', ce COUNTY OF PERTH HERALD "Gamin 6 of perth Seal enay AUGUST 26, 1863. The Protest. Mr. Daly left for Quebee by the night express on Friday last. He took with him the Protest against the return of Mr. Macfarlane as member for this County, and will present the same to the House to-day. The Protest is at the instance of the Elec- tors, Mr. Daly being among the num- ber. =", Immediately after the election Mr. Daly's friends entered upon a close and rigid scrutiny of the votes record- ed, the result of which was to disclose the most unscrupulous dealings on the part of Mr. Macfarlane and his agents in the manufacture, persona- tion, and passing of numerous bad votes, Dead men ; sick men unable to leave their beds; men miles away at the time, are placed upon the poll books as having voted for Mr. Macfar- lane. Such a glaring case of impuri- ty of Election could not be allowed to pass, and Mr. Daly's friends at once resolved to protest and prosecute their petition with the utmost vigor. The illegal votes recorded for' Mr. Macfar- lane are so many, and'so plain, that there can be-no possible doubt of the issue, if common justice and common sense are to be found in an Election Committee: and we are' perfectly sat- isfied neither will: be wanting. A scrutiny will/place Mr. Macfarlane in a large minority. » Instead of his ma- jority being 32, /it will be: found that Mr. Daly's majority, will exceed 100, Aonumber of Mr. Daly's friends ac- companied him: to the Depot, and greeted him with three hearty British cheers on the departure of the train.) We wish him. every success, and can assure our readers that ere long we shall, have, the pleasure of .informing them that Mr. Daly is once more seat- ed as the representative of ,Perth.-- Mr. Macfarlane, having been, sent home, will then be " the right man in the right, place." The " Beacon" and Mr, Foley. The Beacon in its issue of the 21st of August informs Mr. Foley that, owing to his having allied himsel! with the Opposition,. he would not now obtain, either in Perth. or Water- loo, a respectable minority, or even a nomination. In 1861 and 1862 the Beacon could not speak too highly of this gentleman. There was no man like him, He would not desert his prin- ciples or sell his constituents; but then it must be remembered that at that time Mr. F. had a great deal in his power. He made the Editor of the Beacon an issuer of Marriage Li- censes, and, as a matter of course, that favor deserved a little puffing. -- Poor Foley at the present time can do but Tittle, and is 'not, therefore, in t.e estimation of the Beacon, of much im- portance. Whatever Mr. Foley's shoricomings may be, the Beacon should not be the first to attack him. 'Mr. McGee is de- eidédly modre" opposed to the 'present unconstitutional' shufflers than" Mr. Foley ; Bésideés he 'is "a man of" much mote influence in the' House, and a mah of more Importance in every ri says yet thé Beaton doéS'not think proper to atfack him. He' darénot dd so. He™ is "afraid " he" woald 6ffend * 'the: Roman Catholic 'electors 'of this county if he did. 'and, 'for. that reason, will 'Jeave 'Mr McGee" "alone." But} poor F valey r Fole andl rid sThl 2s] sot nor is he sue "a 'favorite aus the *Catholié' "electors," consequently, although he has' i ht of favors a] mer course, tries to make him of less importance still. We have no very exalted opinion of Mr. Foley, nor do we" consider that his allying himself 'with the Opposition will add much to _|their strength; still, whatever he may "The, unless he was a man devoid alike of spirit and independence, he could not act otherwise than he is doing.-- The Beacon does not urderstand things in this way, however, and, hence, is not prepared to let Mr. Foley pass.-- The Beacon knows no principle _be- yond that of retaining office} and in order to that end could do anything. It will not be forgotten that in 1857 that organ praised the Orangemen and abused the Catholics in true Billings- gate style. Now it abuses on all oc- casions the Orangemen and praises the Catholics. Our readers, of course, know the reason. Its whole course shews it to be reckless of. principle, hence the reason of its now abusing Mr. Foley because he did not see fit to pocket the insults offered to him by the Ministry and maintain them in their wrong doing. The Explanations. Mr. John Sandfield Macdonald oc- cupies no enviable position in the pub- lic estimation at the present moment. He stands befere us self-convicted of a course of conduct towards his col- leagues such as men in far humbler walks of life would scorn