Sidor som bilder

though personally strangers to each other, were inhabitants of Jericho; who having been up to Jerusalem on a common occasion of recent occurrence, inight be returning in common to their ordinary place of abode. I need not observe that, in this case, besides the general relation of fellow-countrymen, between them and the wounded man, the particular relation of neighbours also, properly so called, would be superinduced. The person in distress, had he been known for what he was, would have had not only that general claim on their sympathy, which any Jew might have had upon another; but the special one, which in the strictest and narrowest acceptation of the term, one neighbour among the Jews, according to the precept of the law, would have had upon another, in the same capacity.

We must not, however, ascribe the behaviour either of the Priestor of the Levite, to a motive which will not be borne out by the circumstances of the case; much less, without corroboration from those circumstances, to a motive which will make it appear worse than it really was. We must not attribute it, therefore, to the principle of sheer inhumanity--as if they acted from a total absence of feeling; from a total insensibility to the spectacle of suffering before them. Simple inhumanity is an habit of mind, which would not explain the fact of an apparent indifference to distress, in a particular instance; but would be incompatible with the fact of sympathy at all, and with the exercise of compassion under any circumstances. It would be no aggravation of a criminal act—consisting in withholding relief from a proper object — but would be a worse offence than that act itself. It would not make it surprising that the party in fault had behaved as he did—if by that is implied that he might, as well as that he ought to have behaved otherwise ; for it would make him incapable of behaving differently at all. Inhumanity, as the spring or principle which determines the conduct where the question is the doing of good gratuitously to others--because they want it and the agent is able to confer it-can respect no claims, nor attend to any distinctions. It can consider no one relation as closer than another, no one obligation as more sacred than another. It could not discriminate between friends or enemies, neighbours or strangers, countrymen or aliens : but it would be incapable of sympathy with any, and deaf to the voice of nature and the intercessions of pity towards any–because equally indifferent to all, and equally careless of all.

It is not easy, indeed, to conceive that any one, not totally brutalized by insensibility, could look on the spectacle which the parable describes in its own simple, but pathetic manner; and not · be affected by it. What? was the sight of a naked, a mangled, a bleeding, an exposed and deserted corpse, apparently in the last stage of existence, to be contemplated by one who possessed but the common feelings of mankind, without horror, and without emotion ? Is there no eloquence in the voice of groans ? no touching or thrilling faculty in the visible agonies of bodily pain? Are there no bowels of compassion, no yearnings of natural affection in one man towards another, which draw him instinctively to sympathize with suffering, and as

instinctively to seek to relieve it? Or must a Priest and a Levite—that is, the ministers of religion in particular—be considered destitute of that which is no more than the ordinary privilege of humanity? Must these alone be insensible to emotion, where none, without a crime, could be incapable of feeling? Must these alone be predetermined to deny the claims of one human being on another, and to refuse that tribute of personal commiseration, in a case like this, which none could have been acquitted of owing, or excused from rendering—who merely bore the forin, and partook of the nature, of a man?

The first act which the narrative ascribes to each of them, upon their approaching to the spot where the wounded person lay, is apparently an act of compassion. They turn aside-out of their proper direction to look upon him ; which so far indicates a disposition to afford him relief. The next is an act of aversion-of strong and decided aversion. They recede from the spot where he lay, and pass away: nor simply pass away, but at the greatest possible distance from him which the limits of the road would permit: they pass away on the other side. Between these two acts, then, something must have intervened, to stifle the feeling of compassion in its birth; and to convert an impulse of kindness, into a sensation of abhorrence and aversion. Now, what could this be, but the examination of the body, and the reflections excited by that spectacle? Nothing else could have taken place, or is implied to have taken place, between the acts in question. But the state of the sufferer at the time, and the reflections which might naturally arise in the mind of the Priest and of the Levite, from the view and observation of his situation, were such and so connected, as to be capable of accounting for the anomaly between their apparent feelings up to a certain time, and their actual conduct afterwards.

As ministers of religion, possessing the same official character, the Priest and the Levite might so far agree together; but as personally distinct individuals, and as acting without concert in the present instance, the conduct of each must have been impelled by a principle and motive of its own. It is not, therefore probable, that two such individuals, independent of each other, would have agreed in the same personal act, except from the same personal feelings; nor yet that those personal feelings would have been the same in each, unless each had been equally predisposed to feel them, and unless there was something in the case before them, naturally calculated to excite them in each. I contend, then, that the conduct of neither is to be accounted for, except on the principle of antecedent prejudice, combined with an ignorance in the particular case : of prejudice against all but Jews, beforehand; with an ignorance that the individual who required their relief in this instance, was a Jew; a prejudice, under which each might previously have laboured alike; and an ignorance, to which each, at the time, would necessarily be liable alike.

With regard to the first of these assertions—not content to limit the sense of the word neighbour, specially to Jews; and consequently the positive obligation of the duties of humanity, fellowfeeling, charity, beneficence, as binding upon neighbours in behalf of neighbours, to such acts as respected their countrymen; the Jews of this day were disposed to deny the name of neighbours in any sense to persons of a different nation, and actually to forbid the interchange of good offices with them. Even Philo Judæus, though an humane and enlightened writer, restricts the obligation of the legal precept,

- Thou “shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” to the treatment of the ēniņaudes, the strangers or proselytes, who were settled among the Jewsy, and it is manifest, were only one degree removed from their brethren according to the flesh. As to the Jews at large, it was as much a point of conscience with them to withhold their good offices from Gentiles, as to communicate them to Jews; both being known to be such. Proofs of the estimation in which the Gentiles were held by them, as compared with themselves, are supplied by the New Testament itself, in abundancez. To hold familiar communication with one of an heathen nation; much more that free and unreserved communication, which is implied in the mutual exchange of acts of friendship and neighbourly kindness, was considered a pollution, and carefully to be avoided. Nor did any part of the Jewish character contribute to prejudice the Greeks and Romans against them, more than this well-known trait; so repulsive, so unsociable, and so repugnant to the first and commonest principles of humanity, as it seemed:

y Operum. ii. 392. 21–40.

2 Matt. x. 5: xviii. 17: John xviii. 29: Acts x. 28: xi. 3: xxii. 21, 22: Galat. ii. 12, 13, &c. &c.

a Hence the remark of Tacitus, Hist. v. 5: Et, quia apud ipsos fides obstinata, misericordia in promtu, sed adversus omnes alios hostile odium, &c. And Juvenal's well-known lines;

Romanas autem soliti contemnere leges,
Judaïcum ediscunt, et servant, et metuunt jus,

« FöregåendeFortsätt »