"thine enemy hunger, feed him, if he thirst, give him drink, "for in fo doing thou mayeft heap coals of fire on his head." You may foften and melt down the heart hardened in vice and malignity, by the kindly glow of benevolence and gratitude, and *thus "not be overcome of eyil, but overcome evil with good.” We should be ever anxious for the reformation of our greatest enemies; and the more anxious, the more we are affured of their malice and their guilt, because they are so much the more wretched and pitiable. Such is the fyftem of Christian morality on the forgivenefs of injuries; and undoubtedly, it is fo far exalted above the principles and practice, even of the profeffed Chriftian world, that it will be readily pronounced enthusiastic and extravagant by all mere men of the world. But it is fo confonant to the feelings of virtue, and the interefts of mankind, and fo little conformable to what might have been naturally expected from the prejudices and bigotry of the Jews, at the period when the gofpel was promulgated, as plainly to indicate, that it was derived from a far different fource, the wif dom and mercy of God. Another pretext on which the morality of the gofpel has been charged with fanaticism, is, that it is faid, "it considers mar"riage as a state of imperfection;" but this is fo contrary to the whole tenor of the principles and conduct of the apostles, that it fcarcely deferves a reply. Our Lord, probably from a prophetic forefight of the extreme abufes, which this error would give rife to in his church, chose to commence the manifestation of his divine power, by honoring a marriage † with his presence, and affifting the innocent festivity of the entertainment, by miraculously fupplying the master of the feast with wine, probably to make up the deficiency occafioned by the number of difciples, who may have attended on himself; and he has ennobled and ftrengthened the marriage-tye, by exprefsly declaring, that God, when he made man at the beginning, "made them male and "female, and faid, for this caufe fhall a man leave father and "mother, and fhall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be “one flesh; wherefore, they are no more twain, but one flesh; " what therefore God hath joined together, let no man put "afunder." Yet, notwithstanding this exprefs declaration of * Ibidem. † John ii. + Matt. xix. 4. the the divine original of marriage, immediately before their eyes, deistical writers have prefumed to alledge an obfcure and figurative phrase, which occurs a few verses after as a decifive proof, that our Lord disparaged that facred institution; yet, on a faithful comparison with the original, the contrary appears. I adopt the translation of the learned and ingenious Mr. Wakefield. The whole paffage, after the words already quoted, runs thus:-"They fay unto him, why then did Mofes command "us to give a writing of feparation, and to divorce her? he "faith unto them, Mofes, because of the hardness of your hearts, "permitted you to divorce your wives, but in the beginning it "was not fo: but I fay unto you, whofoever shall put away his "wife, faving for adultery, and marry another, he committeth "adultery. His difciples fay unto him, if the cafe of the "hufband be fo with the wife, it is better not to marry. But "he faid unto them, none are capable of that fave they to whom it is "given; for there are eunuchs who were fo from their birth, ❝ and there are eunuchs who were made fo by men, and there "are eunuchs who made themselves fuch for the kingdom of "heaven; fo he who is able to endure it, let him endure ❝ it." Mr. Wakefield's remark on the words marked in Italics is, that abftinence from marriage is the thing here spoken of by "our Saviour." The meaning then of the entire paffage is, that such abftinence far from generally tending, as the difciples seemed to conceive, to the happiness of the individual, or being fit to be enjoined on any numerous descriptions of men, was adapted to fome few individuals only; and that as there were only a few who were obliged to abstain from marriage from neceffity, whether natural or accidental, fo there were but a few who could do so on a religious motive, though fome few there might be. Surely the paffage thus explained breaths nothing of that fanatical exaltation of celibacy, which in fubfequent ages corrupted the fimplicity of Christianity. With as little reason has St. Paul been accused of partially exalting celibacy; because in a period of great perfecution, he * stated it as his advice, that in the prefent diftrefs it was better for those who were fingle to continue fo, marriage multiplying the ob I Cor. vii. 26. jects jects of anxiety, which, at fuch a period, would distract their minds; but he takes the greatest care to have it understood, that this was merely spoke of himself, not * as of divine command, and maintains, in the ftrongest terms, the innocence and the general utility of marriage; which in another place he declares," is honourable in all," which he states was fanctioned by the practice of the apoftles themselves, and as to which, he afferts his own right to imitate their example if he pleafed, though from motives of expediency he declined doing fo. But fuch cavils as thefe do not deserve to be noticed farther than to fhew my young readers, little versed in the arts of controverfy, how flight are the grounds on which fuch cavils are advanced, and how detached and obscure texts are forced into the service of infidelity, while direct, plain, and repeated declarations, as well as the general spirit of scripture, and even the immediate example of our Lord and his apoftles, are totally over-looked. I know not of any other points in which Chriftian morality has been accused of fanaticism; it has