But it is quite natural that the internal boundaries of the right of property could only be significantly narrowed, but not destroyed in the consciousness of Old Testament mankind. For such annihilation, perfect love, complete unity with the beloved, was needed. In relation to God, man gave the firstfruits of fruit, tithed the temple, and felt himself to be a redeemed servant of Jehovah. If he gave a tenth of his income to the poor,[49] he was aware that the duty of philanthropy had been fulfilled. Only perfect love transcends the boundaries of number and measure, and such perfect love has been revealed to the world in the person and work of Christ the Savior.

First of all, it is hardly necessary to dwell for a long time on the thesis that in the New Testament teaching, as well as in the Old Testament, God is presented as the one supreme Lord of all. The New Testament man also brings nothing with him into the world and, dying, cannot take anything out of it[50], just as the Old Testament man does, but receives everything from God[51]. The difference between the two Testaments in this respect is that Christians have received new and immeasurable gifts of saving grace, spiritual gifts, before the greatness of which all the blessings of the visible world, all the happiness of the present life, are insignificant. For the Christian consciousness, the truth that everything in the world is God's, and everything that is good in us is a gift of God's grace. A Christian cannot make a single hair white or black, nor add even one cubit to his height[53], but stands in the grace of God and only boasts of it at every moment of the truly Christian life[54]. Many parables

Gentlemen, for example, speak of talents and minas, of evil husbandmen, unrighteous bailiffs, and others, speak with all certainty that man in this world is an owner only in the conditional sense of the word: not the lord of creation, but as if he were the administrator of another's property, called upon to give an account of the faithfulness of the management of the property entrusted to him. Even the very souls and bodies of the faithful are considered in the same dignity: as God's[55], called to be temples of the Holy Spirit[56].

Thus, it is the first duty for a Christian in his attitude to his property to dispose of it in accordance with the will of God.

In Christianity we do not find particular laws restricting the right of Christians to dispose of their property, like the Old Testament laws prohibiting the sale of land forever, commanding not to reap the edges of the field, leaving the remains to the poor, etc. All such laws could not have a place in the Kingdom of Christ, where the perfect law of freedom reigns[57]; such laws are not needed in the Kingdom of Christ, where perfect love should reign. For such love there is no need for restrictions in number and measure, since truly Christian love by its very nature is imbued with the principle of boundless self-denial and readiness for sacrifice. Christianity never encroached on the right to private property and asserted with all force and certainty the inviolability of this right[58]. But when it proclaimed that the true disciples of Christ are only those who love one another,[59] and indicated in the person of Christ the Savior the ideal of such love,[60] it thereby radically changed man's view of his right to own property. We have already said that the essence of love consists in a living striving for unity with the beloved, in the merging of the interests of lovers, in the readiness for the sake of love for any self-restraint and sacrifice. All these are qualities of love that are inherently incompatible with the principles underlying the ethical foundation of the right to property. Let us not repeat what has been said and turn to the exposition of the Gospel teaching on the attitude of a Christian to his property.

We have said that the characteristic sign of love is always self-denial, the willingness to give up one's own for the sake of the beloved. And indeed, in the Gospel we find many exhortations to be prepared for such self-denial and a constant call to share one's own with others.

