THE CHURCH AND SOCIALISM.

 A paper on the above subject was read by the Rev E. H. Scott before the Bendigo Ruridecanal, at their meeting at All Saints Vicarage on the 12th instant.

Mr. SCOTT said : The subject I have been requested to introduce is the relation of the church to socialism. Of necessity, definition must enter very largely into the consideration of such a topic. There is not only much misconception as to the scope and significance of socialism, but men are also widely divergent in their opinions of the social bearing of Christianity. The definition, as given in the XIX Article, says:-“The visible church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly administered, according to Christ's ordinance in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.” This may mean much or little, according as we are prepared to find much or little in it. To give something of logical sequence to the paper, it seems desirable first to distinguish Socialism proper from a number of other social movements and experiments, which to many, through imperfect knowledge, are confused with Socialism. Secondly, I propose to place before you the scope and extent of Socialism as given by leading Socialists in their writings. Thirdly, the social teaching of the primitive church, as far as that is to be discerned in the writings of the fathers. Fourthly, the attitude of Christ Himself to social organisation ; and lastly, what I think should be the attitude of the church as the embodiment of Christianity.
To clear this ground for a definition of Socialism, it seems necessary to remind you that there are a number of words; which notwithstanding they are often associated in the minds of some with Socialism, are really foreign to the spirit of true Socialism. The words to which I refer are Nihilism, Anarchy, Communism, Trades Unionism, and Democracy. Nihilism is the belief or despair of a Russian political revolutionary association, which disbelieves in any permanent improvement in the social condition or progress of man under present forms of government, and though it has no better form, nor definite theory, nor hope of a better to offer, is devoted to the destruction of all constituted authority. Anarchy is simply the mad cry of those made desperate by want, misery, and despair. Anarchists have gained little or nothing of gladness in life under its present conditions, and think they cannot be in a worse plight with a change, they cry " down with all that is up, and up with all that is down." It is the frantic screech of social insanity, made mad by suffering, intensified, by despair. Trades unionism is the union of co-workers to wrest, justice or advantage from their employers by the force of combinations. It is a re-actionary movement against the greed of capitalists and employers. Unfortunately, trades unionism has its roots in selfishness. It is the class selfishness of labor pitted against the class selfishness of capital, to obtain what is deemed a fair share of the results of united labor and capital. Democracy is self-government by the people themselves through their chosen representatives, as opposed to government by privileged classes or individuals. Communism is a word that is very confusing, because it means one thing in France and a different thing in Germany and Britain. In France, Communism signifies the right of interest of the commune or municipality as opposed to the interest or advantage of Paris. It practically means decentralisation. In Germany and Britain, Communism is that ultra form of collectivism, whose aim is to destroy all individualism and individual interest, by making the commonwealth paramount. It means absence of personal and individual right in property of all kinds, as much in woman as in money, or lands or chattels.
Morrison Davidson compares Communism and Socialism as follows:—
Socialism and Communism are often confounded, but they are quite distinct economic systems. The touchstone of one is love, the other justice. Socialists seek only to control the instruments of production—land and capital. Communism leaves nothing to the individual which he can call his own. Socialism allows everyone to acquire property justly, i.e., by his own exertion, and merely prohibits him from using it as a means of robbing his neighbor.
Again, Laurence Gronlund contrasts Communism and Socialism in the following manner:—
"Communists require everyone to do his share of labor and allow him to consume as he needs. Socialism leaves everybody at liberty to work as much or as little as he likes, but makes his consumption exactly commensurate with his performances."
