The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-11-02
Sermon on Duelling by Rev. DR..
Witherspoon.

: tersburg, Va, preached sermon Sunday
night October 23d) on "Duelling." A
large congregation was present who gave
the closest attention to the remarks of the
learned divine as he discussed 1.-THE Code"
from a Christian standpoint.
DR.. Witherspoon announced his text as
follows:
"And if he smite him with an instrument of
iron, SO that he die, he is murderer; the muir
derer shall surely be put to death Numbers
xxxv: 16.
Events of recent occurrence, he said,
have forced upon the attention of the
public subject that We could well wish
forgotten. Again and again, in quick
succession, prominent gentlemen of this
Commonwealth, melted by real or mag
ined grievances, and in obedience to the
so-called "code of honor" have, in def
ance of the laws of the Commonwealth
and the commands of God, met each other
on the duelling ground in hostile encount-
er. So completely has justice fallen in
our streets that in some instances the
very officers of the law, the men solemnly
sworn to uphold and defend them, have
set before our young men the example of
their wanton violation. The prominence
and popularity of these gentlemen, the
high respect they have always command
ed, the glamour which in the minds of
youth is thrown over the "feld of honor"
and the bloodless issue of the several en-
counters, all tend to alarm us, lest our
impetuous youth, following the examples
of political leaders and men they admire,
may initiate their course, and some day
we may awake to terrible tragedy in
which the soil OF the Commonwealth has
been crimsoned with the fe-blood of one
of her best sons.
1t is the duty of the pulpit to speak out
before such an appalling horror is enact
ed amongst us, and in sense of respon-
sibility to God, propose tonight to re-
view calmly this whole practice of duel
ing in the light of reason, Of conscience,
and of the word of God
l. Look at it first as method of re-
dress for wrongs, and could anything
be more unreasonable and absurd? A
man has wantonly insulted me, and l
propose to right the wrong 1 have re-
ceived-how By standing up on the
field and giving him an opportunity of
killing me or manning me for life. Not
only are the aggressor and the aggrieved
put upon the same footing but if, as is
generally the case, the aggressor is more
practised marksman, the aggrieved is put
helplessly in his power. Can anything
be more unreasonable? One gentleman
publicly placards another ga fool, a
blackg1ard, a liar, and coward" and
yet, while thus publicly branding BIN
with character which, if true, would
render him unworthy the notice of gen
tleman, he accepts challenge from him,
receives his fire, and then fires his pistol
in the air. A gentleman denounces an
other as malicious slanderer and
liar" then consents to meet him on the |
field of honor" They fire at each other
until one has bullet hole through his
hat and the other through the skirt of
his coat. Then mutual concessions follow |
in each case, and the parties are recon-
ciled. Now, entertaining as I do the |
very highest respect for these gentlemen,
I would nevertheless ask how these pis- |
tol-shots could either remove the stigma |
from the parties branded with the dis
graceful epithets or make it proper for
the gentlemen who had stigmatized them
to associate with them again, and why the |
mutual concessions and explanations |
could not have been made as well before |
the bullet-holes were made in the cloth |
ing of the gentlemen as afterwards
Nay, if this presentation of the case seems
grotesque, let us suppose that the ball
instead of entering the clothing, had en-
tered the heart! Would the pouring out
of the life-blood have made matters any
better on either side? In any view you
take Of it, such a method of settling diff
culties and avenging insults is absurd
unworthy of the intelligence and Chris
tianity of the age III which we live.
II. Look at it now as test of COURAGE.
We are told that it is the brave man s
defense against the insults of the coward. |
/ deny this Many brave men fight duels |
on the impulse Of their own courage
Many towards fight duels under the
dread Of disgrace, because they have not
the courage to refuse. Many brave men
refuse to fight duels under the conviction
Of conscience, in obedience to the man
dates Of law and the voice Of God TOT
fight duel is therefore no evidence that |
a man is brave. To refuse to fight is no
evidence of cowardice. The duel is not
the brave mans defense against the cow
ard, but the practical duellists recourse
for hectoring and bullying with impunity
peaceable and law-abiding men.
III. Look at it in the light of con-
science. Suppose it were all that is