be Christian Socialism, however that expression be interpreted.

Another slightly different way of stating this quasicommunist argument is to the effect, that the law here under consideration was intended to prevent individuals from stealing private property, but that it does not preclude the State from taking it. In other words, the individual's right to private property (as indeed, therefore, any other right) has its origin in the will of the State. That is to say the State, or ruling section of the people, can grant or create a Right, or abolish a Right. That, as we have seen, is not the case. A Right is a moral claim made by Persons in virtue of their Personality, and cannot be made or destroyed by the State; it can only be recognised and enforced, or ignored and suppressed. But if we regard the Freedom of the Person to get and to keep property, and to make contracts, as an essential part of that Liberty inherent in the idea of Personality, no such ability on the part of the State can be allowed. That the State has the moral power to take private property for the purposes of necessary taxation is of course indisputable; but it has not the power to inaugurate taxation merely for the purpose of confiscation. Nor has it the moral power to so contrive its laws or so adjust its taxation. that directly or indirectly the Right or Freedom to get property is partially or wholly stultified. The Eighth Commandment, in short (at any rate from a Christian point of view), stands for an a priori moral Right or Freedom inherent in the Person.

A claim does not become a Right simply because it is authorised by the State. There is thus a certain section of the people, well "voiced" by demagogues,

who assert that assistance should not be given them in the form of charity, but that they should "claim" all that they desire as a “Right," and obtain it through the rates. But it does not follow because money has been obtained by legal and coercive means that therefore the recipients have any more moral Right to such money than they had before. In Political or Legal Communism, as opposed to Christian Communism, those who will lose by a Communistic régime (as, e.g., people with means or ability) are to be coerced by those who will gain. All kinds of base motives will be (and are being) appealed to for Communistic endsas envy, avarice, hedonism, idleness; while promises of the abolition of the Family, the Nation, and Religion are telling effectively. It is quite clear that Christian Communism has but little in common with Political or Secular Communism. Under the former system all were free; under the latter one half of the people claim as a "Right" not only to possess the existing goods of the other half, but to prevent them enjoying the produce of their own abilities in the future.

Christian Communism unquestionably presupposes the Right of the individual to get and to keep.

It is significant in this connection to observe that when St Peter, by the word of his mouth, caused the death of Ananias and his wife, it was not because these persons had withheld part of their property from the common fund. "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own ?" was the Apostle's protest.

This primitive little community of the early Christians was untouched by materialism. The spirit was everything; the money per se nothing. The swift, brief tragedy of Ananias had its origin and consumma

tion-not in the hedonism, greed, or envy of the other members of the Community; nor yet in speculations as to the Good of the Whole or of the Greatest Number; but in his own vanity and hypocrisy.

It is curious to note how uniformly the abstract right of the individual to possess private property is recognised in the New Testament. Whenever there is any question relative to the distribution of wealth, the appeal is invariably made to those who possess the wealth, and not to those to whom it is to be given; and it is there stated that those who dispensed their wealth for the benefit of the less wealthy were blessed in a sense in which the recipients were not. There is in the New Testament no suggestion that a person may not possess private property if he wishes to do so. The counsel to the rich young man to sell all that he had and to give to the poor-while it points to a danger often dwelt on in the New Testament-is not to be regarded as a Law binding upon all; but is, as it were, a prescription to meet the special moral condition of the young man; and still less is this counsel to be regarded as an incentive to the poorer to capture the possessions of the richer on the ground that the latter, though entitled to them, would be morally better without them. The duty to "give" is, however, much insisted upon; and, indeed, St Paul urges his followers to acquire private property, not merely in order that they might be individually independent, as he himself always strove to be, but that they might be able to perform the duty and enjoy the privilege of "giving."

Now, unless the right to possess private property is compatible with Christianity, "giving" could not be

regarded as a virtuous work or work of "charity," any more than we could describe as charitable a thief, who practised giving away the goods that he had stolen. It may, indeed, be contended by some that even Slavery itself is not condemned in the New Testament, but that in the Divine Wisdom the abolition of that institution was left to a time when the extended application of Christian principles and the growth of Christian casuistry should render its immortality evident; and that this same argument applies to the possession of private property. In answer to this, it must first be noticed that Christian opinion did not, as a matter of history, oppose slavery because it stood for a mode of private property, but because it stood for an immoral mode; implying therefore the existence of a private ownership which is moral. Secondly, the grounds on which Christian opinion proclaimed slavery as immoral are precisely the grounds on which the abstract right to private property is based; viz., the sanctity of the individual Person, and the moral claim which Personality makes to perfect Liberty-a liberty which of course involves the freedom to make, to keep and to contract, without which freedom there is no civic Liberty.

The appeal, therefore, is always to those who have more, that they should "give," and never to those who have less that they should "take"; as would have been the case had the possession of private property been itself wrongful-and herein lies a great gulf between true Christian and Political Communism.1

1 That the State may, in the interests of Liberty and so of property itself, prohibit certain forms of private property or certain methods of obtaining it, is not to be questioned; but that is an entirely different matter-such action having about it nothing Communistic or confiscatory.

In conclusion it may be said that the difference between Political and Christian Communism is primarily one of motive. The original Christian Community was a small body and probably largely homogeneous, i.e. there were presumably no very great differences in wealth, and there were no differences in religious and ethical belief. They "were of one heart and of one soul." And so when we read that none of the Community said "that ought of the things which he possessed was his own," we are at liberty to believe that none of them adopted this attitude with any ulterior motive, such as a desire to benefit themselves, or their class, at the expense of the property, ability, or liberty of others; but that they had within them the desire to give rather than to receive.

When Christian Socialists speak of Political Communism, they confine themselves to the external form, and ignore the spirit or motive of the thing. They are then able to pretend that Christianity has so leavened the masses, that in some sense or another we are rapidly attaining a state of things which one might call the Community of Saints; and that all that is required is a little more legislation, a little more coercive force and behold the miracle is complete. But Christian Communism is more than a question of form. Were this otherwise, brigands and pirates-many of whom used to lead a communistic life-would so far as they individually called nothing their own, not only be Christians, but Christians of an advanced type, ¿e. as regards their ethics. But as people may in their individual capacity violate the rights of others, so they may combine together in an organisation, and carry out their projects in a disciplined, orderly and consistent manner,