most part are drawn from the monasteries. That means, of course, that for the great body of parish priests there is no hope of advancement, and, on the other hand, that the bishops are drawn from just that section of the clergy which is least in touch with the life of the people. It is not possible to say how this problem will be solved in the future, but we believe it is having the anxious attention of the wiser members of the Eastern Church.

It is interesting to notice that the first step towards the revival of the Church of Greece was the foundation, in 1822, by the English philhellene Lord Guilford, of the Ionian Academy at Corfu, with a theological faculty which gave the first impulse to the revival of theological studies in modern Greece. The Ionian Islands have been the pioneer in the Greek intellectual renaissance. They have produced distinguished divines, famous preachers, and erudite theologians. In the days of the degradation of the Greek priesthood, the clergy of the Ionian Islands were conspicuous for refinement; and religious music and art have been developed there on lines of wellmarked originality.

Beyond these aims, there are others of still wider scope. At present, in the Kingdom of Greece, there are two Synods working independently, one for Old Greece, another at Salonika for the newly acquired provinces, while the Metropolitan of Crete is also independent. This is apparently due to the recent political events in Greece, which for a time split the country into two, and to the disturbances caused by the war, which left no time for the formalities necessary in order to detach the new provinces from the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. But there is a good deal of hesitation about separating these new provinces from the ecumenical Patriarchate; and many would aim at making the connexion between the Church of Old Greece and the Patriarchate of Constantinople much closer than it is.

All these movements in the Eastern Church have been associated with a development of interest in this country. In all parts of the East efforts are being made to promote more friendly relations with the Church of England. In the period before the War there was a considerable rapprochement between the Russian and the English

Churches. There were visits of English bishops to Russia; and much work was done by the late Mr W. J. Birkbeck, whose untimely death was a serious loss to the cause of reunion.

The relations between the southern branch of the Church and this country take two forms. One is a desire that theological students from those countries should be able to come to England instead of going to Germany to complete their education. The interesting and, so far as can be judged, successful experiment made in relation to Serbia has been described. Recently a desire for similar facilities has been expressed by representatives of the Rumanian Church. One of the aims of the Archbishop of Athens, on his visit to England, was to secure an interchange of students with this country. A proposal has definitely been put forward that there should be an English theologian teaching Anglican theology in the University of Athens; and a sum of money has been allocated for this purpose. A desire has been expressed that a similar position should be assigned to a Greek theologian in Oxford.

Still more remarkable, perhaps, are the serious efforts which are being made for intercommunion and reunion between the two Churches. It is most significant that this should be proposed by representatives of the Eastern Churches. This is not the moment to discuss minutely the theological differences between the two religious bodies. The differences are those of temperament and history rather than of doctrine; the points upon which they agree far outweigh those upon which they differ; and the time demands that there should be more religious union between the nations. The world is looking forward to the establishment of a system of International Law, to a League of Nations, to the substitution of order, civilisation, arbitration for the horrors of war; but no such league will be possible unless there is a spiritual basis upon which it can be erected. If there is to be a commercial, economic, and political union between the peoples of the world, there must also be a religious union. We Christians must realise the paramount duty of exhibiting, not only as individuals but also as nations, the Christian duty of brotherly love, and should blazon before the world our union as followers of

Jesus Christ rather than exaggerate the many minor doctrinal and philosophical points by which Churches and nations have been divided. It is for that reason that every thoughtful person must welcome the desire for Christian reunion between the various Churches of the West that are separated from Rome, between the Church of England and the Churches of the East, and must look forward to the vision of a united Christianity which will embrace East and West in one fold.

