still retaining these their just and proper scruples. In order to prevent excess of confusion, they have invented the expression "Christian Socialism," which is Socialism with reservations and saving clauses. The term Socialist thus comes merely to mean a public spirited person willing to support such political courses as appeal to him individually as desirable. In this vague and practically undefined use of the word, one might even say that the Individualist who "seeks primarily the satisfaction of the wants of each one in the hope that the pursuit of private interests will in the end secure public welfare," is himself a Socialist. How much safer and wiser would it be for Christian Reformers to avoid all this dangerous ambiguity, and set forth in quest of some new appellation which shall be confused neither with Individualism or Socialism. Some term which shall not be employed to indicate some particular party or course of legislation, but which shall point rather to a particular philosophy, or rather religious belief, underlying the actions of all those people, whatever their political views, who believe in Personality and Liberty and Right.

CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM AND THE
STATE

The adjective connected with the terms Socialist and Socialism is the word "Socialistic," and not the adjective "Social." A person may be "social” in his domestic life, in his amusements, in his religion, or in his politics, and yet not be "socialistic" at any point. It is to be noticed that when ordinary social reformers

describe themselves as Socialists and their politics as Socialism, there is sometimes an arrière pensée in the matter, to wit—a certain desire to have their political measures pulled through by the Socialists, and also a desire to float in on what they regard as the rising tide; so that in the day of destruction and inundation the property and status of, e.g., the Church, or of this or that sect, or of certain colleges, or of whatever it may be, may be preserved. However worthy may be the aim of such persons, it is open to question whether their attitude is either judicious or wholly moral. However, though they tend to increase they are still few in number; and the fact remains that, as already stated, many people who call themselves Socialists do so simply because they have no better term; disliking, as they very properly do, the negative term Individualist. The distinction between the qualifying terms "social" on the one hand, and "socialistic" or "socialist" on the other, has been admirably maintained by the Christian Social Union, which, when selecting a title for itself, definitely repudiated the term "socialistic" or "socialist." This is a Society whose members undertake to concern themselves in social wellbeing, subject to the direction and restriction of the Christian Religion as that is set forth in the doctrines of the Anglican Church. The members may be of any shade of Anglican opinion, and may belong to any political party or to none at all. They may act in their individual capacity, performing useful public or private functions, including the study of social questions; and when on any particular matter there is sufficient agreement among them, the Society may take corporate action, or some Branch may do so. So

that the word "social" has here a very wide significance. Thus, e.g., a person conducting a Sunday school, or instructing the poor how to live more comfortably at less expense, are promoting social welfare and social reform no less than those who focus their attention on legislation and politics. But there is, nevertheless, a marked tendency among Christian Reformers in general, and in this Society (which we have taken as typical) in particular, to overestimate the political side of social welfare and reform, and to regard the State and the Law as instruments which should be employed for the direct and immediate enforcement-not indeed of Christian dogma-but of ethics in general and Christian ethics in particular. So great are the mechanical forces wielded by the State, and so great is the belief of persons who have been influenced by materialism in those forces, that social reform is coming to mean exclusively political or legislative reform. It seems so much easier and swifter to impose upon the people by coercive law that which -to have any Christian or ethical value at all—must in reality be spontaneous and the result of individual moral growth, than patiently to abide the slow consummation of that growth.

That Christianity should claim and utilise all true human forces and energies, including therefore the Law, in the interests of its own furtherance is surely indisputable. But everything must be used in its own proper manner, and this manner is prescribed by the nature of the force and the nature of Man. The first duty of the Reformer, therefore, is to ascertain the nature of the particular contribution which any particular force or energy is capable of yielding towards

the furtherance of the spiritual growth of Men.

As has been already pointed out, the State, owing to the nature of its methods-(to wit, universal, uniform, and coercive laws, originating often, as is inevitable, in political exigency and party intrigue)-is extremely limited in its direct contribution to the ethical and religious elevation of the people. Nor is the State singular in being thus limited. All worthy energies and institutions contribute to the advancement of the Kingdom of Heaven, but they do so along certain definite lines. The State, e.g., provides for the freedom and security of the Person, and so far, therefore, of Personality. It provides, that is, the soil in which virtue and religion may flourish provided other forces are duly energising. We may call that soil Political or Civic or Legal Justice. Perhaps the most conspicuous instance of Christian Socialists desiring to misuse the powers of the State in what they suppose to be the interest of Christianity, is to be found in an effort now being made by them to introduce a state of things which they describe as Christian Communism, and which it is alleged is analogous to a Communism which prevailed under peculiar circumstances for a brief period in the Early Church. It is claimed that Communism stands for a Christian ideal, and that therefore the State should compel all citizens to be Communists, whether they gain or lose by it, and whether they are Christian, or indifferent, or even intensely anti-Christian, as are a few of the opponents of Communists, and significantly enough most of their supporters.

If this attack on Liberty and Justice is not an abuse of the powers of the State, then surely there can be no such abuse at all. The State alone of human institu

tions is to be regarded as infallible-the God of the political Socialist. It is not intended at this point to enter upon the general question of private property, nor to regard it in any particular state or form, but only to consider it as it is attacked in the abstract by specifically Christian Socialist arguments.

CHRISTIAN "SOCIALISTS" AND POLITICAL COMMUNISM

If we accept the Jewish law against theft-a law common to most other comparatively advanced nations -as a moral law, then the morality of private ownership in the abstract is established.

Now, it may be urged by Socialists that this law was not a moral law, any more than our law that under certain conditions the citizen must drive to the left side; that both stand for public conveniences and nothing more; that the law against theft was merely an expression of the fact that private property was calculated to be for the Good of the Whole for the time being, and was maintained on these speculative grounds only; that this particular law against theft was selected at haphazard as typical of law and order in general, and that its real meaning is that citizens are to obey the laws and byelaws of their State whatever those laws may be.

The obvious reply to this kind of argument is that if it is applied to one commandment it must be applied equally to the rest of the decalogue. We should then have a very pure Socialism indeed, but it would hardly