R

This I call human perfection, not in distinction) from, but confidered to be the fame with Chrifian perfection. The defign of Chriftianity was to engage us to act the part, and to fill up the just and proper characters of men; and not to enable us to fill up the characters of Angels, or any other fpecies of beings who are differently conftituted, circumftanced, and related, and as fuch have a different law, and a different kind of perfection to attain, or come up to. Or, in other words, the defign of Christianity was to make us good men; and not to make us more or better than men ; and therefore, Chriftian perfection must be the fame as human perfection. Again,

Secondly, I am to enquire who are the poor. As the various good things which God hath provided for the ufe and comfortable fubfistence of men, are variously poffeffed by them; fo he whose share of property in these is not fufficient to procure the comforts, and supply the neceffities of life, fuch a man is faid to be poor; as he, on the other fide, whofe fhare of property in thefe is much more than fufficient to answer the forementioned purposes, is faid to be rich. And men are more or lefs rich, or poor, as their share of property in worldly good things is more, or less abundant, or more, or lefs fcanty as aforefaid. And, as this world's good things were kindly intended, by the Creator of all, to supply the wants, and to yield a comfortable fubfiftance to our whole fpecies; and, as a comfortable paffage through

life is greatly defirable in itself, and as such it is the proper object of every man's choice, for himself, and for others; fo. this renders it reasonable and fit that thofe who greatly abound, fhould fupply the neceffities of thofe who want. Again,

Thirdly, I am to enquire whether, and how far chufing extream poverty, by divefting our felves of all property in worldly goods, in order to make others that are poor not fo, or lefs fo, be neceffary to buman perfection. I have already obferved, that human perfection confifts in a man's perfectly conforming himself, that is, his whole compofition, to the law of his nature; which law requires that those who abound, fhould fupply the neceffities of those who want. And, if fuch circumftances should take place as render it reasonable for a man to part with all that he hath for the poor's fake, (which is very rarely if ever the cafe) then, and under these circumftances, the felling all and giving it to the poor becomes a man's duty, or it is neceffary to human perfection. But then, when, and where these circumstances do not take place, the chufing extream poverty, by divefting our felves of all property in worldly goods, in order to make others that are poor not fo, or lefs fo, is fo far from being neceffary to human perfection, that, on the contrary, it is in itself an imperfection, and is justly blameable and condemnable. Extream poverty is not in itself defirable, it is not the object of our choice when confidered fimply,

and

and therefore, is never to be chofen for it's own fake; nor is it to be chofen in order to make others that are poor not fo, or less fo. For though, we are to love our neighbours as our felves, and confequently, are to pursue their happiness as well as our own; yet we are not to love them better than our felves, because we are, and ought to be as near and dear to our felves as our neighbours are, and because we have as good a title to the comforts of life as our neighbours can have; and therefore, it cannot poffibly be our duty to love our neighbours better than our felves. So that though, the law of our nature requires that those who abound, fhould fupply the neceffities of those who want; yet it does not require that the former should change circumftances with the latter. Extream poverty and want are in themselves the proper objects of our averfion and shunning, and what we are to ufe all proper endeavours by labour, industry, and other means, to keep our felves from; and therefore, are never to be chofen by us, but when the necessity of the cafe requires it, fuppofing fuch neceffitous cafes may happen. So that were we to chufe extream poverty, by divefting our felves of all property in worldly goods, when the circumftances of the cafe does not require it, nor make it neceffary, this would be fo far from being human perfection, that, on the contrary, it would be an imperfection, as it would be a defect of duty towards our felves, and acting against the law of our nature, and, as fuch,

it would be justly blameable and condemnable.

To this I may add, the declaration of our Lord, as it is referred to by St Paul, A&ts xx. 35. I have fhewed you all things, how that fo labouring ye ought to fupport the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jefus, how he faid, it is more blessed to give than to receive. Now if it is more bleffed to give than to receive, as our Lord hath exprefsly declared it is; then, it is more bleffed, or better to have it in our power to give, than to be in fuch circumftances as render it fit for us to receive; that is, it is more bleffed, or better to be rich, than to be poor, and confequently, we ought not to change the former for the latter, and we fhall be justly blameable if we do. So that according to this declaration of our Lord, the chufing extream poverty, by divefting our felves of all property in worldly goods, in order to make thofe that are poor not fo, or lefs fo, is fo far from being human or Chriftian perfection, that, on the contrary, it is itself an imperfection and justly blameable. This is the opinion of our Lord Jefus Chrift touching this matter. But then, how far the doctrines advanced by Papifts, or by our present Methodifts, are affected by it, I fhall not enquire.

Having thus prepared the way, by fhewing wherein human perfection confifts, who are the poor, and how far divesting our felves of all property in worldly good things for the poors fake is neceffary to human or Chriftian. perfection;

perfection; I think, it will not be hard nor difficult to discover the fenfe and meaning of our Lord's words, in the text under confideration: viz. if thou wilt be perfect, go and fell that thou haft, and give to the poor, &c. St Matthew informs us, that one came unto Christ, and said unto him, Good Mafter, what good thing fhall I do that I may have eternal life? This queftion feems to be grounded on a vulgar error that took place among the Jews, namely, that there was a particular commandment, a ftrict obedience to which would excuse the neglect of the rest of the commandments, and would render a man acceptable to God. Our Lord, to correct this error, and to answer the man's queftion plainly and fully at the fame time, told him that obedience to the whole law was that good thing; and not a strict obedience to one branch of his duty, with a neglect of the reft, expreffed in these words, if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. This anfwer though plain and full, did not discharge the man's mind from the forementioned error, and therefore, it was not fatisfactory to him; he ftill thinking that there was one peculiar command that he must pay a ftrict obedience to, and this led him to put a fecond queftion, viz. which of thofe commandments must he keep? To which our Lord made a fecond reply, in which he did not exprefs himself in general terms as before, but defcended to particulars; only these particulars related moftly to the negative parts of our S 2

duty,