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 criticism will be very
little regarded.
The text refers us to a law of Moses, which established the _jus
talionis_, or _right of retaliation_[254]. 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.
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 any one, either in his person, or
property, or liberty, it is far better (and was, thenceforward, to be
the law of Christians) to endure patiently that injury, or even to risk
a repetition 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
Saviour[255] would scarce have advised his followers to extinguish it
in the blood of a fellow-citizen: the loss of a _vest_[256], or under
garment, was easily repaired, or not much felt, in the cheap and warm
country of Judæa: and the _compulsion to attend another_[257], 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 forbearance, 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?
The ground of this question is laid in 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._ For the legitimate use of this passion is to quicken us
in repelling such injuries as would render human life wholly burthensome
and uneasy to us, not of those petty affronts and discourtesies which
afflict us much less by being dissembled and forgiven, than by being
resented and returned. Now Christianity does not require us to renounce
the right of nature in repelling injuries of the former class. The law
in question, as explained by our Lord himself, does not, we have seen,
import thus much: and for the rest, the appeal is open to the principles
of nature and common sense—_Why even of yourselves judge ye not what is
right[258]?_ The practice of the Apostles (the best comment on the law)
shews, too, that, on certain critical and urgent occasions[259], they
scrupled not to take advantage of those principles. So that universally,
as it would seem, where the ends of self-preservation, or of prepollent
public utility, require and justify resistance in other men, there it
is left free for Christians, likewise, to _resist evil_; the purpose of
their divine legislator being, in this instance, to explain the law of
nature, and to guard it from the abuse of our hasty passions, not to
abrogate, or suspend it.
If any case be excepted from the general permission, it is that of
_persecution for the sake of his religion_. And possibly this exception
was made in the early days of Christianity, to afford a striking proof to
the world that this religion owed its success to the divine protection
only, and not to the power of men. Accordingly, the command given in
that case has an extraordinary, that is, a suitable, promise[260],
annexed to it. But the end of God’s special providence having been
answered, and the prophecies accomplished[261], by the patience of the
saints under the fiery trial of persecution in those days (whence the
miraculous establishment of our religion is evinced) it seems allowable
to suppose that the Christian world was, thenceforth, in this, as in
other instances, to conduct itself by the ordinary rules and principles
of human wisdom; provided that the object of that wisdom be necessary
_self-defence_, and not dominion, or revenge, which, in all the forms of
either, Christianity forbids and reprobates.
But be this as it may, in cases where religion is not concerned, it
seems clear that Christians are left at liberty to repell intolerable
oppressions by all those means, which human wisdom dictates. And there
is no need of drawing the line very exactly between _tolerable_ and
_intolerable_ injuries, because the aggressor, knowing the force of
instinctive passion, has reason, always, to fear, that it will begin to
operate too soon, rather, than too late.
The apprehension, then, that the proper use of the natural passion,
“_resentment of injuries_”, is likely to be defeated by the patient
genius of the Gospel, is weakly entertained: While, on the other hand,
every one must see the convenience of putting this fiery sentiment of
indignation under some restraint, and of interdicting the exertion of it
in cases, to which so violent a remedy is ill and hurtfully applied.
But
II. It is said, that this doctrine of the Gospel tends to _dispirit and
effeminate mankind_, and to _render Christians unfit for many offices,
which society requires of them_.
What these offices are, one does not readily conceive, since it is
allowed that _evil may be resisted_, when it becomes excessive, that is,
when it is worth resisting. But, I suppose, the objectors mean, this
patient spirit of Christianity damps the vigour with which it is for the
interest of men in society that their civil rights should be asserted, or
a foreign enemy repelled: they think, in short, it makes _bad citizens_,
and _worse soldiers_.
Now to the FORMER charge I reply, that it only tends to check, or
prevent, the turbulent, the factious, the seditious spirit of any
community (which is surely doing it no hurt) while, at the same time, it
allows men to assert their essential civil interests by every reasonable
exertion of firmness and courage; nay, inculcates those principles of
a disinterested love for mankind, and what is properly called a public
spirit, which make it their duty to do so. And they will not do it with
the less effect, for waiting till the provocation given appear to
all men to be without excuse. _The fury of a patient man_, is almost
proverbial: and particularly, in this case, it is to be expected that,
when the natural incitement to resistance, long repressed and moderated,
comes at length to be authorised by necessity, and quickened by sense of
duty, it will act with a force and constancy, not a little formidable to
those against whom it is directed. There is no danger, then, that _true
patriotism_ should suffer by the meek principles of the Gospel of peace.
