thy cloak alfo; and whofcever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." By the Mofaic law, retaliation was permitted; an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, might legally be de mandedt. Among the ancient heathens, private revenge was indulged without fcruple and without mercy. favage nations in America, as well as in almost every other part of the world, fet no bounds to the perfevering rancour and the cool deliberate malignity with which they will pursue, for years together, not only the person him felf from whom they have received an injury, but fome times every one related to or connected with him. The Arabs are equally implacable in their refentments; and the Koran itself, in the cafe of murder, allows private revenget. It was to check this furious, ungovernable paffion, fo univerfally prevalent over the earth, that our Saviour de livers the precepts now before us. "I fay unto you refift not evil; but if any one fmite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other alfo." No one can imagine that this injunction, and thofe of the fame kind that follow, are to be understood strictly and literally; that we are to fubmit, without the leaft oppofition, to every injury and every infult that is offered to us, and are abfolutely preclu ded from every degree of self-preservation and self-defence. This can never be intended; and the example of St. Paul, who repelled with proper fpirit, the infult offered him as a Roman citizen, very clearly proves that we are not to permit ourselves to be trampled on by the foot of pride and oppreffion, without expreffing a juft fenfe of the inju ry done to us, and endeavoring to avert and repel it. It cannot therefore, be meant, that if any one, by a cruel and expenfive litigation, fhould deprive us of a part of our property, we fhould not only relinquish to him that part, but requeft him alfo to accept every thing elfe we have in the world. Nor can it be meant, that if a man fhould actually strike us on one cheek, we fhould immedi + Levit. xxiv. 20. Deut. xix, 21. *Matth. v. 38-41. ately turn to him the other, and defire the blow to be repeated. This could not poffibly answer any one rational purpose, nor conduce in the least to the peace and happinefs of mankind, which were certainly the objects our Saviour had in view; on the contrary, it would tend materially to obftruct both by inviting injury, and encouraging infult and oppreffion. Common fenfe therefore, as well as common utility, require that we fhould confider the particular inftances of behaviour under the injuries here specified, as nothing more than strong oriental idioms, as proverbial and figurative expreffions, intended only to convey a general precept, and to defcribe that peculiar temper and difpofition which the Gofpel requires; that patience, gentleness, mildness, moderation, and forbearance under injuries and affronts, which is best calculated to preserve the peace of our own minds, as well as that of the world at large; which tends to soften refentment and turn away wrath; and without which, on one fide or the other, provocations must be endless, and enmities eternal. All therefore, that is here required of us is plainly and fimply this, that we should not fuffer our refentment of injuries to carry us beyond the bounds of juftice, equity, and Christian charity; that we should not (as St. Paul well explains this paffage) recompence evil for evil*, that is, repay one injury by committing another; that we should not take fire at every flight provocation or trivial offence, nor pursue even the greatest and moft flagrant injuries with inplacable fury and inextinguishable rancour : that we should make all reasonable allowances for the infirmities of human nature, for the paffions, the prejudices, the failings, the misapprehenfions of thofe we have to deal with; and without fubmitting tamely to oppreffion or infult, or giving up rights of great and acknowledged importance, fhould always fhow a difpofition to conciliate and forgive; and rather to recede and give way a little in certain inftances, than infift on the utmost fatisfaction and reparation that we have perhaps a ftrict right to demand. *Rom. xii. 17. The chapter concludes with another remarkable precept, which may strictly be called a new commandment; for in no moral code is it to be found, till our Lord gave it a place in his. The precept is this: "Ye have heard it has been said, thou fhalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy. But I fay unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curfe you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which defpitefully ufe you, and perfecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for he maketh his fun to rife on the evil and on the good, and fendeth rain on the just and on the unjust*." So noble, fo fublime, and so benevolent a precept, was never before given to man; and it is one strong proof, among many others, of the originality of our Saviour's character and religion. The Jews were exprefsly commanded to love their neighbor; but this injunction was not extended to their