But euery man anothers wealth.* 1.1
IN direct opposition, he should say,* 1.2 Let euery man seeke anothers, but the first part being compared with the latter, and (seeke) being ta∣ken out of the former and put to the latter, and (wealth) taken out or rather implied, in the former, the whole sentence is thus resolued, Let no man seeke his owne wealth, but let euery man seeke anothers wealth.
And the word here tr••nslated wealth, is the same with that in Rom. 13. 4. and may not be taken onely for riches, as English-men com∣monly vnderstand it, but for all kind of benefits, fauours, comforts, either for soule or body; and so here againe, as before, you must vn∣derstand an Affirmatiue Commandement, as the Negatiue was be∣fore: and least any should say, If I may not seeke my owne good, I may doe nothing; Yes, sayth Paul, Ile tell thee, thou shalt seeke the good of another, whereas now all thy seeking helps but one, by this meanes thou shalt helpe many: and this is further enforced by these two circumstances, (no man) may seeke his owne, be he rich, lear∣ned, wise, &c. But euery man must seeke the good of another.
The point of instruction is taken from the very letter and phrase,* 1.3 viz. A man must seeke the good, the wealth, the profit of others, I say, he must seeke it, he must seeke the comfort, profit, and bene∣fit of his neighbour, brother, associate, &c. His owne good he need not seeke, it will offer it selfe to him euery houre, but the good of others must be sought, a man must not stay from doing good to o∣thers till he is sought vnto, pulled and haled (as it were) like the vn∣iust Iudge,* 1.4 for euery benefit that is first craued, commeth too late. And thus the auncient Patriarkes did practise,* 1.5 when the trauayler