The General Synod elected as its President, by unanimous acclamation, Count Arnim-Boytzenburg, and the election appears to have given general satisfaction. His experience in parliamentary regulations, his extensive scholarship and familiar acquaintance with all the subjects discussed, and his thorough impartiality, are acknowledged on all sides. The Vice-President, Rübsamen, who is a Superintendent in Pomerania, belongs to the Lutheran party. The present Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs, Herr von Puttkammer, a brother-in-law of Premier Bismarck, strongly sympathizes with the orthodox majority of the General Synod, while his predecessor, Dr. Falk, was supposed to share the views of the Left, which is now but so feebly represented. The Government and the majority of the General Synod are fully agreed in desiring the restoration of the doctrines of the Reformation; they differ in regard to the position which is to be given to the claims of a strict Lutheranism. The resolutions adopted by the General Synod aim at the restoration of Protestant orthodoxy; the Lutheran question will come up for its solution at some future time.

The labors of the General Synod have been very extensive. The Supreme Ecclesiastical Council has prepared nineteen bills for discussion and adoption; besides disposing of these, the General Council passed a number of other important resolutions. Of special significance is the position which the Synod has taken with regard to the school question. The orthodox parties of the Prussian Church with great unanimity reject the principle of unsectarian schools, and favor the denominational character of the public schools. The General Synod has declared itself very emphatically in favor of a close connection between the State schools and those Churches which the State recognizes. Minister Puttkammer has publicly declared his concurrence in these views, and designated the question of denominational schools as one of those in which he entirely dissents from his predecessor, Dr. Falk. Government and Church will, therefore, make a united effort to arrest the progress which unsectarian schools have begun to make in Prussia, and re-establish the direct influence of the Church upon the school. A great excitement has been produced among the laity by the demand of the General Synod that the professors of the theological faculties teach in harmony with the faith of the symbolical books, and that the Church, through its representatives, co-operate with the State in examining the candidates for theolog ical degrees. Of course this would mean for the near future the suppression of all but the orthodox tendencies at the theological faculties, and, in case the precedent of Prussia is followed by the smaller Prussian States, would give an entirely different complexion to German theology. The present theological faculties of the Prussian universities greatly dislike this proposition, and the University of Berlin has been induced by its theological faculty to enter a protest against it as inconsistent with the freedom of academical teaching. Another resolution aims at the introduction of a common Buss-und Bettag (day of fasting and prayer) for all the Protestant Churches of Germany.

The next General Synod is to be convoked six years from hence. In the meanwhile a Standing Committee will represent the General Synod in all questions in which the Church or the General Synod has to cooperate with the State in questions of administration.

The meeting of this synod may be regarded as a turning-point in the history of the Protestant State Churches of Germany. The period in which these Churches were completely governed by the State is at an end; the new period of a synodal government has now been fully inaugurated in all the Protestant State Churches of Germany. If it is remembered that the Prussian State Church, with which a population of about twelve millions is connected, is, next to the Church of England, the largest Protestant State Church of the world, the importance of the Prussian Synod for the entire Protestant world cannot be doubted.

ART. X.-FOREIGN LITERARY INTELLIGENCE.

GERMANY.

