Church and Nation: The Bishop Paddock Lectures for 1914-15Temple, William
Religion
Church and Nation: The Bishop Paddock Lectures for 1914-15
Temple, William
Church and state
"Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to
destroy but to fulfil."—S. Matthew v., 17.
I.—In the last lecture I said that justice would seem to be the typical
virtue of the State, as holiness of the Church. Let us, then, first
consider this virtue of justice in the light of our Lord’s teaching
concerning one of the most familiar aspects of justice—its penal aspect.
Those sayings that have of late given rise to so many searchings of
heart among Christians—the sayings about turning the other cheek and the
rest—are given by our Lord as explanations of the saying that He came
"not to destroy the law but to fulfil it." The words "to fulfil" of
course mean not only to obey and carry out, but to complete.
In what sense is this teaching of our Lord the completion of the law?
For the law of Moses, like every other law, was concerned with
regulating the relations of men to one another, as well as their duties
towards God; and it enforced what it enjoined by penalties.
At first sight no doubt it looks as if He were directly contradicting
what had been said to them of old time—
"Ye have heard that it was said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth
for a tooth: but I say unto you, That ye resist not him that is
evil; but whosoever smites 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."
How is this the fulfilment or completion of the Mosaic or any other law?
At this distance of time, it is hard to remember what was the original
significance of the law of retaliation. We are inclined to think that
the words "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" are intended to
give a licence to that degree of vindictiveness; but on the contrary, in
the primitive stage in which that enactment was given, it was not a
licence given to man’s instinct for vengeance, but a limitation set upon
that primitive and animal instinct, whose natural tendency, if
unchecked, is to take two eyes for an eye and a set of teeth for a
tooth. The _lex talionis_ said—Only an eye for an eye, and only a tooth
for a tooth.
Our Lord carries the same principle further; not even that degree of
vindictiveness is allowed. The first necessity was to put bounds upon
man’s natural and almost insatiable lust for vengeance. The next was to
tell him that the whole method of vengeance could never succeed in what
is its only really justifiable aim. For what is the true function of
the law, whether that of Moses or any other? It is always two-fold; it
must always aim not merely at checking the evil act, but at converting,
if possible, the evil will.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account