CHAPTER II CHAPTER II PROPERTY SECTION 1.—THE RIGHT TO PROCURE AND DISPENSE PROPERTY The teaching of the mediæval Church on the subject of property was perfectly simple and clear. Aquinas devoted a section of the Summa to it, and his opinion was accepted as final by all the later writers of the period, who usually repeat his very words. However, before coming to quote and explain Aquinas, it is necessary to deal with a difficulty that has occurred to several students of Christian economics, namely, that the teaching of the scholastics on the subject of property was in some way opposed to the teaching of the early Church and of Christ Himself. Thus Haney says: 'It is necessary to keep the ideas of Christianity and the Church separate, for few will deny that Christianity as a religion is quite distinct from the various institutions or Churches which profess it….' And he goes on to point out that, whereas Christianity recommended community of property, the Church permitted private property and inequality.[1] Strictly speaking, the reconciliation of the mediæval teaching with that of the primitive Church might be said to be outside the scope of the present essay. In our opinion, however, it is important to insist upon the fundamental harmony of the teaching of the Church in the two periods, in the first place, because it is impossible to understand the later without an understanding of the earlier doctrine from which it developed, and secondly, because of the widespread prevalence, even among Catholics, of the erroneous idea that the scholastic teaching was opposed to the ethical principle laid down by the Founder of Christianity. [Footnote 1: Op. cit. , p. 73.] Amongst the arguments which are advanced by socialists none is more often met than the alleged socialist teaching and practice of the early Christians. For instance, Cabet's Voyage en Icarie contains the following passage: 'Mais quand on s'enfonce sérieusement et ardemment dans la question de savoir comment la société pourrait être organisée en Démocratie, c'est-à-dire sur les bases de l'Égalité et de la Fraternité, on arrive à reconnaître que cette organisation exige et entraîne nécessairement la communauté de biens. Et nous hâtons d'ajouter que cette communauté était également proclamée par Jésus-Christ, par tous ses apôtres et ses disciples, par tous les pères de l'Église et tous les Chrétiens des premiers siècles.' The fact that St. Thomas Aquinas, the great exponent of Catholic teaching in the Middle Ages, defends in unambiguous language the institution of private property offers no difficulties to the socialist historian of Christianity. He replies simply that St. Thomas wrote in an age when the Church was the Church of the rich as well as of the poor; that it had to modify its doctrines to ease the consciences of its rich members; and that, ever since the conversion of Constantine, the primitive Christian teaching on property had been progressively corrupted by motives of expediency, until the time of the Summa , when it had ceased to resemble in any way the teaching of the Apostles.[1] We must therefore first of all demonstrate that there is no such contradiction between the teaching of the Apostles and that of the mediæval Church on the subject of private property, but that, on the contrary, the necessity of private property was at all times recognised and insisted on by the Catholic Church. As it is put in an anonymous article in the Dublin Review : 'Among Christian nations we discover at a very early period a strong tendency towards a general and equitable distribution of wealth and property among the whole body politic. Grounded on an ever-increasing historical evidence, we might possibly affirm that the mediæval Church brought her whole weight to bear incessantly upon this one singular and single point.'[2] [Footnote 1: See, e.g. , Nitti, Catholic Socialism , p. 71. 'Thus, then, according to Nitti, the Christian Church has been guilty of the meanest, most selfish, and most corrupt utilitarianism in her attitude towards the question of wealth and property. She was communistic when she had nothing. She blessed poverty in order to fill her own coffers. And when the coffers were full she took rank among the owners of land and houses, she became zealous in the interests of property, and proclaimed that its origin was divine' ('The Fathers of the Church and Socialism,' by Dr. Hogan, Irish Ecclesiastical Record , vol. xxv. p. 226).] [Footnote 2: 'Christian Political Economy,' Dublin Review , N.S., vol. vi. p. 356] The alleged communism of the first Christians is based on a few verses of the Acts of the Apostles describing the condition of the Church of Jerusalem. 'And they that believed were together and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.'[1] 'And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. Neither was there any amongst them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of land or houses sold them, and brought the price of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.'[2] [Footnote 1: ii. 44-45.] [Footnote 2: iv. 32, 34, 35.] It is by no means clear whether the state of things here depicted really amounted to communism in the strict sense. Several of the most enlightened students of the Bible have come to the conclusion that the verses quoted simply express in a striking way the great liberality and benevolence which prevailed among the Christian fraternity at Jerusalem. This view was strongly asserted by Mosheim,[1] and is held by Dr. Carlyle. 'A more careful examination of the passages in the Acts,' says the latter,[2] 'show clearly enough that this was no systematic division of property, but that the charitable instinct of the infant Church was so great that those who were in want were completely supported by those who were more prosperous…. Still there was no systematic communism, no theory of the necessity of it.' Colour is lent to this interpretation by the fact that similar words and phrases were used to emphasise the prevalence of charity and benevolence in later communities of Christians, amongst whom, as we know from other sources, the right of private property was fully admitted. Thus Tertullian wrote:[3] 'One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another. All things are common among us but our wives.' This passage, if it were taken alone, would be quite as strong and unambiguous as those from the Acts; but fortunately, a few lines higher up, Tertullian had described how the Church was supported, wherein he showed most clearly that private property was still recognised and practised: 'Though we have our treasure-chest, it is not made up of purchase-money, as of a religion that has its price. On the monthly collection day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but only if he has pleasure, and only if he be able; all is voluntary.' This point is well put by Bergier:[4] 'Towards the end of the first century St. Barnabas; in the second, St. Justin and St. Lucian; in the third, St. