of it this way; for as the Apostle fays excellently, The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. Some think that Abraham gives the rich man the title of Son ironically, and by way of jeer; but without all reafon. For furely there is not fo much bad nature in heaven, as to fcoff at those who are in mifery. Befides that we find our Saviour obferving this decorum of good language in other of his parables; as particularly, in that of the king who invited gue fts to the marriage of his fon, Matth. xxii. 11. When the king faw there the man that came without his wedding garment, though he paft a very fevere fentence upon him, yet he gives him the common terms of civility, Friend, how cameft thou hi ther? This fhould teach us Chriftians, how we ought to demean ourselves towards thofe who are at the greatest distance from us, and how we ought to behave ourselves towards one another in the greatest differences of religion. None fure can be at greater diftance than Abraham in paradife, and the rich man in hell; and yet our Saviour would not reprefent them as at terms of defiance with one another. One might have expected that Abraham fhould have reviled this poor wretch, and difdained to have fpoken to him: But this is not the temper of heaven, nor ought it to be of good men upon earth, even towards the worst of men. How does this condemn our rudeness and impatience with one another, in our religious differences! we think no terms bad enough to ufe towards one another and yet one of the most famous difputes that we find mentioned in fcripture, and that between the most oppofite parties that can be imagined, was managed after another fashion; I mean that recorded by St. Jude between Michael the Arch-angel, and the Devil, ver. 9. Yet Michael the Arch-angel, when contending with the Devil, he disputed about the body of Mofes, durft not bring a railing accusation; he durft not allow himself this, no, not in the heat of difpute,' when perfons are most apt to fly out into paffion, be caufe cause it was indecent; and would have been difpleafing to God. This I believe is the true reason why it is faid, he durft not bring a railing accufation. And yet I may add another, which is not improper for our confideration, I am fure it hath a good moral, the Devil would have been too hard for him at railing, he was better skilled at that weapon, and more expert at that kind of difpute. Which confideration may be a good argument tọ us against reviling any man. If we revile the good, we are unjust, because they deferve it not; if we re, vile the bad, we are unwife, becaufe we fhall get nothing by it. I could almost envy the character which was given of one of the Romans; Nefcivit quid effet malè dicere;" he knew not what it was to give bad "language." I proceed. Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime received thy good things. Thy good things thofe which thou didst value and efteem fo highly, and didft place thy chief happinefs in, as if there had been no other good to be fought after. Thy good things, and indeed fo he used them, as if he had been the fole lord and proprietor of them, and they had not been committed to him, as a fteward, to be difpenfed for his mafter's ufe, for the cloathing of the naked, and the feeding of the hungry, and the relieving of those in diftrefs. Ver. 27, 28. Then he faid, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldst fend him to my father's house; for I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, left they also come into this place of torment. Here the rich man, though in hell, is reprefented as retaining fome tendernefs for his relations, as folicitous left they fhould be involved in the fame mifery with himself. The latt piece of that which commonly remains in men, is natural affection, which is not fo much a virtue, as a natural principle, and is common to many brute beasts. When a man puts off this, we may give him up for loft to all manner of goodnefs. To be without natural affection, is the worst character can be given of a man. Our Saviour reprefents this rich man in hell as not fo totally degenerate as to be quite deftitute of this.. Q3 I think Ser. 126 I think fome attribute this motion of the rich man concerning his brethren to another caufe; as if he had defired it, not out of kindness to them, but out of regard to himfelf; as being afraid that if his brethren, who probably were corrupted by his example, had perifhed by that means, it would have been an aggravation of his torments. But this conjecture is too fubtile, and without any good ground; for every man carries his burden of guilt with him out of this world, and it is not increafed by any confequence of our actions here. For the crime of a bad example is the fame, whether men follow it or not, because he that gives bad example to others, does what in him lies to draw them into fin; and if they do not follow it, that is no mitigation of his fault. I have but one observation more, and that is from the mention of his brethren as his nearest relations; which is a great aggravation of the rich man's uncharitablenefs, becaufe he is reprefented as having no children to take care for, and yet he would not confider the poor. And thus