that they are beings incomparable, far more noble and excellent than thofe vile mortals, one whom they proudly tread, and on whom they fcarcely deign to caft a haughty eye. Hence provoking arrogance, cruel referve, and hence: tyranny and defpotifm. On the other hand, they, who are placed in inferior ftations, proftrate their imaginations before thefe beings, whom they treat rather as gods than men; them they conftitute arbiters of right and wrong, true and falfe; they forget, while they refpect the rank which the Supreme Governor of the world bath given to their fuperiors, to maintain a fenfe of their own dignity. Hence come foft compliances, bafe fubmiffions of reafon and confcience, davery, the most willing and abject, to the high demands of thefe phantoms of grandeur, thefe imaginary gods.

To rectify thefe different ideas, to humble the one clafs, and to exalt the other, it is necessary to hew men in their true point of view; to convince them that diverfity of condition, which God hath been pleased to establish among them, is perfectly confiftent with equality; that the fplendid condition of the firft, includes nothing that favours their ideas of felf-preference; and that there is nothing in the low condition of the laft, which deprives them of their real dignity, or debafes their intelligences formed in the image of God. I defign to difcufs this fubject to-day. The men, who compofe this audience, and among whom providence hath very unequally divided the bings of this life; princes. who command, and to whom God himself hath given authority to command fabjects; fubjects, who obey, and on whom God hath impofed obedience as a duty; the rich, who give alms, and the poor who re ceive them; all, all my hearers, I am going to reduce to their natural equality, and to confider this equality as a fource of piety. This is the meaning

meaning of the wife man in the words, of the text, "The rich and the poor meet together the Lord is the maker of them all."

Let us enter into the matter. We fuppofe two truths, and do not attempt to prove them. First, that, although the wife man mentions here:' only two different ftates, yet he includes all. Under the general notion of rich and poor, we think, he comprehends every thing, that makesany fenfible difference in the conditions of man. kind. Accordingly, it is an inconteftible truth, that what he fays of the rich and poor may be faid of the nobleman and plebeian, of the mafter and the fervant. It may be faid, the mafter and the fervant, the nobleman and the plebeian, meet together the Lord is the maker of them all :: and fo of the reft.

It is not unlikely, however, that Solomon,when he spoke of the rich and poor, had a particular defign in choofing this kind of diverfity of condition to illuftrate his meaning in preference to every other. Although I can hardly conceive, that there ever was a period of time, in which the love of riches did fafcinate the eyes. of mankind, as it does in this age; yet it is very credible, that in Solomon's time, as in ours, rich-es made the grand difference among men.. Strictly speaking, there are now only two condi-> tions of mankind, that of the rich and that of the poor. Riches decide all, yea those qualities, which feem to have no concern with them, I' mean, mental qualifications. Find but the art of amaffing money, and you will thereby find that of uniting in your own perfon all the advantages of which mankind have entertained the highest ideas. How mean foever your birth may have been, you will poffefs the art of concealing it, and you may form an alliance with the molt illuftrious families; how fmall foever your knowledge may be, you may pass for a fuperior genius,

1.2

capable

capable of deciding questions the most intricate, points the most abstruse; and, what is ftill more deplorable, you may purchale with filver and gold a kind of honour and virtue, while you remain the most abandoned of mankind, at leaff, your money will attract that refpect, which is due to nothing but honour and virtue.

The fecond truth which we fuppofe, is, that this propofition, the Lord is the maker of them all, is one of thofe concife, I had almet faid one of those defective propofitions, which a judicious auditor ought to all up, in order to give it a proper meaning. The Ayle is very common in our feriptures; it is peculiarly proper in fepten tious works, fuch as this, out of which we have taken the text. The defiga of Solomon is tow teach us, that whatever diverfities of conditions" there may be in fociety, the men, who compofa it, are essentially equal. The reafon that he af figns, is, the Lord is the maker of them all.' If this idea be not added, the propofition proves nothing at all. It does not follow, because the fame God is the creator of two beings, that there. is any resemblance between them, much lefs that they are equal. Is not God the creator of pure unembodied intelligences, who have faculties fu perior to thofe of mankind? Is not God the au thor of their exiftence as well as of ours? Be caufe God is the creator of bot5, does it follow that both are equal? God is no lefs the creator of the organs of an ant, than he is the creator of the fublime geniufes of a part of mankind Becaufe God hath created an ant and a fublime genius, does it follow, that thefe two beings are equal? The meaning of the words of Solomon depends then on what a prudent reader fapplies. We may judge what ought to be fupplied by the nature of the fubject, and by a parallel paffage in the book of Job. "Did not be, that made me in the womb, make my fervant ? and did te

not

wot fashion us alike *?" chap. xxxi. 15. To the words of our text, therefore, the Lord is the maker of them all, we must add, the Lord hath fashioned them all alike. Nothing but grofs ignorance, or wild treachery, can incline an expofitor to abufe this liberty of making up the fenfe of a paffage, and induce him to conclude, that he may add to a text whatever may feem to him the most proper to support a favourite opin ion, or to cover an unworthy paffion. When / we are inquifitive for truth, it is easy to discover the paffages of holy feripture, in which the au thors have made ufe of thefe concife imperfect fentences.

Of this kind are all paffages, which excite no diftinct ideas, or whieh exite ideas foreign from The fcope of the writer, unless the meaning be fapplied. For example, we read thefe words in the eleventh chapter of St. Paul's fecond epiftle to the Corinthians, ver. 4. "If he, that cometh, preacheth another Jefus, whom we have not preached, or if pe receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. If we attach fuch ideas to thefe words, as they feem at first to excite, we shall take then in a fenfe quite oppofite to the meaning of St. Paul, The apottle aimed to make the Corinthi ans refpect his miniftry, and to confider his apof tlefhip as confirmed of God in a manner as clear and decifive as that of any minifter, who had preached to them. Is the propofition, that we have read, any thing to this purpose, unlefs we fupply what is not expreffed ? But if we fupply what

*This reading of the French bible differs a little from our tranflation; but a comparison of the two tranflations with the original, and with the fcope of the place, will give the preference to the French reading. Nonne disparuit nos in utero unus atque illem & Vids Poli Synopsi in loc.

what is underflood, and add these words, but this is incredible, or any others equivalent, we fhall perceive the force of his reafoning, which is this: If there hath been among you any one, whose preaching have revealed a Redeemer, better adapted to your wants than he, whom we have preached to you, or if you have received more excellent gifts than thofe, which the holy Spirit fo abundantly diffufed among you by our miniftry, you might indeed have preferred him before us; but it is not credible, that you have had fuch teachers you ought then to refpect ours ministry..

We need not make any more remarks of this kind; our text, it is eafy to fee, ought to be olaffed with them, that are imperfect, and muft be fupplied with words to make up the fenfe.. The rich and the poor meet together in four arti cles of equality; because the Lord bath made them all EQUAL in nature.or in essense, equal in privileges, equal in appointment, equal in their last end. The Lord hath made them equal in nature; they have the fame fáculties, and the fame infirmities Equal in privileges; for both are capable by the excellence of their nature, and more ftill by that of their religion, to form the nobleft defigns Equal in designation; for although the rich differ from the poor in their conditions yet both are intended to answer the great purposes of God with regard to human nature: Finally, they are equal in their last end; the fame fentence of death is paffed on both, and both alike muft fubmit to it.. "The rich and the poor meet together the Lord is the maker of them all." Thus the text affords us four truths worthy of our most serious attention.

The first article of equality, in which men meet together, is an equality of essence or of nature; the Lord hath made them all with the fame facalties and with the fame infirmities..

L. With