to use to- 'wards their fellow man. His recent proceedings have been as unfair as they are unconstitutional. He has shown himself an apt scholar, and the willing disciple of his arch-preceptor, Mr. George Brown. That gentleman must be proud of his pupil, and must feel eminently satisfied with the suc- cess he has achieved in transforming the honest, though obstinate member for Cornwall, into the political conju- rer the Attorney General West. Messrs. Sicotte, Evanturel, Foley, and McGee have abundant rea- son to complain of the treatment they have received, and the Premier is utterly unable to wipe out the disgrace which his conduct towards them has brought upon him. Our readers will recoilect that the vote of want of con- fidence in the Macdonald-Sicotte ad- ministration was passed on Thursday, On the following day the usual noti- ces were'sent to ministers to attend a Cabinet Council. The only subject diseussed at' that meeting was the simple qhestion whether or no the Governor General should be asked to dissolve Parliament. Upon this ques- tion all were agreed, and it was ar- ranged that the Premier should) wait on His Excellency and ask for a dis- solution... Ou the Saturday the Coun- cil again met, on the usual notice, to receive othe, Governor's reply. His Excelleney had immediately granted the. dissolution, but the Premier c4ll- ing into play that duplicity and de- ceit for which we think he deserves mueh censure, withheld the decision from:his colleagues. | It is abundantly evident that no direct communication of that reply was made to the Coun cil... 'Mr. Howland, indeed, seems to have some indistinct recollection that the Premier' commuiicated the disso- lution in a joking way. We should have thought the consequences to the country ofithe dissolution of a Parlia- ment were (of too much moment to be treatéd asavjoke." "Thrre are, how- ever; some: men who seem -quite un- ableto:bring'seriousness to bear upon any-subject; and the Hon. Premier appears to be of the number. _. Whether: the fact that a dissolution badsbeén granted was communicated to.the Coucil or not, certain it is 'that at that moment;Mr.. Sandfield. Mac- donald had »tesolved io. re-construct his administration, and the betterto enable bim<o.do se, be did not con- descend to.apprise. hix colleagues' of: his .intention... The. first. intimation Mr..,Foley,has of such designs is a times past, he is now of no account, and ae Beacon, "unmntntat of its for-, POG oui (rut vii A iedh ed $2 AM Cans. {ose ie deat 3a On street, Tumor, which appeats to have been going the rounds on the. Satur- eof Hf sitet congo, on day evening. 'These rumors gained ground on the Sunday and on the Monday at a Cabinet Council, the di- rect question is put to Mr. Macdonald, but he declines to answer. In the meantime the underhand work of the Premier was progressing. On the Saturday morning he opened communications with the Hon. Mr. Mowat, and having received from him an assent toenter the Government upon condition that Messrs. Sicotte and Evanturel should make way for Messrs. Dorion and Holton, the ar- rangement is immediately accepted-- an arrangement concluded behind the backs, and without the knowledge of any of the other members of the Cabi- net: certainly without the knowledge of those who were to be affected by it. Such a tricky and underhanded course of proceeding is so palpably beneath the dignity of the first minis- ter of the Crown, that we care not to pursue the subject further. The star of the Hon. Attorney General West is on the wane. No reliance can hence- forth be placed in him. Those who are now allied with him will soon find out that a leader who could deal with his former colleagues in so treacher- ous ¢ manner cannot be trusted Mr. Sandfield Macdonald may rest assur- ed that he is Attorney General for the last time. But not only were the Premier's proceedings unworthy of the man: they were also highly unconstitution- al. When the Governor granted the dissolution, the Premier was bound. to go to the country with an administra- tion as it then stood. He had no right first to re-construct and then to appeal to the country. His re-construction should have been carried through without a dissolution. The election of the new members of the Cabinet would have testified whether or no as individuals they had the confidence of the country, but the object of the dissolution was to ascertain whether the Macdonald-Sicotte administration were entitléd to such confidence.