Wessington Springs herald. (Wessington Springs, Aurora County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1883-1891, 1885-01-30
THE DUTY OF LOVING.

THE DUTY OF LOVING.
The Golden Rule as ~EHcmplifcd in the
Act Of the Good Samaritan-We Can Love
Our Neighbour as Ourselves.
We often overlook the fact that Christ
is intensely practical i'll His teaching.
For example. VIC are tempted to believe
that it is impossible to love our neigh
Dor rs ourselves, and in the parable of
the good Samaritan our Lord is teach
inc the practicablcness of this rule of
conduct. Let Us look at the story in
this light. The largest question to be
answered is: Did the Samaritan cXeIn-
pity the rule: Did he love his neigh
Dor as himself?: Our Lords closing
word shows Chat in His pure sight the
Samaritan had kept the law. He says:
$50 thou and do likewise" The next
question is whether the case is a fair
case. Does the incident cover the prac-
tical everyday demands OF the rule: n
seerils to do so. Ii the Samaritan had
himself fallen among thieves. and been
left for dead by cruel villains, he could
have wished a brother man to do Just,
what the Samaritan did-no more. He
did Just what he would have done for
himself il he had been able to do it. He
saved the man. in so Tar as the man
could be saved; he coulI have done no
more than that for himself. Before
asking the lex question. it is proper to
note that loac in Christ's life means
conduct, and not merely the emotion
which prompts it. Lowe is, in His
teaching ALWAYS a love at work, an &C
tivity expressing right feeling. 1t is
not q metaphysical condition which is
meant by loving our eighbor rs our
selves. All debate is shut out which re-
lates to the power, dominance or uni
versatility of sclf-!ovc. We may love
ourselves more hours in the day than we
love our neighbor: we may do more
acts from >clf-love than from neighbor
love. This is the natural order, since
self-care requires most of our time. vet
we may interrupt and sacrifice self-care
to care for Il neighbor.
The thiId practical question is whetE-
er the goo2 Samaritan hMg a compare
lively easy task, or Il comparatively
difficult one. The story is told by our
Lord with as many elements of difficult
ty as we can easily conceive of. The
fact that the priest and levitc passed
by on the other side and left their coun-
tryman im his blood, indicates that the
task OF relieving him Was Il very disa-
grceable one. No chanceis left to doubt
this. If only a priest or a levitc had
passed by. there might have been some
shadow Of doubt. The fact that two
OF the wounded mans countrymen.
men, too, OF refined feeling and habits,
and therefore by education adapted to,
perceive distress, and the fact that he
was their countryman, their brother in
Abraham. intensiiies the view of the
d~isagreeable character OF the task. Also,
the Samaritan and the Jew were enc
mics Ii they had been personal enc
mics the case could hardly have been
worse in this characteristic. The Ss-
marian had, in order to obey the law,
to suocor and relieve his country's enc
my; and so bitter was the hostility that
TO most Jews and Samaritans, if not
all. the quarrel was personal. The
Samaritan did for his enemy what he
would have done'for himself in like cir
e%umstances, if he had been able.
There remains the practical question
whether the act OF the Samaritan was
80 abnormal and strange as to belong
to 2 fairy land or the Heavenly world.
DO we think Of it as Il superhuman act,
beyond the power OF men not mirac,1-
lousy helped to do it? We ruise no
question about grace or deprayity: only
the practical one about common feeling.
DID the Samaritan do something more
than u human and manly act living
within the sphere of humanity9: The
question is not whether mel habitually
do as he did, hut whether in doing SO
ne seems to us to be acting su%pernatur-
ally. Many things are too rarely done
which are still altogether human. hay
ing, indeed, q sweet flavor of humanity
about them. What the Samaritan did
has been often done in the world. Most
men, if not all, believe that it is per-
tectly possible to initiate this kind and
generous action. The conclusion is in
reslstible that ouc Lord in this cxpla-
nation OF the law puts obedience to Tin
the sphere OF the practical. We can
love u nc!ghbors as ourselves. We
can do for them in the order of their
needs and claims-an order of infirmity
and distEcss-what we should, if we
could, DO Tor ourselves il the same