humanity, and the word of God might decide one way; authority, prejudice, tradition, another.

It might be plain to a demonstration, that the interpretation of the words, "thy neighbour," was not to be restricted to their first and ordinary sense, of one who lived in the vicinity of another; nor yet of one, who whether a neighbour in that sense or not, was near of kin to a man. But if they must imply something more than this, and comprehend strangers in local habitation, and strangers in blood; the question would at once occur, where must their application stop, short of including all mankind? If every neighbour, as the object of the love whose measure in practice was to be, as a man's own self-must be a stranger in these respects; then every one, who is a stranger in such respects, must be a neighbour: a definition of the term which would comprehend Samaritans and Gentiles, as well as Jews, in reference to Jews. Considering the precept too, as binding the Jews nationally, not merely individually, we might contend that to the Jews, in their collective and national capacity, none could be neighboursnone could consequently come within the scope and application of the precept—but surrounding nations; that is, the Gentiles. It is certain, however, that the Jews, in practice, denied these conclusions, and considered none but a Jew a neighbour of a Jew; and consequently none but Jews entitled to claim and to receive from Jews, the good offices due by one neighbour as such to another.

The inquirer in the present instance seeins to have possessed a clearer insight into the true evangelical sense of the term, than most of his prejudiced countrymen; not unmixed however with some

66

doubt and obscurity, which he might gladly desire to have removed. When, therefore, the turn of the conversation gave him an opportunity of asking for information upon this point also, it seems to be implied in his language, that he availed himself of it with the eagerness of one who had long wished for it. His words should be translated, "But who is my neighbour?" for the particle rendered by "and," is here equivalent to "yet" or "but:" and we might paraphrase them as follows; "It is a very true and "satisfactory assurance, that if I do these things, I "shall live: and when I am told to love God with "all my faculties, above every thing else, my duty "is plain and intelligible. When I am told also to "love my neighbour as myself, I should see what I "was bound to do to him, if I knew who was my

66

neighbour. But who is my neighbour? for I am "still uncertain on that point; and I know not "whether I am to understand those only to be "meant by the name, who stand in certain peculiar "relations to myself; or all, to whom the word is "in any sense, and under any circumstances, capable of being extended."

66

Now a doubt upon this point was manifestly of vast importance to the practical application of the precept; which, even with the best intention to do right, and the sincerest wish to observe the precept, might lead to its perversion and misdirection. One who felt this difficulty in its full force, could scarcely fail to request a solution of it; and if it was proper for the interrogator to ask for such a satisfaction, it was still more so for our Saviour to grant it. There was no question which could have been more fitly put to him, than this, "But who is my neigh

“bour?” none that it was more consistent with his benevolence, his charity, his philanthropy, to answer; none that it would have given him more delight to answer: or were there any doubt about this, the beautiful parable, in which he does answer it, would remove that doubt, and be a lasting monument of the interest he took, in replying to such a question.

Before, however, we proceed to the parable itself, we may pause to make a few observations upon what has preceded. Considering the several questions referred to above, whether as to what should be done to inherit everlasting life, or as to the order of respective dignity, and quantum of respective obligation, in the different commandments of the law -to be virtually instances of the same inquiry, directed to the same result; the uniformity of decision which pervades the answers to them all, is a characteristic and remarkable circumstance. At first sight, indeed, there may appear nothing extraordinary in the same question's being similarly answered; or in the same person's entertaining and expressing, at all times, on the same subjects the same opinions. Yet if we consider the predominant prejudice of the age, and the general disposition on all hands, to exalt an inferior class of duties at the expense of an higher, and to depend upon that, as the groundwork of perfection, instead of the other; there was doubtless a studied and peculiar significancy, in our Saviour's conduct on each of these occasions.

It is to be remembered, that though his answers point all along to one and the same class of duties, as those which were competent to give life—as those

which were greatest in the law-it is but to a class, the religious, moral, or natural, in contradistinction to the ritual, positive, or instituted. The instance of the second inquiry supplies a luminous proof of this opposition and distinction. To take St. Mark's account of that transaction, the question then asked was ποία ἐστὶ πρώτη πασῶν ἐντολή; words, which should not be rendered, "Which is the first command“ment of all ?" as if some one commandment were specially the object of the inquiry; but "What "kind" or "sort of commandment;" in other words, "What class of commandments, what description of "duties, was first of all, was great in the law?" This mode of stating the question implies the only complete division of the whole law, into the moral and the ceremonial; and the acknowledgment subjoined by the interrogator, to our Saviour's answer, shews that in putting his inquiry he was intent upon a further consideration, viz. the comparative value and efficacy of these different classes of duties, as acceptable to God, and as conducive to salvation. Our Lord's decision, by adducing the two summaries of the moral law, awarded the preeminence, in such respects, to that law; while the remark of the inquirer, in approbation of his answer, by mentioning sacrifice and burnt offering in particular, as any other specific instances of obedience to the commandments of the law, clearly supposes that he knew of nothing which could be opposed to the moral part of the law, and could dispute the right to precedency with it, but the ritual: and by further affirming, that to observe the moral in those two comprehensive precepts, was really more (πλešov)-not simply a greater, but a fuller, a more abundant, a more complete

and perfect service--than "all the holocausts and "all the sacrifices," which were otherwise enjoined by the ritual part of the law, and otherwise to be offered in obedience to it; it also implied, that in his judgment the moral was capable of deserving and procuring acceptance, independent of the ritual; but not the latter without the former i.

The two commandments, which on each of these occasions were selected and proposed as the substance of the moral law, might easily be shewn to be actually tantamount to the whole of it. They are the

1 Grotius and Whitby, in their notes on Matt. xxii. 36. shew that, "What was the first and great commandment," was a question much agitated among the Jews: some contending for the law of circumcision; some for that of the sabbath; others for this or that kind of sacrifice, and the like: but none as it appears, for any one moral commandment, whether more or less comprehensive, in opposition to mere rites and ceremonies.

66

If, by citing the substance of the moral part of the law, as the substance of the whole, the rest of the law is virtually superseded and set aside; still, it is to be remembered that this is done, solely in answer to the question, "What is necessary to everlasting life?" or "What sort of commandment is great in "the law?" One part is set aside-but merely in comparison with the other part; the lower in comparison with the higher : when both claimed to be equally accounted of; when what was the undoubted privilege, the exclusive benefit of the one, was unwarrantably usurped, and preposterously attempted by the other. No disparagement was intended to be done to the ritual, further than by not exalting it to the rank of the moral; by not falling in with the humour of the age, or countenancing the impossible and absurd idea, however popular, that the law of ceremonies could give life. The ritual law, in its own sphere and for its own purposes, might be holy, just, and good: it was imperfect, useless, and even impure, when it intruded itself into the place of the moral; and pretended to a dignity, and arrogated to itself an efficacy, which belonged only to a superior and a very different class of duties.