The Project Gutenberg eBook ofTwo Addresses

The Project Gutenberg eBook ofTwo AddressesThis ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.Title: Two AddressesAuthor: N. RigbyRelease date: March 23, 2011 [eBook #35663]Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Brownfox and the Online Distributed ProofreadingTeam at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced fromimages generously made available by The Internet Archive)*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TWO ADDRESSES ***

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online atwww.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Two AddressesAuthor: N. RigbyRelease date: March 23, 2011 [eBook #35663]Language: EnglishCredits: Produced by Brownfox and the Online Distributed ProofreadingTeam at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced fromimages generously made available by The Internet Archive)

Title: Two Addresses

Author: N. Rigby

Release date: March 23, 2011 [eBook #35663]

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Brownfox and the Online Distributed ProofreadingTeam at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced fromimages generously made available by The Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK TWO ADDRESSES ***

ONE,

TO THE GENTLEMEN OF WHITBY,

WHO SIGNED THE REQUISITION, CALLING A MEETING TO ADDRESS THE QUEEN, ON THE LATE (SO CALLED) AGGRESSION OF THE POPE:

AND THE OTHER, TO

THE PROTESTANT CLERGY.

The Catholic Priest of Ugthorp.

"I would you had been there to seeHow the light blazed up so gloriously.""And then in naked majesty,With brow serene, and beaming placid light,Came truth."

"I would you had been there to seeHow the light blazed up so gloriously."

"And then in naked majesty,With brow serene, and beaming placid light,Came truth."

WHITBY:

PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY HORNE AND RICHARDSON: SOLD BY RICHARDSON & SONS, LONDON AND DERBY.

ONE SHILLING.

1851.

The following pages are humbly, and gratefully Dedicated, to the Catholic Noblemen and Gentlemen of Yorkshire, by the Catholic Priest at Ugthorp.

Noblemen and Gentlemen,

Many of you, lately appeared boldly, and manfully on the platform at York, in defence of our holy religion. Conscious of the justice and innocence of our cause, you feared neither the sneers, nor the insults, nor the shouts, nor the threats of its enemies, but, like your illustrious ancestors, shewed that you considered your religion, as your best inheritance, and held it more dear than life itself; whilst, on the other hand, like your illustrious ancestors, you shewed that you yieldedto none, inyour loyal allegianceto yourtemporalsovereign, and to the state. Now it would be ungrateful, nay even base, in us Catholic clergymen, not to second your manly, and zealous exertions in defence of our ancient, and holy faith. To you, therefore, I most humbly, and gratefully dedicate the following pages. I hope you will find, that I have not advanced in them, anything that is inconsistent with the principles of truth, of justice, and of honour. To have acted otherwise, would, I am sure (for I have the honour to be personally acquainted with most of you), be most insulting to your noble, and liberal feelings, and would only have served, to confirm the hostility of the Protestant, and to loosen the attachment of the Catholic, to that cause, which I had undertaken to defend.

Noblemen, and Gentlemen, when the Catholic looks back on thepast, he will learn to hope well of thefuture. He will observe, that the irritating objections of former times, are now almost shamed out of Parliament, and can hardly support their credit, even among the most suspicious, and least informed Protestants. He will see, that our opponents have uniformly been compelled, to shift theirground from position to position, and after pertinaciously defending each, have ended by abandoningit, and retreating toanother. At first, the Catholics were accused of favouring the claims of the Stuarts, but the extinction of that family, has put an end to that charge. We were then told, that the Catholics, could not be boundby oath, thoughoaths, had been wisely devised as thebest safeguards, against their supposed perfidy. Next, the fathers of the great Council of Latern, were marshalled against us; as if men were to be punished at thepresentday, because Protestants will not understand the regulations of feudal Princes, and feudal Prelatessix centuries ago. Afterwards, we were reproached with the deposing powers, and temporal pretensions of the Pope; these were set at rest atthat time(and we had hopedfor ever,) by the answers of the foreign Universities. Lastly, came the Coronation Oath, men, however, could not be persuaded that the Sovereign, by promising to maintain the liberties of the Protestant Church, was bound to deprive of their civil rights all those, who might dissent from the spiritual creed of that Church. Each of these arguments in its day, was deemedunanswerable, buteachhasyielded to discussion.Pastadvantages, therefore, Noblemen and Gentlemen, are an earnest to the Catholic offuturesuccess; and after the hour of the late excitement, about the Pope's temporal and spiritual power, has passed away, I am sure, all sensible, and unbiassed Englishmen will see, that the late hubbub, has been anignus fatuusof imaginations distorted with fear, and alarm, which had well nigh, misled the whole nation, into a quagmire of inconsistency, illiberality and revolution.

Catholic Chapel House, Ugthorp, near Whitby,

January 21st, 1851.

Reader, that you may the better understand the two following addresses, you oughtfirst, to read the copy of the requisition for the meeting, &c., which is placed before these two addresses, and you ought also, to read the little address which here follows, and which I published to announce, that the following pages would shortly appear in print. In the notice of the requisition for the public meeting, &c., you will find these words, "extraordinary and presumptuous movement on the part of the Pope." Now, reader, you must remember, that these memorable words are my grand text, in the two following addresses. I here beg to offer my sincere thanks to the gentlemen, who signed the requisition, for I am sure, if they had studied from the deluge until now, they could not have given me, a more suitable text for the Catholic cause, and a more destructive one to the Protestant Church. But, reader, you will be able to judge of this yourself, after reading the following pages. Read first then, the following little address, and then read the notice calling the public meeting.

