Review of Reviews, 2<>j^lOG, 



Topics of the Month. 



triumph of righteous- 

 ness and ])eace. 



But tlie Christ of 

 the Churches is not 

 always the Christ of 

 the Gospels, nor is 

 the religion of His 

 professed followers 

 always His religion, 

 and there has often 

 leen a woeful want 

 of consideration for 

 the condition of 

 those who needed 

 help the most, and 

 an utter want of 

 sym|)athy with the 

 j;enuine aspirations 

 of the masses of the 

 |)eople. The Gospel 

 has not been at 

 fault ; the failure 

 has been in its in- 

 terpretation and ap- 

 plication. 



It is one of the 

 blessed and hope- 

 ful signs of the times that the C.'hurches are turning 

 their attention mure fully to the necessities of the de- 

 graded and the wrongs of the oppressed. The night 

 of indifference to the social salvation of the people is 

 passing away, and the dawn of a brighter day is upon 

 us. We are cimiing more and more to understand 

 that religion has relation to life, to the life that nt>w 

 is as well as that which is to come. 



I do not regard it as the function of the Church 

 to adopt and advocate some particular remedy out 

 of the many suggested for the removal of social 

 wrong and injustice, but to supply the principles 

 and motives that .shall lead men to " do justly and 

 to love mercy." It is its undoubted duty to de- 

 nounce injustice wherever it is found, to earnestly 

 protest against institutions that corrupt and debase, 

 to proclaim in season and out of season the gospel 

 of truth, honesty and fair play. 



To the Church the present is the time of splendid 

 <ipportunity. May we have the breadth of view', the 

 intelligence of grasp, the unselfishness of purpose, 

 and the earnest devotion to duty that will lead us 

 to ■' act well our part."' 



f'lhnftune, O'.ShnKHP*'''!/.] [Photo. 

 The Hev. Robert Phllp. 



THE REV. DR. BEVAN 



(CONGREGATIO.NAL ChURCH, COLLINS-STREET, MeL- 

 BOtJRNE.) 



" Socialism " is the term by which we understand 

 both a movement and a spirit manifested in modern 

 times. It is the tendency for the State as a whole 

 to do many things which have hitherto been done by 

 private enterprise, and to protect the individual as 



The Rev. Dr. Eevan. 



far as possible by law 

 from the effect of tlit- 

 unrestrained influ 

 ences of a widespread 

 liberty. Socialism 

 is thus opposed 

 not only to the old 

 feudal and mediK 

 val condition if 

 class differentiation 

 and slave relations, 

 but it is the very 

 antithesis of that 

 liberalism which fol- 

 lowed the French 

 Revolution, and' es- 

 pecially dominated 

 English affairs after 

 the Reform Bill, al- 

 though it has been 

 very largely the 

 child of the latter 

 great movement. 

 Liberalism meant 

 securing freedom 

 for the individual, 

 and the limitation 



of State action and ci ntrol. Socialism affirms (.n the 

 one side that the general community, acting tlirough 

 the State Government, shall do many tilings whiih 

 hitherto it has been the business of the individual 

 to do for himself, and for his own interests, and 

 on the other side, that the freedom of indivi- 

 dual action secured by modern reform shall be 

 limited in every direction, where it presses by the 

 action of competition upon the well-being of the 

 weaker and less capable memljers of the community. 



Here then arises the question : What attitude is the 

 Church (that is. any form in which religious senti- 

 ment is organised) to take in relation to this socialis- 

 tic trend, both of feeling and of action? The an- 

 swer to this, in my opinion, is clear. 1 may remark 

 in passing, that the charge often brought against the 

 Church of having no sympathy with, and even op- 

 pc/sing, this movement, is false and unjust. Un- 

 doubtedly many who are members and prominent 

 members of the Church are anti-socialistic, but, on the 

 other hand, a large number of religious persons will 

 lie found very sympathetic with the spirit of the ne^v 

 endeavour, and the general action of the Church in 

 its social relations is undoubtedly, if not in defined 

 accord with Socialism, sympathetic with its aims, and 

 for the most part the spirit of Scxrialism has been 

 the result of the religious life. Rememl;)ering this, 

 it seems to me, however, that in regard to State 

 Socialism, that is the undertaking of definite opera- 

 tions by the State, it is impossible for the Church 

 as an institution to take part either for or against 

 these movements. They are political, and w'ill 

 always more or less involve the action of our politi- 



