We have a crucial test for the religion of the fourth century in the miracles, which were reported and believed in on every side. "At the very instant when the ecclesiastical heavens were darkened with swarms of monks, the earth was ablaze with miracles." These wonders were enacted through a long course of years, by men honored throughout the entire church as themselves miracles of piety. It was the glory of the church; and these miracles are recorded by the grave-historians as verities. In fact, that which settled and fixed the church of this period, and gave her venerated champions unbounded, unwonted power over the minds of men, was this very wonder working which appeared through the length and breadth of the church.
But miracles were the exclusive production of the monks. Such men as Basil and Augustine made no such lofty pretensions. Nevertheless, the interrelationship of these great men and the ascetics is manifest in the unbounded praise which the former heaped upon the latter, and their direct acknowledgment of belief in the wonders reported. Listen to Chrysostom: "If any man believes not these things which are said to have been done by the apostles, let him now, beholding the present, desist from his impudency." And Ambrose: "You see the miracles of ancient times renewed." The profession of miraculous powers did not remain with the church after the first century. The language of Ambrose shows this. Again, Augustine: "We made an order to have bills given out of such miracles as were done, when we saw the wonders of ancient times renewed in ours." Many of these miracles are recorded in works of undoubted genuineness and authenticity. The memoirs in Palladius' "Lausiac History" are to the point, from which we may quote sufficiently to form an estimate of the miracles as compared with those in the times of Christ and the apostles.
This Palladius was an honored bishop of Helenopolis, in Bithynia, a particular personal friend of Chrysostom, and the things he asserts may be paralleled out of Sozomen, Jerome, Theodoret, and Cassian, who some of them mention the very same wonders repeated by Palladius. Out of the vast bog of these extant remains I can but collect a few specimens. The foul obscenities and blasphemous impieties which attach to very many must be clipped away, that modern eyes may read the record.
The wiles of the demon to entice the poor monk to come forth from his cell were many. Now a youth cries for help and shelter, lest he be devoured by hyenas. No help can the monk afford. Thus foiled, "the demon vanishes in a whirlwind, with din and brayings."
A man seeks "the blessed Macarius," leading a mare, which he explains to be his wife transformed by a magician. By the plentiful sprinkling of holy water, the charm which affected their sight was dissolved, and the happy couple return with joyfulness to their home.
This Macarius, sitting in meditation, is aroused by a hyena knocking at the door; she enters and lays a cub at his feet; it is blind; he takes the cub, utters a prayer for the restoration of sight, which is immediately answered, and gives the cub back to the mother, who withdraws; but the next day she returns with a nice sheepskin. "Whence couldst thou have gotten this, if thou hadst not devoured somebody's sheep?" cried Macarius. The hyena makes signs of contrition, and Macarius accepts the skin upon condition that the animal will never again devour poor people's sheep. The skin was bequeathed to Athanasius, if we may believe the historian's story. Such vapid nonsense fills the folio, and with just such things was the Nicene Church entranced.
I must omit the wonders of "Moses" Pambo, the father of Apollo, also of "Antony the Great,"—"the perfectly holy man," the "angel upon earth," the "pattern of the angelic philosophy,"—whose life and miracles are better attested by far than the story of Alexander the Great, for every writer spoke of him. We have the record of Paul, who rushed from his violated home, with the oath of the age,—"by Christ,"—upon his lips, now in his sixtieth year. He seeks the cell of Antony, with the avowed intent of becoming an anchorite. Antony initiates him into five days' fasting and ascetic discipline of the wilderness; and such was his marvelous power over demons and disease that miracles were no miracles in his hand. A youth vexed with a demon of "high rank" was carried to the cell of Antony, who gave over the case to Paul, flinching from the encounter. The "guileless old man" prayed, then provokingly challenged the demon, commanding him in the name of Father Antony to come forth. "No such thing, foolish, gluttonous old man," cried the demon. Then they set to with blows and foul imprecations. The saint feigned desperate madness, but without the desired effect; he mounted a rock, and adjured Christ in awful terms, avowing he would die in his tracks if the demon be not expelled. At this the demon cried: "I go; I go; I yield to the tyrannic force. I will return no more. The simplicity and holiness of Paul have compelled me to give in. Yet I know not whither to betake myself." Then the demon, transformed to a prodigious serpent, seventy cubits in length, slid away into the Red Sea. "Such are the miracles of Paul, and yet greater than these did he perform," says the historian.
