according as he had need. And Joseph, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas (1) (which is, by interpretation, the son of consolation), a Levite, a Cyprian born, having land, sold it, and brought the price and laid it at the feet of the apostles."

CHAPTER V.

ANANIAS AND SAPHIRA.- -MIRACLES OF THE APOSTLES.--THEY ARE PUT IN PRISON AND DELIVERED BY AN ANGEL.-ADVICE OF GAMALIEL. THE APOSTLES BEATEN WITH RODS.

SUCH is the depravity of the human heart, that vice found means to insinuate itself even in the midst of so many virtues. Avarice assumed the virtue of disinterestedness, the merit of which it thought to attain through the medium of deceit and imposture. But such is the hatred with which God regards duplicity of heart, that even then, under the law of grace and love, he signalized his wrath by a punishment as terrible as any which had been inflicted under the law of severity and dread. By this he makes known to us that, although he is the father of mercy, we must never forget that he is also the God of vengeance. The following example contains a fearful lesson for us.

(1) Of all those who made this sacrifice, St. Barnabas is the only one named. Amongst other reasons for this preference, we may attribute it to the distinguished part which he was destined to take in the ministry. His entrance into the Church was the more worthy of remark, as it was also his entrance to the apostolic office. This he attained, like the other apostles, by leaving all for Jesus Christ. The reader will remember the young man to whom Jesus said: Go, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give it to the poor. Come then and follow me (Matt., xix. 21). This last expression, in the Saviour's peculiar style of speech, signified a vocation to the apostolic ministry, and the young man would not have it at such a price. St. Barnaby fulfilled the condition, and took his place, for it is likely that it was to him God transferred the grace which the other had refused, even as he had before transferred to St. Matthias the dignity whereof Judas had deprived himself by his crime.

(a) "A certain man named Ananias, with Saphira his wife, sold a piece of land (1), and by fraud kept back part of the price of the land, his wife being privy thereunto: and bringing a certain part of it, laid it at the feet of the apostles. But Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost, and by fraud keep part of the price of the land? Whilst it remained did it not remain to thee, and after it was sold was it not in thy power (2)? Why hast thou conceived (a) Acts, v. 1.

(1) Had Ananias taken the vow of poverty, or had he not? This question is still discussed amongst commentators. Nearly all the ancients have decided in the affirmative; and if we come to count the voices for and against, nay, if we even weigh the opinions given, we can no longer doubt that it was so, when we see that opinion entertained by St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Gregory, &c. What renders this very probable is the word, he kept back by fraud, in Latin, fraudavit. If Ananias had not made a vow, there would have been no fraud in what he did. His field, or the money which he got for it, belonged to himself, as St. Peter told him, and he was at liberty to dispose of it in whatever way he pleased. In what, then, had he sinned? or what fraud could there be in sacrificing a portion of his property to the wants of his brethren? Very far from being a sin, this would have been an act of charity; not so great, of course, as if he had given up all, but still good, as far as it went, and meritorious in proportion to the sacrifice he had made. Viewing it in this light, we could neither understand the reproaches of St. Peter nor the punishment inflicted by God. But if Ananias had consecrated all his possessions to the Lord by a solemn vow, then all is explained. He defrauded, he lied to the Holy Ghost-he is, therefore, worthy of death, for God is just, and his ways are perfect.

To the first example of a religious detachment from earthly things, God has annexed the chastisement of the first violators of the holy vow of poverty. We cannot doubt that he thereby intended to instruct and frighten those who lightly make a vow to him, and break it without much remorse. God is not mocked with impunity (Gal., vi. 7).

(2) By speaking thus, St. Peter teaches us that the apostles did not compel the first Christians to the sale and sacrifice of all their goods. It was merely a counsel, and not a precept of theirs.

But inasmuch as Ananias was master of his own possessions, some other interpreters have concluded that he was bound by no promise. That was the case, perhaps, before, and even after, the sale. But, 1st, between the time of the sale and his appearance before St. Peter, he might have made the vow. We know not what length of time had intervened, and it required no long time to make such an engagement. 2d, While laying his money at the feet of St. Peter, he might have pronounced the formula of the contract, either by way of vow or of consecration. Scripture does not positively say so, but neither does it state the contrary. 3d, This very action, without being accompanied by words, might testify that the persons so acting solemnly pledged themselves to follow the counsel of Jesus Christ and his apostles, by stripping themselves of all, so as to have

this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God (1)."

The effect of these words was quicker than lightning. "Ananias, hearing them, fell down, and gave up the ghost. And there came great fear upon all that heard it. And the young men, rising up, removed him, and carrying him out, buried him."

This tragical scene took place in a private house. "And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what had happened, came in. And Peter said to her: Tell me, woman, whether you sold the land for so much? And she said: Yea, for so much. Then Peter said unto her: Why have you agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord (2)? Behold, the feet of them who have buried thy husband are at the door, and they shall carry thee out. Immediately she fell down before his feet, and gave up the ghost (3). And the young men coming in, found her dead; and carried her out, and buried her by her husband.”

nothing more except in common with others. There are actions which speak for themselves, and the meaning of this one, sufficiently expressive in itself, might also have been determined by the apostles; in proposing the counsel, they might have declared that the promise would be inferred from the act of offering, so that giving and vowing should be considered as one and the same thing. So it is that, without uttering a single word, men solemnly devote themselves to chastity when receiving holy orders, being aware that it is one of the implied conditions.

(1) After having said to Ananias: Thou hast lied to the Holy Ghost, St. Peter tells him again: Thou hast lied to God. "Therefore, the Holy Ghost is God;" as the holy fathers concluded against the heresiarch Macedonius.

