Beveridge on Article XXXVIII: Of Christian men's Goods, which are not common

of them said he had letters brought him from ‘heaven, which advised that peace be renewed upon earth: which thing he enjoined the others, and gave these things to be delivered to the people, that no one should bear arms, nor fetch back again what was taken from him, &c. But Gerardus Camer- acensis could by no persuasions be brought to receive these things, but confuted every particular head; saying that man- kind was from the beginning divided into three sorts, orators, fighters, and husbandmen, and the one of these wants the help of the two, and the two of the one, and therefore that weapons ought to be worn, and rapines be restored by the authority both of law and grace.” And so we conclude 7 is lawful for Christian men, at the commandment of the ma- gistrate, to wear weapons, and serve in the wars.

The riches and goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same, as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast. Notwithstanding, every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability.

HOUGH communion of saints be a truth which ought

| to be believed by all, yet community of goods is an error which cannot be received by any, it striking at the foundation of Christian society, and subverting the whole scope of the holy scriptures; for if no man hath a propriety in any thing he enjoys, but his neighbour hath as good a title to it as himself, as the Fratricellians of old and the Anabaptists of late fancied, what signify the commands of God, Thow shalt not steal, Exod. xx. 15, and, Thow shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, ver. 17? If I have as much right to my neighbour’s goods as himself, how can I be said to steal any thing from him, when it is no more but to receive what is mine own of him? or why should I be forbidden to covet his house, when it is my own as well as his? And what then means that place of scripture also, It is a more blessed thing to give than to receive? Acts xx. 35. For if one man hath no more right to what he enjoys than another, how can one man be said to give to another, or the other to receive any thing as a gift from him? Certainly by this rule I cannot steal any thing from another, though I take all he hath from him ; neither can he be said to give any thing to me, though he bestoweth all he hath upon me. For if I

Arr. XX XVIII. Of Christian Men’s Goods, &¢. 607

take any thing from him, I take no more than what is my own as well as his ; and if he bestows any thing upon me, he gives me that which is no more his than mine own; and so accord- ing to this faney (for an opinion I cannot call it) there could not be any stealing, neither need there be any giving. I could not steal though I would, and I need not give though I could. And further, admit this dream to be a truth, why should we be commanded to provide for our families, 1 Tim. v. 8? to give to him that asketh us, and to lend to him that would borrow of us, Matt. v. 42? Why should St. Paul’s hands minister to his necessities, Acts xx. 34, and labour night and day that he might not be chargeable to any, 1 Thess. ii. 9 ? And many of the like places we find in scripture, which would signify nothing, if one man had no more title to or propriety in what himself enjoys than another.

It is true 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, Acts iv. 32. This is the text which is commonly wrested to the destruction of the truth of this article: but certainly, if rightly understood, it will make more for it than against it ; nay, not at all against it, but altogether for it. For here it is plainly said, No man said of ought that he possessed ; so that it seems they had their several possessions at that time, which could not be if all things were so common amongst them as touching the right, title, and possession of the same. All things were indeed common amongst them as to the use of, but not as to the title to what they enjoyed. All things were so common as that none of them but willingly com- municated what he had to others, but not so common as that others had a right and title to it as well as he; which also further appears in that it is said, And as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things which were sold, and laid them at the apo- stles’ feet: and distribution was made to every man accordiug to his need, Acts iv. 34, 35. From whence it appears that some were possessors of lands, others not; and it was they that possessed the lands that went and sold them; and when they had sold them they brought them to the apostles, and the apostles distributed to every one according as he had

608 Of Christian Men’s Goods, Art.

need; plainly implying that some had need and others not, and some had lands and others not, and they that had them it was in their power, not in the others’ to sell them, and in their power, not in the others’ to bring them to the apostles ; yea, and it was in their power to bring them or not to bring them too. And therefore saith Peter to Ananias, Whilst a remained, was it not thine own? and after it. was sold, was at not in thine own power? Acts v. 4. So that before he had sold it, it was his own, not another’s, and after he had sold it, it was still in his own power, not another’s; and so he alone had a title and right to it, until he had resigned. it up to the apostles. Whence we may plainly see, that though there were not any amongst them that lacked, it was not be- cause that they that had not estates had a title to theirs that had, 2 but because they that had estates were willing to com- municate unto them that had not; so that there was a com- munication of estates to one another, and yet not.a commu- nity in one another’s estates.

