ience,
arrangements had been made by which one was put over or under
another. So much for our own claim to Catholicity, which was so
perversely appropriated by our opponents to themselves:--on the other
hand, as to our special strong point, Antiquity, while of course, by
means of it, we were able to condemn most emphatically the novel
claim of Rome to domineer over other Churches, which were in truth
her equals, further than that, we thereby especially convicted her of
the intolerable offence of having added to the Faith. This was the
critical head of accusation urged against her by the Anglican
disputant, and, as he referred to St. Ignatius in proof that he
himself was a true Catholic, in spite of being separated from Rome,
so he triumphantly referred to the Treatise of Vincentius of Lerins
upon the "Quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus," in proof that
the controversialists of Rome were separated in their creed from the
apostolical and primitive faith.

Of course those controversialists had their own answer to him, with
which I am not concerned in this place; here I am only concerned with
the issue itself, between the one party and the other--Antiquity
_versus_ Catholicity.

Now I will proceed to illustrate what I have been saying of the
_status_ of the controversy, as it presented itself to my mind, by
extracts from my writings of the dates of 1836, 1840, and 1841. And I
introduce them with a remark, which especially applies to the paper,
from which I shall quote first, of the date of 1836. That paper
appeared in the March and April numbers of the _British Magazine_ of
that year, and was entitled "Home Thoughts Abroad." Now it will be
found, that, in the discussion which it contains, as in various other
writings of mine, when I was in the Anglican Church, the argument in
behalf of Rome is stated with considerable perspicuity and force. And
at the time my friends and supporters cried out "How imprudent!" and
both at the time, and especially at a later date, my enemies have
cried out, "How insidious!" Friends and foes virtually agreed in
their criticism; I had set out the cause which I was combating to the
best advantage: this was an offence; it might be from imprudence, it
might be with a traitorous design. It was from neither the one nor
the other; but for the following reasons. First, I had a great
impatience, whatever was the subject, of not bringing out the whole
of it, as clearly as I could; next I wished