_Economic Review_, vol. ix.]

[Footnote 3: _Apol._ 39.]

[Footnote 4: _Dictionnaire de Theologie_, Paris, 1829, t.i.t.

'Communaute.']

It is therefore doubtful if the Church at Jerusalem, as described in the Acts, practised communism at all, as apart from great liberality and benevolence. a.s.suming, however, that the Acts should be interpreted in their strict literal sense, let us see to what the so-called communism amounted.

In the first place, it is plain from Acts iv. 32 that the communism was one of use, not of ownership. It was not until the individual owner had sold his goods and placed the proceeds in the common fund that any question of communism arose. 'Whiles it remained was it not thine own,' said St. Peter, rebuking Ananias, 'and after it was sold was it not in thine own power?'[1] This distinction is particularly important in view of the fact that it is precisely that insisted on by St. Thomas Aquinas. There is no reason to suppose that the community of use practised at Jerusalem was in any way different from that advocated by Aquinas--namely, 'the possession by a man of external things, not as his own, but in common, so that, to wit, he is ready to communicate them to others in their need.'

[Footnote 1: Roscher, _Political Economy_ (Eng. trans.), vol. i. p.

246; _Catholic Encyclopaedia_, t.i.t. 'Communism.']

In the next place, we must observe that the communism described in the Acts was purely voluntary. This is quite obvious from the relation in the fifth chapter of the incident of Ananias and Sapphira. There is no indication that the abandonment of one's possessory rights was preached by the Apostles. Indeed, it would be difficult to understand why they should have done so, when Christ Himself had remained silent on the subject. Far from advocating communism, the Founder of Christianity had urged the practice of many virtues for which the possession of private property was essential. 'What Christ recommended,' says Sudre,[1] 'was voluntary abnegation or almsgiving.

But the giving of goods without any hope of compensation, the spontaneous deprivation of oneself, could not exist except under a system of private property ... they were one of the ways of exercising such rights.' Moreover, as the same author points out, private property was fully recognised under the Jewish dispensation, and Christ would therefore have made use of explicit language if he had intended to alter the old law in this fundamental respect. 'Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.'[2] At the time of Christ's preaching, a Jewish sect, the Essenes, were endeavouring to put into practice the ideals of communism, but there is not a word in the Gospels to suggest that He ever held them up as an example to His followers. 'Communism was never preached by Christ, although it was practised under His very eyes by the Essenes. This absolute silence is equivalent to an implicit condemnation.'[3]

[Footnote 1: _Histoire du Communisme_, p. 39.]

[Footnote 2: Matt. v. 17.]

[Footnote 3: Sudre, _op. cit._, p. 44. On the Essenes see 'Historic Phases of Socialism,' by Dr. Hogan, _Irish Ecclesiastical Record_, vol. xxv. p. 334. Even Huet discounts the importance of this instance of communism, _Le Regne social du Christianisme_, p. 38.]

Nor was communism preached as part of Christ's doctrine as taught by the Apostles. In Paul's epistles there is no direction to the congregations addressed that they should abandon their private property; on the contrary, the continued existence of such rights is expressly recognised and approved in his appeals for funds for the Church at Jerusalem.[1] Can it be that, as Roscher says,[2] the experiment in communism had produced a chronic state of poverty in the Church at Jerusalem? Certain it is the experiment was never repeated in any of the other apostolic congregations. The communism at Jerusalem, if it ever existed at all, not only failed to spread to other Churches, but failed to continue at Jerusalem itself. It is universally admitted by competent students of the question that the phenomenon was but temporary and transitory.[3]

[Footnote 1: _e.g._ Rom. xv. 26, 1 Cor. xvi. 1.]

[Footnote 2: _Political Economy_, vol. i. p. 246.]

[Footnote 3: Sudre, _op. cit._; Salvador, _Jesus-Christ et sa Doctrine_, vol. ii. p. 221. See More's _Utopia_.]

The utterances of the Fathers of the Church on property are scattered and disconnected. Nevertheless, there is sufficient cohesion in them to enable us to form an opinion of their teaching on the subject. It has, as we have said, frequently been a.s.serted that they favoured a system of communism, and disapproved of private ownership. The supporters of this view base their arguments on a number of isolated texts, taken out of their context, and not interpreted with any regard to the circ.u.mstances in which they were written. 'The mistake,' as Devas says,[1] 'of representing the early Christian Fathers of the Church as rank socialists is frequently made by those who are friendly to modern socialism; the reason for it is that either they have taken pa.s.sages of orthodox writers apart from their context, and without due regard to the circ.u.mstances in which they were written, and the meaning they would have conveyed to their hearers; or else, by a grosser blunder, the perversions of heretics are set forth as the doctrine of the Church, and a sad case arises of mistaken ident.i.ty.' A careful study of the patristic texts bearing on the subject leads one to the conclusion that Mr. Devas's view is without doubt the correct one.[2]

[Footnote 1: _Dublin Review_, Jan. 1898.]