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, St. Cyprian; in the fourth, Arnobius and Lactantius, say that among the Christians all goods are common; there was then certainly no question of a communism of goods taken in the strict sense.' [Footnote 1: Dissert. ad Hist. Eccles. , vol. ii. p. 1.] [Footnote 2: 'The Political Theory of the Ante-Nicene Fathers,' Economic Review , vol. ix.] [Footnote 3: Apol. 39.] [Footnote 4: Dictionnaire de Théologie , Paris, 1829, tit. 'Communauté.'] 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. Assuming, 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 Encyclopædia , tit. '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 Règne 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, Jésus-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 asserted 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 circumstances 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 passages of orthodox writers apart from their context, and without due regard to the circumstances 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 identity.' 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 entitled '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 Abbé Calippe in 'Le Caractère sociale de la Propriété' 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 analysis of the patristic texts from the communistic standpoint, see Conrad Noel, Socialism in Church History .] The passages 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, passages 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, passages directed against avarice and the wrongful acquisition or abuse of riches; and fourth, passages where the distinction between the natural and positive law on the matter is explained. The following passage from Cyprian is a good example of an utterance which was clearly meant as a counsel of perfection. Isolated sentences from this passage have frequently been quoted to prove that Cyprian was an advocate of communism; but there can be no doubt from the passage 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 passage 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 God by spiritual birth; this is to imitate by the heavenly law the equity of God the Father. For whatever is of God 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 God the Father.' [Footnote 1: De Opere et Eleemosynis , 25.] There is a much-quoted passage 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 passages 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 class 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 passages 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 God 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 passage from Gregory the Great[3] is another example of this kind of passage: '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 God; 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 class of passages 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 passages 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 institution 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 principal 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 passage from St. Gregory Nazianzen[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 passage 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 passages 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 institution. Nothing could be more erroneous. All that the Fathers meant in these passages 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 institutions 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 institution 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 passage of The Divine Institution 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 God had given the earth in common to all, that they might pass 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 lust 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 passage 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 God 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 God 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 passages, 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 Mediæval Theology :[1] 'What do the expressions of the Fathers mean? At first sight they might seem to be an assertion 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 passed 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 institutions of society, but as this innocence passed away, they found themselves compelled to organise society and to devise institutions which should regulate the ownership and use of the good things which men had once held in common. The institution 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 institution 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 institution.' Janet takes the same view of the patristic utterances on this subject:[4] 'What do the Fathers say? It is that in Jesus Christ there is no mine and thine. Nothing is more true, without doubt; in the divine order, in the order of absolute charity, where men are wholly wrapt up in God, distinction and inequality of goods would be impossible. But the Fathers saw clearly that such a state of things was not realisable here below. What did they do? They established property on human law, positive law, imperial law. Communism is either a Utopia or a barbarism; a Utopia if one imagine it founded on universal devotion; a barbarism if one imposes it by force.'[5] [Footnote 1: Property, Its Duties and Rights (London, 1913).] [Footnote 2: De Off. , i. 7.] [Footnote 3: Seneca, Ep. , xiv. 2.] [Footnote 4: Histoire de la Science politique , vol. i. p. 330.] [Footnote 5: See also Jarrett, Mediæval Socialism .] It must not be concluded that the evidence of the approbation by the Fathers of private property is purely negative or solely derived from the interpretation of possibly ambiguous texts. On the contrary, the lawfulness of property is emphatically asserted on more than one occasion. 'To possess riches,' says Hilary of Poictiers,[1] 'is not wrongful, but rather the manner in which possession is used…. It is a crime to possess wrongfully rather than simply to possess.' 'Who does not understand,' asks St. Augustine,[2] 'that it is not sinful to possess riches, but to love and place hope in them, and to prefer them to truth or justice?' Again, 'Why do you reproach us by saying that men renewed in baptism ought no longer to beget children or to possess fields and houses and money? Paul allows it.'[3] According to Ambrose,[4] 'Riches themselves are not wrongful. Indeed, "redemptio animae* viri divitiae* ejus," because he who gives to the poor saves his soul. There is therefore a place for goodness in these material riches. You are as steersmen in a great sea. He who steers his ship well, quickly crosses the waves, and comes to port; but he who does not know how to control his ship is sunk by his own weight. Wherefore it is written, "Possessio divitum civitas firmissima."' A Council in A.D. 415 condemned the proposition held by Pelagius that 'the rich cannot be saved unless they renounced their goods.'