each of our fragmentary wills its part of an infinite ideal of good, He is our King. We rest on a deeper foundation than any political interests can provide, and if to account the perfection of God independent of any possible consent of men renders us disloyal, then disloyal let us be called. When human commonwealths become a set of self-worshiping seceders from God, then Christians become disloyal of course. Christianity has always been disloyal, in principle, to every human order the principle of which was not Christianity.

This requirement, that country must be substituted for king, as the symbol of God, is best explained by a doctrine of religion, which is taught by at least one eminent writer among us. It is this: God is not the principle, but the goal of creation. The consent of particular wills finally issues in a vast reservoir of being, which may be called God. God then is not the creator of men, but men are the creators of God. The requirement made of our churches, therefore, that they shall exactly invert their doctrines, is very intelligible if it rests upon the assumption that they shall exactly invert their religion. But a God who is our offspring is not the God of the churches. Their God is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

This religion may not please King Demos. It once did not please King Caesar. Louis the Fourteenth was moved to suppress the worship of the Protestants, not so much because they were in schism, for he was often substantially in schism himself, as because-what was notified to them-"they had embraced a religion which displeased the king." And it is the same old leaven, no matter in whom appearing, when we are told that the religious convictions of the churches are to accommodate themselves to the political convictions of the people. Such talk has always died down in emptiness, or proceeded to enforce itself in persecution. In France the latter result plainly impends. In America, the former is the more proba

ble.

Such a dispute, therefore, is not a sectarian controversy between two forms of Christianity, a higher and a lower, which must be composed in order to give its full effect to the

gospel. It is a dispute between the gospel and an antagonistic power, which wishes to administer upon its estate. It is to be hoped, therefore, that all the sects which hold to the one gospel will make haste to compose their trumpery disputes, and before such an antagonist, enthroned in the high places of culture, show their faith in that Incarnate King, who, accepting His people as His subjects, proceeds to convert them into His co-regents, and converts absolute authority, without any transmutation of its nature, into the eternal principle of spontaneous self-direction.

Andover, Mass.

CHARLES C. STARBUCK.

ARTICLE V.-ART A PROFESSION.

THE range of study offered by legitimate art is quite without limit. In its practice, for the attainment of fame and distinction, no profession calls for more unflinching perseverance nor requires greater natural aptitude. It follows, of course, that an enduring name in its ranks is not lightly won. When, however, honorable reputation is fairly obtained, its value is always dependent on the quality of surrounding native culture. With an effort to place this thought in clearer relief, and better to define its meaning, one need only imagine Michael-Angelo driven from Rome with its eternal art atmosphere and then conceive the endless incongruities that could not fail to follow his enforced residence in a Western mining town during its early, turbulent, only-force-respecting days.

Let it here be said that the honored profession of art is too often compelled by a public both ignorant and thoughtless to patient submission under constantly recurring slights. And these are wounds that rankle and grow sensitive to the stab when the conscientious, trained, and faithful art student has to bear with flippant and careless disrespect from those who ought to know better, because of being in their own line of study ripe in experience and exceptionally well informed. These selfsupposed critics appear to think that art is a more or less elegant trifle, provided and contrived for the spare moments of idle-brained recreation, and that its raison d'être - if it has any-is to supply gentle occupation or amusement for an indolent hour. They also appear shallow enough to believe that they themselves may attain to something of a knowledge of genuine art without competent direction, with no serious intellectual effort, with no definite aim in study, but simply by following the guidance of natural instinct.

As well expect to become an orator by memorizing columns from the spelling-book!

Such persons wholly fail to remember that the art status of a country accurately measures and records the degree of its

removal from a date long past, that Americans may call the tomahawk period; and also that the ministry alone, as a profession, can rank with art in value of social service or nobility of mission.

Reverence for art is claimed to an extent at least equal to that paid to the science of law or of medicine-and in no degree as a favor, still less as a concession, but it is insisted on as a conspicuous right.

It is to be remembered also, that given the opportunity to examine a master-piece of art, one can appropriate only such part of it as preparatory study allows, and is benefited by only such portion as mental digestion can assimilate. All the rest is lost. Because we have strong bodily eyes we do not with these vigorous organs and by an untrained as well as undeveloped natural impulse penetrate the secrets of law or of medicine and thus with Pasteur discover the mysterious origin of deadly inoculation; or with Webster explain the perplexing point in law that involves success to our case and justice to our client.

It has been well said that learning to paint is learning to see. It is also true that not every one who possesses good natural eyes has artistic sight, though few are ready to admit the fact or to believe it of themselves. Convinced that they can look at a given object as well as anyone, they therefore conclude that they see all there is to be seen. Such an eye can stare into the works of a precious chronometer that has proved itself capable of all but absolute precision in time-keeping, and although this staring eye can see the movements and the wheels which combine in the motion, no one will contend that such unskilled sight can recognize the secret of its remarkable accuracy or be able to comprehend and measure all that is clearly visible and valuable to the eye of the expert watchmaker who understands every detail of its construction and who himself made this same chronometer. Two men are before a famous picture; one of them looks through and through and up and down the canvas, takes it all in, knows where the values are preserved, where harmonies are grouped or tones happily contrasted and why, understands the drawing, color, composition, and technique. He has subtle enjoyment of cold sky reflections skillfully mingled with warmer local tones in the representation of atmosphere. It is

clear that the picture has much of interest to say to the man who has studied the language of art. Compared with such an observer as this, the impression produced on the other person is slight. It is true that the second man sees the details of drawing and color as plainly as the first, but neither tone nor line conveys any meaning to him. They might be anything else and it would be all the same; he would be entirely satisfied. If the object of the picture be simple or plain-story-telling, his attention may be attracted for a few moments while he looks as hard as he can in an effort to display remarkable penetration by a discovery of some trifling defect. He would be greatly delighted if he could find and point to the very spot where the painter had happened to place a button less on one side of a coat than on the other. In this sadly frequent style of looking at a picture and aping what he mistakes to be the province of a critic, he imagines that he is enjoying himself profoundly-like a veritable expert! Unable to appreciate fine qualities of mind or technique, and just now engrossed with ignoble search for some trivial mistake or oversight, his lack of depth may easily be read while we clearly see the familiar contraction of his art scope. And so we are again reminded that bodily eyes see little worth seeing when mental eyes are blind.

The medical man does not pretend to be expert with intricacies of law, nor does the student of law profess to understand the cause and cure of disease, yet either one or both of them would be reluctant to admit ignorance of any detail in an art matter. This delusion is less reasonable and the cause for such conduct more inexplicable when we consider that neither of these professional men would hesitate to admit that the requirements of high art are as broad, as deep, and as exacting as those of either law or medicine. Given unlimited time in a gallery of famous pictures, neither of our two experts, without study in that direction, could furnish substantial reasons for like or dislike of the contents of a single frame. And yet such observers as these are plainly men with intelligence developed beyond and above that of the average self-constituted critic. It certainly follows that by so much as their education is broader and higher are they the more likely to form an opinion supported with some actual foundation and having possible value. And