to do so is the weakest we have ever seen. Protestants have always been jealous of our sole possession of this title: they have often tried to call themselves Catholics, and to distinguish us as Roman Catholics; but in this they have never succeeded. To be Catholics they must prove themselves to be universal as to time and place ; which a system, or rather a confused heap of systems, none older than three hundred years, and confined to very few parts of the globe, can never do. "Thou art not yet four hundred years old, and hast thou seen the Apostles ?"

But we can readily and triumphantly shew that our Church is Catholic, and the "holy Catholic Church," in which we profess to believe in the creed. Our Church is Catholic as to time. It has existed in every age since the time of Christ. We can point out the origin of every sect and division of Christians; but no one can assign any other beginning to our Church, than that of Christ and his Apostles. It is Catholic as to doctrine. What it teaches now, it has taught in every age; and though our adversaries are fond of accusing us of adding new doctrines to those of the primitive Church, such a charge is more easily made than proved. The testimonies of the early Fathers abundantly shew that every single article of our faith was taught from the beginning. It is Catholic as to place. It is spread throughout the world, and has ever reckoned by far the greatest number of members in its communion; as every book of geography will testify. In fine it is Catholic by the universal consent of all people, in all ages, friends and enemies, who have always called its mem

bers Catholics. Some have sneeringly called us Romanists, Papists, and other names, but they have never generally obtained; we still are, and ever shall be distinguished by the glorious sur. name of CATHOLICS.

Mr. White's invention about the term Apos tolical is as ridiculous as it is original. No one, surely, before him pretended to believe that Apostolicul was inserted in the Nicene Creed, because the Catholics could no longer be distinguished from heretics. If they had separated from the Church, surely they could tell what Church they had left; and all the world knew Catholics from others then, as well as they do now, though heresies are now much more multiplied.

The word Apostolical was inserted as one essential mark of the true Church, as well as the other marks of Unity, Holiness, and Catho licity. It signified that our Church had its origin, its mission, and its doctrine from the Apostles. The Protestants have often boasted that their doctrine is apostolical, because they collect it, they say, from the writings of the Apostles; and Mr. White attempts the same argument, though in a very bungling manner. But how do Protestants know that they alone understand the writings of the Apostles in their true sense, while the whole body of the successors of the Apostles maintain that they understand them wrong, that these writ ings have in all ages been understood differently?

Mr. White, after these luminous discoveries, proceeds to condemn us as follows. "The

members of that heretical, that is, particular Church of the Pope,-that Church of the individual city of Rome, caunot be Catholic or universal, except as far as they are Apostolic." And again: "We are bound to declare her a corrupt and heretical Church," &c. * What

absurdities are crowded together in these few lines! Who can value Mr. Blanco White's divinity a straw after such a display? He tells us that "the Church of the individual city of Rome cannot be universal ;" which is about as wise as saying that London cannot be Europe. Who ever said that the particular diocese of Rome was the universal Church? We maintain, indeed, that the Church in communion with the see of Rome, is Catholic, as all the world knows : we maintain, that it is also Apostolic, but it is not its Apostolicity that makes its Catholicity, as Mr. White confusedly pretends; and it is utter absurdity to say that the Church in communion with the see of Rome is only Catholic as far as it is Apostolical. Mr. White suddenly claims authority to pronounce us heretical, by which, according to his former account, he means that we are separated from-from what-Mr. Blanco White? It is a new idea truly, that that Church should have separated, from which all others separated. "If she fell by heresy, from what Church did she fall? what Church reproved her? what Council condemned her? what Fathers wrote against her? where were her accusers? did no Church condemn her? No Church Lord!

* " Preservative," pages 52 and 53.

Then she is not an heretical Church:"* Before Mr. White assumed authority to pronounce thus of the Church he has deserted, he should have exhibited some claim for the Church of which he now professes to be a member. Tertullian would have demanded his warrant in these terms: "Let them produce the origin of their Church, let them give us a list of their bishops, deduced by succession from the beginning, so that this first bishop had either an Apostle, or an Apostolical man for his predecessor. Let heretics counterfeit any thing like this if they can."+

of

Having thus "destroyed the sophistry Mr. White with regard to the Catholic Church, we shall find him "at his dirty work again," in that Letter in his "Evidence which treats of the Head of that Church on earth, the Pope; as well as in the third Dialogue of his " Preservative."

The substance of his Letter, as far as it regards the Pope is this.: Mr. White professes to examine the title by which our Church, with the Pope at its head, claims infallible authority. He states, as the ground of it, the memorable text; "Thou art Peter," &c. St. Matt. xvi. 18. He argues, that if those words contain what Catholics teach about the Pope, it is only in an indirect and obscure manner;" that Saint Peter never alludes to his privilege in his Epistles; that our system may indeed be contained in that passage, but if so, it is contained like a

* See the excellent Sermon, entitled, "The Spirit and the Truth of Religion," by the Rev. H. Weedall, page 46. Tert. Liber de Præscrip. cap. xxxii.

diamond in a mountain ;" that it follows that the claims of the Pope and his Church "having no other than an obscure and doubtful foundation, the belief of it cannot be obligatory on all Christians;" that if they have the power which they claim, it is "one of the least obvious truths in the Gospels;" that the force of his argument rests upon the doubtfulness of the meaning of the text in question; that either Christ did not mean what Catholics claim; or if he did, he concealed his meaning, and therefore, obedience to the Roman Church cannot be necessary. This is really the substance of Mr. White's grand argument, which he has muddily carried along through seven octavo pages!

Our task then in reply is sufficiently easy; it only rests with us to shew that the claims of our Church and Pope, do not rest on a doubtful foundation. Allowing, for argument sake, that our only proof of the authority of our Church and Pope, is the passage "Thou art Peter," &c. which is by no means the case, we contend that even so, our claim does not rest upon a doubtful but a very sure foundation. How can that passage be of doubtful meaning which for so many hundred years, by so many millions of people, by all the Holy Fathers and Doctors, by all the Councils, and by the most learned and pious men in the world in every age down to the Reformation, was uniformly understood as Catholics now understand it; and since the Reformation has been understood the same by the greater part of the Christian world? A fine idea for a passage to be called doubtful because a handful of men choose to dispute its meaning, in oppo