[5] [Footnote 1: Comm. on Matt. xix. 9.] [Footnote 2: Contra Ad. , xx. 2.] [Footnote 3: De Mor. Eccl. Cath. , i. 35.] [Footnote 4: Epist. , lxiii. 92.] [Footnote 5: Revue Archéologique , 1880, p. 321.] The more one studies the Fathers the more one becomes convinced that property was regarded by them as one of the normal and legitimate institutions of human society. Benigni's conclusion, as the result of his exceptionally thorough researches, is that according to the early Fathers, 'property is lawful and ought scrupulously to be respected. But property is subject to the high duties of human fellowship which sprang from the equality and brotherhood of man. Collectivism is absurd and immoral.'[1] Janet arrived at the same conclusion: 'In spite of the words of the Fathers, in spite of the advice given by Christ to the rich man to sell all his goods and give to the poor, in spite of the communism of the Apostles, can one say that Christianity condemned property? Certainly not. Christianity considered it a counsel of perfection for a man to deprive himself of his goods; it did not abrogate the right of anybody.'[2] The same conclusion is reached by the Abbé Calippe in an excellent article published in La Semaine Sociale de France , 1909. 'The right of property and of the property owner are assumed.'[3] 'It is only prejudiced or superficial minds which could make the writers of the fourth century the precursors of modern communists or collectivists.'[4] [Footnote 1: L'Economia Sociale Christiana avanti Costantino (Genoa, 1897).] [Footnote 2: Histoire de la Science politique , vol. i. p. 319.] [Footnote 3: P. 114.] [Footnote 4: P. 121.] When we turn to St. Thomas Aquinas, we find that his teaching on the subject of property is not at all out of harmony with that of the earlier Fathers of the Church, but, on the contrary, summarises and consolidates it. 'It remained to elaborate, to constitute a definite theory of the right of property. It sufficed to harmonise, to collaborate, and to relate one to the other these elements furnished by the Christian doctors of the first four or five centuries; and this was precisely the work of the great theologians of the Middle Ages, especially of St. Thomas Aquinas…. In establishing his thesis St. Thomas did not borrow from the Roman jurisconsults through the medium of St. Isidore more than their vocabulary, their formulas, their juridical distinctions; he also borrowed from Aristotle the arguments upon which the philosopher based his right of property. But the ground of his doctrine is undoubtedly of Christian origin. There is, between the Fathers and him, a perfect continuity.'[1] 'Community of goods,' he writes, 'is ascribed to the natural law, not that the natural law dictates that all things should be possessed in common, and that nothing should be possessed as one's own; but because the division of possession is not according to the natural law, but rather arose from human agreement, which belongs to positive law. Hence the ownership of possessions is not contrary to the natural law, but an addition thereto devised by human reason.' This is simply another way of stating St. Augustine's distinction between natural and positive law. If it speaks with more respect of positive law than St. Augustine had done, it is because Aquinas was influenced by the Aristotelian conception of the State being itself a natural institution, owing to man being a social animal.[2] [Footnote 1: Abbé Calippe, op. cit. , 1909, p. 124.] [Footnote 2: See Carlyle, Property in Mediæval Theology . Community of goods is said to be according to natural law in the canon law, but certain titles of acquiring private property are also said to be natural, so that the passage does not help the discussion very much ( Corp, Jur. Can. , Dec. 1. Dist. i. c. 7.)] The explanation which St. Thomas gives of the necessity for property also shows how clearly he agreed with the Fathers' teaching on natural communism: 'Two things are competent to man in respect of external things. One is the power to procure and dispense them, and in this regard it is lawful for a man to possess property. Moreover, this is necessary to human life for three reasons. First, because every man is more careful to procure what is for himself alone than that which is common to many or to all: since each one would shirk the labour, and would leave to another that which concerns the community, as happens when there is a great number of servants. Secondly, because human affairs are conducted in more orderly fashion if each man is charged with taking care of some particular thing himself, whereas there would be confusion if everybody had to look after any one thing indeterminately. Thirdly, because a more peaceful state is ensured to man if each one is contented with his own. Hence it is to be observed that quarrels more frequently occur when there is no division of the things possessed.[1] It is quite clear from this passage that Aquinas regarded property as something essential to the existence of society in the natural condition of human nature—that is to say, the condition that it had acquired at the fall. It is precisely the greed and avarice of fallen man that renders property an indispensable institution. [Footnote 1: II. ii. 66, 2.] There was another sense in which property was said to be according to human law, in distinction to the natural law, namely, in the sense that, whereas the general principle that men should own things might be said to be natural, the particular proprietary rights of each individual were determined by positive law. In other words, the fundamentum of property rights was natural, whereas the titulus of particular property rights was according to positive law. This distinction is stated clearly by Aquinas:[1] 'The natural right or just is that which by its very nature is adjusted to or commensurate with another person. Now this may happen in two ways; first, according as it is considered absolutely; thus the male by its very nature is commensurate with the female to beget offspring by her, and a parent is commensurate with the offspring to nourish it. Secondly, a thing is naturally commensurate with another person, not according as it is considered absolutely, but according to something resultant from it—for instance, the possession of property. For if a particular piece of land be considered absolutely, it contains no reason why it should belong to one man more than to another, but if it be considered in respect of its adaptability to cultivation, and the unmolested use of the land, it has a certain commensuration to be the property of one and not of another man, as the Philosopher shows.' Cajetan's commentary on this article clearly emphasises