As there is in every man a natural inclination to vindicate himself from injuries, so ‘tis a Passion, that is, a natural act of the appetite. As this passion is duly guided in the exercise of its acts, by the rules of justice and prudence, both as to the proper objects, acts and circumstances of it, so ‘tis a virtue. As it doth deviate from and transgress these rules, so ‘tis a vice. Which may be said of all the other passions likewise, Anger, Love, Fear, &c. Though because of the general proclivity of men to offend in this kind, therefore the most ordinary use of the word is in this worst sense.

That desire which a man may have of occasioning to another some trouble and inconvenience upon the account of injury suffered from him, this is not absolutely and abstractedly considered, in it self evil, but may be both lawful and commendable, provided that the thing hereby chiefly aimed at be such a moderate castigation as may be requisite for the conviction and the amendment of the offender, a keeping up the authority of Laws, and a due satisfaction for the damages we have suffered. There being a vast difference betwixt the study of revenge, and the endeavour of reparation. This latter being no ways opposite to Christian love, meekness, mutual forgiveness; God himself may remit the sin, and not hate the person, and yet he may correct the offender, to vindicate his Law and repair his own honour.

But now on the other hand, when the thing we chiefly aim at, is mischief to the person by whom we have been injured, though we our selves receive no benefit thereby, besides the satisfaction of our own inraged passions: Such a wrathful retribution of evil is properly the sin of Revenge; whether or no the evil that we occasion to him, be either greater, or equal, or less, to what we have suffered from him.

2. What by revenging our selves? This expression doth direct to the proper agent of that suffering and penalty which we may occasion to another. Though persons of a private capacity may seek to bring such as injure them to punishment, yet they must not themselves inflict it, because there are others appointed to this work, namely the publick Magistrate, whose proper office this is, He is the Minister of God, a revenger, ἔκδικος, the same word as in the Text, to execute wrath upon him that doth evil, saith the Apostle in the next Chapter, Rom. 13.4. ‘tis a part this of distributive justice, and therefore doth belong to Governours, either to the Supreme, to whom it doth primarily appertain, or to those who are delegated by him; who are the Conservators of humane Societies, and Guardians of Laws. Without such revengers there could be no Government in the world; and therefore for private persons to invade their office, is in some sense to depose them, and consequently to destroy Government. Though even such publick persons to whose office this work doth properly belong, are not altogether exempted from the danger of this sin. Upon which account it is that Governours themselves ought not ordinarily to be Judges in their own particular concernments; or at least not to be the inflicters of the penalty upon such as injure them. To which may be added that such Magistrates who take delight in inflicting punishment as punishment; who do it with insolence, bitterness, contumely (which are against the common Laws of humanity) such as do not principally respect the good of the Community, and of the offending person, but have some secret regard to their own private utility, or the satisfaction of their particular anger: In such cases the Magistrate himself, whose office it is to revenge, may yet be guilty of the sin of revenge.

3. The third particular observed in the words is a Direction for the better observance of this duty, in that clause, but rather give place unto wrath. That expression of giving place, δότε τόπον, date locum, is a Metaphorical phrase. But ‘tis such a Metaphor as is not a peculiar Phraseology, but is somewhat general and significant in several languages. The meaning of it is to yield and submit unto. What kind of wrath is hereby intended is another question, fit to be discussed. There are three several senses that have each of them a fair pretence to the scope and meaning of this place.

4. It may signifie the wrath of thine enemy; do not immediately fly to an opposition of it, but rather withdraw from him that is provoked. Dum furor in cursu est, currenti cede furori. Iacob did so to his brother. Esau, when he was inraged against him, and resolved to kill him.

5. It may signifie the wrath of God. Do not prevent or hinder that by revenging your self. Take heed of invading his Office. Leave him to his own work. Commit your selves to him that judgeth righteously, 1 Pet. 2.23.

6. It may refer to our own wrath. To the impetuousness of which we must so far give place as not to act any thing upon the instigation of it. Respirate in vestro furore, neque ruite praecipites, donec ira vestra deferveat. Let it have some time to cool and abate, and take heed of being transported with it.

Each of these are suitable enough to the sense of the place, though the two first seem to be more agreeable to the Reason annexed.