In the press, and in the course of a few weeks will be published, an Address to the Gentlemen who signed the late Requisition to the Magistrates of Whitby, to call a Public Meeting to address the Queen on the late extraordinary and presumptuous movement on the part of the Bishop of Rome.

To the Inhabitants of Whitby and of the Neighbourhood.

Inhabitants,

I have been lately often asked, why I did not attend the above meeting? I reply, read my address when it is published, and you will there find an answer to your question. It is a common observation of sailors, "only give the ship plenty of sea-room in a storm, and then she will live." Now, inhabitants of Whitby, and of the neighbourhood, if you will give the Catholic Church (or, if you please, the Roman Catholic Church) only the sea-room of fair play, you will, perhaps, find that the bottom and sides of this spiritual ship, are well coppered with the solid, and impenetrable metal of good reasons, and solid arguments, and that, full rigged as she is, with the sails of truth, of justice, and of honour, she can gallantly brave the hurricanes of her enemies, and ride triumphantly, amid the storms of spiritual and temporal agitation, which have lately threatened to shipwreck, and to sink her.

When my address appears, I hope you will find in it, nothing that is inconsistent with principles of truth, of justice, and of honour. To have used any other weapons of defence would, in my humble opinion, have served only to strengthen the Protestant hostility, and to loosen the Catholic attachment, to that cause, which I hadundertaken to defend. You will, of course, expect a little of the comic, as coming from my pen, well, as the poet says,

Ridentum dicere verumQuid vetat?

Or, that I may not speak in a foreign tongue, "What forbids us to tell the truth, with a smile?"

Of course you will perhaps expect a little innocent stir, among the Reverends in my address, andperhaps, you may not be mistaken. If you remember, anilluminatedCambridge Divine, some years ago, came to Lythe, to make an "extraordinary and presumptuous movement" on the consciences of us Romanists, (as he politely styled us), and learnedly informed us, that we Romanists, were a set of spiritual chickens just hatching, and that he came to break our spiritual shells, that he might save the young birds, from being thrown into the scorching flames of Purgatory in the next world, but while the courteous Clerk, was performing this charitable office, to the benighted Romanists,he,himself, unfortunately, even in this world, fell into the flames of purgatory, which on this side the grave are made to burn, for those who bear false witness, against their neighbour; and it is generally believed, that he has never as yet been able to raise, from public opinion, as much money as will free him, from those torturing purgatorial flames. Oh, but you will naturally say, this is an old song, what has it to do with the present subject? Why, it has a great deal to do with it. Certain Reverends have been lately telling you, that the Pope of Rome, has just made a most "extraordinary and presumptuous movement," on the Protestants of England. Now you will perhaps find, from my Address, when published, that eventhesevery Reverends themselves have been making, for a long time, a most "extraordinary and presumptuous movement" on the pockets and on the intellects of Englishmen; and have thus, like theilluminatedCambridge divine, unfortunately fallen into the very pit, which they have been so very charitably, and officiously digging for thepoorPope.

Sensible Englishmen, when these Reverends, would uncharitably excite you against your long much injured, and unjustly abused Catholic fellow creatures, just say to them, "Reverend gentlemen, you tell us that the Scripture (the book of eternal life and of truth), teachesCharity to all Men! why, therefore, should you wish us to exclude theCatholicsfrom a share of thatuniversalCharity?" And in the next place tell them, "the Pope and all his spiritual crew are either from God or not: if they are not from God, all their human, and popish inventions will come of themselves to naught, and why, therefore, should you wish us Protestants, to break our charitable heads aboutthem. But if they are from God, how can either you or we fight against them, unless you arrogantly presume, that you can conquer the Almighty! At least, so teaches the sacred Scripture, for does it not thus plainly, and emphaticallysay, 'And now therefore I say to you, refrain from these men, and let them alone, for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to naught; but if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God.'" (Acts v. 38, 39.)

As I have been obliged to range in my address, over an extensivespiritualandtemporalmoor, and as I have had to bring down, and bag so much black game, of course my Address, will be of rather an extensive nature. It is, indeed, now in the press, but of course its appearance will, in some measure, depend upon the expedition of the printer, but I will promise you, that it shall be got out of the printer's handsas soon as possible, and then, it must appeal to the judgments of sensible and unbiassed minds, as to its merits, and demerits. In the mean time, as Englishmen always wish to know the text, I will give you the two texts, which I have chosen for the titlepage of my Address.

"I would you had been there to seeHow the light blazed up so gloriously."

"And then in naked Majesty,With brow serene, and beaming placid light,Came truth."

Inhabitants, in conclusion, I confidently appeal to you, if you ever knew me do an ungenteel act to any Protestant in point of religion. I have always wished equal rights and equal justice for all, both for Protestants and Dissenters; I have always wished to live in peace and charity with all; in short, I have always endeavoured to observe, as far as my human weakness would allow, that heavenly precept of our divine Saviour, "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love for one another;" and I can confidently appeal to the public, if this has not always been the tenor of my conduct. I assure you, that it is very contrary to my wishes, to have to appear before you, with my pen on these occasions. Among the Protestants I have many sincere friends, and of course, what I shall have to advance in my Address, may not be very agreeable to their feelings. But as I really know, and conscientiously believe, that the Church, of which I have the honour to be a minister, is really the true Church of Christ, to shrink from its defence for the sake of private feelings, and private interests, would, in my ideas, be a most base and an unchristian act on my part. I exclaim with the poet,

"A day, an hour of virtuous liberty,Is worth a whole eternity in bondage."

