ferve to direct us in all the various Circumftances under which the Objects of Charity present themselves.

Charity is a relative Duty, and fuppofes the Distinction of Rich and Poor, fince, if there were no fuch Diftinction, there could be no Reason affigned, why any Man should part with what he has to another, who is already in as eafy a Fortune and Condition as himself. The Distinction of Rich and Poor fuppofes Property; for if all Things were in common, and every Man had a Right to ferve himself at Difcretion out of the Heap, one could not be richer than another, but every Man would have an equal Title to every Thing: but then how unequally foever the good Things of the World are divided, the Wants and Neceffities of Nature are fhared in common: the Poor are as fenfible of Hunger, and Thirst, and Cold, as the Rich are; and it cannot be fuppofed that God fent Men into the World with fuch Wants and Cravings, merely to ftarve and perish under them; and yet how fhall their Wants be fupplied, who have nothing to fupply them with? Steal they muft not; for that would be to invade the facred Law of Property, and overturn the

Order

Order which God has fettled and appointed : it remains therefore, that they must obtain the Things they want from the Proprietors of the World, in exchange for such Services as they are able to perform.

But is this, you will fay, a fufficient Source for the Maintenance of the Poor? What if those who are in Poffeffion fhould refuse to accept the Service of the Poor, in exchange for their Wealth? This would be an hard Question, were there not an equal Neceffity on both Sides; had not Providence fo ordered it, that the Rich can no more live without the Poor, than the Poor without the Rich; which being the Cafe, the Poor, who are able to affift the Rich, can never want a Means of Subfiftence. How would a rich Man differ from a poor one, were he to ferve himself in all the Neceffities of Life? What would fignify your large Tracts of Land, were you to plough and fow with your own Hands? What Pleasure or Advantage would your numerous Flocks yield, were you to spin the Wool yourselves, before you could be defended from the Winter's Froft? Since then the Rich are under a Neceffity of being ferved by the Poor, as much as the Poor are

of

of being maintained by the Rich, it evidently follows, that the Rich have as good a Right to require Service from the Poor, as the Poor have to demand Maintenance from the Rich; and confequently the Rich may as reasonably withdraw their Maintenance, as the Poor withdraw their Service which fhews the Equity of the Rule in general, If any Man will not work, neither let him eat; for, in Truth, were the Poor to be maintained without working, the Rich would be in the worfe Cafe of the two; but there can be no Obligation on the Rich to exercise a Charity, which would destroy the very Distinction of Rich and Poor; and therefore there can be no Obligation on the Rich to maintain an idle Poverty.

It is evidently then agreeable to Reason and Equity, that the Poor, who have Strength and Ability for Labour, fhould work for their Living. Let us in the next Place confider, how the Duty of the Rich stands with respect to this Sort of Poor.

The Right which all Men have to Maintenance and Subfiftence is a fuperior Right to that of Property; for the great Law of Self-prefervation is antecedent to all private Laws and Poffeffions whatever; the Confe

quence

quence of which is, that in the last Result, the Property of the Rich is subject to the Maintenance of the Poor. Since then the Rich cannot in Reafon preferve their Property longer than the Poor a Way of Maintenance; and fince the Poor have no other Way, ordinarily fpeaking, but their Labour; it follows, that the Rich are as much obliged to employ the Poor, as the Poor are to work for the Rich; and one is as much the neceffary Confequence of the Distinction between Rich and Poor, as the other.

As reasonable as this may feem upon the general View, yet it is hard to tell every particular rich Man, what the Measure of his Duty is, in this Cafe; or how many Poor he ought to employ: but the Wisdom of Providence has in great Measure fuperfeded this Difficulty; for a rich Man cannot enjoy his Eftate, cannot live answerably to his Fortune and Condition, without creating a great Deal of Work, for the Support and Encouragement of the Poor. The gayest of their Attire comes through the Hands of the Poor; and he that makes a fine Garment for you, will earn a coarse one at least for himself; he that fearches the Seas and Woods to furnish Dainties to your Table, fupplies

fupplies his own at the fame Time with wholesome, though lefs delicious Fare. Every Man therefore, who lives answerably to his Condition, does his Part in furnishing the Poor with Work and Maintenance: and in this Method the Poor receive Support from the Rich in Proportion to the different Degrees of their Wealth; for if all live fuitably to their Condition, every Man will furnish Work to the Industrious, in Proportion to his Fortune.

Upon this View of the World, you may judge what real Iniquity there is in the Temper and Practice of the covetous penurious Mifer: that he denies himself the Comforts and Enjoyments of Life, is the leaft Part of his Crime; for whilft he pinches himself, he ftarves the Poor; and, by living like a Beggar in the Midst of Plenty, he withdraws from the Needy and Induftrious that Maintenance which God has appointed for them. Human Laws have provided no Remedy for this Evil, nor indeed can they; but it may one Day perhaps be found as criminal to rob the Poor of their Work, as to rob the Rich of their Poffeffions. Nay, this Oppreffion often meets with its Reward in the fecond or