ILLUSTRATIONS OF PASSAGES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, WHICH REFER TO SENTIMENTS, &C. AMONG THE JEWS, IN THE TIME OF OUR LORD. LVI. Ye Matthew v. 38-41. 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. The law to which our Lord here refers is in Deut. xiv. 21. "Thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." The Sadducees only, who received alone the five books of Moses, interpreted these expressions in the strictness of their letter, and demanded in all cases a literal application of this law. The rest of the Jews, or the other Jewish interpreters, admitted of compensation in money for each of these offences, except the first. "No satisfaction" was taken "for the life of a murderer." "The land could not be cleansed of the blood which was shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it." The scale of punishment by fine was graduated by the supposed character of the injury, or, of the disgrace inflicted. He who gave another a box on the ear, was required by one Rabbi to pay a shilling; and The by another, a pound. sum required would probably be proportioned to the dignity of the person SO insulted. Should one strike another upon the cheek, two hundred zuzees were demanded; and if the blow were repeated, four hundred. Should one man pull another by the ear, or tear out his hair, or spit upon him, or take from him his coat, or uncover the head of a woman in public, he was fined four hundred zuzees. There were yet minuter specifications of this punishment, varying with the kind of injury inflicted, and with, the consequent privations and sufferings. of him who was injured. But even this application of the lex talionis, or the law of like for like, was not left to every injured individual, or to his friends. It was in every case to be made by the appointed Judges. Society could not have been maintained,at least any thing like civilized society, if the right of retaliation in these cases had been entrusted to every individual, unchecked by the Judicial authority. The nearest relative indeed, among the Jews, might with his own hand kill a manslayer; but the avenger exposed himself to capital punishment, if it could be proved that the manslayer was actuated by no evil purpose. But though we find the character of this law is great ly softened, and its spirit almost evaporated in this interpretation of it, it was notwithstanding often avowed as a justification of private revenge; and without doubt, in the precept which our Lord opposes to it, and the examples which he adduces of the application to be made of this precept, he intended to forbid and to prevent, both private resentment, and a spirit of litigation among his disciples. The inquiry which concerns us is, what is the extent, and what are the limitations of the precept, resist not evil ? let us just refer to the examples of our Lord and of his apostles. It is perhaps impossible, by any language, to mark precisely the extent and limitations of all duties; for though truth and right be in their nature unchangeable and eternal, particular duties and obligations grow out of particular circumstances, all of which, to be anticipated and defined, would fill all the books which could be written. It is to be considered too, that every language has its peculiar idioms, which, translated into another language, may imply either more, or less than was originally intended. Eastern languages, for example, abound in figurative, and to our view, unqualified expressions; and few have used figurative, and apparently idiomatic language, more freely, than our Lord. Unite these considerations, and they will account for many peculiarities in the precepts and expressions of the gospels. ye Some of our Lord's instructions have obviously a peculiar, if not an exclusive reference to those to whom they were immediately addressed. Who can doubt whether we are so to understand the command, "when they shall lead you, and deliver you up to rulers and kings for my sake, take No thought beforehand what shall speak, neither do ye premeditate; out whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye; for it is not ye that speak, but the holy spirit.” But I know not that any duties are inculcated in the gospel, either of piety, of personal or of social morality, the limitations and extent of which may not be satisfactorily determined, by a fair reference to the example of our Lord. The illustration may not in all cases be direct; for he was not, and could not be, placed in all possible circumstances, to which his precepts may be applied. But there is a spirit which pervades his example, as there is also that imbues his gospel, which an ingenuous mind, seriously inquiring for duty, will be in little danger of mistaking. Let it be applied to the precept, resist not evil. It' should however be remarked that the expression, resist not evil, might with more propriety be rendered, resist not an evil man, or, an injurious person. This change of expression is so far of importance, that it confines the import of the precept to the person; while it at least leaves us free to the indulgence of the feelings towards the action, which the character of the action is suited to excite and to exercise. In other words, it leaves us at liberty to despise, or to detest the sin, while it forbids us to resist the sinner. But even with this limitation, is every kind of resistance, and under all circumstances, forbidden? He certainly resists evil, who in any case bears testimony to his own, or to the innocence of another. And what was the conduct of our Lord, when one of the Jewish officers struck him with the palm of his hand?" If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me ?" (John xviii. 