"I saw the fulness, sufficiency and willingness of Christ to save me and all men, in such a manner,as constrained me to venture my soul into his arms; and if I had ten thousand souls, I would have trusted them all to his hands. And O, how I did long that every soul of Adam's race might come to know the love of God in Christ Jesus." Again Plumtre "quotes Maurice as a representative instance of the way in which the doctrine of Universal Restoration commends itself to devout souls, not because they are indifferent to sin or take inadequate views of the holiness of God; but because they have felt the misery of the one, and the blessedness of the manifestation of the love of God in Christ which has translated them into the other." Facts such as these led Olshausen to say: "Universalism is without doubt deeply rooted in noble minds; it is an expression of the longing for perfected harmony in the universe." It is not difficult to account for the fact that many good men have not formally so testified nor professed as a doctrine. For there are abundant reasons in corrupt human nature, in the perversity thereof, in education and environment, and in an inherited faulty exegesis, for believing and teaching almost any doctrine agreeable to pagan philosophy and to the lower instincts of human nature which are still of great influence in many otherwise Christian men. So, if we had time and ability to discover the true and secret life of the pious in all history, and if that which is whispered in the ear were proclaimed on the house-top, should we not hear the restitution of all things spoken by the mouths of all God's holy prophets since the world began? I think we may go even further. If the implications of Christianized human souls are indicative of theological truth, what shall we say of the Spirits above, even of Christ and of God? It is recorded that when David heard of the death of Absalom, he uttered a passionate cry of grief which he repeated eight times. The Rabbis commenting thereon said that at each of the seven cries, one of the seven gates of hell rolled back, at the eighth the lost spirit of Absalom was received into Paradise. May it not be true that even the griefs of God's favored ones

NEW SERIES. VOL. XXIV.

are potent in

30

heaven? And shall not the sorrows of Great David's Greater Son prevail for those whom he loved? Shall not he who wept over sinful Jerusalem and who tasted death for every man, see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied? Yea, also, "God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked but that the wicked turn from his way and live." He so loved the world of wicked men that he gave his only begotten son that the world through him might be saved. He desires (or wills) all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of God. These outgoings" of God's nature. But the tendencies of God's nature are the laws of the universe; and they must be accomplished.

are "

Now for the application. A distinguished preacher in New Haven, who believes in the Christian consciousness, finds much in him" that leaps at the very mention of the Eternal hope," and "gives wings to the thought." And against this he apparently urges only "a tendency to fixity in evil, by the formation of evil habits." As if this tendency were stronger than God! Or as if when God shall be done with this tendency, He can not set another at work to repair the damage-as in the case of the Prodigal Son. There is a tendency in all men to death. But God intervenes and raises them up. Has any one proved that in the analogous case, He will not do likewise?

"Any

The Andover men are in the same predicament. theories claiming to be founded on the Bible, yet against which the Christian sentiment rebels, must not be accepted." And this, too, when all parties seem to be agreed that the doctrine of endless punishment is the most offensive of all the theories claiming to be founded on the Bible.. Some, even in their own church have discovered the conclusion of these two premises.

Before speaking of that conclusion let me add a third instance of a worthy professor in Boston University who says of the doctrine" that fails to satisfy the highest that is within us, its day is done, its life is departed, and there is no resurrection." And again, as to the doctrine of endless punishment,

"distress haunts us;" and "the Scripture teaching concernfuture retribution, is one which with our present knowledge, we cannot adjust to our moral sentiments and convictions." Does he discover any tendency to a solution of the contradiction, other than the growing rejection of certain parts of " orthodox" exegesis? With the growth and refinement of the Christian temper in him and in others, does he see any tendency of sympathy and those "moral sentiments and convictions" to become feebler or to yield to the offensive doctrine? Or does he expect that added "knowledge" will so change his nature after the suggestion of Jonathan Edwards, that the love and sense of justice which now forbid him to rest and find peace in the damnation of his brother man, and which movement of his soul he now thinks to be the highest there is within him, will be changed to indifference concerning others or to hatred of them? Now we are commanded to love our enemies, that we may be like our Father in heaven. Then shall we be commanded to hate them? That a father and a mother may rejoice at the sight of their wayward child in an endless hell, is love to become hate or to be done away! If so, away with it! Let it be crucified! O, men of the New Orthodoxy, Love was crucified once. Shall it be so again!