"I say to you," Christ the Savior taught, "do not resist evil... but whoever wants to sue you and take your shirt from you, give him also your outer garments"[61]. Thus, the principle of the inviolability of the right of property for a Christian has full force and significance only in relation to the property of others, and in his personal life he renounces this right in the name of higher interests, which we will see later. And if this happens in the external clash of a Christian with the evil will of man, then all the more completely and joyfully is such a renunciation of one's own for the sake of love for God and neighbor. "Whosoever one of you," teaches the Lord, "who does not renounce all that he has, cannot be My disciple"[62]. Why is that? Therefore, there is no doubt that life in following Christ is a life according to the law of love, which always renounces everything that is yours for the sake of the beloved, not excluding life itself[63]. Therefore, we cannot be surprised at all by the persistent Gospel call addressed to the disciples of Christ to give away their possessions. The general law of this distribution is a simple and clear law: to everyone who asks you, and from him who takes what is yours, do not demand it back[64]. It is clear, without much reasoning, that the observance of this law is tantamount to the actual renunciation of property. And in the Gospel such renunciation is directly required of all who wish to follow Christ. He calls His apostles, and they immediately leave all that they possessed[65] and follow Him. Christ gives the same advice to all the young flock that is ready to follow Him: "Sell," He commands, "your possessions and give alms"[66]. He gives the same advice to the rich young man in particular: "If thou wilt," the Saviour says to him, "to be perfect, go, sell thy possessions and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and come and follow me"[67]. The young man departed with sorrow, not having the determination to fulfill Christ's commandment, and could no longer follow Him, just as no one can, according to the Lord, serve two masters: God and mammon[68]. In the Lord's words to the rich young man, we see a direct indication that the renunciation of property is one of the conditions for moral perfection. We will have to return to this instructive story when we have a discussion of the Christian view of wealth and poverty; for the time being, let us note the indisputable, in our opinion, circumstance that such a renunciation was required by Christ the Savior from all His closest followers. Whether this renunciation was carried out in the form indicated by the Lord to the rich young man and others seeking salvation,[69] or in another form, for example, in the form of service from one's possessions to the Lord Himself and His disciples,[70] but, in any case, the whole spirit of Christ's preaching spoke of the fact that concern for acquisition cannot enter into the Christian consciousness as a norm of life, the preservation and multiplication of property in the form of personal possession of the goods of the land. In addition to the direct commandment to do good to all and to lend without waiting for repayment,[71] which is inevitably connected with a constant readiness to renounce one's own for the sake of one's neighbors, the very ideal of the Christian mood in relation to the world and its blessings completely excluded even the possibility of speaking on the part of believers about the right to own property and about the duty to protect this right. These are the words of the Lord in which, with touching simplicity and at the same time, the truly Christian attitude to everything that is usually the object of possession in this world is depicted. "Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in and steal, for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also... No one can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one and love the other; or he will be zealous for the one, and neglect the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. Therefore I say unto you, Be not anxious for your soul what ye shall eat or drink, nor for your body what ye shall wear. Is not the soul more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they do not sow, nor reap, nor gather into the garner, and your Father who is in heaven feeds them. Are you not much better than them? And who among you, by care, can add even one cubit to his height? And what do you care about clothes? Look at the lilies of the field, how they grow: they do not work, nor spin; but I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like any of them; but if the grass of the field, which is there today, and tomorrow will be thrown into the furnace, God dresses it in such a way, how much more than you, you of little faith! Do not be anxious, therefore, and say, What shall we eat? or what to drink? or what to wear, because the heathen seek all these things; and because your Father who is in heaven knows that you have need of all these things. Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you. Therefore, do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will take care of its own, and each day will have enough of its own care." It is enough, I think, to read these words to make it clear that with such a view of the world and its benefits, it is impossible to speak of one's right to own anything. For one who inwardly renounces all that he has[73] there can be no fear of losing his property; just as there can be no thought about his right to possess his own in one who has accepted in his heart the teaching of Christ: to everyone who asks you, give[74]. In the consciousness of a Christian, one idea reigns: we have one Heavenly Father and one Teacher, Christ, and we are all brothers to one another[75]. This idea of Christian equality and brotherhood makes it so that if in personal life the guiding principle in relation to property is the renunciation of it in favor of the poor, then in the life of the Christian community such a principle must naturally be the communion of possessions. Of course, just as in personal life there can be no place for the enslavement of property in one hand, so in the life of the Christian community there is no place for such enslavement, but its property serves all those in need, as the life of the primitive Church has proved. Nevertheless, in the depths of the church community, the principle of communion of property is most definitely realized. In a concrete form, with a certain organization of the distribution of material resources, we encounter such communion in the primitive Church.