the distinction between fundamentum and titulus : 'In the ownership of goods two things are to be discussed. The first is why one thing should belong to one man and another thing to another. The second is why this particular field should belong to this man, that field to that man. With regard to the former inquiry, it may be said that the ownership of things is according to the law of nations, but with regard to the second, it may be said to result from the positive law, because in former times one thing was appropriated by one man and another thing by another.' It must not be supposed, however, from what we have just said, that there are no natural titles to property. Labour, for instance, is a title flowing from the natural law, as also is occupancy, and in certain circumstances, prescription. All that is meant by the distinction between fundamentum and titulus is that, whereas it can be clearly demonstrated by natural law that the goods of the earth, which are given by God for the benefit of the whole of mankind, cannot be made use of to their full advantage unless they are made the subject of private ownership, particular goods cannot be demonstrated to be the lawful property of this or that person unless some human act has intervened. This human act need not necessarily be an act of agreement; it may equally be an act of some other kind—for instance, a decree of the law-giver, or the exercise of labour upon one's own goods. In the latter case, the additional value of the goods becomes the lawful property of the person who has exerted the labour. Aquinas therefore pronounced unmistakably in favour of the legitimacy of private property, and in doing so was in full agreement with the Fathers of the Church. He was followed without hesitation by all the later theologians, and it is abundantly evident from their writings that the right of private property was the keystone of their whole economic system.[2] [Footnote 1: II. ii. 57, 3.] [Footnote 2: A community of goods, more or less complete, and a denial of the rights of private property was part of the teaching of many sects which were condemned as heretical—for instance, the Albigenses, the Vaudois, the Bégards, the Apostoli, and the Fratricelli. (See Brants, Op. cit. , Appendix II.)] Communism therefore was no part of the scholastic teaching, but it must not be concluded from this that the mediævals approved of the unregulated individualism which modern opinion allows to the owners of property. The very strength of the right to own property entailed as a consequence the duty of making good use of it; and a clear distinction was drawn between the power 'of procuring and dispensing' property and the power of using it. We have dealt with the former power in the present section, and we shall pass to the consideration of the latter in the next. In a later chapter we shall proceed to discuss the duties which attached to the owners of property in regard to its exchange. SECTION 2.—DUTIES REGARDING THE ACQUISITION AND USE OF PROPERTY We referred at the end of the last section to the very important distinction which Aquinas draws between the power of procuring and dispensing[1] exterior things and the power of using them. 'The second thing that is competent to man with regard to external things is their use. In this respect man ought to possess external things, not as his own, but as common, so that, to wit, he is ready to communicate them to others in their need.'[2] These words wherein St. Thomas lays down the doctrine of community of user of property were considered as authoritative by all later writers on the subject, and were universally quoted with approval by them,[3] and may therefore be taken as expressing the generally held view of the Middle Ages. They require careful explanation in order that their meaning be accurately understood.[4] Cajetan's gloss on this section of the Summa enables us to understand its significance in a broad sense, but fuller information must be derived from a study of other parts of the Summa itself. 'Note,' says Cajetan, 'that the words that community of goods in respect of use arises from the law of nature may be understood in two ways, one positively, the other negatively. And if they are understood in their positive sense they mean that the law of nature dictates that all things are common to all men; if in their negative sense, that the law of nature did not establish private ownership of possessions. And in either sense the proposition is true if correctly understood. In the first place, if they are taken in their positive sense, a man who is in a position of extreme necessity may take whatever he can find to succour himself or another in the same condition, nor is he bound in such a case to restitution, because by natural law he has but made use of his own. And in the negative sense they are equally true, because the law of nature did not institute one thing the property of one person, and another thing of another person.' The principle of community of user flows logically from the very nature of property itself as defined by Aquinas, who taught that the supreme justification of private property was that it was the most advantageous method of securing for the community the benefits of material riches. While the owner of property has therefore an absolute right to the goods he possesses, he must at the same time remember that this right is established primarily on his power to benefit his neighbour by his proper use of it. The best evidence of the correctness of this statement is the fact that the scholastics admitted that, if the owner of property was withholding it from the community, or from any member of the community who had a real need of it, he could be forced to apply it to its proper end. If the community could pay for it, it was bound to do so; but if the necessitous person could not pay for it, he was none the less entitled to take it. The former of these cases was illustrated by the principle of the dominium eminens of the State; and the latter by the principle that the giving of alms to a person in real need was a duty not of charity, but of justice.[5] We shall see in a moment that the most usual application of the principle enunciated by Aquinas was in the case of one person's extreme necessity which required almsgiving from another's superfluity, but, even short of such cases, there were rules of conduct in respect of the user of property on all occasions which were of extreme importance in the economic life of the time. [Footnote 1: Goyau insists on the importance of the words 'procure' and 'dispense.' 'Dont le premier éveille l'idée d'une constante sollicitude, et dont le second évoque l'image d'une générosité sympathetique' ( Autaur du Catholicisme Sociale , vol. ii. p. 93).] [Footnote 2: II. ii. 66, 2. In another part of the Summa the same distinction is clearly laid down. 