proper part of the nebula, was infolded within it, and then by a divine process unfolded in due time, or 66 developed" from it. And the divine "fiat," so called, was not a formula in Hebrew words, but the omnipotent initiation of life at the moment of readiness in the succession of ages. If the nebula itself was eternal, then God is its eternal Creator by its being the eternal effect of his Causation. Life thus evolved by God from the system of matter, yet not itself matter, involves no materialistic conclusions. Even if the human soul can be truly shown to be thus evolved from the corporeal system, materialism does not follow. The soul is still itself uncorporeal, invisible, and survives the corporeal dissolution.

But until "spontaneous generation can be proved to be an ordinary natural process, this initiation of life in the universe is an epochal event. It is presumptively extra the ordinary course of nature; it is a miracle quite as great, perhaps, as revelation ever supposes. We submit that thus Professor Tyndall is answered.

German Reviews.

STUDIEN UND KRITIKEN. (Essays and Reviews.) Second Number, 1871.-Essays: 1. HAUPT, The Entrance of Jesus into his Messianic Vocation. 2. KLOSTERMANN, The Song of Moses (Deut. xxxii) and the Deuteronomy. Thoughts and Remarks: 1. KRUMMEL, The Forerunners of the Reformation, Wiclif and Huss. 2. SAYCE, On the Destroyer of Samaria. Reviews: 1. DELITZSCH, System of Christian Apologetics, reviewed by K. H. Sack. 2. DEWETTE-SCHRADER, Introduction into the Old Testament, reviewed by Adolph Kamphausen. 3. MUCKE, Flavius Claudius Julianus, reviewed by Dr. O. Bindemann. 4. BICKELL, S. Ephraemi Syri Carmina, reviewed by E. Vilmar.

The relation of Wiclif and Huss to the two great medieval schools of theology-the Realists and Nominalists--is a subject which has engaged the attention of many Church historians. Nearly all of them have heretofore been agreed that both forerunners of the great Reformation of the sixteenth century were addicted to the philosophical system of the Realists. This school held that the universal ideas existed before the individual things, (universalia ante rem;) that they are the ideas of God, according to which the individual things were created, or the principles of the existence of the individual things; and that, since God is the absolute reality, the universal ideas are the forms of appearance of the absolute reality of God. Applying their philosophical conceptions to theology, the Realists as

serted the reality or the immediate truth of the dogmatical tenets of the Church, viewing them as the universal ideas which serve as the basis and standard of all human individual conceptions; while the Nominalists, on the contrary, who derived the universal ideas from sensuous perception, and from experience, were inclined to deny the absolute certainty of the doctrines of the Church, and subjected them to the critical examination of the individual thinker. Differing from former Church historians, B. Czerwenka, the author of a recent history of the Evangelical Church in Bohemia, (Geschichte der evangelischen Kirche in Böhmen. Bielefeld. 2 vols. 1869–70,) has undertaken to prove that both Wiclif and Huss were Nominalists, and that the Reformation of the sixteenth century was likewise based on the principle of Nominalism. Against this assertion the above mentioned article of Krummel (author of a History of the Bohemian Reformation in the Fifteenth Century) defends the traditional view of the Realistic philosophy of Wiclif and Huss. He endeavors to show that the Nominalistic philosophy, although it tended to undermine the belief in the doctrines of the Church, had but little to do with the Reformation; that its character was predominantly negative and destructive; that it was essentially different from orthodox Protestantism, and that it can only be regarded as the forerunner of the modern systems of Sensualism, Materialism, and Positivism.

ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR HISTORISCHE THEOLOGIE. (Journal for Historical Theology.) Published by Dr. Kahnis. Second Number. 1871.-1. KRUMMEL, Utraquists and Taborites: a contribution to the History of the Bohemian Reformation in the Fifteenth Century. 2. DR. SIEFFERT, Galatia, and its first Christian Congregations.