23) This was indeed the extent of our Lord's resistance. We behold him, through his ministry, followed, and watch ed, and as opportunity offered, persecuted by the envious, the jealous, and the malignant. We see him enduring all the insults and the cruelties of a mock trial. He is buffeted and, Scourged; for the sport of the multitude, invested with the badges of royalty; derided, and spit upon. Yet when reviled, he never reviles again; when suffering, he never threatens; but commits himself to Him who judgeth righteously. Is this the law of christian forbearance? Is this a right interpretation of the precept, resist not evil? There is nothing at once so unostentatious, and so imposing, as the morality of the gospel; its morality, I mean, fairly interpreted, and well understood. We admire it in ́our Lord, and in his apostles; unless indeed, for such is the influence of habit, even in this exhibition of it, it excites no strong emotions. But who dares to measure his own duties by this exalted standard ? How distinct is it from the prevailing morality of the christian world! We mean. not to indulge the language of cant; but we may ask, was the patience and forbearance of Jesus Christ greater, under the insults and injuries he received, than may reasonably be demanded, or than the spirit of his religion demands, of his disciples? Has he, or has he not, in these scenes of injury and of provocation, given us an example, that we should walk in his steps; that we should do, as he has done? "The truth is," says Paley, and he will not be accused of cant, "there are two opposite descriptions of charatcer, under which mankind may generally be classed. The one possesses vigour, firmness, resolution; is daring and active, quick in its sensibilities, jealous of its fame, eager in its attachments, inflexible in its purpose, violent in its re ness, the intractability of those with whom it has to deal. "The former of these characters is, and ever has been, the favourite of the world. Yet so it has happened, that, with the founder of christianity, this latter is the subject of his commendation, his precepts, his example; and that the former is so, in no part of its composition. This, and nothing else, is the character designed in the following remarkable passages. 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. Love your enemies; bless them that curse you ; do good to them that hate you; and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you. This certainly is not common place morality. It is very original. It shews at least, (and it is for this purpose we produce it,) that no two things can be more different than the heroic, and the christian character. "If this disposition inculcated by Christ were universal, the case is clear, the world would be a society of friends. Whereas, if the contrary disposition were universal, it would produce a scene of universal contention. The world could not hold a generation of such men. "If it be said that this disposition is unattainable, I answer, so is all perfection. But ought, therefore a moralist to recommend imperfections? The instances cited by our Saviour in the text, are ratker to be understood as proverbial methods of describing the general duties of forgiveness and benevolence, and the temper we ought to aim at acquiring, then as directions to be specifically observed. specific compliance with the precepts would be indeed of little value; but the disposition which they inculcate is of the highest. No one taught forgiveness and forbearance with a deeper sense of the obligations of these virtues, than did Paul A Yet he did not himself neglect the means of safety, and of self-defence. He took refuge in the laws of his country, and in the privileges of a Roman citizen, from a conspiracy of the Jews, (Acts XXV 11.) and from the clan-. destine violence of the chief captain, (Acts xxii. 25.) But on one hand, christianity excludes all vindictive motives; it forbids every action, and every feeling of revenge. And on the other, a law suit is not inconsistent with the gospel, when it is instituted, "for establishing some important right. 2. For the procuring a compensation for some considerable damage. 3. For the preventing of future injury." For in these cases, not only may it be, and so it must be, instituted without an emo tion of resentment, but the institution of it may be indispensable to the cause of righte ousness and truth. Ainsworth on Deut. xix. 21 and Exod: xxi. 25. Light foot and Grotius on the text. Paleys Evidences. P. 2. ch: ii. And Mor: and Polit: philosophy. B. 3. ch: x. THE PROHIBITIONS OF THE GOSPEL FOR THE GOOD OF MAN. ment is never to be trusted unless we are acquainted with the subject on which we decide-and it is therefore in should be habituated to the government of religion, and imbibe its spirit before they can partake of its joys or have correct ideas of the happiness it is calculated to afford. "My yoke is easy and my burden light." Correspondent with this declaration of the blessed Saviour, is the assertion of the apostle Paul-dispensably requisite that men "Godliness, is profitable to all things, having the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come." And a. mong the innumerable circumstances, that recommend the christian religion to our favorable regard, this certainly ought not to be overlooked, that it happily accommodates itself to our condition in this world and has a natural tendency to confer joy and pleasúre in this life, as well as immortal happiness in the life to come. It is true the enemies of religion make a very different representation of this subject, and endeavor to persuade themselves and others, that the christian yoke is too gall ing and heavy to be imposed on the neck of any rational being. Possibly men of corrupt habits and ungovernable passions may have felt themselves fully justified in entertaining these sentiments concerning the nature of religion, because they on some occasions felt its restraints to be tedious and burthensome. A person who has been confined in total darkness during the whole period of his existence, would probably experience much more pain than pleasure, on being introduced to light-and yet we should all immediately pronounce him wholly incompetent to decide on the comparative pleasures of those different states, until his organs of vision had 'through long habit, become capable of the easy discharge of those offices for which they were originally created. The reasons are precisely similar why we should reject the opinions of men, who do not possess the spirit of the gospel, and yet decry its precepts as rigid and severe.They have never possessed that state of mind, or disposition that would enable them to participate in the joys of religion, and in direct opposition to their assertions are the declarations of Jesus Christ and his apostles, the wise and the good of every age and nation, that religion, so far from oppo |