-not merely in his profession, but in his practice. He should think it no misspent time to work as hard in doing good to those who need help, as others work in trying to get money. He should not be ashamed to toil as much to make the misery of this world rather smaller, as those toil who hunt or shoot all day long. He should have a ready ear for every tale of sorrow, and a ready hand to help every one in affliction, so long as he has the power. Such brotherly love the world may not understand. The returns of gratitude which such love meets with may be few and small. But to show such brotherly love, is to walk in the steps of Christ, and to reduce to practice the parable of the good Samaritan.

And now let us leave the parable with grave thoughts and deep searchings of heart.-How few Christians seem to remember that such a parable was ever written! What an enormous amount of stinginess, and meanness, and ill-nature, and suspicion there is to be seen in the Church, and that even among people who repeat the creed and go to the Lord's table !-How seldom we see a man who is really kind, and feeling, and generous, and liberal, and good-natured, except to himself and his children! Yet the Lord Jesus Christ spoke the parable of the good Samaritan, and meant it to be remembered.

What are we ourselves? Let us not forget to put that question to our hearts. What are we doing, each in our own station, to prove that this mighty parable is one of the rules of our daily life? What are we doing for the heathen, at home and abroad? What are we doing to help those who are troubled

in mind, body, or estate?

There are many such in this world. There are always some near our own doors. What are we doing for them? Anything, or nothing at all? May God help us to answer these questions! The world would be a happier world if there was more practical Christianity.

NOTES. LUKE X. 29-37.

29.-[He willing to justify himself.] It may be doubted whether the word translated "willing," would not have been better rendered "desiring." It is so translated in the following passages in St. Luke, (Luke v. 39. viii. 20: x. 24: xx. 46: xxiii. 8.), as well as in other places in the New Testament.

The expression makes clear the true character of the lawyer. He was a self-righteous man, and flattered himself that he could deserve the eternal life he had inquired about by his own doings.

[Who is my neighbour?] The lawyer, no doubt, expected that our Lord would answer according to the narrow-minded prejudices of the Jewish nation at that time, that Jews alone were his neighbours. Major quotes two remarkable passages from Tacitus and Juvenal, proving that even among the heathen Romans the Jews were notorious for bitterness and ill-feeling towards all who were not of their own nation.

The feeling of the Jews towards other nations is a remarkable instance of man's readiness to pervert and misapply God's laws. The law of Moses about intercourse and intermarriage with foreigners, was undoubtedly meant for the good of the Jews, to keep them a separate people among the nations of the earth. But it was never meant to sanction unkindness and want of charity.

30.-[From Jerusalem to Jericho.] The road between these two places passed through a wild and rocky country, and was notorious for being infested by robbers. On this account, Jerome says, it was called "the bloody way." It is a curious fact, that Dr. Bonar, one of the latest travellers in Palestine, mentions, that even now it is a dangerous road for people to travel alone, and that a lady in his company well-nigh "fell among thieves." 31.-[By chance.] The Greek word so rendered is only found here in the New Testament. It means literally, "by coincidence,— as it happened."

[A certain Priest.] There is a Priest and a Levite on this road.

propriety in the mention of a Jericho was a city specially

appointed for the residence of Priests and Levites. No less than 12,000 of them, according to Lightfoot, lived there. At Jerusalem was the temple, which Priests and Levites had to attend in monthly courses. These circumstances make it quite natural for a Priest and a Levite to be on the road.

[Passed by on the other side.] Parkhurst suggests that the Priest was afraid of being legally polluted by touching a dead carcase, and thinks that his conduct is an example of hypocritical pretence to excessive ceremonial purity, like that recorded in Matt. xxvii. 6; John xviii. 28.

32. [Came and looked on him.] The conduct of the Levite, be it remarked, was worse than that of the Priest. Both "saw" the wounded man, but the Levite seems to have "come" to him, and then passed by.

33. [Came where he was.] It may be doubted whether the Greek words here would not have been more literally rendered, "came unto him."

34. [Pouring in oil.] A note in Schoettgen throws light on this expression. He says, "Some one might naturally ask whence this traveller got his oil and wine on a journey? It has occured to me that travellers in hot eastern countries made a point of carrying oil with them, that they might anoint and strengthen their limbs wearied with continual heat. We have an example in the case of Jacob, who, even when he slept on the bare ground in Bethel, and journeyed alone with only a staff, nevertheless had oil with him, with which he anointed the stone, and oil which he poured out to the glory of God." (Gen. xxviii. 18.) 35.—[Two pence.] Let it be noted, that this sum was in reality much larger than it appears at first sight to an English reader. The value of money was very different then from what it is now. A "penny a day," according to Matthew xx. 2, was a fair day's

wages.

