Part 3

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?

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 over _us_, whom he impudently styles heretics." To this objection, gentlemen, I reply, Do the Catholics in England acknowledge the Queen's supremacy in _spiritual_ matters? Do the Dissenters of England acknowledge Her supremacy in _spiritual_ matters? No. Now divide 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's _spiritual_ supremacy. 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, and _apparently_ appoint them to rule over _us Catholics_ and _Dissenters_, in short, does _She_ not in those Spiritual Instruments, or Bulls, _apparently_ assume over _us_ Catholics 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 Her _Spiritual_ Authority to her Archbishops, and Bishops, regard only the _real_ Protestants of the land, and that they have no more to do with us and the Dissenters, in a _spiritual_ point 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 to _us_ appear 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 strange _to other_ people, still, it is perfectly understood _by all_, who are versed in the laws of the land.[D] Why cannot these gentlemen, therefore, have the good 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 regarded _none_, but the _spiritual_ subjects of the _Pope_ in this kingdom, and that it did not regard _even them_, only in a _spiritual_, and _not_ in a _temporal_ point 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 may _honour_ these gentlemen, with the name of _Reverend_, 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 the _Protestant_ Church, it would ordain them, and by that act, tell them that _before_, they were mere _phantoms_ of Ministers, and that they had _never_ had 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 in _your_ regard. 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 a _mere phantom_ of _spiritual_ power in _your_ regard, and I moreover add, you ought to consider it, as a mere phantom in any _temporal_ point of view, even as it regards _the Catholics_. Do this, gentlemen, and then, you will perceive, that the idea of it extending to _you_ Protestants, either in any _spiritual_, or _temporal_ point of view, whatever, is a mere chimera of your own imaginations.

But after all, I know many of you will _still_ urge, that the Pope may _gradually_ extend his _spiritual_ power over you, and then, by degrees extend his _temporal_ power 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 I hope satisfactorily, and I feel confident that, unless you are as the poet says,

"Convince a man against his will, He'll hold the same opinion still,"

you will be convinced, from what I shall advance, that the above objection, is another chimera of your own imaginations.

True and genuine religion, must be founded on the free, and spontaneous consent of the heart. If therefore, you Protestants ever allow the Pope, to extend his spiritual power over you, _without_ having _first_ sincerely, and deliberately considered the _real_ grounds of the Catholic Faith, and of the Pope's title to spiritual supremacy, and without your having _first_ given your _free_, and _spontaneous_ consent to them, I hope you will forgive me, if I politely tell you, I should consider you as a set of religious donkeys, and that you ought not to be allowed to _bray_ in this free country.

But you will object, it will be _you_ Catholics headed by the Pope, that will make us renounce the _Protestant_, and embrace the _Catholic_ faith. To this objection I answer. First, the Catholics of England have promised to maintain, support, and defend, to the utmost of their power, the succession to the crown. Now, this succession, by an act entitled, "an act for the further limitation of the crown", is, and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, Electress, Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and to the heirs of her Body, _being Protestants_. Such are the very terms of the oath, which we Catholics have taken; as long therefore, as the Established Church is secure of having a Protestant Sovereign, it cannot be in any danger of subversion.

Secondly. The Irish Catholics have gone still further, and to silence even the predictions of their enemies, have disclaimed, disavowed, and solemnly abjured every intention, to subvert the present Church Establishment, for the purpose of substituting a Catholic Establishment in its stead, and have solemnly sworn, that they will not exercise any privilege, to which they are, or may be entitled, to disturb, or weaken the Protestant religion in that kingdom.

Thirdly. But I will suppose for a moment, that the Catholics were at last to determine to perjure themselves, and to violate the promises, to which they are so solemnly pledged, let us see the obstacles, they would have to surmount. First, there would be the Sovereign, the head of the Protestant Church, with the immense patronage of the Crown at her (or his) disposal; secondly, there would be all the spiritual Peers, and with the exception of a few Catholics, all the temporal Peers; thirdly, there would be the great majority in the House of Commons, in proportion to at least, ten Protestants to one Catholic. Now, by what spirit of magic, are a _few_ Catholic Peers, to become the _majority_ of the House of Lords, or is _one_ Catholic Commoner, to outvote _ten_ Protestants. By what miracle, is the Queen (or King) to abandon the defence of _that_ Church, of which she (or he) is by conviction a member, and by law, supreme head? By what manoeuvres, are the Catholics so to blind the confidence of the Sovereign, as to worm themselves into the possession of all places, of power, and trust? Before the Catholics can aid the Pope to extend his temporal or spiritual power over you Protestants, they will have to surmount all the above obstacles. But by what human power can they ever surmount the above obstacles? Really, gentlemen, is it not childish to talk either about Catholics forcing you to become Catholics, or their wishing to aid the Pope, to extend his spiritual or temporal domination over you Protestants, with all the above obstacles staring you in the face.

