PHI LOS 0 P H Y . - Classic Works of Apologetics Online

Revenge. 181
fi·om us a vote to which his qualifications entitle
him, we may not refuse it from motives of resentment,
or the remembrance of- wha t we have suffered
at his hands. His right, and our obligation, which
fellows the right, are not altered by his enmity to us,
or by ours to him.
On the other hand, I do not conceive, that these
_ prohibitions u-ere intended to interfere wit h the
punishment or prosecution of public cffender~. In
the eighteenth chapter of St. Matthew, our Sa,iourtells
his disciples,_" If thy brother who has trespassed
against thee neglect to hear the church, let him be unto
thee as an h~athen·man! and a publican." Immcdiately
after this, when St. Peter asked him, "How
oft shaH mY' brother sin against me, and I forgive
him? till Sf:ven times ?" Christ replied, "I say not
unto thee until seven times, but until seventy timES
seven ;" tb.at is, as often as he r~peats the offence.
From these two adjoining passages compared tog.eth- -­
er, we are authorized to conclude that the forgiveness
. of an enemy is not inconjistent with the proceeding
against him as a public offender; and that
the discipline established in religious or civil societie!\,
for the restraint or punishment of criminals, ought
to be upheld.
If the magistrate be not tied down by these prohibitions
from the execution of his office, neither is
the prosecutor; for the office of the prosecutor is as
necessary as that of the magistrate.
Nor, by parity of reason, are private persons with ...
held frorn the correction of \rice, \vhen it is in their
power to exercise it; pro\'ided they be assured that
it is the guilt which provokes them, and not the injury;
2Lnd at their motives are pure from aU mixture
and every particle of that spirit which delights
and triumphs in the" humiliation of an adversary.
Thus, it is no breach of Christian charity:> to withdraw
our company or civility when the same tenus
to discountenance any vicious practice. This is one