"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 so in no part of its compo"fition. This, and nothing else, is the cha "racter defigned in the following remark"able paffages: Refift not evil, but who"foever 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 cloke also; and whofoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go "with him twain: love your enemies; bless "them that curfe you; do good to them that "bate you; and pray for them which despitefully ufe you, and perfecute you. This, certainly, is not common-place morality. "It is very original. It fhews at least (and it is for this purpose we produce it) that no two things can be more dif"ferent than the heroic and the Chriftian " character."

"Now

"Now the author to whom I refer

[Mr. Jenyns] has not only remarked "this difference more ftrongly than any

preceding writer, but has proved in con"tradiction to firft impreffions, to popular "opinion, to the encomiums of orators "and poets, and even to the fuffrages " of hiftorians and moralifts, that the latter

poffeffes the most of true worth, as being "most difficult either to be acquired or "sustained, and as contributing moft to "the happiness of focial life." Mr. Paley then gives the ftate of Mr. Jenyns's argument. But, not to extend the quotation, let us admit that the latter of these characters is demonftrated to be the preferable one. Nevertheless, may it not ftill be, in point of moral excellence, very inferior to what we can conceive? And may we not, very naturally, inquire further,

* See Paley's View of the Evidences of Chrif tianity, vol. ii. pp. 101, 102, 103, 104.

Whether it be not possible to resist and oppose the unjuft treatment of wicked men, without being actuated by a spirit of revenge?

Whether the oppofing injustice, with firmness and temper, be not the best way to check it?

Whether non-refiftance of ill-treatment be not the ready way to invite it *?

The Quakers feem to have been the only confiftent chriftians in regard to the doctrine of nonrefiftance: all other chriftians having not only practifed in direct oppofition to their Mafter's precepts, but having, likewife, contumaciously defended their practice. On this occafion, I cannot avoid recollecting the ridicule upon the conduct of the Friends, which Lord Lyttelton, the great champion of christianity, has put into the mouth of Cortez, the conqueror of Mexico, in his dialogue with William Penn. And, I doubt not, his lord ship confidered Cortez's retort not merely as natural for him to ufe, but as juft in itself.-See Dialogues of the Dead.

Whether

Whether the happiness of focial life be not better promoted by properly checking unjust men, than by inviting and encouraging them to acts of injustice?

Whether the precepts enjoining the nonresistance of evil, the complying with unjuft requirements, even beyond what is required, the giving more of one's property to him who would wrongfully take away a part (i. e. literally giving a reward for a robbery) do not enjoin a false and unfound fpecies of morality? And, lastly,

Whether it be reasonable to expect that fuch morality fhould proceed from a teacher of morals, immediately fent from God, and by him fpecially appointed to that office?

In a fermon of Tillotfon's, on the obligations of chriftians to a holy life, he uses this language, "When thou art about to "debafe thyfelf-remember thou art

"chriftian." So fpeaks the archbishop; and he is, by no means, fingular. But the exhortation does not accord very happily with the archdeacon's defcription of the christian character, as being a poor-spirited thing, tame and abject; a character, however, which he affirms that Chrift himself exemplified. This, it must be owned, is extraordinary, as coming from a friend to christianity, and a chriftian advocate. What other christians think of it, I know not. Yet it is certainly a queftion which they will do well to confider attentively, Whether Mr. Paley be authorized, by the paffages he has cited, to apply, as he has, the above-mentioned revolting epithets? Whatever may be their determination on this point, it must be evident, I think, to any person who will exercife his judgment freely, as on other occafions, that the morality of the New Teftament is, at least, imperfect and defective. But I will venture further and to affirm, that the doc

to go

trine