Farewell, inhabitants, for the present, and if, when my Address appears before the public, you would like to have a littleinnocentmerriment, and to hear some plain homely truths, I hope you will not be disappointed if you purchase my Address.

Catholic Chapel, Ugthorp, Dec. 21st, 1850.

To the Worshipful the Magistrates for the Division of Whitby, in the North Riding of the County of York.

We, the undersigned Inhabitants of the Town and Neighbourhood of Whitby, feeling deeply the propriety of presenting an address to Her Majesty, on the late extraordinary and presumptuous movement on the part of the Bishop of Rome, and expressive of our loyalty and attachment to Her Majesty's person, authority, and government, do request that you will be pleased to convene a Meeting for these purposes, to be held at an early day, in some convenient place in the town of Whitby.

Dated, November 21st, 1850.

We, the undersigned Magistrates, present at a Petty Session, held at the Justice Room, Whitby, this 23rd day of November, 1850, do hereby give notice, that a Public Meeting of the Inhabitants of the Town and Neighbourhood of Whitby, will be held, in compliance with the above Requisition, in the Town Hall, at Whitby, on Thursday, the 28th instant, at Twelve o'clock at noon.

John Chapman

Christopher Richardson, New Buildings.

Gentlemen,

The copy of a notice on the preceding page, shows that you thought proper to call a public meeting, for the purposes expressed in that bill. Now do not suppose for one moment, that I wish to question either the right, or the propriety of calling such a meeting. If our Protestant countrymen choose to call, and hold meetings for the purpose of expressing their sentiments on any public question, they have certainly, a right to do so, and also a right to the free expression of their sentiments on those occasions. But, gentlemen, have notwe Catholicsalso anequalright, to expressoursentiments on those subjects. That a regular opposition to the Catholics, has been lately organized, must be evident to the most inattentive observer. The clergy, and the head of the government, have been placed in the front of the battle, and with cry of danger to theChurch, has been coupled that of danger to theConstitution. In aid of these efforts, the press also, has been put in requisition, and the labours of anti-catholic journalists, and the diffusion of anti-catholic tracts, published in every shape, and adapted to every understanding, bear ample testimony to the zeal, and activity of those, who assume the lead in this anti-catholic crusade. We are doomed to hear daily, our religion traduced, our spiritual but illustrious Head, bespattered with the most vile abuse, our civil liberty menaced, our Clergy threatened with pains, and penalties, our most sacred rites most contumaciously designated by the first minister of the Crown as mummeries, and the Lord High Chancellorvaunting his readiness to trample, on the mitres of our bishops. Gentlemen, I think it cannot be expected that we Catholics, should remainsilent, and humble our heads before this whirlwind of Protestant intolerance, and that, imitating the stupidity of the Ostrich, we should endeavour to escape our hunters, by concealing our heads. But, gentlemen, you may perhaps ask, why did you not attend our public meeting? I reply, I did not hear of your meeting until a day after it had been held, but if I hadheardof itbefore, I should not have attended for the following reasons. Meetings that are convened by one party, are generallypackedmeetings, called under the excitement of the moment, and the audience in general are unwilling to listen to fair play, or to the arguments of their opponents. This was evident from your meeting, for had it not been for the honest, and liberal conduct of your chairman, Christopher Richardson, Esq., Mr. Taylerson, though not a Catholic, would not have obtained a hearing, and how were his sensible questions answered? By shouts, and hisses. But, gentlemen, I have another reason for not attending. Each nation, like each individual, has a certain character, and temperament. Now, whoever will deliberately consider the character, and temperament of Englishmen, will find, that when they are once roused, and excited, they are then unwilling to listen, either to reason or argumentation, but let the heat of excitement pass away, and let the cooler moments of reflection return, andthen, you may appeal to them with propriety, and advantage. It is very imprudent and foolish for a wife to expostulate, and argue with her drunken husband, but let the moments of sobriety return, and then, her reasonable, and prudent expostulations, may be attended with salutary effects. For these reasons, gentlemen, I did not attend your public meeting.

But you will say, why do you address us in particular? Why, gentlemen, I cannot for a moment suppose that when you are cool, and unexcited, you are so wedded to your own opinions, and so deaf to the claims of fair play, as to be unwilling to listen to the arguments of theaccused. Surely you do not wish to trample down the accused,unheard!If you do, I really think it is a very "extraordinary, and presumptuous movement" on your part, and I am sure every sensible and honest Englishman will think the same.

Well, then, gentlemen, let us now come to the point in question. I begin by asking the very sensible, and rational question, which Mr. Taylerson put to your meeting. What aggression have the Pope and Dr. Wiseman committed? What English Law have they transgressed? If any, why not let the law be calmly and quietly enforced against them? But if they have broken no law, why all this fury, and tirade against them as if they had? Oh, but, replied a certain influential gentleman, at your meeting, "If there is not a law, there must be one made." I answer, that the principle of self-defence will, in cases of real danger, authorize the adoption of lawful precautions, I am not disposed to deny; but, then, those precautions must be foundedon equity; they must be such asreasonwill justify, ornecessityexcuse. You are not to invade the rights or privileges of others, on thebare suspicionoffuturedanger or themerepossibility of a possibility. You are not to cane a man at Lady-day, because he may affront you at Midsummer. If you think the contrary, I must, gentlemen, candidly tell you, it is a very "extraordinary, and presumptuous movement" on your part, against the rights and privileges of your fellow creatures, and if any Magistrate, were to advance such extraordinary opinions, in a court of justice, I feel confident, every sensible and honest Englishman would deeply feel the propriety, of presenting an address to Her Majesty, or to Her Ministers, on so "extraordinary, and presumptuous a movement" on the part of that Magistrate, against the rights and privileges of Her Majesty's subjects.

