R. C. (stung at last, and turning like the worm).--Not so. You calumniate them. Among them are men who would scorn to use the language and resort to the arts of controversy which you adopt towards them; men who intellectually and morally are as high above you as Heaven is above the earth-Cardinal Manning, for instance, the sainted John Henry Newman, Ed. G. (with an aspect of thunder and the voice of a Boanerges).-Oh, this is monstrous! This is sacrilege! Have you for gotten who I am? Manning me no Mannings and Newman me no Newmans. A fig for both of them! A fig for all the others you were going to name! What are they to ME, the duly accredited (self-constituted) guardian of Christian truth, the infallible Pope of Methodism, the only infallibly true religion under Heaven? Wretch, begone! R. C. (abashed and quaking with awe).I-I-had forgotten. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. The wretched culprit retires, crossing himself, utterly vanquished and humbled; while the exultant victor looks proudly around at his constituents, with the air of a conqueror waiting for the applause to come in. It comes in accordingly. It always does. His constituents read little besides Methodist literature, and consequently hear nothing on the other side save what he pleases to tell them in his own way. What that way is I shall presently show. But first let us investigate his claims to infallibility a little more closely than did his imaginary opponent; who, though so easily overawed by the overbearing style of his antagonist, is a rather favourable specimen of the Roman Catholic man of straw which journals of the calibre of the Guardian set up in order to enjoy the agreeable pastime of knocking down again. Whether the assertive method would be equally successful with a real flesh-and-blood Catholic is doubtful, or rather, not at all doubtful. Be this as it may, the question of the Guar dian's infallibility, at least, can be settled. The following extract from the article of the 7th Nov. is sufficient for the purpose: | was Innocent III., at the fourth Lateran Council, in 1215, that imposed on the Church the dogma of transubstantiation. Before that time even the term was unknown; and it was centuries later before it was received by the Greek Church.' This extract is a tissue of inaccuracies. First, it was not I who was 'indignant,' but the writer of the 'note' on p. 435 of the October number of this Magazine. Next, my words are incorrectly given. What I said was this: During several centuries, universal Christendom believed, as an integral and vital part of its religion, that the bread in the mass was God, or that God was present in it;' and a little further on I asked: The whole Christian world, then, being given over to "idolatry" for several centuries previous to the year 1500 or thereabouts, will the editor of the Guardian be kind enough to tell us what, during those centuries, had become of the Christian religion.' Is it any answer to say that Innocent III. imposed the dogma on the Church in 1215? That is the very date I had in my mind when writing. The men referred to by me-Roger Bacon, Duns Scotus, Aquinas, Chaucer, Leonardo da Vinci, Michel Angelo, Copernicus, Savonarola, Sir Thomas More, and St. Xavier-all lived between 1215 and the the Reformation (1517). And I now emphatically repeat that, during the three centuries between those two dates, the Christian Church universal did believe in the doctrine of Transubstantiation, and that even the exceedingly small and isolated minority who repudiated it, and who were looked upon as heretics in every country in Europe, all believed that Christ was actually present in some shape or another, in the consecrated bread and wine. Of Wiclit's belief a leading authority says: 'His view of the Eucharist is singularly consistent, as much so as may be on so abtruse a subject. He is throughout labouring to reconcile a Real Presence with the rejection of the grosser Transubstantiation. The Eucharist is Christ's Body and Blood spiritually, sacramentally; but the bread and wine are not annihilated by transubstantiation. They co-exist, though to the mind of the believer the elements are virtually the veritable Body and Blood of the Redeemer.* And this was heresy, into the domain of * Milman's Latin Christianity, 3rd ed., vol. 8, p. 194. Our infallible guide continues: 'It was Innocent III., at the fourth Lateran Council, in 1215, that imposed on the Church the dogma of transubstantiation.' This is another error. There was no need to impose on the Church what it already believed. As it happens, the view of Innocent III. was more spiritual than that of the Church, as may be seen from Neander's account of it. The doctrine, though not formally promulgated, was held officially by the Church for at least a hundred and fifty years before 1215. Milner, a strong opponent of transubstantiation, admits that it was established by the Council of Placentia in 1095;§ and that about A. D. 1160, the Court of Rome required it to be acknowledged by all men.