And in this sense is Tertullian also to be understood when he saith, »“ All things are common with us but only our wives ; in that thing only we break community in which only other men exercise community;” not as if all things were then common as to the right, title, and possession of them, but all things were common as to the use and enjoyment of them. So that he that had no possessions enjoyed something of his that had; not because he had a title to it, but because he that had a title to it was pleased to communicate some part of it to him that had not; not some part of the title he had to his estate, but some part of the estate he had a title to. And in that he that had an estate gave to him that lacked, it is plain that he that lacked an estate had no right to his that had one. And that Tertullian is thus to be un- derstood appears from what himself not long before saith in the same place; ¢“That which is a kind of chest is not

[…]

gay, ws idva $€. Chrysost. in Act. ¢ Etiamsi quod arce genus est, hom. 11. [p. 674, 5. vol. IV.] non de oneraria summa, quasi re=

<a

which are not Common.

gathered from the burdensome sum, as of a bought religion. Every one giveth a little every month, or when he will, and if he can, he adds to it; for no man is compelled, but every one giveth freely.” Clearly implying, that there were some that had estates, and some that had not, and they that had, gave to them that had not. And that not always, but only once a month ; nor. then all his estate neither, but only as much as he would : nor yet was any one compelled to give any thing, but every one gave what himself pleased. And what were these things for? ¢“ These are as it were the pledges of piety ; for there is nothing given from thence to banquets, or collations, nor ingrateful devourings, but to nourish and bury the poor, to children, and orphans destitute of maintenance, and pa- rents, and to ancient housekeepers :” all-which things cannot possibly stand with the community of right and title to estates.

And what Tertullian here avoucheth, Justin Martyr also confirms in his time too, saying, °“ Those of us that have much and are willing, according to every one’s pleasure, give and contribute as much as themselves will. And that which is gathered is given to the president, and he helps orphans and widows with it, and those that are in want by reason of sickness or any other cause, and those that are in bonds, and strangers that come a great way, and in brief he takes care of all that are in necessity.” So that in his time also there were poor as well as rich ; both such as gave, and such as re- ceived ; such as abounded, and such as wanted ; and by con- sequence no equality, or community in estates. Yea and before him too, Clemens Romanus exhorteth the Corinthians, f* Let him that is strong not despise him that is weak, and

ea Le A , a A € a 64 dempte religionis congregatur. Moxara mpoaipeow exaoros Thy EavTov, O

dicam unusquisque stipem menstrua die, vel cum velit, et si modo possit, apponit ; nam nemo compellitur, sed sponte confert. Ibid.

€ Of evmopoivres Kai BovdAdpevor,

[…]

RT

610 Of Christian Men’s Goods, Art.

let him that is weak reverence him that is strong; let the rich contribute to the poor, and the poor give thanks to God.” And if there were some rich which should give to the poor, and some poor which should receive of the rich, the estates of the rich were not common to the poor, nel- ther had the poor any title in the estates of the rich. To these we may also add that of Lactantius: & “Some may say,” quoth he, “ Are there not amongst you some poor, and some rich, some servants, and some masters? is not there some difference betwixt every one? No; neither is there any other reason why we call one another brethren, but because we believe ourselves to be equal; for seeing we measure all human things not by the body but by the spirit, though the condition of our bodies be diverse, yet they are not our servants, but we account and call them, by the spirit, bre- thren, and fellow servants in religion.” So that he expressly tells us the outward or bodily condition of Christians in that age were diverse, though in piety and humility they were alike and equal; and therefore he presently adds, » “‘ Seeing there- fore the freemen are equal to the servants, and the rich to the poor in humility of mind, yet before God we are discerned by virtue.” It was in’the humility of their minds, not in the community of their goods, that they were equal to one an- other ; and their communicating to one another’s necessities argues they had no community in one another’s estates ; yea, and their having no community in one another’s estates was the reason why they communicated to one another’s neces- sities.

