1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c3426f350c14660c6a6ac19ee1d03781.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=EWkHuPbekA73YyrCvrUy%7EQbyMhJndMqbqHnx99PJEr95nssrRjmrJa--qGkGecdHVv9p6vfff8gQ0i7alW7iRJCMYeZsya-1aWLivZ32wI8lbtKO8%7EClANBxxD2vFg2PGcCzTSRN75QOMRHBkcN4n8lZ9Sl8nzIBmiDVwy5IiBjAfJelvcXfEBhoI45wTli27qx-CYamGPsuECs3gwWZs-OJHyq3YLOn9pZsDE%7E2thswC5K412hRD9qN1ryTFI5DtP6AW%7E78WVED-k81iU2N3jx4LumnIg9VzgrA1H8Stf63vXy30bCY05q-6S5V-aegTAiUp-AzDfA5oGJ3UQbAqg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ff02125a92ad95321be20deabce8af1f
PDF Text
Text
WHY I LEFT
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
*
By James Britten, K.S.G.,
Hon. Sec. Catholic Truth Society.
I wish to begin this lecture with an apology. No one
can be better aware than I am that, except to one person—
myself—the reasons which impel me to any course of
action are of the very slightest importance—-or rather, of
no importance at all. This lecture is like others of our
course, the sequence of one delivered lately in this
neighbourhood in connection with the Protestant Alliance :
the title is an adaptation of that adopted on the former
occasion; and the fact that up and down the country,
various people, including more or less escaped nuns and
others, are telling audiences—sometimes large ones—why
they “left the Church of Rome,” seems to show that the
experiences of what used to be called ’verts are still
attractive.
The reasons which people allege for leaving one
Communion and joining another are very various, and
sometimes very curious.
Mr. Fitzgerald, for example,
said he became a Protestant because of the ignorance of
the Catholic clergy and the worship of images. Well, as
to ignorance, those who heard Mr. Fitzgerald will agree
with me in thinking that he is hardly a competent judge;
and as to the worship of images—supposing for onr
6A Lecture delivered in March, 1893, in St. Georges School,
Southwark, in answer to one given by a Mr. Fitzgerald, of the
Protestant Alliance. The date of the lecture must be borne in mind
by readers of the pamphlet.
�2
Why I left the Church of England
moment, what every Catholic will resent as an impossibility
that Catholics fell into so gross a sin—I would remark
that the Jewish people more than once did the same,
without thereby ceasing to be the people of God. Another
Protestant lecturer was so shocked by the definition of
Papal Infallibility in 1870, that she—at once left the
Church ? O dear no ! remained in it for eighteen years,
and then withdrew. A Nonconformist friend of mine told
me the other day that his sister had joined the Church
of England. “You see,” he said, “ she is a wise woman.
She told me she found that if her daughters were to mix
in the best society, they must be Church people, so she
and her husband joined the establishment.” Another
friend who had been a Baptist all his life, suddenly joined
the established Church. “The fact of it was,” he said to
me, “ they were always quarrelling at the chapel, so one
day I said I’d had enough of it, and I took the girls off to
church—and now I’ve had them confirmed there, and we
like it.” I do not think these were good reasons for
changing one’s belief; my object, however, is not to
criticize other people’s reasons, but to give you my own,
and this I will proceed to do without further delay.
One thing only I will add,—an assurance that I am
most anxious to avoid anything which can in any way hurt
the feelings of those who differ from me. I have no
reason, indeed, for speaking harshly or disrespectfully of
the Church of England. To one section of it I owe my
training in many Catholic doctrines, while to another
section I am indebted for having opened my eyes to the fact
that those doctrines were not the doctrines of the Church
of England. You will hear from me no attacks upon the
character of the Anglican clergy, not only because I
believe them to be an excellent body of men, but because,
even if they were not so, their personal shortcomings
would no more invalidate their teaching than the char
acter of Balaam invalidated the truth of his prophetic
utterances. It would, I think, be well if some Protestant
lecturers would bear this in mind, just as they might
remember that a Church which could claim the allegiance
of a Newman and a Manning is hardly likely to be as
�Why I left the Church of England
3
corrupt or as ignorant as they would have their hearers
suppose.
From my earliest days, I was brought up at St. Barnabas’s,
Pimlico—one of the churches most intimately associated
with the growth of High Church views in London. It was
opened in 1850, and among those who preached on the
occasion was the late Cardinal (then Archdeacon) Manning.
In 1851 the Protestant feeling of a certain section of the
community was roused. The riots which from time to time
have disgraced the Protestant party,—which, nevertheless
claims toleration as one of its virtues—and which culmin
ated some years later in the scandalous scenes at St.
