IN 1798.

* * * * *

SOME ACCOUNT, &c. &c.

Eight and twenty years ago, when I became a catholic, I was told that I

owed it, both to those whom I had joined, and to those whom I had

quitted, to publish something in defence of the step I had taken. I

answered, that the former had better apologists, and the latter better

instructors than myself. My advisers were protestants, who, having thus

defied any arguments I might by possibility adduce against them, were

contented with my refusal of the challenge.

Even at this day I consider as utterly superfluous a serious refutation

of protestantism, or a laboured vindication of the catholic faith, and,

by consequence, of my conversion to it. Some account of this change in

my opinions is prefixed to the book now offered to the public, in the

hope of removing the prejudices with which the book may be read, or,

what would be still worse, through which it may not be read at all. It

is not my intention to enter into controversy, but merely to state how

the thing happened that I _turned papist_ at the moment when the pope

was a prisoner at Valence, when Rome was in possession of the French

armies, and all around me cried out "Babylon is fallen."

I must first ask pardon of the Anglican clergy, for having engaged in

the service of their church so lightly and unadvisedly. If I am blamed

only by those who have taken, on this matter, better pains than myself

to be well informed, I shall not be overwhelmed by the number of my

censurers; for the solidity of the ground of the Reformation is usually

taken for granted: _popery_ is exploded.

Indeed, I have found the clergy of the establishment to be the most

tolerant and moderate of my opponents. Some of them expressed their

regret, some smiled, but most of them respected my motives, and none

were angry. The Bishop, now of Winchester, approved of my acting

according to the dictates of my conscience; said that my conduct was

evidently disinterested; expressing only his surprise, that a man of

sense, as he was pleased to say he understood me to be, should be so

convinced. Such was the purport of his lordship's observations, which

was, as probably it was intended, repeated to me. His brother, Precentor

of Lincoln, continued still to be my very good friend and neighbour.

A few years later, the ex-governor of ---- said, in speaking of me,--"I

knew his father well; a very worthy man: but this young man, they tell

me, has taken an odd turn; but I will return his visit when I get out

again." He did not, however, get out again: he had been ill for some

days; feeling himself dying, he called for a glass of wine and water,

drank it off, returned the glass to his servant, shook the man by the

hand, and saying kindly, "Good b'ye, John!" threw himself back in his

bed and expired, at the age of more than fourscore years. Here was no

_odd turn_; the coolness with which his excellency met the grim king,

was generally admired. But I am making a long Preface to a short Work; I

must begin with my infancy, for reasons which the story of that infancy

will explain.

I was born on the 21st October, 1768. My father was prebendary of the

cathedral church of Lincoln, as his father had been before him. My

grandfather's prebend was a very good, or, as they say, a very fat one;

my father's prebend was but a lean one, but he had sense enough to be a

doctor in divinity, whereas my grandfather had sense enough not to be a

doctor in divinity. They both rest behind the high altar of the

cathedral with their wives.

So accustomed are we to a married clergy, that we are not at all

surprised to see them, during life, with their wives and children; and

in death it is perfectly decent that the husband and wife should repose

together. All this is natural and in order, to those who are used to it.

But the feeling of catholics on this subject is very different. The

story of the poor seminarist of Douay, in the 17th century, is an

instance: he went to England on a visit to his friends; on his return to

the seminary, he was asked "Quid vidisti?" He mentioned what had most

excited his astonishment: "Vidi episcopos, et episcopas, et

episcopatulos." A French emigrant priest entered my house one day,

bursting with laughter: "Why do you laugh, M. l'Abbe?" said I.--"I have

just met the Rev. Mr. ---- with the first volume of his theological

works in his arms."--"What is there to laugh at in that?"--"He was

carrying the eldest of his children,"--"La coutume fait tout," said I:

"you see the Rev. Mr. ---- is not ashamed." Marriage is allowed to the

priests, though not to the bishops of the Greek church. I think the

catholic discipline is the best. The merriment of M. l'Abbe was excited,

I am inclined to believe, not so much by a sense of the incongruous and

ridiculous in the very natural scene he had just before witnessed, as by

his own joke--"le premier tome de ses oeuvres theologiques."

My father's house, in which I was born, was so near the cathedral, that

my grandmother, good woman! when confined to her chamber by illness, was

wont, with her Anglican translation of the Bible, and Book of Common

Prayer on the table, before her, to go through the service along with

the choir, by the help of the chant and of the organ, which she heard

very plainly. From my earliest years, my mother took me regularly every

Sunday to the cathedral service, in which there is some degree of pomp

and solemnity. The table at the east end of the church is covered with a

cloth of red velvet: on it are placed two large candlesticks, the

candles in which are lighted at _even-song_ from Martinmas to Candlemas,

and the choir is illumined by a sufficient number of wax tapers. The

litanies are not said by the minister in his desk, but chanted in the

middle of the choir, from what I have since learned to call a

_prie-Dieu_. The prebendary in residence walks from his seat, preceded

by beadles, and followed by a vicar or minor canon, and proceeds to the

altar; the choir, during this sort of processional march, chanting the

_Sanctus_. This being finished, and the prebendary arrived at the altar,

he reads the first part of the Communion Service, including the Ten

Commandments, with the humble responses of the choir; he then intones

the Nicene Creed, during the music of which he returns to his seat with

the same state as before. Here are _disjectoe membra ecclesioe_: no

wonder that the puritans of Charles the First's time called for a

"godly, thorough reformation." At _even-song_, instead of the Antiphon

to the Blessed Virgin, which is, of course, rejected, though the

Magnificat is retained, with its astonishingly-fulfilled prophecy of the

carpenter's wife, "all generations shall call me blessed;" at vespers

was sung an anthem, generally of the composition of Purcell, Aldrich,

Arne, or of some of the composers of the best school of English music.

Removed afterwards to St. Mary Magdalen College, Oxford, I found, in a

smaller space, the same ceremonial; nay, the president even bowed to the

altar on leaving the chapel, without any dread lest the picture of

Christ bearing the Cross, by Ludovico Caracci, should convict him of

idolatry. Here we all turned towards the altar during the recital of the

Creed; at Lincoln this point of etiquette was rather disputed among the

congregation: my mother always insisted on my complying with it; I

learned to have a great respect for the altar. Whence this tendency of

my mother's religious opinions or feelings was derived, is now to be

told.

She was daughter of Kenelm Digby, Esq. of North Luffenham, in the county

of Rutland. A younger brother of this ancient family, in the reign of

Edward IV. became the progenitor of this branch, which, illustrated by

the names and the fame of Sir Everard and Sir Kenelm Digby, adhered to

the religion of our forefathers down to the time of my maternal

grandfather: he was the first protestant of his family: he had married a

protestant: he died while my mother was very young, but she was able to

remember his leading her one day to the private burial vault, which had

been, at the Reformation, consecrated for the use of the family in a

retired part of the garden, and in which he was soon after deposited

himself. His abjuration does not seem to have carried with it that of

all his relations, at least not immediately or notoriously; for, on the

approach of Prince Charles Edward, in 1745, when my mother was about

twelve years old, the horses and arms of the family were provisionally

taken from them, as being suspected papists: a precaution not

unreasonable if their wishes were considered; for the children, as my

mother told me, ran about the house, singing Jacobite songs, among which

the following may vie, in poetical merit, though not in political

effect, with the memorable Lilleburlero:

As I was a walking through James's Park,

I met an old man in a turnip cart;

I took up a turnip, and knocked him down,

And bid him surrender King James's crown.

It is eighty years since: twenty years since the publication of Waverly.

The cultivation of turnips, by which our agriculture has been so much

improved, was introduced from Hanover.

I am much inclined to doubt the fact of my grandfather's having

renounced the _errors of popery_: his interment in the sepulchre of his

ancestors, the suspicion attached to his family, as above stated, the

advantage from the supposition of the fact to those who wished to

educate his children in protestantism,--these are my reasons for

doubting its truth. However this be, many catholic families fell away

from their religion after the battle of Culloden: at this time the

whole Digby family was decidedly protestant, excepting three respectable

virgins, aunts of my grandfather; and my mother, under the care of an

uncle, became, at the age of twenty-two, the meet and willing bride of a

young Anglican divine.

Nevertheless, some "rags of popery" hung about her; she was very devout,

and made long prayers: she had not her breviary indeed, but the psalms

and chapters of the day served equally well: she doubted whether the

gunpowder treason was a popish or a ministerial plot: the R. R. Dr.