AMONG the important theological works that are announced as being in preparation is a collection of the Greek writers who, in the early period of the history of the Christian Church, attacked Christianity. It will be published by C. J. Neumann, under the title Scriptorum Græcorum qui Christianam Impugnaverunt Religionem quae Supersunt. The importance of these works for a thorough understanding of the early history of the Christian Church cannot be doubted, for they alone can explain to us the reasons which induced educated pagans to reject Christianity. Unfortunately, complete copies of these works are no longer extant. It is not correct that, as is commonly believed, the Emperor Theodosius II., by his decree of Feb. 16, 448, ordered all anti-Christian books to be burned. His decree only referred to the writings of Porphyry, which accordingly were completely destroyed. But all the others became soon very scarce, as they ceased to be copied, and thus are now likewise lost. Fortunately some of the Christian replies to the pagan attacks are completely extant; as the books of Origen against Celsus, the work of Eusebius against Hierocles, the ἀποκριτικὸς πρὸς Ἕλληνας of Macarius of Mag nesia, which has been recently discovered; finally, ten books of Cyril of Alexandria against Julian. These works embrace numerous fragments of the anti-Christian writers; other fragments are found elsewhere, as extracts from Porphyry in the Præpan. Evangel. of Eusebius, and in the commentary of Jerome to Daniel. All these fragments will be collected in Neumann's work. The first part will contain the true word of Celsus. A reconstruction of this work has recently been attempted by Keim in Germany, and by Aubé in France. But both have only given translations, not the Greek text, The publication of the latter requires a new critical edition of Origen's work against Celsus, which, therefore,

will be prepared

conjointly with the attempted reconstruction of the work of Celsus. The second part contains the fragments of Porphyry and Hierocles. A reconstruction of Porphyry, like that of Celsus, is not possible, because none of the works written against him have come down to our days. The material extant suffices, however, to acquaint us with the plan of the work of Porphyry, and the method of his polemics. The extensive fragments of the philosopher found in Macarius will be given in this part of the work. It is certain that these fragments do not belong to Celsus. Mr. Neumann expects to prove that the philosopher is not, as was assumed by Müller, identical with Julian, and that he must have been either Porphyry or Hierocles. An introduction to this part will sketch the development of the neo-Platonic polemics from Por phyry to Julian, and its relation to Celsus. The third part of the work will embrace the books of Julian. The first of the three (not seven) books of the Emperor can be almost completely restored from the ten books of Cyril of Alexandria. Several new manuscripts of this latter work have been compared. For a restoration of the second and third books of Julian much less can be done, because of Cyril's work the books following after the tenth are lost. All the fragments, however, which are preserved, either in Greek or in a Syrian translation, have been carefully collected. The latter have been copied by Dr. Nestle, in Tübingen, from the British Museum, and will be supplied by him with a Latin translation. Some fragments of Julian are found in the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia and of Photius. An introduction to this part will give a historical account of the work of Julian and the numerous replies to it, and will explain the attempt of restoring the book. As it is supposed that Julian's work will interest many others besides philologists, the edition of the Greek text will be followed by that of a German translation.

Another new work on and against the supremacy claimed by the Popes of Rome has been published by an Old Catholic theologian, Professor Friedrich, of Munich, (Zur ältesten Geschichte des Primates in der Kirche. Bonn 1879.) Professor Friedrich, before the beginning of the Old Catholic movement, was regarded as one of the greatest Church historians of the Catholic Church, next to Döllinger. His Church history of Germany was well received both by Catholics and Protestants, and is still regarded as a standard work on the subject. Since then he has joined the Old Catholic Church, and published the best work extant on the history of the Vatican Council. A work from so prominent a historian on the history of the primacy of the Bishops of Rome will be sure to command the attention of the theological world. In the Roman Catholic Church it is now an article of belief that Peter received from Christ primatical powers over the entire Christian Church; that he was the first Bishop of Rome; and that his successors, the Bishops of Rome, inherited his primatical powers. Catholic historians, therefore, however learned, cannot be expected to investigate and discuss this subject impartially. Protestant historians have completely demolished all arguments that have been adduced to prove a supremacy of the early Roman

