favour and protection from the Jews'; and it is probable that many, who had travelled from distant countries to attend the feast of Pentecost, and had made a provision for a short absence only from their homes, might have desired to remain at Jerusalem for some space of time, to gain full instruction from the Apostles in the evidences, doctrines, and duties of Christianity. It was highly important that converts from different parts of the world should receive this advantage, and be furnished with support, in cases where it was wanted, during their protracted stay in the city. A supply was, moreover, necessary for those, whose time and thoughts were to be occupied by public services, in extending the knowledge of the Gospel, and prudence suggested the formation of a fund for the relief of such Christians, as might be scattered abroad by persecution.

The circumstances of the infant Church called for the most generous exercise of brotherly kindness, and the spirit, which prevailed, was answerable to the exigency 2.

1 The poorer Jews had been used before their conversion to have a part of the Temple sacrifices.

2 We cannot too much admire the benevolence exhibited at the day, to which this part of the history refers; but let not the practice then adopted be misunderstood. Property was not annulled. The contributions to the common stock were all voluntary bounties, and when we read of the sale of lands and

Ananias and Sapphira professed to be actuated by the piety and charity which so brightly adorned the lives of the primitive Christians. But it was an empty pretence. They were children of this world, while they affected to mind heavenly things. They "desired to make a fair shew," to appear generous in the eyes of others. They came forward, of their own accord, to dedicate their worldly substance to the service of the Church, counterfeiting the virtue of cheerful and free givers. Ananias, having sold a property, and clandestinely reserved a portion of the purchase money, (a stratagem which he had concerted with his wife,) laid the remainder, as if it had been the whole, at the Apostles' feet.

houses by the more opulent Christians, we are to take into view the state of affairs which existed in Judæa. Jesus Christ had predicted the destruction of the city, and dispersion of the nation of the Jews, and hence converts (with hearts full of charity) might have been led to part with their estates, and make immediate use of a property about to be taken from them, by converting it into an imperishable possession, "a treasure in the heavens that fadeth not," Luke xii. 33. That this consideration had its influence, is a reasonable conjecture; particularly as we do not find that any but Jews surrendered lands and possessions. There is no ground for supposing that Gentiles did the like, when converted to Christianity, and many of the Apostolical precepts recognize the distinct ranks of rich and poor believers. Rom. xv. 26. 1 Cor. xvi. 1. 2 Cor. viii. 7. See Mede's Works. Disc. xxviii.

εvπроσшπйσαι, to make a handsome and specious appearance. Galat. vi. 12.

He " kept back," or, as the original word might be rendered, secreted, or purloined, part of the price'.

That the sum which he presented was a spontaneous offering, does not make his conduct in any degree excusable. On the contrary, it was an aggravation of his offence, that he went before the Apostles without compulsion; for if he had been required by the authority of any law to surrender his worldly possessions, he might have thought such a decree hard and oppressive, and pleaded some temptation to act as he did. St. Peter dwells upon the circumstance of his not having been compelled either to dispose of his estate, or, after the sale, to deliver up the produce of it: "Whiles it remained" unsold, "was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart?”

With an ostentation of concern for "the necessities of the saints," with a parade of Christian liberality, of which he had no real feeling, Ananias approached the treasurers of the public offerings. In presenting the contribution which he laid at their feet, he is said to have lied to the Holy Ghost."

1

· ἐνοσφίσατο ἀπὸ τῆς τιμῆς. Fraudavit de pretio agri. Vulg. Intervertit aliquid ex pretio. Bez. In the sense of stealing or purloining, the word voopiw, is used by the LXX. Josh. vii. 1. 2 Macc. iv. 32. It occurs three times in the New Testament; twice in the account of Ananias and Sapphira, and again in Tit. ii. 10., where un voopiloμévovs, is translated, "not purloining." See Wetstein on Tit. ii. 10. and Kypke on Acts v. 2.

He was guilty of a "lie," because, after the sale of the land, he carried a certain sum to the Apostles, with a view to be considered the resigner of all his property, in agreement with the practice of other believers; and, upon this ground, he probably meant to claim a maintenance from the public treasury of the Church. He plotted to pass for one, who, like the charitable widow in the Gospel, had “cast in all that he had, even all his living." We read of no verbal affirmation from Ananias, (as there was from his wife), that the contribution to the common fund was the whole price of the estate: but by other signs than words men may make a promise. The action of Ananias subjected him to the charge of falsehood'. And he "lied," not to men only, but "to the Holy Ghost." He attempted to deceive the Holy Ghost, by trying to pass a fraud upon the Apostles, in whom he made profession of belief that the Spirit of Truth resided. In lying to them, he lied to Him who had lately descended upon them in visible glory; with whose presence they were blessed, and by whose power they were strengthened and directed. The concluding words

1 Ad virtutem veritatis pertinet, ut quis talem se exhibeat exterius per signa exteriora qualis est; ea autem non sola sunt verba, sed etiam facta. Non refert utrum aliquis mentiatur verbo, vel quocunque alio facto. Quoted from Aquinas, by Bishop Jeremy Taylor, who adds, "A man may look a lie, and nod a lie, and smile a lie." Ductor Dubitantium, book iii.

of St. Peter's remonstrance were: "Thou hast not lied unto men but unto GOD." His offence against

the Holy Ghost was an offence, not against man, but against God, because the Holy Ghost, the third Person in the ever-blessed Trinity, is "of one substance, majesty, and glory with the Father and the Son 1."

2

Such was the guilt of Ananias and Sapphira2.

1 Art. iii.

nias :

Mede, Hammond, and other learned men are of opinion, with most of the ancient writers, that Ananias and Sapphira were under a vow to present the full produce of their estate to the service of the Church, and that their sin was sacrilege, in purloining what was become holy, as devoted to God by this vow and inward purpose of the heart. They lied to the Holy Ghost, according to these expositors, because they retained a portion of that, which they had consecrated by a solemn promise, to which the Holy Ghost was privy. There is no mention of a vow in St. Luke's history, and the supposition that any vow was made appears inconsistent with St. Peter's question to Ana"After it (the land) was sold, was it not in thine own power?" Wert thou not free to give, or to withhold, the purchasemoney? A vow to consecrate the price of the possession to God and His service, would have left Ananias no control over it. It is thought by the commentators above referred to, that the power, to which St. Peter alluded, was that of bringing the whole sum to the Apostles, in fulfilment of the sacred engageWas it not in thy power to dispose of it according to thy vow? But this is an interpretation, which takes all the force from St. Peter's question, since it was plainly in the power of Ananias to pay that which he had vowed; whereas, in the sense which represents the money as at his own disposal after he had parted with the possession, a keen reprehension is conveyed of his needless, foolish, and sinful attempt at imposition.

ment.