4. Which is the fourth particular observable in the words: For it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay saith the Lord, Ἐμοὶ ἐκδίκησις, which refers to that place, Deut. 32.35· and to that Psal. 94.1. O Lord God to whom vengeance belongeth. Which is again repeated Heb. 10.30. For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompence saith the Lord.

And then it follows in the next verse of the Text, which is cited out of Prov. 25.21. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him, if he thirst give him drink. Under which expressions of meat and drink are comprehended all kind of necessaries or conveniences, which his condition may require. Be kind and benevolous to him, not only in case of extreme exigence, but so often as you have opportunity of procuring any considerable advantage to his condition, For in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head, whereby he shall be either melted into kindness, or burnt for his obdurateness.

Some think the meaning of this passage is to be restrained only to the first of these; it being against the chief scope of the place, and the highest kind of revenge for a man to aim at the exposing of another to divine wrath and vengeance; usually the roughest most obdurate tempers are to be subdued with kindness. David conquered Saul this way, and melted him into tears of repentance for his enmity against him. Nimis durus est animus, qui si dilectionem nolit impendere, nolit rependere, saith St. Austin. That man must needs be of a very savage inflexible temper, who is not to be bent by gentleness and kindness.¹ Some conceive this phrase to be an allusion to the custom of Artificers in their dealing with metals, which when they cannot bring to fusion by putting fire under them, they use to heap live coals on the head or top of them, and by that means do cause them to melt. That man is to be utterly despaired of as being without all sense of humanity, whom repeated kindness will not melt and dissolve.

But now because the most usual sense of this expression, coals of fire, doth denote punishment and vengeance, according to the proper importance of it in other Scriptures, as Psal. 18.8, 12, 13. & 140.12. and several other places. Therefore this sense is not to be wholly neglected, nor is it unlawful for a man in a secondary way to have respect unto it. And ‘tis most suitable to that clause in the precedent verse, Vengeance is mine. Though withal it must be granted, that the precept in the verse immediately following of overcoming evil with good, doth seem to favour more the former sense.

And so much for Explication of the Text, both as to the Context and the Terms of it.

The Proposition I would insist upon shall be this: (Prop)Christians ought to be very cautious against this sin of revenge.

The Apostle doth in this place insist much upon it, frequently repeats the prohibition to this purpose, which he endeavours to insinuate by the most loving perswasions, and to enforce by several arguments to shew of how great moment and consequence this duty is. And ‘tis withal both agreeable to the light of nature, and to several other precepts and examples, both in the Old and New Testament.

And first, ‘tis most consonant this to the clear light of nature, and such moral principles as are common to all mankind. Though I know very well that divers eminent Authors, the learned Grotius and others do from hence endeavour to prove the insufficiency of Reason and Philosophy for the discovery and attainment of true virtue. Because the wisest and best of the Heathen do indulge themselves in this matter of revenge. To which purpose they usually cite those sayings out of Aristotle, where he reckons it for a virtue, and in another place where he saith, Servile est, si contumeliose tracteris, id tolerare. And that of Cicero, where he mentions revenge amongst those things, Quae ad jus naturae pertinent. Besides that Doctrine of the Stoicks, who were a sect of men most strict and sublime in their morality; amongst whom notwithstanding it was a principle, Sapientem non ignoscere, non misereri. That a wise man ought not to pardon another mans faults, nor to compassionate his sufferings. For which Seneca reasons thus, Venia est poenae meritae remissio.² Ergo ei ignoscitur qui puniri debuit. Sapiens autem nihil facit quod non debet. To which may be added that Doctrine of the Alchoran, wherein the remitting of injuries and neglect of revenge, is condemned as an impious thing.

From all which ‘tis inferred that this prohibition of revenge is a pure institution belonging to the Gospel and Christian Religion, and not derivable from the light of nature.

But with reverence to those great Names, this will upon an impartial inquiry be found to be a mistake; all the Agenda of Christianity being so far from being opposite that they are most agreeable to humane reason, as ‘tis cultivated and heightned to its utmost improvement by Philosophy. As for those speeches that are cited to this purpose, they may refer to the passion or virtue of Revenge, not the vice of it. The same Authors abounding in many severe prohibitions against this vice. Besides the many arguments they produce of the unlawfulness and mischief of it, as the inconsistency of it with Government and Society, with several other reasons which I may have occasion to mention afterwards. And the plain truth is, there is not any one thing in morality that is capable of being made out by clearer natural evidence than the sinfulness of revenge, supposing men to live under Laws and Government, as I shall hereafter endeavour to shew.

