Produced by Brownfox and the Online Distributed Proofreading
Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from
images generously made available by The Internet Archive)
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.
BY
The Catholic Priest of Ugthorp.
"I would you had been there to see
How 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.
DEDICATION.
_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 yielded
_to none_, in _your loyal allegiance_ to your _temporal_ sovereign, 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 the _past_, he
will learn to hope well of the _future_. 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 their ground from
position to position, and after pertinaciously defending each, have ended
by abandoning _it_, and retreating to _another_. 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 bound _by oath_, though _oaths_, had been
wisely devised as the _best 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 the _present_ day, because
Protestants will not understand the regulations of feudal Princes, and
feudal Prelates _six centuries ago_. Afterwards, we were reproached with
the deposing powers, and temporal pretensions of the Pope; these were set
at rest at _that time_ (and we had hoped _for 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 deemed _unanswerable_,
but _each_ has _yielded to discussion_. _Past_ advantages, therefore,
Noblemen and Gentlemen, are an earnest to the Catholic of _future_
success; 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 an
_ignus fatuus_ of 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._
TO THE READER.
Reader, that you may the better understand the two following addresses,
you ought _first_, 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 had undertaken to defend.
You will, of course, expect a little of the comic, as coming from my pen,
well, as the poet says,
Ridentum dicere verum
Quid 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, and _perhaps_, you may not be mistaken. If you
remember, an _illuminated_ Cambridge 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 even _these_ very 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 the
_illuminated_ Cambridge divine, unfortunately fallen into the very pit,
which they have been so very charitably, and officiously digging for the
_poor_ Pope.
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), teaches CHARITY TO ALL
MEN! why, therefore, should you wish us to exclude the _Catholics_ from a
share of that _universal_ Charity?" 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 about _them_. 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 emphatically say, '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 extensive
_spiritual_ and _temporal_ moor, 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 hands _as
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 see
How 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 little _innocent_ merriment,
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._
COPY OF A NOTICE
_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.
James Davidson, Minister,
John Fox, Minister,
Joseph Hughes, Minister,
Francis Simpson,
John Cass Potter, Independent
Minister,
Henry Belcher,
William John Bullivant, Wesleyan
Minister,
Thomas William Belcher,
Thomas Richardson,
John Blanchard,
Appleton Stephenson,
James Walker,
John Chapman,
G. H. Holtby,
Gideon Smales,
William Jameson,
Henry Barrick,
Henry Simpson,
John Brewster,
John Rickinson,
George Clarkson,
James Wilkinson, }
Charles Fisher, }Churchwardens
William Frankland,}
Thomas Broderick Simpson,
Henry Simpson,
William Cavalier,
John Corner, jun.
James Brown,
Charles Prudom,
John Brown Nicholson,
R. M. Woodwark,
William Taylor,
Francis Kildale Robinson,
Robert Kirby,
Robert Swales,
John Green,
Charles Bartindale,
William Clarkson,
John Gaskell,
William Frankland, jun.
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.
THE ADDRESS.
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 not _we Catholics_ also an _equal_ right,
to express _our_ sentiments 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 the
_Church_, has been coupled that of danger to the _Constitution_. 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 Chancellor vaunting his readiness to trample, on the mitres of our
bishops. Gentlemen, I think it cannot be expected that we Catholics,
should remain _silent_, 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 had _heard_ of it _before_, I should not have
attended for the following reasons. Meetings that are convened by one
party, are generally _packed_ meetings, 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, and _then_,
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 the _accused_.
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 founded _on equity_; they must be such as _reason_
will justify, or _necessity_ excuse. You are not to invade the rights or
privileges of others, on the _bare suspicion_ of _future_ danger or the
_mere_ possibility 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 your _Protestant_ ancestors,
_really_ did to our _Catholic_ ancestors, what you now merely _fancy_,
without any grounds, that the _Catholics_ of the present day, are wishful
to do _to you_. Now, upon this point, I shall thus argue: Your Protestant
ancestors did these things either _justly_, or _unjustly_ to our Catholic
ancestors. If your Protestant ancestors did these things _justly_, why
should you Protestants make such a row, at the _mere shadow_ of these
things being done again? But if your Protestant ancestors, did these
things _unjustly_, 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, as _historical_ facts, are _undeniable_,
and whoever has the temerity to deny them as _historical_ facts, 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 an _indisputable historical_ fact, 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 opinions
_then_ prevailed 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 of our universities, and colleges,
_then_ Catholic, but _now_ Protestant.
