66 meus "has been printed for "mens"; on p. 346, in an extract from the judgment in R. v. Phillpot, "were " for "where," and on p. 271, Sir James creates a new peer by the title of the Earl of Hopetoun. Might not A., who personated a brother of the Earl of Hopetoun, have pleaded, under the former orthography, that he was not making use of the title of any existing peerage? We have no desire to "carry owls to Athens," but we submit this possibility to one who is himself so fertile in discussion of the many topics that he presents to our view. Suggestive beyond most writers of Law-books, clear and epigrammatic in his language, Sir James Stephen is an author pleasant to read, and hard to part from. But we expect soon to meet him in another portion of his present field of labour. By that time, perhaps, to adapt one of his own similes, a little more of the "scaffolding" that still surrounds the house wherein English legal lore lies half buried out of sight, will have been knocked away, and the day will be nearer at hand when the house shall be considered so "proximately complete" that the scaffolding may be altogether taken down, and an English Code shall see the light.

Church and State: Their Relations Historically Developed. By HEINRICH GEFFCKEN, Professor of International Law at the University of Strasburg, late Hanseatic Minister-Resident at the Court of St. James's. Translated and edited by E. FAIRFAX TAYLOR. Longmans. 1877.

In these interesting volumes we gladly welcome the thoughtful and learned contribution of a Diplomatist and a Jurist to the study of a subject which ought to receive the most earnest attention of statesmen in all countries of the civilised world. For whether in the East or in the West, in the old world or in the new, in Bulgaria or in Brazil, this question of the Relations of Church and State forces itself to the front, and will not be put aside. It is a very complicated question, and very difficult for the politician to deal with; but the longer its solution is postponed the harder will it become to effect one that shall not shake society to its foundations. Here in England we are, perhaps, somewhat too ready to thank the Lord that we are not as other nations, torn asunder by contending parties of Ultramontanes and Social Democrats, Legitimists and Red Republicans, and the like. But there are always hidden forces within a nation, like the hot springs far down under the earth's crust, which sometimes, without warning, burst their prison and spread destruction around. Cardinal

Manning has told us lately that "Time works for the Church." And the Church, we may add, works in many ways for herself. Unresting, unhasting," the Church of Cardinal Manning's thoughts bides her time; she watches the waxing and the waning of principalities and powers, which to-day are and to-morrow are not, while she was yesterday, is to-day, and, as he untiringly affirms, will be to-morrow, when the mighty ones of the earth shall have been laid low, and the proudest dynasties shall be but dust returned unto its own. Meanwhile, to procure the accomplishment of any object which she may consider to serve her ends, no means are too great or too small. It may be but the keeping of a Festa, or the public recitation of an Angelus;" the means are many, the end is the same. "Cœlum et terra transibunt," quotes the Cardinal, "verba autem mea non præteribunt."

66

Dr. Geffcken belongs to the Doric Order of Historians; he is coldly impressive, austerely classical, and seldom comes down from the lofty pedestal of that impartial philosopher of whom one gets so tired in the pages of Gibbon. But Gibbon's philosopher used to smile, while Dr. Geffcken's is far too correct for that. The "Evangelical Church" in Germany, itself in its present condition the result of State-enforced fusion between two not particularly harmonious elements, the Lutheran and Calvinistic, is scarcely a happy example of the nursing motherhood of the State. In forcing on the fusion, it certainly appears to us that the State was stepping beyond its powers, and we can scarcely wonder that the result should be a body in which the shooting at a clergyman during the recital of the Nicene Creed in one of the principal churches of the capital should have been taken for a new piece of ritual, and in which the Emperor finds it necessary to thank a Synod for expressing its adherence to the Apostles Creed. Is it worth while keeping up a State Church for so small a modicum of Theology? It may seem curious that the work of Martin Luther should have been less enduring than that of John Knox. The reason would appear to be that the organisation of the latter was more firmly established, and took a definite shape sooner than that of the former, though at first it might have been difficult to see any difference between them. Both Reformers started with a quasi-Episcopal platform, and an at least partially Liturgical service. The "Superintendent " has lingered on in the Lutheran system, which even admits in Denmark the title, and in Sweden perhaps the historical fact, of an Episcopate. In the Calvinistic system, whether on the Continent or in Scotland, the "Superintendent" and the "Reader"

have given way to the "Minister" and the "Elders," who alone survive of the Reformation Platform, and divide the rule between them. Some among ourselves, in the present day, are casting envious glances at that which they consider to be the greater spiritual freedom of the Scottish as compared with the English Establishment. The difficulty of the position in regard to Established Churches is no doubt increased by the admission to the Legislature of members of all Religious Confessions. There is a greater reluctance to submit questions either of doctrine or ritual to such a very mixed tribunal as that, for instance, of the High Court of Parliament as now constituted, than there would have been when scarcely any dissentient from the Establishment was to be found within its ranks. And this reluctance, shared as it is by not a few of those members of the Legislature who themselves are not members of the Establishment, is far more likely to hasten the progress of events in the direction of a separation of Church and State, than the fanatical language of enthusiastic partisans on either side. Montalembert, in the "Catholic Congress" at Malines, pleaded as one of the sons of the Crusaders, and he pleaded for a Free Church in a Free State. Those who have adopted this famous motto have not, indeed, always carried it out, either in Montalembert's sense, or in any other grammatically possible sense. Neither in the country of Montalembert, nor in that of Cavour, do we see as yet a realisation of the vision of "Libera Chiesa in Libero Stato." The rulers of the dominant Church in France have acted as though they were the commanders of so many Corps d'Armée, and French Cardinals have openly spoken of their clergy as regiments." It is not surprising under the circumstances, that M. Gambetta should have recently pronounced a funeral oration over the defunct Liberties of the Gallican Church, and have said, in no disguised language, "l'ennemi c'est le Cléricalisme."

