awakened to a consciousness of the fact that they are "back numbers"; that the world has been moving on with lightning speed while they have been standing still or, worse, have been steadily going backward; that they are limping in the rear when they ought to be in the vanguard as leaders, and that they are befogged in many a realm where they ought to have clear vision. Many of these men have resolved to regain the lost ground, but they do not know where to begin or what to do. The vanguard is out of sight, but they are hungry for a chance. They would like to regain their feet. They would like to push to the front again. They yearn for a clear vision of the things that they see now as confused and unrelated. Some one ought to give them a chance. A postgraduate course of study-up-to-date, wisely planned, and vigorously administered-would bring the uplift and inspiration to thousands who sadly need it. Perhaps a second board, or a department of the regular Board of Examination, might successfully take care of the work within the bounds of its own Conference. Perhaps the entire enterprise might be supervised by the secretary of the Board of Education, or perhaps a special General Conference secretary might be elected to organize, direct and inspire the work. No secretary would bring larger returns to the church than this particular one, if he were the right man in the right place. Perhaps it is possible to put some one of our great theological seminaries, or, in a sense, all of them, back of such a movement. Then we should have our intellectual giants breathing an inspiration into our unsalaried Conference leaders, and they, in turn, would help the rank and file to those visions of truth that could not fail to make possible the largest victories. This paragraph is not intended to bring forward a programme, but to point out an imperative necessity. The thing ought to be done. The vision must, somehow, be flashed upon eager eyes. How shall it be done?·

Polemus Nanietton Swift

ART. IV.-THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN FRANCE

Two documents mark a century of French history. On April 8, 1802, was promulgated the Concordat between the French Government and Pope Pius VII reëstablishing the church after the disorders of the Revolution. December 6, 1905, the Senate passed the bill for the separation of church and state in haste, in order that the law might go into effect on January 1 of the present year. The preamble of the Concordat runs as follows: "The government of the French Republic recognizes that the Catholic religion, Apostolic and Roman, is the religion of the great majority of French citizens.

"His Holiness equally recognizes that this religion has derived, and that at this moment it still expects, the greatest benefit and prestige from the establishment of the Catholic cultus in France, and the particular profession of it made by the Consuls of the Republic."

The first head of the Separation Bill includes the following sections: "Article First. The Republic assures the liberty of conscience. It guarantees the free exercise of religion Article Second. The Republic does not recognize, or salary, or subvention any cult whatsoever. The public religious organizations are abolished."

Thus the working agreement negotiated by Napoleon and the Roman pontiff has been completely overthrown, although for rather more than a hundred years it has served as the legal basis for the religious life of France. The causes of the sweeping change are to be found in part in the character of the Concordat itself, more fully in the development of French civilization in the years elapsed since its formation. During the later Revolution the services of the church had been interrupted, and a large part of its property sequestrated or sold. After the renewal of more stable civil government these property rights furnished the possibility for successful negotiation. The church sought a return to

its former supremacy, or some condition approximating thereto. The government desired the support of the religious arm, but was unwilling, had it been able, to restore to the ecclesiastical authorities undiminished power. The result of the negotiations was a compromise, whose provisions have been judged by historians more advantageous to one or the other of the high contracting parties, according to the point of view from which the writer may consider his theme. Dating from the promulgation of the agreement, the exercise of the Catholic religion was to be free everywhere within the borders of France, subject only to such police regulations as might be necessary for the maintenance of public order. The churches, cathedrals, etc., which had not been alienated during the Revolution were restored to the control of the bishops. Alienated property was to remain in the possession of those who had acquired it; but the state agreed to support the bishops and clergy. The bishops were to be nominated by the First Consul, but instituted by the Pope; the inferior clergy chosen by the bishops with government assent. Bishops and curés alike were held to swear obedience to the Republic, using the formulas inherited from the old régime, before entering on the exercise of their functions.

