you

Probably too, this practice was intended to promote brotherly love among them.-Nothing tends more to make you love others than doing them good. When bestow a blessing upon another with a right temper, you feel that peculiar kind of sympathy and affection which is very suitable to the Christian spirit, and which is very sweet and pleasant in its exercise. is more blessed to give than to receive." And those who receive kindness, if they have a spark of gratitude or Christianity in them, naturally love their benefactors. Ingratitude is utterly inconsistent with the gospel temper.

"It

Another reason for encouraging this practice might be, to inculcate upon them the important thought that they were only stewards of what they possessed, that it was lent to them by God that they might do good with it, and that they would hereafter be called to an account as to the manner in which they had disposed of his property. And it is evident this effect was produced; for none of them said "that ought of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things common."

Now, what do we learn from all this ?-Do we learn that it is our duty as Christians to renounce all distinctions, to sell all that we

possess, and to have but one common purse? No, I do not think so at all: because the church is not circumstanced now as it was then; the body of professing Christians is much more extended; and such a practice in the present day would encourage idleness and dissipation, and overturn those distinctions in society which Providence has intentionally instituted for its good. But it seems to me, especially in connexion with other scripture passages, most clearly to teach us that it is the unquestionable duty of Christians to relieve each other's necessities; and that every professing Christian, according to his circumstances and abilities, should make it part of his business to show kindness to his afflicted, indigent, necessitous brethren. To this effect we have repeated exhortations in scripture; as, "Bear ye one another's burdens." "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith." "And let us not be weary in welldoing." And in connexion with this subject the Apostle expressly says, "He which soweth sparingly, shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully, shall reap also bountifully." We find that at any particular time of dearth, collections were frequently made for the poor saints. And the Apostle exhorts the

Corinthians, on the first day of the week, to set apart a certain portion of their property for charitable purposes. I do really think that this duty is not sufficiently attended to in the Christian world, considering what scripture says about it. If a man swears, or makes a practice of drinking to excess, we immediately conclude he cannot be a Christian. But is there not as just reason for the very same conclusion, if a man shuts up his hand and his heart against his poorer brethren, and contributes nothing, or next to nothing, and that with a grudging heart? "Whoso hath this world's good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?" And it is enough to make one tremble, lest one should be of that character, to read our Lord's last sentence:

Depart from me, ye cursed,-inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not unto me." So that, without doubt, this practice of the first Christians strongly inculcates upon us the great duty of "distributing to the necessity of saints," of being "given to hospitality."-Let us proceed to notice,

SECONDLY, The crime of which Ananias and Sapphira were guilty, with reference to this practice of the first Christians.-They sold a possession,

like the rest; but they brought to the apostles only a certain part of the price, under colour of its being the whole.

Let us think of the nature of this crime.It originated in a low, hypocritical ambition. From the 4th verse, ("While it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power?") it appears that Christian professors were not considered under any obligation to sell their possessions; but it was regarded as an eminent instance of Christian grace to do so, and a striking proof of the power of Christianity upon their hearts. Now, Ananias and Sapphira evidently wished to have the credit of such an honourable instance of self-denial and generosity, without the reality. They wished to be considered what they were not. Some have thought their crime proceeded from a distrust of Providence; that when they sold their possessions, they intended to appropriate all to charitable purposes; but that their hearts afterwards misgave them; that they could not trust Providence, and therefore made a reserve of part of the produce. But it seems too clear that it was rank covetousness; that from the very first they meant to withhold a part, and to enjoy it privately, and yet to have their share of the common stock too. This seems

to have been the case from the very solemn manner in which Peter addresses them. And they attempted to accomplish their purpose by deceit and falsehood, or, in plain terms, by a deliberate lie. They carried a part to the apostles as the whole, when they knew it to be only a part, and designed it to be only a part, the very essence of deceit and fraud and a lie.— But the crowning point of their crime was, that it was a direct affront to God. It in fact arose, from their supposing that the apostles were not endued with the Holy Spirit; or it was attempting to impose upon Divine Omniscience, and imagining that God could not detect the fraud; or what was worse, it was imagining that he would wink at it, and that he was such an one as themselves!-From this part of our subject, we learn,

1. That no Christian church, at any time or in any circumstances, is secure from hypocrites.-—— One would have thought, that when Christianity was in its infancy, when all the world were in arms against it, and when its friends ran such risks and made such sacrifices in support of it, there would have been no hypocrites at all. And yet we find a Judas among the disciples of Christ, and an Ananias and Sapphira in the very first Christian church. Never let us think,