As for Scripture evidence to this purpose out of the Old Testament, nothing can be more express than that place, Levit. 19.18. Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudg against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self. To which is annexed the same reason as in the Text, I am the Lord. Nor is this to be extended meerly to their persons, but to their possessions likewise. Exod. 23.4, 5. If thou meet thine enemies ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou seest the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden, thou shalt surely help with him.

Though it cannot be denied that amongst the Judicial Laws of the Iewish Nation, there are some that seem to make an allowance and indulgence for the frowardness and hardness of that people in this particular (whether the revenger of blood were not commanded to kill the man-slayer see Weemes, 2. Vol. 2. part, p. 129.) as that concerning the liberty for the avenger of blood, while his heart is hot, to pursue him that had unwittingly slain his neighbour, and if he could overtake him before he got to one of the Cities of Refuge to be revenged of him, Deut. 19.6. Iosh. 20.3. Besides those other Laws of retaliation, of an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; yet these Laws were not established amongst them out of any fitness or commendableness of the things in themselves absolutely considered, but only indulged by way of permission, as being most suitable to the imperfect state of that people, and for the prevention of greater mischiefs amongst them, as Tertullian hath stated this business, and out of him the learned Grotius in his Book de jure belli & pacis, Lib. 2. Cap. 20. §. 10.

Prov. 19.11. the wise man tells us that ‘tis the discretion of a man to defer his anger, and his glory to pass over a transgression. ‘Tis the want of prudence and generosity that doth hastily transport men to the retribution of injuries.

Prov. 24.17, 18. Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth, Lest the Lord see it, and it displease him, and he turn away his wrath from him to thee. Where not only the doing of mischief our selves, but the rejoicing at that which upon any other account doth happen to him is prohibited as an unworthy thing. And David complains of it as very injurious dealing that his enemies rejoiced at his adversity, Psal. 35.15. though he had compassion on them when they were sick, and behaved himself as to his friend or brother.

Ezek. 25.12. there are severe threatnings denounced against Edom, because he had greatly offended by taking vengeance, and revenging himself upon the house of Iudah, ver. 14. Therefore will I lay my vengeance upon Edom, according to mine anger, and according to my fury, and they shall know my vengeance, saith the Lord God. And ver. 15. Because the Philistines have dealt by revenge, and have taken vengeance with a despiteful heart to destroy it for the old hatred; therefore thus saith the Lord, Behold I will stretch out my hands against the Philistines, and I will execute great vengeance upon them, with furious rebukes.

But the Gospel is much more copious to this purpose, wherein our Saviour doth require an higher degree of perfection in this kind, and doth abolish those indulgences which the Iudicial Law did admit. He expects that Christians should be so far from being overcome with this passion of private revenge, that they should rather suffer patiently a second and third injury than revenge one. Which is the true meaning of that precept, Mat. 5 39. Whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. That expression of turning the cheek, being a usual Scripture-phrase to signifie bearing evil patiently, Isa. 50.6. Lament. 3.30.

And v. 44. I say unto you love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you. For if you love them that love you, what reward have you, do not even Publicans and sinners the same? But when once you come to love and do good to enemies, this will prove you to be children of the Highest, and render you perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect,³ ver. 48.

Mat. 6. Having taught his Disciples that form of prayer, wherein they are to beg a conditional pardon of their own sins, Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us. Of which it may be said (as of the fifth Commandment that it was the first with promise) so was this the first, the only Petition with condition. And having signified this form, he returns immediately after to comment upon this clause (singling it out from all the other Petitions as laying great weight upon it) and this he doth both positively, ver. 14. For if ye forgive men their trespasses, then will your Heavenly Father forgive you your trespasses. And negatively, v. 15. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Heavenly Father forgive your trespasses. By which place it appears that he who meditates revenge must curse himself when he prays; he must carry in his own bosom the evidence that his sins are unpardoned, and likewise a bar and incapacity, whereby he is disabled to ask or expect the forgiveness of them.

