the Week of Proper 28 / Ordinary 33
Click here to learn more!
Bible Dictionaries
Socialism
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament
or SOCIALISM
1. Definition, etc.—‘The watch-word of the Socialist is Co-operation; the watch-word of the anti-Socialist is Competition. Any one who recognizes the principle of Co-operation as a stronger and truer principle than that of Competition, has a right to the honour or the disgrace of being called a Socialist.’ This definition was written by Frederic Denison Maurice in the first of a series of Tracts on Christian Socialism, which was published in 1849. Maurice, Kingsley, and T. Hughes deliberately adopted the word ‘Socialist’ for the movement which they founded, and incurred, as Hughes has testified, much ‘anger and bitterness’ as a result; but, since then, the Socialist idea has had a secure place in the speculations and activities of modern Christianity. It is evident, however, that Socialism so defined is a much broader thing than the State Socialism of economic theory, or than that of the Social Democratic parties of contemporary politics. Fifty years ago, indeed, many men did regard competition as a stronger and truer principle than co-operation; and Socialism (in Maurice’s sense) has had an easy victory over the laissez-faire Individualism which was dominant in the political economy of his day; in this sense the famous saying is true that ‘We are all Socialists now.’ But a man may be against Individualism or Anarchism, and to that extent a Socialist, and yet may be opposed to the current conceptions both of economic and political Socialism; he may possibly regard the growth of municipal undertakings with alarm, and he may even look, as Thomas Carlyle did, to the ‘strong man,’ and not to the democracy, for deliverance from the evils of insufficiently restricted competition.
Yet general principles are of more importance than economic theories which must necessarily shift with changing conditions of life; and Socialism, defined as the principle of fellowship, may safely claim to be an integral part of Christianity, working itself out in one age through feudalism and canon law, in another through representative government and factory legislation, and tending, through the improvement of individual character, to the ideal state. That ideal state might prove to be either socialist or anarchist, or to be (as society now is) somewhere between these two extremes; for, indeed, if men were perfect, the machinery of society would be a matter of indifference. It is because men are imperfect that the economic and political machinery is a matter of urgent importance. Here ‘Socialism,’ as an active Christian principle, comes in; for though Christians must always claim the supreme importance of personal regeneration, as against those who think that society can be made perfect by the mere operation of the State, it must also be admitted that a religion which attempts to deal only with the individual, and leaves society to its own devices and the laws of supply and demand, is untrue to itself, and is doomed to failure. Individual character cannot be regenerated while it is being destroyed by bad housing, or by intemperance, or by commercial selfishness and dishonesty, or while multitudes are ‘submerged’ and ‘sweated.’ Such things as these are therefore the immediate concern of the Christian; and far more so the great causes—economic, political, ethical—which lie behind them. Now it is undeniable that, for a considerable period before Maurice wrote, the ‘religious world’ as a whole had ignored this truth, and had neglected its social duty to the weak and oppressed,—a neglect of which the results are still painfully evident to-day. There had indeed always existed a better tradition: the Quakers* [Note: 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.] had been a powerful leaven of commercial morality; Wilberforce and his friends had, after a protracted battle of 20 years, conquered Individualism in the interests of the black slaves; Shaftesbury (a Conservative in politics) had already won a signal victory over the even more horrible ‘white slavery’ that went on in English factories. Both these men were devoted religious leaders: but they were not the ‘religious world’; hence the protest of the Christian Socialists,—a protest which has really changed the face of British Christendom.
The Maurician definition of Socialism is thus a very real one, and is practical as well as fundamental. The Christian men who opposed Shaftesbury were Individualists; they left society to the laws of supply and demand—in other words, to competition; they regarded the aim of Christianity as the salvation of individuals—or perhaps of a small minority of the elect, for Calvinism was in truth the theological parent of this Individualism. If Socialism be regarded broadly as the antithesis of Individualism, as a theory of life and not only of economics, then it is true that the Christian Socialists won the day and now hold the field. It will clear the ground if we give here a definition of Bishop Westcott in which Maurice’s words are repeated and expanded:
‘The term Socialism has been discredited by its connexion with many extravagant and revolutionary schemes, but it is a term which needs to be claimed for nobler uses. It has no necessary affinity with any forms of violence, or confiscation, or class selfishness, or financial arrangement. I shall therefore venture to employ it apart from its historical associations as describing a theory of life, and not only a theory of economics. In this sense Socialism Is the opposite of Individualism, and it is by contrast with Individualism that the true character of Socialism can best be discerned. Individualism and Socialism correspond with opposite views of humanity. Individualism regards humanity as made up of disconnected or warring atoms; Socialism regards it as an organic whole, a vital unity formed by the combination of contributory members mutually interdependent.