George’s in the East, broke out here. The timid Bishop of
London closed the church and caused the resignation of
Mr. Bennett, who received the living of Frome Seiwood,
Somerset, where he died some few years since, deeply
regretted by his flock, whom he had familiarized with almost
every Catholic doctrine, and practice. It is worth noting,
as showing the marvellous stride which Ritualism hasmade
in the last forty years, that at St. Barnabas’s the only then
unusual ornaments were a plain cross and two candles on
the Holy Table ; an oak screen before the chancel, sur
mounted by a cross ; a surpliced choir; and a service
modelled on that of the English cathedrals.
*
No vestments
save the ordinary surplice and black stole; no incense ; no
banners ; no prayers save those in the Book of Common
Prayer. The ornaments of the church which, forty years
ago, had to be closed to protect it from the mob, would
now hardly excite the notice of the Church Association.
My own memory dates, I suppose, from somewhere
about 1856. The two great waves of conversion to the
Catholic Church, which followed the secession of Newman
in 1845. and Manning in 1851 had passed: and in spite
of occasional Protestant outbursts, the effects of Protestant
lectures, and the adverse judgements of Privy Councils and
other bodies, the High Church movement was steadily and
everywhere gaining ground.
* There was indeed, a stone altar, which was subsequently removed,
but this being covered was not conspicuously different from an ordin
ary table.
�4
Why I left the Church of England
I will as briefly as possible tell you what I was taught to
believe. First, I was taught that our Lord founded a
Church, which He had built upon the foundation of His
Apostles, He Himself being the chief corner-stone : that
He had conferred on His Apostles certain powers by which
they were enabled to carry on His work ; that the Apostles
had the power of forgiving sin, of consecrating the Eucharist,
and of transmitting to their successors the supernatural
power which they had themselves received : that the
Apostles and those whom they consecrated were the rulers
of the Christian Church : that this Church had power to
define what was to be believed, and that it could not err
because of the promise of Christ that.He would be with it’
even to the end of the world : that the Church, moreover’
was divinely guided in a very special manner by the Holy
Ghost, and that its definitions to the end of time were
inspired by the Holy Ghost, of whom Christ had said
When He, the Spirit of Truth is come, He shall lead you
into all truth : ” that the Church and not the Bible was
God’s appointed teacher; that the traditions of the Church
were of equal authority with the Bible ; and that the Church
was the only authorized interpreter of the latter.
I was further taught that the grace of God was conveyed
to the soul principally by means of the Sacraments, and
that by Baptism the stain of original sin was removed.
With regard to the Real Presence of our Lord in the Holy
Communion, I can best explain the teaching that I received
by saying that I was never conscious of any change of
belief when I became a Catholic. The books which I
used as an Anglican I could use equally well as a Catholic ;
they were compiled almost exclusively from Catholic sources^
and before I had ever entered a Catholic church or read a
Catholic book, I was familiar with the wonderful Eucharistic
hymns of St. Thomas, and the other doctrinal hymns,
modern as well as ancient, of the Catholic Church,
I do not think that in those days we were taught, "as
Anglicans are taught now, that there were seven Sacraments,
but the practical result was the same. I shall never forget
the care with which I was prepared for Confirmation ; it
never occurred to me to doubt that the clergy had the
�Why I left the Church of England
5
power of forgiving sins ; indeed I think I exaggerated this
power, for I thought that the declaration of absolution at
matins and evensong was sacramental. Confession was not
urged as it is now, and confessionals were not, as they are
now, openly placed in the Churches ; but in sermons and in
private instruction the “ benefit of absolution ” as the
Prayer-book calls it, was referred to, and we know that
confessions were heard in the sacristy. Ihave already said
that we believed in the apostolical succession—in other
words, in the Sacrament of Orders; and it was difficult to
ignore the plain command of St. James as to Extreme
Unction—indeed, I have never been able to understand,
save on the basis of Luther’s well-known saying that the
Epistle of James was a “ matter of straw,” how Protestants
evade comoliance with this text.
As to externals, although in those days these had
developed but little, the principle of them was laid down.
We were told—and I do not see how any one can deny it—
that there were two rituals authorized by Almighty God—
the ancient Jewish rite, and the mystical vision of the
Apocalypse. In both were found the symbolic use of
vestments and incense, music and ceremonial : nowhere
did we find any indication that these externals were to be
done away, and we knew that the Christian Church adopted
them from as early a period as was possible. The English
Church, indeed, was shorn of her splendour, but the time
would come when she would arise and put on her beautiful
garments; and if there should beany ftigh Churchman
among my hearers, he will say, and say truly, that that time
has come, and that, so far as externals go, the Established
Church can now vie successfully with the Roman ritual in
splendour and dignity.
