PROPERTY, EARLY CHURCH

This article deals with Church property in the first six centuries and the doctrine on property among early Christian authors.

Church Property before Constantine. The question of Church property does not seem to have arisen in the Christian communities before the middle or end of the 2d century. Confusion with the Jews, as Suetonius attests (Claudius 25), apparently permitted the first Christians to benefit from the juridical statute that the Jewish community had enjoyed since Caesar (Josephus, Ant. Jud. 14.25).

Religious gatherings in private houses and burial in cemeteries belonging to private families, such as the catacombs of Priscilla or Domitilla in Rome, made it possible for a community to function without property. Even though it was not under continual persecution, the Church was not recognized by the government and had no legal existence. This was a precarious regimen since a proprietor could refuse to offer hospitality to religious services; and in the cemeteries, Christians and pagans were buried side by side, as the excavations under Saint Peter's in the vatican attest.

A deposit of funds did exist, however, in the 2d century. During the reign of Antoninus (138–61), marcion gave 200,000 sesterces to the Church of Rome (Tert., De praescrip. 30) and Tertullian spoke of a collection, augmented by monthly contributions and used for charitable purposes (Apol. 39.5). Literary testimony, epigraphy, and archeology prove that after the end of the 2d century, cemeteries and churches were no longer the property of private individuals. In 198 Pope zephyrinus confided the administration of a cemetery to the deacon Callistus, who seems to have functioned as the agent of the community (corpus ). In the course of the 3d century this property (belonging to a group not legally recognized) existed at least in fact.

The suspect testimony of the Historia Augusta (Vita Alex. Sev. 49.6) reports a debate before the emperor between the Christians and the wine merchants of Rome concerning the use of a locus publicus between 222 and 235. Of more certain value is the testimony of eusebius of caesarea concerning the granting to the Christians places for religious worship by the Emperor Gallienus (Ecclesiastical History 7.13). The text adds that they were enabled to take possession of their cemeteries in 260 and that a decision given by Aurelia (270) in favor of the Christians of Antioch against the heretical Bishop paul of samosata gave the property of the house of the Church to the bishop who was in epistolary relation with the bishops of Rome and Italy (Ecclesiastical History 7.30). Excavations and inscriptions in Rome, Africa, and Asia as well as papyri from the end of the 3d and beginning of the 4th century name churches and funerary monuments that imply a form of property holding. The restitutions of property to the Christians under Galerius in 305 (Ecclesiastical History 8.2, 9.10), by Maximian (ibid. 9.10.11), and finally by Constantine I and Licinius in 313 (ibid. 10.5.9–12; Lactantius, De mort. pers. 47.7–9) point to an even earlier recognized possession.

The confusion of Christians with the Jews could not have endured very long. But the use by the Christian communities of a juridical form of association proper to a lower class (collegia tenuiorum ), as suggested by G. de Rossi and accepted by G. Monti, although not inconceivable, raises too many difficulties, as has been pointed out by L. Duchesne and others. Nor is there proof for a kind of "corporate" holding, or for the legal existence of a corpus (or juridically recognized body), since the thesis of a recognition by the pagan state making the community licit is hard to accept. Finally, there is no evidence for maintaining, with G. Bovini, that from the beginning of the 2d century, churches had a civilly recognized patrimonial capacity.

The development of Christianity and the support it received from at least the 3d century on, in the entourage of certain emperors, explain the tolerance of actual appropriation, but an appropriation that was necessarily precarious and without juridical title. According to whether the policy, locally or temporarily, was tolerance or persecution, the Christians could have held their landed property, disposed of it, been deprived of it, or obtained restitution for it.

In any case, it is certain that the title holder of these possessions was not the community of the universal Church. It was the local community, directed by its bishop, that used the churches and cemeteries. Eusebius makes this clear with many instances; and the restitution ordered by Constantine and Licinius confirms it: the goods are rendered ad jus corporis eorum id est ecclesiarum (Lactantius, De mort. persec. 48).

Christian Community as Proprietor. The right of the Christian communities to be proprietors of immobile property cannot be doubted after the Edict of milan. In 321 Constantine authorized the donation of property to the Church (Corpus iuris civilis, Codex Iustinianus, ed. P. Krueger, 1.2.1), and he himself proved generous. His donation of the Lateran property to the bishop of Rome is the most celebrated manifestation of his great generosity.

However, the actual juridical condition of this property is still not known with precision: was it the property of the local community considered as a moral person? Of the bishop, who in some fashion "incarnated" it? The attribution of the property to God or to a saint? Or a patrimony given for a pious cause or charitable foundation? There are as many solutions as there are texts offered in proof; but none of the solutions is without difficulty. A. Steinwenter believes in an evolution leading from the ecclesiastical corporation under Constantine to an ecclesiastical institution under Justinian. The form of such a development appears perhaps in the law of Justinian. Before that, ecclesiastical goods were doubtless considered the property of the local church under the bishop, whose development, administration, and privileges are discussed by J. Gaudemet in L'Église dans l'empire romain (Paris 1958) 299–315.

Patristic Doctrine on Property. If the exigencies of cult and charity required ecclesiastical property, the Christian teaching was also occupied with formulating certain principles in regard to the right of private property, its purpose, and its legitimacy. Certain decisions were gathered in canonical collections and are embodied in the Decree of Gratian (Corpus iuris canonici, ed. E. Friedburg, D.47, c. 8; c. 14.q.4.c.11). Taken out of context, they have given rise to contestable interpretations of patristic thought. Very often they are not principles but counsels given in particular cases and from which one cannot generalize without abusing their meaning.