By the relics of a martyr, or the invocation of their name, or the sign of the cross, or holy water, plentifully administered, the dead were made to stand erect and discourse upon orthodoxy. "A holy man sailing up the Nile with a party of friends and opponents [came] to a spot where the ancient sepulchral caverns abut upon the river. There he called forth one who, according to his own account, had598lived in the remotest time of Egyptian history. This awful arbiter of theological differences, after having given his decisive suffrage favoring the Catholic principles, obediently returns to his mummy, or chrysalis state, at the word of a saint, to rest until the final resurrection."
A holy man tormented with a demon "under a seductive guise," gave the phantom a smart cuff. "Believe me," said he, "believe me, I could not endure my own hand for two years afterward, such was the stench it had contracted from the blow."
"Here are men fed daily or weekly by angels, men ridding the country of wild beasts, and the river of crocodiles, by the name of Christ, but none of them knowing the virtue of that name to liberate from the power of sin and the fear of punishment. Sad is the monotony of these memoirs,—prophecy, miracle, angelic intercourse, three ounces of bread for the day,—but no Christianity; and these things put together by a Christian bishop, the friend and disciple of the greatest divine of the age. We look among these men in vain for the temper which distinguished apostolic writings. And what does all their fervor end in?—The amazing power or spiritual dexterity of the abbot and of some of the brethren, in catching, charming, and killing enormous snakes. This particular physical adroitness has, through a long course of ages, attached to the people of Egypt. And the Christianity of the monks took up and glorified the ancient sorcerers' craft, which thenceforth recommended itself as triumphing over the devil—that old serpent. If, on one of these pages, miraculous interpositions are recorded which one might almost consent to listen to, on the next the quack of the sorcerer steps forward and chastises our momentary credulity. A holy man not finding a boat when there was urgent occasion for crossing the Nile, calls a crocodile, and, with a brother presbyter, is carried over on his back. Another, being ashamed to strip in presence of his companions, when a river is to be forded, an angel, for the encouragement of his pudicity, descends in haste and bears him over dry. This is seriously related as well by Sozomen as Palladius. Miracle, miracle, miracle, from page to page. If the eye is attracted by the words, 'Such was the grace of God bestowed upon his servants,' what do we find in the context?—A beating the devil black and blue with a red-hot iron bar. Miracles and raw herbs, miracles and dirty sheepskin cloaks, miracles and a filthy condition of the soul confessed, miracles wrought freely by men whose virtue consisted in standing erect night and day year after year (or who pretended to do so). Put a few Christian phrases into the lips of any fakir of India, and you would make an illustrious Christian of him, according to the Nicene idea of Christian perfection."
Now if these miracles are a "sign" of the true church, false miracles must mark a false, apostate church. We know full well that such knavery is not to be compromised with Christianity. Their power was not exercised in keeping with apostolic truth; we must say, therefore, that they were wrought by "false prophets," professing truth, but holding error, through whom Satan wrought with all power and signs and lying wonders. And in this time the church was turned "away from the truth unto fables," according to the prophetic utterance of Paul.
The Domain of Religion and That of Civil Governments
By H. F. Phelps
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. NO. 2.
The Domain of Religion and That of Civil Governments.
It would seem that enough had already been written upon this subject to make the question perfectly clear to all. But as it must be "line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little," and having a great desire to save some from the impending crises that are sure to come, when the very foundations of the government are laid in the dust, we will offer a few thoughts, added to what has already been said by others.
It is only by a recognition of the rights of the individual in matters of conscience above all else, that there can fail to be a clash between civil governments and religion pure and simple. Of course there will be no conflict between the State and religion, when the latter is brought down to the standard of the former and made a part of it. But religion, pure, simple, undefiled, is not of the State or civil governments. It has no work in common. This becomes evident when we remember that worship, the right to worship a higher power, and to choose in regard to that worship, antedates every form of civil government. In fact, it goes back to a time long before there was any necessity existing for civil government, as far back as to the first created being. It extended to the inhabitants of other worlds, and to the angels of God in heaven. If this were not so, then the inhabitants of other worlds, and the angels, and man himself, were as mere machines. But this is not so, because some of the angels "kept not their first estate." This is evidence that these had the right of choice, to render obedience and worship to their Creator, and keep their estate, or position, or to refuse worship to the Author of their existence, and worship some other being.
