meaning of these words is undeniable; they are the amplification of the command, “resist not evil.”  What effect would obedience to these injunctions have upon a State?  None committing an assault would be punished; every unjust suit would succeed; every forced concession would be endorsed; every beggar would live in luxury; every borrower would spend at will.  Nay more; those who did wrong would be rewarded, and would be thus encouraged to go on in their evil ways.  Meanwhile, the man who was insulted would be again struck; the poor man who had lost one thing would lose two; the hard-working, frugal labourer would have to support the beggar and the borrower out of the fruits of his toil.  Such is Christ’s code of civil laws:  he is deliberately abrogating the Mosaic code, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” and is replacing it by his own.  If the Mosaic law is to be taken literally—­as it was—­that which is to replace it must also be taken literally, or else one code would be abolished, and there would be none to succeed it, so that the State would be left in a condition of lawlessness.  Suppose, however, that we allow that the passage is to be taken metaphorically, what then?  A metaphor must mean something:  what does this metaphor mean?  It can scarcely signify the exact opposite of what it intimates, and yet the exact opposite is true morality.  Only a system of taking Christ’s words “contrariwise” can make them useful as civil rules, and even “oriental exaggeration” can scarcely be credited with saying the diametrically contrary of its real meaning.  But it is urged that, if all men were Christians, then this teaching would be right, and Christ was bound to give a perfect morality.  That is to say, if people were different to what they are, this teaching of Christ would not be injurious because—­it would be unneeded!  If there were no robbers, and no assaulters, and no borrowers, then the morality of the Sermon on the Mount would be most harmless.  High praise, truly, for a legislator that his laws would not be injurious when they were no longer needed.  Christ should have remembered that the “law is made for sinners,” and that such a law as he gives here is a direct encouragement to sin.

We can scarcely wonder that, inculcating a course of conduct which must inevitably lead to poverty, Christ should hold up a state of poverty as desirable.  We read in Matthew v. 3, “Blessed are the poor in spirit” and it is contended that it is poverty only of spirit which Christ blesses; if so, he blesses the source of much wretchedness, for poor-spirited people get trampled down, and are a misery to themselves and a burden to those about them.  If, however, we turn to Luke vi. 20, we find the declaration:  “Blessed are ye poor,” addressed directly to his Apostles, who were anything but poor in spirit (Luke ix. 46, and xxii. 24); and we find it, further, joined with the announcement, “blessed are ye that hunger now,” and followed by the curses: