and specially encourages. It is true, for example, of purity, which has always been reckoned, and rightly so, a peculiarly Christian grace. Indeed, Christianity would not be suited to man, if it did not find something that corresponds with itself in the instincts of man's moral nature and the principles of his reason. Hence, it is natural that we should find the same moral ideals more or less clearly, or obscurely, indicated in other religious and philosophic systems. The claim of Christianity is, that it holds diverse principles in juster balance, and stimulates to every form of good with infinitely more powerful motives.

Even if Christianity had relation to social questions, only by virtue of the prominence which it gives to the general duty of loving our neighbour, the importance of calling in the aid of its influence with a view to their happy solution would be incalculable. But, beyond this, there seems to be much in the spirit of Christianity, as we may gather it from the express language of the New Testament, which has a direct bearing on the very movement now beginning before our eyes. The direction of that movement is towards a truer adjustment of the social and the individual principles in our corporate life, with the aim more especially of securing a more equal distribution of wealth. I must forbear now to discuss this movement in its political and economic aspects. Let me, however, remark in passing, that 'an extension of the social principle does not necessarily involve the curtailing of the total amount of individual liberty enjoyed. It may diminish the power of some to act with independence; but the setting free of others may more than compensate for this. Now, Christianity has developed the individuality of men, through the value it has placed upon the individual soul, and the emphasis which it has laid upon the truth that man is ultimately responsible to God alone. In this way it has furthered the cause of freedom. But it cannot be denied that its spirit is also in the highest degree favourable to the realization of the sacredness of all social bonds.

Again, the character of its teaching on wealth is surely such as to make us regard the equalization of it, so far as this can be brought about by sound methods, as a true object of aspiration.

The end to be sought in giving is, according to St. Paul, to produce equality: :

"I say not this that others may be eased, and ye distressed; but by equality; your abundance being a supply at this present time for their want, that their abundance also may become a supply for your want; that there may be equality as it is written, He that gathered much had nothing over; and he that gathered little had no lack."1

A standard of Christian giving is here set before us, which does, indeed, put to shame that prevailing amongst us. It is not, however, to this, but, as I have said, to the end in view, that I desire to draw attention. This applies as truly to the distribution of wealth in the community through social arrangements. And it is difficult to believe that the Christian feeling which led the apostle to write such words with reference to the circumstances of the little bodies of Christians and their individual members, would not also have led him to look with warm sympathy upon whatever tended towards still wider extensions of material advantages.

It

But the Christian character of this aim does not rest on single texts. Christianity is not ascetic in the Manichean sense. does not treat the body as a mere clog to the soul. It holds every creature of God to be good. Wealth, then, has its use. Hence it is desirable that all should have enough of it to provide for health and decent life, and to secure at least some leisure for higher interests. But, on the other hand, the judgment of the Lord Himself and of His apostles undoubtedly is that much wealth is a snare. At the best it involves anxious responsibility. The Christian may faithfully discharge this responsibility, and may find his reward in his power of doing good. But he ought to be glad, rather than otherwise, if he can be relieved of his task in any satisfactory way. It is unnecessary to remark how strangely at variance all this is with the thoughts about property and its uses which are common among professing Christians. But for the sake of emphasis I may recall a saying of the same apostle from whom I have already quoted. I refer to the only motive for earning wages which he acknowledges, beyond that

12 Cor. viii. 13-15.

of obtaining honestly the means of livelihood; and the same would apply with even greater force to the making of profit :

"Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing that is good, that he may have whereof to give to him that hath need."1

If the conscience of the Church at large needs awakening and enlightening on these points, and if that would affect the view men take of the social questions that are becoming more and more pressing and their action in respect to them, have the clergy, as religious teachers, no duty in the matter? Undoubtedly their chief function should be to inspire right principles, and train a right temper of mind. And these lie deeper, and as a motive-force are far more powerful, than any specific social theories and schemes. But they cannot be inculcated in such a way as to come home to men's minds and to place their duty in a clear light, without some reference to actual social problems, and the solutions of them that are proposed. And while the influence of Christianity which they ought to bring to bear will, as it seems to me, work on the side of the forces which make for social change, it will also tend to secure that the change shall be effected with as little disturbance as possible of that harmony of classes for which Dr. Sanday is so justly anxious. For on the one hand it will, as I have already implied, teach the poorer not to form exaggerated ideas of the good to be gained by the improvement of purely material conditions, as they are naturally somewhat prone to do; and on the other, it should prepare the richer gladly to surrender the advantages of their own class, for the greater common good, hard though this is for human pride and love of power as well as love of possessions.