Thus it is clearly seen that individual rights of conscience existed even long before this world. And when man was created, he was "endowed" by his Creator with these same "inalienable rights," and given the power and the right of choice,—to obey or not to obey, to worship or not to worship. And in the right to refuse obedience and worship to their Creator was the right to obey and worship some other object or power. All this existed before there was any necessity for civil governments of any form or nature in this world. And if man had remained loyal to his Maker, if he had only made choice to worship that God who is above all gods, this world of ours would never have seen any such thing as civil governments. There would have been no necessity for any such thing.
From all this it becomes evident that civil government is a measure adapted to man in his fallen condition. For, just as soon as man made the decision to have his own way, to follow his own inclination, to try the experiment of sin in disobedience, that moment he became a selfish being. And, with his eyes blinded to the rights of others, he began to infringe upon these rights, to overstep the limitation that bounded his own rights and their exercise. And at once arose a conflict. There was worship. But all should still have been left free to make choice for themselves. Abel and Cain both worshiped, each following the dictates of their own conscience, Abel, enlightened by the word of God and his desire to do the will of God, and Cain with his mind darkened by the perversity of his own disposition, determined to compel his brother to conform to his own form of worship. And Abel fell at the hand of his brother, a martyr to the very principles of liberty of conscience.
Thus we see the necessity of civil governments. They were ordained simply to restrain the outward acts of selfishness of all those who would not restrain themselves. And as religion, or worship, was ordained long before, and men left free to choose each for themselves, it becomes evident that civil governments were not ordained to aid Cain or any of his descendants to enforce or dictate in matters of conscience. In fact, it would seem that the very first indication of a necessity for any form of civil government or civil law, was to restrain those who desired to dictate in matters of worship.
Thus does it become more and more apparent, at every step, that the domain of religion is entirely separate from that of the State.
This will be still more evident when we consider the fact that the work of the gospel, the work of redemption, is simply the carrying forward of God’s original plan of the free exercise of the will of man in matters of worship. The consequence of disobedience was to enslave man to his own selfish purposes and passions. And if God had not interfered, and again set the will of man free, nothing would have been seen in a short time but universal desolation, under the baleful influence of selfishness. For when God said, “I will put enmity” to the evil, in that very promise is seen, by implication, the love of the good, and the power of choice. And this before any civil government or civil law was in existence. Here was a hope held out to man, that all who would avail themselves of it could and would, by the power of God, be lifted out of this bondage of supreme selfishness, where they would be above the necessity of civil law. And it is only by the manifestation of this power of God that any individual is kept from overstepping the one limitation that bound him in the exercise of his rights.
And so, then, the Christian, the man who takes hold of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which “is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth;” is by the power of the gospel placed in a position where he can see and recognize and respect the equal rights of all men. And as he can and does recognize these rights, doing to all others as he would be done by, it is evident that for this man, and for all such, there is no need of civil law. There is no necessity for the power of the State. He depends upon another power, the power of the gospel, which “is the power of God.” And having this, which is the greater power, he does not need the lesser power, the power of the State, to aid him in the exercise of his rights in matters of worship. Neither will he look to the power of the civil arm to enforce institutions of religion. For having himself been brought under the power of the gospel, which is the power of God, and knowing that this is the greater power, he will only “beseech” and “pray” that others will place themselves where they may have the same power, and thus receive divine help to respect the inalienable rights of all men, which is religion itself, the very essence of the gospel.
And so at every turn, at every “line” added to a “line,” and every “precept” added to a “precept,” it becomes more and more evident that civil governments and civil laws are not made for religion or religious institutions, but for the “lawless and for the disobedient.” The church has one work, and the State has another. The church, through the power of the gospel, goes out “into all the world,” and offers this power of the gospel to all men. And all who will accept of it, in its fullness and power, will be given the power to live within the limitations that were set by his Creator, in the exercise of his individual rights. And this is Christianity. This is the power of the gospel, the power of God.
But all those who cannot be induced to accept of this power found in the gospel of Christ, will be left to the buffetings of Satan, and continually tempted to overstep the boundaries within which he can exercise his rights, and invade the rights of another by overt acts, that are unjust, and result in depriving another of his rights; and so the State steps in by its authority in its laws and by599their penalties, and says you must not do this. And this is the power of the State. This is the province of the State. This is the domain of civil governments. Their work is simply supplemental and inferior.