But at the present moment these ideals of reunion are intimately associated with a desire, as reasonable as it is natural, on the part of the Greek Church for the recovery to Christianity of the great Church of St Sophia. The immediate political future of Constantinople may be profoundly difficult to settle. We do not believe that it is wise to hasten too rapidly the realisation of the natural hopes which the victory over Turkey in this war has aroused. Let the full fruits of victory come slowly. The actual scheme for the government of Constantinople may perhaps rightly represent some spirit of compromise, only there must be for the Eastern Christians throughout the Eastern world full liberty and power of selfexpression, But let this liberty be associated with the return to the worship of Christ of the great Cathedral which Justinian built, whose walls for so many centuries echoed to the sound of Christian worship, where great councils of the Church have been held. It would be an act of justice and of reparation, for to its buildings no Moslem can make any claim on the grounds of history or right; what was won by conquest may be lost by defeat. In those walls let a Council of Eastern Christians reform, re-organise and repair the breaches in their Church, and let a Council of East and West proclaim the Unity of Christendom.

ARTHUR C. HEADLAM.

DICTATORSHIP IN THE

Art. 8.- PRESIDENTIAL

UNITED STATES.

1. Congressional Government: A Study in American Politics. By Woodrow Wilson. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1885.

2. An Old Master, and other Political Essays. By Woodrow Wilson. New York: Scribner, 1893.

3. Constitutional Government in the United States. By Woodrow Wilson. New York: Columbia University Press, 1908.

4. The President's Control of Foreign Relations. By Edward S. Corwin. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1917. 5. The Congressional Record, Sixty-fifth Congress, First and Second Sessions (April 2, 1917-Nov. 21, 1918).

'An acute English historical scholar has said that the Americans of the United States are a nation because they once obeyed a king"; we shall remain a nation only by obeying leaders.'-WOODROW WILSON (1889).

IT has for many months been increasingly evident that this war will profoundly modify the political institutions of the countries engaged in it. The changed character of the British Cabinet, both in composition and responsibility, the decreased importance of Parliament, the influence of the press, the separation of executive and legislative authority to the extent that the Prime Minister does not lead the Commons, the extension of the suffrage, and the institution of an Imperial War Cabinet, which, as Sir Robert Borden said, marked the dawning of 'a new era' and the writing of a 'new page of history-these were transformations which could take place only in a governmental system as flexible as that of England. In the United States the rigidity of a written Constitution, maintained during the war, prevents political rearrangements so far-reaching as these; yet the American system of government has already undergone some substantial modifications in the direction of further federal aggrandisement at the expense of State rights, and an increase in executive authority which makes the President of the United States the most powerful ruler in the world. He is the elect of a hundred million people, and acts as their representative;

and, except by the cumbersome and almost impossible method of impeachment, he cannot be turned out until his term of office has expired. It is no exaggeration to say that he possesses powers greater for good or ill than those of any man living. He controls the economic life of the American people and the armed forces of the States that have proved to be a decisive factor in the struggle for the preservation of liberty; he is virtually the irresponsible and, if he desires, the unadvised dictator of American foreign policy; and the Entente Allies have shown their willingness to follow him in his expression of their aims. The prosecution of the war and the conclusion of peace have been in a large measure committed to him. The fact that President Wilson considers himself but the servant of the American people and the instrument for the expression of their desires makes this description of his powers not the less true but simply less alarming.

It was the intention of the framers of the American Constitution to parcel out authority and to create a system of checks and balances so that no one branch of the Government should become too powerful. Is there,' John Adams asked, 'a Constitution upon record more complicated with balances than ours?' The States and Territories were balanced against the national government; the federal legislature was bi-cameral; the chief of the executive acted as a third branch in that he could by his veto require a two-thirds vote, yet he was checked by the prerogative of the Senate to approve appointments, and by the exclusive control of Congressover the national purse. These were only some of the balances that Mr Adams enumerated; they were a 'complicated refinement,' he said, 'an invention of our own and peculiar to us.' So complicated, indeed, were they, that, if rigidly adhered to, the governmental system thus created would have been unworkable; and they have of necessity been modified in practice. Even so, the United States has suffered more than the apparently inevitable delays and dissensions incident to the mobilisation of a democracy for a great struggle. 'Division of authority and concealment of responsibility,' as Mr Wilson said while a professor of politics, are calculated