Milner had not yet written the dissertation, in his "Letters to a

Prebendary," which proves that it was the latter. For want of this

well-argued and convincing statement, I was called on to read, on the

5th of November, while squibs and crackers sounded in my ears, and Guy

Faux, suspended over the Castle Hill, was waiting his fate,--to read, I

say, the life of Sir Everard Digby in the Biographia Britannica, where

his character is treated with some kindness and respect. Sir Kenelm

Digby is, of course, the next article in the "Biography:" all this while

I was detained from the dangerous explosions of the fire-works, which

was in part my mother's purpose, though she had, no doubt, her

gratification in the lecture.

The youth of the present day are quite indifferent to the celebration of

the 5th of November; they have not the grace to thank God for delivering

them from "the hellish malice of popish conspirators;" few of them even

know that this delicate phrase is to be found in their Book of Common

Prayer. But five and forty or fifty years ago, before the repeal of the

penal laws against catholics, when not a chapel was permitted to them,

but by connivance, those of catholic ambassadors alone excepted; before

the French Revolution had driven a catholic priest into almost every

town in England,--the case was widely different: let the riots of 1780

bespeak the popular feeling of the people towards the religion of their

forefathers. Here then, while they sung,

O then the wicked papishes ungodly did conspire

To blow up king and parliament with gun-pow-dire,--

I was taking a febrifuge draught, prepared by maternal caution and

family pride.

I went every day to learn Greek and Latin at the school founded for the

use of the city out of the spoils of some monastery abolished at the

time of Henry the Eighth's schism. The sons of citizens are here taught

gratis; others give a small honorarium to the master. The school was

held in the very chapel of the old religious house; the windows looked

into a place called the Friars or Freres, and over the east window

stood, and still stands, the _cross_, "la trionfante croie." But this

was not all. Opposite to the door of the school-yard lived three elderly

ladies, catholics, of small fortunes, who had united their incomes and

dwelt here, not far from their chapel, in peace and piety. One of these

ladies was Miss, or, as she chose to call herself, Mrs. Ravenscroft. Now

my great grandfather, James Digby had married a lady of that family: it

followed therefore that my mother and Mrs. Ravenscroft were cousins. My

father's house was about a third of a mile from the school: Mrs.

Ravenscroft obtained leave for me, whenever it should rain between nine

and ten in the morning, the hour at which the school-boys went to

breakfast, that I might call and take my bread and milk at her house.

Some condition, I suppose, was made, that I should not be allowed to

have tea: but they put sugar in my milk, and all the old ladies and

their servants were very kind, and, as I observed, very cheerful; so

that I was well pleased when it rained at nine o'clock.

One day it chanced to rain all the morning, an occurrence so common in

England, that I wonder it only happened once. I staid to dine with Mrs.

Ravenscroft and the other ladies. It was a day of abstinence. My

father, to do him justice as a true protestant, "an honest man who eat

no fish," had not accustomed me to days of abstinence; but, as I had had

no play all the morning, I found the boiled eggs and hot cockles very

satisfactory, as well as amusing by their novelty. The priest came in

after dinner, and Mrs. Ravenscroft telling him that I was her little

cousin, Master ----, he spoke to me with great civility. At that time

catholic priests did not dare to risk making themselves known as such,

by wearing black coats. Mr. Knight was dressed in a grave suit of

snuff-colour, with a close neat wig of dark brown hair, a cocked hat,

almost an equilateral triangle, worsted stockings, and little silver

buckles. By this detail may be inferred the impression that was made on

my mind and fancy. I believe I was the only protestant lad in England,

of my age, at that time, who had made an abstinence dinner, and shaken

hands with a jesuit.

When the rain gave over, I returned home, and related to my father all

the history of the day. This I did with so much apparent pleasure, that

he said, in great good-nature, "These old women will make a papist of

you, Harry." He sent them occasionally presents of game in return for

their attentions to me.

The wife of the Earl of Traquair was also of the family of Ravenscroft,

and Lord and Lady Traquair, in coming from or returning to Scotland,

passed part of a day with my father and mother. Dr. Geddes, since so

well known, accompanied his patron. I remember going with the party to

see the ruins of the bishop's palace. Dr. Geddes's conversation was

lively and pleasing. He was sure, he said, that my sister, some years

older than myself, was a judge of poetry, since she read it so well: and

he requested her acceptance of a copy of a satire of Horace which he had

lately translated and printed. I know not if he ever pursued this work.

Catholic gentry, every now and then, made visits to my mother; I

suppose, for the sake of "auld lang-syne." Amongst these, Mr. and Mrs.

Arundel, afterwards Lord and Lady Arundel, called on her so soon after

the death of my father, that she could not go with them to the cathedral

where he had been but lately interred. I accompanied them, and, on

entering the south door, pointed out the pedestal on which, and the

canopy under which stood, in catholic times, an image of the Blessed

Virgin, under whose invocation the church is dedicated.

Comparing the behaviour of these gentry to my mother with the conduct of

all of the same class, with three or four exceptions only, towards

me,--I infer that the best way to be treated by them with common

civility is, to be, not a convert, but a renegado.

My father died while I was yet in the fourteenth year of my age: in less

than three years after this event, when I was not quite sixteen years

and a half old, I became a commoner of University College, Oxford; and,

having kept there three terms, was nominated, at the election held

immediately after the feast of the Patroness Saint; a Demy of St. Mary

Magdalen College. I passed the long or summer vacations at my mother's

house. During the second of these vacations, when rummaging among my

father's books, I found, thrown aside among waste papers in a neglected

closet, an old copy of the Rheims or Douay translation of the New

Testament. The preface to this work is admirable, and might be read by

managers of Bible Societies, if not to their advantage, at least to

their confusion.

By what chance the book came there, how long it had lain there, whether

my father had even ever known of its existence, I cannot tell. The notes

are equal in bulk to the text: they attracted my attention, and I read

them greedily.

It will be observed, from the account given of my infancy, that I had

been from the first familiarized with popery; that I had been brought

up without any horror of it. This was much: but this was all. I knew

nothing of the doctrines of the catholic church, but what I had learned

from the lies in Guthrie's Geographical Grammar, and from the witticisms

in the "Tale of a Tub,"--a book, the whole argument of which may be

refuted by a few dates added in the margin. My English reading had

filled my head with the usual prejudices on these topics. Of popes I had

conceived an idea that they were a succession of ferocious, insolent,

and ambitious despots, always foaming with rage, and bellowing forth

anathemas.

I now perceived that there was some ground in Scripture for believing

that St. Peter was superior to the other apostles, ("Simon Peter, lovest

thou me more than these?" "A greater charge required a greater love,"

argues one of the Fathers;) and that, by the consent of all antiquity,

the Bishops of Rome were the successors of St. Peter. Of other doctrines

I found rational, and what appeared to me plausible explanations.

Transubstantiation was still a stumbling-block.

I talked without reserve to my mother of my book, and of the impression

it had made on me. She had no theological knowledge, but she had a

great deal of religious feeling, and this feeling was all on the side of

catholicism. Had she consulted an able catholic priest, perhaps had she

consulted no one, I had at this time become a catholic: she would have

been well pleased with my conversion, and her own would have followed.

For her sake, as well as for many other reasons, I most sincerely regret

that it did not at this time take place. Not that I doubt of the mercy

of God towards innocent, involuntary error, but because, when we want to

go to a place, it is better to be in the right road.

She consulted my old schoolmaster, a wise and prudent man, as well

acquainted with the question as the Anglican clergy in general are. As

my mother was perfectly free from poperyphobia, she proposed the matter

at once: "Henry has been reading this book, and has a great mind to be a

catholic: you know all my family were catholics." My counsellor, without

looking even at the outside of the book, put on a grave face,--a

tremendously grave face: "I had rather give five hundred pounds than

that such a thing should come to pass." I well knew the value he set on

five hundred pounds, and conceived an analogous idea of his repugnance.

Nevertheless, I pressed the book on his notice. "All this has been said

a thousand times over;" meaning, and I so understood him, that it ought

to have no more weight with me than with others; though the argument

proved nothing but the usual obstinacy of those to whom arguments are

addressed.

My old master was too wise a man to argue even with a woman and a boy.

"What would the world think of such a step? What would your father say

if he could come to life again? What will become of your education and

future prospects?" My mother was alarmed at her own responsibility in

the passive encouragement she had given. I was but seventeen years old.

I did not, however, quite give up the point. "These people have a great

deal to say for themselves."--"You think so? There's Christianity enough

in the church of England." A few years later I found he thought there

was too much.

I had subsequent conversations with him: I indirectly consulted others:

I still read my book; but a book of notes has not the effect of a

dissertation, well followed up, and leading to a conclusion. I found

some insurmountable difficulties, and for the rest I said, "Le roi

s'avisera." I had no other catholic work, and no catholic adviser. I

went back to my college, where other studies occupied me; yet I may say,

I never lost sight of the subject.

