vince the inquirer, that life by the law was impossible, and that obedience to the command is impracticable. But nothing appears to warrant this in the history itself. When our Lord commended the answer, he showed that this was the way to

Verses 25, 26. A certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him.-The lawyers, voμikol, were interpreters and teachers of the Mosaic law. They were the same as the scribes. To tempt here signifies, to prove his skill by a question, which was a favourite mode of trying each other's skill among the Jewish doctors. It was one, probably, debated in their schools, and to which various answers would be given, just as some estimated the comparative importance of different duties, or of ceremonial observances. Our Lord's answer, What is written in the law? how readest thou? seems intended to turn the attention from all the vain disputations of the schools, and the opinions of mere men, on this grave question, to the written word of God. The Jews had a revelation of the will of God; and an answer to the question, What shall I do to inherit eternal life? must of necessity be found there. Our Lord therefore, somewhat reprovingly, said, How readest thou?

Verse 28. This do, and thou shalt live.This is the religion of both the Old and the New Testament. It has indeed been said, that our Lord said this only to con

when he repeats, This do, and thou shalt live, he shows that this also is the way to eternal life, under his own dispensation. Under the law of Moses, the forgiveness of sin was provided for by sacrifice, and so under the gospel; the Holy Spirit was also formerly promised to those who sought the gift, to renew their nature. "Thy Spirit," says David, "is good: lead me into the land of uprightness." And still more largely is that heavenly gift promised by Christ; but the great practical end and effect of our redemption, and all the promises of God, is, that we may be brought to love him with all our heart, soul, strength, and mind, that is, with the might of all our affections, and our neighbour as ourselves. Faith leads to pardon; a sense of forgiving mercy produces LOVE: love is the great principle of true obedience, and when supreme and universal, produces the willing consecration of our entire service to God. So as to our neighbour love is the great principle here; it extinguishes all the malignant, selfish, and irascible passions, and is, as to the duties of the second table, the fulfilling of the law." All this is NECESSARY to eternal life; and if so, all this is POSSIBLE, by the grace of God.

Verse 29. But he, willing to justify himself, &c.-Some have thought, that the scribe, expecting our Lord to describe his neighbour according to the Jewish idea, as a man of his own nation and religion, thought that he should justify or prove himself righteous, by averring that he had always strictly observed this branch of the law. But we are rather to conclude that he felt himself somewhat piqued at being referred to the written testimony of the law, as an answer to his question, What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" as though it were a very plain and simple one; and answered by a mere reference to a well-known scripture, and that, willing to justify himself in having propounded such a question, he intimates that it was not so easily answered as our Lord had suggested; but that, as to the duty of loving our neigh. bour as ourselves, a question might arise. He therefore said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour? Many of the Jewish teachers would not allow a Gentile, nor even a proselyte, to be intended, in the law enjoining the love of our neighbour; and they excluded the Samaritans with still bitterer hostility. This churlish and exclusive spirit, though no doubt often exaggerated, is made matter of reproach against them by heathen writers, as by Tacitus : Apud ipsos misericordia in promptu; sed adversus omnes alios hostile odium; " and also Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 103.

But the very question of the lawyer shows that the subject had been debated in the Jewish schools; and although the proud, exclusive spirit of Pharisaism predominated, a few had been found to advocate a more rational and religions interpretation of this important law. It was to settle this point for ever, that our Lord spake the beautiful and affecting parable which follows.

Verse 30. A certain man.-A Jew, as the whole story shows, for the points turn upon it.

From Jerusalem to Jericho.-In the days of Christ Jericho was a large and inportant city, and had a royal palace, where Herod died. It was numerously inhabited by priests, who had to go up to Jerusalem to attend at the temple service in their regular courses. See chap. i. 5. The road would therefore often be travelled by priests and Levites, a circumstance which forms part of the picture of the parable. A part of the road was wild and rocky, and notoriously infested with robbers. The whole road from Jerusalem to Jericho is described by modera travellers as, at this day, the most dangerous in Palestine, from the numbers of robberies and murders committed upon it.

