CHAPTER II.

SCRIPTURAL PROOFS.

Matt. 5: 38-41, a proof text-Evasive constructions of the text. Reason for noticing these evasions-Second proof, Matt. 5: 43-48-Third proof, forgiveness-Further important proofsApostolic testimonies-General view of the evidence-The primitive Christians-Testimony of Celsus and Gibbons.

The preceding chapter presents a clear statement and thorough explication of the doctrine of Christian nonresistance. This will present the Scriptural proofs of its truth. It is affirmed to have been taught and exemplified by Jesus Christ. If this can be demonstrated, all who acknowledge Him their Lord and Master will feel bound to receive the doctrine as divine. In deter. mining such a question, the New Testament must be our principal text book. From its records, fairly construed, we are to learn what Jesus Christ taught, what his examples were, and what is the essential spirit of his religion. The evangelists and apostles shall be our witnesses in the case.

MATTHEW, 5: 38-41, ▲ PROOF TEXT.

In Matthew's report of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus thus speaks:-"Ye have heard that it hath been said, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain." Matt. 5: 38-41. What is the exact meaning of this language, and what does it teach? To whom does Jesus refer as having said, "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth"? To Moses and his expounders. Read the following passages. Speaking of injury done to a woman in pregnancy:“ And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." Ex. 21: 23-25. "If a man cause a blemish in his neighbor; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him." Lev. 24: 19, 20. In the case of a false witness: "And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, foot for foot." Deut. 19: 18-21. Here we have a comprehensive view of all the personal injuries authorized to be inflicted on injurers under the Mosaic code, from capital punishment down to the infliction of a stripe. And we have a strong expression of the design of those inflictions: "So shalt thou put the evil away from among you." Now did Jesus refer to these precepts of Moses, and to the enforcement of them? Who can doubt it? And if so, did he intend to confirm, or to abrogate them? Certainly to abrogate them. For his words express positive oppo

sition of sense:-"BUT I say unto you, that ye resist not evil." How? As they do who take "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth," &c. "But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Instead of smiting back and giving wound for wound, or going to the magistrate to get thy assailant punished, as the olden sayings authorize, endure to be smitten again and again. If under colour of the law thy coat be taken from thee, withhold not thy cloak. Sue not back to recover thy spoiled goods. If men force thee to go whither they will, become their prisoner without turbulence.

Resist not injury with injury. Inflict not evil in opposing evil. It hath been so commanded in time past, as a means of suppressing and preventing evil among men; "but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil doing with inflictions of evil." Nothing can be plainer, than that, so far as Moses and his expounders enjoined the infliction of penal personal injuries in resistance of injuries, and for the suppression of evil doing, Jesus Christ prohibits the same. He enjoins his disciples never to resist evil with such inflictions. They are forbidden to render evil for evil, either directly as individuals, on their own responsibility, or as prosecutors at law. Is this a just and unobjectionable construction of the Saviour's language? If it is, the doctrine of Non-Resistance is already established, by a single quotation. But this will be contested.

EVASIVE CONSTRUCTIONS OF THE TEXT.

It will be said that the words of Christ, in the passage quoted, are extremely figurative and intensive in their form of expression; that there is danger of taking them too literally; and that they must be duly qualified. I

grant it, and have construed them accordingly. I ascertained first their reference to the sayings of Moses, and then determined the prohibition to be exactly commensurate with the Mosaic requirement. That resistance of evil which Moses sanctioned and enjoined Jesus obviously repudiates and forbids. The prohibition is made precisely coextensive in all its bearings with the allowances and injunctions of the Olden Code. This is the only fair construction which can be given to the great Teacher's language. Should any one affirm that Jesus prohibits all kinds and degrees of resistance to evil, he could sustain his affirmation only by insisting on the literal expression, and would make the Saviour contradict himself, his own example, and the common sense of mankind. Should any one affirm, on the other hand, that Jesus did not intend to abrogate and prohibit all the personal and judicial inflictions of evil on offenders, authorized by the fore-cited sayings of Moses, he would find himself in an equally perplexing dilemma. I have seen distinguished opposers in this latter dilemma.

EVASION FIRST.

One says, "I doubt if Jesus referred to the sayings of Moses, quoted from Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy. He must have referred to certain perverse Rabbinical glosses on the precepts of the law, and to common sayings among the people pleaded in justification of frequent and extreme revenge." Is there any proof of this? No; it is mere supposition. But if it were true, why did not Jesus give some intimation that he was prohibiting only abuses? And withal, what glosses or common sayings could go beyond the original sayings themselves? They express the lex talionis in its fullest ex

66

tent; life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, breach for breach, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." It would be hard glossing, or overstraining such sayings. This plea is futile.

EVASION SECOND.

Another insists that Christ was only inculcating the Importance of executing legal penalties, and of using lawful inflictions of injury against assailants, in a right spirit. "He does not prohibit the act, but only a vindictive, revengeful spirit in performing it. Life ought to be taken for life, and various evils inflicted on evil doers, as a just punishment; and self-defence ought to be maintained, even to the infliction of death in extreme cases; but all should be done without revenge, without unnecessary cruelty, and in pure love to the offender, as well as with a sacred reverence for the law." In this way Jesus is smoothly construed to have really said nothing at all,-practically nothing that Moses and the ancients had not said. Did they authorize personal hate, malice, revenge and wanton cruelty in executing the penalties of the law? Did they not positively prohibit all such feelings and conduct? "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people." Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart: thou shalt in anywise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him." "In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor." Lev. 19th chap. "If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the ighteous, and condemn the wicked. And it shall be, if the wicked man be worthy to be beaten, that the judge shall cause him to lie down, and to be beaten before his

66