Bishops over the entire Church, and have even made it very doubtful whether Peter was ever in Rome. One Orthodox German theologian, Dr. Uhlhorn, has recently undertaken to prove that James, the brother of Jesus, occupied a primatical position in Jerusalem, which extended far beyond the Churches of Palestine. Professor Friedrich adopts this view, and this new work is written for the special purpose of proving its correctness. He starts from an interpretation of the seventh canon of the Council of Nice, and shows that this Council forms a turning-point in the history of the Papal supremacy, and that before 325 there is no trace of it. He quotes in support of his theory a statement of Eusebius, according to which Clemens of Alexandria, one of the oldest Church writers, calls James the Just the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and the successor of the Lord himself. A number of passages of the New Testament are quoted as proving that James did, and that Peter did not, hold a primatical position. The first change in the supremacy of the Church of Jerusalem he assumes to have taken place after the second destruction of Jerusalem, in 135, when both Jews and Jewish Christians were forbidden to settle on the former site of Jerusalem. Then the authority of other apostolic bishoprics, especially Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome, gradually rose. The gradual predominance of Rome over the other sees was secured by a number of falsifications and forgeries which are set forth in the book at full length and with great learning. The schemes of the Roman Bishops were strongly aided by the general tendency toward a compact centralization which sprang up in the old Church. The two agencies combined created the Papal system. The work of Professor Friedrich is of a strictly historical character, and draws no inferences from the attempted establishment of historical facts as to the theory of Church government. This will be done in a larger work, which the author is now preparing, and of which the present work is a forerunner.

ART. XI.-QUARTERLY BOOK-TABLE.

Religion, Theology, and Biblical Literature.

Studies in the New Testament. By F. GODET, D.D., Professor of Theology, Neuchatel. Edited by the Hon. and Rev. W. H. LYTTLETON, M.A. 12mo., pp. 398. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co. 1877.

Professor Godet is one of the leaders of the Evangelical non-Calvinistic Protestants of France, and is author of Commentaries on the Gospels, which have been translated into English. His writings are marked by a certain freshness of thought and the lucidity of style in which the French excel, with something of that diffuseness which is their failing. He first, here, surveys the Gospels, and furnishes not a few fine suggestions. He then gives a dissertation on "The Four Principal Apostles;" and in regard to Paul's

predestinarianism makes the following decisive remarks: "There is no trace in Paul of a fatalistic predestination. Human freewill and responsibility are always presupposed and often asserted by him; and as to Rom. ix and x, we will undertake to prove that they contain precisely the strongest protest against that fatalistic predestination of which Israel audaciously made use as a reason for not receiving the gospel."-P. 267. As our own Commentary of Rom. ix is the only one that has taken this decided ground, we would rejoice to know how our French Professor handles the matter. He is copious and suggestive on the Apocalypse. In his exegesis we do not concur; but we are obliged to him for his refutation of the identification of Nero risen from the dead with any conception of the Apocalypse.

The argument for identifying Nero with the symbolic number 666 in xiii, 18, is based on what, if not a true identity, seems a very curious coincidence. That number it is said makes in Hebrew exactly the name Nero Cæsar as it is read in the Rabbinical writings. This name seems to have dawned upon the minds of four eminent scholars almost simultaneously, in 1836; namely, Fritzsche in Rostock, Hitzig in Zurich, Benary in Berlin, and Reuss in Strasburg. With a certain class of thinkers it seems to carry all before it. An almost conclusive proof of this name being the true solution arose from a very peculiar coincidence. Irenæus tells us that there were in the then extant manuscripts two different readings of the numbers; the older and more accurate was 666, but a later 616. Now there were, also, two forms of the name Nero, both used in Hebrew; one, after the Greek, was Nerōn, the other, after the Latin, Nero; and the former of these make the 666, and the latter exactly 616! Should not that settle the question?

To this one might reply that Irenæus tells us that the 616 was found only in later manuscripts, and so they could not have come from John. And how could copyists have adjusted their codices to Nero's name and Irenæus never have heard of that name as a candidate? Indeed, Irenæus' omission of that name in discussing the candidates is a powerful argument against its claim.

But Godet denies that 666 is the true number of the Hebrew name Nero Cæsar. Its true number is really 676 according to the spelling in St. John's day. The number 666 is spelled with the three Hebrew consonants K SR; the needed E of the first syllable being supplied by a vowel-point; whereas the true orthography of the word Cæsar, as identified by contemporary record, has four letters, requiring the E to be not a vowel-point FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXXII.—12