THERE is no need▪ in order to introduce a discourse on these words, to take into previous con­sideration either the preceeding, or following context. They are an independent sentence, containing an account of the temper and conduct of the christian church at Jerusalem, in the beginning of the apostolic times. Says the inspired writer, they "were of one heart, and of one soul, and had all things in common".

WHAT I propose is, to dilate upon these words, that we may be let in a clear and just understanding of them; and, as I go along, to make the proper [Page 6] reflections upon what may be exhibited as their real truth.

THEY begin, "and the multitude of them that believed".—The persons here spoken of were "believers"; that is, converts to the christian faith. And they were converts from Judaism. For the gospel had not as yet been preached to the Gentile nations. The apostles, it is true, had, before this time, been commissioned by their Lord "to preach, in his name, repentance, and remission of sins, among ALL NATIONS," as we read in Luk. [...]4.47: But they were expressly ordered, in the words that immediately follow, to begin their ministry, in execution of their commission, "at Jerusalem; and to tarry there until they had been endued with power from on high"; that is, with miraculous power from the Holy Ghost.

WHY our Lord confined the labours of his apostles, for a while, within so narrow a compass as the city of Jerusalem, after he had commissioned them to preach the gospel to all the world, may be difficult to say. But could nothing else be said, it would be abundantly sufficient, at least to us who call our selves christians, to say, "So it seemed good in his sight".

I MAY, with propriety, add here, it was an ho­nor, a signal honor, to the city of Jerusalem, and to the Jewish nation in common, that the first christian church should consist of Jews, and be ga­thered at Jerusalem. And, at the same time, it illustrates that interrogatory appeal of the apostle Paul, in the first ver. of the 11th chapter of his epistle to the Romans, "hath God cast away his [Page 7] people"? Upon which he adds, "God forbid"! As if he had said, God hath not wholly "cast away his people". No; a number of them were believers in Christ, the promised Messiah, and so considera­ble a number, that they might be called "a multi­tude". So speaks the text.

"THE multitude of them that believed". And it is with great propriety that they are thus deno­minated. "About an hundred and twenty" only, it is true, was the number at first, as we read in the 1st chapter of the Acts; but, after the de­scent of the holy Ghost upon the apostles, in mira­culous gifts, they were greatly increased. "Three thousand were added to them", in consequence of one sermon, preached by the apostle Peter, the re­cord of which we have in the 2d chapter of Acts. In the chapter in which is my text, ver. 4, their number is said to be "about five thousand". And in the next chapter, v. 14, we read, that "believers were added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women". This increase of believers was at Jerusalem, and of those who were converted from Judaism.

I MAY properly take occasion here to reflect with grief upon the state of the church of Christ at present, with respect to the additions that are made to it of those that "believe," so believe as that they "shall be saved". It cannot be now said, as in my text, "the multitude of them that believed". Blessed be God, there is yet a church of Christ, and there are in it believers in truth, believers unto life; and this, whether we consider the church in general, or as constituted of particular individual [Page 8] churches▪ But the increase of converts is not now as it was when the apostles went forth in the power of the Spirit of Jesus Christ. There is at this day, and has been for a long time, yea for ages, an awful withdraw of that success, which, in the apostolic days, attended the preaching of the cross of Christ. Notwithstanding the revivals of the spirit of christia­nity at particular times, and in some particular places, the cause, in general, has been long languishing, and is, at present, in a sad, decaying, and almost dead condition.

IT certainly is so in this Town and Land.— How small is the number of those, who give them­selves up to God in Jesus Christ, to walk in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, with a becoming care of being blameless? We are visibly under great decays as to the life of religion. With what little success are the means of grace ac­companied? What an awful unconcernedness does there appear in all sorts of persons about their souls, and the concerns of another world? How great is the luke-warmness and indifferency, even of chris­tian professors? How general their spiritual sloth and negligence? And how many, what vast multi­tudes among us, are secure in their sins, unmindful of God, thoughtless of Christ, allowing themselves to "walk in the way of their own heart, and in the sight of their eyes"? Let us not be insensible of the lamentably bad state of religion among us. Let us be humble herefor, and seek to God to "pour out his spirit" upon us, to "revive the things that remain, and are ready to die" We cannot unite in a more seasonable, pertinent prayer to the [Page 9] God of all grace than that, "Turn thou us again, O Lord God of hosts, cause thy face to shine, and we shall be saved".

