March 12

Apostle, appear before the judgment-seat of Christ. Thus the rich and the poor meet together. What inference should we draw from this fact? Read the next article.

MARCH 12.—“The rich and poor meet together.”—Proverbs 22:2.

WHAT is the inference to be drawn from this fact? The subject is capable of abuse, and fertile of improvement.

It would be foolish to conclude from it that all conditions are alike in themselves, or with regard to us. As if a man was no more favoured who resided in a comfortable dwelling, than one who had not where to lay his head. Our Saviour himself said, “it is more blessed to give than to receive;” and surely this shows at least one advantage the possessor has over the destitute. We teach our children to say,

Yet God hath given me more”—

And are we not to be thankful for the exemptions and indulgences by which we are distinguished? On the other hand, if we are deprived of certain outward comforts, we are required to submit to the will of God; but the submission does not imply indifference of mind; yea, the submission would not be a virtue, unless we were allowed to value what we are called to resign. The religion of the Bible is never enthusiastical; it never demands the sacrifice, but the sanctification of humanity and common sense.

But there is the inference of faction as well as of fanaticism—“The rich and poor meet together”—“Therefore give up the ranks of life, and let us have an equality.” A certain equality if you please; that is, an equality of right to unequal things. Let the cottage have as full a right to protection as the mansion; and the peasant’s cart be as sacred as the nobleman’s carriage. This is reasonable and righteous; and this privilege we enjoy under the laws of our wise, just, and happy constitution. But it is far different with an equality of condition and possession. Indeed the advocates for this doctrine do not plead for it in all cases. You never find them zealous to level up, but only to level down. They would reduce those above them, but leave unraised those that are below them—Their servants must remain servants still. The absurdity of this principle is so great and obvious, that it seems unworthy of being reasoned with: otherwise we might observe—That such an equality is impossible: if men were made equal to-day, they would be unequal to-morrow, owing to the difference in their understandings, their diligence, and their self-denial—That it is clearly the will of God that distinctions of rank and circumstances should prevail: hence in his word he has described the duties of superiors and of inferiors; and commanded us to render to all their due—And that it is better there should be such distinctions, as they call upon men for many virtues, the exercise of which would be impossible in a state of equality.

Yet it is desirable that these distinctions should not be excessive, or carried to their extremes. The welfare of the community consists much in the various gradations between the very rich and the

13\*