-- The entire proceedings were utterly unconstitutional, and such as we hope never to see perpetrated in Canada again. Review. RECENT THEOLOGICAL PRODUCTIONS. DR, BURNS AND ARCHDEACON O'KEEFE ON THE EUCHARIST. As secular journalists we deem it prudent to abstain, as a general rule, from the discussion of Theological questions, believing that these ought to be left to the gentlemen of the cloth, just as disquisitions on the intricacies of the law, should be left to the gen- tlemen of the long 1obe. Recently, however, two pamphlets on an important doctrine of Theology have been placed within eur reach, bearing, the one to the other, so many points of contrast, that we may be ex- cused for departing from our usual rule, and drawing the attention of our readers to the subject with which they deal. The pamphlets referred to were lately published in Toronto, the one by the Rev. Dr. Burns, Professor of Church History, Knox's College, and entitled "A Reply to the Rev. Dr. Ca- hill on the Eucharist," and the other by Archdeacon O'Keefe, of St. Mi- chael's Cathedral, under the title of "The Doctrine of Transubstantiation sustained, an answer to the Rev. Dr. Burns." As regards the style of these publi- cations, it does notrequire a very crit- ical judge.to decide upon their rela- tive merits: The pampblet: of Dr. Burns is written in a style which shows that this is not his first or his second essay as a writer. . The sentences are neatly put together, and their mean- ing is devoid of, all obscurity. The flow of the composition shows that the author wields his pen with no ordina- ry ability, while the elegance and 'ac- curacy of the language indicate that he is a man of nice discrimination, and of cultivated taste. We regret that we are unable to '| speak, in similar terms, of the Arch- deacon's pamphlet. There is a de- gree of impatience manifested here and there by the author, which is cal- culated to mar its general effect, and which gives to the calm composition of his opponent a decided advantage over him. A perusal of it has con- vinced us that, as a writer, the Arch- deacon is no match for the Professor of Church History. Its sentences are ill-constructed and ill-connected, and to our mind it is frequently difficult to ascertain their precise meaning.-- There is scarcely a page of it which does not reveal the fact that the au- thor is but a tyro in English compo- sition, and we think it would be ad- visable for him to devote some time to the practice of the art before he again enters the arena of controversy with so clear and practiced a writer as Dr. Burns. When the Archdeacon speaks of an 'amiable commandment," and of " unamiable disorder," of the " genus or species of testimony," of ' the con- tinuance of a test being an injunction bequeathed to the remotest posterity," of * logic resisting conclusions unto annihilation," of " sentences being in earnest," of the "meridian of igno- rance of Church History," of ' tran- substantiation giving rise to the groundless crime which Pagans charged upon the Christians,"' we are almost inclined to think that the man- uscript was given to the Press with- out sufficient correction, or that no proof-sheets were sent to the author. We are at least certain that, as a dig- nitary of the Church of Rume--a Church which numbers amongst its clergy some of the most finished schol- ars of the day--the Archdeacon has shewn but little regard to his literary reputation in allowing his pamphlet to be given to the public in so crude and undigested a form. We are glad, however, to observe a spirit of earnest piety pervading it, while an occasion- al dash of sarcasm tends, in some de- gree, to relieve its general dullness. When such a vital tenet of their creed as that treated of in these pub- lications is assailed, we cannot won- der that Romish Controvertists should exercise all their-ingenuity in its de- fence. The doctrine of transubstan- tiation is the corner-stone of their dog- matic system. Overturn it and you overturn Romanism. Both the dis- putants in the present controversy see this clearly enough. We are not aware that, in either of the pamphlets, there is anything new to be met with in the way of argument. The ar- rangement of the Doctor's arguments is perhaps susceptible of some im- provement; but we cannot agree with the Arch:"eacon when he says that they are deficient in logic. In our humble judgment they are severe- ly logical, and in fact set the question at rest. To instance this in one point: The Doctor states that " transubstan- tiation stands opposed to the direct testimony of four out of the five sen- ses," and that, after the change said to be effected on the elements of the Eu- charist by their consecration, ' the only proofs we ever had that they were bread and wine remain to prove that they are bread and wine still."