Economic and Social Situation. The economic and social situation of the later empire made it legitimate for the moralists to intervene. Wars, invasions, and local revolts aggravated the misery of many, while the masters of the great landed properties already prefigured the medieval lords. But the Christian authors are rare who made much of this political crisis. lactantius denounced the economic troubles of his times (Div. inst. 5, 6). His ideal was that of the golden age of the pagan poets. He desired a fraternity conformable to the gospel, but had no thought of the introduction of a communism, which he considered dangerous, impossible, and unjust (ibid. 3, 21; Epitome 38).

salvian also underlined the social disequilibrium (De gub. Dei 3). But he neglected the other causes, such as the invasions and the inefficacy of political institutions. If he saw in a man's fortune the occasion for numerous sins, it was the bad use of riches that he condemned, not riches themselves (Ad eccl. 1.7.35).

With Saint Ambrose it was the same (De Nabuthae ). He criticized the attachment of his contemporaries to their riches (De Off. 2.21). Councils, such as Toledo I (c.11) denounced the abuses of the powerful and invited the bishops to excommunicate them if they did not amend. The council appealed to the emperor to protect the poor against the rich (Codex eccl. Afric. c. 75). In regard to riches, patristic doctrine oscillates between the evangelical counsel of renouncement and the Roman regimen of private property. It did not solve the conflict by a prescription of absolute poverty, of perfect equality, or of holding riches in common. But it preached the disdain of riches and the necessity of almsgiving.

In patristic writings, private property was not considered the basic form that the use of earthly goods should take, for God had created these goods for the use of all. Hence one should not be an egoist in the employment of his private goods, but should use them generously in succoring the less favored. More than the proprietor of riches he has not created; man is the custodian (custos ) or the steward (minister ) of them. He should act as custodian and not as absolute master.

Teaching of the Eastern Fathers. In the East, Fathers such as basil of Caesarea, gregory of nazianzus, and gregory of nyssa evoked an ideal state of absolute equality and of holding goods in common. But while they condemned usury, they did not reject private property. It is in detachment from riches, disdain toward that which so often causes sin, and generosity toward the unfortunate that they found a conciliation between the egalitarian ideal and the juridical regimen of their times, which they had no intention of overthrowing. But as Saint john chrysostom made clear, man owns nothing of his own (In Ep. 1 ad Cor. hom. 10.2; Patrologia Graeca, ed. J.P. Migne, 61:84). God alone is the true proprietor of all goods.

According to S. Giet, the Greek Fathers, and in particular Basil, had distinguished between the common destination and the private ownership of goods (Hom. in illud Lucae: Destruam 7; Patrologia Graeca 31:2768).

But this doctrine, for lack of a good knowledge of Greek, was misunderstood in the West. Ambrose of Milan and Rufinus of Aquileia transformed this condemnation of exclusive use into a reprobation of private property. Thus is explained the famous interjection of Ambrose: usurpatio jus fecit privatum, usurpation gave rise to private right (De off. 1.28.133). If the Fathers evoked a primitive state before the fall in which private property was unknown (ibid. 1.28.132), thus confusing Paradise and the golden age of the pagans, they did not condemn the established order or the Roman right of property. In any case, a community of goods does not belong to sinful man. augustine proposed community of goods to the priests of Hippo without being able to impose it upon them.

The essential in the patristic attitude is the determination of the limits and the purpose for property. Man has a relative proprietorship, since God is the sole and true master of goods. Man is only the custodian of property. He may use what is necessary for his well being, but he should dispense the surplus to those who are in need (Augustine, Sermo 61.11–12; Leo, Serm. 6.11.1; 18.3; 20;49.6; 85.1, etc.).

Bibliography: b. biondi, Il diritto romano cristiano, 3 v. (Milan 1952–54) 3:297–324. g. bovini, La proprietà ecclesiastica… in età precostantiniana (Milan 1948). e. f. bruck, Kirchenväter und soziales Erbrecht (Berlin 1956). s. calafato, La proprietà privata in S. Ambrogio (Turin 1958). s. giet, "La Doctrine de l'appropriation des biens chez quelques-uns des Pères," Recherches de science religieuse 35 (1948) 55–91. j. gaudemet, L'Église dans l'Empire romain (Paris 1958) 299–315. h. r. hagemann, "Die rechtliche Stellung der christlichen Wohltätigkeiten," Revue internationale des droits de l'antiquité 3 (1958) 265–83; Die Stellung der piae causae nach dem justinianischen Rechte (Basel 1953). i. seipel, Die wirtschaftsethischen Lehren der Kirchenväter (Theol. Studien der Görresgesellschaft 18; Vienna 1907). g. krÜger, Die Rechtsstellung der vorkonstantinischen Kirchen (Stuttgart 1935). g. m. monti, "I Collegia tenuiorum e la condizione guiridica della proprietà ecclesiastica nei primi tre secoli del cristianesimo," Studi in onore di Salvatore Riccobono, 4 v. (Palermo 1936) 3:71–95. j. r. palanque, Saint Ambroise et l'Empire romain (Paris 1933). ambrose, De Nabuthae, ed. and tr. m. r. p. mcguire (Catholic University of America, Patristic Studies 15; (Washington 1927). a. steinwenter, "Aus dem kirchlichen Vermögensrechte der Papyri," Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung 75 (1958) 1–34. f. de visscher, "Le Régime juridique des plus anciens cimetières chrétiens à Rome," Analecta Bollandiana 69 (1951) 39–54; Le Droit des tombeaux romains (Milan 1963).

[j. gaudemet]