nected with it than that it is the name of a sect; but those who know better feel that it is a degradation of a noble word to limit it in such a way. And, in truth, if it is possible to convey insult by a title, what is really insulting is that one section of Christians should appropriate to themselves the title Catholic' as their exclusive right, and thus, by implication, deny it to others. This is so obvious that they do not now insist on being called Catholics pure and simple, and are satisfied if other people will speak of them as Roman Catholics. It is a compromise which I am willing to accept in my intercourse with persons of that religion; but I observe that when they are by themselves they always drop the Roman,' and call themselves 'Catholics.' So they have no cause to be offended if, when we are by ourselves, we drop the 'Catholic' and call them Roman.'

We may fairly object to an inconvenient periphrasis. If we must not speak of members of the Roman Church without tacking Catholic to their name, must we not also, if we claim an equal right in the title, add it to our own name? While, however, we could describe our brethren in England as Anglo-Catholic, how are those of us who live in Ireland or Scotland or America to call ourselves? If any sect-say the Unitarian— were to claim the exclusive title of Christians, and when this were refused them, should insist, at least, in being known, not as Unitarians, but as Unitarian. Christians, would not that be felt to be the old claim in disguise, since it would be inconvenient to us to be obliged to make a similar addition to our own name? What I should understand by a Roman Catholic would be a member of the Catholic Church whose

home was Rome. A member of the Catholic Church who lived in England would, of necessity, be an Anglo-Catholic. If he wanted there to be a Roman Catholic, he would be no Catholic at all, but a schismatic. To speak honestly, of all the sects into which Christendom is divided, none appears to me less entitled to the name Catholic than the Roman. Firmilian, long ago, thus addressed a former bishop of Rome (and this great bishop Firmilian must be regarded as expressing the sentiments not only of the Eastern Church of the third century, but also of St. Cyprian, to whose translation, no doubt, we owe our knowledge of his letter): 'How great is the sin of which you have incurred the guilt in cutting yourself off from so many Christian flocks. For, do not deceive yourself, it is yourself you have cut off: since he is the real schismatic who makes himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. While you think that you can cut off all from your communion, it is yourself whom you cut off from communion with all.' At the present day the bishop of Rome has broken communion with more than half of Christendom, merely because it will not yield him an obedience to which he has no just right. To me he appears to have as little claim to the title Catholic as had the Donatists of old, who, no matter how many bishops they had in their adherence, were rightly deemed schismatics, because they had unjustly broken communion with the rest of the Christian world.

I might, however, have conquered my objection to the name Roman Catholic, if it were not that it seems to draw with it the word Roman-catholicism, one of some abominable words that have been introduced in

our generation. To me, 'Catholic' and '-ism' represent ideas which absolutely refuse to coalesce. Roman Catholics hold many doctrines which I believe to be true and Catholic; but what is meant by Romancatholicism is that part of the belief of Roman Catholics which is not Catholic, and is not true.

The majority of the lectures in this volume were written about the year 1870; and as they were not intended for publication, they contained no references to authorities. This has caused me some inconvenience, as, since the time these lectures were written, my reading has taken other directions. I have, however, been able to supply references to the ancient authorities cited; but I have not thought it worth while to give the labour necessary to recall what use I have made of the literature current at the time the lectures were written.

I have to acknowledge the assistance given me by my friends, Dr. Gwynn and Dr. Quarry, who have been kind enough to read the proofs of this volume; and I have to thank the Rev. W. K. Ormsby for help given me in the preparation of the Index.

This second edition is but a reprint of the first, with some few corrections and additions. At p. 365 I have substituted Mr. Gore's explanation of a passage in Epiphanius for that given by Döllinger which I had adopted in the former edition. I have added (pp. 255-261) a discussion of an answer attempted, in the Month, by Mr. Sydney F. Smith, to the arguments of Lectures XI.-XIV. I am glad that my work

should meet some hostile criticism, for containing as it does many hundred statements of facts, it were too much to expect that I should not have made some slips, especially now that I have arrived at a time of life when my memory cannot so well be trusted as in former days. I am very grateful to those who point out such slips and enable me to correct them. But I have been disappointed to obtain only some very trivial corrections from a review of my book in the Lyceum, written in a very different tone and temper from Mr. Smith's article. I soon perceived that the review in question was written for those who do not know me, and are not likely to see my book, but who having heard that such a book had been written would be glad to be told that it had been completely demolished, and the writer proved to have been both ignorant and dishonest. I wish I could persuade myself that my critic was a man of much learning, for if so it would be extremely consolatory to find that he had been able to discover none but the very unimportant errors he has singled for comment; and even of these the number would have been reduced if he had read my book more carefully. For example, it may be very shocking that I should in one case have inadvertently used the prefix St. in speaking of Margaret Mary Alacoque, but it was surely some extenuation of my fault that I had elsewhere stated (see p. 223) that this poor visionary had as yet attained only the dignity of beatification, not that of canonization. My critic is very severe on me for attempting to conceal from my readers that Newman's Essay on Development was written before he joined the Roman Church. As I had expressly

stated this (see p. 33), I need not inquire what difference it makes. The matter would be important if there were any disposition to repudiate the defence of Roman doctrines made by this new convert; but, on the contrary, it has been eagerly adopted by the Roman apologists of the present day, whose candid acknowledgment of the novelty of their teaching would certainly have amazed their predecessors.

And my critic is so anxious to represent me as not only ignorant but dishonest, that he refuses to accept lapse of memory as an explanation of misstatements for which he can discern no motive. For instance, the most serious error he has pointed out is that I more than once gave the date of the declaration by Pius IX. of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception as 1852 instead of 1854. I might have expected some gratitude for my liberality in ascribing to one of the two latest of Roman additions to the Catholic Faith, two years more antiquity than it was entitled to claim, but my reviewer's comment is that my misstatement is 'unaccountable,' as nothing was to be gained by falsifying the date.' One can generally judge what a man is likely to do by observing what he thinks other people likely to do. But I congratulate myself that I was not brought up in a school where it is thought permissible to falsify a date if anything is to be gained by doing so.

After this it is amusing that my critic should accuse nie of want of courtesy to my opponents, his ground of complaint being that I refuse to describe his coreligionists by the name of 'Catholics.' But the real offence is given by those who arrogate to themselves exclusively the title of Catholic, and not by those