at the express request and with the aid of the Archbishop of Kasan, whom he described as a man ready for every good word and work. Russian friends at St. Petersburgh resolved, last year, to send a colporteur to the fair of Nijnii Novgorod for the sale of Bibles; but before he got half way, there was such a demand that he sold all his stock, and had to write back to St. Petersburgh to get a fresh supply for the fair. The increase of schools among the peasantry is also rapidly increasing the circulation of the Bible. When Mr. Long was in Russia the Holy Synod was publishing a new edition of eighty thousand copies of the Testament, which will be sold at fifteen copeks a copy, or about sixpence. ART. VII.-FOREIGN LITERARY INTELLIGENCE. GERMANY. We have already noticed the appearance of a work on the reunion of the Roman and the Oriental Church, (Geschichte der Kirchlichen Trennung Zwischen dem Orient und Occident von den ersten Anfängen bis Zur yüngsten Gegenwurt. Vol. i, Munich, 1864,) by Dr. Pichler, lecturer (Privatdocent) of Catholic Theology at the University of Munich. The work is highly recommended by the Protestant, still more than the Roman Catholic press, for the author belongs to that class of Catholic writers who seek to distinguish themselves more by the thoroughness of their learning than by the use of violent language against other religious denominations. The "Neue Evangelische Kirchenzeitung," of Berlin, the leading Church paper of the evangelical party of Protestant Germany, gives on the occasion of the publication of this work an interesting article on the recent literature concerning the reunion of the Roman and the Oriental Churches, from which we give a few extracts. The author had already made himself advantageously known by two other works on the relation of the Greek to other Christian Churches, one on the Patriarch Cyril Lukaris and his Times, (Der Patriarch Lukaris und seine Zeit, Munich, 1862,) and the other on "The Present Stage of the Oriental Church Question,' (Die Orientalische Kirchenfrage nach ihrem Gegenwärtigen Stande, Munich, 1862,) in both of which he displays thorough scholarship, as well as a candor rarely to be found in Roman Catholic authors. Already in these two smaller works he had indicated what he more fully develops in his larger work, that in his opinion both the Eastern Church and the papacy had an about equal share in the perpetuation of the schism. In the introduction and concluding paragraphs of his larger work, Dr. Pichler gives a very copious collection of the opinions of prominent men in both Churches respecting their reunion. From this it appears that the representatives of Rome generally demand the submission of the Greeks to the supremacy of the pope as the first condition of such a reunion, while the Greeks and Russians regard the papal supremacy as the greatest obstacle, and favor a federative co-existence and mutual recognition of the two Churches. Among the chief representatives of the Roman view the author quotes Bishop Dupanloup, of Orleans, who made a brilliant speech on the subject at the great assembly of Roman Catholic bishops, held at Rome on June 3, 1862, Dupanloup regards as the sole course of the origin and perpetuation of the schism the arrogance of the patriarchs of Constantinople, who intended to rob the pope of the primacy. A similar opinion is expressed by an Austrian statesman, Baron J. A. Von Helfert, in an article on "Russia and the Catholic Church of Poland," published in the Vienna "Review," in 1864. Helfert says that the Greeks themselves do not deny that they had recognized the primacy of the pope long ago, and that, therefore, the schism is only due to their arrogance and pride. A Russian Catholic, Kirejewski, published in 1859 a pamphlet at Paris entitled, "La Russie est-elle Schismatique," ("Is Russia Schismatic,") in which he makes the paradox assertion, that since the council of Florence the Church of Russia was de facto and de jure united with the Church of Rome; a boldness for which he was punished by the Russian Government with exile. This view of a reunion is advocated with special zeal and ardor by the Russian Jesuit, Prince Gagarin, who in his work L'Avenir de l'Eglise Grecque unie, regards as the best means to lead the Greeks over to Rome the establishment of a central seminary of the united Greeks of all nations, at Constantinople, which is to educate the missionaries for the "conversion" of the Greeks. "The heads and teachers of this seminary, he thinks, ought to be monks of Latin