An Enquiry into an Origin of Honour; and the Usefulness of Christianity in War by Bernard Mandeville
page 68 of 173 (39%)
page 68 of 173 (39%)
![]() | ![]() |
|
dislike them.
Cleo. I dislike them because they are destructive to Religion; and if a Minister of the Gospel was to dissuade and deter Men from Duelling he would do it in quite another Manner. By a Minister of the Gospel I don't mean a Philosophizing Divine, or a polite Preacher, but a sincere Follower of the Apostles, a down-right Christian. He would, in the First Place, insist upon it, that Forgiving of Injuries was a Christian Duty never to be dispens'd with; because it is made the Condition on which we are taught to beg Pardon for our own Offences. In the Second, he would demonstrate that no Man is ever to revenge himself, how highly and how atrociously soever he might have been injured. If ever he heard of a Man's sending a Challenge for having been call'd Fool, or other verbal Injuries, he would reprove his Frowardness and Want of Temper, for resenting such Trifles as the Law of his Country thought it not worthy to take Notice of. He would appeal to his Reason, and ask him, whether he could think, that the Affront he complain'd of, was a sufficient Cause to take away a Man's Life. He would represent to him the Heinousnesss of Murder, God's express Command against it; his Justice, his Wrath, his Vengeance when provok'd. But if all these could not divert the Dueller from his Purpose, he would attack his stubborn Heart in its inmost Recesses, and forget Nothing of what I told you on the Subject in our Second and Third Conversation. He would recommend to him the Fable of the _Bees_, and, like that, he'd dissect and lay open to him the Principle of Honour, and shew him, how diametrically opposite the Worship of that Idol was to the Christian Religion; the First consisting in openly cherishing and feeding that very Frailty in our Nature, which the latter strictly commands us with all our Might to conquer and destroy. Having convinced him of the substantial Difference and Contrariety |
|