SERMON XLIX.

PREACHED JULY 5, 1772.

MATTH. V. 38, 39, 40, 41.

Ye have heared 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 cloke also: And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

I SUPPOSE, if these words had been found

in

any book whatsoever, except the Bible, no man of sense could have entertained the least doubt of their meaning. But, while one sort

of readers think they do honour to God's word by taking every precept in the most strict and rigid sense, and another, by the same mode of interpretation, hope to dishonour it, we may expect that, between them, the usual rules of eriticism will be very little regarded.

The text refers us to a law of Moses, which established the jus talionis, or right of retaliation. This law, in the main, is consonant to natural equity; was of general use and authority in ancient times; has, with some modification, been adopted by legislators of all times; and was peculiarly fit, or rather necessary, in the Mosaic institute, composed in a very remote age of the world, and addressed to a fierce and barbarous people.

But this, so reasonable law, had undergone a double abuse in our Saviour's time. What was designed, in the hands of the magistrate, to prevent future injury, was construed into an allowance of private and personal revenge: And, again, what was calculated to prevent great and outrageous injuries, was pleaded in excuse for avenging every injury. The Jews retaliated, at pleasure, on those that offended them, and for the slightest offence.

a Exod. xxi. 24.

Our divine Master, then, without derogating from the law, when administered in due form, and on a suitable occasion, applies himself to correct these so gross perversions of it-I say unto you, that ye resist not evil—that is, that ye do not retaliate on the person, that does you an injury, in the way of private revenge; or even of a public suit, for small and trivial injuries.

You see, our Lord's purpose was, to oppose the mild spirit of the Gospel to the rigid letter of the law, or rather to an abusive interpretation of it: And this purpose is declared in three familiar and proverbial sayings, which, together, amount to thus much; "That, when

a small or tolerable injury is sustained by (6 any one, either in his person, or property, or "liberty, it is far better (and was, thencefor"ward, to be the law of Christians) to endure

patiently that injury, or even to risk a repe"tition of it, than, by retaliating on the aggressor, to perpetuate feuds and quarrels in "the world."

That such is the meaning of the text, would appear more evidently, if the injuries specified were, further, considered with an eye to the sentiments and circumstances of the Jewish

people. A blow on the cheek was, always, an indignity, no doubt; but the sense of it was not inflamed in a Jew by our Gothic notions of honour; though, if it had, the divine Saviourb would scarce have advised his followers to extinguish it in the blood of a fellow-citizen: the loss of a vest, or under garment, was easily repaired, or not much felt, in the cheap and warm country of Judæa: and the compulsion to attend anotherd, on his occasions, was not much resented by a people, that had been familiarised to this usage by their foreign

masters.

But, without scrutinizing the expression farther (which, as I said, is of the proverbial cast, and, therefore, not to be taken strictly) it appears certainly, that the rule enjoined is no more than this, "That we are not to act on the "old rigid principle of retaliation, but rather "to exercise a mutual patience and forbear"ance, in our intercourse with each other, for "the sake of charity and peace."

Still, it has been asked, whether this rule be a reasonable one, and whether the conduct, it prescribes, be not likely to do more hurt, than good to mankind?

b John xviii. 22, 23.

εχιτώνα

dalyagivou. See Grotius on the place.

The ground of this question is laid in the following considerations:

First, that resentment, being a natural passion, was, without doubt, implanted in us for valuable purposes, and that its proper and immediate use is seen in repelling injuries:

Secondly, That to eradicate, or to suppress this movement of nature, is to dispirit mankind, and to effeminate their character; in. other words, to make them unfit for the discharge of those offices, which the good of society requires:

Lastly, That this softness of temper is injurious to the individuals, in whom it is found, as it exposes them to many insults, and much ill usage, which the exertion of a quick and spirited resentment would enable them to avoid :

From all which, conclusions are drawn very unfavourable to the doctrine of the text, and to the honour of our divine Master. It will, then, be proper to give the premises a distinct and careful examination. And,

I. The use of the natural passion of resentment is not superseded by the law of Jesus.