Of course, as long as Christ the Savior was with His disciples, such an organization was superfluous; and only after the Ascension of Christ and the wider spread of Christianity did the need arise for a more definite organization of church life in general, and in particular for the organization of the material life of the Christian community. But even in the Gospels we find indubitable evidence for the assertion that both Christ the Saviour and His holy apostles did not have personal property during the earthly life of Christ the Saviour, but spent what they received from benevolent gifts[76] in common[77]. There is no need to reveal the indisputable truth that Christ the Savior is the ideal of moral perfection for every Christian. His relation to property has the same ideal significance. He could not take care of her and had nothing more than the bare necessities. He Who taught others to be completely independent of the desire to possess the world and not to worry about tomorrow, Himself has left us in this respect, as in all others, the highest image, so that we may follow in His footsteps. "Foxes," says the Lord, "have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head"[79]. Like a poor homeless man, He satisfies His hunger with His disciples by plucking ears of grain in the field,[80] looking for figs in the tree,[81] and accepting voluntary gifts from His followers.82 The latter, it must be assumed, constituted that undoubtedly small, common property of Christ the Savior and His disciples, which was kept in the ark of Judas[83] and served both to satisfy the needs of a small community and to distribute to the poorest[84].

The great beginnings of the new life in Christ, proclaimed in the Gospel, found their further revelation and realization, first of all, in the teaching and life of the holy Apostles and the primitive Church. And both in the personal lives of the holy apostles and in their teaching, and, finally, in the very life of the primitive Church led by them, we find a very clearly expressed attitude to the right of property, which of course is in full accord with the principles proclaimed to the world by Christ the Saviour. These principles are an inner renunciation of the exclusive possession of property and a readiness to share everything that is one's own with others. In their personal lives, the holy apostles were direct imitators of their Lord: they had no property, as is clearly shown by the testimonies of the holy apostles themselves. "Silver and gold I have not," says the Apostle Peter about himself,[85] and the Apostle Paul testifies about the Apostles in general: "We are poor... we have nothing"[86]. The apostolic point of view on property fully coincides, of course, with the teaching of the Lord: everything must be limited to what is necessary: "Having food and clothing," says the holy Apostle, "let us be content with this"[87]. The Apostle Paul himself worked for this, not wishing to burden the faithful[88], and at the same time he also served others who were with him[89]; and yet he often did not have where to lay his head, and with what to eat, and what to wear. "I have often been," he writes about himself, "in hunger and thirst, often in fasting, in cold and nakedness"[90]. And if in their person the holy apostles in all purity realized the Gospel principle of complete renunciation of one's own and service to others, then in their teaching they called the faithful to the same. We have already said that the true renunciation of property externally is expressed personally by each one in the fulfillment of the Gospel commandment: to everyone who asks of you, give; and in the life of the community, such inner renunciation has as its direct consequence the communion of possessions, when one freely refuses to call anything one's own. And both of these manifestations of Christian renunciation found their expression in the teaching of the Apostles and in the very life of the Church of the apostolic period. Everywhere in the writings of the Apostles we read the call to share one's wealth with the needy,[91] and in the very life of the primitive Church we encounter the actual ideal realization of this covenant in the form of communion of possessions. This is how, simply and movingly, the book of the Acts of the Apostles tells about it: "All believers were together, and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and all kinds of property, and divided them to all, according to the need of each... The multitude of those who believed had one heart and one soul; and no one called anything of his possessions his own, but they had everything in common... There was no one needy among them; for all who owned lands or houses, when they sold them, brought the price of what was sold, and laid them at the feet of the apostles; and everyone was given what he had need of"[92]. Such is a wonderful picture of the unity of spirit that reigned in the early Christian community; and, evaluating this phenomenon of the life of the primitive Church from an ethical point of view, we have the right to see, in the order described, the ideal embodiment of those principles with which the Gospel is permeated in its relation to the organization of the material side of human life. The multitude of believers had one heart and one soul; In other words, love reigned as the real basis of life, which did so that the shackles of egoism fell off, and everyone freely renounced his own for the common good. There is not the slightest doubt that this picture of the life of the primitive Church must be of great importance for Christian ethics in its teaching on material culture. This picture shows with obvious simplicity, but also indisputable persuasiveness, that the moral duty for a Christian should not be the "acquisition, preservation and multiplication" of property, but such a fullness of experience of a loving soul that the very idea of the exclusivity of my right to possess a certain object would be psychologically impossible. Christianity never encroached on the inviolability of the right to property and recognized the legal right of everyone to own his own, not only in the well-known words of the Holy Apostle Peter Ananias[93], but also in the strictest condemnation of any encroachment on another's property[94]. However, the very nature of Christian love is such that where it really reigns, we always encounter communion of possessions, just as