orders, who, however, should adopt and adhere to the Greek rite, as the Latin rite would always remain in the eyes of the Orientals something foreign, which could only produce distrust." Those representatives of the Greek Church who are not altogether averse to the idea of a reunion make Rome responsible for the schism, and demand from her a return to the true form of Christianity, which, they say, the Oriental Church has preserved much more pure than the Church of Rome. Abbé Guettée, a learned priest of the Catholic Church of France, who has been excommunicated by the bishops and the pope on account of his strongly expressed antipapal opinions, declares in his work, La Papauté Schismatique, ("The Papacy Schismatic," Paris, 1863) "Not the Orientals are schismatic, but the popes, who used the misfortunes of the East to arrogate to themselves, under the title of successors of Peter, a universal power in the Church." The Russian Privy Councillor, Yutchef, in a memorial concerning the union question which was presented to the Emperor Nicholas in 1850, made the admission that "the Christian principle had never entirely disappeared in the Roman Church; yea, that it was yet stronger than error and passion, and would once triumph over all its enemies;" but this triumph, he thought, would be obtained when Rome "on that day of the great union shall restore to the Orthodox Church inviolate the deposit of a Christian guidance of the western Church." The Byzantine theologian, Elias Tantalides, (in his review of De Maistre's work du Pape, and of Abbé Jager's History of Photius, Constantinople, 1847,) expresses the hope that "the time will yet come when the pope will also hear the voice of the good | shepherd, and following the lead of the ancient holy popes, will be honored as the father of all Christian nations, and as the highest although not infallible head of orthodoxy." Another Greek writer, in an article on the Orthodox Anatolian Church compared with the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Church, (in the religious journal, Evayyeλukòç Kŋpv — Evangelical HeraldAthens, 1861, January number,) does not show the same readiness to concede to the pope an honorary primacy, in case he should be converted to the Orthodox Church, but he utters very tolerant views on the relation of the Greek to the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Churches, and hopes that all the differences will some day be amicably adjusted. He believes that both Churches have fallen into serious errors: Protestantism, by proclaiming the principle of free investigation; and the papal Church by adding new perverse doctrines, as that of the primacy of the pope, and of the immaculate conception to the old fundamental doctrines of revelation. But the members of both Churches, he says, can be saved if they overcome the dangers and obstacles of their way, and live in accordance with the doctrines of the orthodox Anatolian Church. Another writer in the same Athenian journal (February, 1861) says that men will be saved in every Church which believes that Jesus is the Son of God, God-man and Saviour. The Russian Turgeneff (Les Russes et la Russie, 1847) thinks that the educated classes of his country lean more toward Protestantism than toward Roman Catholicism, and expects that when religious liberty shall be proclaimed in Russia, Protestantism will receive from the Greek Church a great many members. The Greek Pitzipios, who was formerly one of the chief advocates of a union with Rome, (in his work L'Eglise Orientale, 3 vols., 1855,) and organized at Rome a "central committee of the Christian Oriental Society," has, since 1860, fallen out with Rome, and professed views which more approach Protestantism. work on Romanism, (Le Romanisme,) published at Paris in 1860, he declares that the substance of the Romish system is a despotism which employs every means of fraud and violence for attaining its purposes; that Christian Rome has inherited the domineering spirit of Pagan Rome; that the popes, as blind. In a are a feature which greatly diminishes the interest of Christian readers in his work. The introduction to the work embraces a comprehensive survey of everything pertinent to the origin of Mahometanism. FRANCE. A resuscitation of Saint Simonism as a theological system is attempted by Emile Barrault, (Le Christ.) The author distinguishes three phases in the progress of Saint Simonism. The first disciples of the school, and the master himself, did not go beyond the limits of metaphysical speculation; then came those who