It follows that Socialism differs from Individualism both in method and in aim. The method of Socialism is co-operation, the method of Individualism is competition. The one regards man as working with man for a common end, the other regards man as working against man for private gain. The aim of Socialism is the fulfilment of service, the aim of Individualism is the attainment of some personal advantage — riches, or place, or fame. Socialism seeks such an organization of life as shall secure for every one the most complete development of his powers ; Individualism seeks primarily the satisfaction of the particular wants of each one, in the hope that the pursuit of private interest mil in the end secure public welfare ' (West- cott, Socialism, pp. 3, 4).
If the social principle, the principle of brother- hood, had been forgotten, it certainly came to its own again in the 19th cent., though it may be at present rather overwhelmed by the iDi'oblems which had grown up during its abeyance. Its rapid re- vival in the Churches was due to the fact that the men who proclaimed it were able to point to half- forgotten Scripture ideas — as with other objects men had gone back to the teaching of Scripture at the Reformation. It was easy for the pioneers of the social revival to show that the Gospels and Epistles were full of social teaching, and gave no support to the doctrine of ' the devil take the
* A good example of 18th cent. Quakerism is John Woolman. See the Bibliography in the Fabian Society's edition of his tract, A Word of Remembrance and Caution to the Rich.
hindmost,' or (in more subdued language) of non- interference. The following extract from a proT nouncement of the entire episcopate of the Anglican Churches throughout the world (Lambeth Con- ference, 1887) shows, on the one hand, how com- pletely the principle was accepted within 40 years of the first Christian Socialistic movement, and, on the other, how entirely its justification was felt to lie in the NT. Such utterances seem common- place now, only because the Christian Churches have changed. They are not to be found in the official documents of the preceding era :
'The Christian Church is bound, following the teaching of her Master, to aid every wise endeavour which has for its object the material and the moral welfare of the poor. Her Master taught her that all men are brethren, not because they share the same blood, but because they have a common heavenly Father. He further taught her that if any members of this spiritual family were greater, richer, or better than the rest, they were bound to use their special means or ability in the service of the whole. ... It will contribute no little to draw together the various classes of society, if the clergy endeavour in sermons and lectures to set forth the true prin- ciple of society, showing how Property is a trust to be admini- stered for the good of Humanity, and how much of what is good and true in Socialism is to be found in the precepts of Christ.' *
2. The Gospels. — The Gospels are certainly full of those ideas which inspire the Christian Socialist. The Incarnation itself proclaims as the root prin- ciple of religion the unity and solidarity of the human race (this is worked out in Westcott, The Incarnation, a Revelation of Human Duties (S.P.C.K.)) ; and the manner of Christ's coming — His lowly birth. His humble companions. His hard life. His death at the hands of the Law — can well be claimed as democratic. He declared, indeed, at the outset, according to St. Luke (4^*), that He had come to preach good tidings to the poor ; to His mother His coming meant the exaltation of them of low degree (P-) ; to His forerunner also it meant a certain levelling of existing conditions (3^), and indeed John the Baptist himself advo- cated that voluntary communism which is an un- disputed characteristic of all early Christian teach- ing ( ' He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none,' etc., 3^^). There is in all this a definite proclamation of brotherhood. When we turn to the teaching of our Lord, we find quite clearly that He concerned Himself with secular things, and did not give any justification for that ' other-worldliness ' which would ignore physical evils. His miracles were in the main works of mercy, designed to reduce the misery, or, as at Cana, to increase the happiness, of everyday life. His parables teach social principles of the most far-reaching importance. The parables, e.g. , of the Kingdom explain the nature of the Christian fellowship, its inclusiveness (e.g. Mt IS^*'^**), its ultimate world-wide extension (e.g. 13^^"^). The condemnation of riches could hardly be more strongly expressed than in the parables of Dives and Lazarus (Lk 16), and of the Kich Fool (ch. 12), and in the warning about the needle's eye (Mk 10^^). The parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10) gives a new meaning to the word ' neighbour,' and teaches the obligation of what nowadays is called
* This extract is given because it emanated at a compara- tively early date from a body which had for long been speciallj" associated with conservative opinions. Its sentiments can be paralleled from the statements of the Lambeth Conference of ten j'ears later, and from the official utterances of most other religious bodies in recent years. The Church of England, the Church of Scotland, and some other Churches have now large ' Christian Social ' societies. Nor must it be supposed that the movement which it illustrates is confined to Great Britain. It is equally strong both among Protestants and Roman Catholics on the Continent of Europe and in America ; indeed, it is numerically far stronger on the Continent than in Great Britain. The subject may be studied in Professor Nitti's Catholic Social- ism, Laveleye's Socialism of To-Day, the Preface to Ensor's Modern Socialism, and other works mentioned at the end of this article. The most recent English work on the subject is Woodworth's Christian Socialism in England.