SERMON V.

John xi. 35.

JESUS WEPT

THE Son of God shed tears; not those which spring from partial or private grief, but generous, social, sympathetic tears; for it is well known that this effusion of his divine tenderness was poured forth only a few moments before he exerted his miraculous power in raising Lazarus from the dead; when, meeting the afflicted sisters and relations of his deceased friend, and beholding the extremity of their distress, he instantly caught the soft infection, and lamented that calamity as a man, which he was about to relieve as a God. The Jews, it is true, who were spectators of the solemn scene, imputed these tears to the tenderness of private friendship. --" Behold," say they," how he loved him." And in their circumstances, surely, the reflection was natural, but the event points out to us another cause; for why should he weep at the death of a person, however dear to him, who, by his divine prescience, he knew would so shortly be restored to life and his society? No, it was

66

the distress of his afflicted disciples and friends that opened the sacred fountains of his sorrows; with these he "groaned in spirit, and was troubled;" with these he "wept." It was even more than this: it was a sympathy with the afflictions of mankind in general, ever liable, from the common causes of mortality, to have their breasts wounded with sorrows of this piercing sort, without alleviation, and without redress. May not we (if we can do it without presumption) suppose that some such benevolent reflections as the following, at that moment, arose in his compassionate mind? "How 66 many, alas! how many of my future followers, like "these, believing in my name, and having the same

pious confidence in my power, shall hereafter, like "these, be afflicted, and in the same dreadful degree, at "a time when I, their Saviour and their friend, am re"moved from this terrestrial scene of things? They "shall call upon me, when the general laws of my "Father's Providence forbid me to answer: They shall when I must not dry their tears. Present as I weep, "now am with these children of affliction, consoling "those sorrows with my pity, which I shall shortly re

move by my power, to whom shall they fly for comfort "and succour in my absence? Who then shall heal the "wounds of groaning friendship, of brotherly, filial, or "conjugal affection? Be the tears, I now shed, their "future balm: Let my disciples yet unborn feel their "salutary influence. Faith shall apply them still fresh

"to their bosoms, and they shall rest assured, that he, "who once wept with their afflicted brethren upon earth, "shall ever compassionate their own calamities in "Heaven."

This apostrophe, I presume, will be allowed strictly consonant to the character of the Divine Speaker: But not to indulge myself farther in a mode of speaking, which some persons may think unusual in discourses from this place, I proceed to observe, that as Christ was born into the world, not only to redeem men from sin by his sufferings, but to instruct them in holiness by his example; that example ought uniformly and strictly to direct our practice in every station of life to which it can be applied.

Apply we it then at present to the case of consolation in general, and see how false the tenets of those men are, who would engraft on our holy Religion, the mean, the unfeeling, the unmanly principles of Stoicism; who, with a supercilious brow, a dry eye, and a callous heart, declaim to their afflicted brethren that all grief is sinful; that it argues a distrust of God's providence, and that the greatest earthly calamity ought to be of no moment to him, who has a firm belief in the promises of Revelalation, and sure hopes of a blessed Eternity.-To this, and more than this, it is surely sufficient to reply, that JESUS WEPT, and, by mixing his tears with those of the

distressed, gave them his sanction; fully authorizing them to feel those sorrows like men, which his precepts and example would teach them to bear as Christians.

That private grief may be indulged to a very blameable extreme is not indeed to be denied, but the sorrows to which the text refers are of the more social and generous kind, and such as it is therefore almost impossible to carry to excess.-The more intimately we enter into the afflictions of our fellow-creatures, and the closer we assimilate our feelings to theirs, the nearer we approach the sacred pattern set before us. Compassion, therefore, in the largest and most absolute sense, being certainly a principal part of Christian perfection, it may not be amiss to employ the sequel of this discourse in pointing out some of the principal causes which prevent our beholding, in this nation, so many amiable examples of it as might earnestly be wished for, not only by every advocate for his Religion, but by every lover of his Country.

These impediments may be reduced to four articles. The common motives to public charity;

The selfishness of enthusiastic zeal;

The prejudices of party;

And the folly of fashion.

I. It has been generally allowed, even by writers who have professedly satirized the manners of the times, that

a want of humanity and charity cannot justly be placed in the list of our national vices. The many noble structures, which have of late arisen for the relief of maladies and miseries of every species, have been justly quoted as proofs of our public humanity. This being an acknowledged truth, will it not be thought a strange paradox to assert, that these very institutions, proofs as they are of the point for which they are produced, are not equally so of our private sympathy and compassion? What! it is said, do not compassion and charity go hand in hand together? Is not the former always productive of the latter? It were to be wished it was so; but, alas! a very little reflection will convince us that precedent, caprice, and ostentation too frequently take the lead in these matters. To figure in a list, to direct our inferiors, or preside at a committee, are motives to which we may (without any breach of candour) impute much of this apparent benevolence. Besides this, how often does the plausibility of self-deceit persuade persons, that if they allot out of their annual income a due portion to the support of these public charities; nay, if they even bequeath to that use a competent sum after their decease, the debt of Christian humanity and compassion is amply discharged. That society is benefited by such donations is not to be questioned; nor would I be suspected of insinuating any thing against their decided utility: They are, in a national view, an honour to our country. All that is to be feared is, that, amongst individuals, a care