Discourses on Divers Texts of Scripture, Discourses 2 · Sermon 8

Discourses on Divers Texts of Scripture · Discourses 2 · Sermon 8

p. 379ACTS 5. 3, 4, 5.Act. 5. 3, 4.Acts 5:3Acts 5:4

3. But Peter said, Ananias, Why hath Satan filled thine heart, to lie to the holy Ghost, and to purloin of the price of the Land?

4. Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

5. And Ananias hearing these words, fell down and gave up, &c.

IN the 110. Psalm, where our Saviour is Prophetically described in the person of a King, advanced to the Throne of Divine Majesty, glorious and victorious; The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool, &c. amongst other Kingly Attributes and Graces, it is said, (if it be translated as it should be) That his people in the day of his power should offer him freewill offerings; that is, bring him Presents at the day of his Inauguration or investment, as a sign of their Homage: For so was the manner of the East to do unto their Kings; and therefore when Saul was anointed p. 380King by Samuel, it is said of those sons of Belial, which despised and acknowledged him not, that they brought him no presents: But of Messiahs people it is said, Thy people in the day of thy power, (that is, the day when thou shalt enter upon thy power, or the day of thy Investment) shall be foreign, a people of free presents, or shall bring thee free-will Offerings. It is an Ellipticall speech foreign, for foreign, or foreign, and rightly expressed in the Translation of our Service Book.

This we see fulfilled in the story of the fore-going Chapter, when after our Saviours ascension into heaven, to sit at the right hand of God, which was the day of his power or inauguration in his Kingdome, assoon as this Investment was published by sending of the Holy Ghost, presently such as beleeved in him, that is, submitted themselves to his power, and acknowledged him to be their King, dedicated their goods and possessions to his service, selling their lands and houses, and laying down the money at the Apostles feet; namely, to be distributed as were the sacred Offerings of the Law, partly to the maintenance and furnishing of the Apostles for the work whereabout they were sent, and partly for the relief of the poor beleevers, which belonged to Christs provision.

According to this example one Ananias with Sapphira his wife, consecrated also a possession of theirs unto God, and sold the same to that purpose; but having so done, covetousnesse tickling them, they purloyned from the price, and brought but a part of the summe, and laid it down at the Apostles feet: p. 381Then said Peter, according to the words of the Text, why hath Satan filled thine heart (that is, made thee so daring: the like phrase we have Fsth. 7. 5. foreign, where is he whose heart hath filled him (we read it, That durst presume) to do so? and again, Eccles. 8. 11. The heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evill. In the former the Septuagint hath foreign, emboldened; in the latter, foreign, is filled) to lie unto the Holy Ghost, and to purloin from the price of the field, &c.

Which words contain two things; Ananias his sin, and his punishment therefore: His sin in the third and fourth verses: His punishment in the fifth, Ananias hearing these words, fell down and gave up the ghost.

Concerning his sin, it appears by the relation I have already made, it was Sacriledge, namely, the purloining of what was become holy and consecrate unto God, not by actuall performance, but by vow and inward purpose of the heart: for as it is well observed by Ainsworth, on Levit. 7. 16. out of Ma…mony in his Treatise of offering the Sacrifice, Chap. 14. Sect. 4, 5. &c. In vows and voluntaries it is not necessary that a man pronounce ought with his lips; but if he shall be fully determined in his heart, though he hath uttered nothing with his lips, he is indebted. And this is no private Opinion of mine, the Fathers so determine it: S. Augustine, that Ananias was condemned of Sacridedge, Quod Deum in pollicitatione fefellisset, (Serm. 25. de verb. Ap.) And in another Sermon, Ananiam d…traxisse de pecunia quam voverat Deo. (Serm. 10. de diversis.) S. Chrysostome in his 12. Homily upon this place; Pecuniae illae, saith he, deinceps crant sacrae. Igitur p. 382qui voluerat suum vendere & distribuere, & postea de illis acceperit, sacrilegus fuerat. Again, Vides quod hoc crimen imputatur, eo quod pecunias suas accepit quas consecraverat; or, as the Greek, sacras fecerat. S. Ierome in his 8. Epistle, Ananias & Sapphira dispensateres timidi, imò corde duplici; & ideò condemnati, quia post votum obtulerunt, quasi sua, & non ejus cui semel ea voverant; partemque sibi alienae substantiae reservaverunt, praesentem meruere vindictam non crudelitate sententiae, sed correctionis exemplo. Caesarius brother to Gregory Nazianzen, in his fourth Dialogue expresseth the sin of Ananias thus; Semel Deo dicatum aurum, saith he, sacrilegio vulneratus alienaverat, interrogatus negaverat: He alienated the money dedicated unto God, being wounded with Sacriledge, and when he was asked thereabout, denied it. Lastly, Oecumenius, in whom we have the currant interpretation of the Greek Fathers, thus expounds the words of S. Peter to Ananias, Neque enim invitos vos trahimus; sed cum ultroneè vobis placuerit offerre Deo victimam, rursus vos ipsos ad proprium usum insumere, Sacrilegium indubiè est: And then addes, Ideo & Sacrilegorum poena sunt percussi: Quanam? morte. Also Asterius Bishop of Marpurg in Germany, who lived near the time of Iulian, in his Hom. in Avaritiam, cals Ananias and Sapphira, foreign.

