positive terms, forbids murder: Honour rises up in bare-faced opposition to justify it. Religion prohibits our shedding blood upon any account whatsoever: punctilious Honour commands and urges us on to fight for trifles. Christianity is founded upon humility: Honour is erected upon pride. I must leave it to wiser heads than mine, to bring about a reconciliation between them.

Henry 11. of France, was the first monarch who declared against the practice of duelling in that kingdom; and, on account of the death of his favourite, he published an edict to that purpose: it was found, however, that from the prohibition, duels became more frequent.

When Henry IV. of France was firmly seated on the throne, he published a second prohibitory edict against duelling; yet some time afterwards indulged the brave Cregin with a secret permission to fight Don Philip, the Bastard of Savoy.

Louis XIII. issued a third mandate to the same effect. The rage for duelling had been carried to such a height in this reign, that when acquaintances met, the usual enquiry was not "What is the news of the day?" but "Who fought yesterday?"

Louis XIV. caused several edicts to be promulgated against duelling. It is in this way he speaks these regulations, in his celebrated address to his son: "I added some fresh penalties to those which had been imposed against duels, and let my subjects know, that neither birth nor rank would exempt any one from them. I banished from my court the count Soissons, who had called out the Duke of Navailles, and I imprisoned in the Bastille the person who carried the challenge, though the affair was not brought to effect.'

In a duel in the reign of Henry ш. of France, the seconds (two on each side) also fought. This is the first instance of the seconds fighting. Before they attended only as witnesses,

to see that every thing was carried on in a fair and honourable manner.

In a duel in the reign of Henry IV. of France, it was an express article of agreement between the parties that the seconds should not fight: it was also agreed that they should not separate the combatants, because it was determined that one of them must die.

In the minority of Louis XIV. the principals and the seconds fought five against five. Three of the parties were killed.

Thus sometimes, not only one, two, or three, but numerous seconds on both sides were summoned, not merely as spectators, but to be acting parties; and it has frequently happened that when, on either side, by any unforseen accident, one of the stipulated number was wanted, a courier has been dispatched in quest of the first gentleman that could be got, to hasten and be a partaker in a combat of houour, which no person of that rank could refuse; so that those who rose up peaceably in the morning, without being embroiled in any dispute whatever, could not answer for their not being participants of some troublesome affair before night. The last remarkable instance of this kind in that kingdom was in the servant of a duellist (a man of family) who wanted one of his number, galloping through the streets of Paris, and cry-ing aloud for the first French gentleman he chanced to meet instantly to mount the horse he was on, and ride away to the field of battle, to which he should direct him. The first gentleman he met acted accordingly, this being a duty which all persons of that rank held indispensable, as in like difficulty they were to hope for similar

assistance.

It was also at one time a custom in that country, that the officers of certain regiments, from some antiquated dispute, perhaps of a century past, were to fight wherever they met, upon the slightest look or expression, whether really intended as an

though the gentlemen, before they had assumed their respective uniforms, were intimate acquaintances and friends. Officers of horse in such circumstances, when travelling on the same road in different directions, as soon as they met, and were within shot, saluted, fired a pistol, and if no hurt was done on either side, passed by each other with great politeness, although perhaps they had never seen or heard of each other; but their respective uniforms were a sufficient intimation of the honourable manner in which they were bound to acquit themselves in behalf of their rival regiments. Whenever such antipathies were made known to the court of Versailles, it was the business of the minister at war to take care that the hostile regiments should never meet on the road in marches from one city or province to another, or be quartered in the same place, to prevent disputes, quarrels, and massacres, which would most probably ensue; and when it so happened, that a regiment in enmity with another was ordered to succeed to its duty, the latter, by orders from the war-office, evacuated the garrison two or three days before, to prevent all possibility of the officers meeting.

In the reign of John 11. of France, a national duel was fought in that kingdom between two parties of the English and the French nobility, thirty on each side. The quarrel originated in the murder of an English gentleman. The combatants fought on horseback, with lances, mallets, and bill-hooks. At the beginning of the contest, the principal of the English assured his companions that he had a prophecy of Merlin in his favour, which promised him victory. Several were slain on each side; but the result is said to have falsified the alleged prediction of the British bard.

In the reign of Charles vi. also, seven English knights are said to have engaged seven French knights,

the ladies whom they admired," with the same want of success. Having broken their lances by their impetuosity, they continued the fight with battle-axes. Three Portuguese knights errants also, in the same reign, came to Paris, and published a challenge of combat to all who would not acknowledge that the ladies whom they admired were the most beautiful women in the world. They were engaged and defeated by three French gentlemen.