To which may be added that Precept of being reconciled to our brother before we bring our gift to the Altar, Mat. 5. The thoughts of revenge will render our offerings and services unacceptable. As likewise that Parable concerning the wicked servant, Mat. 18. who refused to forgive his fellow servant a hundred pence, though his Lord had remitted to him ten thousand Talents.

I might mention several Examples to this purpose; that of Ioseph towards his Brethren: that of Iob, Chap. 31.29. who professed that he rejoiced not at the destruction of him that hated him; nor lift up himself when evil found him. That of St. Stephen who prayed for those that stoned him, saying, Lord lay not this sin to their charge, Act. 7.60. And above all that of our Saviour himself, Who when he was reviled, reviled not again, when he suffered he threatned not, but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously, 1 Pet. 2.23.

I proceed to some Reasons or Arguments for the confirmation of this Proposition. And shall mention six.

1. ‘Tis a sin against God, the supreme Governour of the world, to whom this work of vengeance belongeth; which is the reason in the Text. And therefore men who intrude upon it without his commission, do but invade his office; and consequently renounce their subjection to him, and put themselves out of his protection. We that are poor dependant Creatures, earthen vessels, worms and no men, think our selves highly injured and affronted when those that are in any inferiour relation to us, our children or servants shall take upon them to revenge themselves upon one another without appealing to us to do them right. Why, God is infinitely more just, powerful, omniscient, and therefore hath much more reason to resent it as an high indignity when his creatures and vassals shall so far forget their dependance upon him as to invade his office. The Apostle tells us, Iam. 1.20. That the wrath of men worketh not the righteousness of God. That justice which is done by a wrathful man doth not render him righteous in the sight of God. Or God hath not appointed that violent revengeful disposition of men to be the executor of his justice; because ‘tis not like to effect it with such a mixture of mercy as he will approve or accept of.

2. ‘Tis against Government, Magistrates, Laws; those bonds of Societies, which are all needless and in vain, if every one may take a liberty of righting himself. ‘Tis the very end of Magistracy to prevent this. He is made a publick Avenger, to distribute rewards and punishments according to stated Laws, that private men might not intermeddle with it. ‘Tis true indeed, as for such barbarous savage people as live wild, without being associated and united by those bonds of justice, ‘tis no wonder if such be continually retaliating of injuries according to the opportunities and advantages they can get over one another; there being no other remedy for men who live according to a state of nature, amongst whom there is no person or place for appeal. And thus likewise is it with such publick persons, betwixt whom there is no common Judg to state and vindicate their differences (as Soveraign Princes are) there being in such cases no other remedy (unless they can accommodate things by Treaty) but that War must follow, and the sword decide their Controversies. But when men are once associated under Government and Laws, they must then have recourse to such as are deputed to this office of vindicating common justice. Have you received an injury, saith Quintilian, Est lex, forum, judex nisi vos jure vindicari pudet; There are Laws, Courts, Iudges, unless your cause be such as you are ashamed or afraid to bring it unto the trial and determination of Law. Though even in this way ‘tis not for every trivial offence that we are to trouble our neighbour; nor for matters of moment, till all other ways of accommodation have been first offered and tried, Law being a kind of War, which must be the last means for Peace.

3. ‘Tis against the very scope and spirit of Christianity, which consists in self-denial, taking up the Cross, meekness, loving our enemies, forgiving such as trespass against us. The great rule of Christianity is not to do to others as they do to us, but as we would have them do to us. Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do you the same unto them, Mat. 7.12.

4. ‘Tis against humanity; Inhumanum verbum est ultio, saith Seneca. ‘Tis proper enough for wild brute creatures, but not for men. Nothing becomes humane nature more than gentleness and humanity. (Quintil) Laus humanitatis potius quam voluptas ultionis concupiscenda est, saith one of the Roman Orators. The pleasure of revenge ought not to stand in any competition with the praise of humanity. Nothing is more universally necessary for the peace and welfare of humane Societies, than mutual pardon and forbearance; because every one must frequently stand in need of it for himself, and therefore must be ready to extend it to others. He that hath any real sense of his own frail condition, will find reason enough not to take all advantages he may against others.