Gibbon, who was a gentleman-commoner of Magdalen College, a few years

before my time, declared himself a catholic before his twentieth year.

He was still remembered in college as a young man who seldom or never

associated with other young men, who always dressed in black, and always

came into the hall or refectory too late at dinner time. He found

catholics to help him in the work of his conversion. His father put him

_en pension_ with a Calvinist minister, to be re-made a protestant, no

matter of what sort. He saw, and throughout his great work shows that he

continued to see, that the truth of the Christian religion rests on the

authority of the catholic church. "The predictions of the catholics are

accomplished: the web of mystery has been unravelled by Arminians,

Arians, and Socinians, whose numbers must be no longer counted from

their separate congregations; and the pillars of revelation are shaken

by men who profess the name without the substance of religion, who

assume the licence without the temper of philosophy." Pity that such a

man should have been led away by the spirit of the age, so as not to

perceive that true philosophy is the good and natural ally of the

catholic faith.

If any grave doctor of the Anglican church had, at this time, attempted

to lay the foundations of my belief in his own form of religion, he

would probably have failed in his work; partly, because the respect due

to such a personage from a youth like me would have hindered that

freedom of question, reply, and rejoinder, by which satisfactory

conviction is at length produced; partly, because I should have

considered him as bound in honour and interest to maintain his own

opinions, and require implicit submission; and because also I should

probably have found, as I have since found, the arguments, which such an

one would have adduced, to proceed on misrepresentation, and to be

logically absurd.

There are two methods of defending the reformed church of England; one

is, by asserting the right of private judgment; but this method is

inconsistent with the authority of Scripture, and with the truth of the

promises of Christ;--with the authority of Scripture, because it is

absurd to allow to any body of men the right or power to say, "this book

is Scripture, and this book is not Scripture," and to refuse to the

same body the right of deciding on its sense in case of dispute. Had

this body the privilege of infallibility while deciding on the canon,

and were they immediately deprived of it? Infallibility--I dispute not

about words: were they providentially preserved from error during this

important operation, and ever afterwards abandoned to error? Common

sense and the rules of criticism may enable us to decide on the

historical credit due to any work laid before us; but _Scripture_, _the

word of God_,--something more is necessary to men who are thus to

arbitrate between mankind and their faith; and it is absurd to suppose

that this _something more_ was taken from them when called on to

determine matters of faith, by the help of this same Scripture, united

to the tradition of the church. I might make my argument stronger, by

remarking on the length of time which elapsed before the canon of

Scripture was settled: was the church infallible during all that time,

or only at intervals, by fits and starts? I will quote the words of St.

Augustin, a Father often cited by the Anglican church: "Thou believest

Scripture; thou doest well: ego vero Scripturae non crederem nisi me

ecclesiae catholicae urgeret auctoritas."

Indeed, so difficult is it to reconcile the more than human authority

of the Bible with the right of private judgment, that I believe the

historical Christians, as they may be called, to be very numerous, and

daily increasing in number.

This right of private judgment is also inconsistent with the truth of

the promises of Christ. He sent his apostles to teach all nations,

promising to be with them,--it must be presumed, in their teaching,--to

the consummation of the age. In the exercise then of that private

judgment, which the reformers of the sixteenth century asserted, all the

Christian world fell into error: yes, all of them; for Luther says, "in

principio solus eram." The clergy, it may be said, pretended to

authority, and even persecuted to the death those who differed from

them. Persecution is no theological argument, though it is one which

Calvin and Cranmer and other reformers did not object to resort to. But

the clergy merely pretended to authority: by the supposed case, each

man's particular opinion is his rule of faith, and therefore the Church

of England is justified in its reformation. But, by following this rule,

all the Christian world, according to the reformers, had fallen into

error. Jesus Christ therefore, though he promised to be with his

disciples to the end of the world, was unable or unwilling to keep his

promise.

The other method of defending the reformation of the Church of England,

is by admitting, that the Church of Rome, as the Anglicans call it, has

been, and is, a true church, teaching with authority all doctrines

necessary to salvation; that the Church of England, having purified

itself from errors and abuses, is also a true church, an integral

portion of the catholic or universal church, with all the authority to

such a body ecclesiastical, of due right, appertaining.

This statement compels the Church of England to assert for itself

something like infallibility; for, as Voltaire expresses it, "L'eglise

catholique est infaillible, et l'eglise Anglicane n'a jamais tort." This

must be so; for the authority of a church which may be in the wrong,

must be always questioned.

This statement also deprives the Church of England of all advantage in

arms (theological arms I mean,) against the dissenters and other

reformers: they turn upon her, and ask how she is more infallible, or

even more in the right, than the Church of Rome. The Kirk of Scotland

will no more allow itself to be in the wrong than the Church of England.

Thus disputes are endless; appeals to remote antiquity, instead of

uninterrupted tradition, involve the matter in hopeless intricacy; and

the private judgment of nations has no more weight than the private

judgment of individuals.

Such are the two modes of defending England's reformation adopted by the

low and the high church parties, which once declaredly and still

insensibly divide its clergy. I have explained both methods, as they are

better understood by being contrasted: I have noted the vice of each,

that I may give in part my reasons for rejecting both in due time. Till

this due time arrived, I was induced to embrace, and, for the time,

conscientiously embraced, the opinions of a high churchman; and I was

induced to this by the arguments and example of my friend Richard Paget.

At the time when I became a member of Magdalen College, he had just

taken the degree of Bachelor of Arts. A young under-graduate cannot help

regarding with some deference one already in possession of the first of

those academical honours to which himself aspires. Paget was besides

three or four years older than me. This advantage of degree and age was

not so great as to cause any subjection on my part; I looked up to him,

but, if the pun may be allowed, did not suspect him. He, on his part,

treated me with the greatest kindness and familiarity. He was, as he

said, the second son of a second son of a second son of a younger branch

of a noble family. He had not much given himself to classical studies,

but he was well skilled in antiquities, including heraldry; witness the

exactitude of his own pedigree: he was well read in English history,

particularly that of the time of Charles I. with every personage of

which he might be said to be intimately acquainted. He had a great love

and good taste for the fine arts and for music. His conversation was, in

the highest degree, pleasing; it was lively, allusive, full of anecdote:

his manner of expressing himself was at once forcible and easy; his

judgment was discriminating, his temper gentle and equal. I never think

of him without regretting his loss; and he is often recalled to my

memory by the benefit and instruction which I have derived from his

friendship.

We used to sit together hour after hour, cozing: I believe I must thus

spell the word we have derived from the French _causer_; no other word

has the same meaning. He would take up scraps of paper, and draw

admirable caricature likenesses of the members of the college, not

sparing the person before him; then a stroll round the walks; and then,

as we passed by the door of my rooms on our return, "come in again," and

so, another hour's coze. Soon after the commencement of our

acquaintance, he began the studies which he thought requisite as a

preparation for being ordained a minister of the Church of England. I

had the result of these studies, which he pursued according to his own

taste, for there is or was no rule in this matter: great admiration of

the character of Archbishop Laud; lamentation of the want of splendor

and ceremonial in the Anglican service; blame of those clergy who

allowed church authority to slip from their hands, lowering themselves

into teachers of mere morality. He gave himself very little trouble

about the opinions of the dissenters, condemning them all in a lump by a

sort of ecclesiastical and political anathema; but he took great pains

to convince himself that the Church of England was in the right in its

polemical dispute with the Church of Rome. He was willing to allow to

the bishop of that city a preseance above all other bishops, not merely

on account of the former imperial dignity of the city, but also on

account of his succession to St. Peter, who had the same precedence

among the apostles, though the privileges of the apostles were equal, as

those of bishops ought to be. He saved the indefectibility of the

church, by declaring that the Church of Rome was a true church, though

not a pure church; that papists might be saved, since what they believed

amiss did not destroy the effect of what they believed aright. He

affirmed, that the separation of the Church of England from the Church

of Rome was the pope's fault; that England had not separated from Rome,

but had exercised its right of reforming errors in faith, and abuses in

discipline, and approached nearer to the primitive model; that the pope,

in excommunicating England for having done thus, had in fact,

excommunicated himself. On several points he showed the practice of Rome

to be right; on others, to regard things indifferent.

Many other matters relating to this subject were discussed in our

conversations, occasionally resumed during the continuance of my

friend's residence in college. He was ordained deacon, and some two

years after died.

