Mammon. The parable of Dives* and Lazarus then followed, the tendency of which is sufficiently manifest. When one wanted to refer a dispute about an inheritance to Christ, he refused to have any thing to do with the matter; -desires the man to take heed and beware of covetousness; as a man's life consisted not in the abundance of the things which he possessed; and then relates the parable of the rich man who would have pulled down his barns and built greater, and whose golden dreams of " much goods laid up for many years," were awfully interrupted by the approach of death. He also bore his testimony against the pursuits of traffic in a remarkable manner when "he cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers," as having made the house of prayer into a den of thieves. And by the story of the widow's mite, he teaches that the possession of wealth is not necessary for the exercise of charity.

The concomitants of wealth-pride,§ domination, and the claims of rank, were equally the subjects of our Lord's reprobation. When there was a strife for pre-eminence among his disciples, he says, "Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and their great ones exercise authority upon them; but ye shall not be so: he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he that is chief as he that doth serve." -" He that is least among you all, the same shall be great."¶"Be ye not called rabbi; for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren." ** To which may be added the sentiment conveyed by his washing the feet of his disciples, and many precepts of similar tendency.

The reprobation of the pursuit of riches, and the frequent animadversions on the evil consequences of inequality

of rank and condition, which are such prominent features in the teaching of our Saviour, might well be expected to produce a strong effect upon the minds of his disciples. Accordingly, we find that after his ascension, as soon as a considerable number were converted, they at once commenced the plan of a Community of Goods. This shews what was the first impression on their minds: and the miraculous punishment of Ananias and Sapphira inay lead us to conclude that it was sanctioned by Heaven. If it should be objected that this plan of life, not having continued in the church, must have been found on trial to be impracticable, it may be replied, that this departure affords no better argument against the primitive practice, than is presented by any other corruption of Christianity against its genuine doctrines; and we shall find on further inquiry, that in fact it has uninterruptedly continued to the present time as an apostolic institution in the Christian Church, and, though much disfigured and corrupted, yet perhaps not more so than the ordinances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

The general tenor of the apostolic writings is quite as remarkable upon this subject as that of the gospels. There are several passages which seem to relate to the community of property in the church. Paul writes to the Corinthians, " For I mean not that other men be eased and ye burdened: but by an equality, that your abundance may be a supply for their want; that their abundance may also be a supply for your want: that there may be an equality: as it is written, He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered little had no lack."* With respect to the acquiring of property, † he thus writes to Timo

* 2 Cor. viii. 13-16.

+ Richard Baxter says, "There are few texts of Scripture more abused than that of the apostle, He that provideth not for his own, and specially those of his family, hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.' This is made a pretence for gathering up portions, and providing a full estate for posterity, when the apostle speaketh only against them that did cast their poor kindred and family on the church, to be maintained out of the common stock, when they were able to do it themselves." "His following words shew

thy: "They that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is the ROOT of ALL EVIL; which, while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows." And the Epistle of James, the brother of our Lord, contains some strong declarations of his sentiments respecting wealth and rank: "Let the brother of low degree rejoice in that he is exalted; but the rich in that he is made low."+ Again, "My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord with respect of persons; for if there come into your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment, and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place, and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool; are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised?-But ye have despised the poor.-Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well; but if ye have respect to per sons, ye commit sin." And in another chapter he utters these severe denunciations against the rich: "Go to now, ye rich men, weep and howl for your miseries that shall come upon you. Your riches § are corrupted, and

your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver is cankered, and the rust of them shall be a witness against you, and shall eat your flesh as it were fire. Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days. Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: ye have lived in pleasure on the earth, and been wanton; ye have nourished your hearts as in a day of slaughter; ye have condemned and killed the just, and he doth not resist you."

Such were the notions with respect to riches in the Christian Church at its first commencement. The acquisition and possession of property, which it is now the practice to speak of as alone entitling a man to consideration or to the enjoyment of political rights, was then considered as almost a disqualifi cation for the kingdom of righteousness and peace.

The apostolic institution of a Community of Goods appears to be related in a manner so distinct and marked that it seems almost impossible to avoid the conclusion, that it was either itself a divine suggestion, or at least considered by the apostles and the first converts as a necessary consequence of the doctrines that had been revealed to them. Immediately after the account of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, and the conversion of the 3000 on the day of Pentecost, we read that "they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship :-and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common, and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men as every man had need.”+ Again, in the 4th chapter, an allusion to this rejection of the system of private property in the infant church, forms a part of one of the most important passages of its history: "And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together: and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of

Strife and debate, bloodshed and biternesse;

Outrageous wrong and hellish covetize. Faerie Queene, B. ii. Ch. 7. * James v. 1—6. † Acts ii. 42-45.

