The first point to make clear is that this revolt was certainly jnesent among the Jews, and has left distinct traces in the OT (Is 5^) and also in the
exti<a-canonical Jewish literature. ' There came to exist among them what has been called a "genius for hatred "of the rich ' (Peabody, Jesus Christ and tlic Socifd Question, p. 2u6). The jx^pular view among the Jews was that godlines,s invariably resulted in prosi)erity ; and one of their problems was the prosi)erity of the ungodly and the adversity of the piou>. This problem was exceptionally acute in our Lords day. through the dominance of the Iiomans, and the wealth of the publicans ac- quireil by their faithlessness to the national cause. Thus preciselj* the condition from which modern Socialism springs wa.s present. And not only so, but a well-defined socialistic experiment was being made by the Essenes, among whom ' the strongest tie by wliich the members were united was absolute community of goods" (Schiirer, HJP, II. ii. 195). It has been maintained that the teaching of Jesus was gieatly influenced by that of the Essenes. But as Essenism was ' in the first place merely Pharisaism in the superlative degree " (Schiirer, I.e. p. 210), whatever other elements entered into it, this view must be given up (Lightfoot, Col. 397 ft"). However, from the popular feeling about the rich, and the existence of the Essenes as a socialistic community, we may gather that the way was quite open for Jesus to ado^Jt the doctrines of Commun- ism ; and the argument that in His teaching we find the seed of Socialism, which only required con- ditions of thought and life such as are found in modem times to become fully matured, is not justified.
This is the view of the matter which representa- tive Socialists take. As a general rule. Socialists are opposed to the Chiistian faith, and recognize in it a basis for the present organization of society and a hindrance to the change they desire to see brought about (for citations, see Peabodj', o}). cit. p. 15). They quote with approval the sayings of Jesus about the blessedness of the poor and the woes of the rich, but they realize distinctly that the basis of His thought is fundamentally different from theirs. The special ground of objection on the part of Socialists to the Christian religion is its teaching as to the future, which they regard as ha%Tng diverted the moral enthusiasm of religious I)eople from the present to the ' other ' world. Some, no doubt, hold that this emphasis on the future is due to the coiTuption of the pure teach- ing of Jesus, and so are ready to claim His authority for their views. But even if the contrast between present and future in the teaching of Jesus could be adjusted to the satisfaction of the Socialists, it leaves the contrast between outward circumstance and inward character, in regard to which there is a vital and all-embracing distinction between the principles of Jesus and Socialism. The phenomenon, however, of what is knoMu as Chris- tian Socialism has to be noted. The fierce competi- tion of modern industrial and commercial life, with the cruelties it produces, cannot be accepted as desirable by any man of sensitive Christian convic- tions. And, moreover, the great hold which Socialism has taken of multitudes, and the fact that it becomes to them the only religion they feel any need of. have led Christians to desire that its influence should 1>e exerted on the side of the Church. The Christian Socialists in England (Maurice and Kingsley) were influenced mainly by the first consideration, and were enthusiastic supporters of the Co-operative movement. The second consideration, as might be exjiected, ap- pealed more especially to Roman Catholics, who are represented by Abbe Lamennais : Baron von Ketteler. Archb. of Mayence : and Count de Xurn. In Germany, among Protestants, Christian Social- ism has been represented by Victor Huber and Pastor Stocker. The views of those who may be
430
PROPERTY
PROPERTY
regarded as entitled to the name Christian Social- ists cannot be thought of as an isolated fact. They have been partly the result and partly the cause of a general shifting of the centre of interest from the spiiere of doctrinal theology to that of practical teaching. The theological literature of the last 50 years has been largely occupied with the ap- plication of the teaching of Jesus to the practical problems of life, and many have held tliat there is nothing in the Christian faith which is antagon- istic to Socialism as an economic theory. But witii some exceptions it is agreed that Jesus did not lay down any economic theory of the State, and indeed deliberately refused to take advantage of openings in this direction which He received (Mt 2215-22 1724-27^ Lk 1213-21). 'To speak of the economics of the New Testament is in my opinion as impossible as to speak of its dietetics (Ac lo^°'-^), its hermeneutics (1 Co O^-'"), its astronomy (Mt 29.24. 2a)^ or its meteorology (Mt 1623, l], 1224. ssj '_ (H. Hoitzmann, Die crsten Christen und die soziale Frnge).
Before the actual teaching and example of Jesus on the subject are analyzed, it is desirable to con- sider how far the glimpses we receive in the Acts of the Apostles of tiie social life of the lirst Christians at Jerusalem form an authoritative commentary upon tiieni. We read that ' all that believed were together, and had all tilings com- mon ' (Ac 2^4) A\\i\ again, ' neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own ; but thej^ had all things common ' (4^2, of. also 2-15 434- 37). It is wortliy of remark that these statements are from the pen of the author of the Third Gospel, in which the sayings of Jesus about the rich and the poor are given in their most uncompromising form (cf. Lk 62", Mt 53). We may therefore suppose tiiat the communistic aspect of the life of the church at Jerusalem lias received full attention in the Book of Acts, and that no inference which goes in tiie least beyond the state- ments of that book is justihed.*