In the year 1791 I took my Master of Arts' degree in Act term, that is,

in the beginning of summer, and went to Lincoln to pass some time with

my mother, before I should put into execution a project which I had long

meditated of a journey to France and Italy. Between my Bachelor's and

Master's degrees, as I had no excuse for non-residence in college, I

had been obliged to reside: indeed I was sufficiently fond of the

literary leisure which this mode of life secured to me. I had always

considered myself as destined to Anglican orders; it was the profession

which my father had chosen for me, and I had, in some sort, prepared for

it: I had confirmed myself in high church principles, and read a little

Hebrew; but I had also studied the French and Italian languages for the

use and service of my foreign travels, as also because it was rather my

wish and ambition to enter on the diplomatic career, if I should find

occasion and protection. But how could any one propose to himself to

pass any length of time on the continent, agitated, as it now was, by

the beginnings of the French revolution? Many ventured to go abroad; but

I was alarmed: the unsuccessful attempt of the king and queen of France

to escape to Montmedi had thrown France into confusion: it was evident

that a crisis was at hand.

I waited. During this time a violent inflammation in my eyes (a

complaint to which I had been often subject, and which will, I fear, in

its consequences, finally deprive me of sight,) confined me to the

house, and prevented me from reading for some weeks. Deprived of the use

of books, at all times my chief employment and consolation, and

compelled to occupy myself with my own thoughts, I passed in review the

topics by which men are usually induced to devote themselves to the more

immediate service of God. My education, whatever may have been its

influence on my virtue, had been regular, monkish even, if any one

please to call it so: the feeling of piety had never been entirely

renounced by me; and I now easily brought myself to entertain the hope

that, by entering into the ecclesiastical state, I might be of some use

to the cause of religion. The first day that my eye-sight was restored

to me, I wrote to the president of Magdalen College, then bishop of

Norwich, requesting to be admitted as a candidate for deacon's orders at

the next ordination in September.

The same motives which influenced me to this step, induced me also,

three months afterwards, to take the curacy of a large parish in

Lincoln; to engage, that is, to do the duties of him _qui curat_, as far

as my inferior degree of deacon permitted. The stipend, about one fifth

of the wages of an able mechanic, was known to be no object with me: I

had an income more than sufficient for my wants as a single man, and,

besides, lived in the house of my mother. As usual, in similar cases,

some applauded my zeal, while others laughed at it.

Within a few months, a fellowship became vacant on my county. I went up

to college to pronounce my probationary oration. In this discourse,

enumerating the former worthies of the house, I commended our

predecessors at the time of the Reformation for having been of the

number of those who did not wish that reformation to be

excessive--_nimia_ was the word; and of those who did not think, "the

further from Rome, the nearer to truth." The orator, on this occasion,

is introduced between the first and second course of the grand dinner of

the 22d of July; his voice may be clear as his stomach is empty: his

task completed, he is placed at the right hand of him who presides at

the "strangers' table," ranged down the middle of the hall, and is

served with the first slice of the haunch of venison. I took the place

reserved for me; and not perceiving that my high church sentiments had

displeased any of my auditors, found the second course of a public

dinner, under such glorious and hopeful circumstances, an ample amends

for being excluded from the first.

I was so much pleased with a college life, that I determined to return

to my abode in college, on my admission as _actual_ fellow. I thought I

had done enough to testify my devotion to the church by one year's

volunteer service of the parish of St. Martin; for volunteer it was in

the spirit, and almost in the letter. "Let all those who look for high

preferment in the church, do as much," said I. My mother, who seemed

quite to have forgotten the Rheims Translation of the New Testament, of

which I was too besotted to remind her, received my promise to pass two

or three months of every year with her. I soon found myself settled in a

handsome apartment of the new building of Magdalen College.

It is the usage to require of every one, to be admitted actual fellow of

Magdalen College, what is called a probationary exercise. On this

occasion I composed a treatise, bearing for title, "The Christian

Religion briefly defended against the Republicans and Levellers of

France." There was no especial reason for levelling this treatise

against the French levellers; but the French republic was, at this time,

in England, the _black dog_ upon every occasion: my work was a defence

of general Christianity, upon a plan suggested by the _pensees de

Pascal_. I had, however, my quarrel with the French legislators for

making marriage a municipal ceremony and permitting divorce. I had not

a sense of justice clear enough to blame the English law, for insisting

that the marriages of catholics and dissenters shall be celebrated

according to the rite of the English church. I did not bring forward the

remark, that divorce is permitted in England; nor did I observe, that by

the French law on the subject, no yoke was imposed on the conscience,

since no married persons were required to divorce themselves, but only

allowed to do so. I am entirely of opinion that such a law is highly to

be reprobated in a civil point of view; but in what concerns religion,

let each man's conscience take care of itself.

But my main grief against the French legislators was the plunder and

degradation of their church. In treating this matter, I as much forgot,

as if I had never heard or read, that, not much more than two centuries

before this period, all the bishops of England, (excepting only him of

Llandaff,) and about ten thousand clergy, were deprived of their

benefices, and sent to beg their bread all over Europe; and this, not

because they would not accept a civil constitution, but because they

would not accede to a new religion; and this, not in a time of civil

tumult, and under the pressure of foreign invasion; but at the bidding

of a young woman of five and twenty. But "tua res agitur paries cum

proximus ardet," was a sentiment pretty generally felt at this time in

England: to this sentiment, more than to any love of their religion, the

French clergy may attribute the hospitable reception they met with in

England. The deed was benevolent whatever its motive, and in the deed I

had more than my share.

In writing this essay, I struggled, and, as Longinus says, lashed my

sides through two or three pages of introduction, and immediately

afterwards found my composition to flow from me with tolerable ease: I

wrote with less difficulty than I now experience, and am surprised that

I so soon acquired a style by no means faulty. I do not say this for my

_petite gloriole_, but because it seems a part of my story to give the

reader a measure of my juvenile ability. I consulted two friends on the

question of publication: they advised against it, told me I could do

better, and pointed to the first part. Richard Paget also desired me to

write the introduction over again, but did not, as my other

better-judging friends had done, counsel the suppression. I went to

London to find a printer: it was impossible here to sit down to correct;

and I made a book of it as it was. Valenciennes was, at that time,

besieged by the Duke of York, and it was generally supposed that the

allied armies were a better bulwark of Christianity than a shilling

pamphlet. The printer told me that Christianity was a very good thing,

and that nobody doubted it.

In November following I preached before the university, at St. Mary's

church, a sermon on the text, "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are

remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained."

I asserted, that the power of absolving sin neither had been, nor could

have been, abandoned by our reformers; defended the power against all

impugners and repugners; and indicated the evil consequences resulting

from allowing it to lie in abeyance. After some declamation respecting

the horrors then perpetrated in a neighbouring nation, and some fears

respecting the removal of our candlestick,--I concluded by trusting,

that all whom it might concern would acquit themselves as faithful

stewards of the mysteries of God. The leading members of the university

were prodigal in praise of this discourse. One of them, afterwards a

bishop, preached the Sunday following at St. Mary's, to assure the

university that I was in the right; a confirmation which, considering my

youth and inexperience, he justly deemed by no means superfluous.

Another, whom I should be proud to name were there no indiscretion in

doing so, bought the sermon when published; a compliment which, my

printer told me, he had not paid to any of those published for many

years past. He might do this, it may be said, as finding the sermon

supremely ridiculous; but this supposition is negatived by the gracious

manner in which, from this time, though I had not yet the honour of his

acquaintance, he always saluted me in passing; his high station and

character permitted to him this mode of signifying his approbation to

one unknown, and rendered it peculiarly gratifying to me.

Some, however, cried out "flat popery;" but the words in which the

priest is directed to give absolution in the "Order for the Visitation

of the Sick," are so precise; the assertion of the right in all cases is

here so formal; (for it is not supposed that a physician is to be sent

for to determine whether the penitent patient is sick enough to be

absolved) the practice, in respect to penance, of those early ages to

which the church of England appeals, is so well known;--that the cry of

"flat popery" could not be sustained. Indeed, the sermon bears on the

face of it some very outrageous abuse of the Romish church; but this

abuse is so much a matter of course, that it would hardly have served as

a justification, had one been wanted. I professed myself contented to

be as popish as the church of England.

One of the heads of the university said to me: "The doctrine of your

excellent discourse is clearly the doctrine of the church of England:

she asserts the right of absolution to be inherent in her clergy, but

the people will not submit to the exercise of the power." This is true;

it is true also, that the clergy very prudently abstain, in general,

from sounding the inclinations of the people on the subject. My attempt

must rather be considered, from the place in which the discourse was

delivered, as a sort of _concio ad clerum_.