THE text goes on, "they were of one heart, and of one soul". This may respect their unity in sentiment as well as affection. Such was their faith and such their love, that it might be said, they, had, as it were, "one soul". There were no dispu­tings among them, no strife, no animosity. And, instead of hatred, they were filled with good will towards each other, shewing its reality in all the genuine exercises of christian kindness. They were in judgment, and affection, the same as if they had been animated with one common spirit.

THEY were one in sentiment, that is, with respect to the divine mission of Jesus Christ, his being the Messiah, and the only Saviour of men. This was the grand truth the apostles insisted on in their preaching, particularly in my context; and this, accordingly, was the great object of the faith of this "multitude". They embraced it as a sure truth, that Jesus who "had been crucified, and was raised from the dead", was "the Son of God"; and they were as "one" in this faith.

HAPPY this first christian church, so united in that faith which is the grand foundation of the reli­gion of Jesus Christ! Happy, that they should, as "one" build, as the language of my context is, upon "the stone set at nought" by so many of the jewish builders, and that God had made the head of the corner; in whom there "is salvation, and in no other".

[Page 10]THIS is the great band of christian union, that "unity in faith", which is recommended in the new-testament writings, and which was exemplified by the first christians.

It were to be wished, those who profess them­selves christians, would preserve this unity in the bond of peace. Then would they cease from for­ming themselves into separate communities, on account of those differences in opinion which enter not into the essence of christianity, but are rather points of doubtful disputation. Then would the church of Christ be no longer a collection of contend­ing sects, and party combinations, but "one body", cemented together, and united, not in the same sentiments about tything mint, annice, and cum­ming, or any other matters of comparatively small importance; but in that faith without which no man can be a christian, a christian in such a sense as that he may have good hope of entering into life eternal. This is the unity in sentiment, the oneness in faith, that is worthy to be desired, pray­ed for, and sought after, by all that are the friends of Christ, and the interest of his religion.

THIS multitude of primitive believers, were not only "one" in sentiment, but "one" in affection also. With respect to love, it might be said of them, they had, as it were, but "one heart, and one soul". They loved one another as they loved themselves; "yea, as Christ loved them". Their love was without dissimulation. It was not a pretence only, a meer empty verbal compliment; but a noble reality, appearing to be so by its operation in all the fruits of true christian benevolence. They "walked in love, even as Christ Jesus also walked". [Page 11] They "abounded in love", both as an inward af­fection, and in all those outward acts that are the proper discoveries of such an affection. And it was eminently in this way that these first believers, and others also in after days, drew the attention, and excited the admiration, even of those who were unbelievers: for they have been heard to say, as their words are recorded by one and another of the ancient writers, "Behold, how the christians love one another! How chearfully, how liberally, they do good to one another"!

AN example this, highly worthy of the imitati­on of all who would be owned, another day, as the followers of those who inherited that spirit, which was the peculiar glory of our common Master and Saviour. The law of love is eminently the law of Jesus Christ; and we are obliged as christians to nothing, if we are not under solemn bonds to love one another. Love, in the first times of the gospel, was wrought into the very frame of the souls of believers; and this they evidenced by their readiness to all the offices of christian kindness to­wards each other.—How different are most christians now from what they were then! Can it be said, even of those of the same communion, that they are as "one" in affection? May we not rather take to our selves words, and lament the flight of that spirit of love, which was once the distinguishing mark of those who were believers in Christ!