I quote these Fathers the more fully, because many of our late Commentators omit the main sin, and dwell upon the circumstances only, as hypocrisie, vain-glory, covetousnesse, and the like. But we must distinguish between Ananias his fact, and the manner and circumstance thereof: The fact was Sacriledge: p. 383In the manner of doing, other sins attended as handmaids. It will be plain, if we ask but these two questions: First, what Ananias did? The Text wil make answer, foreign, He purloined of the holy mony. This was his fact. Ask secondly, how and in what manner he purloined? The story will tell us, dissemblingly and hypocritically, making an appearance to the contrary. This then was but the manner and circumstance of his fact, and so the species of the fact not to be placed therein.

Now this Sacriledge or Sacrilegious act committed by Ananias, is in the words of the Text partly expressed, partly aggravated from the inexcusablenesse thereof. In the expression is spent the third verse; the aggravation is in the fourth. The crime or fact of Ananias is expressed two ways: First, by foreign, purloining of the sacred price. Secondly, by foreign, by lying unto, or deceiving the Holy Ghost. For both these I suppose to mean one and the same thing; namely, the same fact of Ananias two ways expressed. The first, foreign, I translate by stealing or purloining, for so the word signifies: our English which renders it, Keeping back of the price, doth not sufficiently expresse the propriety thereof in this place: In another place it doth, Tit. 2. 10. where it renders foreign, purloining; Exhort servants, saith the Apostle, to be obedient unto their Masters, and to please them well in all things, foreign, not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity. The Vulgar in both places useth Fraudare, defrauding. In a word, the true signification of foreign is surripere, suffurari, aut clam subducta in commodum p. 384nostrum convertere: whence Beza turns it by Intervertere, Intervertit ex pretio; and in Titus, Intervertentes. In the same sense it is used by the Septuagint in two severall places, both pointing at the sin of Sacriledge: One is in Achans story, Iosh. 7. 1. where what we reade, Achan took of the accursed thing, the Septuagint renders, foreign, he purloined the accursed thing; that is, the thing that was consecrated to God, as all the silver and gold was, ch. 6. ver. 19. for which cause when God relates to Ioshua Israels sin, as the reason of their flying before their enemies, he makes a distinction between Achans Sacriledge, and his theft and dissembling, ver. 11. of the 7. Chap. saying, For they have even taken of the accursed thing, and have also stollen and dissembled also, and they have put it even among their own stuffe. The other is, in 2 Mac. 4. 32. Menelaus his Sacriledge (who stole the sacred Vessels) is expressed by it; Menelaus (saith the Author) supposing he had got a convenient time, foreign, stole certain vessels of gold out of the Temple, and gave some to Andronicus, and some he sold into Tyrus and the Cities round about.

