which alike the ideas of Church and State and the standing of the citizen and the Christian were mixed up.'

Other, and in some respects equally important changes were introduced by the constitution of 1848, which, in some measure, was modified by that of 1858. Among them was the arrangement by which all ecclesiastic property was secularised or taken over by the State, on the understanding that the State was henceforth to salary the clergy, to maintain churches and glebe-houses, and to pay the officials of the theological faculty. Formerly these expenses had been met partly by the revenue from property belonging to the Church, and partly by certain ecclesiastical dues. The latter were unconditionally abolished in 1848, while the former ceased to increase as before (through donations and bequests), when the State took the matter in hand. Accordingly it was now found that the income was no longer equal to the expenditure, and part of the ecclesiastical budget had to be met from the ordinary revenue of the State. At the time of the secularisation in 1848, the annual income from ecclesiastical property amounted to 100,000 francs (4,0007.). But as in 1868 the ecclesiastical budget is estimated at 125,000 francs (5,0001.), it entails an annual loss to the State of 25,000 francs (or 1,000l.), being the excess of State expenditure over ecclesiastical revenue. This difference has, of course, to be met out of the ordinary general taxation of the country. Spread over the population of about 80,000, this excess of 25,000 francs gives an average of thirty centimes overhead, which marks the demand made by the Church upon the people for its support.†

Inconsiderable as this demand is, the Synod has, to its great honour, marked with a feeling of humiliation, that "if the State pays more for the support of the Church than it receives from the revenue of ecclesiastical property, Church and State may still be said to be mixed up, and that to the detriment of the latter, and in proportion as it is obliged to draw upon the general taxation for the payment of the pastors." This feeling is all the more creditable, as since the secularisation of its property in 1848, the Church has, of course, received no further benefactions from the people, and thus an arrest has been laid on the increase of its revenues. On the other hand, the Church brings no complaint of unfair or even niggard dealings against the State. The two powers have lived peaceably side by side, co-ordinate, and without mutual inter

Rapport présenté au Synode, p. 18.

† Appel au Peuple Neuchâtel, sur la Séparation de l'Eglise et de l'Etat, p. 24. It will, of course, be understood that there is no special ecclesiastical tax, and that, in general, the taxes are levied in different proportions, according to position and income.

Rapport au Synode, p. 19.

ference. Of the other ecclesiastical reforms adopted in 1848 most have also acted beneficially. They have introduced the lay element into the rule of each parish, in the election of the clergyman, in the "Colloques" (or Presbyteries), and in the general Synod. It is, therefore, with almost justifiable pride that the Synod can point to the fact that "there is perhaps not a State in Europe more independent of the Church" than theirs. A strange and probably unparalleled boast this on the part of an ecclesiastical assembly, sounding all the stranger to us in England, where, with the exception perhaps of the Papacy within the Roman States, the Established Church is the most persecuting religious body in existence, forbidding, despite all our modern advancement, not only entrance to our national universities and schools, but even to the common God's-acre, unless upon submission to the Church! Possibly the secular power of Neuchatel might return the compliment of the Church, and speak of it as the most free from State control in Europe. And yet we have now before us the following decree of the Grand Council and the Council of State, passed with the tacit but full approbation of the Synod:-"The present connection between State and Church shall cease on and after the 1st January, 1871; the income derived from ecclesiastical property shall be paid over each year to the representatives of the churches and parishes to whom that property respectively belongs; the glebehouses shall be appropriated as before for dwellings of the clergy; the churches belonging to the various parishes and municipalities shall remain their property, on condition of their being kept in proper repair and placed free of charge at the disposal of the different churches and religious associations, either already existing or which may be formed, for the celebration of their respective worship. In each locality the majority of the population attached to any form of worship shall have the first choice of the hours for religious service."

This decree now only awaits, almost as a matter of form, the final sanction of a popular assembly. It is remarkable for more than the complete separation between Church and State which it enacts. Apparently it leaves the decisive choice and the settlement of doctrinal questions in each parish to the majority, whatever opinions that majority may entertain. At the same time it also recognises the rights of the minority in the parish, and gives it a standing by the side, and a share in the ecclesiastical provision, of the majority. It is perhaps the most striking instance of liberality ever recorded that in this matter also the Synod has not only anticipated the State, but even gone beyond it, by suggesting that any minority, whether heretical or simply dissenting, should be allowed to share in the ecclesiastical endowments, and that in proportion to its numbers.

And so we repeat, for the first time perhaps in history, we have the spectacle of a Church voluntarily separating from the State, with mutual goodwill, and enjoying the respect and admiration of the majority of the people. A Church, moreover, which in this separation is earnestly anxious, not of securing the greatest temporal advantages, but of bearing itself so as best to subserve its high spiritual purposes. Lastly, a Church which, while thoroughly orthodox in its own tenets, not only bears with the scruples of a minority, but is ready to allow it a share in its temporal provision. It still remains to trace the origin and history of this remarkable

movement.

CAUSES OF DISESTABLISHMENT.

Ecclesiastically, the Canton of Neuchatel is divided into six "Colloques" or Presbyteries (those of Neuchatel, Boudry, Chauxde-Fonds, Val-de-Ruz, Val-de-Travers, and Locle). Each "Colloque" consists of the clergy and of lay representatives from the district, the latter chosen by popular election. The "Colloques" are in turn represented in the General Synod, which exercises supreme rule in all ecclesiastical matters, either directly or by means of its committees. The Synod prescribes the terms of admission to the ministry, and appoints a committee to examine, candidates for the holy office. But neither test, formula, nor confession of faith of any kind has to be subscribed before admission. In this respect the Church of Neuchatel differs from all other established and from most non-established churches. And yet, whereas all other Continental churches, notwithstanding their enforced subscriptions, are more or less tinged with Rationalism and infidelity, the Church of Neuchatel has throughout been strictly orthodox, and numbers at this moment very few, if any, neologian pastors in its ministry.

