INTRODUCTION

THE following pages constitute an attempt to show the correspondence between the principles of Christianity and those of modern SocialismSocialism in the best sense of the term. They are written from the point of view of one who believes that the movement reprobated by the Pope on the one hand, and dogmatic Protestantism on the other, under the name of modernism really represents a return to the primitive Christian evangel, freed from its limitations and illusions. The present writer regards this spiritual movement, for such it is, as destined to rescue the true Christianity from ecclesiasticism in its various forms. In the process it may work the overthrow of the Churches as we have them now that is, religious organisations held together by dogmatic statements of belief rather than by the perception of a practical end to be attained. It is herein maintained that the practical end which alone could justify the existence of Churches is the realisation of the Kingdom of God, which only means the reconstruction of society on a basis of mutual helpfulness instead of strife and competition. It may be that the modernist movement will in the long run succeed

in freeing Christianity from the influences which have obscured or deflected this ideal; or, at any rate, may succeed sufficiently far to remove the distrust which at present exists between many of the leaders of the Socialist movement and the advanced representatives of the Christian religion

It should be clearly understood that in the task thus attempted I expressly disclaim any intention of denying a place in the Socialist movement to all but the adherents of liberal Christian thought. It is already patent to all the world that the Socialist movement has found room for men as widely divergent in their views of religion as could well be imagined. Some of its most devoted adherents are sacerdotalists, others are avowed materialists; and it would be grossly unfair to exclude either. To deny a place in the Socialist ranks to a veteran like the Rev. Stewart Headlam because he happens to be a sacerdotalist would be a piece of unpardonable effrontery. The one thing which I have tried to keep before me in these pages is the desirability of showing what primitive Christianity set out to realise, and, therefore, how nearly identical were its practical aims with those of modern Socialism. If, in doing so, I have felt obliged to show the unhistorical character of the sacerdotalist position, I have been no less frank in showing the impossibilities and illogicalities of orthodox Protestantism. As a matter of fact, I regard the Catholic idea of a visible universal fellowship as nearer to the spirit

both of ancient Christianity and modern Socialism than is individualistic Protestantism.

It may not be out of place to say a word as to the way in which I have come to be identified with the Socialist movement. The first and most obvious influence in this direction was the study of Christian origins, which led me gradually but irresistibly to see that the first Christian preachers did not know of any other gospel than that of a universal brotherhood on earth. I have never been anything else than a liberal in theology- all assertions to the contrary notwithstanding — but my way of presenting the truth in the earlier years of my ministry was necessarily less clear and coherent than at present, for it rested too much on the other-worldism of conventional Christian preaching. The realisation that this other-worldism was totally absent from primitive Christian thought forced me, like so many others, upon what was practically the Socialist position without any first-hand acquaintance with the Socialist movement itself. I now regard Socialism as the practical expression of Christian ethics and the evangel of Jesus.

But a further and more immediately effective influence came into existence as follows. In the autumn of 1904 I wrote an article in the National Review on the question of Sunday observance, in which I pointed out certain sinister tendencies of the time, particularly among the working classes. The result was a newspaper storm, in which a

number of clergy and nonconformist ministers played a discreditable part. Many of them went out of their way to make my strictures the subject of sermons in which they fulsomely praised the working-man and credited him with every imaginable virtue. The object of this kind of sycophantic proceeding was obvious, and, probably for that reason, it did not succeed. I was asked to address a mass meeting of Trades Union representatives, and repeat my observations face to face. with the workers themselves and listen to what they had to say in reply. I did so, with the result, on the one hand, that the working-men were able for the first time to hear my actual words instead of garbled newspaper reports and slanderous pulpit versions of them; while, on the other, I realised that, although all I had said was perfectly true, and no one could really deny it, I had not taken account of the working-man's point of view. The strictures were resented, not so much because they were unjust, as because they were made by a man who did not share the privations and disabilities of those with whom he found fault. I determined to do my best to get to see things from the point of view of the unprivileged majority, and I hope I have, to a certain extent, succeeded. Ever since that memorable meeting I have been more or less closely in touch with some of the more prominent leaders of the Labour movement in this country. In the autumn of last year I preached a sermon in the

City Temple on Christianity and Collectivism, in which I declared myself a Socialist. Forthwith all the Labour platforms were thrown open to me. When the New Theology controversy broke out in January of the present year these were almost the only platforms I had left. All my Free Church Council engagements were cancelled by the Churches themselves, as were most of my preaching appointments with other ecclesiastical organisations. Even where they were not cancelled the situation was, as a rule, to say the least of it, somewhat strained. At the present moment I am in the position of having been quietly excluded from an active share in every Nonconformist organisation with which I was formerly connected, with the exception of the City Temple itself. I do not complain of this; it has done me no harm whatever; but it is as well for the public to know the facts.

I work now in the confident expectation that with the rise of a younger generation of able men in the Churches themselves men of liberal outlook in religion, and inspired by the social consciousness I may live to see the time when the Socialist movement, realised from the spiritual point of view, will have laid hold of Nonconformity as it is already laying hold of the Anglican church. The present official heads of Nonconformity cannot expect to boycott a movement for ever by the futile expedient of boycotting this man and that among its representatives. The time will come when the