fortunately, a few lines higher up, Tertullian had described how the Church was supported, wherein he showed most clearly that private property was still recognised and practised:  ’Though we have our treasure-chest, it is not made up of purchase-money, as of a religion that has its price.  On the monthly collection day, if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but only if he has pleasure, and only if he be able; all is voluntary.’  This point is well put by Bergier:[4] ’Towards the end of the first century St. Barnabas; in the second, St. Justin and St. Lucian; in the third, St. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, St. Cyprian; in the fourth, Arnobius and Lactantius, say that among the Christians all goods are common; there was then certainly no question of a communism of goods taken in the strict sense.’

[Footnote 1:  Dissert. ad Hist.  Eccles., vol. ii. p. 1.]

[Footnote 2:  ‘The Political Theory of the Ante-Nicene Fathers,’ Economic Review, vol. ix.]

[Footnote 3:  Apol. 39.]

[Footnote 4:  Dictionnaire de Theologie, Paris, 1829, tit.  ‘Communaute.’]

It is therefore doubtful if the Church at Jerusalem, as described in the Acts, practised communism at all, as apart from great liberality and benevolence.  Assuming, however, that the Acts should be interpreted in their strict literal sense, let us see to what the so-called communism amounted.

In the first place, it is plain from Acts iv. 32 that the communism was one of use, not of ownership.  It was not until the individual owner had sold his goods and placed the proceeds in the common fund that any question of communism arose.  ’Whiles it remained was it not thine own,’ said St. Peter, rebuking Ananias, ’and after it was sold was it not in thine own power?’[1] This distinction is particularly important in view of the fact that it is precisely that insisted on by St. Thomas Aquinas.  There is no reason to suppose that the community of use practised at Jerusalem was in any way different from that advocated by Aquinas—­namely, ’the possession by a man of external things, not as his own, but in common, so that, to wit, he is ready to communicate them to others in their need.’

[Footnote 1:  Roscher, Political Economy (Eng. trans.), vol. i. p. 246; Catholic Encyclopaedia, tit.  ‘Communism.’]

In the next place, we must observe that the communism described in the Acts was purely voluntary.  This is quite obvious from the relation in the fifth chapter of the incident of Ananias and Sapphira.  There is no indication that the abandonment of one’s possessory rights was preached by the Apostles.  Indeed, it would be difficult to understand why they should have done so, when Christ Himself had remained silent on the subject.  Far from advocating communism, the Founder of Christianity had urged the practice of many virtues for which the possession of private property was essential.  ’What Christ recommended,’