indeed been § cenfured as not enjoining friendship and patriotifm. But does not that religion which teaches men to be || humble, benevolent, fympathetic, "weeping with those who weep, and rejoicing with those "who rejoice," "in honour preferring one another”—which recommends placability, forgiveness of injuries, anxiety for the foul's welfare-which condemns ambition, envying, ftrife, avarice ;-does not this religion lay the foundation, and inculcate the principles on which only true friendship can be erected? Thus alfo, when Christianity teaches men to love their neighbours as themselves, to "¶ obey those who rule over them in fingleness of heart, not for wrath, but for confcience fake; "to give tribute to whom tribute is due, fear to whom fear, "honour to whom honour; to love the brotherhood, fear "God, and honour the king;" when it teaches men to perform * Vid. Cor. vii. 25 and 26. Vid. 1 Cor. ix. 5. Supra, p. 95. + Heb. xiii. 4. § Vid. Shaftsbury's Characteristics, p. 93 to 102; and in Answer Brown s Effays on the Characteristics. Effay 3. fect. io, and Maclaine's Fifth Letter to Soame Jenуns. 66 every duty, and attend to every relation of civil life-to promote peace and order, and brotherly love. Are not thefe the true means of promoting the happiness of our country? Is not the man who acts on these principles the true patriot ? If from theory we turn to example, did not Jefus, when he laboured to recall his countrymen to religion and virtue, act the patriot? When he lamented, in terms the most tenderly affectionate, the infatuated obftinacy and guilt of his countrymen ; when he wept at the * approaching desolation which their guilt provoked, and which he fo long laboured to avert, did he not in these instances feel as a patriot? When he shed tears at the grave of Lazarus, did he not feel as a friend? When, at his last fupper before his sufferings, he addressed his apostles—“ + This " is my commandment, that ye love one another as I have loved you; greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay "down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if you do "whatsoever I command you: henceforth I call you not fer46 vants, for the fervant knoweth not what his Lord doeth: but I "have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my father, I have made known unto you"-Was not this the language of friendship? When the beloved difciple leaned on his bosom; when in the agony of death he § committed his mother to the care of that disciple, did he not in these instances feel and act as a friend ?—Thus too, in the great apostle of the Gentiles, did not his zeal for the reformation and happiness of his countrymen glow with fuch ardor, that his expreffions of it have been accused of rifing to a fanatic violence; and in his epiftles to Timothy and Titus, as well as his interceffion with || Philemon in behalf of Onefimus do we not difcern that spirit of friendship which ennobles and refines the mind; the most anxious withes, and most watchful attention to their temporal and eternal intereft, the strictest confidence in their piety and virtue, and the tenderest sympathy in their cares and diftreffés. Such are the examples which Chriftianity holds out; why then is it accused of not encouraging patriotism and friendship? because it does not make either the subject of a direct encomium, or the object of a direct precept. Let us confider whether this * Luke xix. 41. ↑ John xv. 12. § Ib. xix. 26, 27. can can be accounted for.-Had the Jews been exhorted to patriotifm, would they not have understood it as a call to rescue their country from the Roman yoke? Had the Romans-would not fome have thought it their duty to be active in aggrandizing the power of the empire, and others, in refifting the defpotifm of the empe ror? and were objects such as these fit to be even indirectly recommended by the preachers of piety and peace?-Even to this hour is not patriotism too generally understood to confist in that narrow and mistaken fpirit of monopolizing ambition, which, fays a* fpirited writer," imitates the mean partiality of a parifa "officer, and labours to enrich and aggrandize the patriot's particular district at the expence of every other ;" and would it have been fafe to make a virtue, fo grofsly mistaken and fo much abused, the object of direct panegyric, or recommend it any other way than by enjoining every virtue, and inculcating every principle which fupports true patriotifm, in fuch a manner as could not be perverted to countenance the false—and by exhibiting in the author of our religion, the most exalted example of this, as of every other virtue ? Finally, if we confider the nature of friendship, it would have been evidently impoffible to make this the object of a direct precept. Friendship depends not merely on ourselves; it. requires that other perfons fhould poffefs taste and feelings congenial with ours; it requires an opportunity of cultivating, and the happiness of conciliating a return of confidence and affection; and how would this have founded as the object of a direct precept? "Take care on pain of divine displeasure, to find out "fome one or more perfons of difpofitions and purfuits fimilar "to your own; take care that not only you fhould give them, but "that they fhall give you opportunities of cultivating a mutual "regard finally, love them, and remember you are under an "indifpenfible obligation, that they fhall love you." Such is the language, for the want of which fuperficial declaimers arraign the morality of the gofpel; when will they learn "to under"ftand first, and not till then rebuke !” * Soame Jenyns. + I have met with this answer to Shaftsbury, I think in Dr. Beattie's Evi dences of Chriftianity, 12mo. I have not now the book by me. That |