And certainly though there be no communion in, yet there ought to be a communication of our estates one to another ;

TTOXG, 6 SE MT@XOS EVXAPLOTEITW TO Ged. Clem. epist. ad Corinth. pp. 49, 50.

& Dicet aliquis: nonne sunt apud vos alii pauperes, alii divites? alii servi, alii domini? nonne aliquid inter singulos interest? nihil; nec alia causa est, cur nobis invicem fratrum nomen impertiamus, nisi quia pares esse nos credimus. Nam cum omnia humana non corpore,

sed spiritu metiamur, tametsi cor- porum sit diversa conditio, nobis tamen servi non sunt; sed eos et habemus, et dicimus spiritu fratres, religione conservos. Lactant. de justit. c. [16. vol. I.]

h Cum itaque et liberi servis, et divites pauperibus humilitate animi pares simus, apud Deum tamen vir- tute discernimur. Ibid.

“a

XXXVIII. which are not Common. 611 and therefore it is added in the article, Notwithstanding, every man ought, of such things as he possesseth, liberally to give alms to the poor, according to his ability. According to the apostle’s command, Charge them that are rich in this world, that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate, 1 Tim. vi. 17,18. And imany such commands are there in scripture, with promises and threatening annexed to them, whereby all are enjoined to communicate of what they have unto such as lack it. Although the poor hath no title to the estates of the rich, yet the rich are bound to relieve the necessities of the poor; and therefore saith St. Basil, ’ “ Art thou poor? yet thou hast another poorer than thyself; thou hast bread enough for ten days, he but for one ; what abounds to thee, like a good man do thou keep for the poor, not thinking much to give something of a little. Do not thou prefer thine own profit before the common danger.” ’« Thou sayest thou art rich and wealthy,” saith St. Cyprian, “and thinkest thou must use those things which God would have thee to possess; use them but to saving things, use them but to good acts, use them to those things which God hath commanded, which the Lord hath discovered ; let the poor perceive thee to be rich, let the needy perceive thee to be wealthy.” But it would be an endless thing to heap up the several passages we meet with in the fathers to this purpose ; I shall add only that excellent notion of St. Chrys-

ostome: ™<“ Why therefore

i Nunquam denique, fratres cha- rissimi, admonitio divina cessavit, nunquam tacuit, quo minus in scrip- turis sanctis tam veteribus quam novis, semper et ubique ad miseri- cordiz opera Dei populus provoca- retur ; et canente atque exhortante Spiritu S., quisquis ad spem regni celestis instruitur, facere eleemo- synas juberetur. Cyprian. serm. I. de eleemosyna, [p. 198. ]

[…]

‘dost thou deprive thyself of

[…]

Rr?

612 Of Christian Men’s Goods, &c. Arr. XXXVIIT.

those things whereof God would have thee to be the master ¢ For for this cause he commanded thee to give of thy riches to another, that thou thyself mightest have them; for so long as thou keepest them thyself, not so much as thyself hast them, but when thou givest them to another, then thyself receivest them.” And therefore I conclude, that though Christian men’s goods be not common, yet they ought to be communicated to one another.

a \ Cy aA a ¢ ee ey 2 a , \ 5. 6

[…]

Notes

• Hee quasi deposita pietatis sunt, nam inde non epulis nec potaculis nec ingratis voratrinis dispensatur, sed egenis alendis humandisque et pueris ac pupillis re ac parentibus destitutis, jamque domesticis seni- bus. Ibid.
• Locupletem te esse dicis et divi- tem, et utendum te putas esse iis, que possidere te Deus voluit: utere, sed ad res salutares, utere, sed ad bonas artes, utere, ad illa que Deus precepit, que Dominus os- tendit. Divitem te sentiant pau- peres, locupletem sentiant indigen- tes. Cyprian. de hab. virgin. tract. Il. [p. 97.]