[Footnote 2: Dr. Hogan, in an article ent.i.tled 'The Fathers of the Church and Socialism,' in the _Irish Ecclesiastical Record_, vol.

xxv. p. 226, has examined all the texts relative to property in the writings of Tertullian, St. Justin Martyn, St. Clement of Rome, St.

Clement of Alexandria, St. Basil, St. Ambrose, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and St. Gregory the Great; and the utterances of St.

Basil, St. Ambrose, and St. Jerome are similarly examined in 'The Alleged Socialism of the Church Fathers,' by Dr. John A. Ryan.

The patristic texts are also fully examined by Abbe Calippe in 'Le Caractere sociale de la Propriete' in _La Semaine Sociale de France_, 1909, p. 111. The conclusion come to after thorough examinations such as these is always the same. For a good a.n.a.lysis of the patristic texts from the communistic standpoint, see Conrad Noel, _Socialism in Church History_.]

The pa.s.sages from the writings of the Fathers which are cited by socialists who are anxious to support the proposition that socialism formed part of the early Christian teaching may be roughly divided into four groups: first, pa.s.sages where the abandonment of earthly possessions is held up as a work of more than ordinary devotion--in other words, a counsel of perfection; second, those where the practice of almsgiving is recommended in the rhetorical and persuasive language of the missioner--where the faithful are exhorted to exercise their charity to such a degree that it may be said that the rich and the poor have all things in common; third, pa.s.sages directed against avarice and the wrongful acquisition or abuse of riches; and fourth, pa.s.sages where the distinction between the natural and positive law on the matter is explained.

The following pa.s.sage from Cyprian is a good example of an utterance which was clearly meant as a counsel of perfection. Isolated sentences from this pa.s.sage have frequently been quoted to prove that Cyprian was an advocate of communism; but there can be no doubt from the pa.s.sage as a whole, that all that he was aiming at was to cultivate in his followers a high detachment from earthly wealth, and that, in so far as complete abandonment of one's property is recommended, it is simply indicated as a work of quite unusual devotion. It is noteworthy that this pa.s.sage occurs in a treatise on almsgiving, a practice which presupposes a system of individual ownership:[1] 'Let us consider what the congregation of believers did in the time of the Apostles, when at the first beginnings the mind flourished with greater virtues, when the faith of believers burned with a warmth of faith yet new. Thus they sold houses and farms, and gladly and liberally presented to the Apostles the proceeds to be dispersed to the poor; selling and alienating their earthly estate, they transferred their lands thither where they might receive the fruits of an eternal possession, and there prepared houses where they might begin an eternal habitation.

Such, then, was the abundance in labours as was the agreement in love, as we read in the Acts--"Neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common." This is truly to become son of G.o.d by spiritual birth; this is to imitate by the heavenly law the equity of G.o.d the Father. For whatever is of G.o.d is common in our use; nor is any one excluded from His benefits and His gifts so as to prevent the whole human race from enjoying equally the divine goodness and liberality. Thus the day equally enlightens, the sun gives radiance, the rain moistens, the wind blows, and the sleep is one to those who sleep, and the splendour of Stars and of the Moon is common. In which examples of equality he who as a possessor in the earth shares his returns and his fruits with the fraternity, while he is common and just in his gratuitous bounties, is an imitator of G.o.d the Father.'

[Footnote 1: _De Opere et Eleemosynis_, 25.]

There is a much-quoted pa.s.sage of St. John Chrysostom which is capable of the same interpretation. In his commentary on the alleged communistic existence of the Apostles at Jerusalem the Saint emphasises the fact that their communism was voluntary: 'That this was in consequence not merely of the miraculous signs, but of their own purpose, is manifest from the case of Ananias and Sapphira.' He further insists on the fact that the members of this community were animated by unusual fervour: 'From the exceeding ardour of the givers none was in want.' Further down, in the same homily, St. John Chrysostom urges the adoption of a communistic system of housekeeping, but purely on the grounds of domestic economy and saving of labour.

There is not a word to suggest that a communistic system was morally preferable to a proprietary one.[1]

[Footnote 1: _Hom, on Acts xi_. That voluntary poverty was regarded as a counsel of perfection by Aquinas is abundantly clear from many pa.s.sages in his works, _e.g. Summa_, I. ii. 108, 4; II. ii. 185, 6; II. ii. 186, 3; _Summa cont. Gent_., iii. 133. On this, as on every other point, the teaching of Aquinas is in line with that of the Fathers.]