As to the OTHER charge of their weakening the _military spirit_, it
must be owned again, they would render wars less frequent than they now
are, and less destructive—forgive Christianity this wrong—but, when the
necessity of self-defence (the only justifiable ground of war) is real
and instant, I know not, why the Christian prince, or Christian soldier,
should want courage, because he had given proof of this equitable
forbearance; or, that either will be likely to do his duty the worse, for
knowing that what he does, _is_ his duty.
And, if we appeal to fact, it is enough known, that the Christian
soldiery have been no disgrace to their profession; no, not even then,
when the unresisting spirit was at its height, I mean, in the early
days of our religion. Christians had many good reasons for not being
forward to serve in the Roman armies; but some of them did serve there;
without doubt, when they were released from such military obligations
and observances, as they esteemed idolatrous: Nay, it appears, that the
number of Christian soldiers was, on some occasions, considerable: Yet we
no where find, that these patient men misbehaved themselves in a day of
action; or, that they threw away their swords, when they had said their
prayer.
And I give this instance of bravery in the primitive Christians, the
rather, because it cannot be imputed to a _fanatic spirit_, which is
able, we know, to controul any principles: It cannot, I say, be imputed
to a fanatic spirit, because religion was not the object of those wars,
in which they were engaged: They were left, then, to the proper influence
of their own principles; which at that time had their full effect upon
them, and yet did not prevent them from acting with the true spirit of
their profession, that is, with a full sense of the duty imposed upon
them by their engagements to the state.
With regard to the _publick_, then, there is no reason to think that our
Lord’s injunction will disserve it, in any respect.
III. The last, and most plausible objection to the conduct prescribed
in the text, is, “That the tame spirit, it discovers, is injurious to
_individuals_, and only serves to provoke much insult and ill usage,
which a quick resentment and return of injuries would prevent.”
This is the common plea, and passes with many for a full justification,
of that false honour, which predominates in the world, but is equally
frivolous with the other pretences, already confuted.
For,
1. It is taken up on a groundless and mistaken notion, that the
unfriendly and malevolent passions are the most natural to mankind. On
the contrary, man is by nature, kind and generous; proud and vindictive,
indeed, if stimulated by ill treatment, but prompted, again, by that
very pride, to relent at the appearance of gentleness and submission in
the party offending; and easily disposed to lay aside the thoughts of
revenge, when no obstinate resistance seems to make it necessary. There
are, certainly, few persons, at least in civilized life, of so base a
temper, as to insult others, and much less to insult them the more,
for their gentle inoffensive manners. Or, if such monsters there be,
they will soon become detestable in society; while the objects of their
unprovoked fury find an asylum in the general good-will and favour of
mankind.
They, therefore, who pretend that the world cannot be kept in order, but
by resentment and revenge, will do well to make trial of the opposite
conduct, before they have recourse to so boisterous a remedy. They will
probably find, that _only by_ PRIDE _cometh contention_[262], and that
they have injured their species, in thinking otherwise.
2. Let it be remembered, that the Gospel neither forbids us to take the
benefit of the laws in cases, where the injury is considerable, nor to
resist, without law, in extreme cases; besides, that our corrupt nature
will often get the better of _principle_, I mean, when the provocation is
not of that size, as to justify either remedy. Whence it follows, that
brutal force and malignity will lie under many restraints, and will
rarely be encouraged by the passive temper of a conscientious Christian,
to proceed to such lengths, as the objection supposes. But,
3. Lastly, and principally, we should call to mind, that, though some
ungenerous dispositions should take advantage of our dissembling smaller
injuries, to repeat, or even increase them, till they come at length
to the utmost verge of what we call _tolerable_ injuries, yet it does
not follow, from such inconvenience, that the law is to be accounted
inexpedient. For the law has a general end in view, the good of society
at large, or of the individual: And the law is a proper one, if the end
be commonly and for the most part attained by the conduct prescribed,
though with some exceptions.