it was in the life of the primitive Church. To illustrate our idea, we will point to the life of the family. The law recognizes the right of each family member to possess certain property. Meanwhile, in reality, there is no such external division of "mine" and "yours" in the life of every family, connected by a feeling of living love. This feeling also animated the primitive Church, which had a vivid awareness that everyone had one Heavenly Father, one Savior of the world, and they were all brothers and sisters, called together to carry out their earthly course and to strive together for salvation. To the extent that such a consciousness should be characteristic of every Christian community, there is no doubt that in the ideal of the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth in the Church of Christ we must conceive of such unity of spirit, and inseparably with it – unity in possessions, a real free renunciation of the legal principle that lies at the foundation of the kingdom of egoism. In this way, we look upon the unity of property in the primitive Church as the ideal form in which every sincere striving of society to organize life on Christian principles should be expressed. But we cannot confine ourselves to such a positive statement, and must say a few words about the attitude of our scientific ethics to the fact of interest to us. This attitude is amazing. This, for example, is how this fact is evaluated in our most serious scientific system of moral theology. Pointing to the fact of the communion of possessions among the members of the primitive Church, described in the book of Acts, the learned moralist concludes: "It is known that the communion of the possessions of the first Christians was short-lived and local; it did not last long only in Jerusalem. And it turned out to be impractical: the Jerusalem community was so impoverished that other Christian communities sent it help."[95] Such a superficial, almost ironic attitude to the great phenomenon of church life is downright incomprehensible. It is not the task of our work to investigate the historical fate of the communion of property in the ancient Church. Let us confine ourselves to the remark that it is impossible to say with certainty either that there was communion of property only in the Church of Jerusalem, or that this communion was short-lived, and that the Church of Jerusalem became impoverished precisely because of such communion. When we expound the patristic teaching on property, we will see all the riskiness of the conclusion that the communion of property existed only in the Church of Jerusalem and lasted for a very short time. And it is clear to anyone familiar with the history of Jerusalem in the second half of the first century that, even if the communion of possessions could have had an unfavorable effect on the material side of the life of the Jerusalem church, in any case, this was not the only unfavorable condition, but that a whole series of external disasters befell Jerusalem. And the very appeal of the Apostle Paul, addressed to the Corinthian Church, always makes it possible to assume such an order as the Apostle himself indicated when he called on the Corinthians to help the Church in need: "Now," wrote the Holy Apostle, "there is an excess in making up for their deficiency, and after that there is an excess of them in making up for your deficiency, so that there may be evenness"[96]. It is clear that this passage does not mean that the communion of property "has proved impractical," but that the Apostle wishes that it should be extended to all Christian churches, and that the latter, divided by a large space, should recognize themselves as members of one great whole, the Church of Christ, and brothers to one another. But even if we abandon such a historical perspective, then from a purely ethical Christian point of view, such a semi-ironic attitude to the matter must be recognized as completely inappropriate and having no support for itself in the views of the representatives of the ancient Church. It should be noted that if we have quoted only one system of the late Professor Olesnitsky, it is because it most definitely and scientifically honestly expresses a negative view of the experience of the life of the primitive Church. In other cases, this is done under the guise of hypocritical compliments on the loftiness of the life of the primitive Church. But the essence of the matter does not change because of this, and the prevailing view of the communion of possessions in the first days of Christianity is that this communion is looked upon not as an ideal form of organizing the material life of the members of the church brotherhood, but as a utopian attempt that ended in failure. But although this is the dominant view, it is nevertheless completely inappropriate in Christian ethics. After all, the life of the primitive Church was the time when the grace-filled gifts of the Holy Spirit reigned abundantly in it. When in the midst of this Church was the Mother of God and all the Apostles, who were the main leaders of church life. Under such conditions, it is hardly possible to see in the fraternal communion of the property of the members of the primitive Church an accidental and unsuccessful attempt to organize life on a truly fraternal basis. Even if we admit that this experience of the work of Christian love was also a failure – for such a judgment, however, we do not have data – then, in any case, there is no place for irony and pitiful compliments where there is a sharp discord between the ideal requirements of Christian love and the egoistic traditions of human coexistence. The very failure of the organization of the life of the primitive Church could not serve as an obstacle to seeing in this organization its ideal form, just as the lack of love for one's neighbor in the Christian world cannot serve as an obstacle to this principle being recognized as the norm of Christian relations. And if, as we have said, the unity of possessions in the Christian community is a necessary result, or rather, an expression of the spirit of love of the members of the Church for each other, then we consider ourselves justified in asserting from the scientific-Christian point of view that the communion of possessions in the primitive Church is and will forever remain the ideal of organizing the material side of the life of the members of the Church of Christ.