The second expression of Ananias his Sacriledge is by foreign, deceiving or lying to the Holy Ghost; or as it is repeated immediately after, foreign, lying unto God. foreign is fallo, frustro, mentior, To deceive, cozen, lie; (as also the Hebrew word foreign, which peculiarly signifies Sacrilegious transgression, as Lev. 5. 15. and in the story of Achan, is in all those places (as elsewhere) rendred in Targum, foreign, to lie, and the substantive foreign, a lie) and in Oaths and promises, Non servo, frango, not to keep, p. 385or to break them. So Ananias his sin, was a lying unto, or breaking of promise with God: for having vowed, or promised unto him in his heart the whole price of the field, he brought him but part thereof. Both expressions point out the same fact; which in regard of the matter, was stealing or purloining: in regard of the Vow and Consecration, a breach of promise or lying unto God. So that when Peter says in the third verse, Why hath Satan filled thine heart; to lie unto the Holy Ghost, and to purloin of the price of the land? The latter is the explication of the former; and is, as if it had been said, Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie unto the Holy Ghost, in purloining the price of the land?

But what, will some man say, means this speciall expression of the Deity in the Person of the Holy Ghost? why is Ananias said, to have lied to the Holy Ghost, rather then to have lied unto God only? For lying unto God would bear the sense I speak of; should not then lying unto the Holy Ghost, seem to have something else, or something more in it? I answer, Ananias his lie or breach of promise is applied thus in speciall to the Holy Ghost, in respect of the prerogative of that Person, as to stir and sanctifie, so to take notice of the motions of the heart: forasmuch therefore as Ananias his Vow and Promise which he broke, was not such as men could witnesse or take notice of, but such as his own heart or conscience only was privy to; hence it is said to have been done under the privity of the Holy Ghost, and he in the breach thereof to have lied unto him; because that which none but the inward man knoweth of, and is yet but in the purpose of the heart, is under his privity. There p. 386is a plain place Rom. 9. to this purpose, I say the truth in Christ, saith the Apostle, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witnesse in the Holy Ghost: that is, the Holy Ghost, who is privy to my conscience, bearing me witnesse, or my conscience which the Holy Ghost is privy to. Some other places of Scripture I could name, which may receive light from this notion, but I am loth to meddle with them.

But for their interpretation, who expound this lying unto the Holy Ghost, of Ananias his hypocrisie, I cannot well see how it can stand; For Ananias dissembled not with the Holy Ghost, but with men; the Holy Ghost knew his heart well enough. And the hypocrite properly lies unto men, who guesse only by the outside, and not unto God, who knows the heart.

Others expound lying unto the Holy Ghost, as if it were lying to try whether the Holy Ghost in the Apostles could discover him or not: But this is an harsh and forc'd sense. As for that in the 9. verse, whereon it is grounded; viz. How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? The word Tempt, or foreign, is mistaken, the notion thereof in Scripture being otherwhile, to provoke God by some presumptuous fact to anger; as it were to try whether he will punish or not, to dare God. There is an evident place for this sense, Numb. 14. 22. Those men, saith the Lord, which have seen my glory and my miracles which I did in Egypt and in the wildernesse, and have tempted mee now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice. 23. Surely, they shall not see the land which I sware to p. 387their Fathers, neither shall any of them that provoked me, see it.

And thus much of the bare description of Ananias his sin: Come we now to the aggravation thereof; While it remained, was it not thine? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? That is, before it was sold, was it not thine? and being sold, was not the money paid thee? was not the price in thine hand? Thou hast therefore no excuse for what thou hast done. For there were two cases which might have excused Ananias for bringing but part of the price: If either he had not been Dominus in solidum, the full Proprietary of what was sold; or had not received the whole price it was sold for. For, as for the first, it is a rule in Law, Quoties Dominium transfertur ad a…ium, tale transfertur, quale apud eum fuit, qui tradit. A man can sell no more then is his. So that if Ananias had been owner but in part, he had power to dispose but in part. Secondly, though he were Dominus in solidum, the full Proprietary of the field, and so had right enough to sell it, yet had not the whole price been received, and in his power and possession, he might still have been excused for bringing but part thereof. But Ananias could plead neither of these: for saith S. Peter, foreign; whilest it remained unsold, did it not remain th…ne? or wer't not thou owner? foreign; and when it was sold, was not the money it was sold for in thy possession? The first words, foreign; (though there be no such speech again in Scripture) yeeld the sense I speak of plainly enough, nor will they bear any other meaning, unlesse somewhat forsaking the letter, p. 388we should with others construe them to imply, that Ananias was not constrained or urged to sell his possession at all, but might have kept it still: Which sense is most commonly followed, and hath the authority of Oecumenius in the words before alledged; Neque enim (saith he) invitos vos trahimus, sed quum ultronsè vobis placuerit offerre Deo victimam, rursus vos ipsos ad proprium usum insumere sacrilegium est. Therefore Beza translates the words, Nonne, si servasses (so he renders foreign) manebat tibi?

