Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

can.

Their power is used in a perfectly conscienceless manner for the spoliation of the community and for their own enrichment. They contrive to levy vast tribute upon the industry of the whole country: their burdens are borne by all classes. And this is done, in many cases, by a most flagrant violation of law.

Take two instances. The Atchison railway system, which is now in the hands of a receiver, was reported, by an expert accountant, as having been managed with an entire disregard of common honesty. Its resources were overstated to the extent of seven millions of dollars; and thus investors were deceived and swindled. I heard bitter words spoken about it in England last summer that made me blush for my country. It has practised a systematic evasion of the InterState Commerce law by which unlawful rebates, to the extent of four millions of dollars, have been concealed. All this is criminal action. Here is a great corporation defying the law and defrauding the community. The extent of the wreckage caused by this failure will be five times greater than the destruction of property in the Chicago riots. Mr. Debs is in jail, I believe. How about the Atchison magnates? When combinations of laborers work mischief we all cry out that they must be punished. Are we quite as strenuous in our demands that when worse mischiefs are wrought, by methods no less nefarious, but a little more genteel, they also shall be punished? That is one instance. Here is another:

Senator Sherman stated, not long ago, in his place in the Senate, that the incorporators of the Sugar Trust, "upon a basis of $9,000,000, issued $75,000,000 of stock, and $10,000,000 of bonds, and paid upon it, watered stock and all, from six to twelve per cent interest every year, every dollar of which was at the cost of the people of the United States." We know, in part, how they have managed to do it: their contribution of campaign funds to both political parties has enabled them to manipulate the national legislature. But is

it not monstrous that such a tribute as this should be levied upon a whole nation for the enrichment of a few men? And is it not clear that property which is administered in this way becomes not only an awful engine of oppression, but a tremendous menace to our liberties?

Now I think that if we, the people of America, mean that this nation shall continue to stand for a genuine Christian democracy we must at once confront the fact that the day of judgment has fully come to all these great combinations of corporate wealth. Such vast accumulations of power cannot be left in the hands of soulless and conscienceless organizations. These corporations must find out whether they have souls or not. If they have and will demonstrate the fact by a conscientious administration of their trusts, there will be no disposition to interfere with them; they will be honored and praised and rejoiced in, as the ministers of God. Such they are now, in cases not a few. But if it becomes evident that they are, with few exceptions, gigantic egoisms, recognizing no relation to the community but that of a predaceous animal, then their power must be taken from them, at whatever cost. The nation is itself a moral organism, and it cannot entrust the greatest power under its control to immoral or unmoral agents. The nation must see that its enormous resources of material power are kept under the control of intelligence and conscience. A man has conscience and moral sensibility; and it is safe therefore to leave him free, under moral influences, to handle the resources of material wealth. But if a corporation has neither conscience nor moral sensibility, if that is the nature of the creature—and, if there is no room in its constitution for the development of such faculties, then it cannot rightly administer wealth; and the nation must take it firmly in hand and establish a rigid supervision of all its affairs.

I think that in this rather cursory discussion I have uncovered certain "dangerous tendencies of current industrial

life." And I believe that the principles which I have just stated are perfectly clear and perfectly sound. You get down here to foundations which are as solid as Gibraltar. And it is high time that we had cleared the rubbish from these foundations, and had begun to build the fabric of our jurisprudence firmly upon them. When we are ready to do this, we shall find, I think, that outbreaks of violence from the working classes will be much less frequent. This nation cannot afford to give any room to the suspicion that combinations of laborers are judged by a more rigorous law than combinations of capitalists. Upon both these classes of combinations must be enforced the Christian law which binds us all to use all our powers with constant reference to the common good. This is the way of righteousness and it is the only way of peace.

ARTICLE III.

FORMULATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE MASS AT THE COUNCIL OF TRENT.

I.

BY THE REV. PROFESSOR C. WALKer, d. d.

The History of the Council of Trent. Written in Latin by Pietro Soave Polano, and faithfully translated into English by Nathaniel Brent, Knight, etc.

2. Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, with their History. By Rev. J. Waterworth. Dedicated, by permission, to Right Rev. Nicholas Wiseman, Bishop of Melipotamus, etc.

3. Memoirs of Council of Trent. By Rev. J. Mendham.

4. Catechism of the Council of Trent. Translated into English by Theodore Aloise Buckley.

5. Catholic Doctrine, as defined at the Council of Trent, expounded in a series of Conferences, delivered in Geneva. By Rev. A. Nampon, S. J. Proposed as a means of reuniting all Christians, etc., etc. With the commendatory approval of Bishop Frederick and of Archbishops Hughes, Spalding and Purcell.

THE two main issues as to the Lord's Supper,-the first, that of the nature of the presence involved; and secondly, that of its sacrificial character,-while constantly running up into each other, and in popular apprehension inseparable, need to be carefully distinguished. Of the two, that of the presence is comparatively unimportant; in its ultimate element is more largely in the metaphysics of physics than one of a moral and spiritual character. The experience of a large ecclesiastical community, the Lutheran Church, shows that this doctrine of a bodily presence in the elements, objective to the recipient and ubiquitous in its nature, is comparatively innocuous, need not affect any of the great fundamental truths of Christianity. This, the fact, with consubstantiation, or impanation, might be also, with transubstantiation, sup

posing it pure and simple, with none of the accompaniments involved in the doctrine of sacramental sacrifice. Had Lutheranism entangled itself with the idea of an Aaronic succession, and its kindred idea of the Aaronic priesthood, as has been the case with a section of Anglicanism, the effect of consubstantiation upon its theology and ritual would have been much more disastrous. This last touches the nervous center of the Christian system, affects in its influence the position of every truth of that system. While, in one direction, it evacuates the spiritual priesthood of the Christian believer, in another, it brings down the sole priesthood or prerogative of Christ to that of the Christian ministry, or, to put it in another form, exalts the Christian minister to the place and prerogative of Christ. As formulated in the Council of Trent, and reaffirmed in that of the Vatican, this doctrine of the Church of Rome presents itself for acceptance, and, pronounc ing an anathema upon those rejecting, makes its demands upon our careful examination. Its affirmations, for three hundred years, have confronted the heart and intellect of Oriental and Protestant Christendom. Nothing, it would seem, ought to be easier than to say what is their meaning and substance. Why necessary, at this time, to subject them to investigation? It would appear, at the first glance, that nothing of this kind would be needed.

And yet we often, in regard to this subject, find conflicting statements. Indeed the popular view of Romish, as of Protestant communities, involves certain features that are by many Romish theologians repudiated. It does really seem as if there ought to be no doubt about it. The doctrine has been long before the world. The men who were burned for rejecting it, and the men who burned them, evidently thought that they understood each other. Was it all a logomachy, or upon points of minor importance? Questions of this kind naturally come up when it is asserted or implied that this doctrine is misrepresented or misunderstood, or that it is es

« ÎnapoiContinuă »