because they approach certain texts from the point of view of modern society wherein private property is held sacred. Ignoring all that Jesus and his immediate disciples said regarding the renunciation of all private property, they fail to reach a position where they can understand Jesus. When, for instance, it is said, "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away," they so misunderstand what Jesus here contemplated, that they are forced to maintain that Jesus did not understand the problems of modern society. This is done by many eminent clergymen. Upon discussing these words, they turn immediately to an argument for charity organization and condemn what they assume Jesus meant, by these words,-indiscriminate charity. They discuss professional beggars, pauperism, and all the evils that arise in modern society from what is called "indiscriminate giving." From an entirely superficial point of view, beggars, tramps, and frauds of all kinds and descriptions are produced by almsgiving, but the real fact, which some commentators do not grasp, is that modern economic conditions produce poverty, just as they produce wealth. They produce both to-day on a gigantic scale. Out of the great masses of the poor relatively few become professional beggars, and there is not one characteristic of these professional beggars and paupers, except their lack of things, that is not also a characteristic of the idle and profligate rich. Modern society produces them both. Moreover, men of this type-both rich and poor-have nearly always existed in society. There were professional beggars in Jerusalem, and Jesus knew them well. Conditions were not so different then from those of to-day that indiscriminate almsgiving could have failed to attract professional beggars then, just as it does to-day. And Jesus, with a full knowledge of these facts and conditions, says directly, clearly, and simply, "Give to him that asketh thee, and

from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." The Reverend Canon Gore and many others, when they are forced to comment upon this commandment, are sorely troubled and they solemnly lecture the over-zealous upon the evils that would now result from any attempt to follow this advice. What Jesus says here is absurd only to those who postulate everything upon the sacredness of individual and private property; to those who believe that the present economic régime is a righteous one; and to those who cannot conceive of a form of society where the amassing of individual wealth and treasure is not a necessary practice. Jesus was laying down the laws of the kingdom of God, the economic basis of which is communism, and the spirit he wishes in his kingdom is that each man must seek to give and not to take, to labor and not to profit, and to lose himself in the life of the whole.

The desire for gain is to-day the dominant spirit in society, and although it is fundamentally antagonistic to the teachings of Jesus, the commentators fail to take account of this. They neither seem dissatisfied with the society which breeds this desire, nor do they seek basic social changes which would remove the conditions that perpetuate this spirit. Not only are they not seeking the kingdom of God on earth, but they seem even to forget that that was one of the chief objects sought by Jesus. Consequently, when they come to many of his sayings, they are in utter darkness and when they try to explain his teaching, they pervert and destroy its meaning. Much of the good seed sown by Jesus reaches the commentators "by the wayside." They "hear the word of the kingdom and understand it not."

CHAPTER VII

THE TRUTH AND THE CHURCH

...

"Woe unto you. for ye shut up the kingdom of Heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourself, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.”

THAT Jesus instructed his disciples to found their new society upon the economic principles of communism would seem to be evident not only from the acts of the Apostles, but also from the ideals and practices of the early Christian Church. Although all attempts of the first Christians to practice communism were frustrated by the government at Rome, communism was recognized by the primitive Church, for three or four centuries, as the ideal form of Christian society. The few wealthy persons, who, in those early days, became converts to Christianity, gave all their possessions into the hands of the Church. But it was extremely rare for men and women of wealth to look with sympathy upon the poor, oppressed and much hated Christians, and of course the vast majority remained faithful to the old forms of worship. As a result of this cleavage on class lines Christianity, by the end of the fourth century, became not only the religion of the poor throughout a great part of the Roman Empire, but it also came to be considered a menace to the rich and powerful. (1) "And the religious conflict," says Nitti, "transformed into economic conflict, only increased the hatred between the two naturally hostile classes. The rich could not but look down with contempt upon persons who preached poverty and lived poorly. In a proclamation addressed to the

129

Armenians, Mihir Nerseh, while dissuading them from embracing Christianity, asked how they could lend an ear to a set of beggars in rags, who prefer persons of low condition to those belonging to good families, and who are so absurd as to despise wealth. (2) This warning of Nerseh appears to have been necessary, as some men of great riches, and of noble birth, were becoming Christians. One such was severely rebuked in these words by a magistrate: "Out of love of this vain sect, you wish to descend from all this wealth thy noble ancestor left thee to such a degree of poverty that you will become like the poorest mendicant. I blush for the honor of your race.' 99 1

In the Old Testament, in the New, and in the doctrines held by the early Fathers of the Church for three or four centuries, we find uniform views upon the subject of wealth and poverty. They almost all assert that wealth is the fruit of usurpation and consider the rich man as one who withholds the patrimony of the poor. According to them all things were held in common in the beginning; the distinctions, "mine" and "thine,”-in other words, individual property-came in with the spirit of evil.

Among the greatest of the Fathers of the Church in the first century were Clement and Barnabas. Clement's Epistle (dated about 95 or 96) was for a long time honored as Scripture and was read in public worship as late as the fourth century. Barnabas was the friend of Paul and a close associate in many of his early missions. Both Clement and Barnabas believed that Christians should own all things in common. "Thou shalt have all things common with thy neighbor," says Barnabas, "and not call them thy private property, for if ye hold the imperishable things

1 This is quoted by Richard Heath, in "The Captive City of God,” p. 116, and he cites Surins, S. Quentin, Oct. 31, c. 10; but I am unable to find the writings of anyone by that name. Perhaps it is Laurentius Surius, the hagiologist. (1522-1578.) (3)

in common how much more the perishable." 1 (4) Clement says: "The common life, brethren, is necessary to all, and chiefly to those who desire to serve God irreproachably, and who would imitate the life of the Apostles and their disciples. For the use of all things that are in this world ought to be common to all men. But by iniquity, one says this to be his, and another that, and so among mortals division is produced." (5)

Tertullian and Cyprianus (or Cyprian) lived in the second century of the Church. Tertullian was a man of marked personality and the most brilliant writer in the early Church; while Cyprian, martyred for his Christian zeal, was perhaps the greatest leader of the early African Church. He was a man of wealth, who upon being converted, sold all his property and gave the proceeds to the poor. Not to consider anything as their own, but to have all things common, appeared to Cyprian as "truly to become sons of God by spiritual birth; this is to imitate by the heavenly law the equity of God the Father." (6) The same ideal is shared by Tertullian, who declared: "We have everything in common except our wives. . . . Each one freely brings his offering to relieve the poor, the sick, orphans, widows, travelers and prisoners. We love one another; we are brothers." 2 (7) As it was the practice of the early Christians to give all their property to the Church,

1In the following pages the author gives many quotations from the writings of the fathers of the early Christian Church. Most of these can be found in "Catholic Socialism," by Francesco S. Nitti. The reader will also find it interesting to consult "The Captive City of God," by Richard Heath; 66 Genesis of the Social Conscience" by H. S. Nash, Professor in the Episcopal Theological School at Cambridge; and "The New Encyclopedia of Social Reform," edited by the Rev. William D. P. Bliss. Those readers who know either Greek or Latin will prefer to consult Migne where much additional matter on these lines will be found.

"These sentences are often quoted. They are correct, but they are detached. Cf. Migne, op. cit., "Latina," Vol. 1, pp. 470-472.