is my reward then? Verily, that when I preach the Gospel, I may make the Gospel of Christ without charge, that I abuse not my power in the Gospel." I might ask, is not this equally remote from enthusiasm and imposture? Would an enthusiast thus justify in others a principle which he would not carry into practice himself? Or, would an impostor fail to carry such a principle into practice?

I cannot avoid thinking that scarce any but perverted minds could harbour a suspicion against the apostles, on account of this circumstance. They all lived a life of poverty, toil and danger, and many of them died a death of torture, in order to teach the most exalted piety, and most disinterested virtue. And shall we suspect them of being interested men, because for some time they presided over the distribution of a charitable fund, which they very soon refused to do, alleging that it took up too much of their time from preaching the Gospel; and commanded the society to nominate other persons to manage it. What grounds are here for suspicion?

This community of goods is one of the many facts which are most unaccountable if the miraculous part of the relation is false; most natural if this be true. What but the plain notoriety of these miracles could have such an influence on the richest, and therefore the most enlightened proselytes? In a system of cunning and deceit, is it likely that this description of men would be the first and the greatest dupes, and the ignorant multitude the first to profit by the deceit ?

But if we admit the truth of the history, all is natural. The rapid succession of amazing discoveries and stupendous miracles; the full and sensible assurance of a future life and judgment; would so overpower men's minds, as to render all the concerns of this life insignificant in their estimation, and would naturally produce the effect described in the Acts. This, however, would be infinitely less likely to take place at any other stage of the promulgation of the Gospel; because Jerusalem was the scene where all the miracles of our Lord had been recently wrought, which would thus at once rush into the recollection of the new converts, who were themselves witnesses of the wonderful effusion of the Spirit with most manifest demonstration of divine power. In such an unprecedented situation, it is not surely to

be wondered at, that men's minds should be worked up to an unprecedented degree of religious zeal and mutual benevolence, In other places the evidence of the Gospel was exhibited more gradually, and the effects, though every where great, were also gradual.

To those who demand a resistless evidence, as the only one worthy of a divine Revelation, I would observe, with the acute and judicious Paley,* that we see described in this passage of Scripture what the natural effect of such a degree of evidence probably must be, and that if this state of mind were universal, or long continued, the business of this world could not go on. This was however a noble instance of that disinterestedness, self-denial, and benevolence, which the Gospel was designed to produce in the minds of men; and which is carefully to be cultivated by such as profess themselves the disciples of Jesus, in every age and nation, though all are not obliged to exert it in the same manner or degree.

Another event connected with this community of goods, on which it may be necessary to make some remarks, is the punishment of Ananias and Sapphira, Acts v. Their crime then seems to have consisted ‡ not in withholding part of the price of the land, for the whole of this "was in their own power;" but in bringing part of the price, and falsely asserting that they had brought the entire; whence it would seem, they also might claim a right to be supported out of the common fund, as if they had given up their all to increase it.

It included the

This conduct was certainly highly criminal. greatest vain-glory, the grossest hypocrisy and falsehood, combined with fraud, and this practised on the apostles, whom they daily beheld exercising a supernatural power; whom they pretended to believe gifted with the Spirit of God, and commissioned by him to instruct mankind; and to whom they professed the most implicit obedience. Falsehood under such circumstances, when all other Christians were animated with such an opposite temper, seems to have been as great an act of impiety as can well be imagined. And surely we cannot therefore

* Evidence of Christianity, chap, vi. s. 3, p. 626, Dublin Edition, 1795.

↑ Vide supra, p. 131.

wonder that the divine justice should inflict a signal punishment on such persons, to prevent the authority of the apostles, and the Holy Spirit which actuated them, from falling into total contempt, and the Christian society from being over-run with fraudulent impostors, practising on the pious benevolence of the first converts. And this effect was produced, for, "great FEAR fell on all the people; and though believers were daily added to the Lord, yet, of the rest, durst no man join himself to them.”* But in this whole transaction the apostles were merely the instruments of the divine will; they only denounced, from a supernatural impulse, the impending punishment which divine power inflicted. Such severity may, perhaps, have been peculiarly necessary at the beginning of the new dispensation, like those signal examples of severity recorded in the Old Testament; as in the instances of Nadab and Abihu, and Korah, Dathan and Abiram.†

If from these particular transactions, we turn our attention to the general order of conducting the affairs of the society instituted by the apostles, we shall observe an order, regularity, and subordination, very remote from the wild and levelling principles of impetuous fanaticism. We find that the parent church at Jerusalem, over which the apostles constantly presided, preserved a connexion, and held occasional correspondence with the societies formed in the various cities of Asia, Greece, and Italy; that ministers were sent thence, to instruct, to direct, and to preside over the newly instituted churches ;§ that questions of moment were, when necessary, referred to this parent church; and that to decide them, the apostles assembled, together with the elders and body of the believers at Jerusalem; held regular debates, in which opinions were discussed,

*Acts v. 5, 13, 14.

