who refuse to recognize the claim. I am told that in China it is thought that politeness requires a man to use disparaging words in speaking of anything belonging to himself, so that if he were asked of what religion he was, it would be proper for him to answer, The miserable superstition to which I am addicted is so-and-so. But as I cannot carry my politeness to such an extreme, I must decline to compliment away our own right to the title Catholic. It is curious how much easier it is to see the mote in our brother's eye than the beam in our own. dignitary of the Roman Church, from whom my critic borrowed his accusation against me of using offensive language towards my opponents, was obliged to confess that he had been in the habit of including members of our own Church with others outside the Roman communion under the common name of non-Catholics, and had apparently been unconscious that there was anything offensive in the phrase. Now if it is not offensive to call members of the Church of England, Anglicans, it cannot be offensive to call members of the Church of Rome, Romanists; but to call us who claim to be Catholics, non-Catholics is not only offensive but brutally offensive. And it makes no difference whether this is done in express words, as constantly happens, or done by implication, as when men speak of 'Catholic institutions,' a 'Catholic University,' and so forth, meaning thereby institutions in which Catholics in communion with the Church of Ireland have no share. Those who speak of Romanists as Catholics cannot help speaking and thinking of non-Romanists as non-Catholics. No other word can be substituted.