IT is further added in my text, "neither said any of them that ought of the things which he pos­sessed was his own; but they had all things in common". The things here said to be "had in common" must not be understood as extending to [Page 12] a community in every thing. Such an explanation of the words would be an absurdity in reason, and a direct contradiction to the precepts of revelation. They ought therefore to be limited to such things only as might, in consistency with the rule of duty, be possessed and enjoyed in common. The inspired writer of my text has accordingly taken care to spicify particularly "the things they had in com­mon". Says he, in the following 34th and 3 [...]th verses, "as many as were possessed 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 to every man according as he had need". To the like pur­pose, having said, in the 2d chapter of this same book of the Acts, ver. 4 [...], "all that believed had all things in common", he goes on, in the next ver. to give us a distinct and full account of "the thing" he had said "believers had in common". His words are, "and sold their possessions and goods; and parted them to all men, as every man had need". It was therefore the worldly estate, the pos­sessed houses and lands, of these believers, turned into money, that they all had the benefit of in com­mon. There is nothing said, from whence it can be collected, that these believers enjoyed, or countenanc­ed the enjoyment of any thing in common, that would infer a violation of the bonds those are under, who, as the scripture speaks, are no longer "twain, but mystically one in the Lord". Some may have in­terpreted this example of these first christians in such a latitude. But it may, without the least he­sitation, be said, it was never so interpreted, unless [Page 13] by those, whose eyes were blinded by the rise of im­pure mists from a grosly carnalized heart.

THE only question of any importance here is, were christians, from the beginning, and all along to this day, obliged, in virtue of this example of the believers at Jerusalem, to sell their possessions, and put all in one stock for the common benefit of all? Some have imagined, that an affirmative an­swer to this question is the true one; but upon in­sufficient reason. And this I shall endeavour, in as concise a manner as I can, to make evident to you. In order whereto let it be observed,

THESE believers, constituting the church at Je­rusalem, were not obliged, in consequence of any apostolic command, to make sale of their possessi­ons, that they might have all things in common. We have no account of such a command. And should any affirm there was one, they would only declare their own imagination, not what is any where wrote in the inspired books. Nay, instead of being divinely taught, that these believers were commanded to sell their estates, that they might all live in common upon one stock, we are obviously led to think, that they were every one left at liber­ty to do in this matter as they judged to be right and fit. To this purpose are those words of the apostle Peter, in the chapter following my text, ver. 4, which he spake to Ananias with a direct re­ference to the sale he had made of his possession; "while it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy own power"? Surely, he would not have said this, he could not have said it with propriety, or truth, if Ananias had been under the obligation of a command from Christ, [Page 14] conveyed by his apostles, to part with his possession, and put the price into the common stock. Upon this supposition, how could his possession be so cal­led "his own" as that he might not have sold it? and when he had sold it, how could the price of it be said to have been "in his own power"? It should seem demonstrable, from this application of the apostle Peter to Ananias, that the sale which these believers at Jerusalem made of their possessions, was a matter of their own free choice, not what they were absolutely bound to do in virtue of any require­ment of Jesus Christ.

AND we may the rather be satisfied of this, as we no where read, in the new-testament, of any christian church, who "had all things in common", conformable to the example of the church at Jeru­salem. And what is more, we no where, in the inspired books, find a command, directed to any christian church, or to any member belonging to it, obliging them to sell their possessions, that the whole community might be supported out of one common stock; which cannot be accounted for, had it been the will of Christ, that no one of his disciples should possess, as his own property, either house or land; but that every one, who professed faith in him, should, without the exception of a single person, sell his estate for the advantage of all in common.

IT may be further worthy of notice, the new-testa­ment-writers are so far from reducing all christians to a level, by putting them upon having all things in common, that they obviously suppose there actu­ally was, and would be, a difference between them in point of outward circumstances. Hence they often speak of the members of this, and the other christian [Page 15] church under the characters of rich and poor; which would have been altogether improper, if christianity had destroyed this distinction, by obliging all that were believers to have all things in common. And not only do the apostolic writers speak of rich and poor in the christian church, but graft many of their instructions upon this difference there was in the worldly circumstances of its members. The rich, particularly, are applied to as such, and minded of the duty they are obliged to in this capacity. Says the apostle Paul, directing Timothy how to manage in his office as a gospel-minister, 1 Tim. 6. [...]7. "charge them that are rich in this world that they trust not in certain riches, but in the living God— that they do good, and be rich in good works". Where would be the pertinency of this charge to Timothy, if the supposition of rich men in the church of Christ was a contradiction to the gospel establish­ment? In this case, the direction to him must have been, say to such as are rich, sell your possessions, and cease being rich. But not a word to this pur­pose do we meet with here, or in any passage of scripture, in what is said to them that were rich.

IT is still further observable, the apostle Paul, in writing to the Corinthian church, as "touching the ministring to the saints", gives them this instructi­on, 2. Cor. 9 7. "Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grud­gingly, or of necessity; for God loveth a chearful giver". Is this an injunction that will, in the least, comport with the supposition, that the individuals of this church had nothing of their own, but had all things in common? Every man, you see, is left [Page 16] to give according to the free purpose of his own heart: Only he is instructed to give with chearfulness, and liberality; and upon the encouragement men­tioned in the foregoing verse, "This I say, he that soweth sparingly, shall reap sparingly; and he that soweth bountifully shall reap bountifully". But there would be no room for sowing sparingly, or bountifully, if no member of this church had any thing he could call his own, but whatever he posses­sed, more or less, must be thrown into one common stock for the benefit of all. Had this been the truth of fact, or an apostolic establishment, the di­rection, in this passage of scripture, is altogether unintelligible.

YOU will, perhaps, ask, if the practice of this first christian church at Jerusalem, in selling their pos­sessions, and having all things in common, was not intended as an example obligatory on all other christian societies, why was it recorded? And why so recorded as to lead us into an opinion of their con­duct as truly noble and benevolent?

THE answer is at once obvious, and I hope satis­factory. It is as follows. This first church, at the time when they came into this practice, were pecu­liarly situated. Perhaps, no church, from that day to this, has been in like circumstances. For it is to be observed, though, from the evidence that had been held out to their view, they admitted it into their hearts as a truth, that Jesus was the Son of God, and Saviour of the world, that he died, rose again, ascended up to heaven, and will come in the end of time to confer eternal life upon all his faith­ful followers; and though, in the esteem of the apostles, they were qualified, in consequence of this [Page 17] faith, and a profession of it, for baptism, and fellow­ship with believers in all acts of christian communi­on; yet it cannot be supposed, but that, in this beginning of their faith, they should be imperfectly instructed in the nature, doctrines, and precepts of the gospel kingdom. Further teaching; yea, a se­ries of it was yet needful. They needed particu­larly to be guarded against the prejudices, errors, and corruptions of their former unconverted state, and to be more fully indoctrinated in the things per­taining to the kingdom of God, and Jesus Christ. And this, until a more regular state of things could be accomplished, it is at once evident, would take time, and bear hard upon those who had nothing to depend upon for a subsistence but the labor of their hands. Now, in such a situation of things, what more nobly benevolent than this conduct of the first believers, in having all things in common? Especially, if it be remembered, as it ought to be, that this church was constituted chiefly of Jews that were not inhabitants at Jerusalem, but occasional comers there from a great variety of distant pla­ces. Hence we read, in the forecited 2d of the Acts, that, among the three thousand Jews, who were added to the church, at this time, there were Par­thians, Medes, Elamites, dwellers in Mesopotamia, Judea, Pontus, Asia, and other places. And being thus occasionally at Jerusalem on the day of Pente­cost, when the holy Ghost made his descent on the apos­tles, they were eye-witnesses of its marvellous effects, and had the opportunity of hearing the sermon then preached by the apostle Peter, under the inspiration of the Spirit; upon which they were struck with [Page 18] conviction, professed faith in Christ, and were ad­mitted, to fellowship, as disciples, in all acts of christi­an communion. But being at a great distance from their proper homes, they were incapable of providing for their own support, should they con­tinue at Jerusalem; and yet, it cannot be suppo­sed but that, upon their becoming converts to the faith of Christ, they should be desirous of tarrying here, as it was highly proper, if not absolutely ne­cessary, they should, that they might be more ful­ly instructed in the way of salvation through Jesus who was crucified. Besides, they might, by di­rection from the Holy Ghost, be influenced to con­tinue here, that, being under the tuition of the apos­tles, and enjoying the advantage of christian com­munion in gospel ordinances, they might be formed for preachers to carry the glad tidings of salvation to the several nations from whence they came, and in this way be instrumental in propaga­ting the religion of Jesus. In this situation of things, wherein could the believers at Jerusalem have more nobly manifested the warmth of their love to Christ, and the greatness of their affection for each other, than by saying, as in my text, that "nought of the things which they possessed were their own, but that all things should be had in com­mon"? In like circumstances, the like conduct would be generous and noble, and would be the conduct of christians, if actuated by that benevolent principle, which reigned in these first believers, ma­king them all of "one heart, and of one soul". But for any to plead, that this practice of those primitive christians should form a law, an established [Page 19] rule, obligatory upon all christians, in all ages, how­ever differently circumstanced, would be highly ab­surd, and greatly hurtful in its tendency and ope­ration.

