iraculous. St. Paul's use of it does not, as some have
supposed, represent it as a result of Hebrew benevolence, sharing with
the weak the more abundant supplies of the strong: the miracle is not
cited as an example of charity, but of that practical equality, divinely
approved, which Christian charity should reproduce; the Christian Church
is bidden to do voluntarily what was done by miracle in the wilderness:
"your abundance being a supply at this present time for their want, that
their abundance also may become a supply for your want, that there may
be equality; as it is written, He that gathered much had nothing over,
and he that gathered little had no lack" (2 Cor. viii. 15).

It is quite in vain to appeal to this passage in favour of socialistic
theories. In the first place it applies only to the necessities of
existence; and even granting that the state should enforce the
principle to which it points, the duty would not extend beyond a liberal
poor rate. When contributions were afterwards demanded for the
sanctuary, there is no trace of a dead level in their resources: the
rulers gave the gems and spices and oil, some brought gold, with some
were found blue and linen and skins, and others had acacia-wood to offer
(xxxv. 22-4).

In the second place, this arrangement was only temporary; and while the
soil of Canaan was distinctly claimed for the Lord, the enjoyment of it
by individuals was secured, and perpetuated in their families, by
stringent legislation. Now, land is the kind of property which
socialists most vehemently assail; but persons who appeal to Exodus must
submit to the authority of Judges.

Socialism, therefore, and its coercive measures, find no more real
sanction here than in the Church of Jerusalem, where the property of
Ananias was his own, and the price of it in his own power. But yet it is
highly significant that in both Testaments, as the Church of God starts
upon its career, an example should be given of the effacing of
inequalities, in the one case by miracle, in the other by such a
voluntary movement as best becomes the gospel. Is not such a movement,
large and free, the true remedy for our modern social distractions and
calamities? Would it not be wise and Christ-like for the rich to give,
as St. Paul taught the Corinthians to give, what the law could never
wisely exact from them? Would not self-denial, on a scale to imply real
sacrifice, and fulfilling in spirit rather than letter the apo