THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND BENEVOLENCE OF THE

PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS.

THE earliest Christians seem to have been bound together by ties stronger than any before known; and to have exhibited a model of union, affection, faith, and zeal, which has justly excited the admiration of subsequent ages.

It has been the unadvised practice of too many of the advocates for Christianity, to represent in too humiliating a manner the circumstances of the first converts, to enhance, as they have imagined, the impediments, which existed, to the first reception of this divine religion. It appears not to be true, either that all the disciples of our Lord, or that all the first converts of his apostles, were men of illiterate minds, or indigent circumstances. Had they been all illiterate, the history of our Savior would not have been written with such unaffected simplicity of language, and, in some cases, such purity and elegance. And I think it is clear, that some of the earliest followers of our Lord were by no means dependent on the charity of others. James and John left their ship and their hired servants, when they began to follow Jesus. Peter had a house at Capernaum, where our Savior sometimes dwelt; and he, with his brother Andrew, said to Jesus, "We have left all and followed thee;" which implies that he and the other apostles, in whose name they spoke, had something to leave.

It is said, that John was a relation of Caiaphas, the high priest; and our Savior, when he was on the cross, committed his mother to the care of John, and he took her to his own home. It is hence natural, to conclude that he was able to provide for her.

Matthew was called to be a disciple of Jesus, when "sitting at the receipt of custom;" that is, as we should say, in the collector's office. We may well suppose that this was not entirely unprofitable, as we are told, soon afterwards, by Luke, that he made a great feast, to which Jesus and his companions were invited, as well as Matthew's acquaintance and his brethren in office. But, whatever may be supposed to have been the worldly circumstances of Jesus and his disciples, he did not suffer his little company to forget the poor. They had a common stock for these and other purposes; yet, to show how little they depended on this for their support, it was committed to the care of Judas, who seems to have been in the habit of purloining from this little treasure of our Savior's beneficence.

If we consider the situation of other followers of Jesus, we find that Mary Magdalene was able to minister to him of her substance; and, if we may judge from the quantity of spices which were prepared by his followers to embalm his dead body, they could not have been in very indigent circumstances.

Mary, the sister of Lazarus, was so profuse in the use of the precious ointment which she poured on the head of Jesus, just before his death, as to excite the murmurs of bystanders. Joseph of Arimathea, who begged the body of our Lord, was a rich man, and Jesus was buried in his sepulchre. And the invitations, which our Savior received, to the tables of the rich Pharisees, prove that

neither he nor his disciples could have been regarded in a contemptible light, on account of extreme dependence and

want.

We find, also, that, after the first effusion of the Spirit, a prodigious number of converts were made, consisting of Jews from all parts of the world, who had come to Jerusalem to worship. The picture, we have of them, represents them as united in affection, and profuse in their liberality. So great was their number that they, probably, found it necessary to divide into smaller societies for worship and communion. The apostles, we are told, were in the habit of "breaking bread from house to house," that is, as I conceive, the different houses, where they met for worship. They are described as united together in the purest affection, and animated by the most unbounded generosity. Though, in such a number of converts, there must have been men from all ranks of life, yet we are told, that none of them lacked. "For as many as were possessors of houses, or lands, sold them; neither said any of them that aught of the things, which he possessed, was his own; but they had all things common; and distribution was made unto every man, according as he had need."

It has been supposed, that, in this primitive circle of converts at Jerusalem, there was a literal community of goods, and that their whole wealth was thrown into a common stock, and placed at the disposal of the apostles; and that this was not a mere voluntary act, but expected, as a thing of course, from all the converts on their professing Christianity. If this were the fact, it is a little extraordinary, that this state of things did not longer continue, that we have no traces of it in the subsequent history, and that it was not imitated in some of the other churches, which

the apostles afterwards planted. But there are some circumstances in this very history of the Acts, which may lead us, perhaps, to a different conclusion.

That this community of goods was merely the result of spontaneous and ardent generosity, and not of any law of the society founded by the apostles, is, I think, to be clearly inferred from the story of Ananias. He was one of the new converts, and, agreeably to the prevailing example, had sold his possessions: but, instead of faithfully acknowledging the amount of the money which he had received, he attempted to deceive the apostles, and to keep back part of the price; and, by offering a part for the whole, he hoped to retain his standing as a member of the society of Christians, and to be maintained out of the common stock. The consequence of this prevarication, which is called lying to the Holy Spirit, is well known. The language of Peter, on this occasion, is worthy of remark: "Why hath Satan filled thy heart to lie unto the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whilst it remained, was it not thy own? And, after it was sold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God;" that is, "you have attempted to deceive the Spirit with which we are miraculously endowed." This extraordinary story, I think, proves there was no law binding the early converts to give up their estates to the public service; and that Ananias, under the pretence of generosity, had indulged a fraudulent, vain, and, perhaps, covetous design. His crime was not sacrilege, as some have supposed; he had made no vow to throw his possessions into a common stock, or, in other words, to devote them to God; but it was gross hypocrisy and prevarication. It was a pretence, that he

had bestowed upon the church the whole price of his land, when he was conscious that he had detained a part of it. It appears, I think, that the severity of this early miracle was necessary, in the infant state of Christianity, to prevent any persons from joining the new community from sinister views and worldly purposes, with the hope of obtaining a share of the distributions which were made. It is said to have struck terror into them all; it must have satisfied them that all fraud might be instantly detected; that none but the sincere and upright should dare to profess themselves converts to a cause which appeared to be under the immediate protection of the Searcher of hearts. And it also illustrates, in the most singular manner, the pure, unaided propagation and success of Christianity, from conviction unfeigned and motives uncorrupted.

But it may be replied, Is it not said, that the first converts had all things in common? Yes; but it would seem, that this expression ought to be explained by other clauses. "They had all things in common." Why? not because they were under any moral or positive obligation to relinquish their estates; but because "the multitude, of them who believed, were of one heart and one soul."—" Neither was there any among them that lacked." Why? because they did not consider that aught of the things, which they possessed, was their own. They were animated with a fervor of generosity, and a strong faith in that religion which taught them to look to another world for their recompense. They felt, what they had never felt before, that there were ties stronger than those of interest or consanguinity; in short, they gave an early and a most illustrious example of the disinterested spirit of Christianity. The poor, whom they had before disregarded and despised, they now con