assembly is known as the French Sanhedrin ; before this body the Emperor laid twelve questions for discussion and answer; the responses to these questions were to stamp the attitude of Judaism in regard to matters that involved the common weal, and particularly the relation of the professors of the faith to those standing outside of its ranks. The responses showed that the Jews looked upon the French as brethren.

The position of Judaism in regard to the state is very clear; its followers are Jews in religion only, children of their fatherland, whatever or wherever it may be, in all that pertains to the public weal; Judaism discountenances the connection of church and state; each shall attend to its own; Judaism teaches its confessors that if any contingency should arise (an occurrence, however, of which I cannot conceive) in which it, the religion, should be in conflict with the state, the religion must take the second place; for we recognize no power within a power; the two, religion and civil government, have distinct and individual provinces, neither shall need encroach upon the other.

Let us now briefly review the attitude of the modern state towards the Jew and Judaism, showing how gradually emancipation from mediæval shackles and restrictions gained during this century. During the reigns of Louis XVII., and Charles X., the church gained great ascendency, but the rights of the Jews as citizens were never revoked. After 1830 the final step towards recognition of the equal standing of Judaism to the Christian faiths was taken when its ministers were paid their salaries by the government; and the very last vestige of the regulations of the medieval state anent the Jews disappeared when in 1839 the oath more Judaico was abolished. In France the attitude of the modern state has been fully upheld for over a ✓century. But one other state of Europe has a like record of justice. On the declaration of the Batavian Republic the national assembly of Holland in 1796 invested its Jewish subjects with the full rights of citizenship. Louis Napoleon, when king of the country, ratified the act, modified the form of oath and admitted the Jews to military service; and after 1814 William I., proceeding in a like manner, regulated the legal and civil position of his Jewish subjects in the most liberal spirit and swept away every distinction that marked them in medieval legislation. Into the other governments of Europe the principles of the modern state as founded upon the natural rights of man, gained slow entrance as far as the Jews were concerned. After Waterloo came the reaction, mediævalism in thought and practice became the fashion; the Congress of Vienna in 1815 passed a resolution seemingly favorable to Jewish emancipation; the Jews in the Ger. man states were forced back into the old situation. But this could not last. The Jews themselves took up the fight for human rights, would not renounce their Judaism to gain citizenship. 1848 finally brought to fruition the seeds sown in 1789. In that year, or shortly thereafter, Western Europe expunged from statute books the regulations against subjects of Jewish faith.

England was in fore front of all agitations for the emancipation of the Jews. As early as 1753 a bill was passed in Parliament granting the Jewish residents of the country the rights of citizenship, but owing to the protests of the merchants of London and other towns, the bill was reconsidered and repealed. In 1833 Robert Grant introduced a bill to that effect. Lord Macaulay supported it with his well known speech on the civil disabilities of the Jews. The bill was passed ten times by the House of Commons, and the Lords rejected it as often. In 1847' Baron Lionel De Rothschild was elected a member of Parliament. He could not enter, because he would not take the oath of allegiance "on the true faith of a Christian." Not till 1858 was he able to take his seat, when the House passed Sir John Russell's bill, which permitted Jews to omit these words. This was first made a special resolution, but in 1866 the Parliamentary Oaths Act Amendment was passed removing the words altogether. In 1885 Lord Rothschild (Sir Nathaniel) took his seat in the House of Lords, the first Jewish English peer.

In this country, from the very inception of the government there was no possible civil disability on account of religious faith; all, who possessed the qualifications and fulfilled the legal requirements of citizenship, were equal before the law; there was no religious test as far as the Federal government was concerned; yet could the separate states enact special legislation demanding religious tests.

This was the case in Maryland as far as the Jews were concerned. In 1818 was introduced the "Jew Bill" whose object was to remove the civil disabilities of Jewish citizens. The bill was finally passed in 1826. In 1867 (Declaration of Rights, Art. 37) all distinction between religious sects is done away with. In North Carolina non-Christians were discriminated against. No further step was taken until 1861 when Col. Wm. Johnston proposed in the constitutional convention the removal of Jewish disabilities. Whether this amendment was adopted, all enactments of all conventions held in the state during the Rebellion were nullified by the United States government; it was 1868 when civil disabilities of the Jews were fully and finally removed. Others of the thirteen original states in their constitutions adopted prior to the adoption of the constitution of the United States in 1789 had also religious tests for office, but these were for the most part changed shortly after the establishment of the federal government.