Then shall the church come down from her high and holy calling, and seek to secure the aid of an inferior power? Shall the Christian ask civil governments to engage in that for which they are not ordained? And when they seek the aid of the lesser power, is it not an evidence that they have lost connection with that power which is supreme? Are they not asking another king, that they may appear like the nations around?
“IN THE STOCKS.”
[An editorial contributor (“Oriel”) in the Melbourne (Australia) Argus of May 12, after speaking of the “religious tumult” of the times, and the two Seventh-day Adventists sentenced to be imprisoned “in the stocks,” expresses himself in the verses below.]
In the days when Charles the Second ruled the glorious British nation,
It is said from paths of virtue he habitually swerved;
That he spent his whole existence in repulsive dissipation—
But at least he took precaution that the sabbath was observed.
He was prone, perhaps, to covet the possessions of his neighbor,
Or his neighbor's wife or daughter, or his servant or his ox;
But he held decided views upon the point of Sunday labor,
And he punished all transgressors by confinement in the stocks.
Let us cherish the remembrance of a prince so truly pious,
And condone his little pleasures as the follies of a king,
Close our eyelids to his vices, let them pass unheeded by us,
Though in ordinary mortals it would be a different thing;
Let us recognize his claim to take a prominent position
In the calendar devoted to the saintly orthodox,
And insert a special heading in the Sunday school petition,
“May God bless Charles the Second, and may Heaven preserve the stocks.”
Let us all become detectives, down on sabbath desecration;
Let us catch the bold offenders in the very act of crime,
That the stocks may never suffer from the lack of occupation,
And the prison and the pillory be going all the time.
And whene'er we find a citizen who tries the Sunday watering
Of his twenty feet of grass plot or his bed of holly-hocks—
Well, we can't resort to hanging, or to drawing, or to quartering,
But, all praise to Charles the Second, we can put him in the stocks.
CIVIL VERSUS ECCLESIASTICAL SUPREMACY IN THE AFFAIRS OF MEN.
By C. M. Snow
BY C. M. SNOW.
By civil supremacy I mean the free exercise of governmental functions in the relations of man to man, without the interference of any sect or body of whatever convictions. I mean the right of earthly governments to legislate upon the conduct of their subjects according to the universal principles of justice.
By ecclesiastical supremacy I mean the domination of the church in the control of matters both civil and religious, the result of which is the forced and unceremonious introduction of alien ideas into the field of religious opinion, the domination over conscience, and the offering of strange fire and foreign incense in the sanctuary of the soul.
Some may say that in my definition of these two conditions I have done injustice to the latter, thinking that if ecclesiastical supremacy is the domination by the church in all power, both civil and religious, then civil supremacy ought to be the domination by the State in all power, both religious and civil. But such cannot be the case; for history shows that where the State takes the Church under its wing and attempts to hover it, the Church soon becomes the hovering power, taking the State under its wing,—or rather by the throat. Whether the State assumes control of the affairs of the Church, or the Church assumes control of the affairs of the State, it is bound to be an ecclesiastical institution in the end.
If we say that civil supremacy is the domination by the State in all power, temporal and spiritual, and then such power end, as it certainly must, in the exaltation of the Church (whether that church be pagan, papal, or pseudo Protestant), we have virtually admitted that civil and ecclesiastical supremacy are one and the same. The civil cannot meddle with the ecclesiastical and retain its individuality.
Let us now consider the relations which each of these powers bears to mankind. The great end of all civil government is the securing to all citizens an equality of rights, the protection of each individual in the possession of life, liberty, and property, and the punishment of those whose disregard for these principles leads them to their violation.
The great end of the Church is to teach mankind the way of salvation. To teach, and that by the aid of the Holy Spirit, is the only means ever granted to the Church for the securing of its object.
The work of the one is temporal, and its weapons carnal; the work of the other is eternal, and its weapons spiritual. The one is God's provision for the equality of men, and their enjoyment of social rights; the other is the provision God has made to satisfy the yearnings of the soul for a higher and nobler life, and the enjoyment of heavenly influences. The work of one ends with mortals and with time; the other, only with immortals and eternity. That two objects so important and yet so clearly distinct could ever become one object, be administered by one power, and that a carnal power, is as absurd as it is impossible.