But, gentlemen, if on the other hand, you should think proper to seriously, and conscientiously, examine the _real_ grounds of the Catholic religion, and if you should think proper, to examine _seriously_, and _conscientiously_, whether the Pope, is the _real_ successor of Saint Peter, and of course in that case, the _real_ spiritual head of Christ's Church, if you should ask yourselves the reason, why the Catholic Faith, has been the belief of the most extensive, and enlightened nations of Europe, and of the most illustrious characters, that ever did honour to the name of man,[F] if upon careful investigation, you should find that the Catholic Faith, was the faith of those, who built our Cathedrals, who erected our Universities, who laid the foundation of our envied Constitution, and who secured the great charter of our rights at Runnymede, in short, if you should find that the members of this creed, have in every age, stood forth the champions of liberty, and at the same time remained faithful worshippers of God, if after the most careful, and impartial investigation, you should find all these things to be real, and undeniable facts, _then_ I would address you in the words, with which St. Paul addressed King Agrippa, "I would to God, that both in little, and in much, not only thou, but also, all that hear me this day, should become such as I also am, except these bonds." (Acts, ch. xxvi., v. 28.) Yes, gentlemen, I repeat it, if after the most serious, and minute investigation, you should find the above things _real_, and _undeniable_ facts, _then_, gentlemen, the sincere wish of my heart would be, that you might all become Catholics, and the _spiritual_ children of the head of our Church, but, _mind_, without our bonds, that is, without having to suffer, what our Catholic ancestors had to suffer for their faith,[G] a faith, which they conscientiously held as their best inheritance, and which, they held more dear, than life itself.

I would also address you in the words, in which Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, addressed the Jewish Council respecting the Apostles, who were unjustly cast into prison. "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 nought; but if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps, even you be found to fight against God." (Acts, ch. 5, v. 38, 39.) Gentlemen, if the Catholic Faith, be an invention of _human_ counsel, and a work of _human_ policy, rest assured, it will of _itself_ crumble into nought, but if it be _of God_, and if it be the _will of God_, that England should return to her ancient faith, you cannot overthrow it, and you cannot fight against God, for as the wise man says, "there is no wisdom, there is no prudence, there is no counsel against the Lord." (Prov. ch. xxi., v. 30.)

Gentlemen, I think you must acknowledge, that I have answered, shortly indeed, but I hope satisfactorily, your objection, as to the Pope's gradually extending his _spiritual_, and temporal domination over you Protestants. Gentlemen, I am not aware, that any one at your meeting, was so uncourteous as to throw in the face of Catholics, either the Gunpowder, or Oates' plots. Still, you are aware, that it has been done at _many_ of the late meetings, and in many places of England, to the injustice of Catholics. Allow me, to solicit your attention, whilst I say a few words respecting each of these plots, and whilst I show you, it is most unjust to throw those diabolical plots in the face of Catholics, either of the present, or of former ages.

The Guy Fawkes plot, or as it is usually termed, the Gunpowder Plot, is often sneeringly, and insultingly thrown in the face of Catholics. Now let it be remembered, that the original conspirators were only eight in number, that they were also of the most abandoned character, and that some of them, years before, had abjured the Catholic faith, and let it also be remembered, that this plot was disclosed even by a Catholic, Lord Monteagle, and that the Pope in a letter expressed his detestation of it, and ordered the Catholic clergy, to prevent by all means in their power, all similar conspiracies, and to exhort the people to patience and obedience. Now I ask, is it reasonable, that the wicked deeds of these few and abandoned conspirators, should be thrown in the face of the whole body of Catholics; as well might you upbraid our Saviour with the crimes of Judas. The plot was unknown to all good Catholics, they had nothing whatever to do with it, and it, and all other plotting whatever, were condemned and forbidden in the most severe manner, by the Clergy and the Pope. What could Catholics do more? Why, therefore, are the Catholics of the present times to be condemned for a plot with which they had no more to do, than the Protestants of the present day? But I will suppose for a moment, this diabolical plot was concocted by real Catholics. Can it be unreasonably urged, against the Catholics of the present day? If you answer, yes, I will then prove that the Ministers who attended your meeting, were cursers, murderers, and deserters of Christ. For if you ask each of them, if he is a minister of Christ, he will answer, certainly. Well, then, one of the Apostles betrayed our Saviour, another by oaths and curses, denied him, and all deserted him on the night of his passion. Now, if the above line of argumentation, against Catholics be valid, then I may conclude, that the Ministers who attended your meeting, were murderers, cursers, deniers, and deserters of Christ. Really, if I were to adopt this mode of argumentation against them, you would think, and justly, the _upper stories_ of my intellect were of a very strange structure. How can persons, therefore, have the barefacedness to apply such reasoning to the Catholics of the present day, respecting the Gunpowder Plot.

