pentance and remiffion of fins. Thus Acts ii. 37, 38. Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and faid unto Peter, and to the rest of the apostles, men and brethren, what shall we do? Then Peter faid unto them, repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name (or according to the appointment) of Jefus Chrift, for the remif fion of fins. Again, Acts xi. 18. When they (the Jews) heard these things (that is, whathad attended the Gentiles through Peter's miniftry) they held their peace and glorified God, faying, then hath God alfo to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life. And agreeably to this is what Chrift hath declared, Luke xxiv. 46, 47. Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Chrift to fuffer, and to rife from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remiffion of fins should be preached in his name, among all nations. Here, it fhould feem, according to Chrift and St. Peter, and the believing Jews abovementioned, that the gofpel, or the Chriftian revelation, or that meffage which Christ was fpecially appointed to publifh to the world, was fummarily contained in the doctrine of repentance and remiffion of fins; and that the outward washing, by baptifm, was intended to be

a

a vifible fign of fuch inward regeneration. So that, as I faid before, if we limit Chrift's meffage to the doctrine of repentance and remiffion of fins, then it is particularly fpecified and afcertained; but if it be not thus confined, and is extended farther, then the fubject is most loofe and indeterminate, with refpect to the hiftory of the ministry of the apostles.

8

BEFORE I proceed, there is one thing. more that is proper to be taken notice of here; because it relates to the ministry of the apoftles. I have already obferved, that, when the apoftles entered upon their miniftry, they set out upon these two principles, viz. First, that Chriftianity was a fupplement to Judaism, and therefore was to be grafted upon it; thofe doctrines, viz. that the law was a type of the gospel, and that the gospel was the completion of the law, were what the apoftles were then strangers to, and had no thought of; nor, indeed, does it appear that thofe doctrines were known to their lord, from whom they had received their commiffion as well as their inftructions for the execution of it. Secondly, that the favour of the gofpel was to be vouchfafed to the Jews only; and therefore,

to them only it was to be preached. To which I here add a third, viz. that the difciples of Chrift, or Chriftians, are but one family or houfhold, who have one common property, in which each individual is interested; of which the apostles and clergy · were constituted trustees and directors; and, in confequence of this principle, each individual brought the apoftles and clergy (as the overfeers of this family) all that furplus of fortune which was over and above what was neceflary to answer the prefent exigencies of life. Thus we read, A&ts iv. 32. And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart, and of one foul; neither faid any of them, that aught of the things which be poffeffed were his own, but they had all things in common, ver. 34, 35. Neither was there any among them that lacked; for as many as were poffeffed of lands or houses, fold them, and brought the prices of the things that were fold, and laid them down at the apostles feet; and diftribution was made unto every man according as he had need. Of this the hiftorian gives an inftance, of one Jofes, who, having land, fold it, and brought the money, and laid it down at the apostles feet. Whether this conftitution, of a union of property

property and community of worldly goods, was of divine, or only of apoftolical appointment, does not clearly appear from the history. Indeed, when Ananias kept back part of the money for which he had fold his land, St. Peter said to him, whilst it (viz. the land) remained (unfold) was it not thine own? and after it was fold, was it not in thine own power? why haft thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lyed unto men, but unto God. By this, it may seem that St. Peter confidered the forementioned constitution to be but human, because he supposed the difciples to be at liberty whether they would comply with it, or not: but then, this must have been the case, supposing it to be a divine conftitution, because as there was then no compulfive power in the church, fo every man must have been à volunteer, must have been at liberty whether, and how far, he would comply with this constitution. Befides, St. Peter, by telling Ananias that he had not lyed unto men but unto God, seems to intimate that the above constitution was divine. The lye told by Ananias does not appear to be any more lying unto God than any other lye told by him, or by any other perfon,

H 4

upon any

other

other occafion, feeing we have no ground for prefuming that Ananias intended to impofe upon the Deity, but only to deceive the apostles and brethren thereby; and therefore, the lye referred to could not with any more propriety be faid to be against God than any other lye, except thereby an attempt was made to baffle and difappoint a divine conftitution; and, in that view of the cafe, St. Peter may very properly have said, of Ananias and Sapphira,that they had not lyed unto men, because they had not broken, nor acted against a human conftitution, but they had lyed unto God, as they had acted against, and had attempted to baffle and disappoint, a divine conflitution. Nevertheless, though it be not clear, from the hiftory, whether the conftitution referred to was esteemed by the first Chriftians to be of divine, or only of apoftolical appointment; yet this, I think, is evident, that it was most likely to produce confequences greatly injurious and hurtful to mankind, or, at leaft, to the Chriftian churches that were to be directed by it, whatever good purpofe might be intended to be ferved thereby; as it was calculated for bringing into the hands of the apostles, and the chriftian clergy, great wealth, and an

uncon