Такой взгляд резко расходится со взглядом на предмет нашего сов­ременного богословия; но это не может нас особенно смущать потому, во-первых, что высказываемый нами взгляд находится в совершенной гар­монии с основным практическим началом христианской жизни; и потому, во-вторых, что, расходясь с господствующей тенденцией современного богословия, этот взгляд совпадает всецело с учением отцов и учителей Вселенской Церкви, которые в устроении первохристианской общины ви­дели идеальную форму церковного общения, а в общении имуществ — естественное выражение христианской любви, объединяющей людей в братскую семью; выражение, являющееся желательным во всякое мгновение жизни на земле Церкви Христовой. При этом в святоотече­ской письменности первых трех веков встречается не только признание идеального значения за формой общения имуществ в деле устроения мате­риального быта общины, но и положительный призыв к этому, и указание на действительное существование такого общения в среде христиан. А в последующие века взоры учителей Церкви обращаются от современного им положения церковной жизни к первым дням христианства, и в сия­нии этого царства любви они показывают своим современникам, какой должна быть жизнь христианская.

Все это ясно откроется при изложении святоотеческого учения о соб­ственности; но прежде, чем перейти к изложению этого учения подведем кратко итоги тому, что стало ясным для нас из откровенного учения в его отношении к праву человека владеть своим.

Прежде всего, мы думаем и утверждаем, что в откровенном учении нет и намека на долг «приобретать, хранить и умножать» свое имущество. Всюду вместо этого заповедуется не приобретать себе сокровищ на земле, не заботиться о том, что тлеет, и раздавать свое достояние неимущим. Иными словами, в откровенном учении заповедуется как раз обратное тому, что дозволяется и одобряется нашими системами нравственного богословия. Вследствие этого, естественно, и отношение к праву собст­венности в новозаветном Откровении и в нашем богословии устанавли­вается неодинаковое. Откровенное учение, как мы сказали, признает это право как наличный факт действительной жизни. И не только в пря­мых словах св. апостола Петра Анании[97], но и в абсолютном запрещении всякого посягательства на чужую собственность утверждается принцип неприкосновенности права каждого владеть принадлежащим ему по гражданскому закону. Христианство по самой своей природе не отрицало юридических норм общежития, даже такой нормы, как институт рабства. Но оно сообщало этим нормам новое освещение, вдыхало в них новый дух и через это преобразовывало их. Так было вообще, так и в отношении христианства к праву собственности. Оно признало это право в качестве юридической нормы, но само говорило не об этом праве, но о долге нашем отказываться от этого права в случае внешнего насилия и всегда думать не о том, чтобы владеть своим, но о том, чтобы делиться своим с другими. Поэтому, когда наше богословие говорит о том, что право собственности «святыня для христианина», то мы думаем, что это не христианская характеристика. Конечно, если под терминами «священный» и «святы­ня» подразумевать принцип неприкосновенности, то это — бесспорная истина. Но такое словоупотребление все-таки будет не вполне точным. Термины «священный» и «святыня» приложимы в истинном смысле сло­ва лишь к идеальным нормам собственно христианского нравственного закона. А такой идеальной нормой в христианстве является не право собственности, но, согласно учению Откровения и Церкви, добровольное внутреннее, а иногда и внешнее отречение от права собственности, когда последняя рассматривалась как общее достояние. Мысль эта, как сейчас увидим, проходит яркой нитью через все века жизни древней Церкви и на­ходит в святоотеческом учении такое резкое выражение, что самое про­исхождение права собственности рассматривается как признак оскудения любви среди людей и наглядное выражение отсутствия среди них истинно братского единения в жизни.