That the lawgiver foresaw the possibility of such exceptions, is clear
from the language, employed by him. If a blow _on one cheek_ be patiently
received, it may be succeeded by a blow _on the other_: if we suffer our
_coat_ to be taken away, our _cloke_ may follow it: and if we make no
resistance to the requisition of going _one mile_, we may be compelled to
go _two_. The inconvenience, then, is supposed and admitted in the law
itself; but it was seen not to be of moment enough to evacuate the law.
Generally speaking, it will be better to bear the inconvenience, than
to violate the law; better for the injured party himself, but certainly
better for society, at large.
We are certain, that the law will operate this effect, because the
lawgiver is, by supposition, divine. He, who knew _what was in man_, what
his nature, and true interest, is, could not mistake in adapting the law
to the subject of it. And then, for the _exceptions_, he has it in his
power to make amends for those, and to recompense fully, as he engages
to do, any sacrifice we make to conscience, acting within the scope and
purpose of the law.
So that, on the whole, it is but a just deference to the law, and to the
authority of the lawgiver, to abstain from _resisting evil_, according to
the true sense and spirit of the command, though, by so doing, we subject
ourselves to some, nay to much inconvenience. For he must be slenderly
instructed in the school of Christ, who is yet to learn, that greater
sacrifices, than these, must be made, if need be, for the sake of _him
who died for us_.
Enough, I hope, has been now said, not only to vindicate the sacred
text, but to let you see how repugnant the doctrine of it is to that
contentious, vindictive, and even sanguinary spirit, which prevails so
much among those, who, by a strange abuse of language, call themselves
Christians.
The root of this mischief, is, a pride of heart, nourished in us by
an ill-directed education, and fostered, through life, by the corrupt
customs and maxims of the world. To counteract this inveterate evil, we
shall do well to consider who and what we are; weak, infirm, and sinful
creatures, who are provoking Heaven every day, and should not therefore
resent it much, if we receive but little respect from men. We should
consider, too, that we are the followers of HIM, who suffered every
indignity without deserving any, and yet requires no more from us, than
he practised himself, and for our sakes.
Such considerations will make us humble and meek and placable; ready
to forgive, as we hope to be forgiven; and disposed to make allowance
for those defects in others, which we have so much reason to lament in
ourselves.
Still, if we find the duty, of _not resisting evil_, painful and uneasy
to us, let us be careful to avoid the occasions, which require the
exercise of it. A prudent Christian (and Christianity excludes not,
nay enjoins, prudence) will rarely be put to this trial of his virtue.
We bring an insult on ourselves by indiscreet liberties, by offensive
actions or rash expressions; and then, rather than retract a folly, we
commit a crime.
After all, the most cautious, inoffensive conduct may not exempt us, in
every instance, from discourtesies and affronts, from the petulance or
injustice of unreasonable men. In this case the authority of our divine
Master must controul the movements of nature. We must resolve to endure
what we dare not resist; and, for the rest, may assure ourselves, that,
in giving this proof of our Christian temper and principles, we do what
is perfectly fit and right in itself, is singularly conducive to the
good of society, and, whatever our impatient passions may suggest, will
contribute more than any resistance, to our own true enjoyment, even in
this world.
SERMON L.
PREACHED MAY 14, 1775.
LUKE ix. 26.
_Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the
Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory and in his
Father’s, and of the holy Angels._
If we compare this text with the parallel one of St. Mark[263], it will
seem probable that it more immediately concerned the Jews; who, in
consequence of their being _ashamed_ of Christ, and rejecting him, as
their Messiah, should themselves be covered with shame, and be rejected
by him from being his people, when he came to take vengeance of their
crimes in the destruction of Jerusalem. In this view, the words are
prophetical of what should, and, in fact, did, befall the _unbelieving
Jews_ of that age, in which Christ lived; for _before that age was
passed, all these things were fulfilled on_ that _adulterous and sinful
generation_: were so remarkably fulfilled, that the unbelieving Jews,
only, were involved in that calamity, while the Christians, even to a
man, as we are told, providentially made their escape from it.
