they have received one? Whether this eager fenfibility of wrongs and' resentment arifes from that general cause, to which the fon of Sirach feems to reduce all fierce anger and paffion; or whether to a certain foreness of tem per, which stands in every body's way, and therefore subject to be often hurt: from whichever caufe the diforder fprings, the advice of the author of the book of Ecclefiafticus is proper: “Admonish a friend, fays he, it may be he hath not done it; and if he have, that he do it not again. Admonish thy friend, it may be he hath not faid it; and if he have, that he fpeak it not again. There is that flippeth in his fpeech, but not from his heart: and who is he, who hath not offended with his tongue ?" I cannot help taking notice here of a certain fpecies of forgiveness, which is feldom enforced or thought of, and yet is no way below our regard. I mean the forgiveness of thofe, if we may be allowed the expreffion, whom we have injured ourselves. One would think that the difficulty of forgiving could only reft on the fide of him who has received the wrong; but the truth of the fact is often otherwife. The consciousness of having provoked another's refentment, often excites the aggreffor to keep before-hand with the man he has hurt, and not only to hate him for the evil he expects in return, but even to pursue him down, and put it out of his power to make reprisals. The bafenefs of this is fuch, that it is fufficient to make the fame obfervation, |