На рубеже письменности апостольской и святоотеческой находятся писания мужей апостольских. В этих памятниках древней церковной письменности мы, конечно, не встречаем подробно развитого учения о соб­ственности, но, однако, находим существенно важные для нас указания на то, что человек является в этом мире собственником лишь в условном смысле, только распорядителем Божиих даров; и, согласно воле Божией, должен смотреть на свое, как на принадлежащее всем его собратьям. В «Послании апостола Варнавы», этом древнейшем памятнике церков­ной письменности, его святой автор изображает, между прочим, два воз­можных пути нашей жизни: путь света и тьмы, путь любви и злобы. И в изображении первого пути встречается, как неотделимый признак истин­ной любви, совершенное общение верующих. «Люби ближнего, — пишет св. Варнава, — более души своей... Имей общение с ближними во всем и не называй ничего собственностью; ибо если вы общники в благах не­тленных, то не более ли в вещах тленных?... Не будь простирающим рук к принятию и сгибающим их, когда ты должен дать»[98].

В «Пастыре» Ерма находится довольно подробное раскрытие той мысли, что все в мире — Божие достояние, и человек должен владеть им так, чтобы все участвовали в обладании Божиими дарами. «Не пользуй­тесь, — увещает старица в видении Ерма, — одни творениями Божиими, но щедро раздавайте нуждающимся»[99]. «Всем давай, — заповедует Па­стырь, — потому, что Бог хочет, чтобы всем было даруемо из Его даров. Берущие отдадут отчет Богу... Дающий же не будет виноват, ибо он ис­полнил служение, какое получил от Бога»[100]. В подобии первом подробно раскрывается та мысль, что человек в этом мире не может иметь истин­ной собственности, но что если кто владеет чем-либо, то должен всем делиться с нуждающимися ближними. «Пастырь сказал мне: знаете ли, что вы, рабы Божии, находитесь в странствии? Ваш город находится да­леко от этого города. Итак, если знаете ваше отечество, в котором имеете жить, то зачем здесь покупаете поместья, строите великолепные здания и ненужные жилища?... Несмысленный, двоедушный и жалкий человек, не понимаешь ли, что все это — чужое и под властью другого... Итак, смотри, подобно страннику на чужой стороне, не приготовляй ничего бо­лее, как сколько тебе необходимо для жизни... Итак, вы, служащие Богу и имеющие Его в сердцах своих, смотрите: делайте дела Божии... Вместо полей, искупайте души от нужды, сколько кто может, помогайте вдовам и сиротам; богатство и все стяжания ваши употребляйте на такого рода дела, на которые вы и получили их от Бога. Ибо Господь обогатил вас для того, чтобы вы исполняли такое служение Ему. Делать это гораздо лучше, чем покупать поместья или дома, потому что все это погибнет в этом мире»[101]. «Должно всякого человека исхищать из бедствия... Кто знает о бедствии такого человека и не избавляет его, тот допускает ве­ликий грех и делается виновен в крови его. Итак, благотворите, сколько кто получил от Господа»[102]. Таким образом, Ерм требует отрешиться от взгляда на свое имущество как на свою неотъемлемую собственность, но видит в нем нечто такое, на что имеют право все нуждающиеся.