But, though this be the primary sense of the text, we have reason to
believe that something further, and still more terrible, was intended
by it. For the destruction of Jerusalem was emblematical of that final
destruction, which should await all the enemies of Christ in the day of
judgment; as we may probably gather from the exaggerated terms in which
the prophecy concerning Christ’s coming to judge Jerusalem is delivered,
and as we certainly conclude from those passages of scripture, which
professedly describe the final day of judgment, when _all that believe
not shall be condemned_[264], and concerning which our Lord himself
says—_He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that
judgeth him: the_ WORD _which I have spoken_, THE SAME _shall judge him
in the last day_[265].
Whence, you see, we are authorized to take the words of the text in their
full force, and to understand them as a general declaration to ALL, who
shall be _ashamed of Christ and of his words_, that _of them_ shall
Christ, also, _be ashamed_, in the great day of retribution, sublimely
expressed by the circumstance of his _coming in his own glory, and in his
Father’s, and of the holy Angels_.
To be _ashamed of_ CHRIST, is very intelligible language, and means to
disown him for what he claims to be, The Messiah; and to take it for a
degradation to us, a reflexion on our own sufficiency and importance,
to regard him as our Lord and Saviour. In like manner, to be _ashamed
of his_ WORDS, is, to think it beneath us to receive his doctrine, and
to observe it: It is to say, or to behave ourselves as if we said, with
neglect and scorn, that we will not condescend to be influenced and
directed by it.
But how, and in what respects, may we be said to incur the guilt of this
charge? in what ways, may we testify to the world that the shame of
CHRIST and of his WORDS is predominant in us?
The inquiry, you see, is of the last importance; for this _shame_ of
Christ, in whomsoever it prevails, and so far as it prevails, will be
repaid in kind, in that day, when he shall _come in glory_, in that day
when it so much concerns us to _have boldness_ before him, _in the day of
judgment_[266].
To assist you, then, in making this momentous inquiry, permit me to lay
before you, gradually and distinctly, the CHIEF of those cases, which
appear to me to express, or imply, the existence of this _false shame_;
and may therefore let us see whether we are, or not, involved in the
guilt of it.
I. They (if any such there be) who reject Christianity on the grounds of
a fair impartial inquiry, cannot so properly be said to be _ashamed_ of
Christ, as to be _convinced_ that he has no claim to their respect and
veneration. For they deny him, they will say, not from a principle of
_shame_, or disrespect, but of what they take to be _right reason_.
But then, if any oblique views have influenced their disbelief; if
conceit, or vanity, or presumption, has any share in forming their
conclusions; if a careless or fastidious neglect of the means, by which
they might be better informed, has mixed itself with their inquiries;
if they have felt the smallest disposition in themselves to struggle
with evidence, or to be concluded by any thing but evidence; if any, or
all, of these motives can be imputed to them, they will find themselves
liable, more or less, to the charge of the text; and it surely concerns
them to see that they stand clear of all such imputations: It concerns
them the more, because, if the revelation be divine, the revealer knew
what evidence was fit to be given of it, and that the evidence given
was sufficient to the conviction of a reasonable inquirer. To the
severe scrutiny of their own hearts, the disbelievers on principle are,
therefore, referred: and, _if their heart condemn them_ in any degree,
let them reflect with awe, that _God is greater than their heart, and
knoweth all things_[267].
But, whatever these immaculate unbelievers may have to say for
themselves, there are others who have the spots of _shame_ indelibly
impressed upon them.
Such were the Jews of old, who rejected Christ, not because they wanted
evidence of his mission (for they could not deny, nay they frankly
owned, that _he did many miracles_[268]), but because he was the _Son
of a Carpenter_[269]; because he was of _Galilee_[270], and dwelt _at
Nazareth_; because their _rulers did not believe in him_[271]; because
they were afraid of being _put out of their synagogue_[272]; because
_they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God_[273]; in plain
words, because on one account or other, they were ASHAMED OF HIM.
SUCH, too, in succeeding times, were many of the pagan wise men, who
disbelieved, because the doctrine of the cross was _foolishness_ to
them[274]; because the Jews, who were the first converts to the faith and
the first preachers of it, were, in their eyes, a contemptible people;
because the vulgar were generally inclined to believe in him; because his
doctrine contradicted and degraded their philosophy; because their pride
of reason would not submit to be tutored by the Galilæan; in a word, for
a hundred frivolous reasons, which only shewed, that they were ASHAMED OF
HIM.