thy coat, let him have thy cloak also: Whofoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain:" though they appear in the form of specific precepts, are intended as defcriptive of difpofition and character. A specific compliance with the precepts would be of little value, but the difpofition which they inculcate is of the higheft. He who fhould content himfelf with waiting for the occafion, and with literally observing the rule when the occafion offered, would do nothing, or worfe than nothing; but he who confiders the character and difpofition which is hereby inculcated, and places that difpofition before him as the model to which he fhould bring his own, takes, perhaps, the best poffible method of improving the benevolence, and of calming and rectifying the vices of his temper.

If it be faid that this difpofition is unattainable, I answer, fo is all perfection; ought therefore a moralift to recommend imperfections? One excellency, however, of our Saviour's rules is, that they are

either

either never mistaken, or never fo mistaken as to do harm. I could feign a hundred. cafes, in which the literal application of the rule," of doing to others as we would that others fhould do unto us," might mislead us: but I never yet met with the man who was actually milled by it. Notwithstanding that our Lord bid his followers "not to refift evil," and "to forgive the enemy, who fhould trefpafs against them, not till feven times but till feventy times feven," the Chriftian world has hitherto fuffered little by too much placability or forbearance. I would repeat once more, what has already been twice remarked, that these rules were defigned to regulate perfonal conduct from perfonal motives, and for this purpose alone.

I think that these observations will affik us greatly in placing our Saviour's conduct, as a moral teacher, in a proper point of view; efpecially when it is confidered, that to deliver moral difquifitions was no part of his defign, to teach morality at all was only a fub

a fubordinate part of it, his great business being to supply, what was much more wanting than leffons of morality, ftronger moral fanctions, and clearer affurances of a future judgement*.

The parables of the New Testament are, many of them, fuch as would have done honour to any book in the world, I do not

* Some appear to require a religious system, or in the books which profefs to deliver that fyftem, minute directions for every cafe and occurrence that may arife. This, fay they, is neceffary to render a revelation perfect, especially one which has for its object the regulation of human conduct. Now, how prolix, and yet how incomplete and unavailing, such an attempt muft have been, is proyed by one notable example: "The Indoo and Muffulman religion are institutes of civil law, regulating the minutest questions both of property, and of all queftions which come under the cognizance of the magistrate. And to what length details of this kind are neceffarily carried, when once begun, may be understood from an anecdote of the Muffulman code, which we have received from the moft refpectable authority, that not less than feventyfive thousand traditional precepts have been promulgated." Hamilton's translation of the Hedaya, or Guide.

mean

mean in style and diction, but in the choice of the subjects, in the structure of the narratives, in the aptness, propriety, and foree of the circumftances woven into them'; and in fome, as that of the good Samaritan, the prodigal fon, the pharifee and the publican, in an union of pathos and fimplicity, which, in the best productions of human genius, is the fruit only of a much exercised and wellcultivated judgement,

The Lord's Prayer, for a fucceffion of solemn thoughts, for fixing the attention upon a few great points, for fuitableness to every condition, for fufficiency, for concifeness without obfcurity, for the weight and real importance of its petitions, is without an equal or a rival.

From whence did these come? Whence had this man this wifdom? Was our Saviour, in fact, a well-inftructed philofopher, whilst he is reprefented to us as an illiterate peasant? Or fhall we fay that fome early Chriftians of taste and education compofed

thefe pieces, and afcribed them to Chrift? Befide all other incredibilities in this account, I answer, with Dr. Jortin, that they could not do it. No fpecimens of compofition, which the Chriftians of the first century have left us, authorize us to believe that they were equal to the task. And how little qualified the Jews, the countrymen and companions of Chrift, were to affift him. in the undertaking, may be judged of from the traditions and writings of theirs which were the neareft to that age. The whole collection of the Talmud is one continued proof, into what follies they fell whenever they left their Bible; and how little capable they were of furnishing out fuch leffons as Chrift delivered.

But there is ftill another view, in which our Lord's, difcourfes deferve to be confidered; and that is, in their negative character, not in what they did, but in what they did not, contain. Under this head, the following reflections appear to me to poffefs fome weight.

I. They