Verses 33, 35. But a certain Samaritan. The point of the parable lies here. The man left by the road-side, half dead, was a Jew; the priest and Levite, who un

feelingly passed by on the other side, after they had seen him, were of course Jews, and Jews who from their office and character were most bound to an observance of the law of their God; but the man who actually treated this unfortunate Jew as a neighbour, and exemplified the true spirit and meaning of the law, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," was a Samaritan, before whose conscientious and warm charity all distinctions of nation and religion, all prejudices of education and habit and associations, vanished, so that he was intent only on fulfilling the law of love. The benevolence of this excellent Samaritan, which probably was not an ideal picture, but a real occurrence, is so amplified by our Lord, that one feels in reading the words, that his heart delighted to dwell upon the scene. When he saw him, he had compassion upon him, and went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, both which were used as medicaments by the ancient surgeons; and set him on his own beast, himself going on foot, and not influenced by the fear of not being able to escape from robbers if attacked whilst so encumbered with a wounded stranger; and brought him to an inn, Tardoxelov, a house of public entertainment for travellers; and took care of him, by personal attendance and procuring for him all necessary aid during that day and the following night; and departing on the morrow, pressed probably by his own concerns, he places two denarii, Roman pence, about fifteen pence

of our money, in the hands of the host, with an injunction to take care of him, and an engagement to pay all additional expenses upon his return. Nothing could be more complete than this act of charity. It stopped short of nothing, but performed all that the circumstances required, being simply intent, not upon making an appearance, not upon compounding matters with conscience by a half and imperfect effort at exercising kindness, but upon relieving the case, and placing the unfortunate man in the best circumstances to promote his recovery.

Verses 36, 37. Which of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour? &c.— Which of the three fulfilled the office of neighbour? To this the answer was imperative. The kindness being done to a Jew, he could not say that the Samaritan had done more than his duty, as he might have replied had the unfortunate man been a Samaritan, and the person relieving him a Jew. They denied, indeed, the right of others to their kindness, but, as God's chosen people, thought they had a right to be served by all others; and therefore the lawyer must needs commend the benevolence of the Samaritan. This then being granted, the great moral was explicitly laid down: Go, and do thou likewise; compassionate and relieve the distressed, without any respect to nation or religion; be a neighbour to every man that needs thy assistance, and consider him thy neighbour, one who according to the law thou art to love as thyself. Thus our Lord teaches that this law is binding

upon all men, and that all men are neighbours of each other. He breaks down, as to the obligation of this great social statute, all the distinction of nation and religion, all the divisions created by interests and partial affections, erects the whole community of man into one neighbourhood, and binds each individual to serve another by all kinds of good offices. Nor is this to be admired only as a just and noble sentiment. Sentiments somewhat similar may be found in some pagan writers, the relics of that traditional truth and morality which descended from the patriarchs; but in them these are opinions, and not law. In Christianity they are not only more perfectly stated, and radicated in their true principles, but they become obligatory; they seize upon the conscience, and connect themselves as THE LAW of Christ with our hopes and fears. That they have not hitherto been so influential as they ought in this bad world, is true; but that they have had, in all ages, a large and happy influence, is certain

The

Verse 38. A certain village, and a certain woman.--The village was Bethany, about two miles from Jerusalem. woman was Martha: the family was that which Jesus loved, composed of Martha, Lazarus, and Mary. From Martha receiving Jesus into her house hospitably to entertain him, it appears that she was its mistress, and that Lazarus and Mary resided with her. Grotius conjectures, with probability, that Martha was a widow.