'Bona temporalia quae* homini divinitus conferuntur, ejus quidem sunt quantum ad proprietatem; sed quantum ad usum non solum desent esse ejus, sed aliorum qui en eis sustentari possunt en eo quod ei superfluit,' II. ii. 32, 6, ad 2.] [Footnote 3: Janssen, op. cit. , vol. ii. p. 91.] [Footnote 4: The Abbé Calippe summarises St. Thomas's doctrine as follows: 'Le droit de propriété est un droit réel; mais ce n'est pas un droit illimité, les propriétaires ont des devoirs; ils ont des devoirs parce que Dieu qui a créé la terre ne l'a pas créée pour eux seuls, mais pour tous' ( Semaine Sociale de France , 1909, p. 123). According to Antoninus of Florence, goods could be evilly acquired, evilly distributed, or evilly consumed ( Irish Theological Quarterly , vol. vii. p. 146).] [Footnote 5: On the application of this principle by the popes in the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries in the case of their own estates, see Ardant, Papes et Paysans , a work which must be read with a certain degree of caution (Nitti, Catholic Socialism , p. 290).] These principles for the guidance of the owner of property are not collected under any single heading in the Summa , but must be gathered from the various sections dealing with man's duty to his fellow-men and to himself. One leading virtue which was inculcated with great emphasis by Aquinas was that of temperance. 'All pleasurable things which come within the use of man,' we read in the section dealing with this subject, 'are ordered to some necessity of this life as an end. And therefore temperance accepts the necessity of this life as a rule or measure of the things one uses, so that, to wit, they should be used according as the necessity of this life requires.'[1] St. Thomas explains, moreover, that 'necessary' must be taken in the broad sense of suitable to one's condition of life, and not merely necessary to maintain existence.[2] The principles of temperance did not apply in any special way to the user of property more than to the enjoyment of any other good;[3] but they are relevant as laying down the broad test of right and wrong in the user of one's goods. [Footnote 1: II. ii. 141, 5.] [Footnote 2: Ibid. , ad. 2. As Buridan puts it ( Eth. , iv. 4), 'If any man has more than is necessary for his own requirements, and does not give away anything to the poor, and to his relations and neighbours, he is acting against right reason.'] [Footnote 1: 'Rationalis creaturae* vera perfectio est unamquamque rem tanti habere quanti habenda est, sicut pluris est anima quam esca; fides et aequitas* quam pecunia' (Gerson, De. Cont. ).] More particularly relevant to the subject before us is the teaching of Aquinas on liberality, which is a virtue directly connected with the user of property. Aquinas defines liberality as 'a virtue by which men use well all those exterior things which are given to us for sustenance.'[1] The limitations within which liberality should be practised are stated in the same article: 'As St. Basil and St. Ambrose say, God has given to many a superabundance of riches, in order that they might gain merit by their dispensing them well. Few things, however, suffice for one man; and therefore the liberal man will advantageously expend more on others than on himself. In the spiritual sphere a man must always care for himself before his neighbours; and also in temporal things liberality does not demand that a man should think of others to the exclusion of himself and those dependent on him.'[2] [Footnote 1: II. ii. 117, 1.] [Footnote 2: Ibid. , ad. 1.] 'It is not necessary for liberality that one should give away so much of one's riches that not enough remains to sustain himself and to enable him to perform works of virtue. This complete giving away without reserve belongs to the state of the perfection of spiritual life, of which we shall treat lower down; but it must be known that to give one's goods liberally is an act of virtue which itself produces happiness.'[1] The author proceeds to discuss whether making use of money might be an act of liberality, and replies that 'as money is by its very nature to be classed among useful goods, because all exterior things are destined for the use of man, therefore the proper act of liberality is the good use of money and other riches.'[2] Moreover, 'it belongs to a virtuous man not simply to use well the goods which form the matter of his actions, but also to prepare the means and the occasions to use them well; thus the brave soldier sharpens his blade and keeps it in the scabbard, as well as exercising it on the enemy; in like manner, the liberal man should prepare and reserve his riches for a suitable use.'[3] It appears from this that to save part of one's annual income to provide against emergencies in the future, either by means of insurance or by investing in productive enterprises, is an act of liberality. [Footnote 1: II. ii. 117, ad. 2.] [Footnote 2: Ibid. , ad. 3.] [Footnote 3: Ibid. , ad. 2. 'Potest concludi quod accipere et custodire modificata sunt acta liberalitatis…. Major per hoc probatur quod dantem multotiens et consumentem, nihil autem accipientem et custodientem cito derelinqueret substantia temporalis; et ita perirent omnis ejus actus quia non habent amplius quid dare et consumere…. Hic autem acceptio et custodia sic modificari debet. Primo quidem oportet ut non sit injusta; secundo quod non sit de cupiditate vel avaritia suspecta propter excessum; tertio quod non permittat labi substantiam propter defectum … Dare quando oportet et custodire quando oportet dare contrariantur; sed dare quando oportet et custodire quando oportet non contrariantur' (Buridan, Eth. , iv. 2).] The question is then discussed whether liberality is a part of justice. Aquinas concludes 'that liberality is not a species of justice, because justice renders to another what is his, but liberality gives him what is the giver's own. Still, it has a certain agreement with justice in two points; first that it is to another, as justice also is; secondly, that it is about exterior things like justice, though in another way. And therefore liberality is laid down by some to be a part of justice as a virtue annexed to justice as an accessory to a principal.'[1] Again, 'although liberality supposes not any legal debt as justice does, still it supposes a certain moral debt considering what is becoming in the person himself who practises the virtue, not as though he had any obligation to the other party; and therefore there is about it very little of the character of a debt.'[2] [Footnote 1: II. ii. 117, art. 5.] [Footnote 2: Ibid. , ad. 1.] It is important to draw attention to the fact that liberalitas consists in making a good use of property, and not merely in distributing it to others, as a confusion with the English word 'liberality' might lead us to believe. It is, as we said above, therefore certain that a wise and prudent saving of money for investment would be considered a course of conduct within the meaning of the word liberalitas , especially if the enterprise in which the money were invested were one which would benefit the community as a whole. 