In general the clergy of the French cantons of Switzerland differ favourably from their German brethren, and that not merely so far as concerns adherence to revealed truth. Intellectually and socially the French-speaking pastors belong to quite another class. The German Swiss ministers are chiefly taken from the lower grades-from among artizans and peasants. They have the manners of their class, they retain their habits, and know little more than their wants. Salaried at a miserable pittance, averaging from 301. to 601. or 801. annually, they are treated with very little consideration, and too often sink below the social level of those around them. In appearance and dress they can scarcely be distinguished from ordinary peasants, in mode of living they are often beneath them. Of an afternoon they may not unfrequently be seen along with an idle squad in the market-place, indulging in that favourite

and most unmeaning Swiss pastime of throwing the ball. Mrs. Pastor is a poor, humble, good, narrow-minded, gossiping drudge, who two or three times during her married life may enjoy the unwonted excitement of a new gown. The children of "The Manse" will probably attain a higher position than their parents, always excepting such as may choose to enter the ministry. Too commonly parson and people are thoroughly Rationalistic, and the clergyman either gives himself to unprofitable studies and all manner of idle speculation, or else becomes "one of the people" in the worst sense of the term. The ultra-republicanism so common in most German cantons, which shows its dislike to everything superior, loves to drag it down, and delights to obtrude itself in rudeness of speech and deed, may contribute to this state of things. But its ultimate causes lie far deeper, and the result is, alas! an amount of irreligion of which strangers can scarcely form an adequate idea. All this, of course, not without noble exceptions. Godly pastors, and much respected, are found in Zurich, Bern, and especially Basle, as well as among the country clergy. But, so far as Eastern or German Switzerland as a whole is concerned, theirs is indeed the "voice crying in the wilderness."

On the other hand, the position of the French pastors is quite other. By birth mostly belonging to the upper-middle and the higher class, they share the general comfort and moderate competence so characteristic of the French, and the French Swiss in their station. They are gentlemanly in appearance, refined in manners, polished in speech, easy in circumstances. Sprung from, and intermarrying with, the most influential portions of society, they in turn are received by and react upon them. Thus the Church has struck root in the best soil. Of late, indeed, Rationalism has here also made terrible inroads. But even their Rationalism is comparatively decent and moderate; it is rather Arianism than Socinianism, and their infidelity would rather robe itself in the soberer hues of "liberal Christianity" and "progress" than come forth with the flaunting coarseness and the odiously shrill voice so common in the German cantons. And of all the French-speaking churches, that of Neuchatel has hitherto been the most pure and the most universally orthodox.

There is, however, another influence to which the Church in the French cantons is more open. It is that of Dissent, or rather of extreme anti-ecclesiastical views. Church and Dissent (in the above sense of the word) are not so separated as among us or in other parts of the Continent. Pulpits are freely interchanged, while drawing-room meetings and intimate Christian fellowship bring the two parties into constant and close contact. In consequence, Dissent exercises a very widespread influence, not only in gaining avowed

converts, but in securing general sympathy, and leavening Christian society, lay and clerical, with what, for want of a better term, may be designated as anti-ecclesiastical views. There is a marked absence of "Churchly" ideas and prejudices, and an equally marked leaning towards Plymouth-brethrenism even in Established Church circles. Thus the cords of the State Church have been much loosened, and more correct views of the proper relation between Church and State introduced. At any rate, it were impossible to express in clearer or more Scriptural language the different provinces of these two powers than has been done in the report presented to the Synod of Neuchatel by a committee of its own members.

It was upon a Church so trained, prepared, and placed, that the alarm of unexpected attack came last winter. Otherwise perhaps the Synod might have continued to ignore the dangers around, till it was too late-till the Church itself was divided, or a large proportion of the people had become hostile. But the very suddenness of the surprise awoke the ministers to energy. First, they repelled the assault made upon the citadel of the faith, and then the Synod addressed itself to the great danger which threatened the Church, not merely in her secular interests, but especially in the discharge of her spiritual functions. A careful examination soon showed that the constitution of the Establishment was eminently unsatisfactory, and that it might at almost any moment become untenable. This ascertained, the only alternative lay between a change in the ecclesiastical constitution, or a separation between Church and State. The former was utterly hopeless. For separation the people had been long insensibly training, and it seemed the more desirable that a popular movement in the same direction, but outside the Church, by parties hostile to it, had arisen, which threatened the Church either with internal disorganisation or with forced disestablishment, perhaps under very disadvantageous circumstances.

On the 5th December, 1868, a Mr. Buisson, a young lecturer, attached to the college at Neuchatel, announced a "Conference," or popular lecture, on "A Pressing Reform in Primary Education." The subject promised well, the lecturer seemed qualified to handle it, and he was popular among the ladies, to a large number of whom he was weekly discoursing on Psychology, a subject no doubt dear to the fair sex from its dash of abstruseness and raciness, if not from other reasons. Besides, the French mind delights in the small excitement of a "Conference." Little did the large and fashionable audience imagine what they had come to hear in the “Salle du Grand Conseil." M. Buisson has since avowed that he had pur posely chosen a misleading title to attract those who would not have come had they known the truth. The proposed reform in