generally if not always wrong, and the consequences always bad, when compared with the Christian method of treating injuries; and that therefore this sanguinary law of corrupt nature was admitted by the Supreme Ruler as a general scourge for the revengeful and bloody passions of men.

But our present object is to see how this immediate and universal right to revenge or retaliate, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, and life for life, was transferred from individuals, to "Society." But judge Blackstone takes no pains here. He only says "it was transferred."

With one easy dash of the pen, this great civilian recognizes all the forms of government ever known, as legal organs of justice, clothed with the power of cutting off human beings ad libitum. Sir, I doubt, when God shall make inquisition for blood, whether things on this broad scale will so easily pass. I am sure they will not. The career of nations and governments, in this dreadful work, will undergo the scrutiny of eternal wisdom and justice, and I believe will appear black with the incessant crime of cruelty and murder.

What is "Society" in the sense of this writer? The ancient despotic monarchies were generally founded in violence, murder, and usurpation. If we begin with Babylon and Egypt, if we run back to Nimrod and Misraim, the sacred Scriptures throw sufficient light on those institutions for our present purpose. If a man can cut his way to a throne through opposing millions; if rivers of blood shall waft him to empire; if, when seated on the pinnacle of the structure which he has reared, like Khouli Khan, with the skulls of victims; he there assumes the right of disposing of the life and property of all the survivors, whom his power has subdued or his treachery beguiled: if his arbitrary will be the only rule of justice, or where that fails to extend, through defect of ubiquity, the will of some subordinate slave takes the place of his will, and deals life or death, chains or liber-, ty, at pleasure,-is that "Society?" is the power of taking life transferred from individuals and given to that one arbitrary bloody usurper? A small society indeed!

Is there such a charm in the word government-something so sacred in the name of King or Emperor, that the moment the vilest miscreant on earth, by the most atrocious means which men or devils can devise, assumes to himself that title, and begins to act the tyrant, his murders are to be glossed over by the easy and dignified mode of calling them acts of "society ?" I presume not.

Sir, the murders of a royal or imperial villain, who has

raised himself to a condition to exact those titles, can never be bleached into the whiteness of innocence. The rains and sun-shine of heaven can never purify that ground which is stained by the blood of murdered millions. The wretch who is unsuccessful, and falls into ruin and execration, from the middle of the ascent, like a Cataline or Robespierre, is but half as guilty as the villian who gains the summit, and there remains, till the horrid blackness of his vices is obscured by the effulgence of royal grandeur, like Cæsar or Bonaparte.

If I am now in possession of my neighbour's house and goods and tenements, which I took from him when I murdered him thirty years ago, is my claim strengthened by possession, or my guilt lessened by time? "Can one be pardoned, and retain the offence?" Or will the dignity and grace with which I enjoy my plunder, stop the ascending cry of blood, or close the ear of justice on high? Ah! Sir, we are dazzled by the poor and sickly glare of earthly power and wealth, and forget that pure eternal unchanging light and justice, before which all iniquity for ever stands uncovered.

I have dwelt on this point to show the monstrous absurdity of supposing it possible, that a bloody usurper can have acquired, even any right, to govern, much less to take away the lives of men. To deny this will be to affirm, that any man on earth, by whatever measure of guilt and atrocity he can obtain power over men, has a full, and even a divine right, to govern them and become the dispenser of life and death.

66

But, Sir, setting aside the amazing unfitness of the supposition, the shocking appearance of the principle considered in thesi, what evidence have we of the fact, that when kingdoms and empires arose, the right* of taking life for life departed from every individual, and devolved upon Society ?" i. e. upon one individual man, who, generally speaking, had destroyed one great portion of men, that he might establish an absolute arbitrary despotism over the other? I certainly shall not be contradicted when I assert, that most of the despotic rulers of the ancient nations, were, in their own persons, incomparably the greatest criminals in their respective empires. Yet, while they promiscuously shed blood like water, both at home and abroad; while they practised every vice that debases man, and that on the most enormous scale, they affected great severity against a man who had committed a solitary crime, which did not happen to gratify their pride or lust.

I speak of the right, not the fact

The language of God to Samuel, when the house of Israel had impiously demanded to have a king like other nations, shows us in what light the kings of the earth were viewed, not by men, but by God himself. God ordered Samuel, to tell them what the manner of their king should be; and whoever will give himself the trouble of turning to that portrait, will perceive the picture of an arbitrary tyrant.

I shall not dwell on this subject. Those ages have passed away, and both kings and people have long since received the retributions of infinite wisdom and justice. But this subject will scarce bear examination: the result of an impartial scrutiny must run counter to the general current of prejudice, which has, generally, left the ancient, and indeed all other monarchies and forms of government, in quiet possession of all the powers which they claimed to exercise over men, and in fact ratified them as derived from divine authority.