|| In 1050 Berengar was excommunicated by the Synod of Rome for disbelief in it. Is there a better test of church doctrine than excommunication? Berengar proved recalcitrant, and, in 1054, was cited by Hildebrand, afterwards Gregory VII., before the Council of Tours, when he gave in his adhesion to the dogma. He afterwards retracted this and gave forth his real opinion. And what was that? 'He repeatedly declares that the elements are "converted" by consecration into the body and blood of the Saviour; that the bread, from having before been something common, becomes the beatific body of Christ. It is not a portion of Christ's body that is present in each fragment, but He is fully present throughout.'¶ Can any one, at this time of day, see any material difference between this doctrine and Transubstantiation? And yet it was heresy then, and Berengar was again cited, this time in 1078-9, before the Council at Rome. There he signed 'a confession that the elements are substantially" changed into the real, proper, and lifegiving body and blood of Christ;' and he prostrated himself before Gregory in token * Baxter's Church History, 2nd ed., p. 310. + Milman, ubi supra, p. 285. Church History, vol. 7, p. 471. § Church History, vol. 3, p. 285, ed. 1827. Ibid, p. 438. ¶Robertson's Church History, vol. 2, p. 685, marginal p. 662. of unreserved submission, owning that he had sinned in denying a substantial change. Berengar again relapsed, and in 1080 was cited before the Council of Bordeaux.* It is in the face of such facts as these that we are told, with an air of authority, that it was Innocent III, in 1215, who 'imposed' the dogma on the Church. Truly there are blind leaders of the blind. Our trustworthy guide next inforins that, before 1215, even the term ' transubstaniation was unknown.' Another error. Bishop Browne says, 'It is said to have been invented by Stephen, Bishop of Augustodunum, about the year 1100 ;'t but Mr. Blunt asserts that it occurs in a work written by Peter Damian before 1072, and that his words show that the term was not altogether unknown when it was thus used.' But, after all, what's in a name?' If the belief in Transubstantiation existed, does it matter what it was called? Are the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation 'Papal novelties' because the words do not occur in the Bible? The word 'Trinity' was not invented till A.D. 180. The logic of the Guardian would wipe out of existence the very sect of which it is an organ. For, copying its language, it might be said, 'It was John Wesley, who, more than five hundred years after A.D. 1215, imposed Methodism on the Church. Before that time even the term was unknown!' Alas! then, for Methodism! The last clause of the monumental extract which I have quoted asserts that it was centuries after 1215 before transubstantiation 'was received by the Greek Church.' The allusion here, of course, is to the formal promulgation of the doctrine by the Synod of Jerusalem in 1672. But what has the formal promulgation of a doctrine to do with the actual belief of the Church? The doctrine of the Trinity was not formally promulgated till the Council of Nice, A.D. 325; and, as I have already shewn, Transubstantiation was the official and orthodox doctrine of the Church of Rome at least a century and a half before it was formally promulgated. As a matter of fact, the belief was quite as early and as general in the Greek Church as in the Roman. *Ibid, p. 687, marginal p. 664. Thirty-nine Articles, p. 699. In Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theo logy, p. 759. 1274, under Gregory X., at the second Council of Lyons, the two Churches were actually reunited, and remained so during seven years, 1274-81. As to agreement in doctrine, Archdeacon Hardwick says: A later session of the prelates, on July 6 [1274], beheld the representatives of Michael Palæologus [the Emperor at Constantinople] abjure the ancient schism, and recognize the papal primacy, as well as the distinctive tenets of the Roman Church.'* This does not imply that Transubstantiation was then a distinctive tenet of Rome, but it does imply that no difference of doctrine existed after the union. The two churches were in union when Berengar was excommunicated in 1050; and, at the schism in 1054, transubstantiation was not a cause of difference, the only question respect ing the Eucharist being as to the use of leavened or unleavened bread. As to the belief of the Eastern Church in earlier ages, Mr. Blunt says: "St. John Damascene sums up the teachings of the Greek Fathers, that the elements are supernaturally transmuted (nepovos μerаTowоura) into the body and blood of Christ. The old Jerusalem Liturgy quoted above (p. 630), affords additional proof as to the belief of the Greek Church. And, of course, before the first schism, in A.D. 734, the doctrine of the two Churches was identical. Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Chrysostom were Greek Fathers, and what their views were has been already shewn. The Guardian's pretensions to set itself up as an infallible judge of truth and falsehood, right and wrong,' are now, I fancy, pretty effectually disposed of. The result suggests a not uninstructive antithesis. There is something which appeals to the historic imagination, something imposing in its grandeur, in the claim to infallibility by a Church hoar with antiquity and hallowed by the stirring memories of nearly two thousand years; a Church which during that time has been the solace in this life, and the guide to that beyond the grave, to thousands of millions of human souls. From the sublime to the ridiculous is but one step. A dramatist, one who knew his Church History, Middle Age, 4th ed., p. 281. +Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, p. 761.-John of Damascus wrote about A. D. 470. There is, I repeat, something respectable in the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to infallibility. But for a mushroom religious journal,-the weekly organ of a church, or rather a Provincial section of a church, which is but a thing of yesterday, a little over a hundred years old, itself a creation of dissent, of the right of private judgment, and which to-day numbers as adherents the world over, only ten or twelve millions all told,--for a journal such as this to be putting on ex cathedra infallible airs, setting itself up as an infallible judge of divine truth and an infallible interpreter of divine revelation, and dealing round cheap imitation thunder stolen from the Vatican, when all the while it is merely shewing its own ignorance of the commonest facts of ecclesiastical history, is a spectacle for the mirth of the gods-one to make the angels expire in peals of laughter. It is too supremely ridiculous. Once upon a time a frog tried to swell itself out to the size of an ox. The frog burst. But there are worse things than even Ignorance aping Infallibility. To falsify the language of an opponent is one of them. The Guardian leads its readers to infer that I said, or undertook to prove, that the Jewish high-priest worshipped the incense as God.' The word 'incense' was not once used by me. The word I used, and used twice, was cloud,' referring of course to the shechinah between the cherubim in the Holy of Holies, which the high-priest did worship as the visible presence of God.' The Guardian substitutes incense' for 'cloud.' That is, the guardian of truth garbles. In another place the Guardian says, 'It is alleged,' meaning by me, that the whole Christian Church stantiation from the time of Irenæus and held transub Justin Martyr down till the Protestant Reformation What I said was that the doctrines of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation may be traced back to Irenæus, Justin Martyr, and other Christian Fathers of the second century.' Is there any resemblance between my statement and the Guardian's version of it? Not more than there is between 'white' and 'black.' My statement is true, the Guardian's version of it is untrue. The guardian of truth falsifies. Again, the Guardian leads its readers to infer that I said that 'universal Christendom for centuries worshipped a piece of dough as God.' What I said was that during several centuries universal Christendom believed, as an integral and vital part of its religion, that the bread in the mass was God, or that God was present in it. The Guardian leaves cut the important portion which I have now italicised. The guardian of truth suppresses the truth. harm? To whom is the work addressed? To Protestants? Can it do aught but evil to them? The liberal minded and charitable among them will read it with unmitigated disgust; the intolerant and the uncharitable will have their bigotry fanned by it to a white heat. Is it addressed to Catholics? To them the harm will be even greater. Does any one wish to confirm a Romanist in his faith, to render it forever impossible that he shall embrace the religion of the man who wrote such a work, to make him hate his Protestant brother with an undying hatred, -then let him place this book in his hands and bid him read it. Valid excuse for its publication there is none. Let the publisher, then, frankly confess that its reissue was an error in judgment, an anachronism; and that the best thing that remains for him to do is to withdraw it from circulation. Of the population of this Dominion over a million and a half, or not far from a moi The suggestio falsi and the suppressio veriety, are Catholics. Is there any prospect —yes, both are there. But