'Modern industrial conditions demand that a man of wealth should distribute a part of his goods indirectly—that is, by investing them in productive and labour-employing enterprises.'[1] [Footnote 1: Ryan, The Alleged Socialism of the Church Fathers , p. 20, and see Goyau, Le Pape et la Question Sociale , p. 79.] The nature of the virtue of liberalitas may be more clearly understood by an explanation of the vices which stand opposed to it. The first of these treated by Aquinas is avarice, which he defines as 'superfluus amor habendi divitias.' Avarice might be committed in two ways—by harbouring an undue desire of acquiring wealth, or by an undue reluctance to part with it—'primo autem superabundant in retinendo … secundo ad avaritiam pertinet superabundare in accipiendo.'[1] These definitions are amplified in another part of the same section. 'For in every action that is directed to the attainment of some end goodness consists in the observance of a certain measure. The means to the end must be commensurate with the end, as medicine with health. But exterior goods have the character of things needful to an end. Hence human goodness in the matter of these goods must consist in the observance of a certain measure, as is done by a man seeking to have exterior riches in so far as they are necessary to his life according to his rank and condition. And therefore sin consists in exceeding this measure and trying to acquire or retain riches beyond the due limit; and this is the proper nature of avarice, which is defined to be an immoderate love of having.'[2] 'Avarice may involve immoderation regarding exterior things in two ways; in one way immediately as to the receiving or keeping of them when one acquires or keeps beyond the due amount; and in this respect it is directly a sin against one's neighbour, because in exterior things one man cannot have superabundance without another being in want, since temporal goods cannot be simultaneously possessed by many. The other way in which avarice may involve immoderation is in interior affection….' These words must not be taken to condemn the acquisition of large fortunes by capitalists, which is very often necessary in order that the natural resources of a country may be properly exploited. One man's possession of great wealth is at the present day frequently the means of opening up new sources of wealth and revenue to the entire community. In other words, superabundance is a relative term. This, like many other passages of St. Thomas, must be given a contemporanea expositio . 'There were no capitalists in the thirteenth century, but only hoarders.'[3] [Footnote 1: II. ii. 118, 4.] [Footnote 2: Ibid. , ad. 1.] [Footnote 3: Rickaby, Aquinas Ethicus , vol. ii. p. 234.] It must also be remembered that what would be considered avarice in a man in one station of life would not be considered such in a man in another. So long as one did not attempt to acquire an amount of wealth disproportionate to the needs of one's station of life, one could not be considered avaricious. Thus a common soldier would be avaricious if he strove to obtain a uniform of the quality worn by an officer, and a simple cleric if he attempted to clothe himself in a style only befitting a bishop.[1] [Footnote 1: Aquinas, In Orat. Dom. Expos ., iv. Ashley gives many quotations from early English literature to show how fully the idea of status was accepted ( Economic History , vol. i. pt. ii. p. 389). On the warfare waged by the Church on luxury in the Middle Ages, see Baudrillard, Histoire du Luxe privé et publique , vol. iii. pp. 630 et seq. ] The avaricious man offended against liberality by caring too much about riches; the prodigal, on the other hand, cared too little about them, and did not attach to them their proper value. 'In affection while the prodigal falls short, not taking due care of them, in exterior behaviour it belongs to the prodigal to exceed in giving, but to fail in keeping or acquiring, while it belongs to the miser to come short in giving, but to superabound in getting and in keeping. Therefore it is clear that prodigality is the opposite of covetousness.'[1] A man, however, might commit both sins at the same time, by being unduly anxious to acquire wealth which he distributed prodigally.[2] Prodigality could always be distinguished from extreme liberality by a consideration of the circumstances of the particular case; a truly liberal man might give away more than a prodigal in case of necessity.[3] Prodigality, though a sin, was a sin of a less grievous kind than avarice.[4] [Footnote 1: II. ii. 119, 1.] [Footnote 2: Ibid. , ad. 1.] [Footnote 3: Ibid. , ad. 3.] [Footnote 4: Ibid. , art. 3. 'Per prodigalitatem intelligimus habitum quo quis præter vel contra dictamen rectae rationis circa pecunias excedit in datione vel consumptione vel custodia; et per illiberalitatem intelligimus habitum quo quis contra dietamen rectae rationis deficit circa pecunias in datione vel consumptione, vel superabundat in acceptione vel custodia ipsarum' (Buridan, Eth. , iv. 3).] In addition to the duties which were imposed on the owners of property in all circumstances there was a further duty which only arose on special occasions, namely, magnificentia , or munificence. This virtue is discussed by Aquinas[1], but we shall quote the passages of Buridan which explain it, not because they depart in any way from the teaching of Aquinas, but because they are clearer and more scientific. 'By munificence, we understand a habit inclining one to the performance of great works, or to the incurring of great expenses, when, where, and in the manner in which they are called for ( fuerit opportunum ), for example, building a church, assembling great armies for a threatened war, and giving splendid marriage feasts.' He explains that 'munificence stands in the same relation to liberality as bravery acquired by its exercise in danger of death in battle does to bravery simply and commonly understood.' Two vices stand opposed to munificentia: (1) parvificentia , 'a habit inclining one not to undertake great works, when circumstances call for them, or to undertaking less, or at less expense, than the needs of the situation demand,' and (2) ( [Greek: banousia] ,) 'a habit inclining one to undertaking great works, which are not called for by circumstances, or undertaking them on a greater scale or at a greater expense than is necessary[2].' [Footnote 1: II. ii. 134.] [Footnote 2: Eth. , iv. 7.] Both in the case of avarice and prodigality the offending state of mind consisted in attaching a wrong value to wealth, and the inculcation of the virtue of liberality must have been attended with good results not alone to the souls of individuals, but to the economic condition of the community. The avaricious man not only imperilled his own soul