+ Levit. x. Numb. xvi. For further information on this subject consult Benson's History of Christianity, vol. I, book 1, chap. iii. s. 4, in fine, and Leland's Answer to Morgan, chap. xiii.

Lest my argument here should be misunderstood, I wish it to be observed, that I do not infer that the apostles were free from enthusiasm, merely because they formed societies, in which, as they extended, some degree of connection with the original society was maintained, and their own authority as founders of that society preserved, for something like this has been frequently done by enthusiasts: no, I argue from the order, the good sense, and the prudence displayed in the constitution and the government of this society, which I conceive enthusiasts would not have observed.

§ Vide Acts xv. 1-30. xxi. 17-26. Also Acts vi. 1-8. Acts xx. 17—35.

facts examined,* the testimony of the miracles wrought by the missionaries of the new faith considered, the authority of the prophecies appealed to, and determinations formed from a combined view of all these various circumstances; which determinations were reduced to writing, authenticated by the names of the apostles, and elders, and brethren, and conveyed by a regular deputation from them to the different churches, for whose use they were designed; by whom these determinations were received as final and decisive. Now, may we not with full confidence assert, that such deliberation and order as this system of regulation displays, was as inconsistent with the wild and levelling fury of enthusiasm, as reason is inconsistent with frenzy, or good government with anarchy and misrule? Surely then, such a system could never have originated with, or been at all maintained by senseless fanatics.

SECTION III.

The wisdom and sobriety of mind which the Apostles displayed in the general government of the Church, particularly exemplified in their conduct as to the Circumcision of the Gentiles.

THE important question, "whether the Gentiles, converted to Christianity, should be also obliged to obey the Mosaic law,"† was a subject which affected the most deep-rooted prejudices, and roused the strongest passions of every Jewish mind, on which some of the very chief of the apostles seem to have been divided, if not in opinion, yet in some circumstances of their conduct, and to have expressed this difference of sentiment ‡

Acts xi. 15, Peter relates to the Christians assembled to consider his conduct in preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles, "As I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning;" and he repeats the same assertion before the council, Acts xv. 8, and in verse 12. "The multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them." And this was done to influence the decision of the council, which it did effectually.

+ Vide Acts xv. the first 34 verses.

VOL. I.

+ Gal. ii. 11, 12.

G

with considerable warmth.* This was therefore a case in which, if the folly and the violence of enthusiasm had existed, it would have been almost to a certainty displayed. But if in this instance order and reason, truth and soberness prevailed, we are, I think, warranted in concluding, that these were the leading principles which uniformly directed, not only the apostles, but the greater body of the primitive Christian church. Now in order to prove that the apostolic decree pronounced on this occasion was dictated by reason and sobriety, it does not seem necessary to enter into any minute discussion of the different opinions which have been advanced, as to its precise meaning. It is sufficient to observe, that in whatever sense it is taken, it bears the clearest marks of such prudent attention to the peace and welfare of the church, and such charitable condescension to the prejudices of the well-meaning, as evidently shows its authors were not impetuous, overbearing fanatics.

If we take the word Gentiles in its obvious sense, to mean all equally, whether devout proselytes or idolatrous Gentiles, and consider the restrictions from "meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication," as addressed to all Gentile converts, we shall find abundant reasons for these prohibitions, from the close connexion between these practices and idolatry. ‡

Participation of the meats either offered in the Pagan temples, or avowedly consecrated to the Pagan gods, would naturally

These differences have sometimes been alleged as a decisive objection against the divine authority of the Christian scheme, but surely without cause. The New Testament no where represents the apostles as infallible or impeccable. It has drawn ONE and ONLY ONE PERFECT character, that of their divine LORD. But Christianity derives more strength of evidence from the impartiality with which its historians relate their own and their brethren's occasional errors or faults, than it can suffer injury from any imputation which their conduct may seem to justify. Another signal advantage from the relation of these divisions is, that it affords the strongest evidence, that the whole scheme was founded on truth, not imposture. For whenever im

postors, and these the very chief conductors of the imposition, fall into contention and dispute, the fallacy is inevitably detected. Not so with the Gospel. Though its teachers might in some points for some short time disagree, these disagreements impeded not in the least the completion of their sacred work-for this was conducted by the hand of God.

† Acts xv. 20, 21, and 29.

That this was the true reason, why the practices mentioned in this decree were forbidden, is supported with very strong arguments by the learned SPENCER, in his dissertation on Acts xv. 20, annexed to his second book de Legibus Hebreorum Ritualibus, vol. i. p. 434, edit. 2.