Two Addresses.

by Nicholas Rigby.

DEDICATION.

_The following pages are humbly, and gratefully Dedicated, to the Catholic n.o.blemen and Gentlemen of Yorkshire, by the Catholic Priest at Ugthorp._

n.o.bLEMEN 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 ill.u.s.trious 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 ill.u.s.trious 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 n.o.ble, 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.

n.o.blemen, 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, n.o.blemen 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 pa.s.sed away, I am sure, all sensible, and unbia.s.sed 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 sh.e.l.ls, 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 G.o.d or not: if they are not from G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, 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 G.o.d, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against G.o.d.'" (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 unbia.s.sed 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 t.i.tlepage 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 a.s.sure 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._

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 _Const.i.tution_. 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 a.s.sume the lead in this anti-catholic crusade. We are doomed to hear daily, our religion traduced, our spiritual but ill.u.s.trious 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 pa.s.s 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 t.i.tles, 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 a.s.sert, 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, G.o.d 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.