[Footnote 1:  See, e.g., Nitti, Catholic Socialism, p. 71.  ’Thus, then, according to Nitti, the Christian Church has been guilty of the meanest, most selfish, and most corrupt utilitarianism in her attitude towards the question of wealth and property.  She was communistic when she had nothing.  She blessed poverty in order to fill her own coffers.  And when the coffers were full she took rank among the owners of land and houses, she became zealous in the interests of property, and proclaimed that its origin was divine’ (’The Fathers of the Church and Socialism,’ by Dr. Hogan, Irish Ecclesiastical Record, vol. xxv. p. 226).]

[Footnote 2:  ‘Christian Political Economy,’ Dublin Review, N.S., vol. vi. p. 356]

The alleged communism of the first Christians is based on a few verses of the Acts of the Apostles describing the condition of the Church of Jerusalem.  ’And they that believed were together and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.’[1] ’And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul:  neither said any of them that aught of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.  Neither was there any amongst them that lacked:  for as many as were possessors of land or houses sold them, and brought the price of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles’ feet:  and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.’[2]

[Footnote 1:  ii. 44-45.]

[Footnote 2:  iv. 32, 34, 35.]

It is by no means clear whether the state of things here depicted really amounted to communism in the strict sense.  Several of the most enlightened students of the Bible have come to the conclusion that the verses quoted simply express in a striking way the great liberality and benevolence which prevailed among the Christian fraternity at Jerusalem.  This view was strongly asserted by Mosheim,[1] and is held by Dr. Carlyle.  ’A more careful examination of the passages in the Acts,’ says the latter,[2] ’show clearly enough that this was no systematic division of property, but that the charitable instinct of the infant Church was so great that those who were in want were completely supported by those who were more prosperous....  Still there was no systematic communism, no theory of the necessity of it.’  Colour is lent to this interpretation by the fact that similar words and phrases were used to emphasise the prevalence of charity and benevolence in later communities of Christians, amongst whom, as we know from other sources, the right of private property was fully admitted.  Thus Tertullian wrote:[3] ’One in mind and soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another.  All things are common among us but our wives.’  This passage, if it were taken alone, would be quite as strong and unambiguous as those from the Acts; but