before Nero,1 so they felt before the Sanhedrim (with a power of conviction which made their very judges quail), that ‘the Lord stood with them, and strengthened them.' We almost hear the faltering tone of Caiaphas when he put the question, 'Did we not straitly command you that ye should not teach in this Name ?'—The name of Jesus he durst not utter. The memory of One who on that very spot had said, 'I am, and hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven!' did it not unnerve him? His next words seem to indicate as much: 'Ye are meaning to bring on us the blood of this Man!' This Man he durst not name, this Son of Man, now haply (what if it were true?) at the right hand of Power! If Caiaphas quailed before the inspired look of these mysterious men, much more might he quail at their inspired reply: 'We ought to obey God rather than men!' It may be noticed that this is given as the joint reply of all the Twelve. If the Holy Spirit put it into their mouth, may it not have been so? 'When they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak, . . . for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.'

Their judges were cut to the heart; a guilty conscience, working on a cowardly cruel nature, goaded them into the one savage wish to destroy these men who so awed them.

But one among them, a Pharisee and not a Sadducee, a man of higher culture and of nobler nature than the rest, the friend perhaps of Nicodemus, though not like him a believer, stood up to plead for justice and moderation. The Apostles were removed from the court; but to one of the judges, to one of the 2 Tim. iv. 17.

1

youngest members of the Sanhedrim, the pupil of that very Gamaliel, St. Luke may well have owed his knowledge of what passed. Possibly to the young Pharisee of Tarsus Gamaliel's counsel seemed to savour of the timidity of age :-'Let them alone,' Gamaliel said, 'for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to naught; but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.'

May we not recognise in this speech of Gamaliel the deep impression which St. Peter's words not many weeks before had made upon the Rabbi's mind: 'This is the stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head of the corner'? Nay, may he not have heard that very psalm so applied before? May he not well have been one of the Sanhedrim's deputation who asked Jesus by what authority He acted, and had been answered out of that same psalm, with the terrible addition, 'and whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken, but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder'? Well may Gamaliel have wished to insure his future, lest haply he should be found fighting against God!

So the Pharisee's counsel was adopted, and the Sadducees compromised the matter by having the Apostles scourged and then released with further threats. And the Twelve departed from the presence of the council rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for the Name of the Lord.

SUCH

CHAPTER IV

Enternal Trials of the Church

UCH were their trials from without, and such the spirit in which the Apostles met them. But meantime still more trying dangers were menacing the Church from within.

To understand what follows we must glance at a much debated question: What about the temporalities of this infant Church? and what does St. Luke mean by saying that they had all things in common'?

Many have understood that in these early years the Jerusalem Christians surrendered all their property as individuals into one common stock,—that communism was, in fact, their principle. But was this so? Three reasons may be given for rejecting this interpretation :

I. If so, the Apostles were introducing not only a religious, but also a social revolution. And this was directly opposed to Christ's teaching: 'Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's, and to God the things that are God's ;' and again, enjoining conformity in all external social matters, 'the Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat; all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do". His kingdom was not of this world.' No, these early Christians were not social innovators, were not regarded as separatists; they still conformed to the

6

1 Matt. xxiii. 2.

observances of their fathers, circumcising their children and keeping their sabbaths,-good citizens in all respects, and 'in great favour with the people.' With such conduct a communistic mode of life would have been hardly compatible.

2. But further, we have clear evidence that they did not enforce any such rule of surrendering private property. St. Peter expressly explains to Ananias that he had not been obliged to sell his property, nor yet after it was sold to surrender the proceeds of the sale. And again, later, we hear of one of their number,— Mary, the mother of John Mark,—continuing to be the proprietor of a large house in the city.

3. There is a third reason, equally conclusive, and one that will lead us to a far more probable interpretation of St. Luke's words. Communism and almsgiving are of course incompatible. And almsgiving on a very large scale was the characteristic practice of the early Church. The Apostles understood the spirit of their Lord's teaching far too well to convert what He meant to be a voluntary grace into an enforced rule.

And surely this points to St. Luke's real meaning: he is describing not an institution but the temper and spirit of these early converts. So completely had they 6 one heart and one soul,' he tells us, that none of them could endure to regard his property as his own while his brother was in want. It is not in the original 'had all things in common,' but 'all things were to them common.' And that he means this,-—that all things were regarded by them as common,- -seems clear from what follows: 'neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own.' So enthusiastic was their charity that those who had

property converted it into money as rapidly as they could, to enable them to give the more largely into the alms-chest of the Apostles. Nay, some of them, like Joseph Barnabas, a landowner of Cyprus, brought the whole proceeds of his sale and poured it at the Apostles' feet.

Now mark the danger to which this very enthusiasm exposed their community. Wherever there is sincere enthusiasm there is sure to arise and mingle with it a counterfeit.

Such a counterfeit was Ananias. He pretended to emulate both the enthusiasm and the munificence of Barnabas. False in both: he was trifling with men, -wishing to win credit for more than he had really done; he was trifling with God-trying to serve both God and Mammon.

Most necessary it was that such corruption should be crushed ere it spread. Peter's inspired eye pierced to the liar's heart, and terrible was his rebuke. They had lied not to men but to God. And God smote them, and they fell down dead. Whether or no St. Peter when he first spoke foreknew the fearful effect which the Holy Spirit would give to his words, we know not.

Whether he did or not, the necessity and righteousness of the doom are clear. Treason in the camp in a crisis of danger must be visited with death. In the 'great fear which came upon all,' we seem to see the purifying, as by fire, of the conscience of the infant Church. And doubtless it was needed. Ananias and Sapphira were not the only ones, we may be sure, thus tempted to be false. Satan desired to sift the baptized as wheat; and from the very first this sifting was permitted.