what he cannot possibly perform. Hence the duty of others who are able to labor, or who possess in abundance the means of life, to provide for the necessary wants of the sick and suffering; but not to support in idleness those who are able to labor.

Conditions essential to Self-support. In order to make suitable provision for one's personal wants, certain conditions are absolutely essential. Industry is necessarythe diligent, faithful pursuit of some honest calling; but not industry alone. To acquire is merely one part of the business. If we expend our acquisitions as fast as we make them, there is no provision for the future. Frugality is necessary, as well as industry. No man has a moral right to expend all that he earns, if by so doing he leaves himself, or those dependent on him, without adequate provision for future support. Industry and frugality become virtues when directed to this end; and the want of them becomes a sin against God and man. It is the duty of every man, not absolutely incapable of the thing, to take care that neither himself nor those dependent on him shall become a tax upon the industry and toil of others. Hence the duty both of industry and frugality on his part. It was a wise remark of an ancient Greek philosopher, that wealth consists not so much in great possessions as in small wants. It is not the man that acquires the least who is the poorest, nor is he the richest and most prosperous who gains the most.

CHAPTER II.

SELF-DEFENCE.

Reasonable. -The same rule that makes it a duty to provide for the further subsistence of the body, in order to the preservation of life, justifies and requires its defence from lawless aggression and violence, for the same end. If it is duty to preserve life by supplying the bodily wants, it is a duty to preserve it by guarding against needless injury and destruction. If it is incumbent on us to take precautions against disease and accident, it is equally our duty to ward off the attacks of sudden violence, whether of man or beast; and if, in order to this, a resort to extreme measures becomes necessary, then we are justified in resorting to such measures.

The reasonableness of this view will appear, if we reflect that every man is by the constitution of nature, in an important sense, his own guardian. He is to look after his own interests, and attend to his own wants. No one else can do this for him. His own life and safety are of vastly more consequence to him than they are to any one else. If he is too negligent, or indolent, or cowardly, to protect his own life and person against lawless aggression, he is false to himself.

Hence, it is the instinct of nature, as well as the dictate of reason, to defend ourselves when in danger. It has been called, not improperly, Nature's first law. It is a constitutional impulse, and he who implanted it in the human mind had a design to be accomplished by it. In yielding to this impulse, within due bounds, we are simply carrying out this design.

Due not to Ourselves alone.-Nor is this a matter merely allowable a thing to be justified, merely. It rises to the rank of a duty, and that not to ourselves only. It is not a matter in which we only are concerned. Others have an interest in it. Our lives are of value to many beside ourselves. If we fall under the blows of the assassin, we leave others, unprotected and helpless, it may be, dependent on the charities of the world, to struggle with misfortune and want. This calamity we have no right to entail upon them.

We owe it, also, to many who are not directly dependent on us. Were it understood that, whether from lack of right or lack of courage, men would not defend themselves when attacked, acts of violence would be much more numerous than they are. Every instance of resolute self-defence acts as a preventive of similar crime. safety of the entire community is in a measure entrusted, in such cases, to our keeping.

The

Objection. But do not the Scriptures forbid self-defence? Did not Christ command us, when smitten on one cheek, to turn the other also? I reply, it was not the intention of our Saviour, in those words, to forbid self-defence in cases of real danger, but only the exercise of a revengeful and quarrelsome spirit. Better even to suffer a repetition of the wrong and abuse, than on slight and needless grounds to engage in controversy. That Christ did not mean to forbid self-defence in cases of serious danger, is evident from his permitting his disciples to arm themselves, on at least one occasion. "He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."-"And they said, Lord, behold here are two swords." - "And he said unto them, it is enough." One of these swords was actually used in defence of his Master, by one of the disciples, but a short time after these words were spoken. Now, al

though the purpose of Christ required that he should be given up at this time to his enemies, and therefore defence was not necessary, and so not allowed, still, our Saviour would not have spoken in this manner, much less have permitted his disciples actually to arm themselves, and even to draw and use the sword in the instance referred to, had he regarded all self-defence in such cases as sinful, and therefore to be condemned.

Further Objection. But it may be said, why not leave the defence of person and property to the law, which is the properly constituted guardian of the rights of the community? I reply, in all cases where a resort to the law is possible, this should be done. We are entitled, as citizens, to the protection of the civil arm; and where the case admits of appeal to that protection, it is undoubtedly the proper mode of defence. But in many cases, such an appeal is out of the question. When attacked by the midnight robber and assassin, the protection of my life or property is, by the very circumstances of the case, committed to my own hands. I must resolutely and instantly defend, or tamely surrender them. Now, when it comes to this, as it often does, which of the two shall die, the assailer or the assailed, - no reason can be shown why I should prefer the life of the aggressor to my own. He deserves to die. The very act of violence which he is perpetrating forfeits his claim to life. I have the right to live, and to defend myself that I may live.

Limitations of the Rule. Within what limits, it may

be asked, and on what occasions, is the resort to extreme measures justifiable in self-defence? The case already supposed suggests, I think, the true limit. I am authorized to take the matter of protecting my person

and property into my own hands only when there is no other apparent and probable mode of defence; and I am at liberty to

resort to extreme measures in the case only when milder measures will not answer the purpose. If a simple warning, or the mere presentation of a weapon, is sufficient to deter the aggressor from his purpose, I am not justified in doing more, since self-defence in that case does not require it. But if I can preserve my own life only by taking his, or if I have reason to believe that this is the only alternative, the measure is justifiable.

It is to be observed, moreover, that it is only from lawless violence that life is to be preserved at the expense of life. Suppose, when attacked, I act upon the principle of self-defence. The assailant becomes himself assailed, and it may be that his life, in turn, is in danger. Is it for him. now to proceed upon the principle above stated, and preserve his own life by taking mine? Would he be justified in so doing? Manifestly not. The violence from which I defend myself is lawless; that from which he defends himself is lawful. He had no right to put my life in danger; I have the right, in self-defence, to endanger his.

On the same principle, the prisoner under sentence of law, or under arrest, is not at liberty to set himself free by an attack upon his keeper. The right of self-defence does not belong to him under those circumstances.

Further Limitation.-It may admit of serious question, whether, for the defence of property alone, where life is not also at stake, it is right to take human life. A robber assails me on the highway. He demands my property merely, and promises that my life and person shall be unharmed, in case I surrender my purse. He has no right to make that demand, much less a right to threaten my life, in case of refusal. I can protect my property only by taking the life of the aggressor. Have I a right to do so? In the eye of the law, I should be guilty of no crime, in the case now supposed, were I to do this. But have I a