eternal condemnation; at the same time calling them to repentance, and the acceptance of free grace as the condition of salvation, then they had solemn and impressive demonstration that the law is sacred; that the transgressor is fearfully guilty, and that God, though full of love and grace, is on a throne of righteousness.

The holy Jesus, then, in his entire public mission, and especially in his passion, becomes a spectacle of most solemn and profound significance. For the sake both of guilty man and the broken law, he stands forth as mediator, expressing in his suffering the guilt of the sinner, and, also, the love, and sorrow, and righteousness of God. The cross of Christ as the culmination, or rather the exponent of the whole work and manifestation of the Messiah, is seen to be no empty spectacle, nor scenic representation to act upon the senses and emotions; no mere symbolic teaching of the duty of self-sacrifice; no canceling of a debt by suffering the literal penalty; no complex suffering of the human and the divine which, after all, does not reach to, and involve the divine; no seeming frown of the Father upon Christ in suffering for the sinner's sake; but a real and true manifestation of God himself, in his holy sorrow for sin; in his deep, yearning love for the sinner; in his selfhumiliation, and self-sacrifice in his behalf; and of his holy justice and righteousness, while he proclaims through Christ free pardon and salvation to the penitent believer. Thus, God suffered on account of sin before the Incarnation. But Christ in his humanity upon the cross, as Mediator, gave to the divine suffering a practical end both for the transgressor and for the law. He made it available by divine appointment for a governmental purpose, by giving it upon the cross the most solemn and emphatic expression possible to the human understanding. In other words, he atoned for the sins of the world by his humiliation and suffering as Mediator, inasmuch as he not only represented man, but manifested God.

ARTICLE III.—THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF LABOR.

THE American doctrine of free labor asserts its dignity, its rights, and its obligation. This is also the Christian doctrine. 1. The Dignity of labor. This is asserted against two distinct views of its degradation.

First, the dignity of labor is asserted in opposition to the theory that it is servile or menial, and, therefore, degrading.

As society received organization in the early days of violence, the conquerors and their descendants became the superior and ruling class, and their claim to the service of the inferior class was founded on might. Prisoners taken in war became slaves; the inhabitants of provinces conquered and occupied by the conquerors became serfs. Service was the duty of the subjugated. Though, in the lapse of generations, the original violence was forgotten, the service remained a servitude, a service of the weak to the strong, due to them because they were strong, a service due to the superior class on account of its superiority. Thus labor became a badge of subjugation, and degrading, because servile.

The American doctrine of free labor sweeps all this away. Society is founded on right and not on might. There is no subjugated class, rendering unpaid service in token of their subjugation. Feudalism and the subjugation of conquered people have had no place in our history, and have left none of their decaying institutions, as in Europe, to perpetuate the degradation of labor. According to the gospel rule of reciprocity, labor is simply a service rendered for an equivalent. The claim of the employer and the obligation of the employed are founded only on the contract by which they have freely bound themselves. They stand as equals in an interchange of service in which each renders to the other an equivalent for what he receives. There is no possibility of attaching degradation to labor, for the element of servility is entirely excluded.

In the free States this view prevails in respect to almost all kinds of labor. Labor in the professions, in the countingroom, on the quarter deck, and even on the farm and in the shop, is honorable. But labor in the kitchen, and, in general, all labor which involves personal attendance, is still regarded as servile and degrading. This is totally inconsistent with the principles of American civilization. It is a lingering idea of an entirely different system; it is the penumbra of old feudalism, deepened by the additional shadow of negro slavery. This labor, like all other, is performed under the gospel law of reciprocity. It is service rendered for an equivalent. It is a reciprocal service, in which the claims of the employer and the obligations of the employed are determined by their contract. Let not employers assume airs and claim rights in respect to their domestics or attendants which belong only to the relation of master and servant in an aristocratic civilization. Let domestics be relieved of the name, servant, into which both by its etymology and its history the degradation of labor is so infused that it can never be extracted. Let it become obsolete, as its kindred words, slave and serf, must. On the other hand, let not domestics, because employed in America, claim privileges to which no theory of the dignity of labor entitles them. Because their work is in or near the house, they are not entitled to the intimacy of the family. The arrangement which assigns a particular part of the house to the occupancy of the domestics is not a mark of degradation, as if they were not fit to be associated with; it is simply an arrangement to which both parties agree for their common convenience. This arrangement only puts this kind of labor on the same footing, in this respect, with all others. The workman hired to do other kinds of work, does not therefore claim a right to sit at the table of his employer, or to spend his leisure in the intimacy of the family parlor; nor does it ever occur to him that this is degrading.*

