ling to justify himself, faid unto Jefus, And who is my Neighbour? What now is it that he would justify himself from? No Charge had been brought against him; so far from it, that our Lord had commended his difcreet Answer; and if he acted according to the Terms he had proposed, our Lord had promised him Life. This can be no otherwife accounted for but from the Confcioufnefs of the Perfon himself, who knew very well that his Practice was not conformable to the general Rule he had laid down, and which had been approved and commended by our Lord. Our Saviour's faying to him, THIS DO, and thou shalt live, called him to compare his Practice with the Rule he had propofed; and upon a fecret Comparison made in his own Mind, he found that to justify himself, the Terms of the Rule must be explained and limited; and therefore he fays, Who is my Neighbour? In the Sense of the Law, and according to our Saviour's Expofition of it, every Man who wants our Affiftance, and whom we are able to affift, is our Neighbour, and as fuch entitled to our good Offices. The Jews had some very near Neighbours, in the reftrained Senfe of the Word, with whom they were so far

from

from entertaining any Intercourfe of good Offices, that all common Civilities had ceafed among them: those were the Samaritans ; and fo far were the Refentments of the Jews carried, that when our Saviour defired a Woman of Samaria to give him a little Water to drink, fhe expreffes great Wonder at it, and says, How is it that thou, being a Jew, afkeft Drink of me, which am a Woman of Samaria? And the Evangelist gives the Reason of her Wonder-for the Jews have no Dealings with the Samaritans(John iv. 9.) This being the Cafe, when our Saviour put eternal Life upon Obedience to this Law, Thou fhalt love thy Neighbour as thyself, there was great Reason to afk the Question, Who is my Neighbour? Had our Lord told him, in Conformity to the Opinions and Practices of the Jews, that they only were Neighbours who were of the Family and Stock of Abraham, or of the fame Faith and Religion with themfelves, the Man had found what he fought after, a Juftification of himself: but when our Saviour, demanding his Opinion upon the Cafe of the good Samaritan, had forced him into a Confeffion that even the Samaritan was his Neighbour, he stood condemned

R 4

demned out of his own Mouth; and upon the Example of one, whom he reckoned his Enemy, was fent away with this fhort Reproof and Admonition, Go, and do thou likewife.

The Parable of the good Samaritan is fo well known, that I fhall but just mention the Circumstances of it :-One travelling from Jerufalem fell among Thieves, was robbed and wounded. A Prieft and a Levite; who were, in every Senfe of the Word, Neighbours to the unfortunate Man; and if, in Duties of common and general Obligation, one can be more obliged than another, they were, by Character, especially obliged to relieve this poor Neighbour; but they looked on him, and paffed by on the other Side. A Samaritan, excluded by the Jews from all Rights of Neighbourhood, came by, and had Compaffion on the Sufferer; he dreffed his Wounds himself, and afterwards placed him, at his own Expence, under the Care of one, who was to fee the Cure perfected.

The Queftion now was, who was Neighbour to this unfortunate Man, in the Sense of the Law, Thou shalt love thy Neighbour. as thyself. As the Cafe was stated, there was

no

no Room to infift on the near Relation the Prieft and Levite bore to the wounded Man; the nearer their Relation, the worse Neighbours were they for neglecting him; no. Room to object against the Samaritan, his Want of Relation, or his Difference in Re-. ligion; the lefs and the fewer his privateObligations were, the more difinterested was his Obedience to the Law, and the better Neighbour was he. Upon the whole of this Cafe, our Lord's Conclufion is, Go, and do thou likewife.

Taking then this Direction of our blessed Saviour, as it ftands explained by these Circumstances, it will lead us to confider,

I. The Nature and Extent of Charity, or Love to our Neighbour.

II. The Value of the Excuses which Men frequently make for Neglect of this Duty.` And,

III. The Excellency of that particular Charity, which gives Occafion to this Day's Meeting.

I. Of the Nature and Extent of Charity, or Love to our Neighbour.

I obferved to you before, that the principal Intention of our bleffed Saviour was not to fhew the Neceffity of Works of Mercy,

for

for that under certain Limitations was admitted on all Sides. Nor was it to recommend one Kind of Charity in Preference to another, but to fhew the Extent of all. In stating a Case, it was neceffary to instance in fome Sort of charitable Work; but the Conclufion, Go, and do thou likewise, is not confined to that Kind of Work only, but is intended to fhew us who are our Neighbours in Regard to Works of Mercy and Compaffion in every Kind.

The Works of Mercy are as various, and of as many Kinds, as the Wants and Infirmities of Men, which are the Objects of Mercy. Were Men perfect, there would be nothing in them to pity or compaffionate. Every Kind, therefore, and every Degree of Mifery is an Object of Mercy; and whether Men are exposed to Calamities by the Neceffity of their Condition, and the overruling Providence of God; or whether they bring them on themselves by Sin and Wickedness, or by Folly and Indifcretion; yet ftill, confidered as miferable, they are Objects of Pity. If this were not fo, Mercy

would not be one of the Attributes of the Deity. For he is not moved by a Fellowfeeling of our Calamities, or any Apprehen