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 this _justly_, or
_unjustly_. If they did it _justly_, by act of Parliament, why cannot the
same thing be done again _justly_, 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 a
_regular fix_. Oh, what a powerful, and unanswerable argument, have you
forced me to put into the mouths of the Dissenters, against _your_ church
property, even if you got it justly! Allow me then to ask you, why all
this tirade and fury about the _mere fancy_ of a thing being done to you,
which you assert, your ancestors did _justly_ to the Catholics. But if
you took this property _unjustly_ from the Catholics, then it is as plain
as the noon-day sun, that the Protestant Church, was first founded upon
acts of _injustice_.
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 Protestant _reformed_ Church thought it would be the least
trouble, to put these _three parts_ into _one whole_ sum, and apply the
_whole_ of that sum to _themselves_, and then, leave the nation to supply
the other two parts, by _Church rates_, and _Poor 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 be _worthy_ descendents of
your Protestant ancestors, for _they_ took from us our church
possessions, _you_ are now enjoying these church possessions, but not
content with our possessions, you wish to deprive us, even of our _very
name_; for you are endeavouring, by every artifice, to deceive the
people, and make them believe--_you_ and not _we_ are 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, but _you_
Protestants, are the _real_ Catholics. Let us then, take up the
Dictionary, and _see_ what 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 see _which_ is 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 when _against_, it must also be so when _for_ us.
Speaking of the great body of the Roman Catholic Church, Macaulay says,
"The numbers of her communion are certainly not _fewer_ than 150,000,000,
and it will be difficult to shew that all the other Christian sects
_united_ amount to 120,000,000."[B] (Ed. Rev., Oct. 1840, p. 228.) You
here see, that Macaulay tells you, that the Roman Catholics amount to _at
least_ 150,000,000, whilst all other Christian sects _united_ into 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 had _really_ and _actually_ done to
the Catholics, what you _merely fancy_ the Pope and the Catholics are
wishful at present to do to you, you would not think it _unreasonable_ in
us, to claim your attention, whilst we shewed you the unreasonable
grounds of your _present_ fears and alarms, and that, after you had seen,
that _we_ have the _only_ just claim to the honourable 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 good
_temporal_ government, 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 good _spiritual_ government, 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 regard _only_ to
_spiritual_ matters. They all know, and believe, that it has nothing to
do with any _temporal_ matters 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 any _temporal_ matters, either directly, or indirectly, affecting the
_temporal_ power of Her Majesty, over Her Catholic subjects, and the
_temporal_ allegiance 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 conscience _to all_?" Now MARK, 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, but _this_, 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, and of 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 are _absolutely necessary_, for the appointment of Bishops and
Pastors, belonging to the Roman Catholic Church. It would be quite
_impossible_, 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 on _perfectly_ and
_properly_." (Hansard, vol. lxxxv., p. 1261.) So you see, that this Noble
Lord proclaims, that to pretend to _tolerate_ the Catholic Religion as we
do; and _yet_, _prevent_ the Catholics from holding _free_ communication
with the Pope, would be a mere nullity. The Catholics, says he, should be
allowed to carry out the organization of their Church _perfectly_ and
_properly_. Now, _this_ cannot be done without the _Hierarchy_.
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's government.
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 the _Hull 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, and _mind_, 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 his _Bulls_, into _this_ country. But, perhaps, the
_greatest_ grievance lies in _this_, that the _Catholic_ Bishops, have
assumed _English_ titles, calling themselves Bishops of Hexham, of
Beverley, &c. _This_, you hear it said, is _contrary to all_ law 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 one_ thing, it forbids _Catholic_ Bishops, to
assume the titles of _Protestant_ sees. Thus it forbids us, to have an
Archbishop of _Canterbury_, or a Bishop of _London_, of _Durham_, &c. And
why so? Because there are _Protestant_ Bishops of _these_ places. But it
_manifestly_ allows us to take the titles of _those_ places, in which,
there are no Protestant Bishops. For, if the law meant, to exclude us
from _all_ places and _all_ titles _whatsoever_, why did it _not say so_?