Duelling was first introduced into England at the Norman conquest. In the reign of James the First, it became an object of attention to government. There was in particular a prosecution instituted against two persons; against the one for sending a challenge, and the other. for carrying it; in which prosecution the lord-chancellor, Bacon, then attorney-general, made a long speech on the subject of duels. One remedy proposed by him was banishment from court. What good effect this might have produced was probably never tried. A remarkable instance occurs of its being neglected; that of Sir Edward Sackville, who afterwards succeeded to the earldom of Dorset.* He had killed Lord Bruce, (a Scotch nobleman, baron of Kinless), in a duel, attended with the strongest marks of premeditation; yet he was not only permitted to appear at court, but was successively promoted, in that reign and the following, to a variety of honours and public offices of importance.

England, with the other nations of Europe, had the wisdom to imitate the good example of France, in a partial reformation, which however was a considerable one. A proclamation was issued by Charles 11. that no person should be pardoned who killed another in a duel. But till the principles be irradicated which gave

* We purpose in our next to give an interesting letter written by Sir Edwd. Sackville, giving his own relation of this duel.

authority to the practice of duelling, we must not hope for the intire abolition of it; nay, we have the greatest reason to be apprehensive of ita gain ing ground. The science of quarrel ling was studied with great accuracy in the sixteenth century. Lord-chan cellor Bacon takes notice of French and Italian pamphlets upon the doc trine of duels, which he gives us to understand contained such regulations as it was necessary for those to ob serve, who professed the honour then in fashion. It is said, that cases of honour were collected with great minuteness; that lies were distinguished into thirty-two different sorts; and that the precise satisfaction suited

to each was marked out.

To prevent quarrels and sending challenges in the army, it is ordered by the Articles of War, that

of

"No officer shall use any reproachful or provoking speeches or gestures to another, upon pain being put in arrest, and of asking pardon of the party offended, in the presence of his commanding officer.

"No officer shall presume to give or send a challenge to any other officer to fight a duel, upon pain of being cashired.

"If any officer commanding a guard, shall knowingly and wilfully suffer any person whatsoever to go forth to fight a duel, he shall be punished as a challenger: and likewise all seconds, promoters, and carriers of challenges, in order to duels, shall be deemed as principals, and be punished accordingly.

"All officers, of what condition soever, have power to quell all quarrels, frays, and disorders, though the persons concerned should belong to another regiment, and to order officers into arrest, until their proper superior officers shall be acquainted therewith; and whosoever shall re fuse to obey such officer (though of an inferior rank,) or shall draw his sword upon him, shall be punished at the discretion of a general court martial.

VOL. III.

"If any officer shall upbraid another for refusing a challenge, he shall himself be punished as a challenger; and His Majesty acquits and discharges all officers of any disgrace, or opinion of disadvantage, which might arise from their having refused to accept of challenges, as they will only have acted in obedience to his orders, and done their duty as good soldiers who subject themselves to discipline."

Cursory Thoughts on Isaiah,

Chap. xxx. 15-21.

FOR thus saith the Holy One of Israel, In returning and rest ye shall shall be your strength and ye would be saved; in quietness and confidence not. But ye said, No; for we will flee: and, We will ride ffee upon horses; therefore shall ye swift; therefore shall they that purthe upon shall flee at the rebuke of one; at One thousand sue you be swift. the rebuke of five shall ye flee: till ye be left as a beacon upon the top of hill. And therefore will the Lord wait, a mountain, and as an ensign on an that he may be gracious unto you, and therefore will he be exalted, that the Lord is a God of judgment: he may have mercy upon you': for blessed are all they that wait for him. For the people shall dwell in Zion at Jerusalem: thou shalt weep no more: he will be very gracious unto thee at the voice of thy cry; when he shall hear it, he will answer the bread of adversity, and the water thee. And though the Lord give you of affliction, yet shall not thy teachers be removed into a corner any more, but thine eyes shall see thy teachers and thine ears shall hear a word bekind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the left.".

2

How often do we see men, who are madly set on an object, the real rectitude or propriety of which has never engaged their previous attention, or been made the matter of prayer before God, permitted the attainment of it, but with the evident displeasure of the Almighty, who often speaks in judgment, disappointment, and disgrace.

The Scriptures afford us many examples of this kind. We have a striking instance in Numb. xi. when the people manifested their discontent and murmuring against the miraculous supply of manna, and lusted after flesh; the Lord gave them their desire, but how? (see ver. 33.) 'while the flesh was yet between their teeth, the wrath of the Lord was kindled against the people, and the Lord smote the people with a very great plague.' This historic passage is finely paraphrased in Psalm Ixxviii. verses between 18 and 31, and the quotation needs no apology. They tempted God in their heart by asking meat for their lust. Yea, they spake against God; they said, Can God furnish a table in the wilderness? Behold, he smote the rock, that the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed; can he give bread also can he provide flesh for his people? Therefore the Lord heard this, and was wroth.He rained flesh also upon them as dust, and feathered fowls like as the sand of the sea: and he let it fall in the midst of their camp, round about their habitations. So they did eat and were well filled: for he gave them their own desire; they were not esstranged from their lust. But while their meat was yet in their mouths, the wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen men of Israel.' So in Psalm cvi. 15. He gave them their request; but sent leanness into their soul. From these passages, it

unhallowed desires of the rebellious camp to be complied with, but in anger, as a lesson to succeeding generations, to warn them of the danger of tempting him by unqualified, vehement longings, unchastised to the wise and perfect will of him who has taught us to bound all our desires by that sacred fence: Thy will be done.'

