Under the firft head, I fhould willingly, if the limits and nature of my work admitted of it, tranfcribe into this chapter the whole of what has been faid upon the morality of the gofpel, by the author of the internal evidence of Chriftianity; because it perfectly agrees with my own opinion, and because it is impofGible to fay the fame things fo well. This acute obferver of human nature, and, as I believe, fincere convert to Chriftianity, appears to me to have made out fatisfactorily the two following pofitions, viz.

I. That the gospel omits fome qualities, which have ufually engaged the praises and admiration of mankind, but which, in reality, and in their general effects, have been prejudicial to human happiness.

II. That the gofpel has brought forward fome virtues, which poffefs the higheft intrinsic value, but which have commonly been overlooked and contemned.

The first of thefe propofitions he exemplifies, in the inftances. of friendship, patriotifm, active courage; in the fenfe in which thefe qualities are usually understood, and in the conduct which they often produce..

The fecond, in the inftances of paffive courage or endurance of fufferings, patience under affronts and injuries, humility, irrefiftance, placability.

The truth is, there are two oppofite defcriptions of character, under which mankind may generally be claffed. The one poffeffes vigour, firmnefs, refolution, is daring and active, quick in its fenfibilities, jealous of its fame, eager in its attachments, inflexible in its purpose, violent in its refentments.

The other, mcek, yielding, complying, forgiving; not prompt to act but willing to fuffer, filent and gentle under rudeness and infult, fuing for reconciliation where others would demand fatisfaction, giving way to the pufnes of impudence, conceding and indulgent to the prejudices, the wrong-headednefs, the intractability of thofe with whom it has to deal.

The former of thefe characters is, and ever hath been, the favourite of the world. It is the character of great men. There is a dignity in it which univerfally commands respect.

The latter is poor-fpirited, tame, and abject. Yet fo it hath happened, that, with the founder of Chriftianity, this latter is the fubject of his commendation, his precepts, his example; and that the former is fo, ia no part of its compofition.

P

This,

and nothing else, is the character defigned in the following semarkable paffage : "Refift not evil; but whofoever shall fmite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other alfo ; and if any man will fue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak alfo ; and whofoever fhall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain; love your enemies; bless them that curfe you; do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which defpitefully use and perfecute you.' This certainly is not common-place morality. It is very original. It shows at leaft (and it is for this purpose we produce it) that no two things can be more different than the heroic and the Christian character.

Now the author, to whom I refer, has not only remarked this difference more ftrongly than any preceding writer, but has proved, in contradiction to first impreffions, to popular opinion, to the encomiums of orators and poets, and even to the fuffrages of hiftorians and moralists, that the latter character poffeffes the most of true worth, both as being most difficult either to be acquired or fuftained, and as contributing most to the happiness and tranquillity of focial life. The ftate of his argument is as follows:

I. If this difpofition were univerfal, the cafe is clear: the world would be a fociety of friends. Whereas, if the other difpofition were univerfal, it would produce a scene of univerfal contention. The world could not hold a generation of fuch

men.

II. If, what is the fact, the difpofition be partial; if a few be actuated by it, amongst a multitude who are not, in whatever degree it does prevail, in the fame proportion it prevents, allays, and terminates quarrels, the great disturbers of human happinefs, and the great fources of human mifery, fo far as man's happiness and mifery depend upon man. Without this difpofition enmities muft not only be frequent, but, once begun, must be eternal; for each retaliation being a fresh injury, and, confequently, requiring a fresh fatisfaction, no period can be affigned to the reciprocation of affronts, and to the progrefs of hatred, but that which closes the lives, or at least the intercourse, of the parties.

I would only add to these observations, that although the former of the two characters above described may be occafionally useful, although, perhaps, a great general, or a great statesman, may be formed, and thefe may be inftruments of impor

tant benefits to mankind, yet is this nothing more than what is true of many qualities, which are acknowledged to be vicious. Envy is a quality of this fort. I know not a ftronger ftimulus to exertion. Many a fcholar, many an artift, many a foldier, has been produced by it. Nevertheless, fince in its general effects it is noxious, it is properly condemned, certainly is not praised, by fober moralifts.

It was a portion of the fame character as that we are defending, or rather of his love of the fame character, which our Saviour difplayed, in his repeated correction of the ambition of his difciples; his frequent admonitions, that greatnefs with them was to confift in humility; his cenfure of that love of distinction, and greediness of fuperiority, which the chief perfons amongst his countrymen were wont, on all occafions, great and little, to betray. They (the fcribes and pharifees) love the uppermost rooms at feafts, and the chief feats in the fynagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren; and call no man your father upon the earth, for one is your Father, which is in heaven; neither be ye called masters, for one is your Mafter, even Chrift; but he that is greatest among you shall be your fervant, and whosoever fhall exalt himself shall be abafed, and he that shall hunible himself fhall be exalted."a I make no farther remark upon these paffages (because they are, in truth, only a repetition of the doctrine, different expreffions of the principle, which we have al ready ftated) except that fome of the paffages, especially our Lord's advice to the guests at an entertainment, (Luke xiv. 7.) feem to extend the rule to what we call manners; which was, both regular in point of confiftency, and not fo much beneath the dignity of our Lord's miffion as may at firft fight be fup pofed, for bad manners are bad morals.

