Friend" Touchstone," will you visit with us this loved dreamland of ours? It is marked by a strange peculiarity,-a desire to reduce all things to the line and to the rule, to measure everything possible by those awkward things, facts and figures. This is the way we measure by figures:-if one hundred men of general intellectual culture produce five great men, one thousand intellectually culti vated men will produce fifty great men, or more, because the spirit of emulation and rivalry will be intensified as the number of culti vated men is increased; then, if millions are added to the factors at one end of this scale of figures, in like proportion must they be added to the other, cæteris paribus. Such is the language employed in dreamland. What think you of it, O reader? is it reasonable or not ?

Then we judge of facts after the same fashion. In olden time, "Solomon, the wise man," and Homer, the bard, delivered their oracles to the wondering multitude of the illiterate; in later times, Dante, Shakspere, Milton, Bacon, and Locke filled the souls of men with their wisdom; but they were the giants of their day, each in his respective sphere, their intellect was subordinate to the physical, the high and noble subject to the base and degrading: but a change having passed over the spirit of the dream, we live in an age of general intellectual culture; here we find the landmarks of history laden with the choicest names;-in art, a Turner, Millais, Bonheur; in poetry, Talfourd, Knowles, Tennyson; in literature, Scott, Dickens, Thackeray; in science, Stephenson, Locke, Brunel; in philosophy, Whewell, Hamil on, and a "Touchstone." Time suffices not to tell the myriad of great men who adorn the nineteenth century, so pre-eminently the age of general intellectual culture, and fully show its power to favour the development of great men.

Still, again, we return to the contest. In an age of imperfect intellectual culture, so few minds attain to mediocrity, that mediocrity becomes apparent greatness, and any overstepping of these narrow limits make the great man of that little day; but with the general intellectual culture of the nineteenth century, the great men among the past mediocrities become dwarfs in comparison with the mediocrities of the present; how then can we say that general culture is unfavourable to greatness of intellect? Is it not true that the higher the general standard of excellence is raised, the greater the difficulty to overstep that standard? Hence what in the past ages of comparative ignorance and darkness qualified the exceptional possessor of intellectual culture to become a bright star in that meridian, when compared with a condition of general intellectual culture, becomes mere puerility and childishness. It is true Solomon, Homer, Newton, Milton, and Shakspere are great men for all time and for all conditions of intellectual culture, but these are so extraordinary in their greatness, that a millennium is necessary for the production of each one. The earth has attained its sixth millenary period nearly, and the coming man to mark the

epoch is not yet designated by the far-seeing eyes of the most learned expert in science, history, philosophy, or art.

"Human greatness! a mystery hidden from the ignorant and vulgar;

In dark ages the bright stars of intellect mere beacon-fires,

Lighted by the bigot to extinguish truth in the ashes of the body;

Truth ethereal and immortal soar'd in the flames, and latent with consequences
Fill'd the hearts of all men who became great in their freedom.

Freed in of intellect, and the ever restlessness of thought,
Hath exalted the goal to which fame aspires in its ardour.

The past was mediocrity in the mass, greatness in the few;

The present is greatness in the many, littleness of soul in the few;

To do. to suffer, to strive, in patience to bear the ills of life,
Yea, in humble effort to be great in humility-
Such is true greatness."

ADAM BEDE.

History.

IS THE CHARACTER OF IGNATIUS LOYOLA WORTHY OF ADMIRATION AND RESPECT?

AFFIRMATIVE REPLY.

IN furnishing a reply to the various articles which have appeared on this subject, our task is neither difficult nor tedious; and we feel our position, in asserting that the character of Loyola is entitled to admiration and respect. to be, as far as our opponents are concerned, perfectly secure. It is to be observed, in the first place, that the negative articles on this subject have been very negative in reality. They have totally failed, in our opinion, in portraying the character and actions of Ignatius Loyola. A biographical sketch has, it is true, been furnished of Loyola's life up to a certain period; but it abruptly breaks off at the most important point of his extraordinary career, and gives us no clue to the motives by which he was actuated in the desiguing and prosecuting of his great enterprise. Jesuitism is made the prominent feature in the controversy, and thenceforward the mastermind planning and moving the whole is lost sight of or forgotten.

