Brandon, and, after many rencounters of the kind, finally committed suicide. A challenge was passed and accepted between the parties. Great preparations were made. Fresh dueling weapons were ordered from New Orleans. Sporting men came in crowds from Jackson, Brandon, and the interior towns. Bets were freely made and accepted. The hills around the fatal spot were. covered with thousands of spectators. At the hour appointed the parties took their position, the word was given, the parties fired, and Menifee fell. McClung fled to the interior. Major Menifee was buried on Friday.

On the following Sabbath morning a crowd assembled at the Presbyterian Church, when the writer, who had been preparing a discourse for the occasion, arose and spoke as follows

THE CODE OF HONOR.

“Thou shalt not kill."-Exodus 20:13. This prohibitory enactment of heaven, was designed to be of universal application; forbidding the taking, not merely the life of man, but likewise of beast.

Before any one, therefore, can be innocent in taking life from any creature, whether rational or irrational, he must first obtain express permission from the same high authority from which this law originally emanated. Such permission, has, in some few particular cases, been obtained. Thus God expressly gave to Noah and his sons permission to destroy the lives of animals and use their flesh as food. And this grant contains our only warrant for the taking of animal life.

If, then, we may not take the lives of animals without express permission from the King of heaven, much less may we take away the life of man-God's noblest work, made in his own image, constituted Lord of Creation, endowed with reason, and heir of immortality.

Has God specified any cases where the life of man may be taken? He has. The Scriptures, in several places and in a variety of forms, declare that human life may be lawfully destroyed in righteous warfare between two nations; by the civil magistrate as a punishment. for murder, and in necessary self-defence. With these three exceptions, the Scriptures are most solemn and fearful in their denunciations of divine wrath and indignation against the destruction of human life under any other circumstances.

The prohibition of the text therefore-" thou shalt not kill”—is aimed directly against all acts of violence offered to man which are not included under thèse three specified exceptions, i. e., it is aimed against murder, suicide, and dueling. I call your attention to the latter crime.

Dueling is a crime of very great prevalence, upheld by many plausible arguments, and sometimes practiced or countenanced by individuals of high respectability, and in some respects of much moral worth.

What are the arguments against it?

1. Its very origin and history condemns it. Dueling was entirely unknown among the ancient Greeks and Romans. The polished Greek knew nothing of it; the noble Roman was above it. The custom is exclusively of a heathenish and savage origin. It arose among the fierce and warlike nations of the north of Europe. The ancient Germans, Danes, and Franks, carried this mode of warfare so far, that none were excused, except women, sick persons, cripples, and those over sixty years of age. Even ecclesiastics and monks were required to decide many of their contests by an appeal to single combat.

Bear in mind, however, that the object and design of contest by duel, among those northern barbarians, was

very different and far more rational, than the duel of modern times.

The object of the ancient duel was to decide important points relative to crime or property. Criminal accusations, or titles to landed estates, were always the subjects of dispute. And the trial by duel was a species. of high court of appeals. It was considered as a direct reference of the whole matter to God, the great arbiter of right; who, it was believed, would always decide the contest by terminating it in favor of the innocent party; and then the party vanquished, if not slain upon the spot, was punished by hanging, beheading, or mutilation of members.

But the design of the modern duel is vastly different. Its object is to decide, not the titles to property, or accusations of crime, but points of honor-points of such a delicate and invisible character, that half the world have never yet been able to perceive them, or determine in what they consist.

The modern duel, or the duel upon points of honor, may be dated as far back as the year 1528, when Charles V., emperor of Germany, challenged Francis I. of France, by a public herald, accompanied by the graceful epithets of coward, liar, poltroon, etc. From that period it became customary, throughout Europe, whenever a gentleman received an insult or injury which seemed to touch his honor, he thought himself entitled immediately to draw his sword and demand satisfaction. Dueling became so common in France, that it is calculated that six thousand persons perished in single combat, during ten years of the reign of Henry IV. The effusion of human blood from the same cause, was frightfully prevalent in England during the time of James I. and the two Charleses. And what is the history of this bloody code of honor in our own land?

Within the last half century of our political existence, how often has our land been clad in mourning? How often have we yielded up the most costly victim to glut the maw of this bloody Moloch? Hamilton, and Decatur, and Cilley, and a host of others, both of our army and navy, the pride of many a rising family, our country's strength in war, its ornaments in peace,-Oh “how are the mighty fallen!" How have the most valuable lives been sacrificed, and the most precious blood been spilt, in conformity to a custom which knows no origin but superstition, no reason but madness, no apology but revenge! And the practice is still gaining ground, with all its attendant curses, such as the dishonorable and cowardly practice of carrying concealed weapons, making a man an offender for a word-bloody broils and street fights-a disposition to decide every contest, except that relating to property, by a resort to the pistol or the dagger. Even our sacred halls of legislation have been the scene of bloody strife. Alas, our land is soaked in gore, and calls on God for vengeance. The very history of dueling then, with its attendant evils, proclaims its condemnation and brands it with infamy.

2. Dueling is a direct violation of all the settled principles of law, both human and divine.

In Genesis, 9: 6, God thus declares: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man.”

In Numbers, 35: 16, etc., it is thus written--if a man smite any person "with an instrument of iron, so that he die," he is a murderer; "the murderer shall surely be put to death." And if he smite him " with a hand weapon of wood, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death." "Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put

to death by the mouth of witnesses." "Moreover, ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death." “The land cannot be cleansed of the blood shed therein but by the blood of him that shed it." Such is the law of God. Equally explicit are the laws of man. What says Blackstone, Book IV., ch. 14? "If two persons, A and B, agree to fight a duel, and A gives the first onset, and B retreats as far as he safely can, and then kills A, this is murder, because of the previous malice and concerted design." Again says the same authority: "Killing must be committed with malice aforethought to make it the crime of murder." "This takes in the case of deliberate dueling, where both parties meet avowedly with an intent to murder, thinking it their duty as gentlemen, and claiming it as their right to wanton with their own lives and those of their fellow creatures, without any warrant or authority from any power, either divine or human, but in direct contradiction to the laws of both God and man; and, therefore, the law has justly fixed the crime of punishment of murder on them, and their seconds also."

What says Dr. Paley? "Murder is forbidden, and wherever human life is deliberately taken away, otherwise than by public authority, there is murder."

What says Mr. Russell, in his treatise on crimes ? "A party killing another in a deliberate duel is guilty of murder, and cannot help himself by alleging that he was first struck by the deceased, or that he had often declined to meet him, and was prevailed upon to do so by his importunity, or that it was his intent only to vindicate his reputation, or that he meant not to kill, only to disarm his adversary. He has deliberately engaged in an act highly unlawful, and he must abide the consequences.”