he was convinced, that he stood in need of compassion and relief; and that was the very reason of his keeping himself at a distance from him. The Levite was still better acquainted with his case, for he went and looked on his wounds and saw his danger and distress. They both knew, that he must inevitably perish unless some body should speedily pity and relieve him. Their negligence, therefore, could not arise from ignorance. Nor was it owing to any national prejudice. The Jews at that day had no dealings with the Samaritans, whom they viewed as heathens and idolaters. Had the wounded man been a Samaritan, it might be supposed that they neglected him, because he belonged to a nation, with whom they meant to hold no friendly intercourse. But he was a Jew, a kinsman according to the flesh, who had a peculiar claim to their sympathy and attention. This they both could discover, with a glance of the eye; and consequently they did not forsake him in his distress, on account of any personal, or national prejudice. Nor was their negligence to be ascribed to a mere want of love to that miserable object. This was undoubted

the case, that they had no love of compassion to. wards him. They neither loved, nor hated him; but their mere want of love or hatred could not be the faulty cause, nor indeed any cause at all of their passing by him. The mere want of love, or pity, or compassion, or any other affection, can never be criminal. Nothing has no qualities and the mere want of any thing is noth ing; and therefore the mere want of pity, or compassion, towards an object of distress, cannot be in the least degree sinful. Had the Priest and Levite neglected their suffering countryman from no other cause than a mere want of benevolence towards him, their conduct would appear very different from what our Savior meant to represent it. Their treatment of bim must have arisen from some positively sinful cause. And what could this be but selfishness? They were in the positive exercise of selfishness, when they saw, and neglected to relieve a wounded, helpless man. They preferred their

own ease and interest to his life and happiness. They supposed it would be some hindrance and disadvantage to their objects of pursuit, to stop on their journey and bind up his wounds and supply his wants; and therefore they deliberately and voluntarily chose to let him die, rather than spend a little time, a little pains, and a little property to save his life. Such selfish voluntary exercises excluded all tender, benevolent, compassionate feelings from their hearts. And it is apparent, that total selfishness would operate in this manner and harden their hearts as adamant towards that poor, miserable object. Total selfishness always excludes all benevolence and makes a person altogether indifferent to the happiness and misery of all beings in the universe but himself. Total selfishness, therefore, and nothing else, can account for the conduct of the Priest and Levite towards the man, whom they left to welter and die in his blood. Their entire selfishness made them as regardless of his life and death, as the thieves were, who wounded him and left him half dead. They robbed and wounded him from no other motive, than their own supposed private, personal, selfish good; and the Priest and Levite acted from precisely the same selfish motives. Nor would they have acted any otherwise, had there been ten, or ten thousand men in the same suffering condition. They only acted out that total selfishness, which is natural to all mankind and which is opposed to God and to all good. Let us now enquire,

4

2. Why the Samaritan treated the same object of distress so differently from the Priest and Levite.Had he been governed by the same selfish spirit, that they possessed, we can see no reason why he should not have followed their steps and left the poor man to die, without regarding his case, or affording him any relief. This constrains us to conclude, that he possessed a spirit of pure, diffusive benevolence, which spontaneously moved him to acts of pity and compassion. For,

1. A benevolent spirit would dispose him to stop, when he saw the miserable object in the path. The Priest it appears by the account, would not so much as stop, to examine the affecting case of a wounded, bleeding man, but pursued his own course and his own interest without the least sympathy, or compassion. Though he knew the divine law, which it was his proper office to teach and practise, required him to relieve a neighbor's dumb beast in distress; yet he would not put himself out, or give himself the least trouble, to relieve a human being, whose sufferings imperiously called for his commiseration and assistance. But though the Samaritan was on a long journey and engaged in some important business; yet he was willing to postpone his journey and his business till another day, for the sake of healing the wounds and preserving the life of a stranger. He loved others as himself and sought not his own things, but the things of others, which was an expression of pure benevolence and true self-denial. He pleased his own happiness in the happiness of others, which is the essence of holy love, in distinction from selfish.