Gentlemen, before we proceed any further, I think it requisite to call your attention to two points. First, that yourProtestantancestors,reallydid to ourCatholicancestors, what you now merelyfancy, without any grounds, that theCatholicsof the present day, are wishful to doto you. Now, upon this point, I shall thus argue: Your Protestant ancestors did these things eitherjustly, orunjustlyto our Catholic ancestors. If your Protestant ancestors did these thingsjustly, why should you Protestants make such a row, at themere shadowof these things being done again? But if your Protestant ancestors, did these thingsunjustly, then you must acknowledge, that the Church of England, owes its first foundation to acts of injustice. The second point which I wish to settle, before I proceed any further, is that the spiritual members of the Church of Rome, have the most just, and the only claim, to the honourable name of Catholic. Let us now hasten to the first of these points.

Gentlemen, the following facts, ashistoricalfacts, areundeniable, and whoever has the temerity to deny them ashistoricalfacts, I certainly envy not his knowledge of, nor his veracity for, historical testimony.Mark well, I am not going to talk about the soundness, or unsoundness of the following opinions, but I merely wish you to bear it in mind, that it is anindisputable historicalfact, that these opinions were really, and conscientiously believed by the Christian world in former ages. Well, then, the following are undeniable historical facts: That, in former ages, the Christian world believed that the Catholic Church, was the first Christian Church, and began with our Saviour, that St. Peter was appointed, by divine authority, to be the Head of this Church, that the Popes of Rome were the true successors of St. Peter, by divine authority, and that they were always considered, the one Shepherd, to whom all Christendom owed spiritual obedience. All Christendom, in former ages, with here and there an exception, held these opinions, and when the Christian religion, was introduced into England (which was effectually done about six hundred years after our Saviour), these opinions prevailed in England, as well as in all other Christian countries. The Pope was the Spiritual Head of the Church here, as well as in all the Christian world. He exercised His Spiritual authority, without any co-partnership with, or dependence upon the State. The Catholic Church then also claimed to hold its possessions in the most independent manner, it claimed a prescriptive right to all its possessions; in short, it claimed to hold these possessions as firmly, and as justly, as a man claims the rightful possession of his life, and his free will. Now, mark well, I am not talking, as I just now observed, about the soundness or unsoundness of these opinions, all that I am contending for at present, is, that it is an indisputable historical fact, that these opinionsthenprevailed in all Christian countries, and that they prevailed in England, for at least nine hundred years, for England was, at the very least, nine hundred years a Catholic nation. During the prevalence of these opinions in England, arose churches, parishes, cathedrals, and bishops' sees, monasteries, and many ofour universities, and colleges,thenCatholic, butnowProtestant.

Now, it is an historical fact recorded in the English Statute Book, that your Protestant ancestors took from the Pope, his spiritual power in England (for he never had any temporal power here, as these pages will shortly prove to you), and your Protestant ancestors took from the Catholics all the rich possessions which belonged, in their estimation, by the strongest titles, to the Catholic Church; and,mind, they did this after the Pope had exercised his spiritual power in England, for at least nine hundred years, and after the Catholics had held this church property for at least nine hundred years. But, oh, you will reply, our Protestant ancestors did this by Act of Parliament! I grant it, and surely you will not think it unjust in me, to judge you now by your own acknowledgments. Now, your Protestant ancestors did thisjustly, orunjustly. If they did itjustly, by act of Parliament, why cannot the same thing be done againjustly, by Act of Parliament? Divide the population of England into two parts, and if you number accurately, you will find, that the Catholics and the Dissenters form, in my humble opinion, the greater half. Should, therefore, the Catholics and Dissenters, obtain an Act of Parliament, to take this church property from you Protestants, what reasonable arguments could you advance against it? Turn the question up, or down, you could not possibly escape. If you allege that you have had possession for three hundred years, the Catholics and Dissenters will reply, the Catholics had held it for at least nine hundred years. If you argue it was given by Act of Parliament to your Protestant Church, the Catholics and Dissenters will reply, the Catholics held it, by the sanction of Government, for nine hundred years at least. In short, turn the argument as you please, you are in aregular fix. Oh, what a powerful, and unanswerable argument, have you forced me to put into the mouths of the Dissenters, againstyourchurch property, even if you got it justly! Allow me then to ask you, why all this tirade and fury about themere fancyof a thing being done to you, which you assert, your ancestors didjustlyto the Catholics. But if you took this propertyunjustlyfrom the Catholics, then it is as plain as the noon-day sun, that the Protestant Church, was first founded upon acts ofinjustice.

But some will perhaps imagine, we really wish to take the church property from the Protestants. In the Catholic times of England, the church property was divided into three parts, one was for the support of the clergy, another was for the repair of the churches, and the third was for the support of the poor, and this third was always administered to the poor with the most scrupulous exactness.[A]Hence, among all the barefaced calumnies, which have been uttered against the Catholics, even her bitterest enemies, could never say that she was unjust to the poor. But the ProtestantreformedChurch thought it would be the least trouble, to put thesethree partsintoone wholesum, and apply thewholeof that sum tothemselves, and then, leave the nation to supply the other two parts, byChurch rates, andPoor rates. Now, let the Protestant Church, only give back to the poor, that part which she unjustly took from them, and as for the rest, I can only say, God speed them with it, and long may they enjoy it.

