Page images
PDF
EPUB

hear it asserted that our legislatures are unable to stay the hand of the duellist. When the effort has failed, we will believe them, but not until it has been made with an honest desire to root the pestilence out of the land. Let the duellist be completely disfranchised-let him be rendered incapable of holding any office of honor, trust or profit in any constituted body in the United States--and we shall soon hear no more of duelling. Will it be believed that the aspiring youth of this Republic, to whose ambitious hope she has opened every door of trust and dignity, would consent to bear a mark upon their faces, and like Cain, the first murderer, to become "a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth?" We rather think that the puny courage of the man who cannot brave the scorn of fools would shrink from such a degradation. But these remarks are by the bye-our present business is with those who have been told that their influence on opinion is paramount. Had we the privilege of legislating-I believe we should have virtue enough to deliver our country from blood by efficient penalties on the atrocious crime of duelling. But we ask not this honour--we believe it is no part of our inheritance. If it be true, as we are flattered that the conduct and sentiments of women have an ascendency in society-then are we bound to improve the talent which Providence has given to us. We inherit from nature, a powerful influence on the characters of men, and reason and religion have now enlarged our sphere to the extent of our wishes. We are permitted to take a part in useful institutions, nor are we forbidden to enter the academic porch. Shall we not then lend our aid to discountenance vice in every shape? Let it not be said that we shrink from our duty!

In the case in question, are women uninterested spectators, because their own lives are never put in jeopardy? The lives that are dearer to them, than their own, are in hourly danger! Can a mother-a wife--a sister, be at peace while the deadly weapon is pointed at the breast of their nearest relatives? Do you ask what you can do? Banish the duellist entirely from your society--let them be to you as aliens and strangers. Never let false modesty keep you silent, when duelling is the subject of conversation in your presence-but speak of it with the same degree of abhorrence that you do of any other mode of assassination, and avow your determination to hold no intercourse with any one who participates in a practice which is not less savage than silly. Let young ladies declare firmly, their resolution never to unite their fate with that of either principal or agent: and surely, they would but consult their own interests in adhering to a resolution so wise in itself. For what reliance can they have on the principles of a man who deliberately commits the greatest possible crime; or what sympathy can she expect from a man who does not hesitate to plunge a whole family in the deepest anguish, perhaps to deprive them of their only hope and stay! Let each woman remember that although she may now be an unconcerned spectator of a combat, less excusable than that of the gladiator, another hour may bring it home to her own bosom--her own heart may be wrung by the last groan of a husband-a son-a brother!

If it ever was the privilege of women to be distinguished by a virtuous opposition to immorality, it is now, more than at any former time, their duty to give their utmost aid to the suppression of duelling. They have now emerged from the seclusion of domestic life, and in every part of Christendom are taking an active part in societies for the promotion of benevolence and religion-of that religion which requires the suppression of all vindictive passion, and forbids a man to take the life of his fellow man. Let me ask then-does your practice correspond with your professions? Does that Bible, which you are straining every nerve to circulate, declare that the Supreme Lawgiver will not commute with the murderer-has He said, "Thou shalt take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, he shall surely be put to death?"--and do you encourage or even palliate duelling? I know you will repel the charge and proclaim your innocence. But do you seize every opportunity of bearing your testimony against it? Do you not approve by vour silence? - Do you notrather even accede to the impious proposition that there may be cases where men are compelled to fight? Be not imposed on-such a case can never occur! Yield not your principle to the infidel who tells you that what is intrinsically wrong, can by any possible conjuncture of circumstances be made right. Let not your understanding be imposed on by the fallacious argument that injured honour is satisfied by the exposure of life! A more absurd position never insulted common sense! No man ever incurred the guilt of destroying human life, without being an object of horror to all the upright part of mankind;-nor, if he be not lost to every virtuous feeling without being haunted by the spectre of his crime during all the remainder of his miserable days. Then they will tell you that the pistol alone, will awe men into good-manners,--a precious confession truly in the nineteenth century! In this enlightened age when all the arts that cheer and polish social life are cultivated-when that religion which breathes only peace and goodwill to men is leading barbarism in triumph! Gentlemen for the vulgar are not duellists-seem not to reflect on the disgrace implied in this declaration. Very few men are so audacious as to vindicate this violation of all that is wise and good, in the abstract. Their better sense is ever throwing in the salvo--" I am no advocate for duelling it is only to be resorted to in extreme cases;" and women are sometimes weak enough to accede. Why, this is all they ask the headlong passions of men, or their treacherous friends, can always make the extreme case their own. Again, they cannot brook the contempt of the world-the man

who refuses a challenge is despised! By whom is he despised? By those whose esteem ought almost to be spurned! Show us the man who has refused a challenge on religious principles and we will show him one whose honour is exalted by the forbearance. But says the disputant-"I am not a religious man, and therefore I could not avail myself of that apology." We shall not wait to tell him what he ought to be, but will argue with him on the measure he has meted out to himself. In our christian land, no man chooses to be termed irreligious. Every man professes his respect for religion of course he must be supposed to possess some degree of religious principle himself. Does it then require any extraordinary share of piety to enable a man to refuse to break a known command? But let us admit the worst-let the man who refuses to fight, encounter the contempt of the worldsuch a world as it is! He will be a martyr in a noble cause, and he will assuredly "have his reward."

Although we thus call upon women to use all the efforts in their power-we are very far from believing that they alone have the power to abolish duelling. Women are proverbially timid, their horror at the shedding of blood is therefore ascribed more generally to the tenderness of their natures, than to just principles.