Ananias had lied both to the Father and the Son. It is by appropriation that he is said to have lied to the Holy Ghost, who is called by Jesus Christ the Spirit of truth (John, xiv. 17).

(2) They tempted the Spirit of the Lord, because they fancied that St. Peter would have no knowledge of their fraud. For those who saw with what plenitude the Holy Ghost poured himself forth upon the apostles, it was a sort of infidelity not to believe that they had received the gift of prophecy, with all other miraculous gifts; and it is written: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

(3) Porphyrus, one of the most subtle assailants of Christianty, considered that St. Peter had been criminally severe upon these two persons. Would not one suppose from this that the holy apostle had put them both to death, whereas God alone struck the blow? The voice of St. Peter was but the signal. An ancient father (Tertull., lib. de Pudicitia, cap. 21) has regarded this as an image of excommunication. There is certainly a resemblance, inasmuch as, by the word of Peter, the sinner is cut off from the society of the faithful, as Ananias and Saphira were cut off from amongst the living.

Thus perished, with themselves, the hope of these hypocrites (1). Instead of the glory which they had expected to procure for themselves by fraud and by perjury, they involved themselves in perpetual disgrace, and consigned themselves to eternal infamy; an almost infallible proof of their reprobation. For, if they had died in the state of justice, the Lord would not have labored directly to dishonor their memory by inspiring the sacred writer to record the tale of their disgrace; this would have been contradicting that say ing of the Psalmist: The just shall be in everlasting remembrance; he shall not fear the evil hearing (Ps. cxi. 7).

"And there came great fear upon the whole church, and upon all," even beyond its communion, "that heard these things."

This miracle of terror was the only one of its kind, while those of grace and favor were innumerable. "By the hands of the apos tles (2) were many signs and wonders wrought amongst the people," all of them being special benefits. "And they were all (3) with one accord in Solomon's porch (4), but of the rest no man durst

But there is also some difference; for here Peter spoke, while God alone acted; whereas, in excommunication, Peter speaks and acts, while God ratifies.

(1) Job, viii. 12: Spes hypocrita peribit.

(2) Our translators say only by the apostles. The hands have been indicated because it was, in fact, by the imposition of hands that the apostles usually operated miraculous cures, in accordance with that promise of the Saviour: They shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover (Mark, xvi. 18).

(3) All, according to some interpreters, must be understood as having reference to the apostles only. Others are of opinion that it signifies all the members of the infant church, people as well as pastors. By the former it is asserted that what follows, of the rest no man durst join himself unto them, regards the faithful who kept apart from the apostles, either through respect for those divine men, or because they feared to provoke persecution. According to the latter, it is to be understood even of those who believed not, and who, either through fear or respect, did not venture to mingle with the believers. The second interpretation is preferable to the other: 1st, Because respect merely obliged the faithful to treat the apostles deferentially, but not to remain apart from them, whilst nothing can be more unjust than to suspect those fervent Christians of that pusillanimous fear which is here supposed to have been common to all; 2d, Because what has been already said (chap. ii., ver. 46), that they continued daily in the temple, with one accord, has manifest reference to all the faithful, and this seems to be but a repetition of that passage.

(4) See what has been already said of this porch. It was the usual place of assembly for the apostles and the first faithful; 1st, Because being very spacious, it was capable of containing a great multitude; 2d, Because, not being a part of the temple, properly

join himself unto them; but the people magnified them. And the multitude of men and women who believed in the Lord was more increased; insomuch that they brought forth the sick into the streets (1) and laid them on beds and couches, that when Peter came, his shadow (2) at the least might overshadow any of them, and they might be delivered from their infirmities. And there came also together to Jerusalem a multitude out of the neighboring cities, bringing sick persons and such as were troubled with unclean spirits; who were all healed."

This was too much for the rulers of the people: miracles such as these, followed by such brilliant success, were enough to drive them to despair. If this were suffered to go on much longer, what would become of their credit and consideration? Must they be quietly suffered to pass into the hands of this fisherman and the handful of low-born men who were his companions? No, all disguise must be at once thrown off; wherefore, "the high-priest rising up, and all they that were with him (which is the heresy of the Sadducees) (3),

so called, they could there announce the word of life to all sorts of persons, men and women, Jews and Gentiles, the purified and the non-purified amongst the Jews; 3d, Because the offerings, the sacrifices, and all the service of the temple, which were celebrated in the interior, were in no way interrupted.

The Church was born of the synagogue, and its cradle was the old Jewish temple, which, after that, was only fit to burn. Its destiny was fulfilled.

(1) Many exposed their sick because they already believed; others believed because they saw that those who had been exposed were cured, and others because they had themselves been cured. Hence it is that St. Luke joins the cause to the effect--the cures to the conversions, by the words so that,

(2) It has been invariably seen, that on all important occasions it was Peter who spoke, and spoke alone, which shows that he had the authority of a master, and was recognized as such by his colleagues. So must he also have been recognized by the people in this capacity. It was doubtless for this reason that God gave him the gift of working miracles in a more remarkable manner than he did to any of the others.

(3) It has been already remarked that the Sadducees denied the resurrection. It has also been shown that the members of this sect had a double interest in arresting the preaching of the apostles. The latter preached in the name of Jesus Christ, which was odious to them. If the high-priest was not of their party, and the text might prove that clearly enough, at least he favored them openly. We must believe that the foundations of the Jewish state and of the Jewish religion were already shaken when the chief of the sacerdotal order, and the first man in the nation, was not ashamed to appear as the partisan, or, at least, as the declared abettor of materialism.