hundred years more, then this conclusion, blasphemous as it is, is unavoidable: Jesus Christ was a false teacher, Christianity is a fraud, its priesthood a sham." (!!) Which is simply saying that all those who do not interpret Christ's words as this priest interprets them, including SORDELLO, according to what he has himself told us, and the present writer, are guilty of that horrible blasphemy. This is hardly saintly moderation. The present writer had the honour of accepting this audacious challenge, and of unhorsing his opponent; he never spoke again (of which fact also proof is at hand).

SORDELLO says: "A question here suggests itself which, simple as it is, seems never to have occurred to Luther. If he worshipped God when present in the flesh, why not when present in the bread?" When did Luther worship God when present in the flesh? When did any body? Then why worship Him in the flesh now, when He is not in the flesh?

SORDELLO tells us that Lord Cobham's belief was similar to Luther's. He expressed it thus: "I believe that in the sacrament of the altar is Christ's own body in form of bread; that it is Christ's own body and [it is] bread, the former being concealed under the latter, as the invisible Godhead was veiled under the visible Manhood." It will be perceived that since it is veritable bread to the sight, the smell, the taste, this is at least an ingenious-as it is perhaps the only way of getting out of the difficulty. One would have thought at least a pardonable one. Not so. We are further informed that, "In England, in 1417, this did not go far enough in the direction of transubstantiation, and under the statute De Hæretico Comburendo" (has the Church the honour of having originated the punishment of torture and death by fire, and that for crimes not of deed but of thought only ?) "Cobham was found guilty of heresy, and roasted alive over a slow fire-tolerably conclusive evidence as to what the doctrine of the Church of England was in those days." We should rather think so, indeed. But let us be historically correct. Let us make one small emendation, but one that, happily for England, makes a world of difference. For "of" read "in;" the Church in England. The Church of England had yet no existence, nor for another hundred years or more. If this was a slip of the pen, enough. If it was intentional, we

had rather not attempt the task of dealing with it. We all know that the Church of England is not free from the infamy of the faggot and the stake; it is a matter of history with every school-boy; still, if it was my place to advocate the Church which preceded it, I think that the last subject I should allude to would be the faggot-and that a green faggot-and the stake.

Then we find in the article under examination, a Mahommedan and a Unitarian (perhaps the association is not quite in the conciliatory spirit of which we hear so much) appear on the scene, and turning to him (the editor of the Guardian) say, "Your language, in calling Catholics idolaters, and worshippers of a piece of dough, besides being coarse, vulgar, and abusive [alas, for the poor Mahommedan and Unitarian!] is utterly inconsistent. By your own showing, you also must be an idolater, for you worship Christ, a man composed of flesh and blood and bones like yourself." The editor of the Guardian (with his permission) does not "worship Christ, a man composed of flesh and blood and bones," like himself. He never did. Nobody ever did. He worships Christ, when he is no longer "a man composed of flesh and blood and bones," like himself. Here would seem the astonishing inconsistency of the advocates of the dogma of Transubstantiation.

Then follows an "imaginary conversation" (perhaps not very Landor-like, but that is "neither here nor there") between the editor of the Guardian and a Roman Catholic. It is well for the editor that it is imaginary, for he is sorely buffeted-by SORDELLO. Still another fable which, as it has nothing offensive in its application, may be told at length. A man pointed out to a lion a marble group of a man strangling the king of beasts. "Aye," says the lion, "but if a lion had been the sculptor-."

We can

SORDELLO Speaks of the " steady increase of the numbers of Roman Catholics." No doubt of it. But is it proportionate to that of Protestants? There's the rub. only speak as we find. Facts are very stubborn things. In the township (a very small one) in which I live there have been built five churches, four Protestant and one Roman Catholic (a very small one). In an adjoining township there is only one Roman Catholic church that I know of (also a very small one), and there must be, by this

