Two Addresses. N. Rigby

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