No. Thank God there is a better way. The logic of the situation must soon be manifest and accepted. The progressive orthodox teach:

1. That the Christian conscionsness is right.

2. That the Christian consciousness is Universalist 3. [Here they seem to have stopped thinking.]

But they are sincere men; the stop will not be long. And then in the language of one of them; "Old doctrines will be seen to have a better meaning, neglected truths will be restored to their proper relations, and the church will rejoice in a larger freedom and life."

George T. Knight.

ARTICLE XXX.

Can Wages be Raised by Vote?

IF Mr. Powderly had recommended this question for discussion at the meetings of the several labor oganizations throughout the United States and instructed these bodies not to report the issue of the debate until the end of six months, a very different result would have been reached from that which we have witnessed.

A little reflection will show that this question is fundamental. If it is found upon examination that the rate of wages does not depend upon any arbitrary conventional arrangement; that it is not a question to be decided by resolution or vote, but depends upon causes far above political or individual action, then much of the discussion that has taken place was irrelevant and the action proceeding therefrom was the result of mistake.

The assumption at the beginning was that the rate of wages could be raised by vote; that it was only a matter between the employer and employed, that if one demanded and the other acceded to the demand the matter was settled. Another assumption was that an increase in the price of labor was the same thing as an increase of wages.

Let us see how far this is true or whether it is true at all. The price of labor is the nominal sum the laborer receives for his work. The rate of wages is the purchasing power of the sum received. Thus his wages are high when they can be exchanged for a large amount of commodities, and low when he can obtain a comparatively small amount in exchange, no matter how the nominal sum of his wages may be expressed. These two elements must be taken together to determine the compensation the laborer receives.

For example, let us suppose a man who earns ten dollars a week and that his earnings will buy a barrel of flour. He strikes for twenty per cent advance and gets it. By and by he wants a barrel of flour. He calls upon his grocer and is told

that in consequence of labor movements the price of flour has advanced; that it is now twenty per cent. higher, or twelve dollars a barrel, just the amount of his advanced wages.

It will be seen that here is no increase of wages; and this results from the very simple operation of an increased cost of production that arises from an advance in the price of labor. If one cancels the other there is no increase in the purchasing power of wages.

But the objection from the workingman's stand-point is that an advance of wages-so called-need not be followed by an increased cost of production, and hence, in the case above cited flour should not have been sold at a higher price.

This is a vital point; and if the objection is well taken, the rate of actual wages can be advanced whenever organizations of workingmen unite in sufficient numbers to secure cooperative action. The question now arises if there is no increase in the cost of production when labor, the chief element of cost in every product made by human industry, received a higher reward, by what law or legerdemain are the deductions of mathematics to be set aside?

Perhaps it will be said that while the cost of production may be increased so far as the employer is concerned who pays an advanced price, yet this is not such an advance as will compel the purchaser to pay a higher price for the product. This leads to the conclusion that the profits of the manufacturer or dealer, or both, are enormous and can be curtailed. This assumption is utterly groundless. The average rate of profits is fixed by a law as inexorable as any that govern the movements of trade. Abnormal profits arising from exceptional conditions are sometimes gained; but these exceptions only show the rule to be otherwise.

There is a popular delusion concerning the rate of profits. It is generally supposed that if manufacturers and employers were so disposed, the rate of wages could be easily advanced and still leave ample reward for invested capital and the skill and enterprise required in the conduct of business. The history of industrial enterprises completely overthrows this as