But is not all such teaching, it may be asked, too unearthly? Can such principles contend with the rough forces that are at work in the world, and that are shaping the course of human development? The answer depends on the extent to which it is true that human society has a moral basis, and the possibility of still further moralizing the relations of men. If the view of

1 Eph. iv. 28.

the evolution of human society given, for example, in the passage which I quoted from Dr. Sanday, were in any sense an adequate one, our hopes would have to be of a restricted character indeed. He judges of the evolution only by that struggle for existence and survival of the fittest which are, it may be, the forces that strike us most on a survey of the past. He refuses to interpret the purpose of Creation by the light of the Incarnation. But it is obvious to reply that the true principle of an evolution must be sought in the end, not in the beginning; and that, at any point in its course, forces which before had small effect may grow in importance and may even become the dominant ones.

Tennyson has given us, as we believe, a truer picture, in that noble poem, "The Making of Man," in his last volume. Only let the Incarnation be introduced as the great turning-point in that sketch of man's history, and the consummation, which is received with universal hallelujahs, be understood to be that man has at length been fashioned after the image of the Son of God, and we have the view which the New Testament seems itself to indicate, and which had, one imagined, become in recent years familiar in all thoughtful Theology.

It is ours, in the faith and strength of the Incarnation, to make its grace and truth prevail in every department of human life. It is true that, according to the teaching of Holy Scripture, the regeneration of human society is not destined to be completed before that epoch which Scripture marks as the Second Advent. Christ Himself, it would seem, will intervene even before the Last Judgment, and make His Presence felt with new power during the last stages of the work, hastening it on, “cutting it short in righteousness." Nevertheless we cannot help believing that any means through which, by processes however slow and gradual, “the Kingdom" is being brought amongst us will be found to have had their part in the attainment of the final result. V. H. STANTON.

NOTES AND MEMORANDA.

THE QUESTION OF POPULATION. (I.)-The two interesting articles which Mr. Arthur Lyttelton has contributed to this Review are, I hope, an indication that the Christian Social Union does not mean to shirk one of the most pressing and difficult questions connected with social reform. The reluctance of most Radicals and Socialists to admit the danger of over-population is easily intelligible. Believing that distress among the masses is mainly due to defective social arrangements, they wish to concentrate attention on these abuses, and are impatient when other causes of evil are suggested. It is unfortunate that this natural prejudice has prevented Socialists in particular from giving due attention to a problem which seems to many to be the most dangerous stumbling-block in their path. When we ask, (1) How, under Socialism, will this country keep its commercial supremacy, which was built up by the mill-owners in the evil days before the factory legislation, and which even now is with difficulty maintained?—(2) How, if our foreign trade is lost, can forty millions of people be supported on English soil? (3) What checks, other than famine, will there be on a further unlimited increase, when the necessaries of life are secured to all? these questions deserve an answer, and should not be lightly brushed away, as they usually are by Socialistic writers. The treatment of the Population Question by Henry George is beneath contempt, and hardly any of the acknowledged leaders of Socialism grapple fairly with the subject. Mr. Ritchie indeed (Darwinism and Politics, pp. 92-100) states the problem with his accustomed candour and lucidity; but his solution cannot be called satisfactory. He wishes to defer the consideration of it till women have the franchise ! One may respectfully doubt whether any question of economics will be much advanced by the accession of women to the councils of the nation; but as to this particular question, I suspect that a parliament of women would be much more likely to re-enact the Lex Papia Poppea than to advocate "a rational adaptation of means to ends on this point. Mr. Ritchie hopes that the Socialistic woman will (for some unexplained reason) have only two children; and this, though he rejects Spencer's theory (which indeed is quite unproved) that