But here I shall take occasion to speak of a particular kind of fraud, which is very aggravated, and is rather a defrauding of God than man. What I mean is, the giving of that which is bad for good in public contributions. Though it be matter of great shame and lamentation, that it should be so in such a place as this; yet it is to be feared, from what has sometimes been observed, that there are some persons among us, who, when there is a public contribution to be attended for the poor, or some other pious and charitable use, do sometimes take that opportunity to put off their bad money. That which they find, or think, their neighbors will refuse to take at their hands, because they will have opportunity to see what is offered them, and to observe the badness of it, even that they therefore take opportunity to put off to God.

Hereby they save their credit; for they apprehend that they shall be concealed. They appear with others to go to the contribution, and it is not known, but that they put in that which is good. But they cheat the church of God, and defraud the expectations of the poor: Or rather they lie to God: For those who receive what is given, stand as Christ's receivers, and not as acting for themselves in this

matter.

They that do thus, do that which is very much of the same nature with that sin, against which God denounces that dreadful curse in Mal. i. 14. "Cursed be the deceiver which hath in his flock a male, and voweth and sacrificeth unto the Lord a corrupt thing: For I am a great King, saith the Lord of Hosts, and my name is dreadful among the Heathen." That hath in his flock a male, i. e. That has in his flock that which is good and fit to be offered to God: For it was the male of the flock principally that was appointed, in the law of Moses, to be offered in sacrifice to God. He has in his flock that which is good, but he vows and sacrifices to the Lord, "the torn, the lame, and the sick," as it is said in the forego. ing verse; "ye said also, Behold what a weariness is it, and. ye have snuffed at it, saith the Lord of Hosts; and ye brought that which was torn, and the lame, and the sick; thus ye

brought an offering: Should I accept this of your hands? saith the Lord.

Contributions in the Christian church come in the room of sacrifices in the Jewish church: Mercy comes in the room of sacrifice. And what is offered in the way of mercy is as much offered to God, as the sacrifices of old were. For what is done to the poor is done to Christ, and he that hath pity on the poor, lendeth to the Lord; Prov. xix. 17. The Jews that offered the sick and lame of the flock, knew that if they had offered it to their governor, and had attempted to put it off, as part of the tribute or public taxes due to their earthly rulers, it would not be accepted, and therefore they were willing to put it off to God, as in the 8th verse of this chapter: "And if ye offer the blind for sacrifice, is it not evil? And if ye offer the lame and sick, is it not evil? Offer it now unto thy governor, will he be pleased with thee, or accept thy person? saith the Lord of Hosts."

So those persons who purposely put bad money into contributions, know that what they put in would not be accepted if they should offer it to pay their public taxes. Yea, they know that their neighbors would not accept it off their hands: And therefore they are willing to save themselves, by putting it off to God.

This practice is also very much of the nature of the sin of Annanias and Sapphira. What they offered was by way of contribution for charitable uses. The brethren sold what they had, and brought it into a common stock, and put all under the care of deacons, that the poor might every one be supplied. Annanias and Sapphira brought a part of their possessions, and put it into the common stock; and their sin was, that they put it in for more than it really was. It was but a part of what they had, and they put it in, and would have it accepted, as if it had been all. So those among us, of whom I am speaking, put off what they put into the charitable stock, for more than it is. For they put it in, under the notion that it is something of some value; they intend it

shall be so taken by the church that sees them go to the con tribution, when indeed they put in nothing at all.

Annanias and Sapphira were charged with lying to God, and doing an act of fraud towards God himself, in what they did: Acts v. 4. "While it remained, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." So those who knowingly put bad money for good into a contribution for a charitable use, as much as in them lies commit an act of fraud and deceit towards God. For the deacons who receive what is contributed, receive it not in their own names, but as Christ's receivers. I hope these things may be sufficient to have said on this head, and enough to deter every one from ever daring to de such a thing for the future.

Again, another thing I would warn you against, is, stealing, properly and strictly so called; or designedly taking away any of your neighbor's goods without his consent or knowledge. And especially I would now take occasion to warn against a practice which is very common in the country, particularly among children and young people: And that is, stealing fruit from their neighbor's trees or inclosures. There is a licentious liberty taken by many children and young people, in making bold with their neighbor's fruit; and it is to be feared, that they are too much countenanced in it by their parents and many elder people.

I am sensible, that the great thing which is pleaded, and made very much the ground of this liberty which is taken, and so much tolerated, is a very abusive and unreasonable construction and application of that text of scripture in Deut. xxiii. 24. “When thou comest into thy neighbor's vineyard, then thou mayest eat grapes thy fill. But thou shalt not put any in thy vessel." Because this text seems to be so much mistaken and misimproved, I shall therefore endeavor partic ularly to state the matter of persons taking their neighbor's fruit, and to set it in a just and clear light as concerning this

text.

1. I shall show what the liberty was which was giv en in it.

2. What the ground of that liberty was.

3. What would, and what would not, be parallel with it, among us.

1. I am to show what the liberty was which was given in this text. It was to eat their fill of grapes when they occasionally came into, or passed through, their neighbor's vineyard, and not that they should go thither on purpose to eat grapes. This is manifest by the manner of expression : "When thou comest into thy neighbor's vineyard, thou mayest eat ;" i. e. when thou art come thither on some other occasion. If God had meant to give them leave to come thither on purpose, for no other end, it would not have been expressed so; but rather thus, Thou mayest come into thy neighbor's vineyard, and eat grapes thy fill.

2. I shall show what must be supposed to be the grounds of this liberty; which were these two things:

(1.) That such were the circumstances of that people, and vineyards among them were so common, that there was no danger that this liberty would be attended with ill consequence. It is manifest throughout the history of Israel, that vineyards among them were so common that the people in general had them. Every husbandman among them was a vine dresser; and a great part of the business of a husbandman among them, consisted in dressing and taking care of his vineyards. Grapes seem to have been the most common sort of fruit that they had. Besides, there was no liberty given for persons to go on purpose to a vineyard to eat the fruit of it. So that there was no danger of neighbors suffering one by another, by any such liberty.

Not only would not the owner of the vineyard suffer any thing sensible, if one or two men should act upon the liberty granted in this text; but the liberty did not tend to any

such consequence, as the flocking of a great number to eat grapes, whereby the fruit of the vineyard might be much diminished.

(2.) Such were the circumstances of the case, that the consent of the owners of vineyards in general might well be presumed upon, though no such express liberty had been given. You may remember, that in the definition of stealing, I observed, that explicit consent is not always necessary; because the case may be so circumstanced, that consent may well be presumed on. And the reason consent might well be presumed on in the case of eating grapes, of which we are now speaking, is, what was observed just now, that there could be no sensible injury, nor any danger of any ill consequences, by which a man would sensibly suffer in the benefit of his vineyard.

Hence it is the more easy to determine,

3. What would, and what would not be parallel with this eating of grapes; or what would and what would not be justified by this text, among us.

(1.) If some particular person among us had a vineyard of the same kind of grapes with those which the children of Israel had, it would not justify others in using the same liberty when occasionally passing through it. Because, if some one person among us had such a vineyard, it would be a rare thing, and the rarity and scarcity of the fruit would render it of much greater value. Besides, if one man were distinguished by such a possession, to allow of such a liberty would have a much greater tendency to ill consequences, than if they were common, as they were in the land of Canaan. There would be danger of many persons falsely pretending occasions, and making occasions, to pass through the vineyard, for the sake of their fill of such rare fruit.

(2.) It would not be a parallel case, if men in general among us had each of them a few vines. That would be a very different thing from persons in general having large vineyards, as they had in Canaan. Nor would this text, in