people. A blow on the cheek was, always, an indignity, no doubt; but the sense of it was not inflamed in a Jew by our Gothic notions of honour; though, if it had, the divine Saviourb would scarce have advised his followers to extinguish it in the blood of a fellow-citizen: the loss of a veste, or under garment, was easily repaired, or not much felt, in the cheap and warm country of Judæa: and the compulsion to attend another, on his occasions, was not much resented by a people, that had been familiarised to this usage by their foreign

masters.

But, without scrutinizing the expression farther (which, as I said, is of the proverbial cast, and, therefore, not to be taken strictly) it appears certainly, that the rule enjoined is no more than this, "That we are not to act on the "old rigid principle of retaliation, but rather "to exercise a mutual patience and forbearance, in our intercourse with each other, for "the sake of charity and peace."

Still, it has been asked, whether this rule be a reasonable one, and whether the conduct, it prescribes, be not likely to do more hurt, than good to mankind?

b John xviii. 22, 23.

ο χιτῶνα.

alyagévou. See Grotius on the place.

The ground of this question is laid in the following considerations:

First, that resentment, being a natural passion, was, without doubt, implanted in us for valuable purposes, and that its proper and immediate use is seen in repelling injuries:

Secondly, That to eradicate, or to suppress this movement of nature, is to dispirit mankind, and to effeminate their character; in other words, to make them unfit for the discharge of those offices, which the good of society requires:

Lastly, That this softness of temper is injurious to the individuals, in whom it is found, as it exposes them to many insults, and much ill usage, which the exertion of a quick and spirited resentment would enable them to avoid :

From all which, conclusions are drawn very unfavourable to the doctrine of the text, and to the honour of our divine Master. It will, then, be proper to give the premises a distinct and careful examination. And,

I. The use of the natural passion of resentment is not superseded by the law of Jesus.

For the legitimate use of this passion is to quicken us in repelling such injuries as would render human life wholly burthensome and uneasy to us, not of those petty affronts and discourtesies which afflict us much less by being dissembled and forgiven, than by being resented and returned. Now Christianity does not require us to renounce the right of nature in repelling injuries of the former class. The law in question, as explained by our Lord himself, does not, we have seen, import thus much and for the rest, the appeal is open to the principles of nature and common senseWhy even of yourselves judge ye not what is right? The practice of the Apostles (the best comment on the law) shews, too, that, on certain critical and urgent occasions, they scrupled not to take advantage of those principles. So that universally, as it would seem, where the ends of self-preservation, or of prepollent public utility, require and justify resistance in other men, there it is left free for Christians, likewise, to resist evil; the purpose of their divine legislator being, in this instance, to explain the law of nature, and to guard it from the abuse of our hasty passions, not to abrogate, or suspend it.

Luke xii. 57.

f Acts xvi. 37. xxv. 11..

If any case be excepted from the general permission, it is that of persecution for the sake of his religion. And possibly this exception was made in the early days of Christianity, to afford a striking proof to the world that this religion owed its success to the divine protection only, and not to the power of men. Accordingly, the command given in that case has an extraordinary, that is, a suitable, promises, annexed to it. But the end of God's special providence having been answered, and the prophecies accomplished, by the patience of the saints under the fiery trial of persecution in those days (whence the miraculous establishment of our religion is evinced) it seems allowable to suppose that the Christian world was, thenceforth, in this, as in other instances, to conduct itself by the ordinary rules and

■ Matth. v. 11. x. 23. xxvi. 52. From the two last passages we learn, that the Jewish persecutors of Christ and his disciples were reserved for a special vengeance of Heaven; to be inflicted upon them in no long time, and here predicted, as it seems, to let the disciples know why, in this case, resistance was forbidden, God having taken the matter into his own hands.

The accomplishment of prophecy is given by Jesus himself as one reason, why he forbad resistance to the Jews-how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be, i. e. that the violence of the Jews should prevail? Matth. xxvi. 54.

principles of human wisdom; provided that the object of that wisdom be necessary selfdefence, and not dominion, or revenge, which, in all the forms of either, Christianity forbids. and reprobates.

But be this as it may, in cases where religion is not concerned, it seems clear that Christians are left at liberty to repell intolerable oppressions by all those means, which human wisdom dictates. And there is no need of drawing the line very exactly between tolerable and intolerable injuries, because the ag gressor, knowing the force of instinctive passion, has reason, always, to fear, that it will begin to operate too soon, rather, than too late.

The apprehension, then, that the proper use of the natural passion, "resentment of injuries," is likely to be defeated by the patient genius of the Gospel, is weakly entertained: While, on the other hand, every one must see the convenience of putting this fiery sentiment of indignation under some restraint, and of interdicting the exertion of it in cases, to which so violent a remedy is ill and hurtfully applied.