The second cla.s.s of patristic texts which are relied on by socialists are, as we have said, those 'where the practice of almsgiving is recommended in the rhetorical and persuasive language of the missioner--where the faithful are exhorted to exercise their charity to such a degree that it may be said that the rich and poor have all things in common.' Such pa.s.sages are very frequent throughout the writings of the Fathers, but we may give as examples two, which are most frequently relied on by socialists. One of these is from St.

Ambrose:[1] 'Mercy is a part of justice; and if you wish to give to the poor, this mercy is justice. "He hath dispersed, he hath given to the poor; his righteousness endureth for ever."[2] It is therefore unjust that one should not be helped by his neighbour; when G.o.d hath wished the possession of the earth to be common to all men, and its fruits to minister to all; but avarice established possessory rights.

It is therefore just that if you lay claim to anything as your private property, which is really conferred in common to the whole human race, that you should dispense something to the poor, so that you may not deny nourishment to those who have the right to share with you.' The following pa.s.sage from Gregory the Great[3] is another example of this kind of pa.s.sage: 'Those who rather desire what is another's, nor bestow that is their own, are to be admonished to consider carefully that the earth out of which they are taken is common to all men, and therefore brings forth nourishment for all in common. Vainly, then, do they suppose themselves innocent who claim to their own private use the common gift of G.o.d; those who in not imparting what they have received walk in the midst of the slaughter of their neighbours; since they almost daily slay so many persons as there are dying poor whose subsidies they keep close in their own possession.'

[Footnote 1: _Comm. on Ps. cxviii._, viii. 22.]

[Footnote 2: Ps. cxii. 9.]

[Footnote 3: _Lib. Reg. Past._, iii. 21.]

The third cla.s.s of pa.s.sages to which reference must be made is composed of the numerous attacks which the Fathers levelled against the abuse or wrongful acquisition of riches. These pa.s.sages do not indicate that the Fathers favoured a system of communism, but point in precisely the contrary direction. If property were an evil thing in itself, they would not have wasted so much time in emphasising the evil uses to which it was sometimes put. The insistence on the abuses of an inst.i.tution is an implicit admission that it has its uses.

Thus Clement of Alexandria devotes a whole treatise to answering the question 'Who is the rich man who can be saved?' in which it appears quite plainly that it is the possible abuse of wealth, and the possible too great attachment to worldly goods, that are the princ.i.p.al dangers in the way of a rich man's salvation. The suggestion that in order to be saved a man must abandon all his property is strongly controverted. The following pa.s.sage from St. Gregory n.a.z.ianzen[1]

breathes the same spirit: 'One of us has oppressed the poor, and wrested from him his portion of land, and wrongly encroached upon his landmarks by fraud or violence, and joined house to house, and field to field, to rob his neighbour of something, and has been eager to have no neighbour, so as to dwell alone on the earth. Another has defiled the land with usury and interest, both gathering where he has not sowed and reaping where he has not strewn, farming not the land but the necessity of the needy.... Another has had no pity on the widow and orphans, and not imparted his bread and meagre nourishment to the needy; ... a man perhaps of much property unexpectedly gained, for this is the most unjust of all, who finds his very barns too narrow for him, fining some and emptying others to build greater ones for future crops.' Similarly Clement of Rome advocates _frugality_ in the enjoyment of wealth;[2] and Salvian has a long pa.s.sage on the dangers of the abuse of riches.[3]

[Footnote 1: _Orat_., xvi. 18.]

[Footnote 2: _The Instructor_, iii. 7.]

[Footnote 3: _Ad Eccles._, i. 7.]

The fourth group of pa.s.sages is that in which the distinction between the natural and positive law on the matter is explained. It is here that the greatest confusion has been created by socialist writers, who conclude, because they read in the works of some of the Fathers that private property did not exist by natural law, that it was therefore condemned by them as an illegitimate inst.i.tution. Nothing could be more erroneous. All that the Fathers meant in these pa.s.sages was that in the state of nature--the idealised Golden Age of the pagans, or the Garden of Eden of the Christians--there was no individual ownership of goods. The very moment, however, that man fell from that ideal state, communism became impossible, simply on account of the change that had taken place in man's own nature. To this extent it is true to say that the Fathers regarded property with disapproval; it was one of the inst.i.tutions rendered necessary by the fall of man. Of course it would have been preferable that man should not have fallen from his natural innocence, in which case he could have lived a life of communism; but, as he had fallen, and communism had from that moment become impossible, property must be respected as the one inst.i.tution which could put a curb on his avarice, and preserve a society of fallen men from chaos and general rapine.