All these words—Nihilism, Anarchy, Trades Unionism, Democracy, and Communism though they corner on more or less to Socialism, are not synomonous with the term. This brings us to the term itself. What is Socialism? Socialism is almost as difficult to define from a collation of the theories of its votaries, as Christianity from a collation of the doctrines of the sectaries. Though Socialism, as a system, is now being presented to the world in definite form, as the social creed of large sections of all communities, it is not so much a new thing as the chrystalised result of much nebulous sentiment and scattered thought inherited by the present from livers, sufferers, and thinkers of the past. Writers in the past, who would scarcely be deemed Socialists, are as much responsible for the positions taken by men to-day, through the principles they enunciated, as the present day writers are in formulating those principles into a system. The early church fathers and Adam Smith, as much as Carlyle or Herbert Spencer paved the way for men who think and speak like Proudhon and Karl Marx. When Adam Smith said, "The natural wage of labor is what labor produces,” he prepared the way for much in modern Socialism. Professor Ely lays down that "the distinctive ideal of Socialism is distributing justice. It goes back of the processes of modern life to the fact, that he who does not work lives on the labor of others. It aims to distribute economic goods according to the services rendered by the recipients. Every Communist is a Socialist and something more ; not every Socialist is a Communist.”
Laurence Gronlund in his "Co-operative Commonwealth,” thus defines Socialism :—
"Extend in your mind division of labor, all the other factors that increase the productivity of labor; apply them to all human pursuits as far as can be ; imagine manufactures, transportation, and commerce, conducted on the grandest possible scale and in the most effective manner ; then add to division of labor its complement. Concert, introduce adjustment everywhere where now there is anarchy ; add that central regulative system which Spencer says distinguishes all highly-organised structures, and supplies 'each organ with blood in proportion to the work it does,' and behold the co-operative commonwealth. The co-operative commonwealth, then, is that future social order—the natural heir of the present one—in which all important instruments of production have been taken under collective control; in which the citizens are consciously public functionaries, and in which their labors are rewarded according to results." Elsewhere this writer says :—
"Socialism will enable everyone to acquire property justly. It will truly sanctity the institution of individual ownership by placing property on an unimpeachable basis—that of being the result of one's individual exertions. Thereby it will afford the very highest stimulus for individuality to unfold itself. Property will belong to its possessor by the very strongest of all titles, to be enjoyed as he thinks proper, but not to be used as an instrument of fleecing his fellow-citizens."
Again, in a manifesto put forth by the English Socialistic League, the general secretaries of which were Morris and Belfort Bax the scope of Socialism is thus set forth:—
"The end which true Socialism sets before us in the realisation of absolute equality of condition, helped by the development of variety of capacity."
This position is a slight modification of that taken by the leaders in the French Revolution, who claiming that all men “are born and continue equal in rights," because those who have given much thought to this subject have had a century to consider issues that in the rush of passion were overlooked.
It might not be out of place to give here what was deemed “equality,” as understood by one at least of their leaders. F. N. Baboeuf says:—
"Real equality has its basis in two essential conditions—work in common, enjoyment in common." In his “Charter of Equality," he claims —(1) "Nature has given to each individual an equal right to the enjoyment of all the goods of life." (2) “The end of society is to defend this equality and to augment by the co-operation of all, the common enjoyment of all.” (3) “ Nature has imposed on each person the obligation to work; nobody could without crime, evade his share of the common labor." (4) "In a veritable society there ought to be neither rich nor poor."
Some writers, opposed to Socialism, are inclined to challenge the “rights" of the laborer to the full product of his labor, for it is claimed that every laborer is dependent upon someone else. As far back as the days of Edmund Burke this was pointed out, for we have him saying, “the State includes the dead, the living, and the generations to come. We are what we are far more by the accumulated influence of the past generations than by our own efforts, and our labor will principally benefit those who come after us."