Verse 39. Which also sat at Jesus' feet, &c.-To sit at the feet, is a mode of

describing a disciple, because this was the attitude; the master sitting, and the disciples forming a semicircle about his feet. That Mary very literally took this position with the other disciples, may be doubted; the words only indicating that she was a diligent and attentive hearer of Christ's discourses. This too was the character of Martha. She was a disciple, for Mary is said also to sit at Jesus's feet, that is, as Martha did. When our Lord visited them, they both placed themselves with the others, as attentive, believing, and deeply interested auditors; and probably, like several other female disciples, followed him to various places, and heard his words, and witnessed his wondrous works. On this occasion, our Lord's visit appears to have been improved, with special diligence, by Mary, who left all other occupations to continue within the hearing of those words which conveyed to her so much instruction, and life, and joy. Both Martha and Mary were common names among the Jews; Mary is the same as Miriam.

Verses 40-42. But Martha was cumbered, &c.—The word replona signifies to draw round or aside, and is therefore properly applied to express those cares which absorb the attention, and lead it from that which ought also to be observed and done, as well as the immediate object of solicitude. The same word is used by Epictetus, when describing the distractions to which that man must necessarily be exposed who, fond of externals, has yet some relish for mental improvement and cultivation. Martha was thus draws aside by her anxious care to have the

help me.

meal properly prepared and served, in honour of her Lord, from paying that attention to the words of Christ which the opportunity presented, and which Mary embraced. Not only so, but she thought her excess in this respect right, and therefore complains of her sister, nay, even of our Lord himself, who, by detaining Mary by his discourse, she intimates, partook of the blame of not sufficiently caring that she was left alone to the bustle and fatigue of the occasion. Our Lord's reply is at once full of wisdom and affection. The repetition of her name twice in his address showed that he was uttering a solemn caution, as to a person in danger. The state of her mind was both careful and troubled, too anxious because inwardly disquieted and querulous; a state inconsistent with self-possession, the spirit of prayer, and delight in God. It does not appear that our Lord condemns the many things about which Martha cared; but her caring unnecessarily and in too great a degree about them. Those who fancy that he enjoins one dish instead of many, debase the passage entirely; and it is certain that our Lord often partook of public dinners, after the mode of the country, without objection: besides, if by the one needful thing is meant, one dish, what can be understood by Mary having chosen that good part which should not be taken away from her? By the good part our Lord must, in all fair interpretation, mean the same as the one thing which he had declared to be needful, or the connexion of the sentence is lost. He could not therefore refer to dishes or foods, since the time of the meal had not arrived, and Mary was not choosing any thing already upon the table, or selecting any thing to be brought there. The absurdity of the interpretation, not less than its trifling and jejune character, is sufficient to refute it. The meaning is well expressed in the paraphrase of Grotius: "Various and multiplied are the

cares of this life; but there is one thing which, if we would be saved, is altogether and indispensably necessary to us, namely, the care of religion and piety, and the study of divine things." A most important moral is thus taught, which ought to be deeply engraven upon the heart of every human being. As Martha was not forbidden to care about the affairs of her house, but to care excessively, so to care, in fact, as to neglect important opportunities of instruction and salvation; so we are not prohibited from a proper attention to the affairs of this life, but are exhorted to subordinate them all to our higher and eternal interests, and so to engage in them as not to be hurried and distracted or absorbed by them, but so as still to leave the mind unembarrassed, in the exercise of holy affections, and in the performance of holy duties. Those who would go to the other extreme, and argue, like the Papists, from this passage, in favour of the contemplative life, to the renunciation of active duties, find no real countenance from the history rightly understood. That Mary did not renounce her domestic engagements and affairs in consequence of her discipleship, is plain from this, that she was not, any more than Martha, a constant follower of Christ. We never read of her being in his train either before or after this visit, except when he was at Bethany or the neighbourhood. She was not, therefore, one of those who were commanded to leave all and follow Christ, and was, in all probability, as active in the family as Martha. But on this occasion she lost no part of the opportunity of hearing Christ; and yet it does not follow that she neglected any part of her duty, nor that Martha would have neglected any part of hers, had she sat as closely as her sister at the feet of Christ. Preparations for his visit had, doubtless, been made; as people of wealth, they had servants at command; and the affairs of the house