the mental image of a woman, and calling upon all his followers to join in the prayer and praise?* Verily this is a wonderful Nova Instauratio! The whole world is invited to become an insane hospital or an asylum for idiots.

In addition to the unsophisticated teachings of the human mind, a profound analysis of the facts of history, whether biographical or general, will show that the three main argu. ments of the Necessitarian are all vicious reasonings in a circle, assuming what was to be proved.

The induction leading to the conclusion that mental acts are a necessitated series of events, omits essential facts which demand another conclusion. The necessary sequence does not appear. Consciousness denies it. Observation confirms consciousness. Material influences interfere with mental action, but do not originate thought. Thoughts spring up utterly independent of them.

The analogy between matter and mind is only such as must exist on the supposition that matter and finite mind are both created, and one was designed to accommodate the other, while in the end mind was to control matter.

The deduction from the supposed necessity for order fails, if we allow, as facts teach us to allow, that order was never intended, except with the possibility of disorder; and then an order to be reached by experimentation, and through a voluntary subserviency to a higher law of mind alone, one essential element of which forever must be, that it can be disobeyed, and punished, and finally disorder become self-destructive and involuntarily obedient. In a word, we must believe in God, and in the Bible idea of the universe.

This theory simply enlarges the universe infinitely, greatly multiplying its mysteries we allow, but as greatly multiplying its beauties and glories; and instead of enthroning matter it enthrones mind; and instead of a constant passive obedience, immersed in acknowledged evil, substitutes a voluntary obedience or disobedience, the former of which we may hope will at last fully and forever prevail.

On this theory the question becomes awful: What originates public opinion? What gives the chapters into which history divides itself their various colorings? What makes of

*See Westminster Review, July, 1865, Article I.

one man a Bolingbroke, of another a Wilberforce; of one man a Jonathan Edwards, of another an Aaron Burr?

We shall find and conclude that each man has a narrow territory of independence, within which he may act from selforiginated and self-directed power, and, uniting himself with others, contribute his share to produce the great swelling torrents of thoughts and passions that bear down weaker souls. We shall find that many have exerted this power unconsciously, but that the most godlike of men have done it consciously. We shall find the philosophy of history more complicated than the philosophy of nature, as it deals with many finite minds instead of one all-controlling mind. We shall find that, over and beyond the narrow limits of human freedom, there is a Divine Providence, who governs and yet respects the freedom of mind; and though the mysteries of existence can never be comprehended, we shall have the blissful assurance that our vision, so far as it does extend, coincides with that of the All-seeing One.

ART. IL-THE GREEK CHURCH CONSIDERED PARTICULARLY IN ITS RELATION TO THE PROTESTANT. IN previous articles we have reviewed somewhat at length the relation of the Greek Church to the Latin. The comparison could not fail to result favorably to the former; while it has disclosed several important particulars in which the Greek Church must commend itself to the approbation of every true Protestant. Indeed, in the earliest days of the Reformation, Protestants directed a sympathetic look toward the Oriental Church, which had already five hundred years before issued its protest against Romanism. Repeatedly during the subsequent interval, the Protestant Church in some of its branches has initiated friendly negotiations; and up to the present time has ever held itself accessible to the freest intercommunication with the orthodox Church of the East.

But we are not to be misled by sympathy or interest. We are to be just to the truth, and true to the infallible standard. Trying ourselves by the divine word, we must subject all others to the same unerring test, remembering the inspired

admonition: "If they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”

The comparison, then, is no longer between the Greek Church and the Latin, but between Eastern orthodoxy and Western evangelicity-the relation of the Greek Church to the Protestant.

It is well understood that the first friendly proffer of negoti ation, made by Melancthon to the patriarch Joasaph II., elicited no response. This silence received various interpretations. But while it excited suspicion, it did not extinguish hope. A subsequent attempt at negotiation was more successful. The patriarch Jeremiah replied to the address of the Lutheran divines, but unfavorably; and for many years Protestant effort in this direction was discontinued.