gave to their theories the form and character of a religious system; finally, the present adepts indorsing in all its consequences the doctrine of Saint Simon, and thoroughly understanding his thought, claim to be the successful apostles of transformed Christianity. tools of Romanism, have done violence to the doctrines and ceremonies of the Church; that the temporal power of the popes and their claim to infallibility are the two great obstacles to a removal of those discrepancies which now exist between the Eastern and Western Churches. Dr. Pichler regards the argumentation of Pitzipios as in many respects eccentric, paradoxical, and adventurous, yet he himself repeatedly declares, either directly or indirectly, against the papal claim to infallibility, and he also declares that "the union will not be effected until it will be seen that great real difficulties, especially on our side, prevent it, and until we unitedly labor for removing them." He recommends to the members of his own (the Roman Catholic) Church a more thorough study of the doctrine, the life, and the constitution of the Oriental Church than has hitherto been found among them. As far as the Orientals are concerned he expects much from the increase of civilization, especially among the lower classes of the population, from the growing influence of the light of science, from a thorough reform of the clergy, whose fanatical intolerance, spiritual degradation, hierarchical arrogance and avarice, constitute the greatest obstacle to union on that side. Rome is still very far from encourag-probational existences is absolutely cering, or even tolerating, such views as those expressed by Dr. Pichler; still it pays a great deal of attention to the study of the history of the Greek Church. The propaganda has recently published, in order to promote the union movement among the Greeks, two works: a History of the Council of Florence, by a Benedictine monk, ("H ȧyía kaì oikovμevικὴ ἐν Φλορεντία σύνοδος,) and a His tory of the Greek Church Law, by Cardinal Pitra, (Juris Ecclesiastici Græcorum Historia et Monumenta, jussu Pii IX., Pont. Max., curanti J. B. Pitra, S. R. E. Card. One vol. in fol., Greek and Latin.) The "Life of Mahomet," by Dr. Sprenger, (Das Leben und die Lehre Mahomets, Berlin, 1865,) has just been completed by the publication of the third volume. The work is highly prized by scholars, and especially by Orientalists, on account of the vast erudition and the profound research of the author. His views on religion, however, in general, and on the Christian religion in particular, a A new work in favor of the belief in transmigration of souls has been published by André Pezzani, (Pluralité des Existences de l'Ame.) The author undertakes to show that the notion of immutability, either in reward or in punishment, is absurd; while, on the contrary, the opinion which admits of our final purification and beatitude after a series of tain, both historically and dogmatically. In support of this view, M. Pezzani invokes the testimony of, 1. Profane Antiquity, (book i.) 2. Sacred Antiquity, including the Jewish and Christian theologies, the Kabbala, etc., (book ii.) 3. Cotemporary writers, (book iii.) The fourth book gives us the author's own conclusions. แ A Jewish writer, J. Cohen, has undertaken to defend his race from the charge of being deicides," (Les "Deicides," Paris, 1865.) His argumentation is, that Christ neither said nor did anything to convince the Jews of his times of his divinity; that consequently, if the Jews were mistaken, they erred in good faith, them when they put him to death acman before believing only to have a cording to their laws. An interesting contribution to the history of the papacy is the " Diplomatic History of the Conclaves," (Histoire Diplomatique des Conclaves, 2 vols., Paris, 1865,) by Petruciello della Gattina, a prominent member of the Italian Parliament. The author is a decided op- | his work, for the Conclaves are prominent among those events in the history of the Church of Rome, which appear even to the eyes of her devoted partisans as anything but edifying. ART. VIII.-SYNOPSIS OF THE QUARTERLIES, AND OTHERS OF THE HIGHER PERIODICALS. American Quarterly Reviews. EVANGELICAL QUARTERLY REVIEW, January, 1865. (Gettysburgh, Penn.) 1. The Reformation, the Work of God. 2. Darwin on the Origin of Species. 3. Lutheran Hymnology. 4. Exemplary Piety in the Ministry. 5. Condition of the Jews in the Days of Christ. 6. The Name Jehovah. 7. Pennsylvania College. 8. Repose as an Element of Christian Character. 