-- In his reply, the Archdeacon states his ease thus:--'* The question between Catholics and non-Catholics is, nol whether the species which are seen be God, all admit they are not, but whether what is invisibly contained under the species be the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church an- swers this question in the affirmative." He further writes, "' the senses affirm that all the accidents of bread and wine remain after as well as before consecration, and in this affirmation their testimony is perfectly correct. "4 And then he asks, " do the senses say sighted to detect on the 6th page of. that the substances of bread and wine remain after as well as before, or is it the prov'nce of the senses to pronounce upon substances at anytime?" To both questions, in their present con- nexion, we unhesitatingly answer, yes; and we ask the Archdeacon to explain how all the accidents of a sub- stance can remain, independently of the substance itself, or, if all the ac- cidents remain, how it isto be proved that the substance is absent or is an- nibilated ? It is well known that there are various and conflicting opinions among Roman Catholic Theologians in regard to the mode of existence of the Body of Christ in the Eucharist in its relation to the elements, and as far as our reading has extended we have met with no satisfactory explanation. They all speak quite positively of the change of one substance into another, while the accidents of the former sub- stance remain. But when pressed for further explanation, we find either that their statements are various and irreconcilable, or close scrutiny is skilfully evaded by the affirmation that the whole subject is an unfathom- able mystery. Should the Archdea- con favor the public with another es- say on the subject, we shall look with some degree of anxiety for his expla- nation. The reasoning of Dr. Burns is not to be put aside by saying that the 'body of the Redeemer is in its glorified state in the Eucharist, and that we have no exhaustive know- ledge of the qualities of a glorified body." For, supposing the Romish view to be the sound one, was it not his literal and substantial flesh and blood into which the Saviour changed the bread and wine at the institution of the sacrament? The Archdeacon, indeed, seems to admit this, for he says that by the words 'Do this in commemoration of me," our Lord meant that the Apostles should *tran- substantiate the elements into his body and blood as he had done, and that he thereby conlerred upon them power to do so." Besides the Cate- chism of the Council of Trent says, " there is contained in the Sacrament not only the body of Christ and what- ever belongs to the true conditions of a body, such as bones and nerves, but also a whole Christ." Granting, there- fore, that the body and blood of Christ are present in the Eucharist in their glorified state, it is not contended that they are substantially different from the body which hung upon the Cross, and the blood which was there pour- ed out. If a difference of substance be insisted on, then we would take the liberty to say that the Venerable Archdeacon must indeed have been "invested at ordination with super- angelic powers and sublime dignity," as heclaims to have been, if he knows anything more definite upon the sub- ject than our humble selves. But why does the Archdeacon ask, is itthe province of the senses to pro- nounce upon substances at any time ? Whatever be our ignorance as to the fundamental properties of substances, we do not think it can fairly be urged in the present controversy. Why, with Dr. Burns' pamphlet before him, did the Archdeacon not reply to the reasoning on his 19th page, and show that the Saviour did not appeal to the senses as capable of distinguishing, for all practical purposes at least, be- tween one substance and _ another, when He said to the disciples " Be- hold my hands and my feet that it is I myself; handl: me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have!" Was not this a virtu- al acknowledgement on the part of the Divine Saviour, that it is the province of the senses. to distinguish the con- stituent parts of a material, from those of an immaterial substance? Did the failure of the sense of sightin this in- stance prevent the Venerable Arch- deacon from seeing the passage re- ferred to? This we can hardly sup- pose, as he was sufficiently sharp-.