I have heard of one clergyman who made the attempt; he preached to his

people of the power belonging to him, as a priest, of absolving them

from their sins, and of the benefit which they would derive, if truly

penitent, from confession and absolution; concluding by fixing a time,

at which he would be at home, to hear all those who should have any

communications to make to him with such intention. This discourse caused

a mighty hubbub in the parish; people did not know what to make of it;

some doubted if their clergyman could seriously mean what he had said:

one old woman did not hesitate to declare "she would be d----d if she

would tell him all she knew." The confusion ceased in due time; but the

people neglected to avail themselves of the offer of their pastor.

Some time before, a book had been recommended to me, which I found

great difficulty in procuring; at last I found it in the very centre

of the fashionable world. I went into Faulder's shop, in Bond Street.

"Have you _Pluralities Indefensible_, by Dr. Newton, founder of

Hertford College?"--"It is a book which I always take care to have

by me, for the best of all possible reasons,--I am always sure of

selling it."--"I should not have supposed that. Who buy it? Any

clergymen?"--"Yes."--"What use do they make of it?" Mr. Faulder

understood my question. I have forgotten his answer, but it was

discreet.

Non-residence on benefices with cure of souls, was one of those abuses

in catholic discipline, which, more than any other, tended to bring on

the Reformation; it is an abuse which that Reformation has not yet

reformed.

I read my book on Pluralities, and was convinced that they were

indefensible. Having not yet learned,--perhaps having yet to learn, that

"the better part of valour is discretion,"--soon after my sermon on

absolution, I preached in the same church as before, to a congregation

composed as before, a discourse, in which I detailed the evils of

pluralities, as necessitating non-residence, and the appointment of

"hired substitutes, improperly called curates," to perform those duties,

which the principal has engaged to perform, and which, unless disabled,

he is in conscience bound to perform personally. This discourse was not

heard with the same approbation as the former.

"Religious persuasion" is a phrase bandied about by men who have no very

accurate notion of the sense in which they employ the words. One cannot

be persuaded of a truth: he may believe that to be true which is not so;

but then he judges it to be true,--he is not persuaded; one cannot even

be persuaded of a fact; the judgment and the senses are not to be

persuaded. In religion, a man either believes, or doubts, or rejects: if

he believe, his belief, on account of the supernatural authority to

which he submits himself, is called faith. But, if in religion there be

sects and parties, he may be persuaded by circumstances to choose one

party rather than another; but this is a persuasion that respects the

accessaries to religion, not the religion itself. If he adopt or profess

the religion, without believing it, he is a hypocrite. I have laid down

these principles by which to try my own conduct during my stay in

Magdalen College.

If I were conscious of any insincerity in my adherence to the church of

England, during this period, I would now declare it; I hold myself bound

to tell the truth, and not intentionally to lead the reader into any

misapprehension. I had certainly committed a great fault in not

prosecuting the inquiry begun by the reading of the Rheims Translation

of the New Testament: it was the fault of my boyhood,--a fault of which,

on human grounds even, I have but too much cause to repent. By not

bringing this inquiry, at that time, to the point to which I afterwards

brought it, I lost twelve years of my life, dating from seventeen years

old,--a time which might have been employed in diverting my education to

other purposes, in adopting and following another profession, and in

forming other connexions and friendships, than those which I have, of

course, forfeited by my conversion. But, during these twelve years,

excepting the last year only, passed in doubt and research, I firmly

believed that "the church of Rome had erred, not only in matters of

discipline, but also in matters of faith." Transubstantiation was the

great stumbling-block; and a church which had erred in so grave a

matter was not a teacher to be implicitly confided in. I thought

catholics were, not intentionally, but in fact, guilty of idolatry; and

I thought the sin pardonable in them on account of the intention. Having

once set myself at liberty to reject the authority of the church in

communion with the bishop of Rome, I followed, among the various

interpretations of which Scripture is capable, that given by the church

of England, judging it to be most reasonable. Not sufficiently

instructed in the distinction between matters of faith and questions of

discipline, I believed the differences and points in dispute between

these two portions of the catholic church, to be more numerous than they

really are.

Archimedes said, "Give me where to stand, and I will move the earth." At

Oxford I was on the peculiar ground, the _terra firma_, if firm it be,

of the church of England: there I could not move or weigh it, or see it

at a due distance, to judge of its form or proportion. Indifference was

hardly to be obtained amidst so many sympathies. An event however

occurred, which removed me to a distance from this scene, leaving my

mind free for an investigation which, with the opinions and feelings

which my friend, Richard Paget, had taught and infused, and Oxford had

confirmed, was soon brought to a fair conclusion.

On the 10th of April, 1797, I received, by an express at ten o'clock in

the evening, a letter from a physician at Lincoln, acquainting me with

the dangerous state of my mother's health, informing me, that it was

hardly probable that on my arrival at her house, I should find her

living. In an hour's time I was in a post chaise, and hastened by the

shortest road through Northamptonshire. Though obliged to wait at every

inn during the night time for fresh horses, and delayed two hours by

being overturned, I got to Lincoln, a distance of a hundred and thirty

miles, by seven the next evening. My mother had died at the hour at

which the express had reached Oxford.

The estate which devolved to me by her death being freehold, my

fellowship was not tenable with it. I quitted Magdalen College within

three months, sent my books to Lincoln, and established myself there in

a mode of life very much according with my former collegiate habits.

Before I left Oxford, I acquainted the president of my college with my

wish to be appointed to preach the Bampton lecture; he acquiesced, and

desired me to write him word when I should be prepared, that he might

propose me to the heads of houses, with whom rests the nomination of

the lecturer. This institution is so well known, that no account of it

here is necessary. The subject of my lecture, as I mentioned to the

president, was to be, Christianity proved against the objections of the

Jews. Dr. Routh, with that amenity of manners, which distinguishes him

as much as his great learning, gave me the titles of several books that

might be useful to me.

While meditating the conversion of the Jews, I received one day at

dinner a French emigrant priest and an Anglican clergyman. The _esprit

de son etat_ in the former, and the total absence of it in the latter,

were equally remarkable. However, we talked _about_ religion. My

Anglican attacked the catholic on account of certain practices which

this one easily proved to be common to both communions, the only

difference being that the church of England does not observe its own

ordinances. The clergyman would not take refuge in the "slow and silent

reformation," by which such deviations are usually excused: he knew he

should not have me for an auxiliary; he retreated to transubstantiation.

Here the Frenchman, who talked English well but not currently, was soon

overpowered by two opponents; and the Anglican, his retreat thus

covered by me, carried off with him the honour of the day.

The emigrant was M. l'Abbe Beaumont, who had formerly been rector of the

university of Caen, and appointed canon of the cathedral of Rouen: he

was about to take possession of his stall, when the order was issued, on

account of the approach of the Duke of Brunswick, that every priest who

should still refuse to take the oath prescribed by the civil

constitution of the clergy, should be banished from France within

fifteen days. He had been brought to Lincoln by a gentleman of the

neighbourhood, who had retained him for some time in his family to teach

French to his children. On the death of Mr. Knight, whom I have

mentioned above, he was appointed to the care of the little catholic

congregation of Lincoln. When visiting at my mother's house, I had

formerly known him; and, on this occasion, renewed my acquaintance with

him.

After the Anglican had taken his leave, he talked for some time on

indifferent topics, but at length renewed the former conversation with

an air, as if he had recollected something, though I rather suspect he

had prepared himself. "Pray, at what time did the change take place from

your doctrine, respecting the Eucharist, to that professed by all

Christians three hundred years ago?" I begged of him to put his

question more clearly. "If your doctrine on this point be the true one,

it was taught by the apostles, and received by the first Christians;

then, our interpretation must have been introduced at some subsequent

period: I ask you to fix that period." There were better reasons than I

at the time supposed for my inability to give a precise answer. "It was

introduced gradually during the dark ages."--"In the first place,

_gradually_--that is impossible: the question is, whether the body of

Christ is really or figuratively present: the people must have known in

which sense they believed it to be present, and would have resisted

innovation. Do you think it would be easy at this day to make the people

of England believe in the real presence?"--"No; because they have

already rejected it."--"I admit the difference; but at any time it must

have been impossible to change the faith of the people without their

perceiving it; and the controversy, which the attempt must have excited,

would have come down to our days in works written on both sides: the

memory of the Arian controversy is not lost." I was struck by the

argument and the parallel. He pressed me. "What do you call the dark

ages?"--"The tenth century is called by Cave, a learned English divine,

_seculum tenebrosum_."--"Berenger of Angers, in the eleventh century,

who first taught the figurative sense, found all the world in the belief

of the real presence."--"First? you forget the apostles."--"It is for

you to prove that they taught the figurative sense. St. John Chrysostom,

who lived in the fourth age, preached on this subject like a catholic

doctor of the present day."--"Really? I have his works; I will refer to

the passages."--"Will you give me leave to send you a treatise on this

subject, entitled _La perpetuite de la foi de l'eglise touchant

l'eucharistie_?" As I was going to convert the Jews by a Bampton

lecture, I said I did not wish to engage in reading a great work in old

French: I inferred that it was old French from the word _touchant_. Mr.