To men of English speech, who have been so long accustomed to the enjoyment of "a free church in a free state," the Concordat seems an extraordinary arrangement, most excellently adapted to provoke discord between the civil and the ecclesiastical authorities. This impression is heightened by the so-called Organic Articles, which were appended to the Concordat at the time of its promulgation and formed the conditions of its acceptance by the government, although the church from that day to this has never formally adhered to them. By these supplementary articles it was enacted that, without the consent of the government, no Bull or other mandate from Rome should be published; no Papal representative exercise his functions on French soil; no ecclesiastical council be assembled. The bishops, it was stipulated, must reside within their dioceses, and not leave them without governmental permission. The manner of public worship, all ecclesiastical

ceremonies, and even the dress of the clergy, were made subject to civil regulation. And, what was especially repugnant to the church, civil marriage was rendered obligatory as a preliminary to the ecclesiastical ceremony and the registration of vital statistics in general handed over to the civil power. Analogous provision was made at the same time for the establishment of the Protestant churches, and later for the Jews as well. The explanation of these remarkable stipulations and of others equally strange is furnished by the historical conditions under which they were created. Similar crises have overtaken the church in other countries since the beginning of the Revolutionary era, and she has more than once been compelled to submit, with what grace she could muster, to parallel enactments. The necessities of the case, morever, explain the success of the Concordat during the century of its existence. Since 1802 France has passed through many critical experiences, and known more vicissitudes of government than any other of the leading European nations. Yet the religious settlement, unworkable as it seems on its face and calculated to engender friction, has throughout this era of turmoil accomplished the results for which it was framed. On the whole, it has promoted peace between the hierarchy and the political body. It has enabled the church, in a measure, to regain and to conserve its position in the nation. Under it France has experienced, not only periods of ecclesiastical reaction, but even outbursts of deep religious feeling. The latest of these periods of faith followed the close of the Franco-Prussian war. Moved by the disasters of the "terrible year," the French turned anew to the support and the consolations of religion. A wave of religious devotion passed over the nation, manifested in ways conformable to its spiritual genius and history. This was the period of the great pilgrimages, of votive churches, of attempts to organize the new government on a thoroughly Catholic basis. During the earlier years of the Republic conservatism was dominant alike in state affairs and in matters purely ecclesiastical, so that more than once little was needed but the consent of the royalist pretender, the Comte de Chambord, for the restoration of the monarchy in a

slightly modernized form. In the event, the union of religion and politics proved the undoing of the movement. After the refusal of the "king" to accept the throne on conditions which in anywise should savor of the new régime, the alliance of the church with the political reaction operated to hinder the success of the religious propaganda. For there is nothing which the average Frenchman dreads so much as the interference of religion in the affairs of state. He may be a socialist, an agnostic or a believer, but, short of those who deliberately espouse the principles of the ancient order, he is certain to be an anti-clerical in his political views. His fear of priestly domination, if not his hatred of it, often drives him to absurd extremes. Rather than risk the remotest danger of ecclesiastical control he will subject religion to provisions which prevent its free exercise or check its normal growth. The French mind, in fact, seldom understands religious freedom as the Anglo-Saxon has come to love it through centuries of conflict followed by other centuries of reasonable liberty. For the clerical party religious freedom means freedom to work, to plot, to strive, even by questionable expedients, for dominance in the councils of the nation. For most others—and this class includes the great majority of Frenchmen-the phrase denotes such a modicum of liberty as may consist with what they somewhat feverishly judge necessary for the independence and the security of the political body. It is only the enlightened few, taught often by contact with English culture, who realize that, for France as for other modern nations, there is no final solution of the question possible except a settlement which shall assure the entire freedom of religion at the same time that it safeguards the interests of the state.

The situation in the early seventies was complicated by the outcome of later ecclesiastical history. In face of the increasing radicalism of the mid-century two courses had been open to the papacy: so far as possible to liberalize the doctrine and practice of the church into harmony with modern principles; or, in a spirit of reaction, to emphasize those of its beliefs and customs which are most repugnant to the modern mind. Under the guid