Читать книгу Two Addresses - N. Rigby - Страница 6

Table of Contents

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?

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,