As Bohemia and Moravia, in consequence of the battle of the White Mountain in 1621, were lost for Protestantism, the fruit of the reformatory movement of the Hussites is usually found almost exclusively in the moral effect which the tragic end of Huss produced at the Council of Constance. The immediate consequences, as they showed themselves in the sects of the Utraquists and Taborites, or in general in the Hussites, were considered as being of less importance, for, although it was not denied that the movement which seized the Bohemian people after the death of Huss had its origin in religious motives, and continued to be considerably influenced by them, this move

ment, on the whole, was looked upon as a chain of revolutionary and warlike events rather than a reformatory movement. Most Protestant writers find the reason for this in the conduct of Huss himself, who, in their opinion, was not outspoken and bold enough in his opposition to the Roman hierarchy, and therefore lacked one of the most indispensable qualities of a thorough reformer. Even Palacky, in his excellent history of Bohemia, pays but little attention to the religious character of the Hussite movement. Recently Czerwenka, in his history of the Evangelical Church in Bohemia, has shown a more just appreciation of the religious tendencies of the Hussites; but as, even in his works, some important points appear not to have been fully cleared up, the author of the first article in this number of the Journal for Historical Theology, L. Krummel, who has already shown his thorough acquaintance with the subject by a history of the Bohemian reformation, undertakes to elucidate the doctrines and principles of the Utraquists and Taborites. He divides his subject into seven chapters, namely: 1. The origin of the Utraquists and Taborites, 1415-1420; 2. Their original unity and their first differences, 1420-1424; 3. Their conflicts, 1424-1431; 4. The victory of the former. over the latter, and the preliminary negotiations of the Bohemians with the Council of Basel, 1431-1434; 5. The continuation of the negotiations until the conclusion of the Compact of Basel, 1434–1436; 6. The attempt of the Emperor Sigismond to restore the Catholic Church in Bohemia, 1436–1437; 7. The result of the whole movement of the Hussites, the Utraquistic Church, the entire disappearance of the Taborites, and the origin of the earlier community of the Bohemian brethren, 1437-1457. The present article embraces the first three chapters. The very copious recent literature on the history of the Hussites has been carefully used, and the article seems to be altogether one of the most valuable essays which have of late appeared in the theological periodicals of Germany. ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR WISSENSCHAFTLICHE THEOLOGIE. (Journal for Scientific Theology.) Edited by Professor A. Hilgenfeld. First and Second Numbers.

1870.

1. BIEDERMANN, The Rational Fundamental Ideas of Religion. 2. HILGENFELD, The Jewish Sibyls and Essenism. 3. RONSCH, The Leptogenenis, [one of the apocryphal books of the Old Testament,] and the Ambrosian Latin Fragments of it. 4. HILGENFELD, Paul and the Difficulties in Corinth. 5. LIPSIUS, The Acts of Alexander of Rome. 6. PFLEIDERER, The Pauline veuμa. 7. HILGENFELD, Remarks on the Pauline Christ. 8. EGLI, The Text of Exodus. 9. HILGENFELD, The Epistle of Barnabas in an old Latin translation.

ART. IX.-FOREIGN RELIGIOUS INTELLIGENCE.

THE EASTERN CHURCHES.

INTERCOMMUNION WITH THE ANGLICAN CHURCH-THE BULGARIAN CHURCH QUESTION-CONVOCATION OF AN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL.-The history of the Eastern Churches is becoming from year to year more interesting, and it seems that the time will soon come when the works on Church history, as well as the religious press, will find it necessary to bestow upon the religious movements in these Churches a much greater attention than they have received heretofore. The most important occurrences of the year 1870 were the progress of the movement for the establishment of intercommunion between the Eastern and the Anglican Churches, and the Bulgarian Church Question. With regard to the former, the official correspondence of the Archbishop of Canterbury with the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Synod of Greece, and other high authorities of the Greek Church, has inaugurated an official intercourse between the two Churches, which, according to all probability, is likely to be more and more strengthened. That the Greek Church should act toward the Anglicans not only with great reserve, but with great overbearing and intolerance, was to be expected. In all doctrinal questions the Greeks are almost as uncompromising as the Roman Catholics; and the stress which they lay upon their own exclusive orthodoxy, as well as the eagerness to organize the Greek Church within the territory of the Anglican Church, has shocked the feelings of even the foremost champions of a closer intercommunion between the two Churches. The only point which the heads of the Anglican Church have been able to obtain consists in the encyclical letters by which the Patriarch of Constantinople, as well as the Holy Synod of Greece, have directed the clergy under them to show, as far as possible, brotherly kindness in all things to the Christians of the Anglican Confession, and if any such Christians should die at a place where no priest of their own Church should happen to be present, to render them fitting burial and the prayers of the Greek Church for their souls. It is a very small concession which is thus made, but it is much more than what the Church of Rome would ever grant, and may be the beginning of a more fraternal conduct toward the remainder of the Christian world on the part of the Orientals. For the Anglican communion there lies a great danger in courting a friendly relation with the Eastern prelatical Churches at the cost of so much which it owes to the Reformation of the sixteenth century. As regards the Greek Church, on the other hand, every act of intercommunion brings her more under the influence of all the great ideas in the Christian world which have been developed in consequence of the Reformation.

