thou ?" "He answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself." Our Lord expressed his approbation of the answer, and immediately exhorted him thus: "This do and thou shalt live."

The portion of the law to which the latter part of the above words refer is the eighteenth verse of the nineteenth chapter of the book of Leviticus. In this we find the following injunction, which, among many others, was given by God to his servant Moses: "Thou shalt not avenge nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord.” Now, as it has just appeared, the two parties above mentioned were perfectly agreed as to the correctness and authority of the injunction itself; but their agreement as to the interpretation of the above injunction seems to be somewhat more problematical. It is clear that our Lord felt persuaded that his questioner had not acted up to the injunction which he had quoted from the third book of Moses; and the latter, with the self-conceit so peculiar to his party, would probably have replied, as a young man is represented to have done by St. Matthew, when holding a somewhat similar conversation with our Lord, "all these things have I kept from my youth up." Such a misunderstanding undoubtedly was it, which caused the conversation to be continued. a Matt, xix. 20.

Our Lord adhered to his own opinion, and the lawyer adhering to his, and being willing to justify himself, continued thus: "Who is my neighbour?" Jesus Christ answered this question by reciting a parable in which an unfortunate individual, who, on his way from Jerusalem to Jericho having been ill-treated and disabled by thieves, was neglected by his own countrymen, a priest and a Levite, though he afterwards received from a Samaritan, who was a stranger and even an enemy to his country, that assistance and attention which his distress required. "And which of these three," continued our Lord, "thinkest thou was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?" The reply was self-evident; the lawyer was compelled to confess "He that shewed mercy on him."

It is, however, brethren, of importance to a due understanding of our subject, that we should rightly comprehend the meaning of this admission, as well as the feelings and disposition of him who made it, in reference to the Samaritan, whom he described as the neighbour of his unfortunate countryman. It is a well known historical fact, expressed in the conversation which a certain woman of Samaria held with our Lord, that for many centuries before Christ the "Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans." It is, moreover, sufficiently evident, that in declaring the Samaritan to have been, in the true sense of the word, the neighbour of a stranger, the lawyer was awarding praise to this Samari

■ John, iv. 9.

tan, at the same time that he passed over two of his own countrymen, a priest and a Levite, in silent condemnation, though these two, from the sanctity of their calling, might be expected to have been more entitled to the honour.

The lawyer, then, it appears, awarded the praise of doing a neighbourly action to one who, in his opinion as a Jew, was his greatest enemy; and not only his enemy, but the enemy of him whom he assisted in distress; or, perhaps, to speak more correctly, we should say, that the Samaritans did not so much display a feeling of enmity towards the Jews, though the Jews did so to the Samaritans. Yet notwithstanding this, did he confess that the Samaritan in the parable had shewn himself to be a neighbour of the Jew, by looking upon the latter as his neighbour, and treating him as such. By acting towards him strictly in accordance with the before mentioned precept contained in the book of Leviticus, he not only exhibited no symptoms of hatred, which might be supposed to have proceeded from the state of enmity which existed between him and the Jew, but, in a certain sense, he loved him as he loved himself; that is to say, he treated him with such kindness as he himself would have wished to receive had he been in a similar state of distress. It is clear that the word neighbour is of somewhat doubtful signification, and might, consequently, be understood within greater or less limits. By this expression we commonly understand any one at no very remote distance from us. When,

however, we refer to the passage in the law to which we have already twice referred, we find that the "children of thy people," and "thy neighbour" are spoken of as of similar import. The children of thy people could mean no less than the whole Israelitish race, who were of the same people and nation, and descendants of the same common ancestor, Abraham. A Jew, therefore, when directed to love his neighbour as himself, if he had interpreted such an injunction aright, and not warped it so as to suit it to his own individual habits or disposition, as was frequently done, could have received the injunction in question in a no less confined sense than as applying to the whole of his countrymen. Whether the lawyer who questioned our Lord would have so interpreted it in defence of his conduct, is certainly not quite so clear. When, however, the command was first given by God, it was given at a time when, for the wisest and best of purposes, which it does not come within the scope of our present subject to consider at length, all intercourse was prohibited by the Almighty between the Jews and the rest of the world. When the descendant of Abraham, therefore, was directed to consider every individual among his countrymen as his neighbour, and to treat him with the same kindness that he himself would wish to receive in time of need, such an injunction could only have been of the most general import; for the whole world which was adapted to the notice of a descendant of Abraham was included in those limits within which the twelve

tribes dwelt. But when the exclusive character of the law was superseded by that of the Gospel, which extended its privileges alike to all, those moral ordinances which had previously been applicable to the Jew only, then became alike the possession of the world at large. And in the same manner as the descendant of Abraham had been directed to look upon every individual of his nation at least with compassion and regard, and to treat him as his neighbour, the precepts of Christ required that this divine feeling should be extended even to foreigners and enemies. It was agreeably to such a sentiment that the Samaritan is said to have treated the unfortunate Jew with kindness in the time of need. It will, of course, be remembered, that though Samaria was locally situated in a portion of that country which was formerly allotted to the ten tribes yet long before the time of our Lord, such changes and revolutions had occurred as to people that portion with a race of men who had no connexion whatever with the former inhabitants of Israel. After the recital of the parable, the question already mentioned was naturally directed to him who had interrogated our Lord: "Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?"—that is, which of these three shewed such kindness to the wounded individual as the law directed to be shewn to every man, however distant might be his place of abode. The lawyer was compelled to admit that the priest and the Levite, inhabitants, at least, of the same district,

;