Beaumont assured me that it was written in very good French of the

present time, as also in a very agreeable style: he told me, that at any

rate I should have time to read the tract of Nicole, of a few pages

only, stating the argument; that if I did not approve of it, I need not

read the _Perpetuite_ by Arnaud, which was the development of Nicole's

text. I assented, and he wished me a good evening.

I immediately referred to my edition of Chrysostom, by Sir Henry Savile,

in eight volumes folio,--a master-piece of Greek typography, which I

had bought for three shillings a volume. I had read at hazard some of

the homilies. As these are in the form of a running commentary on the

gospels and epistles, it was easy for me to turn to the texts in which

the institution of the Lord's Supper is narrated, and to the Epistle to

the Corinthians in which it is spoken of. I have no means at present of

making quotations; those who are so inclined may refer as I did. I

showed these passages afterwards to two protestant friends, who

affirmed, "they must be figurative, because they were so strong for the

literal meaning." Sacramentarians are obliged to treat in this way the

words of Christ himself: this mode of begging the question (for it is

nothing else) showed me the advantage of another sort of argument, which

I found in Nicole and Arnaud.

They take it for granted that if it were certain Christ meant the words,

"this is my body," in the literal sense, protestants would give up the

cause. In the time of these writers it might be so: I would not be too

sure of that in the present day: I think many would reject, perhaps have

already rejected, the divinity of Christ, and his authority to teach

such a doctrine, rather than admit the doctrine itself. I, however, was

not thus daring: I was prepared to admit the conclusion, if the premises

were proved. Unbelievers and catholics are consistent: protestants are

philosophers by halves.

The apostles then, according to Nicole, understood in what sense Christ

spoke the words, "this is my body," &c. and taught that sense to the

first Christians, and the same sense was delivered to succeeding ages.

But, if this were the figurative sense, all the Christian world must, at

some time, have gone to sleep in the belief of the figurative sense, and

awaked in the belief of the literal. The change, if there was one, was

effected without the least disturbance, nobody knows how; and this, not

in a question of abstract doctrine, but in one which included the

adoration of _latria_, or the divine honour paid to the consecrated

elements, in which worship every individual Christian was interested.

Arnaud, in the _Perpetuite_, proves, century by century, that the real

presence and transubstantiation were believed, not only by the catholic

church, but by the Greeks, after their schism as well as before, and by

other communions separated from Catholic unity. At this distance of time

I cannot do justice, nor could I at any time have done justice, by any

summary of mine, to the force and ability with which these two authors

conduct the argument. To them I must refer the well-disposed, the

impartial, the disinterested, the honest inquirer.

The French theologians justly hold the first rank amongst all those of

the Christian world. I was now to become acquainted with him who may

take his place among the Fathers of the church,--the great Bossuet.

The church now re-entered on that claim to infallibility which it had

lost with me by the supposed mistake touching the Eucharist. The book of

"Les Variations des Eglises Protestantes" showed that the protestants,

by their own admission, had no claim to this privilege, since they were

continually changing and contradicting themselves; asserting, however,

the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in the enunciation of dogmas and

formulas, which subsequent inspirations correct and amend.

"La reforme n'a jamais raison la premiere fois." How sharp, how cutting,

how penetrating, how conclusive is this sarcasm!

That book or section of the "Variations" which treats of "the church,"

ought to be published as a separate tract. I recommend a translation of

it to the pious and zealous catholic clergy of England; it would be a

_good work_: no men know better than they in what sense I use the

words.

"Quaerimus ecclesiam ubi sit," says St. Augustin; and from the words "The

gospel shall be preached in all nations, beginning at Jerusalem," he

infers, that the church is that body which began to teach at Jerusalem.

Of the four marks of the church, set down in the Nicene creed, "one,

holy, catholic, apostolic,"--the first mark is exclusive and

indisputable. Any church may say of itself that it is holy, and every

good Christian will wish that it may be so. The church of England calls

itself apostolic, because, as it affirms, its doctrine is apostolical;

it also calls itself catholic, or a portion of the catholic church: but

then it is apostolical in one sense, and catholic in another;

apostolical by doctrine, and catholic by unity: then has the catholic

church failed, since its doctrine was lost for so many ages: then may

there be union without communion.

It is curious to observe with what facility the English church can

distinguish between itself and the catholic in a question of persecution

or civil exclusion, and how readily its portion of catholicity, when

pressed by the argument of unity, is re-asserted and resumed.

A protestant Anglican friend said to me, one day, "We are all catholics;

you are a Roman catholic, and I am--." He hesitated. "What?" said I; "an

English catholic?"

No Christian community, separated from the church, can claim to be the

church; the date of its separation precludes the claim. "Prior venio,"

says Tertullian. Neither can it be a portion of the church; community in

things sacred being essential to unity. A mark is also given by Christ

himself, by which his one church may be known: "Thou art Peter, and on

this rock I will build my church." All antiquity has recognised the pope

of Rome as successor of Peter.

Having obtained this view of the subject, from reading several works of

the Fathers, I gave up the absurd notion of a true church teaching a

false doctrine, and only wondered how I could have retained it so long.

A church is essentially a teaching society, and, if it teach falsely, it

has failed in the very end and purpose of its existence. There is

another mode by which it is attempted to save the indefectibility of the

church, namely, by supposing that, as there were seven thousand in

Israel, known only to God, who had not bowed the knee to Baal, so there

always existed somewhere some protestants. This fancy I had never

adopted. The church is a city on a hill, not a candle under a bushel.

Having recognised the church by these marks, which are found united in

it alone, I admired that Providence which supplied to the unlearned

Christian or convert sufficient motives for submitting his judgment to

the doctrine of the church, instead of laying him under the necessity of

judging of the church by the doctrine: which, enabling him to verify the

credentials of the ambassador, makes him confidently and joyfully

receive the embassy of grace and peace.

In this disposition of mind not much road remained for me to travel, and

I followed henceforward the guidance of the church; studying for

instruction, not for dispute; to remove prejudices, and correct

misapprehension.

Communion under one kind, as at present practised in the catholic

church, is ridiculed by Swift, who tells how my lord Peter locked up his

cellars. Swift might have added to his buffoonery, by telling how the

same lord Peter, many hundred years before John or Martin were born or

thought of, served no mutton to his wine. In the early ages, it was the

use to give the blessed Eucharist, under the species of wine only, to

sick persons and to children. While inquiring on this subject, an

ingenious mistake of the Anglican translation of the Bible was pointed

out to me: the Apostle says, "he that eateth this bread _or_ drinketh

this cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the

Lord:" _or_ being altered into _and_, this text can no longer be quoted

to justify communion under one kind: it still remains, however, a strong

argument for the real presence, since it would be impossible to be

guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, if they were there only in

figure. He who stabs the portrait of the prince commits an insolent

outrage, but the prince is safe.

Ward's "Errata to the Protestant Translation of the Bible" is a book

that will set many matters right in the minds of those who are not

averse from conviction. The author was obliged to fly his country on the

publication of his work; as was Bishop Challoner, on account of "Memoirs

of Missionary Priests."

Of the seven sacraments, two are retained under that name by the

Anglican church: I had already proclaimed myself the advocate of what

is, to all intents and purposes, the sacrament of penance. Confirmation

is administered by a bishop, as among catholics. The form of giving

benediction by the imposition of hands is as ancient as the patriarch

Jacob, who thus blessed his grandsons, the sons of Joseph. Does any

spiritual grace follow the blessing of the bishop? If so, it is a

sacrament. The ordering of priests, in the church of England, is

evidently sacramental; for the bishop, laying his hands on the person to

be ordained, bids him "receive the Holy Ghost." Matrimony is called by

the apostle "a great mystery;" mystery is the Greek word for sacrament:

grace is required to sanctify so important a contract. The church of

England celebrates it as a religious rite.

Thus far the dispute about the number of the sacraments seems to be a

"question of words and names." Extreme unction is totally rejected by

the church of England, because miraculous effects no longer follow the

administration of it. It is not very clear that restoration to bodily

health is promised by the apostle, St. James, c. 5. v. 14.; but "the

prayer of faith shall save the sick man, and the Lord shall raise him

up," may mean this, or may mean spiritual help; doubtless, however, the

promise, "if he be in sins they shall be forgiven him," authorises the

continuance of this rite. I have also heard it observed, that it fails

in that condition annexed to the definition of a sacrament in the

Anglican catechism; it is not "ordained by Christ himself." But, if it

was attended with miraculous effects, it is satisfactorily proved that

the apostle was sufficiently authorised in its institution.