And as with other externals, so with music. Among the
many things for which I am grateful to those who brought
me up, few are more present to me than the love which
they gave me for the old plain chant of the Church—the
chant which we called Gregorian, thereby giving honour to
the great Pope who sent St. Augustine to bring this nation
back to God. And with the old chants we had the old
words—not only the Psalms of David, but the words of the
�6
Why I left the Church of England
Fathers of the Church in her hymns—of St. Ambrose, and
St. Gregory, and St. Bede, and St. Thomas Aquinas : for
in those early days not a hymn was sung in that church
which had not upon it the hall-mark of antiquity.
To the same hand which translated most of these hymns
into sonorous and manly English, I owed my knowledge of
the lives of the Saints, as portrayed in the volumes setting
forth the ‘ Triumphs of the Cross ’ and the ‘ Followers of
the Lord.’ To Dr. Neale—that great liturgical scholar—
I shall always feel a debt of gratitude for having made me
understand, however imperfectly, what is meant by the
Communion of Saints, and for having brought to my
knowledge that wonderful storehouse of saintly history
which is among the many treasures of the Catholic Church.
It is true that we did not then, as Anglicans do now, invoke
them, or address our litanies to the Mother of God; yet
the veneration of the Blessed Virgin and the saints was
inculcated upon us in many ways.
So with the observance, not only of festivals, but of fasts
—the duty of keeping both was impressed on us. The
brightness of the sanctuary, with its many lights and flowers,
and the stately procession chanting psalms, were associ
ated with all the great Christian festivals, making “the
beauty of holiness," something more than a name; while
the times of self-denial and the penitential season of Lent
were brought home to us by the silent organ and the violethung sanctuary. The duty of supporting our pastors, the
equality of all meh before God,
“ Who has but one same death for a hind,
And one same death for a king,’’
were also taught us, as fully as the Church herself teaches
them.
You may wonder what were the impressions I received
with regard to the Catholic Church on one side, and
Nonconformists on the other. With regard to the Church
I was taught that there were three branches—the Anglican,
the Greek, and the Roman—and that of these three the
Catholic Church was made up : that in this country the
Church of England represented the Catholic Church, and
�Why I left the Church oj England
7
that the Roman branch had no business here—though I am
thankful to say that I cannot remember ever having
heard at St. Barnabas’s a single sermon against Roman
Catholics, or an uncharitable word regarding them. I
therefore had none of those prejudices which seem insepar
able from certain forms of Protestantism—prejudices
which prevent even a fair hearing of the Catholic position.
I remember one sermon on the honour due to the Blessed
Virgin, in which the Roman devotion to her was spoken of
as excessive; and another on St. Peter, in which his prim
acy, as distinct from his supremacy, was acknowledged :
but until I was seventeen I never heard the Protestant
side of the Church of England advanced from any pulpit,
although then, as now, the itinerant Protestant lecturer
presented to those who were credulous enough to accept his
statements a caricature of the Catholic Church. In those
days a Mr. Edward Harper, who had some prominent
position in the Orange Society, occupied the place which
is now held by Mr. Collette, and, was filled, until lately,
by Mr. Mark Knowles.
I ought to add that I had never attended a Roman
Catholic service, and had only once entered a Catholic
church. This was the old Oratory, into which I went one
winter afternoon on my way to the South Kensington
Museum. One of the few things I knew about what I
considered the Roman branch of the Church was that the
Blessed Sacrament was reserved on its altars, and I remem
ber kneeling in the dark, flat-roofed Oratory, with its lamp
burning before the altar, in adoration of the Presence which
I felt to be there. I was quite sure—for I had never
heard it called in question—that the views I have given
were those of the Church of England : that the Reformation,
disastrous as it was, in many ways, had not broken the
apostolical succession: and that the Western and Eastern
Churches, equally with the Anglican, had Orders and
Sacraments, and were of the unity of the Faith.
With Nonconformists it was different. They had no
authorized ministry, and therefore no Sacraments. They
had thrown off the authority of the Church, and substituted
their own interpretation of the Bible. They were the
�8
Why I left the Church of England
followers of Korak, Dathan, and Abiram; against them
was directed the warning, “mark those who cause divisions
among you, and avoid them.” I am afraid that we looked
upon them as socially inferior to ourselves—certainly as
people to be avoided—and as “Protestants,” a term which
even then Anglicans held in contempt. With Catholics we
had much in common—indeed, we were Catholics ourselves :
but Dissent, with its numberless divisions, absence of
dignity, unauthorized teachers, and ugly conventicles, was
far from us, and with it we could hold no communion.