New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Virginia and Georgia had no religious test in their original state constitutions. The newer states admitted after the formation of the government, naturally declare expressly in their constitutions against a religious test.

The latest deliverance was given at the Congress of Berlin in 1878, when the powers of Europe made civil and political emancipation of the Jews a condition of the recognition of the independence of Roumania. This condition has been violated by that government, and the lot of the Jews in that

land is very sad. In those lands, such as Russia and Morocco, in which the principles of the modern state have found no foothold, neither the Jew nor Judaism has any recognized rights; the horrors of Russian and Moroccan inhumanity against the Jewish subjects are still too fresh and vivid to require mention.

For the modern state, then, founded upon the principles of the equal rights of all men, churches or religious parties have no existence. As for Judaism's attitude to the state I need only point to the patriotic acts of Judaism's confessors in every land in war and peace to show how fully and positively the Jews have proven that they are Jews in religion alone, citizens of their fatherland wherever it may be in everything else; and their faith has no interests at variance with the common weal; that they are not a class standing apart, but their hearts and hopes are bound up with everything that conduces to civic advancement and their country's honor and political triumphs; that they recognize in all men brethren, and pray for the speedy coming of the day when all the world over religious differences will have no weight in political councils; when Jew, Christian, Mohammedan, agnostic as such will not figure in the deliberations of civic bodies anywhere but only as men. This is the political philosophy of the modern state; this is the teaching of Judaism; the two are in perfect accord.

HUMAN BROTHERHOOD AS TAUGHT BY THE

RELIGIONS BASED ON THE BIBLE.

BY DR. K. Kohler.

To Chicago belongs the credit of having rendered her World's Fair a World's University of arts and industries, of sciences and letters, of learning and of religions. Humanity, in all its manifestations of life and labor, in all its aspirations and problems, is there exhibited and finds a voice. And the grandest and most inspiring feature of the unique spectacle is the Religious Parliament, which, in trumpet tones resonant with joy and hope, peals forth the great truth of the Brotherhood of Man based upon the Fatherhood of God.

(a) THE BROTHERHOOD OF MAN.

Thanks to our common education and our religious and social progress and enlightenment, the idea of the unity of man is so natural and familiar to us that we scarcely stop to consider by what great struggles and trials it has been brought home to us. We cannot help discerning beneath all differences of color and custom the fellow-man, the brother. We perceive in the savage looks of the Fiji Islander, or hear in the shrill voice of the South African, the broken records of our history; but we seldom realize the long and tedious road we had to walk until we arrived at this stage. We speak of the world as a unit—a beautiful order of things, a great cosmos. Open the Bible and you find creation still divided into a realm of life above and one belowinto heaven and earth, only the Unity of God comprising the two otherwise widely separated and disconnected worlds, to lend them unity of purpose, and finally bring them under the sway of one empire of law. Neither does the idea of man, as a unit, dawn upon the mind of the uncivilized. Going back to the inhabitants of ancient Chaldea, you see man divided into groups of blackheads (the race of Ham) and redheads (Adam); the former destined to serve, the other to rule. And follow man to the very height of ancient civilization, on the beautiful soil of Hellas, where man, with his upward gaze (Anthropos), drinks in the light and the sweetness of the azure sky to reflect it on surrounding nature, on art and science, you still find him clinging to these old lines of demarcation. Neither Plato nor Aristotle would regard the foreigner as an equal of the Greek, but consider him forever, like the brute, fated to do the slave's work for the born master-the ruling race.

Let us not forget that prejudice is older than man. We have it as an inheritance from the brute. The cattle that browse together in the field and the dogs that fight with each other in the street, will alike unite in keeping out the foreign intruder, either by hitting or by biting, since they cannot