But, it says _no such_ thing. It excludes us _only_ from places where
there are _Protestant_ Bishops. Well, this restrictive law, the _only_
law, that there is upon the question, has been most _scrupulously_
observed in _every_ instance by the Catholics. Not _one_ of their
Bishops, has assumed the title of any _Protestant_ see. For who ever
heard of a _Protestant_ Bishop 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 of _even_ this
_restrictive_ law, which he considers, an absurdity in a land of
religious liberty. Nay, he considers it _childish_ to 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 conceive _no good_ grounds,
for the continuance of this restriction." (Hansard, vol. lxxxii., p.
290.) And again on February 5, 1846, "as to preventing persons assuming
_particular_ titles, nothing can be more _absurd_ and _puerile_, than to
keep up _such_ a distinction." (Hansard, vol. lxxxiii., p. 502.) Now,
gentlemen, _this_ was spoken in the _House of Commons_, and by the
_first_ Minister of the Crown. You see, _he_ vindicates for the
Catholics, _greater_ liberty than _they_ have either _exercised_, or
_demanded_; the liberty to have Catholic Bishops, _side_ by _side_, with
the _Protestant_ Bishops _throughout_ the land. And yet, let me ask, did
the then Member for _Whitby_, or indeed _any_, of the thirty and more
members, who represent this great county of York, raise a _voice_ against
_these_ opinions and views? Did they cry out, that _this_, would be _an
innovation_ of the _Royal_ prerogative, and an _encroachment_ upon the
_spiritual_, or _civil_ liberties of this realm. No, _not they_, not
_one_ of them. Both the _Parliament_ and the _Public_ heard _all_ this,
either with _approbation_, or with _indifference_. 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 stood _higher_ with the _Tories_ than _Lord
Lyndhurst_, and among the _Whigs_, than _Lord John Russell_), and yet,
these _two_ leaders, _actually_ encouraged, and invited the Catholics _to
do_, what they _have_ done. I repeat, they not only claimed for the
Catholics the _right to do_ them, but _encouraged_ them _to do_ them.
After the Catholics had _thus_ been encouraged, and backed by two of the
first leaders, _one_ of the Whigs, and _one_ of the _Tories_, after they
had received the sanction of the _public_ by 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, for _doing_, what they had been encouraged, and
invited _to do_ by two of the first ministers of the land, and _for
doing_, what the English _public_ had _already_ sanctioned, by its
silence, or by its indifference. Really, gentlemen, was not this a "most
extraordinary and presumptuous movement" on the _rights_ of your Catholic
fellow subjects? And, _this_, in the _nineteenth_ century, 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 not _my_ business to reconcile
Lord John Russell's _former_ declarations, with _his present late_
proceedings, they are as _marvellous_ and _unaccountable_ in the _eyes_
of the _public_, as they are in _mine_. He will shortly have to give an
account of his stewardship, before the Parliament, in whose _presence_,
he made the _declarations_, which I have _quoted_. If he _means_ to
continue a _Champion_ of _civil_ and _religious_ liberty, he must
_retrace_ his steps--but if he chooses to _abandon_ the _sacred_ cause,
_then_, he will dwindle into a _most insignificant_, and _contemptible_
statesman: and will not be _permitted long to direct_ the government of a
_free_ and _liberal_ people.
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 was
_openly_ done, and was _publicly_ known, 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 of _Ireland_, and the
Catholics of our _English_ Colonies, are thus allowed by Government, to
enjoy the spiritual benefits of the Hierarchy, do you not think it
unreasonable, that the Catholics _of England_, should be refused the same
spiritual blessings? Do not the Dissenters also, enjoy in England, the
free exercise of _their_ spiritual 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 Irvinites or 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 extend _his_ spiritual 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 exercise _their_
spiritual 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 of _their_ spiritual rights?