Men are indeed awed by public opinion, but it must be the opinion of the whole community: it must be universal before it will have strength sufficient to restrain the bad passions of violent spirits. While human nature continues to be what it now is, and what it ever has been, men will always be found ready to vindicate the relentless wretch who outrages the first principle of the civil compact, whilst he contemns the laws of the Supreme Ruler. The strong arm of power then, we repeat it, is the only barrier against the fell destroyer. If women do indeed possess any influence on the hearts of men-let them listen to our demand for that protection, which they vaunt as their high prerogative. We ask them to protect our domestic peace-the dearest of our possessions! And, is it not time that those to whom we have committed that peace, should consider their responsibility? Affairs of honour, are not now done in secret-they are proclaimed on the house-top! With unblushing audacity the intention is made the subject of public discussion-and this not only in the case of rash and headlong youth, our very senators do not disdain to run the gauntlet of all the newspapers of the day, and become the very scorn of the vulgar! Shame, shame! on the barbarism of our boasted land!

We professed it to be our intention alone, to expostulate with our own sex-but our earnest anxiety on this most important subject has betrayed us beyond our plan, into an appeal to our lords. Neither to the one, nor the other, is it necessary to repeat all the arguments against duelling. Both its folly and its wickedness, have been exposed till every school-boy is familiar with

Let

the subject. Very few indeed, are hardy enough to deny either. Duelling has no advocate in the understandings of men-every heart is appalled at its approach-it is supported alone in the turbulent passions of misguided men. These, it has been found necessary to restrain by force ever since the world began. them roam at large, and a paradise would soon become a desert! America, with a very laudable ambition, is emulating the proud march of science in the country of our ancestors. We boast, too, of our superior virtue, and submit not to a comparison with any nation in Europe; yet it is asserted that in no nation is duelling so prevalent as in our land. We know, indeed, that it prevails elsewhere-but we know too, that it is sometimes punished, and that even in the higher classes of the community. We know that a nobleman was hung a few years ago in England, for killing his adversary in a duel. Can we produce one instance of a similar triumph of law and equity? Alas! no. The guilty miscreant walks undisturbed amongst us, and shares in all the honours and immunities we have to give! Let us hasten to efface the stain. "All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten it." Stern justice alone can wash it out. CONSTANTIA.

ART. VIII. On the Testimony of Josephus respecting our

Saviour.

The following passages, from Mr. Horne's Introduction to the critical study of Scripture, relate to a subject which has greatly exercised the ingenuity, as it has divided the opinions of philosophers and critics; we mean the testimony of Josephus respecting our blessed Lord. Mr. Horne has brought forward the adverse opinions and arguments in a concise form, and, we think, with triumphant effect.

The passage in question is as follows:

"Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man: for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him many of the Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. This man was the Christ. And when Pilate at the instigation of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him from the first, did not cease to adhere to him. For he appeared to them alive again on the third day; the divine prophets having foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of the Christians, so named from him, subsists to this time." *

This passage has already been given in Vol. 1. p. 215, as a proof of the credibility of the New Testament history; it is repeated in this place, in order that it may be conveniently subjected to the test of critical examination. The genuineness and credibility of this testimony have been questioned, on the ground that it is too favourable, to be given by a jew to Christ; and that, if Josephus did consider Jesus to be the Christ or expected Messiah of the Jews, he must have been a believer in him, in which case he would not have dispatched the miraculous history of the Saviour of the World in one short paragraph. When, however, the evidence on both sides is fairly weighed, we apprehend that it will be found to preponderate most decidedly in favour of the gen uineness of this testimony of Josephus; for

* Ant. Jud. lib. xviii. c. iii. § 3.

1. It is found in all the copies of Josephus's works, which are now extant, whether printed or manuscript; in a Hebrew translation preserved in the Vatican Library, and in an Arabic Version preserved by the Maronites of Mount Libanus.

2. It is cited by Eusebius, Jerome, Rufinus, Isidore of Pelusium, Sozomen, Cassiodorus, Nicephorus, and by many others, all of whom had indisputably seen various manuscripts, and of considerable antiquity.

3. Josephus not only mentions with respect John the Baptist, t but also James te first bishop of Jerusalem- Ananus,' (he says) 'assembled the Jewish Sanhedrin, and brought before it JAMES the Brother of Jesus who is called Christ, with some others, whom he delivered over to be stoned as infractors of the law. This passage, the authenticity of which has never been disputed or suspected, contains an evident reference to what had already been related concerning Christ; for why else should be describe James, -a man of himself but little known, -as the brother of Jesus, if he had made no mention of Jesus before?

4. It is highly improbable that Josephus, who has discussed with such minuteness the history of this period,--mentioned Judas of Galilee, Theudas, and the other obscure pretenders to the character of the Messiah, as well as John the Baptist, and James the brother of Christ, should have preserved the profoundest silence soncerning Christ, whose name was at that time so celebrated among the Jews, and also among the Romans, two of whose historians (Suetonius and Tacitus) have distinctly taken notice of him. But, in all the writings of Josephus, not a hint occurs on the subject except the testimony in question.

It is morally impossible that this passage either was or could be forged by Eusebius who first cited it, or by any other early wri ter. Had such a forgery been attempted, it would unquestionably have been detected by some of the acute and inveterate enemies of Christianity: for both Jousephus and his works were so

* Baronius (Annales Ecclesiastici, ad annum 134) relates that the passage in this Hebrew Translation of Josephus was marked with an obelus, which could only have been done by a Jew.

† ant. Jud. lib. xviii. c. v. § 2.

Ant. Jud. lib. xx. c. viii. (al. ix.) § 1.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »