Trollope on Article XXXVIII: Of Christian men's Goods, which are not common

about the year 1520, and, infiuenoed by the misguided zeal of their leader, Thinuia Muneer, committed the most dis- graceful excesses. Among other unwarrantable opinions, they derived from the statement of St. Luke (Acts ii. 44.) that the first disciples ’ had all things common,’ that a com- munity of goods was binding upon Christians. The name of the sect is derived dire tov ai’a/3a7rrt^eii/, from re- haptizing those who joined their communion ; and Luther (Prsef. ad Exam, in Matt. 5.) gives the following account of them: — Decent Christiano nihil esse possidendum, non jurandum, nulloa magistratvs habendos, non exercenda jndida, neminem tuendum ad dej’endendum, tiwores et liberos deserendos, atqtte id genun portenta qtiamplttrima.

2, Shew that a community of goods was never contemplated by Christ and his Apostles as a prin- ciple of Christianity.

In the repeated exhortations of Christ and his Apostles to alms-giving and hospitality, as well as to the exercise of those virtues which can only be displaved in the lower ranks of life, it is manifestly implied that there will ever be the rich to give, and the poor to receive : while the contri- butions which were sent from Macedonia and Achaia to the poor Christians in Judaea, abundantly prove that, even in the Apostles time> there were those who from their private means were able to relieve the necessitous and distressed. There is neither any precept in the Gospel where a com- munity of goods is enjoined ; nor is it consistent with the geneial welfare of society, or even with its existence, that a renunciation of private property should take place. Such a state of things would be a direct encouiagement to idle- ness, and in manifest opposition to the Apostle’s admonition, that ’ with quietness men work, and eat their own bread ’ (2 Thess. iii. 12.).

3. Does it not appear, however, that the early converts had all things common ?

It appears indeed that a community of goods was for a time adopted in the infant Church at Jerusalem, and that many or the new converts delivered up their worldly pos- sessions for the use of the brethren. Among others Barnabas, * having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the Apostles feet* (Acts iv. 37.), Some have thought, how-

ever, that those only, who were immediately engaged in the work of the ministiy, threw their property into a common stock ; but at all events the act was altogether voluntary, and consequent upon no command from any of the Apostles.

4. Whence does it appear that these contributions to a common fund was in no way compulsory ?

In the matter of Ananias and Sapphira, though St. Peter denounced the fraudulent and dishonourable object of the transaction, he fuUv admitted their right of possession. ‘While it remained, he said to Ananias, * was it not thine * own ? After it was sold, was it not in thine own power V (Acts V. 4.)

5. Shew that AlmsgiTing* is a paramount Chris- tian obligation ; and mark the principle upon which it must be based in order to acceptance in the sight of God.

No duty is more frequently and earnestly pressed upon Christians in the New Testament than that of contributing to the necessities of their poorer brethren. To ’ give to him ’ that asketh ;’• to ’ minister to the necessity of the saints/ according as God has blessed them with the ability, is re-

[…]

• rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to com- ‘municate’ (1 Tim. vi. 17, 18.), those who are not rich are enjoined to ’ work with their hands the thing which is good, ’ that they may have to give to him that needeth ’ (Eph. iv. 28.). Grod does not regard the value of the gift, but the disposition of the giver ; and a principle of love to God and Christ must be the ruling motive or every act of benevo- lence. All is worthless without this leve : and with it even a widow’s mite is a * sacrifice with which God is well

• pleased’ (Heb. xiii. 16.)»

6. In what light does our Lord regard the prac- tice of almsgiving and brotherly love ?

An act of mercy, done even to the most humble of his followers, is accepted and rewarded by Christ, as if it were

done to hiimrif. < Inasmuoh as ye have done it/ he says, ’ to one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me (Matt. zxv. 40.). As therefore the practice of Christian charity in all its branches is so highly estimated by our Lord, so will the neglect be severely punished at the day of final retribution.

7. Quote passages from the early Fathers in support of the doctrine of this Article.

Clem. Rom. Ep. ad Cor. c. 38. Let him that is strong despise not him thmt is jveak, and let him that is weak reverence him that is strong : let the rieh give alms to the poor, and the poor qive thanks to God, Justin M. Apol. I. c. 67. Those that nave much nuihe their contributions ae- eordingly, which are deposited with the President, for the support qj orphans and widows and the relief of those that are in want bu reason qf sickness or any other cause, or those that are m bonds, or strangers that have come from a distance. In a word, he takes care qf all tfiat stand in need of assistance. Clem. Alez Quis div. Salv.. c. 13. Mow much better is it, by possessing a competency, to be free from the hardships of want, ana to be able to retkvs those whom it is proper to relieve ! How manifestly would this doctrine qf a community of goods be found to be at variance with many of our Lords precepts 1 How shall any give meat to the hungry, or perform these other act if trity, against those who neglect which he denounces everlastina fvre (Matt. XXV. 41.), if every one is to be deprived qf toe means qf doing aU these things ?