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 will in the end secure public welfare’ (Westcott, Socialism, pp. 3, 4).
If the social principle, the principle of brotherhood, had been forgotten, it certainly came to its own again in the 19th cent., though it may be at present rather overwhelmed by the problems which had grown up during its abeyance. Its rapid revival 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 hindmost,’ or (in more subdued language) of noninterference. The following extract from a pronouncement of the entire episcopate of the Anglican Churches throughout the world (Lambeth Conference, 1887) shows, on the one hand, how completely 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 commonplace 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 principle of society, showing how Property is a trust to be administered 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.’* [Note: This extract is given because it emanated at a comparatively early date from a body which had for long been specially associated with conservative opinions. Its sentiments can be paralleled from the statements of the Lambeth Conference of ten years 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 Socialism, 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.]
2. The Gospels.—The Gospels are certainly full of those ideas which inspire the Christian Socialist. The Incarnation itself proclaims as the root principle 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 (Luke 4:18), that He had come to preach good tidings to the poor; to His mother His coming meant the exaltation of them of low degree (Luke 1:52); to His forerunner also it meant a certain levelling of existing conditions (Luke 3:5), and indeed John the Baptist himself advocated that voluntary communism which is an undisputed characteristic of all early Christian teaching (‘He that hath two coats, let him impart to him that hath none,’ etc., Luke 3:11). 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. Matthew 13:24-30), its ultimate world-wide extension (e.g. Matthew 13:31-33). The condemnation of riches could hardly be more strongly expressed than in the parables of Dives and Lazarus (Luke 16), and of the Rich Fool (ch. 12), and in the warning about the needle’s eye (Mark 10:25). The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10) gives a new meaning to the word ‘neighbour,’ and teaches the obligation of what nowadays is called social service; and this lesson is even more strongly expressed in the most important parable of all—that of the Judgment (Matthew 25:31-46)—where we are told that salvation will depend on whether we have succoured the poor and outcast, with whom Christ identifies Himself.
The Sermon on the Mount in this aspect may be called a simple manual of social teaching. It is sufficient to allude to the Beatitudes, and to point out how much of the teaching in the rest of the Sermon is still regarded as Utopian, as that about love of enemies (Luke 6:27), oaths, non-resistance, litigation and property, free giving (Matthew 5:33-48), lending without interest (Luke 6:34-35, money-making (Matthew 6:19), worrying about the future (Matthew 6:24-34). The Christian Socialist may agree with the ‘Socialist of the Chair’ that Collectivism would make these principles less difficult of application than they are to-day; but he would add the warning that the secular regeneration of the world can only be accomplished by spiritual means. One sentence of the Sermon sums up the whole truth, when, after picturing in a vivid image material well-being (Matthew 6:26-29), our Lord says, ‘Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you’ (Matthew 6:33).
If we turn to another central part of Christ’s teaching, the Lord’s Prayer, we find again the social side interwoven with the spiritual. It was given as a private prayer (Matthew 6:6), yet it begins, ‘Our Father,’ and is throughout a prayer for the human brotherhood. It asks for the hallowing of God’s name, the coming of His Kingdom, and the doing of His will upon earth,—in other words, it teaches the Christian to pray for Utopia, and it makes incumbent upon him the duty of considering all social and political schemes with a view to the perfecting of society in this world. The prayer for daily bread asks that all may have the necessities of material life, and this again involves far-reaching social considerations. The prayer for forgiveness is accompanied by a special clause guarding it against an individualist interpretation. As for the prayer against temptation, the temperance movement alone shows that British Christianity has appreciated the social significance of that clause; and in other matters it is clear that, if the worship of Mammon be the antithesis of the worship of God, a society based upon commercial competition is constantly leading its members into the gravest temptation of all.
Christ then teaches that man has a double duty—to love God and love his neighbour. He must love his neighbour not less than himself, and must do to others as he would have them do to him. Christ condemns the rich and blesses the poor; He teaches brotherhood, social service, and the abnegation of private possessions; He teaches that men are to strive to bring about a Divine Kingdom of justice on the earth, and that they will finally be judged by their works of mercy to those whom the world despises. And, binding it all together is the gospel of Love which St. John has preserved most fully—‘This is my commandment, that ye love one another’ (John 15:12).