36.-Thinkest thou, was.] The Greek here is literally, "seems to thee to have been."

Before leaving this parable, a question of some importance demands consideration:-"Is the parable of the good Samaritan an allegory or not? Is it meant to teach the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to man? Was the conduct of the good Samaritan intended to be interpreted by us as a type and figure of our Lord Jesus Christ's great work of redemption?"-Let the question be rightly understood. The question is not whether the passage may be accommodated and fitted by man, so as to illustrate the work of Christ on behalf of sinners. The question is simply this:-"Did our Lord Jesus Christ speak the parable with this double meaning, and intend us to interpret it in this way?"

The question is one which the great majority of Commentators at once answer in the affirmative. According to them, the traveller represents human nature,-the falling among thieves, Adam's fall,-the lying naked, wounded, and half dead, the condition of mankind,—and the failure of the priest and Levite to help, the inability of ceremonies and forms to raise man from his low estate. The good Samaritan is Jesus Christ. The oil and wine are the blood of Christ and the Holy Spirit. The inn is the Church. The host is the ministry. The two pence are the two sacraments. The promised coming again to repay what is spent more, the Lord's second advent.

This, with some minor variations, is the sense which many Commentators, both ancient and modern, extract from the parable. Mr. Alford even speaks of those who cannot receive it, as "the superficial school of critics."-There is no denying the praise of ingenuity to the interpretation. To many it is sure to appear very clever, just because it is not natural. But the serious question remains still to be answered: "Did our Lord Jesus Christ really intend this meaning to be placed upon the parable?"-My own conviction decidedly is, that He did not; and that the allegorical sense which has been placed on the parable, is a gratuitous invention of man.

My reasons for not holding the allegorical interpretation of the parable are three-fold.

1. I see nothing either in the passage, or in the context, to lead me to suppose that our Lord meant to convey more than one plain lesson by it. That lesson is the true nature of love to our neighbours.

2. I see much in the circumstances of the parable itself which appears to me to overthrow entirely the idea that it is an allegory of man's redemption. Without twisting and straining it in the most violent and unwarrantable manner, the parable, upon the allegorical interpretation, involves manifest absurdities.-Grant that the traveller represents human nature. At best, it is an awkward figure. The traveller was an object of pity, and only half dead. Man is more than pitiable: he deserves blame, and is dead in sins. But who then can the priest and Levite be who fail to give aid? They are part of human nature themselves!-Grant, in order to avoid this awkwardness, that the traveller means the Gentile, and the failure of priest and Levite to help him, the weakness of the Mosaic law. Again, the question arises, what are we to make of the inn and the host, if they mean the Church and the ministry? At this rate, the Gentiles are handed over to the care of the Gentiles, since there was no Gentile Church till Christ called and formed it! All this may seem to some minds to admit of explanation. To my own it appears to involve inextricable confusion.

3. My third and last reason is this. I hold it to be a most dangerous mode of interpreting Scripture, to regard everything which its words may be tortured into meaning, as a lawful interpretation of the words. I hold undoubtedly that there is a mighty depth in all Scripture, and that in this respect it stands alone. But I also hold that the words of Scripture were intended to have one definite sense, and that our first object should be to discover that sense, and adhere rigidly to it. I believe that, as a general rule, the words of Scripture are intended to have, like all other language, one plain definite meaning, and that to say that words do mean a thing, merely because they can be tortured into meaning it, is a most dishonourable and dangerous way of handling Scripture. If any one wants to see to what absurdities such a mode of interpreting Scripture leads, he has only to read the commentaries of the Fathers. Hardly any, except perhaps Chrysostom, seem satisfactory and sound on this point.

I am quite aware that in holding the views which I have endeavoured to defend, about the parable of the good Samaritan, I hold the views of a small minority of commentators. But that those with whom I agree are not all "superficial," I think the following five names prove,-Gualter, Baxter, Scott, Poole, and Adam Clarke. Even Stella, the Roman Catholic Spanish commentator, denounces the allegorical interpretation, and Maldonatus, is evidently unwilling to endorse it.

The question will probably never be settled as long as the world stands, but I have thought it right to bear my testimony fully and frankly to what I believe to be the truth.

LUKE X. 38-42.

38 Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.

:

39 And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word.

40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that

my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.

41 And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:

42 But one thing is needful and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

THE little history which these verses contain, is only recorded in the Gospel of St. Luke.

So long as the

world stands, the story of Mary and Martha will furnish the Church with lessons of wisdom which ought