Whoever will read the history of Titus Oates's Plot, will find that it was concocted against the Catholics, by some of the brightest characters for rascality, and perjury, and infamy, and cruelty, that the world ever beheld. Oates' plot consisted in this, that he accused the Catholics, and Jesuits in particular, of a plot, to murder King Charles the II., (1678), to transfer the sovereignty of the realm to the Pope, and to extirpate the Protestant religion from the land. But was not Titus Oates himself a _Jesuit_, or at least, a _Catholic_? You shall hear who Titus Oates was, from the _pen_ of _Protestant_ Historians.

"Oates, the former of this dreadful plot, was himself the most infamous of mankind. He was the son of an Anabaptist preacher, took orders in the Church of England, became chaplain on board the fleet, and was dismissed for some unnatural practices, not fit to be named." (See Hume's History.) You shall hear too, who his accomplices were; "Bedloe, a man, if _possible_, more infamous than Oates himself;" (See Hume's History.) And these were soon backed by others. "A wretch, named Carstairs led the way, and soon, from all the brothels, gambling houses, and spunging houses of London, _false witnesses_ poured in, to swear away the lives of Roman Catholics." (See Macaulay's History of England.) And yet, on the barefaced testimony, of these abandoned, and infamous wretches, the Catholic Noblemen and Gentlemen, were, with the exception of the Duke of York, expelled from their seats in Parliament. Some of them, (although as innocent of the crimes of which they were accused, as the new-born babe), were tried, and executed on the false, and contradictory evidence, of these base wretches. All of them, died protesting their innocence; and many of them, embraced the opportunity to declare their abhorrence, of the doctrines so commonly, but so unjustly, attributed to Catholics. Their speeches at the place of execution, are still on record. (See "A Remonstrance of Piety and Innocence," 1683. Dodd's History, vol. iii., p. 356.) And if ever a man, may be believed to speak with sincerity, it is when, in the full possession of his senses, he stands on the brink of eternity, and expects the next moment, to be presented before an Omniscient Judge. One of them, Lord Stafford, referred the Peers, at his trial, for an account of his religious creed, to a small tract, entitled "Catholic Principles." This small tract has often been printed, and was then, and is still, considered to convey an accurate notion of the Catholic faith. Well may Hume say, that "this Popish plot, is an incident, which, for the credit of the nation, it were better to bury in eternal oblivion, but which it is necessary to perpetuate, both for the truth of history, and to warn, if possible, their posterity, and all mankind, never again to fall into so _shameful_, so _barbarous_ a _delusion_." (See Hume's History.) And yet Oates was rewarded with appointments in the Royal Palace, and had L1200 a year assigned him, as the wages of his iniquity, and Bedloe L500: and Oates was called "the Saviour of the nation."

But how did these wretches come off at last? You shall hear again, from Mr. Macaulay. About seven years later, when the madness, and the delusion of the people, had passed away, it was resolved, to bring these wretches, who had spilled so much blood, to their _own_ trial. "Some of the wretches," (says Macaulay) "were already beyond the reach of justice. Bedloe had died in his wickedness, without one sign of remorse or shame. Dugdale had followed him to the grave, driven mad by the furies of an evil conscience, and with loud shrieks, imploring those, who stood around his bed, to take away Lord Stafford. (A Catholic Lord, whose life he had sworn away, seven years ago.) Carstairs, too, was gone. His end, was all horror, and despair, and with his last breath, he told his attendants to throw him into a ditch, like a dog, for that he was not fit, to sleep in Christian burial ground." Mr. Macaulay thus describes Oates' appearance, at _his_ trial. "A few years earlier, his short neck, his legs uneven, as those of a badger, his forehead low, as that of a baboon, his purple cheeks, and monstrous length of chin, had been familiar to all, who frequented the courts of law. He had been the idol of the nation--men had uncovered their heads to him, and called him, the deliverer of his country. They _now shuddered_ at the sight of the _hideous_ features, on which _villany_ seemed to be written, by the _hand of God_." (See Macaulay's History of England.) Horrible as were the sufferings of Oates, they did not equal his crimes. Such, gentlemen, is a short, but true account of Titus Oates's Plot, and of his abandoned, and perjured accomplices. And yet, some have the audacity to throw this infamous plot, in the face of the Catholics, even at the present day. To such I would say, "you are either ignorant of history, or not; if you are ignorant of history, it is the part of a simpleton, to talk on subjects which he does not understand." But if you are acquainted with history, I beg to address you in the words of the poet--

"A moral, sensible, and well bred man, Will not offend me, and no other can."