others,) you have succeeded in obtaining for yourselves, ordinarily the title of Roman-Catholics, often that of Catholics simply, I admit, and for the unfair advantage taken of the concession I sincerely lament. But the abuse has not yet extended so far—we have not yet so utterly forgotten the creed which we every day. recite, as to give this title to your church; that is still, even in common parlance, the Church of Rome; and really, if Dr. Milner has any modesty, he ought to be somewhat more than content with such an appellation, given to it by Protestants; for he must be aware that, on our principles, it is much more manifest that yours is not the Catholic church, than it is easy to prove that you are, in any legitimate sense, a church at all. Many of the wisest and most pious Protestants have denied, in toto, your claim to that title; and the most that any of us can concede, is, that you are still a branch, though a most tremendously corrupt branch, of the Catholic church.

This is not a topic on which it is at all my wish to enlarge; but the boldness of the assumptions of Dr. Milner, and others of your writers, respecting "Catholicity," as they are pleased to call it, and the want of clear notions on the subject, which too commonly prevails,

must be my excuse for stating some considerations, which to yourself, and to those who have ever studied the point, may justly appear trite and common-place.

Our judgment then of the Catholic Church is briefly this: That Catholic Church (as the name, you know, expresses) is the Universal Church, containing within it many particular Churches, even all congregations which retain "the faith once delivered to the saints," and contained in the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. Every particular Church, which holds the fundamental points of that faith, and “in which the sacraments are duly administered according to Christ's ordinance in all things necessary to the same, "* is a branch of the Catholic, or Universal Church.' Even if it have introduced the most dangerous corruptions of doctrine and of worship, yet if it still hold the foundation, still agree in essentials, it is not wholly cut off. Those among us, who think, as at the present day most members of the Church of England rejoice to think, that the corruptions in your communion, grievous as they are, do not amount to a departure from the foundation, to an utter

* XIXth Article of the Church of England.

abandonment of essentials; all such recognize your Church as still a part, though I am compelled to repeat, a most corrupt part, of the Catholic Church. The phrase, Roman-Catholics, therefore, may be tolerated, both as recognizing the distinction of particular branches, and as especially distinguishing members of the Roman branch of the Catholic Church; just as English-Catholics might be a fit denomination, if it were necessary to adopt it, of members of the Church of England. Beyond this, courtesy itself must not induce us to go. We must protest against that sense of the phrase, which implies that they only are Catholics, who "believe the Bishop of Rome to be the head "of the Catholic Church, and that for that "reason the Catholic Church may fitly be styled Roman-Catholic, being an universal body united under one visible head."

66

enquiry respecting the religious tenets, for which you are individually answerable. But I need not remind you that our real question is respecting the doctrines speculative and practical, which are to be ascribed to your Church; such, in short, as may fairly be considered as making up its SYSTEM.

And here I must protest against being tied down to a consideration of those doctrines only, which are now delivered as articles of faith. These alone, it may be, are to be ascribed, as a matter of course, to you, and every one else who adheres to the communion of your Church; but the Church itself is answerable for all those doctrines, which having been promulgated by high authorities within it, by popes or councils, or writers under the immediate direction of such authorities, and having been long and extensively acted upon, are still undisclaimed, much more those which are still retained with favour at Rome. Let me not be misunderstood. I fully admit that, in general, a full and plain disclaimer of such doctrines by individuals may fairly be considered in relation to those individuals, the same as if the doctrines themselves had never been maintained. But they must, I contend, still be regarded as forming a párt (though not equally with articles of faith

authoritative publication of your Church. You also mention some other works, which, however, cannot be received as of equal authority; such are Bossuet's " Exposition of Faith;" Mr. Gother's " Papist misrepresented and represented;" Dr. Chaloner's "Three short summaries of Catholic Faith and Doctrine,' and his "Garden of the Soul."* But, above all, you recommend to us Dr. Milner's "End of Controversy," as "the ablest exposition of the "doctrines of the Roman-Catholic Church, on the articles contested with her by Protes"tants; and the ablest statement of the proofs

66

by which they are supported, and of the his"torical facts with which they are connected, "that has appeared in our language."† This is high commendation, and will fully justify the particular attention I shall feel it my duty to pay to this writer in the sequel. But, meanwhile, I must object to all these works, except the Trent Catechism, as of insufficient authority, on which to pronounce what is the doctrine of the Church. That they contain your own particular creed, after the declaration made by you, cannot be doubted: we might look to them, therefore, with entire satisfaction, in any

*Book of the Roman-Catholic Church, p. 10.