was never preached by Christ, although it was practised under His very eyes by the Essenes. This absolute silence is equivalent to an implicit condemnation.'[3] [Footnote 1: _Histoire du Communisme_, p. 39.] [Footnote 2: Matt. v. 17.] [Footnote 3: Sudre, _op. cit._, p. 44. On the Essenes see 'Historic Phases of Socialism,' by Dr. Hogan, _Irish Ecclesiastical Record_, vol. xxv. p. 334. Even Huet discounts the importance of this instance of communism, _Le Règne social du Christianisme_, p. 38.] Nor was communism preached as part of Christ's doctrine as taught by the Apostles. In Paul's epistles there is no direction to the congregations addressed that they should abandon their private property; on the contrary, the continued existence of such rights is expressly recognised and approved in his appeals for funds for the Church at Jerusalem.[1] Can it be that, as Roscher says,[2] the experiment in communism had produced a chronic state of poverty in the Church at Jerusalem? Certain it is the experiment was never repeated in any of the other apostolic congregations. The communism at Jerusalem, if it ever existed at all, not only failed to spread to other Churches, but failed to continue at Jerusalem itself. It is universally admitted by competent students of the question that the phenomenon was but temporary and transitory.[3] [Footnote 1: _e.g._ Rom. xv. 26, 1 Cor. xvi. 1.] [Footnote 2: _Political Economy_, vol. i. p. 246.] [Footnote 3: Sudre, _op. cit._; Salvador, _Jésus-Christ et sa Doctrine_, vol. ii. p. 221. See More's _Utopia_.] The utterances of the Fathers of the Church on property are scattered and disconnected. Nevertheless, there is sufficient cohesion in them to enable us to form an opinion of their teaching on the subject. It has, as we have said, frequently been asserted that they favoured a system of communism, and disapproved of private ownership. The supporters of this view base their arguments on a number of isolated texts, taken out of their context, and not interpreted with any regard to the circumstances in which they were written. 'The mistake,' as Devas says,[1] 'of representing the early Christian Fathers of the Church as rank socialists is frequently made by those who are friendly to modern socialism; the reason for it is that either they have taken passages of orthodox writers apart from their context, and without due regard to the circumstances in which they were written, and the meaning they would have conveyed to their hearers; or else, by a grosser blunder, the perversions of heretics are set forth as the doctrine of the Church, and a sad case arises of mistaken identity.' A careful study of the patristic texts bearing on the subject leads one to the conclusion that Mr. Devas's view is without doubt the correct one.[2] [Footnote 1: _Dublin Review_, Jan. 1898.]