True it is, this sense makes as much for the unexcusablenesse of Ananias, as the other: for could he have alledged that what he had done for the sale of his land, was done not spontè, but coactè, not willingly, but by way of constraint, it might have excused him: because that act only is taken to be of force in Law, which a man consents unto: But that which is done by constraint or compulsion, is not done with full and free consent, and therefore bindes not. So this sense agrees well enough with the story, only it may seem somewhat to strain the words: Howsoever if you had rather follow it, because of the authority, I will not contend. Only note thus much, that the Syriack Translator inclines to the first sense; for he translates, foreign; Nonne tuus erat antequam venderetur.

A second plea for the excuse of Ananias might have been in case he had not yet received the full price, and so had not the whole money in his hand. But this S. Peter also takes from him, foreign (saith he) foreign; was it not when it was sold, in thy power? that is, was not the price it was sold for in p. 389thine hands? For foreign must here be understood for the price of what was sold, or the field reduced to money: otherwise the contrary would be true to that which Peter intimates, namely, that when it was sold, it was now no longer in his power, because he had sold it. But the same words, foreign, in thy power, I understand to be as much as, in thy possession, or in thine hand; meaning, as I have said, that he had received the price. For not only that which a man hath dominion and propriety in, but that also which he hath but in bare possession, is rightly said to be in his power: for in the Law Ius possessionis extends farther then Ius dominii, namely, as far as habere, to have a thing; Habere autem dicitur, non solùm qui rei dominus est, sed qui rei quidem dominus non est, sed rem tenet; that is, as they speak, corpore possessioni insistit. And in this sense the price which Ananias had received, is said to have been foreign, in his power, that is, in his possession: which will not seem a forc'd exposition, if we consider that foreign hath the same sense with foreign, or in manu in the Hebrew; which implies not dominion only, but also bare possession. As it is said of Abrahams servant, Gen. 24. 10. That all the goods of his Master were in his hand; as well as of the rich misers son, Eccles. 5. 14. That there was nothing in his hand; that is, he was a begger. Both which might be expressed by foreign, as manus in Hebrew, yea and in Latine too, is well enough known to be put for foreign.

I confesse there is another exposition usually given of these words, but it is such an one as directly contradicts the story; namely, that Was it not in thy p. 390power? should be, was it not in thy power to have kept the price when it was sold? But first there is no such word in the Text as to keep it, and so we are not bound to understand it. It is only said, was it not in thy power? And if any verb be to be understood to supply the sense, why should it not as well be the contrary? was it not in thy power, to dispose it according to thy Vow? intimating there might be some just impediment after the sale, whereby he could not; especially he could not get the money. But to expound, was it not in thy power? to be, was it not in thy power to have kept it? is directly against the drift of the story: For how did Ananias sin in bringing but part of the price, if he might have kept all? Is not his sin expresly placed in that he purloined of the price? what other fact of his is mentioned save only this? Nay, if this should be the meaning of the words, it would follow, a man might vow a thing unto God, and yet be at liberty when he had done, whether he would perform it or not: He might lie unto God, and yet be guiltlesse. Without doubt this exposition was it that so obscured the whole narration, that it could not appear, wherein Ananias his sin consisted. But his sin as I have already shewed out of the Fathers, was Sacriledge, and of that kinde whereof Solomon speaks, Prov. 20. It is a snare to the man who devours that which is holy, and after vows to enquire. He had dedicated the whole value of the field in his conscience, and the purpose of his heart was evident by the sale thereof to that end; and yet when he had done, he repented him, and brought but part thereof. This meaning is evidently contained in the p. 391body of the narration, and therefore such a sense of any part as cannot stand with this, is in no wise to be admitted. He that considers it, will perceive the necessity of what I say.