66

Dr. Geffcken is an avowed opponent of Ultramontanism or Clericalism, yet he seems to us one of those opponents who frequently play unconsciously into their adversaries' hands. He tells us of the "sterility of State Churchdom" while blaming the errors of non-established confessions, and he cherishes a deep distrust of Liberalism. He gives no more credit to the German and Swiss Old Catholic movements for their spiritual side, as representing and embodying certain theological needs, than would Cardinal Manning. Yet those two movements, parallel and not identical, seem worthy of the serious attention of all who are interested in the solution of the problem of Church and

State, and of far more attention than Dr. Geffcken has given them in his book. A disbeliever in what he calls "Liberal Episcopalism," which he considers to be incongruous with the "historical facts of Catholicism," it is not possible for Dr. Geffcken to sympathise with movements having this "incongruous" theory for their basis, and doing their best to work it out, according to Wessenberg's own plan, through "wellordered assemblies of all the members of the community." Those who have attended such assemblies may indeed think them incompatible with Curialism, but they will probably also think Curialism incompatible with true "Historical Catholicism."

Dr. Geffcken tells us what he considers to be the points in contest upon which the body which he calls "the Catholic Church," i.e., the Roman Catholic Church, will never yield. But he does not show us where a "modus vivendi " is to be found. Not, certainly, in the Ultramontane Camp, where it would be hopeless to look for it. Equally little does Dr. Geffcken appear to find it among German Liberals, whom he represents as "harnessed to the Car of the Kulturkampf," and whose "name is verily as lucus à non lucendo." When one who has held high Diplomatic office, says of his country that "All firm principles of justice and liberty disappear in the overpowering noise of National-Liberal phraseology," one may be excused for thinking that he despairs of the State. And his view of the Church is scarcely more hopeful. The day of Concordats is indeed over, but what shall take their place? We remember hearing a venerable Monsignore, some years ago, announce from the pulpit of St. Mark's, Venice, that "between the Church and Modern Society there could be no peace." We turn to Dr. Geffcken for the newest light on a different side, and the only consolation we obtain is the assurance that "the kernel of the struggle lies beyond the power of the State, just because Church and State occupy different territories of dominion."

A Comparative Survey of the Laws in force for the Prohibition, Regulation, and Licensing of Vice in England and other Countries. By SHELDON AMOS, M.A., Barrister-at-Law. Stevens & Sons. 1877.

On the last occasion when a celebrated French orator visited London, it may be within the recollection of many that he not only delivered a course of addresses on Church Reform, but that the walls of London were at the same time placarded with

the seemingly singular announcement of "Père Hyacinthe on the Abolition of State-Regulated Vice." If we mistake not, Professor Sheldon Amos took part in the latter of these meetings, as a fellow-worker with the ex-Carmelite preacher of the Advent and Lent Conferences at Notre Dame. The subject to which the Preacher has devoted his magnificent powers of oratory, and the Professor his unwearied zeal, his stores of juridical learning, and his practised pen, is one not in itself attractive, but which, nevertheless, requires to be treated from various points of view. Hitherto, as Professor Amos justly remarks, it has been somewhat too exclusively left in the possession of the Medical profession. But the Clergy, as the representatives of a great moral power, and the members of the Bar, as directly concerned with the interpretation and the amendment of the Law, have an equal right to be heard, and the Professor of Jurisprudence in University College has given his brethren of the legal profession no little food for thought in the comprehensive volume before us. It would be quite impossible for us to fill our pages with an analysis of so laborious and exhaustive a work. But we may state our conviction that the comparative system, adopted by Professor Amos, is the only one which can either adequately set forth the state of the Law on this subject, or enable a writer to avoid the snares of rhetorical extravagance and partizanship into which so many writers and speakers have fallen. That garrison towns afford cause for a special and carefully limited legislation it would be difficult to deny, and, in such cases, the utmost, we imagine, that Professor Amos would plead for is that the laws which may be deemed necessary should be clear and precise in their limitations, so as to avoid any of those dangers that a constitutional lawyer would naturally fear.

If the Legal profession is ever to be induced to give this. question the serious consideration which it deserves, it must be by means of dispassionate statements of the Law and Practice of this country compared with those of other countries, and the analysis of statistics and other evidence bearing on the apparent working of the existing English and Continental systems. Professor Amos, like Père Hyacinthe, is an uncompromising opponent of the Continental system; he also sees much that, to his thinking, needs amendment in our own system. There is already in this country a considerable area of power lodged in the hands of our police force; how considerable that area is we do not often realise, until some event unexpectedly makes us