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 differ ent 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 to every man according as he had need. It has been supposed that in this primitive circle of converts at Jerusalem, there was a liter al 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 dtd 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, 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 in fant 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 ex pression ought to be explained by other clauses. They had all things in common. Why? not because they were under any mor-. al 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 of 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 considered as heirs of the same hopes with themselves; brethren of the same generous Master, and entitled to all the relief and consolation which their rich fellow Christians could give them. This spirit continued in an eminent degree in the Christian church. The history of the Acts and Paul's Epistles, furnish many other instances of the characters of the first Christian communities. The whole world seemed to them but one family, and this primitive church of Jesus, which had set the example of Christian generosity, was afterwards indebted to the distant churches for relief, when they themselves were suffering under calamity. From distant provin ces of Macedonia and Achaia some us they now appear trivial, seemed to the early converts of everlasting consequence. Yet notwithstanding these schisms and occasional jealousies, they did not forget the great duty of charity: this surely was a new phenomenon in the world. Perhaps it cannot be shown in the whole history of paganism, before the introduction of the gospel, that a number of poor societies or individuals in Greece or Italy, were interested in the distresses of a community at Jerusalem, and much less that they ever thought of contributing a sum for the relief of the distressed in such distant and despised country. (To be continued.) B. ALFRED AND SIGBERT. THE following dialogue has been extracted from Cottle's Alfred, a Poem, founded on the character of Alfred, and the events of his reign. Sigbert was a papal clergyman, whose friends had been killed by the Danes. He laid aside the character of the minister of peace, and assumed that of the warrior, to revenge the wrongs he had received. The dialogue commences in a council of war, and embraces the substance of several distinct interviews. To seek the Danish army! Let us haste Alfred. Pardon me, Sigbert! I am one who loves The heart that meditates on truth, the tongue To make thee recompense; yet must I name Sigbert. We cannot love-é'en our worst enemies. Truth, from our minds. Have not the Danes some wrongs Of Britain, that, with dastard cruelty, Murder'd the Danish king?-The very sire The Danes are men And though they scorn the suppliant's cry, our faith Hath taught us better. What I now declare, Springs not from sudden anger, but is learn'd Sigbert, with me thou shalt not wage the war! O king! Monarch, thy words are just! Of thought and meditation, well approves Thy doctrine! But my all! each friend I loved, Those Danes have spoil'd me of! and shall I crouch In low, base cowardice, and court the foe To murder unresisted?-See the Danes, Thick as the solar ray, scatter around, All plagues, yet sheathe my sword! My very soul In fix'd and unextinguishable hate. Screen not a soul! Laugh at their dying yells! Alfred. Thou knowest not what spirit thou art of. Thy many wrongs have so disturbed thy thoughts, A meek and quiet spirit; shew thyself This thou may'st do, but know the recompense! Sigbert. With deep conviction do thy words come here! Alfred. I hear thy resolution! I have well Discharged my conscience. After this Sigbert killed a Dane, who begged for mercy, and then appeared again in the presence of the king. Alfred. Sigbert! whither hast thou been. What of the two Danes? Whence came it? Stand not thus insensible! Sigbert. I cannot lie, oh king! Alfred. But I do fear to tell thee;-I have slain Slain him! Did I not warn thee with a monarch's voice Sigbert. One Dane These eyes beheld not, but, retiring fast; Alfred. Dane! as thou valuest life, yield me thy sword! He stopped and drew, we fought; I vanquished him. -When vanquished had he not Answer these my words! Sigbert. It must be told!-then know, oh king! the Dane Scorn'd his petition. Him I thus address'd:- I would disdain them all; for ere thou breath'st |