constitution, the man is a group of forces which lie at his own free disposal; and to accomplish this control, he possesses an intelligence which enables him to detect the bearings of every contemplated act upon the welfare of his fellows. The former possesses only mechanical forces, which implies that it is under necessity. The latter, by his very nature, possesses moral force, which is free, and the moral emotions which are implied in that fact. That the evolution by blind, unintelligent struggle which necessarily attaches to natural forces should also be the law of free, intelligent forces is extremely unlikely, and for it, to say the least, a reason should be shown. Now, the moral view of progress is fundamentally antagonistic to the physical view. While both may be agreed that the "common good" is the end desired, the evolutionist or individualist produces a recipe which seeks to give a race of powerful, incarnate selfishnesses. Upon the moral view that result marks the farthest point of retrogression, for the ideal man will be he who realizes himself only in seeking the welfare of humanity. Progress towards this

end the moralist affirms that experience discovers in the life which is directly antagonistic to the self-regarding "struggle for existence,” namely, in the life of unselfishness. While in nature the species may be advanced by the destruction of the inferior forms, the human problem is the renovation of those that come into being. Experience shows that the action of duty upon the undutiful, of love upon the selfish, is to transmute the bad into good. Thus the root and source of human progress is not to be found in the selfish destruction of the weaker, but in the transfiguration which ethical individuals and societies can effect. Shakespeare's poetry is, as often, solid fact, when he tells us that mercy "is twice bless'd: it blesseth him that gives and him that takes." So love, which is mercy's source, creates goodness and strength. Now, the moral doctrine of progress is that which constitutes the principle of Socialism. The issue between it and Individualism is, in essence, purely ethical. Shall we seek to progress by the operation of selfishness towards the production of a race of incar

nations of selfishness, or shall we seek to progress by the operation of virtue to the production of a race of incarnations of unselfishness? Absence

of perception of the ultimate issues involved may, and does, throw good men into the ranks of Individualism; but as the true relations become clear, men must belong to this party or to that, according as their natures are ethically low or the contrary. Where the ultimate principle at issue is not grasped, and men adopt the extremely common course of yielding adhesion to such as are logically destructive of each other, they may accept the name and fight the battle of Individualism, while they also cling to the principle of the common good." Such persons, without firm anchorage in either haven, will usually drift to the one side or to the other, according to their own ethical affinities. The selfish man, he whose chief impulse to political action is the defence of his own interests or those of his order, will constantly bend towards Individualism. He formerly sought self-interest through State action; but as the State turns its energies from the service of classes to the "common good,"

Such

the tendency is, and will be, to turn against the State. Conversely, the large and generously constituted natures will be Socialistic. conclusions will, however, be only tendencies, always liable to falsification in individual instances by the want of intellectual accuracy in discerning fundamental political principles and their bearings on life.

In this chapter the task has been to show that the only foundation of government, the only right of interference with individual liberty, is grounded in morals, and that thus is given a complete right of interference to any extent consistent with the "common good." Thus is established the doctrine which is fundamental both to Liberalism and true Socialism. It will be desirable to state the relation of this principle to Christianity, both for the sake of completeness of statement, and because the general relation of religion to politics, especially as affirmed in the phrase "Christian Socialism," has now a special interest.

This question will constitute the burden of the following chapter.

CHAPTER V.

CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM.

We have not here to concern ourselves with any current expression of Christian Socialism, nor with any programme which is said to be based upon it. We require to state the real relation existing between the essence of Christianity and the principle of Socialism, as that principle has been expounded in preceding chapters.

The first point to remember is that the end of Socialism is one with the end of virtue, namely, the " common good." Socialism, as a political principle, does not cover the whole of the ground that morality occupies, for it is regulative of life only so far as good can be achieved by public law, whereas morality concerns both public and private action. Nevertheless within its sphere we have seen that Socialism is but applied