2. A benevolent spirit would naturally dispose him to exercise pity and tenderness towards such a proper object of pity and compassion. The Levite stopped and went to the man lying in anguish ; and yet with a heart more obdurate and unfeeling than that of the Priest, left him to perish without help and without hope. But the Samaritan felt very differently on the occasion, for he had compassion on him in his forlorn condition. True benevolence always disposes those, who possess it, to enter into the feelings of their fellow men under all circumstances; to rejoice with them that rejoice, to mourn with them that mourn, to weep with them that weep and to suffer with them that suf fer. Our Savior shed tear for tear and heaved sigh for sigh with the mourners at the grave of Lazarus. God himself is good unto all and his tender mercies are over all his works. He hears the young ravens when they cry and pities the pains and distresses of

every living creature. And all, who are merciful as their Father in heaven is merciful, feel compassion towards every wretched and helpless object their eyes behold. They always have a heart to pity, though they may not have skill, nor power, nor property to relieve. Such tender, compassionate feelings had the Samaritan towards even a Jew, one of his national enemies. He entered into his painful feelings and heartily commiserated his unhappy fate. He loved this neighbor as himself and felt as he would wish that another should feel towards him in the same wretched situation. This was an effect, which could flow from no other source, than pure, disinterested, universal benevolence, but would spontaneously flow from such a virtuous principle.

3. A benevolent heart would naturally dispose him to afford relief to the object of his compassion. It is the nature of goodness to do good; and of compassion to relieve the distressed. God is good; and therefore he does good, not only to the good, but also to the evil and unthankful. Goodness in Christ prompted him to go about doing good, healing the sick, easing the pained, relieving the distressed and raising the dead.----Goodness in Job made him guide the blind, support the lame, feed the hungry, clothe the naked and cause the widow's heart to sing for joy. The same benevolent spirit moved the good Samaritan to all his acts of kindness to the distressed Jew. It moved him to bind up his wounds and pour oil and wine into them, though he was no surgeon and never practised the healing art. It moved him to take him up and set him on his own beast. It moved him to convey him to the best place of entertainment and commit him to the care of one to whom it properly belonged to provide for the wants of strangers and travellers. And it moved him to another and greater act of self-denial; that is, to part with his money, which commonly lies so near the hearts of men. In a word, his benevolent heart prompted him to do every thing, that was necessary to be done, to relieve the pains, to remove the despair, to supply the

wants, to promote the happiness and to preserve the life of a poor, suffering fellow mortal. When he left this feeble, wounded man at the inn, he did not know how long he would need the care and attention of the family where he was; and therefore he engaged to remunerate them for all their future necessary labor, trouble and expence, which displayed his integrity as well as benevolence.

4. A benevolent heart would naturally dispose him to treat the poor man in all respects as he did, without any prospect of reward. And it clearly appears from the statement of the case, that he acted from purely disinterested motives, without the least prospect of any compensation. The man was a stranger, whom he had never seen before and never expected to see again; for he supposed he might be gone before he returned from his journey. So that he had no ground to expect, that the man he relieved would ever so much as thank him for his kindness, or publish his benevolence. For aught that appears, the inn-keeper did not know the poor man's benefactor, so that he could not expect that he would spread the fame of his humanity. Neither the Priest, nor the Levite saw him pity and relieve the wounded man, so that it cannot be supposed, that he acted with a view to cast reproach upon them for their selfish, mean, inhuman conduct. It clearly appears from the case stated, that the good Samaritan freely sacrificed his time, his trouble and his property to the life and happiness of the poor Jew. This was acting without regard to his own interest and directly in opposition to it. In this instance, he loved his neighbour better than himself and valued his neighbour's interest more than his own. His benevolence was not only disinterested, but unlimited by any thing, except his neighbour's wants; for he promised to do more than he had done, if his neighbour's good required it. Now, if we lay all these things together, can we account for the Samaritan's conduct upon any other ground than pure, holy benevolence? I know the best