Having thus cleared the words of the Text where there was any doubt or obscurity: Let us come to the Observations to be deduced thence; whereof the Relation affords us three evident ones: First, that Sacriledge is a sin against God, and not against men. Secondly, that that which is consecrate to God, must not be alienated to other uses. Thirdly, that it is an hainous sin which God thus severely punished. For the first, that Sacriledge is a sin against God, and not against men, is plain by the Text, Thou hast not lied, said Peter, unto man, but unto God. For whatsoever is sacred is his; yea, to be sacred is nothing else but to be set apart from mans interest to be Gods in a peculiar propriety and relation. To steal then or allenate that which is sacred, is to rob God and not man; for he is robbed whose the propriety is, but of sacred things God is the Proprietary and not man. It is an error therefore to be observed among the Expositors of the Decalogue, who rank Sacriledge as a sin of the eighth Commandement, when Sacriledge as Sacriledge is a sin of the first Table, and not of the second: A breach of the loialty we immediately owe to God, and not of the duty we owe to our neighbour. True it is, he that committeth Sacriledge, indirectly and by consequent, robbeth men too, namely, those who live of Gods provision; but Sacriledge it self is the robbing of God. This is evident by that of the Prophet Malachi, Mal. 3. 8. Will a man rob God? yet ye p. 392have robbed me; (saith the Prophet in the person of God) But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In Tithes and Offerings. ver. 9. Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole Nation. 10. Bring ye all the Tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it, &c.

The observation of this would be usefull in the question of the due of Tithes; for the state thereof is not rightly framed, when the Quaere is made, Whether Tithes are due to the Ministers of the Gospel, meaning as a duty of the people unto them: we should say rather, Tithes are due unto God; for so is the style of the Scripture, All the Tithes are mine: these I give to Levi, and not you. God maintains not his Ministers at others charges, but out of his own Revenue which he hath reserved to himself: As was well observed by Philo the Jew, in his Book de Sacerdotum honoribus, where speaking of that foreign, that honorable maintenance, & without bodily toil, which God had provided for his Priesthood; to take away from them out of whose labours this maintenance did accrue, all occasion of upbraiding those who by Gods assignment were to receive it, he saith, foreign, &c. The people were commanded to bring their offerings first to the Temple, that thence the Priests might fetch them: It being not unworthy God himself, in token of gratitude p. 393for his infinite bounty and benefits, to take some part back again from him upon whom he had conferred so great benefits; and seeing himself the giver of all good gifts, stood in need of nothing, it pleased him to transfer that honourable maintenance, which was so returned him by way of thankfulnesse, upon those that served at his Altar, and ministred about holy things: foreign, (as he gives the reason) foreign because they (the Priests) might take that their provision without being ashamed, as not comming from men, but from God the giver of all good gifts to every one. For they are his Ministers, and not the peoples, and therefore to receive their wages from their own Master who imploys them, and not from them. The stating of the question thus, would make the way to the resolution of the controversie more easie, and lesse invidious, whilest we should plead for God and not for our selves: for it is not needfull that all which is given unto God should be spent upon his Ministers, though it be true that their maintenance should be out of his Revenue, and that honorable & competent. But there are many other uses for the imploiment of bona sacra, if there be more then is competent for them and theirs, building of Churches, defraying of such as are sent to Synods, and imploied upon other occasions of the Church, furnishing of treasures for a Holy War, the relief of the poor, the Orphan, the Widow, the Captive, and the distressed: All which belong to Christs provision.

The second Observation is, That that which is consecrated to God, may not be alienated to other p. 394uses. The reasons whereof are; First, because none can alienate but he that hath the propriety, and is owner: Dominium transferre non potest, qui ipse Dominus non est: But in things consecrate to God, none hath the propriety but God. For certainly, a man cannot be said to have given that unto God, wherein he still reserves the Title to himself as the Owner: he that gives, transferres the Dominium from himself, unto him to whom the gift is made. If therefore that which is given to God, be Gods, then must those who go about to alienate it, dispose of that which is none of theirs: which, whether it be just or not, let any man judge.

