Part 2

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.