3. The Apostles.—The rest of the NT contains abundant evidence that this social gospel was understood. Indeed, in the first flush of their enthusiasm the Christians of Jerusalem established a voluntary communism, and ‘had all things common’ (Acts 4:32-35). It was voluntary, and did not deny the right of a man to possess his own property, as St. Peter said to Ananias (Acts 5:4), but it shows that almsgiving had a very thorough meaning to the first Christians. The doctrine of equality and brotherhood was also strongly felt. St. Paul more than once had to remind slaves that though in the sight of God there was no respect of persons (Colossians 3:25, cf. James 2:9), yet slaves must not turn against their masters: this balance between the brotherhood of master and slave on the one hand, and the duty of slave to master on the other, are very beautifully expressed in Philemon (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:20-24, Ephesians 6:5-9). This is characteristic of the early Fathers also (see below, ‘Patristic Teaching’); the conditions of society were to be accepted, and men were to do their duty in them, although the Christian fellowship was working out towards a higher ideal (e.g. 1 Timothy 6:1-2, cf. 1 Peter 2:13-17). But St. James (whose Epistle contains passages which are often quoted on democratic platforms at the present day) is very definite as to the levelling power of the gospel, e.g. ‘But let the brother of low degree glory in his high estate: and the rich, in that he is made low: because as the flower of the grass he shall pass away’ (James 1:9-10; cf. James 2:5-10). St. Paul is as strong as St. James as to the danger of riches (e.g. 1 Timothy 6:10), and the evil of covetousness (e.g. Colossians 3:5), and the duty of mutual service (e.g. Philippians 2:4), and of mutual love (1 Corinthians 13). But his most valuable contribution to the social aspect of Christianity is his teaching about the solidarity of mankind; the social principle in its very essence is in the declaration that ‘There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female: for ye are all one man in Christ Jesus’ (Galatians 3:28; cf. Colossians 3:11, 1 Corinthians 12:13); nor could it be better taught than by the illustration of the body and its members in 1 Corinthians 12, and the great description of the unity of the Christian body in Ephesians 4. The fundamental doctrine of brotherhood and love is the theme of the First Ep. of St. John, in which it is definitely stated that without loving his brother whom he hath seen, a man cannot love God (1 John 4:20); that the children of God are distinguished from the children of the devil by their righteousness and love of their brethren (1 John 3:10); that to dwell in love is to dwell in God (1 John 4:16), and that ‘every one that loveth is born of God and knoweth God,’ while ‘he that loveth not, knoweth not God’ (1 John 4:7-8). This is indeed the evidence of salvation—‘We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren’ (1 John 3:14). It is clear, then, that from the beginning it was taught that Christianity had an intensely strong and real practical side in secular matters, that this side—the duty to the neighbour—was equally incumbent on the believer with the duty to God, and that it is bound up with the ‘social’ ideas of brotherhood, solidarity, unity, mutual love, co-operation, voluntary equalization of condition by giving up of possessions—in some cases, as in that of the Rich Young Man (Mark 10:21). of all possessions; while there is throughout strong condemnation of riches, of luxury, pride, and the clinging to class distinctions.
4. Patristic Teaching.—There is not space to do more than allude to the teaching of the Christian Fathers. Authorities on the subject are given at the end of this article: some of their more salient sayings will be found in Nitti’s Catholic Socialism, where their socialist character is exaggerated, and in Carlyle’s Mediaeval Political Economy, vol. i., where this side is perhaps underestimated. The Patristic writings are, indeed, extremely difficult to estimate, because of the distinction between what was ideally right as belonging to God’s plan (Jus naturale) and what was right under present conditions (Jus gentium)—a distinction which is characteristic of Cicero and Seneca as well as of the Christian writers of a later date. Thus the Fathers held that all men were naturally equal, but at the same time they accepted slavery, though indeed the manumission of slaves was a recognized Christian virtue. It was the same with private property. Extracts can be gathered from the Fathers which are as strong as anything in the writings of modern socialists; for instance, Proudhon’s famous saying, ‘La propriété, c’est le vol,’ is almost exactly paralleled by St. Ambrose’s ‘Natura igitur jus commune generavit, usurpatio jus fecit privatum’ (de Off. i. 28). But St. Ambrose does not mean that property is unlawful, only that it is not a ‘natural’ institution—it belongs to the jus gentium. In the same way he does not advocate land-nationalization when he says, ‘Deus noster terram hanc possessionem ominum hominum voluerit esse communem, et fructus omnibus ministrare: sed avaritia possessionum jure distribuit’ (In Psalms 118:8; Psalms 118:22); but goes on to say that for this reason the poor have a just claim on the rich to give them a share of what was meant for all. This may be taken as typical also of the earlier Chriatian writers. They assume the existence of private property as an institution, and that it is not evil if rightly used; but they do not consider it as belonging to the state of innocence—like slavery it is due to the fall into sin; ‘their whole thought,’ Mr. Carlyle says, ‘is dominated by the sense of the claims of the brotherhood,’ and the Christian man is bound to use his property to relieve the wants of his fellow-man. This is almsgiving, but, unlike modern almsgiving, it is based on a definite principle of justice. An early example of this is in the Didache (iv. 8), ‘Thou shalt not turn away from him that hath need, but shalt share all things with thy brother, and shalt not say that aught is thine own: for if ye are partners in the immortal, how much more are ye partners in the perishable?’ Here the reference to the community of goods in Acts 4:32 is obvious. Compare with it the ‘All is common with us, except women,’ of Tertullian (Apol. xxxix.), or St. Justin’s declaration, ‘We bring all we possess into a common stock, and share everything with the poor’ (Apol. i. 14). There are many passages in other Fathers, such as Chrysostom and Basil, Augustine, Jerome, and Gregory the Great, which have a strong socialist character, and they all used language about the selfishness of the rich which would cause some offence if uttered from the pulpits of the present day. The fact that Clement of Alexandria took a different view in his Quis Dives salvetur considerably increases the significance of the rest of the Patristic literature: he explains the command to the Rich Young Man in Mark 10:21 in a purely allegorical sense, and protests that there is no advantage in poverty except when it is incurred for a special object, and that riches are serviceable if rightly used, and are not to be thrown away. That he should stand almost alone even in this much qualified defence of property is a remarkable fact.
If we turn from theory to practice, there is no doubt that the Church produced a profound social change in the Roman Empire, and was recognized from the first as based upon the principle of fraternity. In this connexion it is noteworthy that Lucian was struck as much by the social as by the theological aspect of the new religion—‘Their original lawgiver,’ he remarks, ‘had taught them that they were all brethren one of another.’ Membership in the Church meant the admission into a fellowship in which the rich man became poorer and the poor man richer; in which the stranger, the outcast, and the slave were welcomed and loved as brothers. Harnack, in his Expansion of Christianity (i. bk. ii. c. iii.), describes this change, pointing out, amongst other things, that the principle of Labour was consistently put into practice. Following St. Paul’s maxim (2 Thessalonians 3:10), the Church insisted, (1) that it was the duty of every Christian man to work, (2) that it was the duty of the Christian Society to see that there was work for all its members, and (3) that it was the duty of Christians to make provision for those who were not able to work. This fails to be pure State Socialism only because the Church was not yet coterminous with the State.
5. Later Developments.—It is impossible here even to sketch the developments of Christian social theory and practice in subsequent history. The subject can be conveniently studied in Ashley’s Economic History and Theory. But it is necessary to point out two main facts: first, that the principle of voluntary communism was preserved as a living fact by the Monastic orders, and was pressed further by St. Francis and the early Friars; and, secondly, that the Church taught certain social doctrines which were accepted and practised by the whole community. The two leading doctrines were that concerning the justum pretium, and that concerning usury: these were enforced not only in the pulpit but also in the ecclesiastical courts. The first doctrine was aimed against free competition: a man was not to ask what he could get for an article, but the ‘just price,’ what it was worth, that is, what would enable him to earn by his work a decent living according to a definite standard. The second doctrine was aimed against usury (because of Luke 6:34-35), and usury meant all receiving of interest on capital. In other words, the system upon which modern manufacture and commerce and indeed the whole of modern society is based, was forbidden by the Church up till the Renaissance and Reformation; and not only this, but the prohibition was accepted and carried out in ordinary business affairs. Here again the modern social-democrat touches hands with Christian principles that were practiced throughout the Middle Ages and summed up by St. Thomas Aquinas; just as the modern trade unionist finds that the great Christian trade gilds were carrying out his principles of fellowship even among the peasantry before the modern era began. The gilds were destroyed in the sixteenth century, and the whole mediaeval system crumbled away to make room for a new order. Of that system Professor Ashley says: ‘No such sustained and far-reaching attempt is being now made, either from the side of theology, or from that of ethics, to impress upon the public mind principles immediately applicable to practical life’ (Econ. Hist. i. 388). The modern era has brought many reforms, notably in connexion with liberty and the democratic idea; but as the humanitarianism of its later phase has begun to work in the realms of sociology and economics, it has but joined hands with the great tradition of Christian fraternity,—a tradition that has always been at work in society since the foundations of brotherly love were laid by our Lord and His Apostles. The success of the Christian principle has always been partial and its application incomplete, because its perfect realization is dependent on the regeneration of mankind. Whether we call it Socialism will depend upon our conception of what Socialism is; but those to whom Socialism is an ethical ideal will not cease to find their inspiration in Christianity; and those who take Christ in thoroughness and simplicity as their Guide In secular affairs will increasingly remember that He who said ‘One is your Master,’ said also ‘and all ye are brethren.’ From St. John to St. Francis of Assisi, from Latimer to Maurice, what is now called Christian Socialism has had many prophets. At the present day it is a great and growing force in all Christian countries.