Secondly, to alienate that which is given unto God, is a breach of vow or promise made unto him; A lying unto him, as my Text speaks. And if it be a sin not to perform what was vowed in the purpose of the heart only, as we see it was in this story of Ananias, much more is it to revoke a vow already performed. Nor will it serve turn to say, This reason may indeed concern the person himself that vowed, that he should not revoke again what he hath vowed; but doth not take away from the Common-wealth, or publike Magistrate their power to dispose of things subject to them. For howsoever it be true that every private person and his goods are under the tuition of the Publike, and the interest the Publike hath in either, cannot be given away by the sole act of a private person: yet in this case that rule hath place which is given by Almighty God, Numb. 30. concerning a Maidens vow in her Fathers house, or a womans vow under covert; That if the Father or the Husband hear p. 395the Vow, and the bond wherewith she bound her soul, and disallow it not, but shall hold his peace; then the vow shall stand: So when the Common-wealth or publike Magistrate consents to and allows what is done, as in this case it is supposed they do, the vow and dedication is also irrevocable on their part.

Hence in Scripture it is made an inseparable property of that which is sacred or Gods, not to be alienable: As in Ezek. 48. 14. it is said of the portion of land to be laid out for the Levites, They shall not sell it, neither exchange, nor alienate the first-fruits of the land; (mark the reason;) for it is holy unto the Lord. This was the reason likewise, why a Jew might not sell outright his possession in the land of Canaan, but only for fifty years term, or untill the year of Jubilee, because the whole land was holy, and Gods land, and they but usufructuarii: So saith God, Levit. 25. 23. The land shall not be sold for ever, or outright; for the land is mine, for you are but strangers and sojourners with me: therefore in all the land of your possession, ye shall grant a redemption for the land. Where he saith, ye are strangers and sojourners with me; the meaning is, that as the Gentiles who became Proselytes, had no inheritance in the land, but dwelt therein as sojourners; so was all Israel in the sight of God, who would have none accounted Proprietaries of that land but himself, having acquired it by his own powerfull conquest from the Canaanite. For although in the same land, some part were yet in a more speciall manner the Lords land, yet comparatively, & secundum quid, the whole land was sacred and His: As all Israel was a peculiar and holy people, though the p. 396Tribe of Levi were in a more speciall sort the holy Tribe. Now if that which was but in a more generall sense holy and the Lords, might not be alienated; what shall we say of that which is holy and His in the most speciall manner of all? I speak all this while of that which is dedicate unto God absolutely, and not with limitation or for term of time only, for such Dedications I suppose there may be.

Now if any shall ask me, whether this assertion, That things dedicate to God are unalienable, admits not of some limitations? I answer, It may be; and that in two cases; If either it can be proved, that the donation made unto God were a nullity; or shewed, that God hath relinquished the right which once he had. But here the water begins to grow too deep for my wading; yet I hope I may say thus much, That whosoever he be that shall plead either of these two cases to acquit himself of Sacriledge, had need be sure in a point of such moment, that his evidence be good, and such as he can shew good warrant for out of Gods own book: To go upon bare conjectures will not be safe. And for direction and caution in this case, I will adde further, That not every sinfulnesse of the person who is the Donor, nor every default or blemish in the consecration, makes the act it self void. It appears in the story of Corah, Dathan, and Abiram, in that oblation of Incense made by the two hundred and fifty Princes of the Congregation, whose service though it were so displeasing unto the Lord, that he sent fire from heaven to consume them; yet when all was done, he gave this commandment to Moses, Speak (saith he) unto Eleazar the son of Aaron the Priest, that p. 397he take up the censers out of the burning; and scatter thou the fire yonder, for they are hallowed. The censers of those sinners against their souls; Let them make of them broad plates for a covering of the Altar: For they offered them before the Lord, therefore they are hallowed, Num. 16 37, 38. Mark here; though they were offered by sinfull men, and in a sinfull manner, and were not to be used any more for censers, yet must they be applied to some other holy use, because they were become sacred by having been offered unto the Lord. So Rabbi Solomo Iarchi, foreign, Unlawfull for common use, because they had made them vessels of Ministery.