NEVERTHELESS, this example of their unfeign­edly generous love is very instructive to christians, considered both individually, and as united in parti­cular societies. It is in this latter view of christians, only I shall consider the example in my text, as eminently instructive.

AND the instruction they are taught from it is, to take all due care, that such among them as are in necessitous circumstances, may be so far provided for, as to be preserved from suffering through want. Though no particular societies of christians are obli­ged, after the pattern of the church at Jerusalem, to sell what they possess, and throw all into one stock for the common support; yet they are, with­out all doubt, bound by their example to do their utmost, that none of their brethren in Christ, espe­cially of the same community with themselves, may be suffered to drag on life unrelieved under the straits, distresses▪ and miseries of unavoidable pover­ty. And the obligation, from this example, is the more binding, as it co-incides with the known practice of all christian churches in apostolic times. ^* It was their constant care to provide, by their cha­ritable distributions, for the relief of their brethren in Christ under distressing circumstances, whether through poverty, or the unjust treatment of a wick­ed and unbelieving world. And they did this un­der apostolic guidance; yea, by express order from [Page 20] these inspired teachers of the will of Christ. The practice of these primitive churches, thus circum­stanced, is therefore obligatory upon all after chur­ches; and while they copy after it, they may be assured, they will fall in with the mind of Christ, as their practice was founded on apostolic directi­on, which was infalibly right; because they were under the immediate guidance of the Spirit of truth.

The churches of Christ, it is acknowledged, were differently situated in that day from what they are in this. They were then the objects of the hatred and contempt of the civil magistrate, not of his paternal care and protection: Whereas the civil powers, in many places at least, are now on the side of christian communities, and profess a re­gard for them, and readiness to afford them their help.

THIS difference between the state of christians now, and in the times of the apostles, it must be owned, is a very great one in favor of christian churches at this day. But what is the natural, ob­vious deduction herefrom? Surely, it will not fol­low, that christian churches, because they are under a christian civil magistracy, are discharged from their obligations to christian charity. As our Savior has said, Mat. [...]6.11, "The poor ye have always with you", that is, to furnish occasions for the ex­ercise of charity, and to call to it. The necessities of those, who are of "the houshold of faith", may not at all times, and in all places, so loudly call for equally large distributions in order to their relief: But in all ages, and in all the churches of the saints, there will be a number, more or less, of helpless [Page 21] orphans, widows, and poor people, who must be provided for, or subjected to all the miseries of a destitute condition in life.

BESIDES what has been offered, it may be wor­thy of special notice, the apostles of our Lord, un­der the extraordinary guidance of the Holy Ghost, appointed officers in the christian churches they founded, whose special business it was to take care of the charity of the churches they were respective­ly related to, and to make distribution of it ac­cording to the various wants of their several mem­bers. These officers are called, in the apostolic writings, DEACONS, and they have been distinguish­ed by this name from that day to this.

The first deacons were constituted at Jerusalem, and the work assigned them was in part extraordina­ry, being adjusted to the extraordinary circumstances of the church there. This church, at this time, had one common stock, out of which they were all supplied. Deacons were accordingly appointed to "serve tables" ^† or, in other words, to make use of the churches money, which was deposited in their hands, not only in providing for the Lord's table, but such other tables as were necessary for the com­mon support.: A work that required great wisdom, impartiality, candor, as well as labor, in order to a right and commendable discharge of it.

That which was extraordinary in the work of these deacons, the support of all out of one common stock, soon ceased; but taking care of the helpless poor members of Christ still continued the duty of every church, and will continue to be their duty to the end of the world. And, upon this [Page 22] foundation, the deacon's office became a perpetual one in the church. All the churches, in apostolic times, that were set in order, were furnished with Deacons, as well as Pastors. Hence the apostle Paul inscribes his epistle to the Philippians in that stile, "to all the saints in Christ Jesus, with the Bi­shops▪ or Pastors, and Deacons". And in his first epistle to Timothy, which was intended for the direc­tion of all churches, in all ages, he particularly specifies the qualifications of those who are fit to be Deacons, and gives direction that such only should be put into office.

