Lord Mackenzie gives the doctrine of Cicero the sanction of his own judgment : " Where," he says, " the law of nature ab- solutely commands or forbids, it is immutable and of universal obligation, so that, although it may be confirmed, it cannot be controlled by human laws without a manifest violation of the divine will." *
In these days, when so many are disposed to throw off the au- thority of God, and regard marriage and property as mere creat- ures of the law, which may be regulated or ignored at the caprice or will of the people, it is well to remind them that there is a law higher than any law of man, enforced by the authority of God, which no man and no community can violate with impunity.
Although the right of property involves the right of absolute control, so that a man can do what he will with his own, it does not follow that this right is unlimited, or that the civil law has no legitimate control over the use or distribution of his property. A man has no right to use his knowledge or strength to the injury of his fellow-men ; neither can he use his property so as to make it a public nuisance ; nor can he devote it to any immoral or hurtful object ; nor can he dispose of it by will so as to militate against the public policy. Of course, as different nations are organized on different principles, the laws regulating the use and distribution of property must also differ. Among the Hebrews the land of Canaan was originally distributed equitably among the several families. The head of the family had not the unrestricted con- trol of what was thus given him. He could not finally alienate it. His sons, not his daughters, unless there were no sons, were his heirs. The first-born had a double portion. (Deut. xxi. 15 ff.") These limitations of the right of property were ordained by God, in order that the ends of the theocracy might be accomplished. God saw fit to render it impossible that any large portion of the land should be engrossed by one or by a few families. In Eng- land public policy has assumed that it is important to maintain a powerful order of nobility. To secure that end the laws of primogeniture and entail have been long in force, with the result that the greater part of the land in Great Britain is in the hands of comparatively few families. This unequal distribution of prop- perty has gone on rapidly increasing, so that Hugh Miller, when editor of the " Edinburgh Witness," said that England was now like a pyramid poised on its apex. In France the right of a testator to dispose of his property is very much limited. " If any one die without issue or ascendants, he may leave his whole property to
1 Studies in Roman Law, etc., p. 49.
428 PART m. Ch. XIX.— the law.
strangers ; but if a man at his death has one lawful child, he can only so dispose of the half of his estate ; if he leave two children, the third ; and if he leave three or more children, the fourth." In Scotland " if a man die without either wife or issue, his whole property is at his own disposal ; if he leave a wife and issue, his goods or personal property are divided into three equal parts, one of which goes to his wife as jus relictce, another to his children as legitim (i. e., legitima portio) , and the third is at his own disposal ; if he leave no wife, he may dispose of one half, and the other half goes to his children, and so e converso, if he leave no children, the wife is entitled to one half, and he may bequeath the other." l These facts are referred to simply as illustrations of the way in which the law, both divine and human, may limit the exercise of the right of property while the sacredness of that right, as higher than any human law, is fully recognized.
Community of Goods.
Community of goods does not necessarily involve the denial of the right of private property. When Ananias, having sold a possession, kept back part of the price, Peter said to him : " While it remained was it not thine own ? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power ? " (Acts v. 4.) Any number of men may agree to live in common, putting all their possessions and all the fruits of their labour into a common fund, from which each member is supplied according to his wants. This experiment was tried on a small scale and for a short time, by the early Chris- tians in Jerusalem. " The multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul : neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own ; but they had all
things common Neither was there any among them that
lacked : for as many as were possessors of lands or houses, sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the Apostles' feet : and distribution was made unto every man as he had need." (Acts iv. 32-35.) Some in- deed say that these passages do not imply any actual community of goods. Having " all things common " is understood to mean, u No one regarded his possessions as belonging absolutely to him- self, but as a trust for the benefit of others also." This interpreta- tion seems inconsistent with the whole narrative. Those who had possessions sold them. They renounced all control over what was once their own. The price was handed over to the Apostles and distributed by them or under their direction.
1 Lord Mackenzie, ut supra, p. 270.