Some of you gentlemen certainly appear, to beworthydescendents of your Protestant ancestors, fortheytook from us our church possessions,youare now enjoying these church possessions, but not content with our possessions, you wish to deprive us, even of ourvery name; for you are endeavouring, by every artifice, to deceive the people, and make them believe—youand notweare the real Catholics. You remind me of the words of the Poet,

"Who steals my purse, steals trash,'Twas mine, tis his, and has been slave to thousands;But he who filches from me my good name,Robs me of that which not enriches him, but makes me poor indeed."

You tell the people we Papists are Roman Catholics, butyouProtestants, are therealCatholics. Let us then, take up the Dictionary, andseewhat is the real meaning of the word,Catholic. According to the Dictionary, the word (Catholic) means universal. Of course, then, when the word (Catholic) is applied to a Church, it must mean the Universal Church. Let us then now seewhichis the Universal Christian Church, and then we shall be able to judge,who have the greatest right to the honourable name of Catholic. The testimony which I shall cite to prove, that we are the most numerous body of Christians, is that of Macaulay, a celebrated Protestant historian of the present day, and whose historical pages have been quoted against us, in many of the late public meetings, that have been held. Of course, if his testimony is worthy of belief whenagainst, it must also be so whenforus. Speaking of the great body of the Roman Catholic Church, Macaulay says, "The numbers of her communion are certainly notfewerthan 150,000,000, and it will be difficult to shew that all the other Christian sectsunitedamount to 120,000,000."[B](Ed. Rev., Oct. 1840, p. 228.) You here see, that Macaulay tells you, that the Roman Catholics amount toat least150,000,000, whilst all other Christian sectsunitedinto one body, scarcely form 120,000,000. As therefore the Roman Catholics form the greatest body of Christians, they must be the Universal Church. But the Dictionary tells us, that the word Catholic means Universal, therefore the Church of Rome is alone both Universal and Catholic, and consequently has the most just and only claim to the ancient and honourable name of Catholic.

I thought, gentlemen, before we proceeded to the main subjects in discussion, we had better settle the two above points. For after you had seen, that your Protestant ancestors hadreallyandactuallydone to the Catholics, what youmerely fancythe Pope and the Catholics are wishful at present to do to you, you would not think itunreasonablein us, to claim your attention, whilst we shewed you the unreasonable grounds of yourpresentfears and alarms, and that, after you had seen, thatwehave theonlyjust claim to thehonourable name of Catholic,[C]you would not be startled, at hearing so often in these pages, that ancient name applied to the Spiritual members of the Pope in these realms.

Let us now, gentlemen, proceed to the subject which has so lately alarmed you, and many other Englishmen. There is nothing, that shews a man to be so little, as to bluster, and talk about a subject, which he does not understand. Now, gentlemen, had you been asked at the meeting, what the Pope's Bull was? or, what the Catholic Hierarchy meant? what a poser it would have been to the limbs of the law, or even to the limbs of the Church, who attended your meeting; for they either understood these subjects, or they did not. If they really understood them, I am sure these pages will shew every sensible person, they had no reason to consider the conduct of the Pope, either "extraordinary or presumptuous," and if they did not understand them, I really think it a very "extraordinary and presumptuous movement" on their part, to talk against their fellow Christians on subjects, of which they were ignorant. Had I done so, would they not have been tempted to apply to me the words of the Poet?

"A shallow brain beyond a serious mask,An Oracle within an empty cask."

For your information therefore, I will state in short, what we Catholics mean by the Hierarchy, and the Pope's Bull. We all know, that goodtemporalgovernment, consists in having all the various rights of its members, properly understood, and justly protected. Thus the Queen, the Peers, the Commoners, the Magistrates, in short, the higher classes, the middle classes, and the lower classes,have all their rights properly defined, and their several interests justly attended to in a good temporal government. Now reason tells us, that this ought to be the case in a goodspiritualgovernment, and we Catholics maintain, that these objects are best attained by the means of a spiritual Hierarchy; and, at the same time we believe, that this spiritual Hierarchy, can be established only by the spiritual power of the Pope. When the Pope therefore thinks, that either the number of his spiritual members, or their spiritual necessities, require the establishment of the Hierarchy, in any part of the world, he issues his spiritual Bull, or decrees to that effect; and all the Archbishops, and Bishops, and Clergy, and laity, to whom this spiritual government is extended, receive it as a spiritual boon, and fully understand and believe, that it has regardonlytospiritualmatters. They all know, and believe, that it has nothing to do with anytemporalmatters whatever, in any shape or form, directly or indirectly, and if any person, after this explanation, was so impudent as to maintain, that the Hierarchy, or the Pope's Bull, had any reference to anytemporalmatters, either directly, or indirectly, affecting thetemporalpower of Her Majesty, over Her Catholic subjects, and thetemporalallegiance which they owe to Her Majesty, my loyalty for our gracious Queen, and my feelings of honour, would tempt me to address him in the words of the Poet,

"A lie, an odious lie,Upon my word, a lie, a wicked lie."

Gentlemen, after this short explanation of the Hierarchy, and of the Pope's Bull, I appeal to you as free-born Englishmen, whether there can be any English law, or statute against it? If there be, where is our vaunted boast, of "liberty of conscienceto all?" NowMARK, whether there be any law in the Statute Book against it, I do not pretend to have sufficient of the lawyer in me to determine, butthis, I will shew you, that the acts of the Pope, in establishing the spiritual Hierarchy in this kingdom, by his Bull, or spiritual decrees, are in keeping with the spirit, upon which the English law has acted during these late years.