* A woman called at our door a few days ago and asked if we wanted a lady to do our house work. Ridiculous as this pretentiousness is, is it not the same in essence with the pretentiousness of the woman who calls herself a lady simply

While all useful labor is honorable, all laborers are not therefore of equal consideration in society. Skilled labor will always have more consideration than unskilled; talents, energy, and industry, will secure to the laborer more respect than incompetence, inefficiency, and idleness. But the difference of consideration and respect attaches not to the labor, but to the man-to his skill, talents, industry, and energy.

Secondly, the dignity of labor is asserted in opposition to the theory that labor is dependent and mercenary, and therefore degrading.

In the civilization founded on might, the lower classes constituting the mass of society exist only for the benefit of the upper class; like the dregs of wine, existing only to give their strength to the sparkling liquid above them, and then to be thrown away. It is honorable to live in idleness supported by the gains of others. It is degrading to depend on the gains of industry. The hired laborer is a dependent on his employer. To do business for gain is to be mercenary. As dependent and mercenary, the man who depends for support on the gains of his labor or business, is incapable of possessing the spirit, or exercising the functions of a freeman.

The degradation here attaches to the gains of labor rather than labor itself. Labor even ceases to be degrading, if not prosecuted for gain. Louis XVI. may make locks, the ladies of his court may make butter and cheese, provided it is only for amusement. Lord Rosse may build a telescope as an amateur in the interest of science, and still be noble. But if the locks, the butter, or the telescope are sold, the makers are degraded to the level of the tradesman. Lord Byron utters the aristocratic contempt of gainful labor,

"Trust not for freedom to the Franks;

They have a king who buys and sells."

The Southern sneers that the people of New England, because

because her sphere is in the parlor? In America position cannot make the gentleman or lady; but only manners and character. We have known an illiterate Irish girl working in the kitchen, who was a true lady in all the native courtesies, the considerate attentions and amenities, which mark a ladylike character.

they are a manufacturing and mercantile people, are necessarily mean-spirited, incapable of nobleness, ready to sacrifice honor to gain, and fitted only to inferiority of rank, are the utter ance of the same aristocratic sentiment.

American civilization, on the contrary, accordant with the gospel rule of reciprocity, regards the laborer as rendering to his employer a service equivalent to what he receives. The dependence and the service are reciprocal. Business is a service to society to be prosecuted for its uses, and for gains only as an equivalent for its uses, demanding the noblest Christian virtues in its prosecution, and giving scope in its inventions and enterprises to the greatest talents, energy, and executive ability. The disgrace attaches to living in idleness and eating unearned bread; the honor attaches to industry and its achieve

ments.

It is befitting to aristocratic civilization that the members of Parliament receive no pay. It is necessary in American civilization that every officer of the government receive a salary. Because wealth is not a prerequisite to the highest dignity; and in society in which the high officers of State, not excepting the President, work for wages, dependence on the income of industry cannot be degrading.

2. The Rights of the laborer.

First, the American doctrine of free labor asserts the laborer's right to himself.

In the ancient civilization founded on might, the rights of man as man were totally unrecognized. The individual had rights only as a citizen, conferred on him by the State and belonging only to the privileged class. In our civilization the rights of the the laborer rest ultimately on the foundation of the gospel doctrine of the dignity and worth of the individual man, and the consequent sacredness of his rights as man. In the ancient civilization the State is preeminent, and the individual is a tool of the State, existing only for it. The people existed for the benefit of the government. In our civilization the individual man is preeminent. The highest end is the education, the development, the perfection, the welfare of the individual man. The government exists for the benefit of the people.