be easily sequestered; and those who were in want could obtain assistance out of the secreted treasure.  Still, even at this period, the principle of a community of goods was not carried out into universal operation; for the foreign Jews who were now converted to the faith, and who were “possessors of lands or houses” [53:1] in distant countries, could neither have found purchasers, nor negotiated transfers, in the holy city.  The first sales must obviously have been confined to those members of the Church who were owners of property in Jerusalem and its neighbourhood.

The system of having all things common was suggested in a crisis of apparently extreme peril, so that it was only a temporary expedient; and it is evident that it was soon given up altogether, as unsuited to the ordinary circumstances of the Christian Church.  But though, in a short time, the disciples in general were left to depend on their own resources, the community continued to provide a fund for the help of the infirm and the destitute.  At an early period complaints were made respecting the distribution of this charity, and we are told that “there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.” [53:2] The Grecians, or those converts from Judaism who used the Greek language, were generally of foreign birth; and as the Hebrews, or the brethren who spoke the vernacular tongue of Palestine, were natives of the country, there were, perhaps, suspicions that local influence secured for their poor an undue share of the public bounty.  The expedient employed for the removal of this “root of bitterness” seems to have been completely successful.  “The twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God and serve tables.  Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.” [54:1]

Had the apostles been anxious for power they would themselves have nominated the deacons.  They might have urged, too, a very plausible apology for here venturing upon an exercise of patronage.  They might have pleaded that the disciples were dissatisfied with each other—­that the excitement of a popular election was fitted to increase this feeling of alienation—­and that, under such circumstances, prudence required them to take upon themselves the responsibility of the appointment.  But they were guided by a higher wisdom; and their conduct is a model for the imitation of ecclesiastical rulers in all succeeding generations.  It was the will of the Great Lawgiver that His Church should possess a free constitution; and accordingly, at the very outset, its members were intrusted with the privilege of self-government.  The community had already been invited to choose an apostle in the room of Judas, [54:2] and they were now required to name office-bearers for the management