By the spirit of the English law, we, Catholics, are allowed to maintain the Pope's supremacy in ecclesiastical, and religious matters; we are also allowed to be governed by Catholic Bishops, andof course, we are allowed to be governed by them, according to the proper and perfect form of Episcopal government, and there is no English law, to prevent these Catholic Bishops from taking the titles of any place, provided they are not titles of places, held by the Anglican Hierarchy. Now, these conditions have been observed, in the late establishment of the Catholic Hierarchy in these realms.

And that it is in keeping with the spirit of the English Law, Lord John Russell's own words, will convince you. In the House of Commons, August 6th, 1846, he said, "There is another offence of introducing a Bull of the Pope into the country, the question is, whether it is desirable to keep up that, or any other penalty, for such an offence. It does appear to me, that we cannot possibly attempt, to prevent the introduction of the Pope's Bulls into this country. There are certain Bulls of the Pope, which areabsolutely necessary, for the appointment of Bishops and Pastors, belonging to the Roman Catholic Church. It would be quiteimpossible, to prevent the introduction of such Bulls." (Hansard, vol. lxxxviii., p. 362.) Again, what said Lord Lyndhurst, speaking, in the House of Lords. "You tolerate the Catholic Prelates, and you know, that these Prelates cannot carry on, their Church Establishment, without holding communication with the Pope of Rome. If the laws allow the doctrine, and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church, it (the Roman Catholic Church) ought to be permitted, to be carried onperfectlyandproperly." (Hansard, vol. lxxxv., p. 1261.) So you see, that this Noble Lord proclaims, that to pretend totoleratethe Catholic Religion as we do; andyet,preventthe Catholics from holdingfreecommunication with the Pope, would be a mere nullity. The Catholics, says he, should be allowed to carry out the organization of their Churchperfectlyandproperly. Now,thiscannot be done without theHierarchy. Accordingly, all the penal laws in question were, then and there, torn from the statute book.

Also Joseph Hume, Esq., who may be justly styled, the father of the present House of Commons, and who, in that House, has been so long the promoter, the pillar, and the bulwark of civil and religious liberty, honourably, and openly, tells the world, that the Pope is warranted, in all he has done, by the proceedings of Sir Robert Peel'sgovernment. These are the words of the noble champion of civil and religious liberty—"Your view of the subject, will be adopted as soon as the thinking part of the public, get their eyes opened to the real merits of the alleged innovation. I say alleged, because Mr. C. C. Grenville has shewn, that the Pope is warranted in all he has done, by the proceedings of Sir Robert Peel's government, which were not at the time objected to by any person, except by Sir Robert Inglis, and his limited class."—(Joseph Hume, to the Editor of theHull Advertiser, Nov. 18th, 1850.)

There was a time, when the Protestant Bishops were excluded, for some time, from the House of Lords. In 1661, a motion was made to restore these Protestant Prelates to their seats, andmind, six and twenty Catholic Peers voted in favour of these Protestant Bishops. But such is the illiberality of the present time, that now, the Catholics find the most determined and eager opposition on the Bishop's bench. There are, however, exceptions; few, indeed, but on that account, more entitled to our gratitude. Long will the name of the late Bishop of Norwich, be cherished in the remembrance of every sincere Catholic. And happy am I to observe, another Protestant Prelate, willing to walk in his charitable footsteps. I mean the sensible, the pious, and the learned present Protestant Bishop of St. Davids. This illustrious Protestant Prelate, liberally and candidly, told the Archbishop of Canterbury, that in his humble opinion, "the provision cited from the Act of Elizabeth, has been virtually repealed by the Roman Catholic Relief Act * * * * And it was equally set 'at defiance,' by the appointment of Vicars Apostolic, who have so long exercised their functions without complaint or molestation. And it seems unreasonable, to charge the Pope with defying a law which, has been so long permitted to sleep." For these and other reasons, this most liberal minded Protestant Prelate, lately refused to sign the address of the other Protestant Bishops to the Queen. (Bishop of St. Davids to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Nov. 26th, 1850.) Well I cannot but gratefully, address this generous Prelate in the words of the poet—

——"I quit you now,But peradventure I may come again!Your bounteous kindness ne'er shall be forgot,While beats this warm heart within my bosom."