Another instance of this kind occurs in the case of good king Jehoshaphat, who, with an unjustifiable compliance, had been tempted into bad company with that wicked monarch, Ahab. See the history at large, 1 Kings xxii. and 2 Chron. xviii.

Ahab, proposing to attempt the recovery of Ramoth Gilead, had the sanction of four hundred and fifty false prophets; but these could not satisfy Jehoshaphat, and therefore Ahab reluctantly submits to enquiry, by Micaiah, a true prophet of Jehovah.— His reply plainly intimates the duty of Jehoshaphat, and fall of Ahab; yet Jehoshaphat ventures to keep up affinity with Ahab, until his own life is imminently in danger, and is preserved only by what the world accounts the act of a coward; while Ahab falls a prey to his long continued disobedient and guilty life, accelerated by his credulity in his lying prophets.

Another illustration of this subject is connected with the circumstances attending the death of good Josiah, who fell a victim to this temper of mind (see 2 Chron. xxxv. 20—24.) The Lord, in the wise dispensation of his will, intended to punish Carchemish by the hands of Necho king of Egypt. Without any call or evident reason, Josiah (like too many other monarchs) chose to interfere in this foreign quarrel. Necho, with much mildness, and a conduct remarkably considerate, sent ambassadors to Josiah, to warn him of his danger, if he interfered, and to state his own commission: Josiah, however, unninndful of the warning, and set on the work of resistance, without even the pretence of defence, arms for the

*།

1

battle, engages, and is defeated, disgraced and slain. By this act of unsanctified temper, he risks his kingdom, which passes into bad hands, and prematurely sacrifices his useful life to the mad passion of WarWhereas, had he kept himself within his own borders, cultivating the improvement of his people-purifying Jerusalem from its idols, and promoting the arts of peace; consequences might have been involved that would have deferred, if not prevented, all the evils of the subsequent captivity.

It would not be difficult to multiply facts in proof of the doctrine here intended to be established. But let us now pass on to consider the theme proposed at the head of this paper, as applied to the lawfulness of War as practised in the professing Christian world.

I

The chapter contains the threatenings of the Almighty, by his servant the prophet, against Israel, for their vain confidence in an arm of flesh; particularly in this passage in Egypt, and for their contempt of the word of God, and turning a deaf and rebellious ear to his voice; and it also further exhibits the amazing patience, long suffering of God, towards a people so heavy of ear and slow of heart, concluding with promises to Israel, and threatenings of destruction to her enemies in battles of shaking,' still permitting the crime to inflict the punishment, a crime that, with its visitation as a national evil, plunges millions of immortal souls in endless woe, as the result of their unpreparedness and final impenitence.

But to return to the verses chosen for our present contemplation, we first have the promise of the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel. In returning and rest (from their vain confidence and carnal weapons, reproved before) shall ye be saved, in quietness and confidence shall be your strength.' This last sentence is the grand desideratum for the Christian to understand and practise; a departure from

this, to carnal arguments and carnal weapons, has involved Christendom in all the protracted miseries of heathen warfare or antichristian practice. For it is of little consequence whether the dragon or the beast wield the sword of war, it being equally adverse to the mind of Christ in both. Let us now apply the remaining sentence in the verse, by way of illustration, to the emperor Constantine and his followers: And ye would not.' Constantine, an heathen warrior, embraced Christianity, sword in hand, and unfortunately forgot, or perhaps was so far a stranger to the real spirit of it that he did not know, that the temper of Christ and the temper of the world were at variance, equally opposed as the East to the West; and therefore, while a succession of emperors nominally Christian succeeded, the true nature of that holy and peaceful religion became less understood, its true spirit evaporated, and gave rise to antichrist in all its members, features and cruelties; until the true profession of that peaceful religion became to be accounted heresy, and the blood of Christ's true disciples flowed in torrents, while their persecutors, Christians only in name, pretended, as was foretold by the Saviour himself, to do God service. And surely it is no difficult matter to see that all this evil arose from the obstinate resistance of the spirit of the world against the temper recommended, of rest, quietness and faith; for the want of a quiet, believing temper of mind, leads men to expedience, the great invader of political, moral and religious duty, and most frequently the enemy of righteousness. But ye would not. No, we are in a dilemma, but we are not so unwise as to sit still; we hear your words, Isaiah, but what do we see-an approaching enemy,- cur duty, common sense dictates it, is to flee: We will flee upon horses, we will ride upon the swift; away to Egypt, the enemies' cavalry cannot ontstrip us; Yes, says the Lord, I will