Mediaeval Socialism | Page 2

private dominion has become exceedingly individual and practically
absolute, the opposition between the two terms will necessarily be very
sharp. But in those earlier stages of national and social evolution, when
the community was still regarded as composed, not of persons, but of
groups, the antagonism might be, in point of theory, extremely limited;
and in concrete cases it might possibly be difficult to determine where
one ended and the other began. Yet it is undeniable that socialism in
itself need mean no more than the central principle of State-ownership
of capital and land. Such a conception is consistent with much private

property in other forms than land and capital, and will be worked out in
detail differently by different minds. But it is the principle, the essence
of it, which justifies any claims made to the use of the name. We may
therefore fairly call those theories socialistic which are covered by this
central doctrine, and disregard, as irrelevant to the nature of the term,
all added peculiarities contributed by individuals who have joined their
forces to the movement.
By socialistic theories of the Middle Ages, therefore, we mean no more
than those theories which from time to time came to the surface of
political and social speculation in the form of communism, or of some
other way of bringing about the transference which we have just
indicated. But before plunging into the tanglement of these rather
complicated problems, it will make for clearness if we consider quite
briefly the philosophic heritage of social teaching to which the Middle
Ages succeeded.
The Fathers of the Church had found themselves confronted with
difficulties of no mean subtlety. On the one hand, the teaching of the
Scriptures forced upon them the religious truth of the essential equality
of all human nature. Christianity was a standing protest against the
exclusiveness of the Jewish faith, and demanded through the attendance
at one altar the recognition of an absolute oneness of all its members.
The Epistles of St. Paul, which were the most scientific defence of
Christian doctrine, were continually insisting on the fact that for the
new faith there was no real division between Greek or barbarian, bond
or free. Yet, on the other hand, there were equally unequivocal
expressions concerning the reverence and respect due to authority and
governance. St. Peter had taught that honour should be paid to Caesar,
when Caesar was no other than Nero. St. Paul had as clearly preached
subjection to the higher powers. Yet at the same time we know that the
Christian truth of the essential equality of the whole human race was by
some so construed as to be incompatible with the notion of civil
authority. How, then, was this paradox to be explained? If all were
equal, what justification would there be for civil authority? If civil
authority was to be upheld, wherein lay the meaning of St. Paul's many
boasts of the new levelling spirit of the Christian religion? The paradox

was further complicated by two other problems. The question of the
authority of the Imperial Government was found to be cognate with the
questions of the institution of slavery and of private property. Here
were three concrete facts on which the Empire seemed to be based.
What was to be the Christian attitude towards them?
After many attempted explanations, which were largely personal, and,
therefore, may be neglected here, a general agreement was come to by
the leading Christian teachers of East and West. This was based on a
theological distinction between human nature as it existed on its first
creation, and then as it became in the state to which it was reduced after
the fall of Adam. Created in original justice, as the phrase ran, the
powers of man's soul were in perfect harmony. His sensitive nature, i.e.
his passions, were in subjection to his will, his will to his reason, his
reason to God. Had man continued in this state of innocence,
government, slavery, and private property would never have been
required. But Adam fell, and in his fall, said these Christian doctors, the
whole conditions of his being were disturbed. The passions broke loose,
and by their violence not unfrequently subjected the will to their
dictatorship; together with the will they obscured and prejudiced the
reason, which under their compulsion was no longer content to follow
the Divine Reason or the Eternal Law of God. In a word, where order
had previously reigned, a state of lawlessness now set in. Greed, lust
for power, the spirit of insubordination, weakness of will, feebleness of
mind, ignorance, all swarmed into the soul of man, and disturbed not
merely the internal economy of his being, but his relations also to his
fellows. The sin of Cain is the social result of this personal