Page:Christ as found in the Evangelists compared with Present Day Teaching.djvu/174

164 his interference in a purely secular case like this? He did not look upon it in that light; he did not imagine that as a physician of souls he was in any way bound to care for the bodies of his flock. As long as he performed his perfunctory duties of priest, why should he put himself to inconvenience by taking upon himself the care of a wounded man? He had no charity, although a priest; he had no humanity, although he stood in the place of God. Who was this man who lay insensible by the roadside? He did not know him, he was not even one of his congregation; he was no neighbour of his, and so he passed by on the other side.

Not long after, a Levite came to the same place. A Levite held an inferior office to that of a priest. In Numbers iii. we read that a Levite was one whose duty it was to minister to the priest; they were given to the priests for service in the tabernacle. They were thus an inferior caste, as it were, less holy than the priest; but as if to show that it was the fulfilment of the spirit rather than of the letter of the law which availed most, the Levite is represented as being a shade superior to the priest. While the latter passed by on the other side, without a spark of sympathy, the Levite came and looked on the wounded man, although his humanity was not sufficient to move him to active compassion.

This, indeed, was reserved for the third passer-by. A very different man was he from those who preceded him. He was neither a priest nor a Levite—nor was he even a Jew. He was a Samaritan—one of a despised and hated heretical sect, of whom in another place it was said, 'The Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans' (John iv. 9). Yet notwithstanding this, when the Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where the wounded man lay, and saw him, he had compassion on him, and went to him, and bound up his wounds. He did not stop to consider whether he was a Samaritan like himself; he did not wait to ask himself if he knew him, or whether he was a neighbour; he only saw that the man was in distress—that he was in urgent need of help and assistance; he only recognised that he was a