This negative property of the articles by M. H. and S. S. seems to be the consequence of a mistake in supposing that it is the principles of Jesuitism, and not the character of its founder, that is the subject for discussion; and that, because Jesuitism is a bad thing now, Loyola could not, therefore, be entitled to admiration and respect simply because he happened to originate it! As well say that the inventor of firearms and swords as a means of defence is not entitled to any praise, simply because they have been used purposes of assassination, and lite-preserver has, in the hands of the garotter, become a life-testroy er.

for

M. H., in fact, by adopting as his motto the words of Ranke

viz., "That Loyola was a fanatic, a Papist, and a Jesuit."-furnishes the key to the whole of his article, and also that of S. S. He plainly concludes that, because of this fact, Loyola could not be a man worthy the admiration and respect of any. In the first place, we very much dispute whether the climax of Ranke is incontrovertible, as M. H. says it is. That Loyola was a fanatic we deny, and have, in our opening paper, given reasons for this opinion; that because he happened to be a Papist and a Jesuit, therefore we are to condemn him as unworthy of admiration and respect, seems, to say the least, a very illogical conclusion, and from such, to adopt the language of N. E. " 'may the shades of honesty and free discussion deliver us." He was a Jesuit, it is true; but it must also be borne in mind that he was the first Jesuit; and to condemn him, because we condemn the Jesuit of the nineteenth century, is certainly unfair. When Jesuitism fell, it was chiefly through its own acts that it did so. Another very illogical line of argument may be traced in both the papers we have noticed; it is that of the argumentum ad hominem. Three persons are brought prominently forward as great authorities, as the authorities required to decide the controversy viz., Ranke, Macaulay, and Mr. Neil. These have written of Loyola. Their opinion is adverse to him; therefore he is not entitled to admiration and respect. Now, with all due deference to these gentlemen, and fully admitting in the main the weight and truth of their remarks, we still assert that they do not make so much against Loyola as our opponents would have us believe. All these gentlemen, be it remembered, were writing rather of Jesuitism, its rise and progress, than they were of Loyola as Loyola separate-as far as it is possible to separate him-from the society of which he was the founder. But it is time that we noticed the negative articles more in detail, and ascertain what effect they are likely to have upon our position. To criticize them much will, for the reason above mentioned, almost lead us into a criticism of Ranke and Macaulay, so much do they rely for support on these great and potent names. Now, though this is what we by no means intended, yet will we not shrink from the task, but plainly and fearlessly give our opinion of the extracts taken from the writings of these great men, and determine, as far as we are able, their influence on the subject at issue.

The first point demanding our attention is the contrast of Luther and Loyola. A contrast striking enough, we admit, in the localities, and in the results which each produced; but yet hardly fair as a test to obtain the real character of either man. The statement of Ranke, quoted by M. H, may be thus condensed:-Luther and Loyola were each, about the same time, plunged into great mental distress, arising from a similar cause. Each extricated himself, but in a very dissimilar manner. Luther studied the Bible, arrived at the doctrine of atonement and justification by faith, and founded Protestantism. We admire and respect him. Loyola did not do this, but read the lives of saints, and became the founder of Jesuitism. The conclu