Let us now consider man's condition under the two forms. Under pure and simple civil supremacy all men are protected alike. The very fact of a man's being born into the world gives him a right to live in it, and to enjoy all the blessings and privileges to which existence entitles him. No man or organization of men can justly invade these rights. The organization of civil government is based upon them; upon their recognition depends man's happiness in the temporal state; and their acknowledgment is the sacred privilege of all just and true earthly governments. Civil government is made by man and for man. It recognizes his nature and frailties, and tramples upon neither until their exercise endangers the rights of others. It permits a man to do anything civilly right, prevents him from doing anything civilly wrong, and protects him from the incivility of man, men, or organizations of men,—so long as its legislation is untinctured with the dogmas of religion.
Man is a religious being, and to worship is his right. If this right exercised does not intrude upon the life or liberty of his neighbor, civil government protects such exercise as a sacred trust, because it is man's right. It prescribes no rule for the exercise of man's religious inclinations; and for two reasons:—
First, because these inclinations are planted within him by an all-wise Creator, who will prune them by his own hand. Man cannot regulate them, because no two men are possessed of the same character, and, consequently, would not prescribe the same rules. A man could only enforce what he supposed to be right, and the opinions of the whole world beside would have to bend to his ideas, when any one of them may be as near right as his.
Secondly, as a man's religious convictions, or lack of convictions, cannot interfere with the rights of his neighbor, the civil law has no jurisdiction over them. But he may exercise them in such a way that the lives or property of others are placed in jeopardy. The civil government then very properly prohibits such exercise, for it is the business of governments to protect the lives and property of their subjects. All have a right to worship God; but to perform rites and ceremonies which you detest or in which you cannot believe, is not worshiping God, but the power which compels such performance; and this is idolatry, pure and simple.
Now as to ecclesiastical supremacy. Some would have us think that under this condition we would see nothing but visions of angelic beings sprinkling the thirsty desert of the soul with the refreshing dews of heavenly grace, or the soothing of the dying sinner with the whispered promises of Jesus. But instead of this we hear the wail of tortured humanity rising from the black vaults of the Inquisition; and we see the smoke of fagots hovering in shame over expiring martyrs, as Satan and his associates wreak their vengeance upon the human race by the very hand of humanity itself.
Some would have us think that the Inquisition with its accompanying horrors is not necessary to an ecclesiastical supremacy; that it is a relic of barbarism, and would not be tolerated by an enlightened age like this. How easily some allow themselves to be lulled to sleep by this siren song. It is just as necessary as it ever was, if we acknowledge the rightfulness of ecclesiastical supremacy. The Catholic says that the Inquisition is necessary to a perfect government. This comes from the fact that he believes in the right of earthly governments to legislate upon the commandments of God. They recognize the fact that the law of God reaches deeper than the mere act itself,—that it goes to the motive which prompts the act; and the only way the motive can be discerned is by the forced confession wrung out upon the rack. If you admit the premise, you must accept the conclusion, and that is the Inquisition every time.
When the reins of government are thrown into the hands of religio-political zealots, and they begin to legislate upon man's duty to God, there is nothing so secret but they must find it out, and nothing too holy to be handled by them. They must take from man his personal relation of faith and obedience to God, and from God the pure and simple heart service which he demands. They cannot leave to man the choice of his own mode of worship. He must not study for himself the word of God and the plan of salvation; for thus would arise differences of opinion, and nothing is so fatal to State religion as differences of opinion. A State religion defines its own rights and the limit of its power. Against such definition there is no appeal to history, that is private judgment; there is no appeal to the Bible, that is heresy; there is no appeal to reason, that is rationalism. Freedom of speech it cannot tolerate,—that privilege which has made freedom possible and government tolerable,—one of the greatest levers in prying this country out of the slavish mire of despotic rule.
The question is this: Shall ecclesiastical supremacy exist in this country, robbing us of our rights, ruining our republic, running men's religious opinions through a gauntlet of self-exalted criticism, attempting to pry open the doors of men's hearts, that the dews of heavenly grace may enter? Shall we not rather say, Give us that form of supremacy which recognizes the rights of all men, and tramples upon those of none? And having it, shall we not preserve it as constitutionally guaranteed us? And, instead of grafting the principle of religious legislation into our national Constitution, shall we not rather weed that principle out of our State constitutions where it exists to-day and is carrying on its nefarious, vindictive work?
THE SUNDAY QUESTION.