IT is from hence evident, that the Deacon's▪ office is a perpetual one, and that all the churches of Christ, in succession thro' all ages, should be furnished with them. And why? Principally, and above all, that, as trustees of the churches, and as officers of Jesus Christ, they might employ them­selves in ministring to the poor saints. But how should they do this, unless they be enabled to it? And how should they be enabled, but from the charitable distributions of the churches whose offi­cers they respectively are, under Christ, the great head over all? The appointment of Deacons to take care, that the poor saints be relieved and helped, is, in true construction, a solemn law of Christ, obliging the churches who chuse them to put it in their power, as God shall give ability, to answer this charitable intention of their office. Surely, this office in the church would not have been constituted, if it had been a needless, useless one! And useless, as to the main end of its institution, it must certainly be, if the churches are not bound, by the authority of [Page 23] Christ, to a due care to fill their hands for distri­bution to charitable and pious purposes. ^*

IN short, either the Deacon's office is an ordi­nance of Jesus Christ, or it is not. If it is not, why do our churches, in solemn form, chuse men out of their number to take upon them this office? They must be supposed to esteem Deacons, officers of divine appointment, or they prophanely mock God when they elect them as such. If they are [Page 24] officers of Christ's appointment, the churches who chuse them are most certainly obliged to acknow­ledge them in this character, by enabling them, as they have ability, to afford all needed help to "the saints that are in Christ Jesus". This is the great end of their appointment; this is the business in special they are set over: And for churches to elect them to manage this business, and carry into exe­cution this great and good end of their office, and, at the same time, to take little or no care to furnish them with ability herefor, is an inconsistency in conduct that cannot easily be acccounted for. And yet, this inconsistency most of our churches are justly chargeable with.

IT is I suppose, the truth, in regard of all our churches, that they have Deacons, and of their own election; and this, when solemnly met together in the name of the Lord. And is it not as real a truth, with respect to the most of them, that their Deacons sustain rather the name of their office, than the thing itself; having little or nothing to do that is proper to the principal end of their institution by Christ? May it not be justly said, that too generally, through­out the land, their main business is to provide for, and serve at, the sacramental table? As for Christ's poor, they are no more enabled, by the churches they are related to, to make distributions for their relief, than if they sustained no office in the church of God. Is this as it ought to be? May it not ra­ther be said, that such churches are grosly wanting in those discoveries of christian affection, which were so conspicuous in the church at Jerusalam, and all the other churches we read of in the new-testament-books.

[Page 25]IT will, perhaps, be pleaded here, our civil ru­lers have empowered the several Towns, within their jurisdiction, to raise such moneys as may be judged necessary for the support of the poor, and to appoint persons to take care, that these moneys be disposed of, so as to answer the good end for which they are raised; in consideration whereof, the churches are excused from those charities, which would enable their Deacons to do that which is done in other ways.

THE answer is at once obvious. The laws im­powering our several towns to provide for the sup­port of the poor, respect the poor in common, of what­ever denomination, be their character as it may; not distinguishing any on account of their membership in the church of Christ: Whereas, it is the require­ment of the gospel of the blessed God, that christi­an churches particularly regard the poor saints; taking all due care, that those, who are members of the same mystical body with themselves, should be so far helped as not to live in suffering circumstan­ces, through want of the things that are needful for the body. And, if any of their members are in real necessity, their charitable assistance is what they are as certainly obliged to, as christians were in the first, or any other, period of the christian church. Their living in a christian country, where provisi­on is made by law for the relief of poor people in general, may make a difference as to the quantum of the charity, that may be proper and sutable; but it makes none at all as to the thing itself, where there is real need of it. And, indeed, if the provision that is made by the law in any place for the support of the poor, in common, can­cels [Page 26] the obligations of the churches to make pro­vision for those of their own body, who are in necessi­tous circumstances, it totally sets aside the Deacon's office, though an apostolic appointment in the name of Jesus Christ. What need of Deacons in the church of God, if Christ's poor are not to be the special objects of their care? Why should the churches chuse them into office, if they are excu­sed from putting any thing into their hands for a distribution for the relief of the saints? The plain truth is, no civil constitution can vacate an insti­tution of Jesus Christ. And as Deacons are officers of his appointment, and chosen by the churches as such, they are solemnly bound, and by their own choice too, in compliance with what they professed­led esteem the will of Christ, to own them in the business they are called to, and set over, namely, that of ministring to the wants of those, in special, who are of "the houshold of faith". And that they may be properly supplied, as officers in the kingdom of Christ, and in his name, for the exe­cution of the benevolent trust reposed in them, it is, without all doubt, the incumbant duty of the churches of which they are respectively Deacons, to endeavour, as they have ability, to put it in their power to relieve their poor members, as there may be occasion for, and calls to it, in the alwise, righ­teous government of providence.