AS SORDELLO has told us what he is not and what he believes, I will do the same. I am not a member of the Methodist Church, but I rejoice that such a grand bulwark exists against the errors of Rome, and that it is making its way-the way of pure Christianity-all over the world, wherever the English language is spoken or can penetrate. I believe, with SORDELLO, if he will excuse the liberty, that "Christ instituted the sacrament simply as a memorial, and intended the bread and wine to be mere symbols." But, in my ideas of what constitutes conciliation between Protestants and Roman Catholics, I differ from him toto cœlo, I cannot do better than quote the example of an intimate friend, with whom I entirely agree. He is strongly-nay, I am afraid he is bitterlyopposed to the whole Roman Catholic system, and he always says that he uses the word "system" advisedly. But, when he was school-superintendent in former years he never permitted any sectional or denominational favouritism. He has many Roman Catholic neighbours, and he lives on perfectly good terms with all of them; and he would be perfectly content to leave his character for Christian charity in their hands. When they built a church he made a donation to it, and received a letter from the priest thanking him for his "generous charity;" and he was told that the priest spoke of it "at the altar." He receives, every autumn, a visit from some ladies, who wear a conventual dress, but who are not, he believes, actually nuns-that is, they are not "cloistered nuns "-and who are on a collecting tour for Roman Catholic charities. He was told the other day by a Roman Catholic neighbour that the constant prayer of these ladies is "that he may die a good

tal in building a church, all the Roman Catholics who were applied to subscribed towards the cost of it, and some without being solicited. He is not an Orangeman, but he fears that the institution is necessary. When the Orangemen of his township signified to him their desire to pay him a complimentary visit on the 5th of November, he begged to be permitted to decline the honour, taking good care to write a studiously civil letter, to be read at the next lodge-meeting, and to ask the pleasure of their company at dinner --at least, the officers and non-commissioned officers of the township company of loyal volunteers, which came to almost exactly the same thing—a week or two afterwards. Some persons were of opinion that he was overly scrupulous in this matter.

So much as between him and his Roman Catholic neighbours. If SORDELLO can improve upon it, he will, I am sure, from what I know of him, be most happy to take any hint.

When the Methodist Church was built he subscribed liberally towards it, and, by very particular request from the minister himself, he consented to preside at a large tea meeting, which was held about the time of the opening of the church, though feeling very uncomfortably out of his element in that position, being a shy man and a miserably bad speaker.

He is on the best of terms with the Presbyterian minister.

For all this I can vouch, from personal observation. I should be most ready and glad to hear of an equally good record of conciliatory Christian charity and forbearance from SORDELLO, and to congratulate him upon it.

C. E.

THE

HE foregoing criticism on my article of last month evinces so much misapprehension of the spirit and intent of that article as to call for some explanation from me, which the editor has permitted me to make now, in order that the discussion may not be dragged over to another month. Had my critic been as anxious to ascertain my meaning and purpose as he has been to find fault, he would most likely have saved himself the trouble of writing the greater portion if not the whole of his remarks. Very much of what he says is a notable example of that common logical fallacy known as the ignoratio elenchi. Few persons, I fancy, care less than I do for mere authority in matters of religious belief. On questions of doctrine, and their truth or falsity, authority is of secondary moment; on questions of fact it is all-important The authorities referred to by me last month, were cited, not, as my critic absurdly supposes, to prove that transubstantiation is true, but to shew the wide extent and the antiquity of the belief in it. When a certain form of worship is stigmatized as "the most diabolical idolatry that ever appeared among men," and language is used which implies that every one who professes a belief of which that worship is the logical outcome, must be either a knave or a fool, it really does appear to me-my critic to the contrary, notwithstanding-to be a matter of relevance in estimating the worth of such utterances, to enquire as to the number and the intellectual and moral character of those who have held and who hold that belief, and who have practiced and who practice the worship so stigmatized.

It also seems to me that, in estimating the magnitude of an offence of this kind, it is an eminently relevant consideration, whether language, such as that animadverted upon, is addressed to one man or to a million men, and those our fellow-countrymen, with whom it is of the last importance to our national well-being to live on terms of peace and good-will. I firmly believe that, if language such as that used by Gideon Ouseley in his "Old Christianity," were to

be adopted in this country by Protestants generally, towards Roman Catholics, civil war, with a reproduction of the horrors enacted in Ireland in 1798, would be a mere question of time. A slight foretaste of what we might expect was given in Montreal in July last.