That this is the correct interpretation of the patristic utterances regarding property and natural law appears from the following pa.s.sage of _The Divine Inst.i.tution_ of Lactantius--'the most explicit statement bearing on the Christian idea of property in the first four centuries':[1] '"They preferred to live content with a simple mode of life," as Cicero relates in his poems; and this is peculiar to our religion. "It was not even allowed to mark out or to divide the plain with a boundary: men sought all things in common,"[2] since G.o.d had given the earth in common to all, that they might pa.s.s their life in common, not that mad and raging avarice might claim all things for itself, and that riches produced for all might not be wanting to any.

And this saying of the poet ought so to be taken, not as suggesting the idea that individuals at that time had no private property, but it must be regarded as a poetical figure, that we may understand that men were so liberal, that they did not shut up the fruits of the earth produced for them, nor did they in solitude brood over the things stored up, but admitted the poor to share the fruits of their labour:

"Now streams of milk, now streams of nectar flowed."[3]

And no wonder, since the storehouses of the good literally lay open to all. Nor did avarice intercept the divine bounty, and thus cause hunger and thirst in common; but all alike had abundance, since they who had possessions gave liberally and bountifully to those who had not. But after Saturnus had been banished from heaven, and had arrived in Latium ... not only did the people who had a superfluity fail to bestow a share upon others, but they even seized the property of others, drawing everything to their private gain; and the things which formerly even individuals laboured to obtain for the common use of all were now conveyed to the powers of a few. For that they might subdue others by slavery, they began to withdraw and collect together the necessaries of life, and to keep them firmly shut up, that they might make the bounties of heaven their own; not on account of kindness (_humanitas_), a feeling which had no existence for them, but that they might sweep together all the instruments of l.u.s.t and avarice.'[4]

[Footnote 1: 'The Biblical and Early Christian Idea of Property,' by Dr. V. Bartlett, in _Property, its Duties and Rights_ (London, 1913).]

[Footnote 2: _Georg._, i. 126.]

[Footnote 3: Ovid, _Met._, I. iii.]

[Footnote 4: Lactantius, _Div. Inst._, v. 5-6.]

It appears from the above pa.s.sage that Lactantius regarded the era in which a system of communism existed as long since vanished, if indeed it ever had existed. The same idea emerges from the writings of St.

Augustine, who drew a distinction between divine and human right. 'By what right does every man possess what he possesses?' he asks.[1] 'Is it not by human right? For by divine right "the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof." The poor and the rich G.o.d made of one clay; the same earth supports alike the poor and the rich. By human right, however, one says, This estate is mine, this servant is mine, this house is mine. By human right, therefore, is by right of the Emperor.

Why so? Because G.o.d has distributed to mankind these very human rights through the emperors and kings of the world.'

[Footnote 1: _Tract in Joh. Ev._, vi. 25.]

The socialist commentators of St. Augustine have strained this, and similar pa.s.sages, to mean that because property rests on human, and not on divine, right, therefore it should not exist at all. It is, of course true that what human right has created human right can repeal; and it is therefore quite fair to argue that all the citizens of a community might agree to live a life of communism. That is simply an argument to prove that there is nothing immoral in communism, and does not prove in the very slightest degree that there is anything immoral in property. On the contrary, so long as 'the emperors and kings of the world' ordain that private property shall continue, it would be, according to St. Augustine, immoral for any individual to maintain that such ordinances were wrongful.

The correct meaning of the patristic distinction between natural and positive law with regard to property is excellently summarised in Dr.

Carlyle's essay on _Property in Mediaeval Theology_:[1] 'What do the expressions of the Fathers mean? At first sight they might seem to be an a.s.sertion of communism, or denunciation of private property as a thing which is sinful or unlawful. But this is not what the Fathers mean. There can be little doubt that we find the sources of these words in such a phrase as that of Cicero--"Sunt autem privata nulla natura"[2]--and in the Stoic tradition which is represented in one of Seneca's letters, when he describes the primitive life in which men lived together in peace and happiness, when there was no system of coercive government and no private property, and says that man pa.s.sed out of this primitive condition as their first innocence disappeared, as they became avaricious and dissatisfied with the common enjoyment of the good things of the world, and desired to hold them as their private possession.[3] Here we have the quasi-philosophical theory, from which the patristic conception is derived. When men were innocent there was no need for private property, or the other great conventional inst.i.tutions of society, but as this innocence pa.s.sed away, they found themselves compelled to organise society and to devise inst.i.tutions which should regulate the ownership and use of the good things which men had once held in common. The inst.i.tution of property thus represents the fall of man from his primitive innocence, through greed and avarice, which refused to recognise the common ownership of things, and also the method by which the blind greed of human nature might be controlled and regulated. It is this ambiguous origin of the inst.i.tution which explains how the Fathers could hold that private property was not natural, that it grew out of men's vicious and sinful desires, and at the same time that it was a legitimate inst.i.tution.'