SOME of our churches, thanks be to God, have something of a stock, or fund, owing to the pious and charitable legacies of those, who were con­cerned that the poor disciples of Christ might, in his name, and by his officers in the church, be taken [Page 27] care of. But it will not be pretended, that any fund, in any of our churches, will afford that which is sufficient for the relief of all belonging to them, that are needy and destitute: And what is lacking, this way, ought to be made up in some other; or even these churches will fall greatly short of their duty, and leave their Deacons unable to answer, in a commendable measure, the good intention of their office.

WHAT some individuals in our churches have done, or may still do, in charities to the poor in ge­neral, or the poor of those christian communities of which they themselves are a part, is known to God, and their own consciences. But may it not be just­ly questioned, whether any of our churches, AS SUCH, have taken that care to enable their Deacons, as Christ's officers, and in his behalf, to make those communications to his needy disciples, as they had ability to do, and ought to have done? Had the constituent members of our several churches been as ready to communicate, that their brethren in Christ, conflicting with the miseries of poverty, might be relieved and helped, as they have been to expend their money for that which profiteth not, would so many of them have so often been pinch­ed with hunger, and cold, and suffered to groan under distress, through want, I do not say of the conveniences and comforts, but of even the necessa­ries of life? Should I not speak the truth, if I should affirm, that no visible saint, no member in any of our churches, would suffer for want of what is needful for the body, if we spared for their relief a small part only of that which is laid out for rich [Page 28] furniture for our houses, in costly apparel to deck our bodies, and in luxurious variety to cover our ta­bles? Should each one that is a member of the church of Christ lay his hand upon his heart, and declare the genuine dictates of conscience, would he not be obliged to own, that he had needlessly, might I not say sinfully, spent that, which, if he had laid up in store for the purposes of charity and pie­ty, would have made the hearts of many to sing for joy, who have been oppressed, and over-burden­ed with the weight of difficulties and straits, arising from the poverty of their condition? Our chur­ches, my brethren, have lost, in a great measure, the spirit of the primitive churches of Christ; their spirit of love, operating in all the offices of chari­table goodness, which distinguished them from other men, and were as a mark, or badge, by which they were known to be believers in him whom God has sent to be the Savior of the world. We are too generally become lovers of ourselves, lovers of the gaities, the vanities, the amusements, and fashiona­ble follies of the degenerate age we live in. The very best of us are too much conformed to this pre­sent evil world, and suffer it so to engross our affec­tion, as that we have but little, very little, left to shew it self in christian acts of kindness and benefi­cence to the saints that are in Christ Jesus.

IT were to be wished our churches were now, as they were in the apostles days, "one in heart and affection", churches towards each other, and every church towards every member belonging to it. And that we may be "provoked" to this union in love, evidencing its reality in works of kindness [Page 29] and charity, as their may be occasion, I shall briefly propose to your consideration the following things, with the mentioning of which I shall conclude the present discourse.