But to return to my critic's misapprehensions: "The change of water into wine, in the miracle of Cana was not "cited as a case in point" on the question of the truth or falsity of transubstantiation. It was cited simply to show, as a matter of fact, what the belief of a great Christian father--St. Cyril of Jerusalem-was on the subject in the fourth century; and the extracts from the other Christian fathers were cited for a similar purpose. As I had plainly indicated my disbelief in transubstantiation, it does argue some lack of intellectual apprehension not to have seen that I was not engaged in the suicidal, self-stultifying, and consequently idiotic task of attempting to prove a doctrine which I disbelieve in. The truth or falsity of transubstantiation was not really in question at all, for the simple reason that the Christian Guardian and myself are in agreement on that point. My contention was, not that the Roman Catholic belief is true, but that, whether true or false, no one-least of all a Christian missionary or a Christian journal--has any right to use grossly insulting language with regard to it or towards those who have held it and who hold it ; especially so, when their vast number, and the high intellectual and moral character of very many of them, are taken into account. My contention was, further, that as no man or body of men is infallible, no one-certainly not a journal which has been in existence but a few years, nor a Church (that is, a body of men) which is but a little over a hundred years old, and itself the offspring of private judgment-has any right to assume, or to use language implying, that Roman Catholics are infallibly wrong in believing transubstantiation, and he is infallibly right in disbelieving it; the logical conclusion being, that Roman Catholics have as good a right to believe in it, if it appears to them to be

true, as others have to disbelieve in it. The like considerations, of course, apply equally to the interpretation of Christ's language, upon which Roman Catholics, as a matter of fact, base their belief. Roman Catholics have as good a right to use their private judgment in interpreting that language as Protestants have to use theirs.

tant's inference is infallibly true; the Catholic's is infallibly false. My critic attempts to break the force of the analogy in another fashion. He dogmatically asserts that neither Luther nor anybody else ever worshipped Christ, "a man composed of flesh and blood and bones." With regard to Luther, the objection is merely verbal. There can be little doubt that had Luther, holding the views which he did, lived contemporaneously with Christ, and come into contact with Him while on earth, he would have worshipped Him. If, furthermore, my critic means to assert that no one worshipped Christ when on earth, I am afraid his knowledge of his New Testament is hardly as full as it might be. Out of a number of passages which might be cited, one will suffice: "Jesus . . . said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him" (John ix. 35-38). There is nothing in the context to show that the worshipper saw before him anything but a man composed of flesh and blood like himself. The words, "I believe," show that the worship was founded upon an inference of faith. Nor are the other assertions of my critic, that Christ "is not in the flesh" now, and that Protestants consequently worship Christ, "when he is no longer a man composed of flesh and blood and bones," by any means so indisputable as he appears to imagine. He needs here also to be reminded of the language of the New Testament. After His resurrection, Christ, speaking to the eleven, said: "Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken he showed them his hands and his feet. . And they gave him a piece of broiled fish and of an honeycomb. And he took it and did eat before them. he led them out as far as Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them. And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him." (Luke xxiv. 3952.) See also John xx. 20, 25, 27; pare these citations with Acts i. 9, 11 :— "And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a

The remark as to my being a good deal excited over the phrase, 'a piece of dough," indicates a further misapprehension. My objection was not so much that a person should assert that the sacrificial bread is mere "dough "-which any one is at liberty to do if it pleases him to state his belief in a form as offensive as possible-but that Roman Catholics should be insulted, and their most sacred feelings outraged by being called "idolaters," and "worshippers of a piece of dough." Were the charge true, the language in which it is clothed could have no other effect than to engender bitter hatred. But, strictly speaking, the charge is false. Roman Catholics do not worship "dough;" they worship God, whom they believe to be present in the form (species) of "dough." My critic ought to be able to appreciate the feelings with which Roman Catholics must listen to such charges, when he himself gets "a good deal excited" and indignant at my very harmless assertion that Protestants "worship Christ, a man composed of flesh and blood and bones like themselves." In saying this I fancied that I was merely uttering a truism, and using it as a perfectly legitimate argumentum ad hominem. The argument was substantially this. To the outward senses of the Roman Catholic, the bread in the mass is nothing but bread. To the outward senses of the Protestant (or rather of the disciples, whose evidence Protestants accept), Christ was a mere man composed of flesh and blood. The belief that God is present in or under the form of bread, and the belief that God was present in or under the form of man, are both inferences of faith, resting upon a precisely analogous foundation. The charge of idolatry made by the Protestant then either falls to the ground or recoils on his own head. The Guardian attempted to meet this argument by assuming infallibility. It said the question between the two inferences was one of truth and falsity; as though God had not given to Roman Catholics reason and faith wherewith to judge as to questions of truth. and falsity. It said, in effect: The Protes

And

and com