It is fufficiently apparent, that the precepts we have recited, or rather the difpofition which thefe precepts inculcate, relate to perfonal conduct from perfonal motives; to cafes in which men act from impulfe, for themselves, and from themselves. When it comes to be confidered, what is neceffary to be done for the fake of the public, and out of a regard to the general welfare (which confideration, for the most part, ought exclu fively to govern the duties of men in public stations) it comes

a Mat. xxiii, 6. See also Mark xii. 39. Luke xx 43. xiv. 7.

to a cafe to which the rules do not belong.

This diftinction is plain; and, if it were lefs fo, the confequence would not be much felt, for, it is very feldom that, in the intercourfe of private life, men act with public views. The perfonal motives, from which they do act, the rule regulates.

The preference of the patient to the heroic character which we have here noticed, and which the reader will find explained at large in the work to which we have referred him, is a peculiarity in the Chriftian inftitution, which I propofe as an argument of wifdem, very much beyond the fituation and natural character of the perfon who delivered it.

II. A fecond argument, drawn from the morality of the New Teftament, is the ftrefs which is laid by our Saviour upon the regulation of the thoughts. And I place this confideration. next to the other, because they are connected. The other related to the malicious paffions, this to the voluptuous. Together they comprehend the whole character.

"Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, &c.-Thefe are the things which defile a man." Mat. xx. 19.

"Woe unto you, fcribes and pharifees, hypocrites, for ye make clean the outfide of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excefs.-Ye are like unto whited fepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleannefs; Even fo ye alfo outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrify and iniquity." Mat. xxiii. 25, 27.

And more particularly that ftrong expreffion, (Mat. v. 28) "Whofoever looketh on a woman to luft after her, hath committed adultery already with her in his heart."

There can be no doubt with any reflecting mind, but that the propenfities of our nature must be fubjected to regulation; but the question is, where the check ought to be placed, upon the thought, or only upon action. In this queftion our Saviour, in the texts here quoted, has pronounced a decifive judgment. He makes the control of thought effential. Internal purity with him is every thing. Now I contend that this is the only difcipline which can fucceed; in other words, that a moral fyftem, which prohibits actions, but leaves the thoughts at liberty, will be ineffectual, and is therefore unwife. I know not how to go about the proof of a point, which depends upon experience, and upon a knowledge of the human conftitution, better

than by citing the judgment of perfons, who appear to have given great attention to the subject, and to be well qualified to form a true opinion about it. Boerhaave, fpeaking of this very declaration of our Saviour, "whofoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart," and understanding it, as we do, to contain an injunction to lay the check upon the thoughts, was wont to fay, that "our Saviour knew mankind better than Socrates." Haller, who has recorded this faying of Boerhaave's, adds to it the following remark of his own:a "It did not escape the obfervation of our Saviour, that the rejection of any evil thoughts was the beft defence against vice; for, when a debauched perfon fills his imagination with impure pictures, the licentious ideas which he recals, fail not to flimulate his defires with a degree of violence which he cannot refift. This will be followed by gratification, unless fome external obstacle should prevent him from the commission of a fin, which he had internally refolved on." "Every mo. ment of time (fays our author) that is spent in meditations up. on fin, increases the power of the dangerous object which has poffeffed our imagination." I fuppofe thefe reflections will be generally affented to.

III. Thirdly, had a teacher of morality been asked concerning a general principle of conduct, and for a fhort rule of life; and had he inftructed the person who confulted him, “conftantly to refer his actions to what he believed to be the will of his Creator, and conftantly to have in view, not his own intereft and gratification alone, but the happiness and comfort of thofe about him," he would have been thought, I doubt not, in any age of the world, and in any, even the most improved state of morals, to have delivered a judicious anfwer; because, by the first direction, he fuggefted the only motive which acts steadily and uniformly, in fight and out of fight, in familiar occurrences and under preffing temptations; and, in the fecond, he corrected, what, of all tendencies in the human character, stands moft in need of correction, selfishness, a contempt of other men's conveniency and fatisfaction. In eftimating the value of a moral rule, we are to have regard, not only to the particular duty, but the general fpirit; not only to what it directs us to do, but to the

a Letters to his daughter.