My last observation is raised from the judgement which befell Ananias; That it must needs be a hainous sin which God so severely punished, namely, with death: For there is no example to be found again in the whole New Testament, of so severe a punishment inflicted by the mouth of the Apostles, for any sin whatsoever. But this was the first consecration of goods that ever was made unto Christ our Lord, after he was invested to sit at the right hand of God: And this transgression of Ananias and Sapphira, the first Sacriledge that ever was committed against him; wherefore it was requisite that by the severity of the punishment thereof, he should now manifest unto men, what account he made, and how hainous he esteemed that sin; that it might be for an example to the worlds end unto all that should afterward beleeve in his name to beware thereof. So saith S. Hierome, Ananias & Sapphira quia post votum obtulerunt quasi sua & non ejus cui semel eavoverant, praesentem manere p. 398vindictam, non crudelitate Sententiae sed correction is exemplo. For the first in every kinde is the measure of that which follows; & though Sacriledge be not since punished by God as often as it is committed, by such a visible death, yet was it his purpose that by this first punishment we should take notice how great that sin was, and how displeasing in his sight, which was a punishment by the greatest visible judgement that could be.

The like severe example to this, and for the like end, was that upon him who at first profaned the Sabbath day in the Wildernesse by gathering sticks, Num. 15. 32, &c. who by the sentence of God himself was put to death, and stoned by the whole Congregation: That the Jews hereby might know, that howsoever the like were not ordinarily afterward to be inflicted for the like sin, yet that the gravity thereof in the eyes of God was still the same, which that first severity intimated.

Furthermore, it is worthy to be noted, that we finde three examples of such a kinde of coactive jurisdiction, (if I may so term it) exercised either by our Saviour when he was here on earth, or by his Apostles; and all three for the profanation of that which was sacred. The first two by our Saviour himself against those that profaned his Temple, by buying and selling therein as a common place: For which at the first Passeover after his beginning to Preach the Gospel, he made him a whip and whipped such profaners out of it, saying, Make not my Fathers house a house of Merchandise, Ioh. 2. 13. Another time, which was at his last Passeover, He overthrew the Tables of p. 399the Money-changers, and the seats of them that sold doves, and would not suffer any to carry a Vessel through the Temple, telling them, that his house was made for an house of prayer, but they had made it a den of Theeves; Mat. 21. 12. Mark. 11. 15. Luk. 19 45. The third example is this which the Apostle Peter exercised upon Ananias and Sapphira for Sacriledge. Whereby it should appear that how small account soever we are now adays wont to make of these two sins, yet in Gods esteem they are other manner of ones then we take them for.

Another argument of the hainousnesse of the sin of Sacriledge is, that there was no sacrifice appointed in the Law to make atonement for the same, if it were committed willingly and wittingly; but onelyonly if it were ignorantly done: For so we have it, Levit. 5. 15. If a soul commit a trespasse, and sin through ignorance in the holy things of the Lord, he shall bring for his trespasse unto the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock.—And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and adde the fifth part thereunto.—And the Priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him. Thus if it were done ignorantly; but if wittingly and presumptuously, there was no atonement appointed for it: though for other sins there be, even to perjury it self: For, as it is in Mal. 3. 4. Will a man rob his God?

Another proof and testimony of the hainousnesse of this sin, is that so ancient a custome in Dedications todade it with a curse; which to be no late custom (as some may suppose) taken up among Christians, but used both by Jew and Gentile before Christ was p. 400born, may appear by that Decree of K. Darius for the building of the Temple of Jerusalem, which concludes with this execration; The God that hath caused his name to dwell there, destroy all Kings and People, that shall put to their hand to destroy this house of God, which is at Ierusalem. I Darius have made a Decree, let it be done with speed. Ezra 6. 12.

