Mediaeval Socialism | Page 4

direct consequence the
establishment of certain institutions. The authority, therefore, which
these could boast was due to nothing more than the simple struggle for
existence. Among these institutions were those same three (civil
authority, slavery, private property), which the Fathers had come to
justify by so different a method of argument. Thus, by the late Roman
lawyers private property was upheld on the grounds that it had been
found necessary by the human race in its advance along the road of life.
To our modern ways of thinking it seems as though they had almost
stumbled upon the theory of evolution, the gradual unfolding of social
and moral perfection due to the constant pressure of circumstances, and
the ultimate survival of what was most fit to survive. It was almost by a
principle of natural selection that mankind was supposed to have

determined the necessity of civil authority, slavery, private property,
and the rest. The pragmatic test of life had been applied and had proved
their need.
A third powerful influence in the development of Christian social
teaching must be added to the others in order the better to grasp the
mental attitude of the mediaeval thinkers. This was the rise and growth
of monasticism. Its early history has been obscured by much legendary
detail; but there is sufficient evidence to trace it back far into the
beginnings of Christianity. Later there had come the stampede into the
Thebaid, where both hermit life and the gathering together of many into
a community seem to have been equally allowed as methods of
asceticism. But by the fifth century, in the East and the West the
movement had been effectively organised. First there was the canonical
theory of life, introduced by St. Augustine. Then St. Basil and St.
Benedict composed their Rules of Life, though St. Benedict disclaimed
any idea of being original or of having begun something new. Yet, as a
matter of fact, he, even more efficiently than St. Basil, had really
introduced a new force into Christendom, and thereby became the
undoubted father of Western monasticism.
Now this monasticism had for its primary intention the contemplation
of God. In order to attain this object more perfectly, certain subsidiary
observances were considered necessary. Their declared purpose was
only to make contemplation easier; and they were never looked upon as
essential to the monastic profession, but only as helps to its better
working. Among these safeguards of monastic peace was included the
removal of all anxieties concerning material well-being. Personal
poverty--that is, the surrender of all personal claim to things the care of
which might break in upon the fixed contemplation of God--was
regarded as equally important for this purpose as obedience, chastity,
and the continued residence in a certain spot. It had indeed been
preached as a counsel of perfection by Christ Himself in His advice to
the rich young man, and its significance was now very powerfully set
forth by the Benedictine and other monastic establishments.
It is obvious that the existence of institutions of this kind was bound to

exercise an influence upon Christian thought. It could not but be
noticed that certain individual characters, many of whom claimed the
respect of their generation, treated material possessions as hindrances
to spiritual perfection. Through their example private property was
forsworn, and community of possession became prominently put
forward as being more in accordance with the spirit of Christ, who had
lived with His Apostles, it was declared, out of the proceeds of a
common purse. The result, from the point of view of the social theorists
of the day, was to confirm the impression that private property was not
a thing of much sanctity. Already, as we have seen, the Fathers had
been brought to look at it as something sinful in its origin, in that the
need of it was due entirely to the fall of our first parents. Then the
legalists of Rome had brought to this the further consideration that
mere expedience, universal indeed, but of no moral sanction, had
dictated its institution as the only way to avoid continual strife among
neighbours. And now the whole force of the religious ideals of the time
was thrown in the same balance. Eastern and Western monasticism
seemed to teach the same lesson, that private property was not in any
sense a sacred thing. Rather it seemed to be an obstacle to the perfect
devotion of man's being to God; and community of possession and life
began to boast itself to be the more excellent following of Christ.
Finally it may be asserted that the social concept of feudalism lent itself
to the teaching of the same lesson. For by it society was organised upon
a system of land tenure whereby each held what was his of one higher
than