I have, as briefly as I could, endeavoured to explain this parable, and have made fuch obfervations from the circumstances of it, as may be ufeful for our inftruction: But as I premifed at first, I will not warrant all these obfervations to be certainly intended by our Saviour. I know very well that every circumftance of a parable is not to be preft too far, the moral accommodation does chiefly belong to the main fcope of it, and many circumstances are only brought in to fill up the parable, and to make up a handfomer way for that which is moft material, and principally intended: But fo long as the obfervations are true and useful, and have a fair colour and occafion from the circumstances, it is well enough; to be fure there is no harm done. I proceed to the fecond fort of obfervations, namely, fuch as are drawn from the main fcope and intent of the parable, which I promised to speak more largely to; and they are fix, which I fhall handle in order. First, I obferve that uncharitableness and unmercifulness to the poor, is a great and damning fin. We We find no other fault imputed to the rich man but this, that he took no care out of his fuperfluity and abundance to relieve this poor man that lay at his gate. He is not charged for want of justice, but of charity; not for having got a great eftate by fraud or oppreffion, but that in the midst of this abundance he had no confideration and pity for those that were in want. I fhall endeavour to make out this observation by the parts of it. It, That unmercifulnefs and uncharitablenefs to the poor is a great fin. adly, Such a fin, as alone and without any other guilt, is fufficient to ruin a man for ever. I fhall Speak to these severally. ift, That unmercifulness and uncharitableness to the poor is a very great fin. It contains in its very nature two black crimes, inhumanity and impiety. 1. Inhumanity; it is an argument of a cruel and favage difpofition, not to pity thofe that are in want and mifery. And he doth not truly pity the miferies of others, that doth not relieve them when he hath ability and opportunity in his hands. Tenderness and compaffion for the fufferings of others, is a virtue fo proper to our nature, that it is therefore called humanity, as if it were effential to human nature, and as if without this we did not deserve the name of men. To see men like ourselves, bone of our bone, and flesh of our flesh, labour under want and neceffity, and yet not to be moved to commiferate them, this is a fign that we have put off our own nature, otherwise we should pity the fufferings of it in others. For whenever we behold a man like our felves groaning under want, and preft with neceffity, and do not relent towards him, and are not ready to relieve him, we are hard-hearted to our own nature, and do in fome fenfe what the Apoftle fays no man ever did (that is, none retaining the temper and affections of a man) hate his own flesh. This the fcripture fpeaks of as a moft barbarous fort of inhumanity, and calls it murder, 1 John iii. 15. Whofo hateth his brother, is a murderer; and not not to relieve our brother in want, is to hate him ; for this is the inftance which the Apoftle gives at the 17th verfe, Whofo hath this world's goods, and feeth his brother have need, and fhutteth up his bowels of compaffion from him; whofo doth not confider the poor, is a man-flayer and a murderer, he is cruel to his own nature, nay, were he fufficiently fenfible of the condition of human nature, he is cruel to himself. Seeft thou a poor man in great mifery and want, there is nothing that hath befallen him but what is common to man, what might have been thy lot and portion as well as his, and what may happen to thee or. thine another time. Make it therefore thine own cafe; (for fo the providence of God may make it one time or other, and thou provokeft him to make it fo fpeedily, by thy unmerciful difpofition toward the poor) I fay, make it thine own cafe; if thou wert in the poor man's condition, and he in thine, confult thine own bowels, and tell me how thou wouldst wish him to be affected toward thee. Wouldit thou be willing that he should flight and repulfe thee, and fhut up his bowels of compaffion from thee? If not, then do not thou deal fo with him; confider that it may be thine own cafe, therefore do not thou give the world any bad example in this kind, do not teach men to be unmerciful, left they learn of thee, and thou find the ill effects of it, when it comes to be thine own condition. This is the first aggravation of this fin, the inhumanity of it. But, 2. Besides the inhumanity of this fin, it is likewife a great impiety toward God. Unmercifulness to the poor hath this fourfold impiety in it; it is a contempt of God; an ufurpation upon his right; a flighting of his providence ; and a plain demonftration that we do not love God, and that all our pretences to religion are hypocritical and infincere. 1. It is a contempt of God, and a reproaching of him ; fo Solomon tells us, Prov. xiv. 31. He that oppreffeth the poor, (not only he that dealeth unjustly with a poor man, but he that is uncharitable towards him, as appears by the oppofition, but he that hanoureth him, hath mercy on the poor. Here oppref |