John Chrysostom
Do you see how, together with the grace of God, they were also distinguished by their own virtues? Everywhere one must observe that, together with God's grace, they showed their own virtues, as Peter also said: "Silver and gold I do not have" (Acts 3:6). What he said above, in the words "all who believed were together" (Acts 2:44), he expresses again here: "the multitude of those who believed had one heart and one soul." After saying that they were heard, he then speaks also of their virtue, since he is about to begin the account of Sapphira and Ananias. Therefore, wishing to show their transgression, he first speaks of the virtue of the others. But tell me: did love beget non-possession, or did non-possession beget love?
Read more (394 words)
It seems to me that love begot non-possession, and this strengthened love still more. Listen, then, to what the writer says: all "had one heart and one soul." Behold, heart and soul are one. Do you see how great the power of this virtue, the sharing of possessions, is, if it was needed even there? Indeed, it is the cause of blessings. He mentions it here a second time, instilling non-acquisitiveness in all. Above he said, "no one called anything of his possessions his own." Here he says, "there was no one among them who lacked anything" (Acts 4:34). That this came not only from signs, but also from their own will, Sapphira and Ananias show. "And no one called anything of his possessions his own, but they had all things in common." When the root of evils, I mean love of money, had been torn out, all blessings abounded. They were closely united with one another, since nothing divided them. That harsh expression, "mine and yours," which has produced countless wars in the inhabited world, was banished from that holy Church. They lived on earth as angels in heaven. The poor did not envy the rich, for there were no rich. The rich did not despise the poor, for there were no poor. "But they had all things in common; and no one called anything of his possessions his own." It was not then as it is now. Now those who possess property give to the poor. Then it was not so. They renounced ownership of their own wealth, laid it before all, and mingled it with the common property. Even those who had formerly been rich were no longer distinguishable. Thus, if any pride can arise from contempt for riches, it too was completely destroyed. Among them there was equality in everything, and all wealth was mingled together. Their piety may be seen not only from this, but also from the very manner in which they handed over their property. "There was," he says, "one heart and one soul." This does not mean that they all had only one soul. How could there be one soul in different bodies? Rather, it shows us their firm concord. "Among the multitude of those who believed there was one heart and one soul." Though the faithful were divided in body, they were one in mind.