attending more clofely to the lively oracles of God, and confequently of our understanding them better. Let us not then say, “The time is not come, the time when the Lord's house shall be built," but let every Christian confider his ways.

SECTION III.

THOSE who juftify their own practice, while they evidently depart from the ordinances delivered by the apoftles for the regulation of the churches, allege, that there are fome ordinances which churches, profeffing to be guided by apoftolic practice in all refpects, do not follow. For instance, the community of goods in the church at Jerusalem-observing the Lord's fupper dailylove-feafts-washing one another's feet-the kiss of love, and the example fet in Paul's vow, Acts xviii. 18.

With respect to the first let it be observed, that there was no fuch practice enjoined on that or any other church. Their felling their lands and houses was voluntary, as evidently appears by Peter's address to Ananias. His fin did not confist in not giving the whole price, but in endeavouring to deceive the apostles who were filled with the Spirit; and therefore his keeping back part of the price is called, lying to the

ed, (faid Peter) was it not thine own? and after it was fold, was it not in thine own power? Why haft thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou haft not lyed unto men, but unto God," ver. 4. He might have kept it without being found fault with; but when he hypocritically fought the character of deadness to the world, and love to the brethren, to which other members of the church were fo juftly entitled, Peter employed the authority given by the Lord to the apostles, for the edification of the churches, 2 Cor. x. 8. to punish him, for they had in them a readiness to revenge all disobedience, 2 Cor. x. 6. Should a church, or any of its members, think it proper at present to have all things in common, they are accountable to Jesus Christ alone; but if they made this a term of communion, it would be utterly unfcriptural. At all events, communion of goods was confined to the church of Jerufalem. Nothing of the kind is mentioned in any other church, but the contrary practice undoubtedly prevailed in feveral of thefe.

But although this answer is fufficient, there is another which totally removes this objection. There seems no juft ground for fuppofing that a community of goods did exist at Jerusalem in any other fenfe than that a great degree of liberality to the poor took place among them. I am aware of the difficulty of combating an opinion long taken for granted; but we ought to prove all

History, has published a treatise on the subject*, to which I would refer those who are not satisfied with the following remarks.

Luke's words are, "And the multitude of

:

them that believed were of one heart and of one foul neither faid any of them, that aught of the things which he poffeffed was his own; but they had all things in common. Neither was there any among them that lacked, for as many as were poffeffors of lands or houses, fold them, and brought the prices of the things that were fold, and laid them down at the apoftles feet; and diftribution was made unto every man, according as he had need," Acts iv. 32. 34, 35.

This may either exprefs, that the whole property of the members, who had all fold their houses and lands, was put into a common ftock, and that from this the neceffities of each was fupplied; or the words may, with equal propriety, be underftood to mean, that there exifted so much love in this church, that each of them was ready to communicate to the wants of their brethren, to the utmoft of their power: that, to teftify their affection, and to fupply the wants of the poor, fome who had houses and lands fold their poffeffions, and laid the price at the apostles feet, and that they superintended the distribution to those who had need. If the words may be

* De vera Natura Communionis Bonorum in Ecclefia Hierofolymitana Commentatio, apud Differtat. ad Hift. Ecclef. perti

understood in either fenfe, it remains to endeavour to ascertain the true meaning. It is no flight argument for the latter, that it represents matters in a point of view much more natural and eafy, correfponding both with the practice of other churches, and the precepts delivered to them by the apoftles. The former teaches us to view the church of Jerufalem as fingular, in adopting a custom which must neceffarily have been attended with very great confufion and inconvenience, and which, while it favoured more of oftentation, does not seem fo well calculated to answer the end. In supplying a great number from a common stock, fome would be in greater danger of being overlooked, than if their fellow disciples, after taking what was neceffary for their own families, liberally diftributed to the fupport of their brethren. Befides, fome would require almoft, or altogether all that they could earn. Did fuch bring their earnings to the treasury, and then take them away? This must have been the cafe, if the communion be understood in its common sense, unless we are alfo to understand, that they gave up working altogether, and were fupported from the common stock. But the complaint of the Grecians plainly fhews us who were supplied out of the public fund. They complained of their widows being neglected; on the common fuppofition, each individual was to be fupplied, and probably, in this cafe, there would have

neglected, in place of their widows only being mentioned.

Now, we find in other churches directions to fupply widows; and this affords a strong presumption, that the poor alone were supplied from the public fund raised by the voluntary and liberal contributions of the brethren. But if we are to take the words fo ftrictly, then not only all the lands, but all the houses were fold, so that not only public tables must have been neceffary, but houfes alfo muft have been purchased by the church for the use of the brethren. All is plain and easy on the other fuppofition; and in the conduct of the church of Jerufalem, every church of Chrift has a beautiful example (which they are bound to follow) liberally to supply the wants of the poor, and, to the utmost of their power, to alleviate their neceflities and their distress.

The precept given by Paul to the Corinthians will illustrate this fubject. In exhorting them to make a contribution for the faints, he fays, "I mean not that other men be eased and you burdened, but by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a fupply for their want, that their abundance alfo may be a fupply for your want as it is written, he that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack," 2 Cor. viii. 13. 15. The meaning of this is very obvious. Paul exhorts the brethren at Corinth to contribute to the ne