sion is then drawn, that we ought not to respect Loyola, and it is based on the ground that we respect Luther for pursuing a certain course, and therefore should not respect Loyola, because he did not follow the same course. Now, we have first to be informed that Loyola had an opportunity of reading the Scriptures, and of rejecting them as his guide. That he had, we think extremely doubtful, especially when we remember that it was quite by accident that Luther, though an Augustine monk, became possessed of a copy of the sacred volume. Much, too, of the description given of the sufferings and imaginings of Loyola may with equal truth be applied to Luther. Into the interpretation of the Apocalyptic vision we do not presume to enter, but would only observe, that if Luther is prefigured by the mighty angel with the little book, whose face was like the sun, it is hardly fair to condemn Loyola because he did not happen to be Luther. If they may be judged by the results which each has produced, then it is plain that the verdict must be given in favour of Loyola as the greater man, and, as such, entitled to our admiration and respect; for to quote Macaulay, of whom our friends seem so fond, it is a fact, however it may be accounted for, that "neither the moral revolution of the eighteenth century, nor the moral counter-revolution of the nineteenth, should in any perceptible degree have added to the domain of Protestantism. During the former period, whatever was lost to Catholicism was lost also to Christianity; during the latter, whatever was regained by Christianity in Catholic countries was regained also by Catholicism. ... We think it a most remarkable fact, that no Christian nation, which did not adopt the principles of the Reformation before the end of the sixteenth century, should ever have adopted them. Catholic communities have since that time become infidel, and become Catholic again, but none has become Protestant." Whatever may be said of Jesuitism, there can be no doubt that it accomplished a great purpose, and that it is to its rise at the precise period of the Reformation that the Church of Rome may attribute its present existence. It not only was sufficiently powerful to keep and to roll back the tide of Protestantism in the south of Europe, and thus prove the salvation of Rome, but also was the means of restoring a large country-France-to the fold of the Romish Church.

S. S., after devoting a somewhat lengthy paragraph to a statement of the manner in which it is necessary to judge of the character of Loyola (viz., to obtain the whole of the qualities he exhibited in his lifetime, good and bad)-a rather difficult task, by the way-set them one against the other, observing which preponderate, and give your verdict accordingly, then sets out with the assertion that fanaticism was a prominent ingredient in the character of Loyola; and because the church of which he was, at any rate, a devoted and consistent member allowed him to devote himself to a religious life, therefore he was a fanatic. We have already given our opinion on this point, and need not, therefore, repeat it here; but leaving bad quality No. 1, we are told, secondly, that Loyola was deter

minedly opposed to truth and right. We might ask, What is truth? and what is right? and the replies would be very varied. Was Luther always right? and did he always know the truth? We admire Luther for his acts when he did know what we believe to be truth, though the Catholic still calls it heresy. Do we blame Luther for his devotion to Rome before he did know the truth? What proof have we that Loyola ever had an opportunity of know. ing the truth? As N. E. has clearly and ably shown, every circumstance in his life was against it. Brought up in a Catholic country, the most zealous and rigorous of Catholic countries, and with very little previous knowledge, what opportunity had he for knowing any other truth than that which his Church chose to give him as such? He was determinedly opposed to Protestantism, we are aware; and we believe Protestantism to be true and right; but did Loyola do so? Did he not believe that he was in the truth, the perfect way, and that, in opposing Protestantism, he was doing God service? The fallacy lies in assuming that Loyola knew Romanism to be wrong and Protestantism right, and that he chose the wrong and opposed the right. The assumption cannot be proved, and is, we believe, totally opposed to fact. The same fallacy pervades the third point urged against him, viz., that the ends for which he worked were totally unjustifiable and unlawful. Admitting that they were, did Loyola believe them to be so? Did the Pope and cardinals, and the members of his order, believe them to be so? We think not. But were they so? You have, first, the fact that the Catholic believes his church to be the true one, the only one in which salvation is to be obtained. Loyola desired to make Catholicism dominant and permanent throughout the world, because he believed it to be the only means by which men could be saved. Was there anything unlawful or unjustifiable in this? He educated the young, and instructed adults. Surely there is nothing reprehensible here. He defended the Catholic faith against all enemies, heretics, and infidels, and propagated Catholicism by missions among the heathen and misbelievers. Allowing that Loyola believed the Catholic rule of faith to be the true one-and S. S. gives him credit for sincerity-was it not justifiable in him to defend it, and commendable of him to determine on its propagation? In what way this was unlawful or unjustifiable we are at a loss to imagine. That the Jesuits, during the lifetime of Loyola, fully performed the task they had undertaken, and that they were indeed men of sleepless activity and indomitable perseverance, the master-spirits among men, and that they did roll back Protestantism from the lands yet faithful to the Pope, and enter into a rigorous crusade against it, by placing themselves in the van of intellectual achievement," history sufficiently proves.

Regarding the question of obedience, which is next brought forward as a bad quality of Loyola, we would refer our readers to the article of N. E. We think he has sufficiently accounted for this,