For it is futile to attempt to discover modern socialism in the words of Jesus. There is, it is true, nothing incompatible with such a system were it once proved to be the means best adapted to furthering the true spirit of brotherliness ; but just as true is it that there is nothing incompatible with a rational individualism. One can sympathize heartily with Maurice and Kingsley as they denounce grinding competition or a supposed "iron law of wages," but as a follower of Jesus one stands committed to neither social- ism nor individualism. Before either is declared unchristian it must be shown to be hopelessly opposed to the accomplishment of Jesus' ideal order. Charity, with Jesus, is not communism. If it could be proved that he had been an Essene, the identification might be easier, but that possibility is now little thought of.[1] Probably no one would soberly commit Jesus to communism because of Judas and the bag, and so far as any direct word or single act of his is concerned, it is necessary to say the same. Even in the case of the primitive Jerusalem church it is impossible to discover anything like communism in the modern sense of the word. Its members, be they never so rich, were not required to sell their possessions and to give to the poor, if we are to accept the words of Peter to Ananias.[2] Indeed, the story of Ananias and Sapphira does not make their fate dependent upon their failure to share all their property, but their lying to the effect that they had so done. Nor does it appear that all the members of the church at Jerusalem disposed of their property, since the mother of Mark had her own house.[3] As a mat- ter of fact, it would seem that this sharing of wealth in Jerusalem was simply an expression of natural enthusiasm and Christian love. It may, perhaps, have involved a too literal interpretation of Jesus' words, but even this is by no means clear. At any rate, a few years after this so-called communism we find the church at Jerusalem counseling, not communism, but generosity to the poor,[4] and the "contribution for the poor among the saints
in Jerusalem" replacing the "having of things in common."[5] If