From this custome it came, that Anathema signifies such a Donary given unto a Temple, and an accursed thing, or that which hath a curse with it. So foreign in Hebrew, a thing cursed and destined to destruction, and also a kinde of offering or consecration which had a curse laid upon it, namely, a curse to him that should meddle with it. Which kinde of consecration had this peculiar, that even the very individuall might never be altered, changed, or redeemed upon any terms, Levit. 27. 28. whereas other offerings might, so that a valuable thing or better were given for them. Such a consecration (I mean a Cherem, or consecration under pain of a curse in the very individuall) was that of the City Iericho, as the First-fruits of the conquests of Canaan.

To these Arguments I will adde two or three examples to this of Ananias, of the punishment of this sin, and so conclude. To begin then with the beginning of all: Was not the first sin of Mankinde, for which himself, his posterity, and the whole earth was accursed, a great and capitall sin? But this if we look well into it, was no other for the species and kind of the Fact, then Sacriledge: Such the ancient Jews conceived Adams sin to have been; namely, a species of theft; as may be gathered out of the Book De p. 401morte Mosis, where Moses is brought in deprecating death, and answering God that his case was not such as Adams; for he transgressed by stealing, and eating what God forbad him to meddle with, and so was justly condemned, foreign; But who could Adam steal from, save from God only? And therefore I say the first sin of mankinde for the Fact, was the sin of Sacriledge: For whereas among all the trees of the Garden, which God gave man freely to enjoy, there was one Noli me tangere, which he had reserved unto himself as holy, in token he was Lord of the Garden; Man by eating of this as common, violated the sign of his Fealty unto the great Landlord of the whole Earth, and committed Sacriledge: for which he was cast out of Paradise, and the whole earth accursed for his sake. Might I now say, that to this day many a son of Adam is cast out of his Paradise, and the labours of his hands accursed for medling with this forbidden fruit? But to go on:

Achan for nimming a wedge of gold, and a Babylonish garment of the devoted thing of Iericho aforementioned, brought a curse both upon himself, and the whole Congregation of Israel.

For the Sacriledge of Eli's sons, who not content with those offerings which God allowed them for their maintenance, robbed him of his Sacrifices to furnish their own Tables; God gave not only his people, but even the Ark of his Covenant into the hands of the Philistins.

For the Sacriledge of the seventh or Sabbaticall year, God caused his people to be carried captive, p. 402and the land lie waste 70. years. By the Law of Moses every seventh year the whole land was sacred unto the Lord; so that no man that year might challenge any right of propriety, either to sow his field, or prune his vineyard, or reap that which grew of it self, or gather the fruits of his vineyard undressed, only he might eat thereof in the field, as at other times any might of that which was none of his, as he travelled by, otherwise every mans field and vineyard was that year free as well to the Servant as the Master, to the Stranger as the Owner, to beasts as well as to men. The same year also were all servants and all debts sacred unto the Lord, and so to be released; whence that year was called The Lords Release. See Exod. 21. Levit. 25. Deut. 15. This consecration, being as much as the forgoing of the seventh part of every mans profits, the covetous Jews for many years neglected the observation thereof; For which sin the Lord, as himself professeth, caused them to be carried captive, and the land to lie waste seventy years without Inhabitant, till it had fulfilled the years of Sabbath which they observed not. For their Idolatry he gave them into the hands of the Gentiles their enemies: for their Sabbaticall Sacriledge, hee added this unto it, that they should beside their bondage, be carried captives into a strange Countrey, and their land lie desolate 70. years.

For the Sacrilegious profanation of Belshazzar, in causing the Vessels of Gods House to be made his Quaffing-bowls for himself and his Lords, his Wives and his Concubines to carouse in; was the hand writing upon the wall sent, which did so affright him, that the p. 403Text says, His countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him so, that the joynts of his loyns were loosed, and his knees smote one against another. And the same night Gods vengeance light upon him, Dan. 5.

Lastly, in the days of the Greek Kings, God gave his own Temple and worship to be profaned, and his people to be trodden under foot by Antiochus Epiphanes a Gentile King; because they themselves had a little before profaned the same with sacrilegious hands, having betraid the Treasures and Offerings of the same unto a Gentiles coffers, and sold the sacred Vessels to the Cities round about them. 2 Mac. 3, 4. & 5. cap.