THE Catholic Review of November 9 has the following on the proper relation of Church and State, which should commend itself to National Reformers:— “It would be hardly worth while noticing the eternal changes which Americans ring on ‘the union of Church and State’ phrase, except to ask those that use it what do they mean when they declare so firmly that union of Church and State shall never exist in America. What the phrase formerly meant is done away with in all civilized countries almost completely, although these countries may have Catholicity or a Protestant sect down in the Constitution as the State religion. The old state of union will probably never return. Harmony is now the proper word for expressing the desirable relations of Church and State, and this harmony must exist or the world will continue to endure the discomforts of eternal quarreling. The State must admit that the Church ranks above it, and has a deeper interest in men than it can ever have. It must act accordingly. The present attempt of the atheists and foolish secularists to push Christianity out-of-doors, and leave the people to the mercies of State officials in their necessities, must be resisted and overthrown. The State is bound to assist the Church in her work quite as much as the Church is bound to keep the people mindful of their salvation and faithful in working for it. The two powers are a mutual aid to each other, and must be always in relationship. Harmony is the word for the present moment, but users of the phrase, ‘No union of Church and State,’ know too little of the matter to produce anything but discord.” “Harmony” is an excellent word, and in this connection is about the equivalent of Mr. J. M. Foster’s proposition, that “the State and its sphere [should] exist for the sake of, and to serve the interests of, the Church,” and that “the Church and the State [should] exist in friendly recognition and co-operation.” It is well known what Catholics regard as “harmony” between Church and State; it is about equivalent to the relation which may properly exist between one man and one woman, namely, marriage. And that which Secretary Foster means by “friendly recognition and co-operation” is explained by his own words, as follows: “The expenses of the Church, in carrying on her aggressive work, it [the State] meets in whole or in part out of the public treasury. Thus the Church is protected and exalted by the State.” It certainly ought not to be very difficult for National Reformers to join hands with Romanists in “resisting the demands of political atheism,” since on this question these so-called Protestants and the Papists occupy the same ground. If they are kept apart it will be only because each party will insist that it is the church to the exclusion of the other. But inasmuch as they have each expressed a willingness to join hands with the other in a propaganda by civil law, there is little ground for hope that they will not agree to unite their forces for their mutual advantage, and for the discomfiture of political atheists, by which they mean all who do not agree with their theory of civil government.