enough of the Christian Guardian. I here take leave of it, not without joy. Its editor will no doubt reply to what I have written. He is welcome to all the advantage which having the last word will give hi n. For myself, I shall notice him no more. The spectacle is not an edifying one of a religious journal, claiming by its title to be in an especial sense a guardian of Christian truth, misquoting, garbling, and falsifying the language of an opponent, in order to make a bad cause appear a good one; nor is a controversialist who resorts to such tactics one with whom a discussion can be profitably continued. And so I bid him farewell. Having done so, I can return to my starting-point. It was there acknowledged that something might be said for Gideon Ouseley in extenuation of his having, sixtyfive years ago, and in Ireland, written such a work as 'Old Christianity.' But is there any adequate plea to be urged in justificacation of the wrong done by the Methodist publisher who has disinterred that work from the limbo of obsolete rubbish where it was buried, and brought it to light in this country, where of all places it is calculated, by inflaming the sectarian hatred which perennially smoulders amongst us, to do most Let that even a moderate proportion of these will be converted to Protestantism within a a generation or two? Not the remotest. The census returns shew a steady increase in the numbers of Catholics from one decennium to another. Is it not, then, the plain duty of Protestants to make terms with the inevitable, to recognize the existence of the Roman Catholic religion in this country as a fact,-fixed, at the very least, for many a long year to come? Protestant and Catholic alike respect, both in word and deed, the sacred right of each to worship God in his own way. If propagandism or conversion is attempted, let it be in a kindly, courteous, and Christian spirit. In other things let them sink their religious differences; let them remember only that they are brothers, co-dwellers in a common land, joint-owners of a fair and ample domain; and putting shoulder to shoulder, let them unite their efforts to make the noble heritage which has been entrusted to their keeping, a worthy legacy for those who may come after them; and do what in them lies to help their common country on the road to that glorious destiny which they hope and believe the future has in store for her. SORDELLO. TROY. The Trinity College, Toronto, Prize Poem, for 1877. All the sweet day the fav'ring Zephyr sped Saw the dark outline of the Trojan plain, Through the fast-waning light of summer eve, When waking from their sultry, sad day-dream, The wan-faced stars grow bright and cease to grieve. And nearer yet and nearer grew the shore, Which eve was tinting sober-grey and pale; And louder swell'd the long, low, broken roar Of surges climbing o'er the loose-heaped shale. No voices chid the silence of the air, That seem'd to sink and die among the cords, Scarce helping the loose-hanging sail to bear Us all-expectant to those hoped-for swards, Save when a sailor cheerily call'd his mate, Or shrill-tongued halcyon pass'd in landward flight, On wide-spread pinion home returning late, And shedding from him brine-drops silv'ry bright. Full soon we grated on the shingly beach; Soon disembarked upon that storied shore, Whose very rocks are eloquent to teach A world of legend and forgotten lore. Then parted; and I musing went along, Half-fearing it might prove delusion strange, Or sweet enchantment of a magic song, Which loud-spoke word might dissipate or change. Still on; while overhead the moon alway Kept on its course across the sea of sky, Fathomless-blue, save for some cloudy spray, And those bright isles, the stars that never die ; Until I reach'd a barrow long and low, Which the tall grass clothed o'er and wild vines That still, whenever any breeze did blow, The voiceful silence of the saddening scene And caused me muse of what Troy once had been. How doth the mem'ry of heroic deeds, Wrought by the heroes of the elder time, Clothe o'er thy site more than the mantling weeds, And round thy brows a deathless laurel twine. Just as those fires which lit the midnight sky, Changing so many watchful tears to smiles, Wafted to Hellas the exultant cry, 'Troja is fallen,' o'er the Grecian isles; So doth thy story, 'mid the rocks of time, Echo along th' unending cycles through, Pealing thy name in most melodious chime, Ne'er growing fainter, nor its notes more few. All to the magic of that world--sung song, That god-breath'd legend dost thou owe thy fame ; The golden weft the blind man wove so long, Its stirring echoes; and in every age Their hearts who dream upon the poet's page. The best and noblest of a noble kind : Rising when Phœbus had the snow-peaks kist, So many Greeks, so many Trojans died : And many a hero else whom death befell, |