The only thing which can be claimed and vindicated for those ancient despotisms, which were generally, though not always, reared and ruled by the very worst of men, is, that when in the exercise of their usurped authority, they punished men for their crimes ;—a just desert was inflicted on the guilty, as if they had been destroyed by serpents or wild beasts of the forest, or even by their own hands. Nothing more can be said. To talk of any transfer of power to punish, from an individual to "Society," sounds fine and looks fair in theory, but is absurd, is false. Instead of a transfer of power from one to many, as the phrase Society seems to import, it was in fact, a transfer of power from many to one. For in the sovereign was vested all power, legislative, judicial, and executive.

There was one government in ancient times, founded, organized, and for many ages supported by divine authority. The Hebrew government, it will be admitted, held the right of taking life but under circumstances and limitations so peculiar, so strict and definite, and altogether so extraordinary, that there is little room to infer from that to other nations, or the reverse. God was their King, Lawgiver, and Judge. They had no power to legislate: even their municipal and fiscal regulations were given them complete: their modes of trial and punishment, from which they were not at liberty to vary, were prescribed. One all-pervading power and authority filled out their system, even to its minutest ramifications, and, till the time of their captivity, the She

kinah, or divine presence and glory resided in their temple, and was their oracle.

For myself, Sir, I see very little even here which looks like a transfer of the power of life and death, from individuals to "Society." Admitting, however, the expression to convey a correct idea, in relation to the Hebrew state, and as it regards other nations, it must be admitted, that retaliation and punishment gradually receded from the hands of individuals; into what hands it fell, we have already seen. But,

2. We have already shown, in whatever hands it might have been, and however much or little the ancient usurpations and tyrannies were recognized by God as legal governments, that the right of retaliation of injuries was abolished_and done away by the express authority of Christ. "But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil." How this precept can be so expounded as to admit the resistance of evil, not only in one, but in every form, I am unable to conceive.

The general error of writers on government seems to be this; they, in the first place, appear to think it necessary to admit and maintain, that civil government is a divine institution; then, out of this doctrine they spin and weave a consecrated garment, in which they dress up every form of government both ancient and modern. Thus robed in state, and decorated with religion, these awful forms, sometimes indeed the noblest and most stupendous structures of human wisdom, but far oftener the most frightful monuments of human pride, folly, and ambition, claim the veneration and obedience of men. "For," say they, "the powers that be are ordained of God, and he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God."

Who did St. Paul mean by the powers that be? Nero; that monster of cruelty, who murdered his own mother, most of the great men in Rome, and at last Paul himself: who set Rome on fire, in order that he might see how Troy looked when it was burning.

The apostle Paul in this passage has no other object, than to establish the precise doctrine I am endeavouring to establish, viz. the Christian doctrine of non-resistance.

Paul, in viewing the great potentates of the earth, perceived the hand of God in their elevation, whether they were benefactors, or robbers and murderers of mankind. Thus in his sense Pharaoh, Alexander, Cæsar, and Mahomet, were ordained of God. But to dethrone and destroy Nero was not the work of Christians; their sphere was righteousness

and peace." For," said our Saviour, "my kingdom is not of this world, else would my servants fight.

I am, Sir, yours, &c.

LETTER X.

The practice of taking life perpetuated by prejudice and

SIR,

passion.

LET me not be understood to undervalue the excellence, or detract from the utility, of civil government. It surely is as much preferable to anarchy, as the arts and sciences are to savage rudeness and indigence. But those who so ingeniously attempt to insphere it in divine radiance and glory, do but obscure it in a halo of mist and gloomy vapours. As the sons of Adam were originally free and equal, so they were rude and unacquainted with the arts and sciences. How far the benevolent Creator might have aided them in the attainment of useful knowledge, we cannot tell; but the science of government probably rose with other sciences, and rests on the same foundation. That it was suggested" by the wants and weaknesses of mankind," there is little doubt; but what sort of wants and weaknesses those were, which first suggested the thought of extensive combination, is somewhat questionable. I suspect they had something to do with vengeance, victory, conquest, and dominion. For a great family of people living in scattered settlements, and employed in agriculture, would not be very likely to embody or assemble, unless for defence or invasion. The chief father or patriarch would naturally be the first leader, till supplanted by some usurper.

Exclusive of the Hebrew or divine government, the sum of ancient and earthly dominions, or the four great monarchies, are represented, in sacred writ, by two orders of symbols, which give no favourable idea of their origin, character, or termination. They are first represented by the prophet Daniel under the form of a mighty image, composed of various materials. The Assyrian empire was the head of gold, the Persian was silver, the Grecian brass, the Roman iron, and in the end iron and clay. The prophet saw till a