Literature.—The mass of Literature on Christian Socialism in general is very large. A list of 140 books and pamphlets bearing specially on the movement in England was compiled by the present writer in 1897, and may be mentioned because it can be obtained for a penny (Appendix to Socialism and the Teaching of Christ, by [J. Clifford, Fabian Society, Clement’s Inn, W.C.). A better and more recent bibliography is in A. V. Woodworth, Christian Socialism in England. Tracts containing statements of the position can be obtained from the Hon. Sec., Christian Social Union, Pusey House, Oxford. This Union has also produced several volumes of Sermons, Lombard Street in Lent, The Church and New Century Problems, Preachers from the Pew (lay sermons on social questions), etc. For the social teaching of the Fathers, see A. J. Carlyle, History of Mediaeval Political Theory in the West, vol. i. (1903), with its bibliography; F. S. Nitti, Catholic Socialism (1895); Laveleye, Le Socialisme Contemporain (Soeialism of To-day) (1890); Feugueray, Essais sur les doctrines politiques de Saint Thomas d’Aquin (1857) (ch. on ‘Démocratie des Pères de I’église’); F. Villegardelle, Histoire des Idées Sociales (1846); L. Brentano, Die Arbeiterversicherung gemäss der heutigen Wirthschaftsordnung (1879). The mediaeval history of the subject can be studied in W. J. Ashley’s Economic History, where a list of authorities is given at the head of each chapter. Kirkup’s History of Socialism is an admirable summary. An excellent short history is H. de B. Gibbins’ Industrial History of England. Perhaps also it may be worth while to allude to the various Lives of the Saints, and to the literature of St. Francis, e.g. the Fioretti; to T. Carlyle’s Past and Present, W. Morris’ Dream of John Ball, Thorold Rogers’ Six Centuries of Work and Wages, Hyndman’s The Hist. Basis of Socialism in England; to Ruskin’s works in general, and especially Unto this Last; and to such classics of English literature as Piers Plowman, Latimer’s Sermons, and More’s Utopia. For the history of modern Christian Socialism, see L. Brentano, Die Christliche Sociale Bewegung in England (1883), and cf. B. Webb, The Co-operative Movement, and S. and B. Webb, History of Trades Unionism. See also Kingsley’s Letters and Life (1877); Ensor, Modern Socialism; M. Kaufmann, Christian Socialism (1888) and Charles Kingsley (1892); E. de Laveleye, The Socialism of To-day; F. Maurice, Life of F. D. Maurice (1884); F. S. Nitti, Catholic Socialism (1895); J. Rae, Contemporary Socialism (1901); G. von Schulze-Gavernitz, Zum Socialen Frieden—translation ‘Social Peace’ (1893). See also the flies of The Christian Socialist, Journal of Association, Politics for the People, The Church Reformer, The Economic Review, The Commonwealth, the last two being still in existence. See also the writings of T. Hughes, Charles Kingsley, F. D. Maurice, E. V. Neale among the early Christian Socialists, and the following among the later, J. G. Adderley, Prof. R. T. Ely, Bishop C. Gore, T. Hancock, Stewart D. Headlam, H. Scott Holland, Bishop C. W. Stubbs, and Bishop B. F. Westcott. Among these may be specially mentioned Kingsley, Sermons, Alton Locke, and Yeast; Maurice, The Kingdom of God; Ely, Social Aspects of Christianity; Gore, The Social Doctrine of the Sermon on the Mount; Hancock, Christ and the People; Headlam, The Laws of Eternal Life; Holland, Sermons; Stubbs, Christ and Economies, and A Creed for Christian Socialists; Westcott, The Incarnation, a Revelation of Human Duties, and especially Social Aspects of Christianity. The name of Tolstoi should also be mentioned, since, though his writings cannot be classed with the above, they have a far-reaching influence over European and American thought.
Percy Dearmer.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Hastings, James. Entry for 'Socialism'. Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hdn/s/socialism.html. 1906-1918.