But those who so argue are unintentionally and unconsciously the profoundest as well as the strongest pleaders for a true Socialism. In as much as no individual stands alone in the performance of his work, no individual can justly claim to stand alone in the possession of the results of that labor. A man’s true share of the result is what it costs him to attain that result, plus a fair share of the balance, the State, as a trustee of the community, taking the remainder to hold in trust for the benefit of the whole community. What right has one individual to unearned increment? The conscience of mankind has rebelled against usury from the very beginning. True Socialism would secure the unearned increment for the benefit of the whole community, which truly caused that increment. True Socialism, by means of a State bank, would secure a fair interest, with ample guarantee to the capitalist who was unable or unwilling to use his trade or production, while it would also secure the borrower against the wiles of the usurer, who now not infrequently plots the ruin of the borrower, that he may seize the security. True Socialism would settle the land difficulty by granting ownership in land to the extent of a freehold site for a home or business, the latter including stand for trade, manufacture, or larger extent of farm lands for cultivation and grazing. No man would be allowed to own land he did not use for the purpose for which it was set apart by the State. When a man did not longer require his land, the State would purchase it back at what he or his ancestors gave for it, plus an amount to be agreed on for improvements. To lend money for interest,except to the State, would be a crime ; to be a landlord would also be a criminal.
A careful study of these various positions lends one to recognise that the aim and end of a true Socialism is the adjustment of social conditions, to give to all men an equal right to live, and as far as possible to make that life a life of comfort, if not gladness, instead of, as now, an experience of regret. Socialism does not assert that all men are equal, but that all men have an equal right to live. The difficulty in dealing with Socialism is not the refutation of its aim nor the theory upon which the superstructure is raised, but the determining of the justice or injustice of the measures advocated by the votaries of Socialism for bringing about the desirable state of things implied in Socialism.
This brings me to a consideration the teaching of the Primitive Church, as far as it can be discerned in the writings of the Fathers with regard to this subject.The Fathers seem to have been both Socialistic and Communistic. Though the Apostolic Fathers no more elaborated Christian Socialism than they did Catholic theology ; they yet laid down social principles. Clement advocated Reform ; Ignatius, Social Union ; and Polycarp, Unworldliness. Listen to the following from Clement of Rome.
"Not only must we be settled mentally Godwards, but also that we must bring about a state of things agreeable to His holy will, casting out from us all injustice, anarchy, covetousness, competition, ugly custom and deceitful ways, slanders, detraction and hatred of God, class arrogance, pretence, pomposity and cliquiness. Those who peddle in such matters are hateful to God."
Justice Martyr says," If one really loves one's neighbor as one’s self, one will both work and pray to get him all the good thing one gets one’s self.” Barnabas is simply in his teaching: “ Thou shalt have all things in common with thy neighbor and not call them thy private property ; for if ye hold the imperishable things in common, how much more the perishable.
Again Irenæas, the desciple of Polycarp is equally pronounced, “In whatsoever direction a man can do good to his neighbor, and does not do it, he shall be deemed an alien from the love of God.” Brazil bluntly says “the word calls us to Socialism, altruism and realism, for man is a social and independent animal." The teaching of Gregory Naziazer is significant in the following passage : "Do let us remember God’s law, which is the highest and first. He rains upon the just and upon sinners and makes His sun to rise upon all alike. He has prepared the earth, field, springs, rivers and woods for all the dwellers upon dry land ; the air for the winged things, and the water for those whose life is of that. He has given the necessaries of life to all jointly, without limit or stint ; not impossibly conditioned or legally hedged, not prescribed by partitions, but He hath bestowed the same in common and richly and has left no want unsupplied. He regards the natural equality of rank by an equality of gift, and displays the riches of His kindness. But men must needs got gold and silver and all sorts of soft clothes and useless shining stones and all such matters, which are the symbols of war and rebellion and tyranny. With these they are stupidly elated, and shut up their mercy against their kindred in distress and refuse to succour them, even with necessities out of their superfluities. Whatever we do pray let us reflect that poverty and riches, what we call freedom and slavery, similarly named things, are later effects on the race of men. They are the common diseases which have fallen on our baseness, and the symptoms of that. But in the beginning it was not so. He who first formed man made him free and a master, bound only by that law of God’s commandment, and rich in the luxury of Paradise."

Bendigo Independent (Vic.),1895,http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article187787764

http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article187788034