Man, and can plead for it felf with more plaufible Arguments than any other Sin whatfoever. As, that Nature directeth all Creatures to defend themselves, and repel the Af faults of Enemies; that for this Purpose all Animals are endued with proportionable Strength and Courage; that to pafs by one Enemy unrevenged, expofeth a Man to the Infults of Enemies, to the Scorn of Friends, and to renewed Wrongs; that it is no other than Bafenefs and Cowardife; an Argument of a mean and timerous Soul, to fubmit patiently to the Affronts and Wrongs of another Man; and that to return evil for evil, to punish the Malice of an Offender by procuring Lofs or Grief to him, is no other than a Part of distributive Justice, of which every Man may be allowed to be the Adminiftrator; that fo as the fmart of Revenge inflicted may punish the Malice of the Aggreffor, the Pleasure of inflicting Revenge, may make fome amends for the undeferved Sufferings of the injured Party.

Such Arguments Men are wont to plead in behalf of Revenge; and fuch did once introduce an univerfal Opinion in the World, that Revenge was not only a Matter allowed, but even a Virtue, the Duty of every Noble and Couragious Mind, confonant to the Intentions of Nature, and the Office of every private Man.

Thus

Thus the great Mafters of Morality among the Heathens; among whom nothing is more frequent than fuch Expreffions as thefe; That Revenge is fweeter than Life it felf; that Moderation is to be observed in creating, but none in revenging Injuries; that not to revenge a Wrong, is an Argument of Fear and Sloth, of an unmanly and degenerous Mind.

On the contrary, we are taught, throughout this whole Chapter, to bless them which perfecute us, to recompenfe to no Man evil for evil, to live peaceably with all Men, and in the last place (which concerns my prefent Defign) not to avenge our felves, but rather give place unto wrath; not to take upon us to inflict the Punishment due to any Sin of Injuftice committed against us, but to leave that to be inflicted by God, either by his own immediate Power, or by thofe Commiffioners to whom he hath delegated part of his Power: Not to prevent the Juftice of God herein, and foreftall his Judgment.

For that is the meaning of thofe Words: But rather give place unto wrath. Leave room for the Wrath or just Anger of God against fuch Sinners to take place and display it felf. Do not you therein arrogate to your felves the Office of a Judge, and by pretending to punish the Offender, prevent the Punishment defigned by the proper Judge. The Reason follows, and that not new, but delivered

T

I 4

delivered many Ages fince in the Old Testament: For it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, faith the Lord. I am the Supreme Judge of the World, the Lord of all Mankind. To me only as fuch, it belongeth to execute Judgment, and punish the demerits of Men. Whofoever takes upon him to avenge himself, violates my Autho rity, and invades my Office.

An hard Leffon this, as it fhould feem, to restrain the natural Paffions of Man; tọ forbid the returning of Evil to avowed Enemies; to tye up the Hands of Men, and that not only (as it may happen) from retaliating paft Injuries, but alfo from preventing future Wrongs. Nay, to reluctant Minds this generally appears, and is reprefented, as yet more difficult; as destroying the Peace of the World, taking away the Means of Self-defence, and expofing the Obfervers of it, to the Injuries and Tyranny of all other Men.

Yet if the Matter be well confidered, nothing is more reafonable, or more conducing to the Peace of the World; that as it may be univerfally affirmed of the Doctrine of Chrift, that it is in all things agreeable to human Reason, and the Law of Nature; fo more eminently it will appear in this point to have restored the depraved Notions of natural Reason, and to have introduced a right Senfe of the Duty of Man, in Relation to the fuffering and returning of Injuries. To clear

clear this we must first fix a right Notion of Revenge; and it will then be manifeft, that the Execution of it belongeth to God alone.

And here in the first place, Self-defence is to be distinguished from Revenge: the want of which Diftinction hath mightily promoted the Cause of Revenge; while all the Arguments, which warrant a Self-defence, Men have employed in Affertion of Revenge.

Christianity forbids not thofe lawful means of Self-prefervation which Nature allows, and hath not herein in the least abridged the Privileges of Mankind. It is ftill lawful to repel Force with Force, to feek the Prefervation of Life and Fortune, even with the Destruction of an Adverfary, if it can be obtained no other way; provided that this Privilege be never employed to the diftrubance of the publick Peace of the World, or in oppofition to thofe lawful Powers, to whom both Life and Fortune are fubjected.

So far was God from difarming his People in this Cafe, and forbidding to them the Means of Self-defence; that he often exhorts them to fight their Battels couragiously, fent them Prophets to conduct them, endued their Commanders with Wisdom and Valour; and was even content that his own pofitive Precepts fhould yield to Self-defence, when the latter could not be main

tained without the violation of the former; as in the Cafe of fighting on the Sabbathday. A plain Argument that Self-defence is not only permitted by God, to Men, but even commanded to them; otherwise it could never take place of a pofitive Divine Precept; and that it is a Sin to neglect the lawful Means of Self-preferva

tion.

In the Gospel our Lord bids us indeed, If any one fmites us on the one Cheek to turn to him the other alfo; and if he takes away our Coat, to give him our Cloak alfo. But all this, as it appears from the Context to have been spoken in opposition to that eager Profecution of Revenge which was familiar to, and thought lawful by the Jews, fo it plainly amounts to no more than this; that rather than to endeavour Revenge, properly fo called, rather than to delight in the Mifery of an Enemy retaliated by us upon him, we fhould fuffor a yet much greater Lofs; that it were more preferable to endure a double Injury, than to contract the Guilt of Malice or Revenge.

Otherwife our Lord, who profeffeth it far from his Intentions to alter the leaft Tittle of the Moral Law, hath neither forbidden nor discountenanced a Self-defence, when free from Revenge and Malice. On the contrary, he hath ratified and approved, and even instituted the Civil Magistrate (for

St. Panl