enemies, and they therefore thought that this was a tacit permiffion to hate them; a conclusion which feemed to be much strengthened by their being enjoined to wage eternal war with one of their enemies, the Canaanites, to show them no mercy, but to root them out of the land. In confequence of this, they did entertain ftrong prejudices and malignant fentiments toward every other nation but their own, and were juftly reproached for this by the Roman historian; "apud ipfos mifericordia in promptu, adverfus omnes alios hoftile odiumt:" that is, towards each other they are compaffionate and kind; towards all others they cherish a deadly hatred. But it ought in juftice to be observed, that this remark of Tacitus might have been applied, with almoft equal aptitude, both to his own countrymen the Romans, and to the Greeks, for they gave to all other nations but themselves the name of barbarians; and having ftigmatized them with this opprobrious appellation, they treated them as if they were in reality what they had wantonly thought fit to call them. Matth. v. 43-45. + Tacit. Hift. V. 5. They treated them with infolence, contempt, and cruelty. They created and carried on unceasing hoftilities against them, and never fheathed the fword till they had exterminated or enflaved them. In private live also, it was thought allowable to pursue those with whom they were at variance with the keenest refentment and most implacable hatred; to take every opportunity of annoying and distreffing them, and not to reft till they had felt the fevereft effects of unrelenting ven. geance. In this fituation of the world, and in this general ferment of the malevolent paffions, how feasonable, how falutary, how kind, how conciliatory was the command to love, not only our friends, not only our neighbours, not only strangers, but even our enemies! How gracious that injunction, "I fay unto you, love your enemies; do good to them that hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for them that defpitefully ufe you, and perfecute you!" And how touching, how irrefiftible is the argument used to enforce it: "That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for he maketh his fun to rife on the evil and on the good, and fendeth rain on the just and on the unjust!" It is remarkable that the philosopher Seneca makes use of the fame argument, not exactly for the fame purpose, but for a fimilar one. "If (fays he) you would imitate the gods, confer favors even on the ungrateful, for the fun rifes on the wicked, and the feas are open even unto pirates:" And again, "the gods show many acts of kindness even to the ungrateful*." It is highly probable that the philofopher took this fentiment from this very paffage of St. Matthew; for no fuch fublime morality is, I believe, to be found in any heathen writer previous to the Christian revelation. Seneca flourished and wrote after the Gospels were written, after Christianity had made some progress. Befides * Sen. de. Benef. lib. 4. c. 26. and c. 28. this, he was brother to Gallio, the proconful of Achaia, before whose tribunal St. Paul was brought by the Jews at Corinth. From him he would of courfe receive much information refpecting this new religion, and the principal characters concerned in it; and from the extraordinary things he would hear of it from fuch authentic fources, his curiofity would naturally be excited to look a little further into it, and to perufe the writings that contained the history and the doctrines of this new school of philof ophy. This, and this only, can account for the fine ftrains of morality we fometimes meet with in Seneca, Plutarch, Marcus Antoninus, Epictetus, and the other philofophers who wrote after the Chriftian æra, and the visible fuperiority of their ethics to thofe of their predeceffors before that period. But to return. It has been objected to this command of loving our enemies, that it is extravagant and impracticable; that it is impoffible for any man to bring himself to entertain any real love for his enemies: and that human nature revolts and recoils against so unreasonable a requisition. This objection evidently goes upon the fuppofition that we are to love our enemies in the fame manner and degree, and with the fame cordiality and ardour of affection, that we do our relations and friends. And if this were requir ed, it might indeed be confidered as a harsh injunction. But our Lord was not fo fevere a task-master as to expect this at our hands. There are different degrees of love as well as of every other human affection; and these degrees are to be duly proportioned to the different objects of our regard. There is one degree due to our relations, another to our benefactors, another to our friends, another to ftrangers, another to our enemies. There is no need to define the precife shades and limits of each, our own feelings will fave us that trouble; and in that only cafe where our feelings are likely to lead us wrong, this precept of our Lord will direct us right. And it exacts nothing but what is both reafonable and practicable. It explains what is meant by loving our † A&s xviii. 1.2. |