If the church of England will believe purgatory to be "a fond thing,"

far from recommending the book of the Macchabees as good for an example

of life, it ought not to allow it to be read in churches at all; for

there it is related that, after a victory, part of the spoil was sent to

Jerusalem that prayer might be offered for the dead, "seeing it is a

good and wholesome thing to pray for the dead." This was a downright

popish practice, justified by a popish reason. Thus All Souls College

was founded to pray for the souls of those slain at the battle of

Agincourt. Of this ancient, this almost universal, this consolatory

practice of praying for the dead, I shall say no more, than that it may

be inferred from the words of Christ, that sins are forgiven after

death; since he says, "all sins and blasphemies shall be forgiven to

man," that is, are pardonable on repentance; "but the sin against the

Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven, neither in this world, nor in that

which is to come." There are then sins that are forgiven in the world to

come: but when? immediately on the entrance of the soul into its future

state of existence? This would be equivalent to forgiveness in this

world. After a delay then? this delay is itself a purgatory.

On this head, the catholic church has defined simply that there is a

purgatory, and that souls, therein detained, receive help from the

suffrages of the faithful: that this belief may be abused, does not

prove it to be unfounded, or vain, or "fond."

Men abuse every thing, even the goodness and long-suffering of God. They

rely on a death-bed repentance: they rely on purgatory. It is to be

feared that many, by the hope of heaven after purgatory, have been

betrayed into a state of final reprobation. On a death-bed repentance

St. Austin remarks, that there is but one instance of its assured

success,--that of the penitent thief; and he adds, very beautifully,

"unus erat, ne desperes; unus tantum, ne praesumas."

The Reverend Father O'Leary replied to an Irish bishop of the

establishment, who said to him, "Mr. O'Leary, I do not like your

doctrine of purgatory,"--"My lord, you may go further, and fare worse."

Amongst its thirty-nine articles, the Anglican church has one against

works of supererogation, for the purpose of casting a censure on

certain popish practices. The article bears a plausible show both of

argument and humility; but the humility, taken as argument, proves too

much, since it proves that our good works are useless to ourselves as

well as to others. I will give the reader an instance of a work of

supererogation, in which he will at least be at a loss to discover any

"impiety." My mother wrote to me at Oxford,--"I went into a shop the

other day to order some Gloucester cheese; a poor man was there, buying

a cheese for his family; I paid for it for him: for this, I hope, God

will bless _you_." My mother was no theologian, and suspected no more

harm in giving an alms for me than in praying for me.

Every protestant, who thinks much about the matter, dresses up a certain

bugbear in his own imagination, calls it popery, and holds it in horror.

I had done thus, although my high-church principles had hindered me from

surcharging the phantom with the usual quantity of deformity. "The

Exposition of the Catholic Faith," by Bossuet, is well adapted to show

the religion of our forefathers in its due proportions and real

lineaments. I will own I was somewhat shocked at first to hear him talk

of "Messieurs de la pretendue reforme:" I had not been used to be

treated so unceremoniously: but he could not help it; the reform was

either pretended or real.

The council of Trent,--those decrees of the council of Trent which

relate to matters of faith, and which are very few in number, at least

comprised in few words; together with the catechism of the council of

Trent, composed under the auspices of our countryman cardinal Pole,--are

also excellent works for setting such matters in a right point of view.

I know many protestants who, if they would read these books, would be

astonished at their own ignorance, which they have as yet neither

discovered nor exposed, because they have talked only with each other,

and have read books calculated rather to excite their passions than

dispel their ignorance. Such a book is Chillingworth's.

I had formerly been scandalized by the non-observance of the days of

fasting and abstinence appointed by the church of England: I once got

myself laughed at for talking about it. Example and roast beef are

powerful persuasives, and I continued to do as others did. While M.

Beaumont was carrying on with me conversations tending to my conversion,

he called one morning at a house where, the breakfast not being removed,

he was civilly invited to eat something. He excused himself because it

was the season of Lent. The lady of the house said, "We have no

superstitious way of keeping Lent."--"You keep it in your book, Madam."

When M. Beaumont reported this to me, I observed, "That pun would not do

in French." He agreed, adding, "They do not know what is fast; they know

what is breakfast."

Another superstitious practice is the use of images: to set the people

against this practice, and against those who practise it, the word

"image" is lugged in at the beginning of the second commandment: in the

original, the word is the participle passive of the verb, and ought to

have been translated "graven thing," or "any thing graven;" but "image"

was good for the iconoclasti.

But I cannot pursue any further the railing and raillery continually

poured forth in England against the religion which all England professed

for eight centuries; which those who converted our Saxon ancestors found

to be the same as that professed by the ancient Britons in all points,

except the time of the celebration of Easter; a conformity, which proves

the faith of the church to have been, through the early ages, perpetual,

not in respect to the Eucharist only, but in the whole body of its

doctrine. Let this argument be well weighed; it weighed much with me;

and I think I shall be allowed to have made out a case, though I say

nothing of indulgences, or celibacy, the invocation of the blessed

Virgin and other saints, relics, or monastic vows, pilgrimages,

ceremonies, or holy water.

I told M. Beaumont that, as he was subjected to the alien act, I would

not draw on him the responsibility of receiving my abjuration; that I

would go to town for the purpose of making it. Subsequent machinations

against him proved my apprehensions to have been well-founded. He asked

what I meant by my abjuration: "You will abjure nothing; you will

continue to believe all that you believe at present: but you can go to

London, if you think right, and the bishop will appoint a priest to

reconcile you to the church." On the 17th of May, 1798, I was present at

high mass in St. Patrick's chapel: it was the feast of the Ascension. My

emotion betrayed itself in tears which, in a man of my age, might be

regarded as rather a violent symptom; but it called forth no indecorous

signs of surprise or curiosity in those near me. I forgot to inquire at

the sacristy the address of the bishop, and next morning found myself

walking in Hyde Park, alarmed at the step I was about to take, and

almost undecided. A friend, who was in my confidence, met me by chance,

and, out of regard for my tranquillity, though a protestant, encouraged

me to persevere. We turned into Grosvenor Square, and up Duke Street:

old Mr. Keating informed us that the bishop lived at No. 4, Castle

Street, Holborn. "We please ourselves by calling it the Castle." I

parted from my friend, and proceeded to the Castle alone. An elderly,

rather pompous, duenna-looking woman, opened the door of the house, for

such it was; not the gate of a castle: his lordship was engaged, but I

was desired to walk into the dining-room, which, no doubt, served as an

anti-room for want of any other. While I waited here, a French priest

came in, who, evidently alarmed at his approaching interview with the

bishop, from whom probably he had "something to ask or something to

fear," inquired of me, "Faut-il faire une genuflexion a Monseigneur?"[1]

I answered, that I was unacquainted with the ceremonial expected by

Monseigneur; but that he, M. l'Abbe, had better do as he would on being

presented to his own bishop. He took me for a countryman, but "my speech

betrayed me." He was called for before me; this I thought unjust; but in

a few minutes after the bishop came in, and addressed me with, "Qu'est-ce

que vous demandez, Monsieur?"[2] Again, thought I, my country is about

to be lost to me; but let us hope for a better. I told Dr. Douglass the

purport of my visit: he, seeing the affair was one not quickly to be

dispatched, requested me to walk up stairs. We seated ourselves on each

side of the fire in an old-fashioned wainscotted room with corresponding

furniture, the floor half covered by a well-worn Turkey carpet. On the

walls, yellow with smoke, hung portraits, which, through the soot that

incrusted them, I hardly discerned to be ecclesiastical worthies;

Cardinal Allen, perhaps, founder of the college of Douay; a Campion, or

Arrowsmith, or other martyrs of the Reformation. A crucifix was set in a

conspicuous place: over the chimney a little engraving of Pius VI, then

a prisoner. The bishop was a tall thin man, between sixty and seventy,

of a healthy look, with a lively and good-natured countenance: he wore a

suit of black, not very fresh, with a little, close, white wig. Martinus

Scriblerus was proud of being able to form an abstract idea of a Lord

Mayor without his gold chain, or red gown, or any other _accidents_. I

had no difficulty in detecting the bishop in the plain man before me; for,

being in his own house, he showed without reserve his pectoral cross, and

I saw on his finger a ring in which was set an amethyst.

"This is a very important step, sir; no doubt you have given it due

consideration." I gave a succinct account of my studies and motives.