By Warren Smith
IN questions of public controversy all sides should be heard. Our republican form of government anticipated the broadest range of individual liberty comfortable with the well-being of society.
Honest religious opinions are as widely diversified as the physical, intellectual, and moral constitutions of men are different, hence every man and woman should be guaranteed by law the full and free enjoyment and practice of his opinions, providing600the same do not interfere with the rights of others.
On account of some necessary work recently done on the streets of Atlanta, Georgia, during Sunday, the clergy, in the pulpit and through the columns of the daily papers, made a bitter and unwarranted attack on those who instigated this Sunday work. This attack reveals the fact that there is a class of narrow-minded beings who speak and act as though the government was instituted, and laws enacted, for their own exclusive benefit. It is about time that this class was authoritatively informed that we live in a republic and not a theocracy. They should also be made to understand that the atrocious code of blue laws, and cruel and outrageous régime of Cotton Mather, are inapplicable to this age.
Sunday is strictly a religious institution, and cannot be rightfully enforced on persons having no respect for it as a holy day. The Roman Catholic Church has the same right to enforce the abstinence from eating meat on Friday as Protestant Christians to enforce observance of Sunday.—Ex-Senator Warren Smith.
ARCHBISHOP IRELAND ON THE STRIKE.
INASMUCH as the Catholic archbishop represents a people always most prominent in labor disturbances, his utterance on the merits of the present crisis becomes a matter of general interest. The following frank expression is reported in a dispatch dated Chicago, July 15:—
Archbishop Ireland, of St. Paul, being asked what he had to say upon the railway strike to-day, spoke as follows:—
I dislike to speak of the Chicago strikes, because in so doing I shall blame labor, while, because of my deep sympathy with it, I should wish to have never said but words of praise for it. But in a moment of social crisis, such as the one through which we are passing, it is my duty to speak loudly, and to make the avowal of the truths and principles which will save society and justice. I am glad of the opportunity which a representative of the Associated Press affords me.
The fatal mistake which has been made in connection with this strike is that property has been destroyed, the liberty of business interfered with, human lives placed in danger, social order menaced, and the institutions and freedom of the country put in most serious jeopardy. The moment such things happen, all possible questions as to the rights and grievances of labor must be dropped out of sight, and all efforts of law-abiding citizens and of public officials made to serve in maintaining public order and guarding, at all costs, the public welfare.
Labor must learn that, however sacred its rights may be, there is something above them, and absolutely supreme,—social order and the laws of public justice. There is no civil crime so hideous, so pregnant of evil results, as resistance to law and the constitutional authority of the country. This resistance is revolution. It begets chaos; it is anarchy; it disrupts the whole social fabric.
Labor, too, must learn the lesson that the liberty of the citizen is to be respected. One man has the right to cease from work, but he has no right to drive another man from work. He who respects not the liberty of others shows himself unworthy of his own liberty, and incapable of citizenship in a free country.
Riots and mob rule, such as have occurred in Chicago, do immense harm to the cause of labor, and set back its advance for whole decades of years. Labor thereby loses the earnest sympathy of thousands of friends, and gives courage and triumph to its enemies. Worse yet, the principle of popular government suffers. It is no wonder that, reading of the occurrences in America, Europe announces that the republic is a failure, and that a strong monarchy only can hold society together.
I am far from saying that labor has not had its grievances in America, nor that redress must not be sought. I would not respect the laborer who seeks not to defend his rights, and to improve his condition. But all this must be done within the lines of social order and law. The remedy for these ills is a healthy public opinion and fair public legislation, and all legitimate efforts in these directions, whether by single or united force, are laudable.
For my own part, I believe the large number of men who join strikes are more to be pitied than to be blamed. They are led on by irresponsible and tyrannous chiefs. Labor unions have great statutes, but one marked evil in them is that they put the liberties of tens of thousands in the keeping of one man, or a few, who become their absolute masters, their despotic czars.
The solution to the differences between capital and labor is necessarily complex, and no precise formula has been or can be found. A generous sense of justice toward all, a deep love of one's fellows, and attentive listenings to the teachings of Christ, will lead on all sides to a better understanding and to happier mutual relations. Certain it is that, so far as it is possible, the laborer should not lack support for himself and family. He should not be overburdened, either in weight or time of labor; he should be treated as a rational and moral being, with all respect due to his human dignity. His remuneration, if diminished in periods of depression, should increase in periods of prosperity.