5. ‘Tis against our own quiet and welfare; which consists in such a serene and be calmed spirit as will not let the Sun go down upon our wrath. The study of revenge will be a means to keep wounds green and festering, whereas otherwise they might heal. Multi leves injurias altius sibi dimisêre dum vindicant. (Senec) This gives impression to a slight injury, and makes it wound deep when we resent it with revengeful thoughts. Maledicta, si irascaris, agnita videntur, spreta exolescunt. He that neglects an injury, doth blunt the edge of it. Provoking words (saith the Son of Syrach, Eccles. 28.12.) are like a coal of fire, which if a man blow upon, it will kindle the more, but if he spit upon it, ‘twill go out.

Besides that it will be a means to multiply and renew fresh injuries upon us. If we cannot stop at the first blow, why should we expect that our adversary should stop at the second? He that will strike when he is not provoked, will do so much more when he is smitten again, and so we shall but help to draw the sawe of contention, and multiply sufferings upon our selves by endeavouring to retaliate them upon others.

6. Revenge is in it self as great, and in many respects a much greater sin, than the first injury whereby ‘tis occasioned. Quid refert inter provocantem & provocatum,⁴ nisi quod ille prior in maleficio deprehenditur, & ille posterior. All the difference betwixt the provoker and revenger is this, That the one is first, the other second in the mischief. Et quid refert primus pecces an ultimus? And what advantage is there for a man to be first or second in an evil action? It cannot certainly be any good argument, that because such an one sinned first, therefore we will second him: Qui dolorem regerit tantum excusatius peccat (saith Seneca), He that doth revenge, doth sin as well as the other,⁵ though he have this excuse for it, that he was first provoked to it. And yet in another place he saith, Non dubitabo dicere magis improbum esse eum, qui illatam ulciscitur quàm qui infert injuriam. I shall not doubt to affirm that man of the two to be the most wicked, who revenges, than he who inflicts an injury. Qui replicat multiplicat. Alter principium malo dedit, alter modum abstulit. One gives a beginning, the other growth, multiplication, continuance, and consequently endeavours to make it without measure or end. The first violates some particular branch of the Law, but the revenge of that wrong doth depose the whole Law, and puts it out of office. He that hath newly received an injury, and hath the sense of it fresh upon his own mind, doth thereby better understand the vexation and grievousness of it; and therefore for him to deal hardly with others, whilst he hath this sense fresh upon him, must needs from hence receive an aggravation, Qui exemplo peccat, bis peccat, he having immediately before experimented the deformity and mischief of that sin in another.

If it be objected against all this which hath been delivered, that we read sometimes in Scripture of good men who are said to rejoice at the sight of vengeance upon others, Psal. 58.10. The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance. And elsewhere they are said to pray for vengeance, Ier. 11.20. O Lord of Hosts that judgest righteously, (Chap. 20.12) let me see thy vengeance upon them. So St. Paul, 2 Tim. 4.14. speaking of Alexander the Coppersmith doing him much harm, adds, the Lord reward him according to his works. And Revel. 6.10. ‘Tis said, that the souls under the Altar do cry with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true dost thou not judg and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth. Besides several imprecations in other places.

To this it may be answered: 1. That as a man may pity men under those sufferings, which he may acknowledg to be just upon them, so he may rejoice at those sufferings as they are accomplishments of Divine justice, though not as they are revenge for his particular injuries. 2. To speak unto God that he would vindicate us, is but to appeal unto the supreme Judg that he would do us right, to commit our cause unto him that judgeth righteously, as is said of our Saviour, 1 Pet. 2.23. Though this should be in such a manner as may tend to the conviction, reformation and forgiveness of the offending person, rather than to his ruin and condemnation; unless it be for such extraordinary persons as have a spirit of discerning, and are able to penetrate into the true state of men as to their implacable incorrigible condition. Other persons should consider what spirit they are of as our Saviour tells the Disciples Iames and Iohn. Every man may not call for fire from heaven to destroy others, though Elias did and might.

---

← Sermon 13 · Contents · Sermon 15 →

Footnotes

1. Dr. Hammond. ↩

2. De Clementia. 2.6. ↩

3. Luk. 6.35. ↩

4. Tertul. de Patientia. ↩

5. De Ira. ↩