"May I ask, have you consulted your family and friends?"--"My parents

are not living: I am their only surviving child. For my friends, I know

beforehand what they would say."--"Are you aware of all the _civil_

consequences? The penal laws are repealed; but you will lose your _etat

civil_." I bowed my head. "As you are in orders of the church of

England, your conversion will excite more than ordinary surprise, and (I

say it only to warn you,) ill-will against you."--"I trust not; people

are sufficiently indifferent about such matters."--"Perhaps you will

lose some ecclesiastical benefice?"--"I have proceeded no further than

deacon's orders, and therefore have no preferment."--"But your

expectations?"--"I must live without them."

After a little more probing of this sort, and a short pause,--"There is

a business which is very distressing to those who are not used to it,

as it is very consoling to those who are; I mean confession: we all go

to confession; I, who am bishop,--the pope himself. You know, I presume,

that you must begin by that?"--"I come to beg of your lordship to

appoint me a priest." After a little consideration, "Would you wish your

priest to be an old man or a young one?"--"My lord, you know your

subjects better than I do: I leave the choice to you: his age is to me a

matter of indifference."--"Many people think otherwise: however, if you

will be pleased to call here to-morrow at this hour, I will introduce

him to you." I took my leave without a genuflexion, but with a strong

sentiment of respect and kindness for this worthy, amiable, old man.

The next day I found, in Castle Street, the Reverend Mr. Hodgson, one of

the priests of the chapel in St. George's Fields. Of him, as I do not

know but that he is still living, I shall only say, that I had every

reason to be pleased and satisfied with his conduct and his counsels,

and that I think of him with gratitude. I passed with him a part of

every morning of the following week, except Sunday and Thursday, at his

house near the chapel; and in this chapel of St. George, on the 26th of

May, the feast of St. Augustin, apostle of England, was admitted into

the one fold, under the protection, as I humbly hope, of the one

Shepherd.

Before Mr. Hodgson took me to the altar, where I was to read, for this

purpose, the creed of Pope Pius V, he inquired how baptism was

administered in the Church of England. I told him, by aspersion. He

said, "We have reason to believe that baptism is given with you

sometimes very carelessly, and it is a rule to baptise conditionally

every convert under fifty years of age."--"How do _you_ administer

it?"--"By affusion; and the rule is, that there be so much water ut

gutta guttam sequatur."--"That was very probably not the case in my

baptism."--"There are other ceremonies, not of the essence of the

sacrament, which I shall omit." He added, "Do not suppose that I

question the validity of your baptism, if it were duly performed. Had

you been a Quaker--" Even the grave circumstances in which I found

myself did not repress a slight movement of offended pride, at its being

supposed possible that I could have been a Quaker. "Had you been a

Quaker, I should have been sure that you were not baptized, and should

not even have received your confession."--"But you do not allow the

orders of the Anglican church?"--"True: but even lay persons are not

only permitted, but enjoined to administer baptism, as an act of

Christian charity, in case of necessity." Another distraction, as the

French call it. Not having been used to belong to a tolerated and

despised sect, I had felt my bile rise at the word Quaker; and now

memory recalled the interesting scene in the "Gerusalemme Liberata," the

helmet, the fountain, Tancred baptizing the dying Clorinda. I kneeled

down, however, and the priest poured water on my head, repeating at the

same time, "Si non es baptizatus, Henrice, ego te baptizo in nomine,"

&c. I then made my profession of catholic faith, and was thus reconciled

to the church. The next morning I received the blessed Eucharist from

the hands of the same priest.

It was Whitsunday: Bishop Douglass was to give confirmation in the

chapel of Virginia Street. It was plain, for a reason above-stated, that

I had not been confirmed. After breakfast, I walked with Mr. Hodgson

over London Bridge, towards Ratcliffe Highway. It is usual for the

person confirmed, to be addressed by the bishop, either by his name of

baptism, or any other at his choice: I took the name of John, in honour

of John, surnamed Chrysostom, to whom, as having removed the great

obstacle _in limine_, I owed the beginning of my conversion. May the

good work be aided by his prayers!

I have made my apology to the protestants of England, especially to

those with whom I was engaged, whose reform was conducted by the civil

power, who are the national church. But, that a church is national is

inconclusive in argument: a nation may be in possession of truth, but

truth is not national; and civil power enters for nothing into a

question of religious truth. But justice is civil truth, the genuine

attribute, the appropriate ornament, the best defence of civil power.

Let the civil power cease to deprive of their civil rights those who

adhere to that religion which the same civil power protected,

encouraged, and maintained, from the time of Ethelbert of Kent, down to

the reign of the boy king, Edward the Sixth.

The religion of the people of Scotland is the established religion of

Scotland: a great principle is here recognised: truth is out of the

question; for more than one religion cannot be true. Let the principle

be applied to Ireland: the people of that country still adhere to the

ancient faith; let it be established there for them: to make them good

subjects it is only necessary to treat them as such. Men quarrel not

about religion; there is nothing about which they are more indifferent,

when the state does not quarrel with them about it; and every statesman,

every reader of history, knows that, for the uses of the state, the

catholic religion is at least as good as any other.

Extravagant as this project of establishing the catholic religion in

Ireland will seem to those who "like to hear reason when they are

determined, because then reason can do no harm;"--ridiculous, and even

insolent as it will appear to the maintainers of protestant

ascendency,--it is not my project, nor will I take on myself the

undivided responsibility of it. It is the proposition of a much wiser

man.

When I lived at Lincoln, after the death of my mother, the celebrated

William Paley was sub-dean of the cathedral: I was in the habit of daily

and familiar intercourse with him. One day, before one of those dinners

which are given to the residentiary in a course as regular as that of

the dinners of the cabinet-ministers, the company was standing in a

circle round the fire; I stood next to Paley. He, almost pushing me out

of the circle by a certain turn of his shoulder, to signify that what he

was about to say would not be said out of complaisance to me as a

catholic, while, at the same time he looked over his other shoulder to

assure himself that I was listening,--Paley, I say, began to assert the

justice, the expediency, and the utility of establishing by law in

Ireland the catholic worship, defending the measure by the arguments,

and almost in the words set down by me; ending, by declaring himself

persuaded that the catholic clergy of Ireland would be well contented

when they were well paid, and the catholic population would, in that

supposed case, be as good subjects as they are every where else under

the same circumstances.

The greater part of Poland is subject to a schismatic; Silesia to a

Lutheran; the Low Countries, formerly Austrian, to a Calvinist: the

sovereigns of those several countries have not yet taken away the

ecclesiastical revenues from the catholic clergy, nor their civil rights

from the catholic people.

Having made out a case, as I express myself above, I mention several

topics on which, for brevity's sake, I forbear to enlarge. I beg to be

understood as having a due sense of the importance of these objects, of

each in its kind, and as entertaining in regard to them the opinion held

by the catholic church. I say this the rather, because many protestants,

after talking with me on religion, have found me, as they said, so

reasonable, that they would not believe that I was really and truly a

papist. The unreasonableness of the catholic faith exists only in the

imagination of the protestants, who, in general, know nothing about it.

One of them asked me why the prayers were translated into Latin: I

answered, that the pope had ordered them to be subtracted in this manner

from the curiosity of the good people of ----, naming the town nearest

the country residence of my interrogator. Another, a little perplexed on

the subject of unity, asked, "What is the catholic church?" as an

answer, I asked, "What is the church of England?" An Anglican clergyman

put the question, "What is the mass?" I told him it was what he had

engaged to oppose. He was a worthy, quiet man, and did not want to

oppose any thing.

In short, it is only from political causes that opposition, alienation,

or dispute about this matter arise. Foreigners are astonished that a

nation, so wise, so just, so tolerant as the English, should disqualify

one-third of its people from serving the state, and perpetuate

animosities which are laid at rest in every other country in Europe. The

Baron ---- was the only man in France who saw through the whole matter

at once: "You have your interests of the Reformation, as we have ours of

the revolution."

It is a matter in which I have no interest but that of truth. I have

given not as a polemic, but as a humble narrator, an account of my

motives and reasons for adopting as truth that which has been believed

as such by the bulk and great majority of the Christian world in all

nations and in all ages, from the foundation of Christianity. I have

done this in the hope of removing prepossessions, and to persuade the

reader that he may accompany me abroad without any apprehension that I

shall enter into controversy. Some extraordinary events are related in

my narrative, which a regard for truth has alone induced me to set down,

at the risk of being considered as enthusiastic or superstitious.

Against such an interpretation, formed on a view of part only of this

work, I am not afraid to appeal to the judgment of those who will take

the pains to read and consider the whole.

_Ad Clari Montem.

Clermont, en Auvergne. Clermont-Ferrand, Puy de Dome.

21st March, 1826._