Certainly, you will say, these are high, and weighty authorities on the Catholic side, and clearly demonstrate, that there can be nothing wrong, on the Pope's sending hisBulls, intothiscountry. But, perhaps, thegreatestgrievance lies inthis, that theCatholicBishops, have assumedEnglishtitles, calling themselves Bishops of Hexham, of Beverley, &c.This, you hear it said, iscontrary to alllaw and decency. Now,mark, gentlemen, how soon I shall prove to you, that it is neither against law, nor decency. I observe that the law as it regards Catholics,forbids only onething, it forbidsCatholicBishops, to assume the titles ofProtestantsees. Thus it forbids us, to have an Archbishop ofCanterbury, or a Bishop ofLondon, ofDurham, &c. And why so? Because there areProtestantBishops oftheseplaces. But itmanifestlyallows us to take the titles ofthoseplaces, in which, there are no Protestant Bishops. For, if the law meant, to exclude us fromallplaces andalltitleswhatsoever, why did itnot say so? But, it saysno suchthing. It excludes usonlyfrom places where there areProtestantBishops. Well, this restrictive law, theonlylaw, that there is upon the question, has been mostscrupulouslyobserved ineveryinstance by the Catholics. Notoneof their Bishops, has assumed the title of anyProtestantsee. For who ever heard of aProtestantBishop of Hexham, of Beverley, or of Liverpool. How then can it be contrary to law? But I have yet, more to say on this subject. Lord John Russell is an advocate for the repeal ofeventhisrestrictivelaw, which he considers, an absurdity in a land of religious liberty. Nay, he considers itchildishto hold the Catholics under such restrictions. "I believe," said he (in July 19th, 1845, speaking in the House of Commons,) "I believe we may repeal, those insulting clauses, which prevent a Roman Catholic assuming a title held, by a Bishop of the Established Church. I can conceiveno goodgrounds, for the continuance of this restriction." (Hansard, vol. lxxxii., p. 290.) And again on February 5, 1846, "as to preventing persons assumingparticulartitles, nothing can be moreabsurdandpuerile, than to keep upsucha distinction." (Hansard, vol. lxxxiii., p. 502.) Now, gentlemen,thiswas spoken in theHouse of Commons, and by thefirstMinister of the Crown. You see,hevindicates for the Catholics,greaterliberty thantheyhaveeitherexercised, ordemanded; the liberty to have Catholic Bishops,sidebyside, with theProtestantBishopsthroughoutthe land. And yet, let me ask, did the then Member forWhitby, or indeedany, of the thirty and more members, who represent this great county of York, raise avoiceagainsttheseopinions and views? Did they cry out, thatthis, would bean innovationof theRoyalprerogative, and anencroachmentupon thespiritual, orcivilliberties of this realm. No,not they, notoneof them. Both theParliamentand thePublicheardallthis, either withapprobation, or withindifference. Judge, then, with what scorn the Catholics, hear themselves charged with insidiousness, and aggression. Insidiousness! Why, the leaders of the two great portions, in the state (for who stoodhigherwith theToriesthanLord Lyndhurst, and among theWhigs, thanLord John Russell), and yet, thesetwoleaders,actuallyencouraged, and invited the Catholicsto do, what theyhavedone. I repeat, they not only claimed for the Catholics theright to dothem, butencouragedthemto dothem. After the Catholics hadthusbeen encouraged, and backed by two of the first leaders,oneof the Whigs, andoneof theTories, after they had received the sanction of thepublicby its silence, or indifference on these points, the Catholics at last received the Hierarchy from the Pope's hands; when lo! Lord John Russell, immediately writes a flaming philippic on the subject, suddenly and unjustly rouses the indignation of the people; and the Protestant clergy immediately head the crusade against the Catholics, fordoing, what they had been encouraged, and invitedto doby two of the first ministers of the land, andfor doing, what the Englishpublichadalreadysanctioned, by its silence, or by its indifference. Really, gentlemen, was not this a "most extraordinary and presumptuous movement" on therightsof your Catholic fellow subjects? And,this, in thenineteenthcentury, when the march of intellect, and of civil, and religious liberty, have been making such rapid progress in the British Empire. But what have I to say to Lord John Russell's late letter? I answer, it is notmybusiness to reconcile Lord John Russell'sformerdeclarations, withhis present lateproceedings, they are asmarvellousandunaccountablein theeyesof thepublic, as they are inmine. He will shortly have togive an account of his stewardship, before the Parliament, in whosepresence, he made thedeclarations, which I havequoted. If hemeansto continue aChampionofcivilandreligiousliberty, he mustretracehis steps—but if he chooses toabandonthesacredcause,then, he will dwindle into amost insignificant, andcontemptiblestatesman: and will not bepermitted long to directthe government of afreeandliberalpeople.

Thus you see, gentlemen, that the words of Lord John Russell, and of Lord Lyndhurst, the opinion of Joseph Hume, Esq., and that of the learned Protestant Bishop of St. Davids, plainly shew, that the late acts of the Pope, have been in keeping, with the present spirit of the English law.

Hence in Ireland, the Catholic Hierarchy, has not only been recognised, but royally honoured; and the same form of Ecclesiastical Government, has been gradually extended, to the greater part of our Colonies. Australia was the first, which obtained this spiritual advantage, and this wasopenlydone, and waspubliclyknown, and yet, no remonstrance was ever made against it. The Catholic Prelates of Australia, in every document, are addressed by their titles, and are acknowledged, and salaried, as Archbishops and Bishops, respectively, and this not by one, but by successive English governments. Our North American possessions, were the next, to receive this spiritual government, Kingston, Byetown, Toronto, and Halifax, have been erected into dioceses by the Holy See, and the titles of their respective Bishops, are acknowledged by their local governments. The Holy See, has also formed a new ecclesiastical province in the West Indies, where several Vicars Apostolic, have been appointed with titles, and with all the spiritual powers, allowed by the Hierarchy. Now, gentlemen, if the Catholics ofIreland, and the Catholics of ourEnglishColonies, are thus allowed by Government, to enjoy the spiritual benefits of the Hierarchy, do you not think it unreasonable, that the Catholicsof England, should be refused the same spiritual blessings? Do not the Dissenters also, enjoy in England, the free exercise oftheirspiritual powers? Dr. Dillon, assumed the power, and ordained, what he called Presbyters, and no Englishman thought proper, to call him to account, for assuming those spiritual powers. The Moravians, and the Irvinitesor the Apostolicals, have their Bishops in England, and yet, they are not taxed with illegality. The Scotch Kirk, the Baptists, the Methodists, the Quakers, the Independents, the Presbyterians, and all other Dissenters, appoint their Ministers for themselves, and mark the limits of the separate districts, in which they are to exercise their spiritual authority, and yet, no one has the presumption, to question the legality of their exercising such authority in England. If therefore, all these various dissenting sects are allowed these spiritual privileges, why should the English free-born Catholics, be debarred from them?

