“MY NEIGHBOUR”

Wanganui Chronicle, 1 July 1935, Page 9

“MY NEIGHBOUR”

ADDRESS BY REV. NICHOLLS. ,-I The Rew L. Nirlioll- gave an address in the Ingestre Si. Bapti.-t Church last evening entitled ‘‘My , Neighbour; The Relief Worker.'• In this address reference was made lo the . monster public meeting to be held in the’ Opera 11-ei.-e on Tue-d:iy. July > and io the ‘ ‘ nianil'e.-te)' ’ which will be presented at the meeting. Alter gi\ j ing an exposition of our Lord's well- > known parable “The (food Samaritan,” lithe speaker proceeded by saying:-- ■• | Wo have been contem plal iii” a cell’ l I Prated •• tableau \ riant "of a group of i neigh bon is, which was executed by a ; master haad more than eighteen him■j<ired years ago. We >iig”e-ted that it ; might possess besides its other mar- > vellous qualities that capacity of reflection which is common to every mirror. • We wore invited to hang it up before . our consciences, in order to test this » reflective capacity. Have we done so? .* And as face answers to face in the - glass, did it give back to us some welli known feature.-.’ 1 To overcome any obliquity of the I resemblance, let us analyst* each of the : character.- that figure in this portrait. I We will first take up the several great ■. principles that enter into the basis of i the plot, and then proceed from stroke to stroke and feature to feature. We I will commence with the first neighbour, i the priest. This reverend gentleman i sustained the mo.sl intimate relation to the maltreated Jew. Local proxim- ? ity made him his neighbour. iVs saeei- ? dotal office made Jiim his spiritual guide I and teacher, it was, in fact, his pro- ’ fession to love him in his nei-osily, to ) comfort, him in his affliction. His unfortunate parishioner looked upon him > with a soul of lilial confidence; hi l re--1 him as his friend; he was to ! him as his friends; he was to him, as I it were, somewhat in God’s stead, pro- ; seating his oblations a.nd propitiating the divine blessing upon his head. But the simple-hearted parishioner .'fell among thieves, who robbed him and 1 left him half dead in a desert place, ■•iway from his home. And by chance ;his minister came down that way. and 1 saw him in this pitiable condition. He saw’ his bleeding wounds, for the thieves had stripped him of his raiment. He heard his groans and long- . drawn signs for help. He saw what r hope of relief the sound of his foot- . step had awakened in tin* poor man’s ; heart; he heard his inarticulate cricts for mercy; he could have raised him . from his wallowing place of blood. The means of mercy were in his hands, but he passed by on the other side, without a looker word of pity! Was he a neighbour? No! Why nol? He sustained till the local alliniiics of tiuri relation; why, then, was he not his { n* “l.iiour? The reason constitutes (he great moral of the He had i.ever obeyed the first commandment, nevii* loved God with all his mind, soul ’ and strength. The evidence of thus was brought out in startling prominence by his conduct to his neighbour. The great principle, wrought out by philosophical demonstration in this parable, is the eternal truth, that the, love of our neighbour is not only a constituent element, but the only evidence of our love to God. Hence, the repeated declarations of the Gospel are corroborated by every principle of moral philosophy, when they assert that no one can love God without loving his neighbour. As in the case of Pharaoh's dream, two illustrations were employed by our Saviour to develop this truth. Th * Levite succeeded the priest in the same course and for the same end as *'ie seven lean cars followed the seven lean kine, in the Egyptian’s vision. Like that memorable dream, the parable w is one; it illustrated but one proporitinn. The Levite, indeed, sustained a 1 re intimate local relation to the Jew. In Ilia religious and civil duties he came in half-way between him and the priest. He might have had more personal intercourse with him, lived near his dwelling, net him ol tuner in the streets and in the tonlple, been more in his confidence ami betler acquainted with his family. He lacked but one thing of being an excellent neighbour, and that was the Jove of God in his heart. Alan never did and never <a,i create a. greater distance between himself and his fellow than that which divided be tween the .Jew and the Samaritan. Local p“oximily, a common fealty to Ihe Roman Empire, a mutual contention for the same religious faith, tenacious claims to the same lineage, a close rcsinblance of la.nguagc and customs- made them not neighbours but mutual enemies. The Samaritans had the disadvantage, in their hatred of the Jews, in being the despised party—an aggravation that added acrimony to their hostility. The Jews had expelled them from their common, not so much as enemies as but as vagabonds, branded will) every epithet of contempt and harrowing dignity. Had the, Samaritans burned the temple they built on Mount Gerizcm, and their Pental emdi and espoused any form of idolatry, they would have escaped the death’.es- fury of that indignation which has always visited that sin ol sins, heresy, or a difference of religious opinion ami worship. The Samaritan in the parable, of course, wius fully aware of the sent; merits the wounded traveller had cherishcc. towards him the. very morning lie left Jerusalem. He knew it was par:-, of the Jew’s religion to despise ami hate him. It; is this circumstance that, colder.- an eternal lustre upon his ad cf mercy. Had the traveller been a mortal enemy; had nothing but a dignified hatred divided the parties, the IHcasi.ic of a magnanimous compicH, of ’die heart of a foe might have - ■! the noble deed. But no si T c.om'dion offered a middle ground >1 charity When the good Haman:, in "diicd from his mule and bent Q\e' 11). I.deeding man he knew that, had bt-cj an object; of disgust ami religmiirepugnance Io the per.-< :i he was about to succuur. He had ; itli ient reason to believe that the Jew would have driven h'■ m liom his door or the dogs chased him from Jerusalem, had he applied there for aid or social ia I ercou rse. With the recoiled ion of all this bitter prejudice wrong ami insult darting through hi- mind, a hall' suppressed thought n. l g'.d ha vi- wlii<pe' (’d to hi.- memory. "Is tin- my neighbour?" In this proml I man. who ha > haled me .ill liis lite, de I me. Ire;.led me a a \U-gahoild, ■ l onm ii n ica I<d me* I rom the Im ma n family, rinsed my ehildrcii ami m.\ grave, ami their and my di -embodied spirit . tin ni.in my neighbour? Smii a. thought may or may m-l have pa>>ed through his mind. If it I, it checked not the instantaneous impulse ol his svmpathv. But was the Jew his neighbour? il<* knew that he sustained a blood relation to God; that they both | l;il | ( , :i c lira . eidy I’al her. anjl, < on-c--(pli‘!illv, W'err not only neigh boll I-, bill, tired hren. In other words his charily l<> ihc hrlpie-' Jew was nothing <!->■ llrni. an involuntary exercise ol the l(,\<- of God, that was burning on the. alUr of hi- 1 heart. The. instantaneous iniuulic of his philanthropy was a vol-