God with boldness. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul, neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked; for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." Though, therefore, it be now the practice altogether to pass over in silence this part of the Christian institute, without condescending even to comment upon it, or to attempt explaining it away, or only to make it the subject of a jest, the authority for it seems to be as clear as that of any of those institutions, or supposed institutions, of Christianity which are the subject of so much discussion.

The account given in the 6th chapter of the Acts of the first appointment of Deacons, plainly shews us that the plan of a Community of Goods had been continued in the Church of Jerusalem for seven years, (according to the chronology of some interpreters,) and was then matured and confirmed by the election of Stephen and six others, by the general body, at the instance of the twelve apostles, for the express purpose of having the care of the common stock. This was recommended because some complained, (ver. 1,) that they were overlooked in the daily ministration;" of alms," adds the Improved Version, but surely without any sanction of the original or of the context. The ministration was not of alms, but of the common goods, as Tyndall justly remarks in his note on the passage, that is, not indifferently

loked upon in the dayly distrybutyng of the commune goodes." "Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples together and said, It is not meet that we should leave the word of God and serve at the tables: wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men which we may appoint to this needful business." Newcome renders

*Acts iv. 31-35.

the passage, "minister to the tables of the poor," but the words in italic are also interpolated without authority, and, like the others, are inconsistent with the narrative, and calculated to mislead, by preventing the reader from perceiving in this passage an important incident in the history of the apostolic community of goods, of which the office of deacon, however it is now changed from its original design, stands as a memorial.

In contending that the subsequent relapse of the professors of Christianity into the system of Private Property ought not to afford any presumption of mistake with regard to this subject on the part of its first teachers, I do not at all mean to admit that this apostolic institution of a community of goods and the renunciation of riches, were early or suddenly lost sight of in the church; the history of its continuance and gradual perversion and decay, is probably to be traced in the history of those Religious Orders and communities whose members alone were considered as living in complete conformity with Christian principles, and which were established upon the plan of having all things in common. †

St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, (xii. 7,) probably refers to the duties of deacons in the management of the common property of churches: Te dianovíav, ev Ty diakovíg-also ver, 8, ὁ μεταδιδοὺς ἐν ἁπλότητι.—See Taylor and Schleusner.

+ In the middle of the fourth century St. Anthony permitted a numerous body of men to live in a community with him, and lead under his direction a life of piety and manual labour.-Butler's Memoirs respecting the English Catholics. Anthony had given up a large estate on his conversion, in obedience to the precept of Christ," Go, sell that thou hast, and give to the poor."

St. Jerome (On the Christian Ecclesiastical Writers, verb. Philo) says of Philo, " He hath praised the Christians, reporting them to be not only there (in Alexandria) but in many countries, and calling their dwelling-places monasteries. Whereby it is apparent that the church of believers in Christ at the first was that nothing in property is any man's own, such as monks endeavour to be now, none is rich among them, none poor, their patrimony is distributed to the needy," &c.

One error into which some of the early Christians fell, was the supposing that, in order to comply with the renunciation of riches, which their religion required, it was necessary to renounce the enjoyments and conveniences of social life, which it was no doubt the design of the apostolic ordinance not to withhold, but to diffuse among all. Instead of "being together and having all things common," these ascetics lived alone and had nothing. The prevalence of persecution may, however, have concurred with this misapprehension in causing the adoption of the eremitical life. But it is in the history of conventual or cœnobitic life that we must seek for the relics of the Christian system with regard to possessions. The author of the Histoire des Ordres Monastiques, informs us, that many of the fathers and popes, two of the councils and a great number of writers have agreed in referring monastic institutions to the apostles, and to the above-mentioned primitive practice of the Church of Jerusalem.

The history of the Essenes may throw considerable light upon our subject. In the learned work just mentioned we find some account of an interesting controversy which took place at the beginning of the last century relative to this sect, in which the illustrious Benedictine Dom Bernard de Montfaucon, in some observations appended to his translation of Philo De Vita Contemplativâ, maintained, in accordance with Eusebius and Jerome and the greater number of Catholic writers, that the Essenes were Christians, but dissented from the opinion that to them the origin of monastic institutions was to be attributed, as they had wives, and did not observe the rules of any order. His anonymous opponent denied that they were Christians, as

Jesus Christ was no ascetic, and was reproached on that account by the Phari

sees.

+"Cassien aïant prétendu que les Conobites sont plus ancien que les Anachorètes, qu'ils ont commencé avant St. Paul Ermite et St. Antoine; et mesme qu'ils ont toujours esté dans l'Eglise depuis les Apostres, M. de Tillemont veut qu'il justific cette prétention.”—Tom. I. Diss. Prélim. p. 19.

being highly commended by Philo, whom he considers as a Jew, and as all that could be learnt respecting them savoured of Judaism, and was opposed to Christianity (meaning, no doubt, Catholic or orthodox Christianity); but at the same time maintained, that if they were Christians, they must be allowed to have been monks, living according to a rule of their own, much more ancient than any now known. The truth, however, probably escaped both these disputants, who, in the unadulterated doctrine and practice of these early believers, could not recognize either primitive Cœnobitism or genuine Christianity.

