 Welcome to George H. Schmitz's Excursions into Libertarian Thought, a production of libertarianism.org and the Cato Institute. The Christian Theory of Property In the previous chapter, I discussed Jean Messlier's defense of common property over private property. Although Messlier was an atheist who repudiated many of Christianity's metaphysical and ethical teachings, his position on property was in some respects curiously similar to that of traditional Christianity, especially as found in the writings of the Church Fathers, such as Ambrose, 340-397, and Augustine, 354-430. The theory of private property found in most classical liberal texts, such as John Locke's claim that we originally acquire ownership of a natural resource by mixing our labor with it, was not accepted by leading Christian theologians for many centuries. Contrary to Locke, according to whom private property is a natural right, Augustine and other Christians typically argued that private property is not sanctioned by the original natural law. Rather, it is a creation of government. Thus, in the early 5th century, when the Christian schismatics known as Donatus found that the Orthodox Christian government of Imperial Rome had confiscated their property without just cause, property that they had earned by their labor, Augustine replied that Romans enjoyed their property solely on the sufferance of the Roman government, which could confiscate that property at its own discretion. Romans had rights in private property only because the government permitted it, so when it rescinded those rights, the victims had no legitimate complaint. According to Augustine, there is no such thing as a natural right to private property that a government has a duty to respect. To understand Augustine's position, we need to appreciate the standard Christian doctrine of original sin. Human nature before Adam's fall into sin, known as Prelapsarian man, was perfect, having been created in God's image. It was only after Adam's fall into sin that human nature became vitiated with the evil and destructive tendencies such as avarice, selfishness and violence that we know today. Thus, if the fall had never occurred, three institutions would have been unnecessary and would never have arisen, private property, government and slavery. These institutions were instituted and sanctioned by God solely because of original sin. They were intended, as Augustine put it, as a punishment and remedy for sin. Every church father who wrote about property agreed with this position. Common property, not private property, would have been the rule in the idyllic Garden of Eden if Adam had never sinned and if humans had remained in their pure Prelapsarian condition. Prelapsarian man would not have been tainted with the acquisitive and violent tendencies of postlapsarian man, so the coercive institutions of private property, government and slavery would have been unknown. According to Alexander J. Carlisle, a distinguished historian of medieval political thought, the Christian theory of property is the opposite of that of Locke, that private property is an institution of natural law and arises out of labor. To the fathers, the only natural condition is that of common ownership and individual use. The world was made for the common benefit of mankind that all should receive from it what they require. They admit, however, that human nature being what it is, greedy, avaricious and vicious, it is impossible for men to live normally under the condition of common ownership. This represents the more perfect way of life and this principle was represented in the organization of the monastic life as it generally took shape. For mankind in general, some organization of ownership became necessary and this was provided by the state and its laws, which have decided the conditions and limitations of ownership. Private property is therefore practically the creation of the state and is defined, limited and changed by the state. Christian theologians did not oppose private property, government or slavery. On the contrary, these institutions were specifically mandated and authorized by God for corrupt human beings, even though they were not part of the original or primitive natural law. Charles H. McElwain explained this point in his classic work, The Growth of Political Thought in the West. The corruption of man began with the fall and that corruption, the inheritance of all the children of Adam, created for the human race the necessity for coercive law and other like institutions. To supply the need, God gave man the mosaic law and sanctioned human laws and institutions necessary to curb the evils arising from avarice, violence and other forms of vice. Coercive law is no part of man's original nature. It came as a corrective of conditions arising from man's fall from innocence. It is no branch of the law of nature, but it is nonetheless provided by the ordinance or sanction of God as a partial remedy for the consequences of that sin. And to this extent has a divine origin and a divine character. Its precepts must therefore be obeyed as a religious obligation. Wherefore, ye must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience's sake. Romans 8. Jean Messlier, in effect, accepted the Christian teaching about the existence of common property in a prelapsarian society, but having rejected the doctrine of original sin, he did not accept the Christian argument that private property was needed because of a corrupted human nature generated by Adam's fall. His stance resembles the position adopted by some radical Protestant sects during the 17th century, such as the family of love and the Grindeltonians, who taught that prelapsarian perfection could be attained in this life. Without sin, private property would be unnecessary and undesirable, so such groups typically advocated to return to the primitive communism of prelapsarian man. Private property would be inappropriate in a community of saints. Common property was the ideal. As Ludwig von Mises noted in socialism and economic and sociological analysis, many ancient civilizations believed in the romantic utopia of common ownership. In ancient Rome, it was the legend of the gold age of Saturn, described in glowing terms by Virgil, Tbilis, and Ovid, and praised by Seneca. Those were the carefree happy days when none had private property and all prospered in the bounty of a generous nature. Modern socialism, of course, imagines itself beyond such simplicity and childishness, but its dreams differ little from those of the imperial Romans. The early Christian conception of a golden age was profoundly influenced by the writings of the Roman philosopher Seneca, a leading Stoic. Christians took the sketchy account of the Garden of Eden in Genesis and fleshed it out with the more elaborate description of the golden age found in the letters of Seneca. Seneca, referring to men in the primitive golden age, wrote this. What race of men could be luckier? Share and share alike they enjoyed nature. She saw to each and every man's requirements for survival like a parent. What it all amounted to was undisturbed possession of resources owned by the community. I can surely call that race of men one of the unparalleled riches, it being impossible to find a single popper. Before avarice burst on the scene, which caused people to claim exclusive property in land and other goods, and to covet luxury items that were unnecessary to fulfill their real needs. Scarcity, competition for resources, and violent conflicts were non-existent. The earth herself, untilled, was more productive, her yields being more than ample for the needs of peoples who did not raid each other. All was equally divided among people, living in complete harmony. The stronger had not yet started laying hands on the weaker. The avaricious person had not yet started hiding things away to be hoarded for his own use, so shutting the next man off from actual necessities of life. Each cared as much for the other as about himself. Weapons were unused, hands still unstained with human blood had directed their hostility exclusively against wild beasts. The early Christian view of property held sway for many centuries, though it was modified somewhat after the writings of Aristotle were rediscovered in the 12th century. When Thomas Aquinas, 1225 to 1274, having integrated many of Aristotle's ideas into his writings, discussed property, he treated it as a more natural institution than had many previous theologians. Nevertheless, Aquinas agreed that common ownership was the original condition of mankind, and this led him to argue that though the acquisition of property fulfills a natural need, such property, beyond what is needed for one's personal use, is legitimate only when devoted to the common good. Thus we see how the prelapsarian notion of common property influenced Christian thinking about the proper uses of private property. Common property, though a thing of the past, remained an ideal in the Christian theory of private property. It served as a beacon indicating the proper use of privately owned wealth, beyond what was needed to satisfy the legitimate needs of the owner. Private property could be justified only if the owner devoted it, not to his own selfish benefit and pleasure, but to furthering the common good. This was the original purpose of common property in prelapsarian society, after all, so the system of private property should emulate that function as much as possible. The traditional Christian theory of private property differed substantially from the theory embraced by most classical liberals and libertarians, whose approach may broadly be described as secular. The nature of those differences is the topic of the next chapter.