THE first thing worthy of special notice is, that the faith which constitutes men christians in truth, and love to their fellow-brethren in Christ, not the pretence of love, but its reality, are so far con­nected together in the sacred books, as to lead us most obviously into the thought, that they are, and ought always to be, inseperable concomitants. Turn to what Paul says to the church in Ephesus, 1st chap. 1 [...] ver. To the like purpose he writes to the church at Coloss, 1st chap. 4th ver. The same connection of love we find, in his 1st Epis. to the Thessalonians 1st chap. 3 ver. So in his 2d epist. 1 chap. 3d ver. I might refer you to a great number of other texts, in which faith in Christ, and love to the brethren, the saints, the houshold of faith, are linked together, as though they could not be disjoined, but would ever accompany each other. And, in truth, it is of the very essence of faith, that faith by which "the just do live", to shew itself in love, not only to God, and Christ, but to the christian brotherhood, not in word only, but in true genuine deeds of unfeigned hearty affecti­on; insomuch, that we may assure ourselves, if our faith is not accompanied with this practical love, it is nothing better than that empty dead faith, of which the apostle James says, "it profiteth not".

IT may be again worthy of consideration, the apos­tolical writers present to the view of believers in Christ Jesus, such an idea of their relation to each [Page 30] other as must powerfully tend to excite and draw forth their love to one another, if their faith is of the right sort, and in exercise. As the apostle Paul, in the 2d chap of his epist. to the Ephes. represents the matter, we have "one Lord, one faith, one bap­tism, one God and father of all, who is above all, and thro' all, and in all" that are disciples in truth. We have all been "called to one hope", we are "one mystical body", and are actuated by one and the same spirit, the Spirit of Jesus Christ. We are all "heirs according to the hope of eternal life, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ to the in­corruptible inheritance in heaven". We expect to be associated in another world, and to live there, in one grand community, united in love to one another; and eternally joining as one in "ascrib­ing blessing and honor to him that sitteth on the throne, and to the Lamb". Can we have a realising faith in these truths of God, as we must have to denominate us christians, and not feel in our hearts the working of affection towards each other; affection that will shew itself in all christian offices of charitable kindness? It is impossible.

IT may be said yet farther, the gospel-motives to christian love, in practice, as well as principle, are such as cannot easily be withstood, where there is the ex­ercise of faith in a suitable degree. We are called to no act of love and goodness to the disciples of Christ, but what we shall be abundantly rewarded for in the coming world. A cup of cold water only given to a disciple, in the name of a disciple, and from love to Christ, and in obedience to him, shall in no wise lose its reward. The more [Page 31] bountifully we sow, the more bountifully we shall reap.—What better use, what higher in­terest, can we put our money to, than by lend­ing it to the Lord, for the use of his poor? It is the intire want of faith, or the weakness of it, or the not allowing it its proper exercise, that shuts our hands from the most liberal distributions to the purposes of christian charity. Could we be wan­ting upon this head, if we really and fully believed, that the good God would amply repay us whatever we should advance for the help of the saints, if not in this world, most assuredly in that which is to come.

ANOTHER most powerfully affecting conside­ration to engage our practical love towards our brethren in Christ is, that he will esteem what we do to them as if done to himself. For they are members of that very body of which he is the Head; they are mystically one with him. It is in consideration of this union, that he says, as in the 24th of Matthew, "inas­much as ye have done it to one of the least of these my brethren ye have done it to me". Do we really believe, that, if we charitably re­lieve a brother in Christ, he will accept the kindness as done to himself? It is difficult to conceive, how we should, in this case, refrain our­selves herefrom. Our faith in this amazing truth must be weak, or rather not in present exercise, or it would open both our hearts and hands in comuni­cations of christian kindness.

I SHALL only say further, deeds of cha­ritable goodness to the poor suffering members [Page 32] of the church of Christ, are mentioned by name in the account the scripture gives us of the process of the great and general judgment; and those only are pronounced "blessed, and bid to inherit the kingdom prepared before the foun­dation of the world, who have given meat to the hungry, and drink to the thirsty, cloaths to the naked, and help to the sick, and distressed". If then we would hope to be acquitted at the bar of the future judgment, and have entrance ministred to us into the kingdom of Christ that is above, we must put on bowels of mercy, be kind to one another, tender-hearted, ever being in readiness, according to our ability, to do good to "the houshold of faith": So shall we, of the mercy of God, through Jesus Christ, be crowned with immortality and honour in the coming world.

AMEN.