by attaching too much importance to temporal gain, but he also injured the community by monopolising too large a share of its wealth; the prodigal man, in addition to incurring the occasion of various sins of intemperance, also impoverished the community by wasting in reckless consumption wealth which might have been devoted to productive or charitable purposes. He who neglected the duty of munificence, either by refusing to make a great expenditure when it was called for ( parvificentia ) or by making one when it was unnecessary ( [Greek: banousia] ) was also deemed to have done wrong, because in the one case he valued his money too highly, and in the other not highly enough. In other words, he attached a wrong value to wealth. Nothing could be further from the truth than the suggestion that the schoolmen despised or belittled temporal riches. Quite on the contrary, they esteemed it a sin to conduct oneself in a manner which showed a defective appreciation of their value[1]. Riches may have been the occasion of sin; but so was poverty. 'The occasions of sin are to be avoided,' says Aquinas, 'but poverty is an occasion of evil, because theft, perjury, and flattery are frequently brought about by it. [Footnote 1: 'Non videtur secundum humanam rationem esse boni et perfecti divitias abjicere totaliter, sed eis uti bene et reficiendo superfluas pauperibus subvenire et amicis' (Buridan, Eth. , iv. 3).] Therefore poverty should not be voluntarily undertaken, but rather avoided.'[1] Buridan says: 'There is no doubt that it is much more difficult to be virtuous in a state of poverty than in one of moderate affluence;'[2] and Antoninus of Florence expresses the opinion that poverty is in itself an evil thing, although out of it good may come.[3] Even the ambition to rise in the world was laudable, because every one may rightfully desire to place himself and his dependants in a participation of the fullest human felicity of which man is capable, and to rid himself of the necessity of corporal labour.[4] Avarice and prodigality alike offended against liberality, because they tended to deprive the community of the maximum benefit which it should derive from the wealth with which it was endowed. Dr. Cunningham may be quoted in support of this view. 'One of the gravest defects of the Roman Empire lay in the fact that its system left little scope for individual aims, and tended to check the energy of capitalists and labourers alike. But Christian teaching opened up an unending prospect before the individual personally, and encouraged him to activity and diligence by an eternal hope. Nor did such concentration of thought on a life beyond the grave necessarily divert attention from secular duties; Christianity did not disparage them, but set them in a new light, and brought out new motives for taking them seriously…. The acceptance of this higher view of the dignity of human life as immortal was followed by a fuller recognition of personal responsibility. Ancient philosophy had seen that man is the master of material things; but Christianity introduced a new sense of duty in regard to the manner of using them…. Christian teachers were forced to protest against any employment of wealth that disregarded the glory of God and the good of man.'[5] It was the opinion of Knies that the peculiarly Christian virtues were of profound economic value. 'Temperance, thrift, and industry—that is to say, the sun and rain of economic activity—-were recommended by the Church and inculcated as Christian virtues; idleness as the mother of theft, gambling as the occasion of fraud, were forbidden; and gain for its own sake was classed as a kind of robbery[6].' [Footnote 1: Summa cont. Gent. , iii. 131.] [Footnote 2: Eth. , iv. 3.] [Footnote 3: Summa , iv. 12, 3.] [Footnote 4: Cajetan, Comm. on II. ii. 118, 1.] [Footnote 5: Western Civilisation , vol. ii. pp. 8-9.] [Footnote 6: Politische Oekonomie vom Standpuncte der geschichtlichen Methode , p. 116, and see Rambaud, Histoire , p. 759; Champagny, La Bible et l'Economie politique ; Thomas Aquinas, Summa , II. ii. 50, 3; Sertillanges, Socialisme et Christianisme , p. 53. It was nevertheless recognised and insisted on that wealth was not an end in itself, but merely a means to an end (Aquinas, Summa , I. ii. 2, 1).] The great rule, then, with regard to the user of property was liberality. Closely allied with the duty of liberality was the duty of almsgiving—'an act of charity through the medium of money.'[1] Almsgiving is not itself a part of liberality except in so far as liberality removes an obstacle to such acts, which may arise from excessive love of riches, the result of which is that one clings to them more than one ought[2]. Aquinas divides alms-deeds into two kinds, spiritual and corporal, the latter alone of which concern us here. 'Corporal need arises either during this life or afterwards. If it occurs during this life, it is either a common need in respect of things needed by all, or is a special need occurring through some accident supervening. In the first case the need is either internal or external. Internal need is twofold: one which is relieved by solid food, viz. hunger, in respect of which we have to feed the hungry ; while the other is relieved by liquid food, viz. thirst, in respect of which we have to give drink to the thirsty . The common need with regard to external help is twofold: one in respect of clothing, and as to this we have to clothe the naked ; while the other is in respect of a dwelling-place, and as to this we have to harbour the harbourless . Again, if the need be special, it is either the result of an internal cause like sickness, and then we have to visit the sick , or it results from an external cause, and then we have to ransom the captive . After this life we give burial to the dead .[3] Aquinas then proceeds to explain in what circumstances the duty of almsgiving arises. 'Almsgiving is a matter of precept. Since, however, precepts are about acts of virtue, it follows that all almsgiving must be a matter of precept in so far as it is necessary to virtue, namely, in so far as it is demanded by right reason. Now right reason demands that we should take into consideration something on the part of the giver, and something on the part of the recipient. On the part of the giver it must be noted that he must give of his surplus according to Luke xi. 4, "That which remaineth give alms." This surplus is to be taken in reference not only to the giver, but also in reference to those of whom he has charge (in which case we have the expression necessary to the person , taking the word person as expressive of dignity)…. On the part of the recipient it is necessary that he should be in need, else there would be no reason for giving him alms; yet since it is not possible for one individual to relieve the needs of all, we are not bound to relieve all who are in need, but only those who could not be succoured if we did not succour them. For in such cases the words of Ambrose apply, "Feed him that is dying of hunger; if thou hast not fed him thou hast slain him." Accordingly we are bound to give alms of our surplus, as also to give alms to one whose need is extreme; otherwise almsgiving, like any other greater good, is a matter of counsel.'