Her present Majesty was advised to erect, and did erect, (5 Vic. cap. 6.) a Bishopric of Jerusalem, and assigned to it a diocese, in which the three great Patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, were formed into one See, which had episcopal jurisdiction over Syria, Chaldea, Egypt, and Abyssinia, and subject to further limitations, or alterations at the Royal Will. Now do any of these possessions belong to Her Majesty? No. But you may reply, there are in some, and may be in others, British Protestants, and therefore, the Queen thought proper, to extend Her spiritual blessings to them. Granted. Why therefore, has not the Pope, an equal right to extendhisspiritual blessings to the Catholics of England? It is plain then, that the Irish Catholics, and the Catholics of many of our Colonies, are allowed to exercisetheirspiritual rights unmolested, it is plain that all other dissenting sects, are allowed to enjoy in England the same spiritual privileges, and it is plain likewise, that the Queen assumes and exercises abroad, in the most independent manner, Her spiritual powers, tell me then, in the name of common sense, by what law, either human, or divine, you wish to deprive the English Catholics of the free exercise oftheirspiritual rights?

Oh, but you will object, "the Pope has assumed a right over us Protestants, he has parcelled out the land of England, he has named Archbishops and Bishops, and appointed them to rule overus, whom he impudently styles heretics." To this objection, gentlemen, I reply, Do the Catholics in England acknowledge the Queen's supremacy inspiritualmatters? Do the Dissenters of England acknowledge Her supremacy inspiritualmatters? No. Nowdivide the English population into two parts, and if you calculate accurately, you will find, that the greater half of the English population, consists of Catholics and Dissenters, who do not acknowledge the Queen'sspiritualsupremacy. But when the Queen issues Her Spiritual Instruments, or if you please, Bulls, does she not parcel out the land of England? Does she not name Archbishops, and Bishops, andapparentlyappoint them to rule overus CatholicsandDissenters, in short, doesShenot in those Spiritual Instruments, or Bulls,apparentlyassume overusCatholics and Dissenters, the very same spiritual power, which the Pope appears to assume, in His Bulls, over Protestant Englishmen? But do you ever hear of us Catholics, or Dissenters, styling this an extraordinary movement on the part of the Queen? No. Because we have the common sense to know, that such parcelling out of the land, and such extension of HerSpiritualAuthority to her Archbishops, and Bishops, regard only therealProtestants of the land, and that they have no more to do with us and the Dissenters, in aspiritualpoint of view, than they have with the inhabitants of Turkey.

If you would likewise ask some of the limbs of the law, who attended your meeting, they would inform you, that in Acts of Parliament, that in deeds, and in the drawing up almost all the various instruments of the law, there are certain forms, which tousappear most ridiculous, and outrageous, and if you questioned them on these points, and asked them, about all this strange rigmarole of words and of phraseology, they would tell you, it is only a certain necessary form in law, and that although it may appear strangeto otherpeople, still, it is perfectly understoodby all, who are versed in the laws of the land.[D]Why cannot these gentlemen, therefore, have thegood sense to extend this explanation to the Pope's Bull, and then they would find this parcelling out the land by the Pope's Bull, and this delegation of spiritual power, of Archbishops, and Bishops, as if extending to Protestants, was a mere phantom of their own imagination, and that in reality, it regardednone, but thespiritualsubjects of thePopein this kingdom, and that it did not regardeven them, only in aspiritual, andnotin atemporalpoint of view, either directly or indirectly.

I observe, in your public notice for your meeting, two Dissenting Ministers, put their names to the requisition. Now, although the Protestant Church mayhonourthese gentlemen, with the name ofReverend, does it consider them to be ministers? It certainly does not.[E]And I will prove it to you. If these Ministers were to go over to theProtestantChurch, it would ordain them, and by that act, tell them thatbefore, they were merephantomsof Ministers, and that they hadneverhad any spiritual power, or jurisdiction whatever. If therefore the orthodox Protestant gentleman, whose name stands so conspicuously between these two Dissenting Reverends, were to be asked, why he styled them Reverends, when his own Church, considers them as mere phantoms of Ministers, what would he say? Of course he would tell us, it was a mere matter of courtesy, for he was obliged to agree with his Church, that they were mere phantoms of Ministers. Now, gentlemen, just apply this to the Pope's Bull inyourregard. You read the Pope's Bull, and erroneously imagine that the spiritual powers, which it asserts, really regards (or is to regard) you Protestants. Whereas you ought to consider it, as amere phantomofspiritualpower inyourregard, and I moreover add, you ought to consider it, as a mere phantom in anytemporalpoint of view, even as it regardsthe Catholics. Do this, gentlemen, and then, you will perceive, that the idea of it extending toyouProtestants, either in anyspiritual, ortemporalpoint of view, whatever, is a mere chimera of your own imaginations.

But after all, I know many of you willstillurge, that the Pope maygraduallyextend hisspiritualpower over you, and then, by degrees extend histemporalpower over you, until at last, he has completely established over you his spiritual and temporal domination. Gentlemen, I will answer this argument shortly indeed, but Ihope satisfactorily, and I feel confident that, unless you are as the poet says,

Back to Index Next