A question much connected with this inquiry, viz. whether Philo was not himself a Christian, has lately, upon other grounds, occupied the learned pen of Dr. John Jones, who quotes from the works of that writer the following accounts of the Essenes :

"These are called Esseans, a name (though not in my opinion formed by strict analogy) corresponding in Greek to the term holy. For they have attained the highest holiness in the worship of God; and that not by sacrificing animals, but by cultivating purity of heart: they towns; being sensible that as disease is live principally in villages, and avoid the generated by corruption, so an indelible impression is produced in the soul by the contagion of society. Some of these men cultivate the ground; others pursue the arts of peace, and such employments as are beneficial to themselves without injury to their neighbours: they seek neither to hoard silver nor gold, nor to inherit ample estates in order to gratify prodigality and avarice, but are content with the mere necessaries of life: they of money and possessions, and that are the only people who, though destitute

more from choice than the untowardness

of fortune,-felicitate themselves as rich; deeming riches to consist not in amplitude of possession, but, as is really the case, in frugality and contentment. Among them no one can be found who manufactures darts, arrows, swords, corselets, shields, or any other weapon used in war; nor even such instruments as are easily perverted to evil purposes in times of peace. They decline trade, commerce, and navigation altogether, as incentives to covetousness and usury; nor have they any slaves among them, but all are free, and all in their turn administer to others. They condemn the owners of slaves as tyrants, who violate the principles of justice and equality,

and impiously transgress the dictates of nature, which like a common parent has begotten and educated all men alike, and made them brethren not in name only but in sincerity and truth: but avarice conspiring against nature burst her bonds, having produced alienation for affinity, and hatred in the room of friendship. “They evince their attachment to virtue, by their freedom from avarice, from ambition, from sensual pleasure; by their temperance and patience, by their frugality, simplicity, and contentment; by their humility, their regard to the laws, and other similar virtues. Their love to man is evinced by their benignity, their equity, and their liberality; of which it is not improper to give a short account, though no language can adequately describe it.

"In the first place, there exists among them no house, however private, which is not open to the reception of all the rest; and not only the members of the same society assemble under the same domestic roof, but even strangers of the same persuasion have free admission to join them. There is but one treasure, whence all derive subsistence; and not only their provision but their clothes are common property. Such mode of living under the same roof, and of dieting at the same table, cannot, in fact, be proved to have been adopted by any other description of men. And no wonder; since even the daily labourer keeps not for his own use the produce of his toil, but imparts it to the common stock, and thus furnishes each member with a right to use for himself the profits earned by

others.

Does not this account lead us to suppose that the Essenes preserved in its purity the mode of life instituted by the apostles? Many learned Protestant writers, with the illustrious exception, however, of Vossius and some others, have denied the Essenes to be Christians, being loth to ascribe so high an antiquity to monastic institutions. Perhaps the truth is, that these institutions are but relics of the Coenobitic institute, which was indeed founded by the apostles, but grossly perverted by the prevalence of asceticism, celibacy, and superstition, but especially by its restriction to a privileged order, instead of being adopted by all Christians, and by the ample endowments which the religious orders received after the church began its adulterous connexion with the state, in consequence of which they became + the greatest monopolizers of landed property, living an indolent life upon the fruits of other men's labour.

That this, however, was never contemplated by the founders of what are called the religious orders, but that it was intended the monks should live upon a plan of joint labour and common property, we may learn from many of their Rules. § The Rule of

Forbidding marriage is one of the corruptions of the apostate church expressly predicted by Paul.

+ Ridley, Civil Law, 261.

This deviation from the original design of their foundation drew upon them the severe reprehension of the Friars, who, however, in the mode which they adopted of complying with the requirement of voluntary poverty, fell into an error of a different kind, by confounding it with a mendicant life. Parker, Holden, &c. Carmelite and Black Friars, and Milverton, provincial of the Carmelites, were imprisoned in the 15th century for preaching against the pride of prelates and the riches of the clergy. To the last, the friars had no other real estates in England than the sites of their convents.

§ Passages extracted from the Rule of St. Benedict.

Respecting Community of Goods.

"neque aliquid habere proprium. -Omniaque omnibus sint communia, ut scriptum est, nec quisquam suum esse aliquid dicat, aut præsumat. Quod si quisquam hoc nequissimo vitio deprehensus fuerit," &c.-Regula Sancti Bene