[4] In replying to the objection that it is lawful for every one to keep what is his own, St. Thomas restates with emphasis the principle of community of user: 'The temporal goods which are given us by God are ours as to the ownership, but as to the use of them they belong not to us alone, but also to such others as we are able to succour out of what we have over and above our needs.'[5] Albertus Magnus states this in very strong words: 'For a man to give out of his superfluities is a mere act of justice, because he is rather then steward of them for the poor than the owner;'[6] and at an earlier date St. Peter Damian had affirmed that 'he who gives to the poor returns what he does not himself own, and does not dispose of his own goods.' He insists in the same passage that almsgiving is not an act of mercy, but of strict justice.[7] In the reply to another objection the duty of almsgiving is stated by Aquinas with additional vigour. 'There is a time when we sin mortally if we omit to give alms—on the part of the recipient when we see that his need is evident and urgent, and that he is not likely to be succoured otherwise—on the part of the giver when he has superfluous goods, which he does not need for the time being, so far as he can judge with probability.'[8] [Footnote 1: II. ii. 32, 1.] [Footnote 2: Ibid. , ad. 4.] [Footnote 3: II. ii. 32, art. 2.] [Footnote 4: II. ii. 32, art. 5.] [Footnote 5: Ibid. , ad. 2.] [Footnote 6: Jarrett, Mediæval Socialism , p. 87.] [Footnote 7: De Eleemosynis , cap. 1.] [Footnote 8: II. ii. 32, 5, ad. 3.] The next question which St. Thomas discusses is whether one ought to give alms out of what one needs. He distinguishes between two kinds of 'necessaries.' The first is that without which existence is impossible, out of which kind of necessary things one is not bound to give alms save in exceptional cases, when, by doing so, one would be helping a great personage or supporting the Church or the State, since 'the common good is to be preferred to one's own.' The second kind of necessaries are those things without which a man cannot live in keeping with his social station. St. Thomas recommends the giving of alms out of this part of one's estate, but points out that it is only a matter of counsel, and not of precept, and one must not give alms to such an extent as to impoverish oneself permanently. To this last provision, however, there are three exceptions: one, when a man is entering religion and giving away all his goods; two, when he can easily replace what he gives away; and, three, when he is in presence of great indigence on the part of an individual, or great need on the part of the common weal. In these three cases it is praiseworthy for a man to forgo the requisites of his station in order to provide for a greater need.[1] [Footnote 1: II. ii. 32, 6.] The mediæval teaching on almsgiving is very well summarised by Fr. Jarrett,[1] as follows: '(1) A man is obliged to help another in his extreme need even at the risk of grave inconvenience to himself; (2) a man is obliged to help another who, though not in extreme need, is yet in considerable distress, but not at the risk of grave inconvenience to himself; (3) a man is not obliged to help another when necessity is slight, even though the risk to himself should be quite trifling.' [Footnote 1: Mediæval Socialism , p. 90.] The importance of the duty of almsgiving further appears from the section where Aquinas lays down that the person to whom alms should have been given may, if the owner of the goods neglects his duty, repair the omission himself. 'All things are common property in a case of extreme necessity. Hence one who is in dire straits may take another's goods in order to succour himself if he can find no one who is willing to give him something.'[1] The duty of using one's goods for the benefit of one's neighbours was a fit matter for enforcement by the State, provided that the burdens imposed by legislation were equitable. 'Laws are said to be just, both from the end, when, to wit, they are ordained to the common good—and from their author, that is to say, when the law that is made does not exceed the power of the law-giver—and from their form, when, to wit, burdens are laid on the subjects according to an equality of proportion and with a view to the common good. For, since every man is part of the community, each man in all that he is and has belongs to the community: just as a part in all that it is belongs to the whole; wherefore nature inflicts a loss on the part in order to save the whole; so that on this account such laws, which impose proportionate burdens, are just and binding in conscience.'[2] [Footnote 1: Ibid. , art. 7 ad. 3.] [Footnote 2: I. ii. 96,4.] There can be no doubt that the practice of the scholastic teaching of community of user, in its proper sense, made for social stability. The following passage from Trithemius, written at the end of the fifteenth century, is interesting as showing how consistently the doctrine of St. Thomas was adhered to two hundred years after his death, and also that the failure of the rich to put into practice the moderate communism of St. Thomas was the cause of the rise of the heretical communists, who attacked the very foundations of property itself: 'Let the rich remember that their possessions have not been entrusted to them in order that they may have the sole enjoyment of them, but that they may use and manage them as property belonging to mankind at large. Let them remember that when they give to the needy they only give them what belongs to them. If the duty of right use and management of property, whether worldly or spiritual, is neglected, if the rich think that they are the sole lords and masters of that which they possess, and do not treat the needy as their brethren, there must of necessity arise an inner shattering of the commonwealth. False teachers and deceivers of the people will then gain influence, as has happened in Bohemia, by preaching to the people that earthly property should be equally distributed among all, and that the rich must be forcibly condemned to the division of their wealth. Then follow lamentable conditions and civil wars; no property is spared; no right of ownership is any longer recognised; and the wealthy may then with justice complain of the loss of possessions which have been unrighteously taken from them; but they should also seriously ask themselves the question whether in the days of peace and order they recognised in the administration of these goods the right of their superior lord and owner, namely, the God of all the earth.'[1]