Epicurus will have it, that a wise man will _bear all injuries_; but the Stoics will not allow those things to be _injuries_ which Epicurus calls so. Now, betwixt _these two_, there is the same difference that we find betwixt two _gladiators_; the one receives wounds, but yet maintains his ground, the other tells the people, when he is in blood, that _it is but a scratch_, and will not suffer anybody to part them. An _injury_ cannot be received, but it must be _done_; but it may be _done_ and yet not _received_; as a man may be in the water, and not swim, but if he swims, it is presumed that he is in the water. Or if a blow or a shot be levelled at us, it may so happen that a man may miss his aim, or some accident interpose that may divert the mischief. That which is hurt is passive, and inferior to that which hurts it. But you will say, that Socrates was condemned and put to death, and so received an injury; but I answer, that the tyrants _did_ him an injury, and yet he _received_ none. He that steals anything from me and hides it in my own house, though I have not lost it, yet he has stolen it. He that lies with his own wife, and takes her for another woman, though the woman be honest, the man is an adulterer. Suppose a man gives me a draught of poison and it proves not strong enough to kill me, his guilt is nevertheless for the disappointment. He that makes a pass at me is as much a murderer, though I put it by, as if he had struck me to the heart. It is the intention, not the effect, that makes the wickedness. He is a thief that has the will of killing and slaying, before his hand is dipt in blood; as it is sacrilege, the very intention of laying violent hands upon holy things. If a philosopher be exposed to torments, the ax over his head, his body wounded, his guts in his hands, I will allow him to groan; for virtue itself cannot divest him of the nature of a man; but if his mind stand firm, he has discharged his part.