland, offered himself to the electors of that county for a seat in Parliament. Some dispute occurred between him and Mr. Alcock, the opposing candidate, concerning a few votes, which Mr. Alcock insisted Mr. Colclough should not receive. Mr. Colclough refused to reject them, and a duel was the consequence. the first fire Mr. Alcock shot his opponent, who had been his former intimate friend and companion, through the heart, and he died instantly. This result so operated on Mr. Alcock that he ended his days in insanity, while his sister, who had been well acquainted with Mr. Colclough, soon went to her grave a maniac. In 1804, the amiable and talented Hamilton lost his life in a duel with Burr, on account of some expressions in a political pamphlet, purporting to have originated with Gen. Hamilton, for which this cruel result was demanded by a wicked code of honour. On the 24th of February, 1838, Mr. Cilley of Maine, and Mr. Graves of Kentucky, met in Washington, and for a most trivial provocation between them, fired at each other three times with rifles. At the third fire Mr. Cilley fell dead; his wife was widowed, his children became orphans, and his country was deprived of the services of an excellent and promising son. In addition to these melan

7

choly instances, those savage duels which have been fought in the South Western States with the murderous rifle or the bloody bowie-knife, may be referred to as frightful exhibitions of the spirit of retaliation. And yet this destruction-which makes widows and orphans mourn; which deprives community of some of its best ornaments; and which stains the hands of man with the blood of his brother-is simply the law of revenge adopted by a certain class of society, whose countenance has made it honour to demand life as the satisfaction of offended pride. But though such conduct may be deemed honourable in the parlance of this world, yet, in the sight of God and all correct conceptions of right, it is fashionable murder. An individual who refuses a challenge is far more honourable, and exhibits a greater degree of moral courage, than he who accepts it. Most persons in accepting challenges are prompted by the fear of being branded as cowards, if they decline to endanger their own lives, or those of their fellow-men, in such a cause. Hence it requires more firmness to resist the opinion of duellists, than it does to meet the deadly contest. Those men who have resisted this opinion, have received praise for their moral strength. One instance will be given. In 1800, Major Armstrong of the British army, challenged the celebrated Sir Eyre Coote, who refused to meet him. When this fact became known to the commander-in-chief, the following letter was addressed to Sir Eyre Coote: "His Majesty," said the adjutant-general in this communication, "considers the conduct of Mr. Armstrong, in having endeavoured to ground a personal quarrel on the evidence which you gave in conformity

to your duty, on your oath before a General Courtmartial, as militating not less against the principle of public justice, than against the discipline of the army; and his Majesty has been pleased to direct, that it should be signified to you in the strongest terms, that by having had recourse to the laws of the country on this occasion, you have displayed a spirit truly commendable as a soldier, and peculiarly becoming the station you hold in his Majesty's service, to which you have rendered a material benefit by furnishing an example which his Majesty has ordered to be pointed out as worthy the imitation of every officer, under similar circumstances." How pitiful and degrading is duelling, when compared with such conduct, or with the conduct of the Saviour, which, in its own power and sublimity, illustrated the Divine law, "Love your enemies!" Yet we still claim to be a Christian people, even when enlightened portions of community sanction a rule that is a direct contradiction of one of the most prominent precepts in the Christian statutes 1.

In the plenitude of his wisdom and the divinity of his thoughts, our Saviour deemed that man could, and that it was his duty to 66 overcome evil with

1 Bishop Jeremy Taylor thus tersely and emphatically denounces duelling:-"Truth is, to fight a duel is a thing that all kingdoms are bound to restrain with highest severity; it is a consociation of many the worst acts that a person ordinarily can be guilty of; it is want of charity, of justice, of humility, of trust in God's providence ; it is therefore pride, and murder, and injustice, and infinite unreasonableness; and nothing of a Christian, nothing of excuse, nothing of honour is in it, if God and wise men be admitted judges of the lists."-Life of Christ, Discourse ii. (W.)