present you with a sketch of one branch of the argument against corpuscular Materialism (the only popular form of the doctrine of Materialism), as it presents itself to my mind. We are, I have contended, absolutely unable to conceive that the organic and sentient wholes which make up the animal world can have sprung from inorganic, nonsentient atoms, without a new infusion of power, still less that the self-conscious minds which constitute the world of man can have had such an origin. To the difficulties thus raised the Materialist has only one reply, which consists in the hypothesis that the atoms themselves are, from the beginning, endowed with all the powers, including the power of thought, which ultimately make their appearance on the stage of Being. I have endeavoured to show, with the help of better illustration than I myself could bring to bear upon the subject, that even this hypothesis is insufficient to account for the facts and the phenomena, either of sentiency or intellect. The attempt to reform the hypothesis so as to supply at the beginning a cause adequate to all that is finally developed in the result, can only end in that very supposition of a Divine Original which Materialism repudiates. Nothing less than God can be the adequate cause of Man. It has, indeed, latterly been attempted to evade this conclusion in a strange way. To secure the sufficiency of a mechanic force as the origin of things, Man, as the supreme effect, is degraded to the level of an automaton. There is a sort of consistency in thus completely banishing mind from the universe; yet it is strange to think of the trouble these acute intellects are taking to persuade us that we and they alike are mere magnetic mockeries—the ephemeral result of unstable combinations of matter. By first giving the lie to our perceptive constitution, and then inviting us to confide in suicidal conclusions founded upon data furnished by this discredited witness, they involve themselves in a tissue of contradic

tions, and we may safely leave their refutation to the common sense of mankind.

The secret sources of disbelief, as of belief, often lie beyond the reach of logic, deep in men's character and history. What appears to me convincing argument may find no way to the recesses of another's mind, may fail to break through the crust of inveterate mental habit, or prove futile in presence of deficiencies which are organic. Yet I hope that to a few, to whom the argument may not have been familiar, and who may have been drawn in what seems to me the wrong direction by prevailing tendencies, I may, perhaps, have succeeded in showing that the difficulties of the question are in reality enormous; and that it is at least utterly unwise to draw from materialistic premises conclusions which are repugnant to practical good sense, or, what is still worse, which seem to liberate us from obligations hitherto deemed sacred.

C. W. RICHMOND.

DR. MICHAUD ON THE SEVEN ECUMENICAL

W

COUNCILS.*

HEN the Old Catholics had their great congress at Cologne in 1872 it was a question still open on what ground they were to stand after rejecting the authority of the Vatican Council. Regarding themselves as Catholic, they refused to be satisfied with the Protestant ground of the Bible and the Bible alone. Some proposed to stand by the Council of Trent, as representing the Catholic Church until July 1870; but others wished to go further back and take the first seven General Councils, as representing the whole Catholic Church before the separation of the East and West. Those who proposed Trent were probably the more advanced party, as they simply took provisional ground, leaving their ultimate destination to the course of events. At the Bonn Conference of 1874 it was expressly abandoned by the great Munich leader of the movement, who said that he also spoke in behalf of his brethren.t

Dr. Michaud, who, at Cologne, was known as the young French Abbé fresh from the Madeleine, was one of those who advocated going back at once to the undivided Church, represented by the decisions of the first seven Ecumenical Par E. MICHAUD,

Discussion sur les Sept Conciles Ecumeniques. Docteur en Theologie. Berne: Jent et Reinert. 1878.

+ His words were, "As regards the Council of Trent, I think I may declare, not only in my own name, but also in the name of my colleagues, that we hold ourselves in no way bound by all the decrees of that Council, which cannot be considered as Ecumenical" (Report, p. 6, English trans. lation).

Councils. That position he still holds, and the present work is a defence of it against Romanists, High Church Anglicans, and all Protestants. These seven Councils appear to him to offer the only true basis for the reunion of the Churches. "Here," he says, "East and West, Catholic and Protestant, may all be one, and enjoy with the necessary unity that variety which is also necessary."

We shall first dispose of Dr. Michaud's arguments against the Romanists. It is not without wisdom that the Church of Rome has adopted the principle formulated by Cardinal Manning that history must give place to dogma; which really means that history must go for nothing when it tells against the dogmas of the Church of Rome. The era of the first seven General Councils covers the first five centuries of the activity of the Christian Church, after its deliverance from Roman persecution. We have here the mind, or rather minds, for we must use the plural, of the Christian community during the time of its greatest prosperity, and while the Church was ostensibly one visible body. Dr. Michaud shows that all these Councils were convoked by emperors, and that, with rare exceptions, they were presided over by emperors or their legates. No Bishop of Rome appears in any of them, except by his representatives, and the decisions received the confirmation of all the patriarchs. The Bishop of Rome has a precedence, in virtue of his being bishop of the imperial city; but this is simply a political precedence, and not one involved in his ecclesiastical position. The arguments of Ultramontane writers against these statements are examined and found to be largely grounded on writings the genuineness of which is not now admitted even by the great scholars of the Roman Catholic community.

In the first Council Constantine said expressly, "I have called you together." The letter to the Churches of Alexandria, Egypt, and Libya said that the Council was

assembled "by the grace of God and the summons of Constantine." There is no trace of anything to the contrary until after a lapse of three hundred and sixty years, when some one in the sixth General Council joined with the name of Constantine that of Sylvester, Bishop of Rome. Rufinus, speaking of this Council, says that it was suggested to Constantine by the priests. From this Roman Catholic writers make the rapid inference that the idea of the Council must have come from Sylvester, he being the chief of the priests. Some maintain, from the very fact that there were at the Council delegates from the Bishop of Rome, that they must have presided, taking the place which he would have taken had he been personally present. Others suppose that Osius, Bishop of Cordova, was president of the first Council, but there is no evidence of this, and, moreover, he was not the representative of the Bishop of Rome. The second Council was convoked by Theodosius, but in the acts of the sixth Council it is said that "Theodosius and Damasus opposed Macedonianism." This conjunction of the name of the Bishop with that of the Emperor, as opposing the heresy condemned by the Council, is construed as evidence that the Bishop of Rome, in conjunction with the Emperor, summoned the Council of Constantinople. Three bishops-Meletius of Antioch, Gregory of Constantinople, and his successor, Nectariuswere presidents of the Council, and all of them were aliens to the Bishop of Rome. The first he reckoned an Arian. He opposed the elevation of the second to the patriarchate, and Nectarius he did not regard as validly ordained. The third Council was convoked Ly the Emperors Theodosius II. and Valentinian III. In their names letters were addressed to all the metropolitans. The Bishop of Rome gave his consent after the Council was summoned. The first president was Cyril of Alexandria. He had written letters to the Bishop of Rome