The Bulgarian Church Question, to the earlier history and importance of which we have referred in former numbers of the "Quarterly Review," led in the year 1870 to very important developments. The demand of the

Bulgarians to have Bishops of their own nationality, and a national Church organization like the Roumanians and the Servians, was, in the main, granted by the imperial firman of March 10. The substance of the eleven paragraphs is as follows:

Article I. provides for the establishment of a separate Church admiristration for the Bulgarians, which shall be called the Exarchate of the Bulgarians. Article II. The chief of the Bulgarian Metropolitans receives the title of Exarch, and presides over the Bulgarian Synod. Article III. The Exarch, as well as the Bishops, shall be elected in accordance with the regulations hitherto observed, the election of the Exarch to be confirmed by the cecumenical Patriarchs. Article IV. The Exarch receives his appointment by the Sublime Porte previous to his consecration, and is bound to say prayer for the Patriarch whenever he holds divine service. Article V. stipulates the formalities to be observed in supplicating for the appointment (installation) by the Sublime Porte. Article VI. In all matters of a spiritual nature the Exarch has to consult with the Patriarch. Article VII. The new Bulgarian Church, like the Churches of Roumania, Greece, and Servia, obtains the holy oil (chrisma) from the Patriarchate. Article VIII. The authority of a Bishop does not extend beyond his diocese. Article IX. The Bulgarian Church and the bishopric (Metochion) in the Phanar are subject to the Exarch, who may temporarily reside in Metochion. During this temporary residence he must observe the same rules and regulations which have been established for the Patriarch of Jerusalem during his residence in the Phanar. Article X. The Bulgarian Exarchate comprises fourteen dioceses: Rustchuk, Silistria, Schumla, Tirnovo, Sophia, Widdin, Nisch, Slivno, Veles, Samakovo, Küstendie, Vratza, Lofdja, and Pirut. One half of the cities of Varna, Anchialu, Mesembria, Liyeboli, and of twenty villages on the Black Sea, are reserved for the Greeks. Philippople has been divided into two equal parts, one of which, together with the suburbs, is retained by the Greeks, while the other half, and the quarter of Panaghia, belongs to the Bulgarians. Whenever proof is adduced that two thirds of the inhabitants of a diocese are Bulgarians, such diocese shall be transferred to the Exarchate. Article XI. All Bulgarian monasteries which are under the Patriarchate at the present time shall remain so in future.

The Greeks of Constantinople were indignant at this firman, because they were well aware that its execution would put an end to the subordinate position in which they have thus far kept the Bulgarians. They demanded that the Patriarch should either reject it or resign. The Synod which was convened by the Patriarch in April declared that the firman was in conflict with the canons of the Church, and that an Ecumenical Council should be summoned to decide the question. The Patriarch accordingly notified the Turkish government that he could not accept the firman, and that, therefore, he renewed his petition for the convocation of an Ecumenical Council. The Bulgarian committee, on the other hand, issued a circular in which the solution of the question by the firman was declared to be entirely satisfactory, and corresponding with their just de