9. The Israelites Borrowing from the Egyptians. FREEWILL BAPTIST QUARTERLY, January, 1865. (Dover, Mass.)—1. Rénan's Life of Jesus. 2. Missions and the Schools. 3. The Presidential Election. 4. The Ground of Reward in Heaven. 5. Webster's New Dictionary. AMERICAN PRESBYTERIAN AND THEOLOGICAL REVIEW, January, 1865. (New York.)-1. Christian Miracles and Physical Science. 2. Delivery in Preaching. 3. Origin of Homer's Purer Religious Ideas. 4. John Foster on Future Punishment. 5. Gibbon and Colenso. 6. Christianity and Civilization. 7. The Covenanters and the Stuarts. 8. Whedon on the Will. Of the three extended opposing reviews of "Whedon on the Will," in the Princeton, the Danville, and the American Presbyterian, the last, by the editor, Dr. Smith, is undoubtedly the ablest, and we, therefore, select it for full reply. By subjecting the work to an unsparing hostile scrutiny, the Review has done it the invaluable service of really attesting the final validity of its argument and the indestructible truth of its great doctrine. After retrenching a large area of generalities and one-sided blank assertions, we have a residuum of manly attempts at severe logic, skillfully aimed at important positions; logic which it is a pleasure for us to meet and to demolish. We stand upon this singular vantage ground with Dr. Smith, that his every argument, so far as there is regular argument, has already been within our own mind, more clearly than in his pages, deliberately weighed and amply provided for. So that by an unfortunate (to him) anachronism, his argument was mostly refuted before it was written; like an infant reprobate, damned before it was born. In a large number of instances we may be obliged simply to refer him to the unanswered answers to his reasoning in the volume itself, and decline giving him any further reply until he has dealt with what we have furnished. In this Synopsis we shall notice a few of his collaterals and incidentals, and, as we hope, place on record our answer to his main argument by a full article in a coming Quarterly. It is our earnest prayer and our joyous trust that the cause of truth will be advanced; and that a true, liberal, evangelical, compact, and symmetrical theodicy, based upon accurate views of human freedom, and furnishing exalted views of God's righteousness, will be increasingly established. 1. Dr. Smith opens, or rather prefaces the discussion by saying of the author of the work reviewed: He brings all Calvinists, old school and new school, in New England and in all branches of the Presbyterian Church, under the same condemnation. It is rather amusing to see Princeton and Andover, Bangor and New Haven, swept into the same drag-net; all classed as necessarians." He will not admit them into the full Arminian fellowship unless they are prepared to say, that the power to the contrary" has actually been exercised, or, that they do sometimes choose from the weaker inducement.-P. 125. 46 If we sweep them into the same "drag-net," it is precisely where they "sweep" themselves. With all their subordinate variances they all claim to be Calvinists; proclaiming Edwards their common standard, and ready for a brave and compact onset upon us frank, prompt, and exultant Arminians. Why should we "admit them into the full Arminian fellowship," when none of them ask admission? For one or two centuries their pulpits have resounded with demonstrations against something they called "Arminianism." Let them send Edwards's fatalism, with a facilis descensus, to its own place, and adopt the free, God-honoring theology of JAMES ARMINIUS, and, all protestant as we are, no Pope ever welcomed a returning heretic to his fold more heartily than we will "admit into the full Arminian fellowship" these unfortunate but wise refugees from the inharmonious "drag-net." 2. Dr. Smith (p.* 127) imputes to us the "assumption," not the assertion, mark, "that Calvinism as a system stands or falls with the doctrine of 'philosophical necessity' as expounded by Edwards." We assumed this, we reply, just as much—and no more-as did both the Edwardses themselves assume it; and just as much as Dr. Smith himself assumes it in every paragraph but the one containing this unnecessary denial. The "elaborate essay" of Dr. Cunningham, so instructively quoted by our reviewer in disproof of our so-called "assumption," was quoted and discussed by us in our Quarterly at the time of its publication; and one of the series * The p. refers to the pages of the Review, the P., capital, to those of the work reviewed. |