Meanwhile a Greek priest, of remarkable ability and promise, educated at Venice and Padua, traveled over Italy and Germany, and visited the famous Protestant city of Geneva, where he studied for a time, forming an intimate acquaintance with some of the leading Protestant divines, and acquiring "a strong predilection for the doctrines of the Reformed Church, which he retained till his death." His early promise was fulfilled with rapid advancement and increasing influence. Poland was domineering over Russia. Sigismund III. was ambitious of uniting the Greek Church with the Church of Rome. This priest, Cyrillus Lucaris, was commissioned by the Patriarch of Alexandria, as his deputy to the Synod of Brezc, to defeat this attempt. The imperial project failed, and Cyril Lucar was compelled to fly for his life from the fury of Sigismund. In 1602 Cyril became Patriarch of Alexandria. A score of years later he was transferred to Constantinople, and was recognized as the leading patriarch of the East. Still he ardently cherished his liberal views. He corresponded with distinguished Protestants in England, Holland, Sweden, and Switzerland; complained in his letters of the ambitious interference of itinerant emissaries of Rome; indicated his desire to make common cause with the Protestants against the common enemy; and in 1629 sent to Geneva his confession of faith, which he had printed in Latin at Constantinople, and which produced a marked impression upon the Greeks and Catholics of the Orient. At the same time Greek jealousy.

and Roman hostility were aroused; and in the space of seventeen years this worthy patriarch was four times deposed, and as often restored. Each deposition was esteemed a triumph by the Catholic instigators; and each restoration was hailed with pleasure by sympathizing Protestants. The strife terminated in the violent death of the patriarch in 1638.

These circumstances had the effect to revive Protestant hopes and interests in the Greek Church, and negotiations were renewed. In the East and the West the subject "engrossed much attention during the latter half of the seven-. teenth century," and as a consequence important questions were raised and synods were convoked. An earnest rivalry sprung up between the Papists and Protestants. The former, under the name of Greek Uniats, striving to absorb the Eastern Church, were invading it in the one direction from Poland, in the other from Turkey; the latter were endeavoring to unite with the Greek Church in a league offensive and defensive against the encroachments of the Roman Church.

Bolchofsky, a candidate of theology in the Spiritual Academy at St. Petersburgh, in an elaborate essay in which he characterizes the existing state of things as a consequence of the fierce struggle between the Calvinists and the Papists, says, "The former sought to strengthen their cause by making out that the Eastern Church was on their side; while the latter, from hatred to Cyril Lucar, with one voice re-echoed their assertions that he was really in belief a Calvinist." (Blackmore's Doctrine of the Russian Church, p. 19.)

Evidently the specific views of the Greek Church upon the questions at issue were not well defined. Resting upon the decisions, and content with the formulas, of the early General Councils, especially of Nice and Constantinople, she had manifested but little of doctrinal development. Indeed she gloried in her primitive orthodoxy, and cheerfully accepted the title of "immutable." For eight hundred years no Ecumenical Council had assembled. Her last great theologian, St. John Damascene, had indeed arranged the doctrinal views of the Christian Fathers in scientific and systematic form in his treatise, "De Fide Orthodoxa," which the Greek Church reverentially accepted. But full eight centuries had passed away since St. John Damascene had bequeathed to the Church this im

important legacy; and there was some plausibility in the charge preferred against the Eastern Church, cited and answered by the distinguished Peter Mogila. "Enemies of orthodoxy, that is, the papists, have composed and printed in the Polish language certain railings against our Orthodox Church, giving out everywhere that the Russian clergy are so ignorant that they know not either their own faith or their own ceremonies."

With ambitious zeal the Papists proposed to supply this lack by surreptitiously introducing Romish books and Romish notions into the Eastern Church. And Bolchofsky, in the essay just mentioned, concludes that Peter Mogila composed his "Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East" more against the Papists than either the Lutherans or Calvinists, inasmuch as he had more reason to apprehend danger from them than from either of the two last named sects.

But whatever may have been the prevailing motive with Peter Mogila, it is difficult to believe that the Greek Synod convoked at Constantinople in 1638 and 1642, at Jassy in 1643, and at Bethlehem in 1672, were friendly toward Calvinism. In 1638 the Synod at Constantinople condemned Cyril Lucar as a heretic, and anathematized his memory. In 1642 the Synod condemned the Confession and its author. The Synod at Jassy condemned Calvinism, without including the person of Cyril Lucar. And the Synod of Bethlehem exculpated and vindicated Cyril, but condemned the Confession bearing his name, asserting that it had been forged by Calvinistic heretics. Indeed the Synod of Jassy, according to Bolchofsky, was convoked upon the request of the Prince of Moldavia especially for this reason: he finding much scandal and confusion to be caused in his provinces by the Calvinists, and particularly by the Calvinistic Confessions then everywhere circulated under the name of Cyril Lucar, had requested Parthenius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and Peter Mogila, Metropolitan of Kieff, to assemble a Synod at Jassy against the ́ Calvinistic heresy. To this council Parthenius sent, as from himself and his Synod at Constantinople, (1642) a synodal letter containing a formula of Eighteen Articles drawn up against the Calvinists, with four important questions and their answers