This was my position until, at about the age of eighteen,
I went into the country to study medicine. I shall never
forget my first Sunday there. There was a magnificent old
parish church, with deep chancel and broad aisles, choked
up with pews of obstructive design. A small table with a
shabby red cloth stood away under the picture which con
cealed the east window; a choir of a handful of men and
boys, unsurpliced and untidy, sang the slender allowance
of music; a parish clerk responded for the congregation ;
— these were the objects that met my eyes and ears that
first Sunday of my exile. But that was not all. We had a
sermon, delivered by a preacher in a black gown—to me a
new and hideous vestment,—on behalf of the Sunday
schools. That sermon I shall always remember. In the
course of it, the preacher enumerated the things they did
not teach the children in the schools : they did not teach
them they were born again in baptism, they did not teach
that the clergy were descended from the Apostles, they did
not teach that they had power to forgive sins, they did not
teach a real presence in the Communion—“ Real presence! ”
I heard a parson say in that church ; “Ibelieve in a real
absence ! ”—they did not teach the doctrine of good works.
I began to wonder what was left to be taught, until the
preacher explained that predestination and salvation by
faith alone were inculcated upon the children. On the
next Sunday the Holy Communion was administered—how,
I can hardly describe, except by saying that it was manifest
that no belief in its supernatural aspect was maintained. I
can see now the parish clerk, at the end of the service,
walking up the chancel, and the minister coming towards
�Why I left the Church of England
9
him with the paten in one hand and the chalice in the
other, waiting while he, standing, ate and drank the con
tents of each.
My first feeling was that these clergy had no right or
place in the Church of England. There was a moderately
“high” church five miles off, and whenever I could, I
found my way there. But it became unpleasantly plain
that the Church of England, which I had regarded as an
infallible guide, spoke with two voices :—I began to realize
that even on vital matters two diametrically-opposed
opinions, not only could be, but were, held and preached.
I knew my Book of Common Prayer and its rubrics as
well as I knew my Bible; but to one part of it my atten
tion had never been called, as it now was Sunday by
Sunday. I had known without realizing all that it implied,
that the Queen was, in some way, the Head of the Church
—or rather, of two churches, one in England and one in
Scotland: but I now found that she declared herself to
be “Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and,
by God’s ordinance, Defender of the Faith : ” that General
Councils, which I had been taught to believe infallible,
could not be held “ without the commandment and will of
princes,” and “ may err, and sometimes have erred, in things
pertaining unto God ” ; that Confirmation, Penance, and
the like, were not Sacraments of the Gospel; that the
benefits of Baptism were confined to “ they that receive
it rightly; ” that the reception of the Body of Christ
in the Holy Communion is dependent on the faith of
the recipient; and that “the Sacrifices of masses . . .
were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits.” This
last was indeed a trial to me. It is true that twenty-five
years ago the word “ Mass ” was not in common use among
Anglicans as it is now, and I do not think an Anglican
clergyman would have been found to say in public, as one
said the other day, that “he would not stay a minute in
a church where the Mass was not, for if they had not got
the Mass, they had no worship whatever.” But we knew
that the term was retained in the first reformed Prayer-book
and that it was the name employed throughout the Western
Church for the Eucharistic service.
*
�io
Why I left the Church of England
Here then was my difficulty: and the more I faced it,
the more I found that the ground which I had thought so
sure was slipping away from under me. Not, thank God,
that I ever doubted any of the truths which had been
implanted in me: but I-began to see, more and more
clearly, that the authority, on which I had thought them
to rest was altogether lacking. I found that what I had
received as the teaching of a Church was only the teaching
of a certain section of its clergy, and that other clergy,
with exactly as much authority, taught directly opposite
opinions: they were not priests, they said: they claimed
to offer no sacrifice ; no office of forgiving sins was theirs;
they possessed no supernatural powers.
This was bad enough, but there was worse behind. The
other branches of the Church—what did they say on these
momentous points ? Alas 1 there was no room for doubt
here. Neither the Eastern nor Western “branches,” each
of them far larger than the Anglican, would admit for a
moment the claims of the Anglican clergy to be priests :
and a large section of themselves equally denied it. The
bishops in some cases expressly told the candidates for
ordination that they were not made priests j and if their
were no priests, how could the sacraments depending on
them be celebrated ? It was no special ill-will to Anglicans
that Rome showed by refusing to recognize their orders;
for she never denied those of the Greeks, although these
were equally separated from her unity. The Branch
Theory broke down—it would not work.
Then I read other books—many of them by Newman,
for whom Anglicans in those days cherished a warm
affection and respect in spite of his secession. And more
and more the conviction was forced upon me that I had
received the beliefs in which I had been brought up on
the authority of certain individual members of a body
which not only tolerated, but taught with equal authority,
the exact opposite of these beliefs—that the Anglican
Communion,. even as represented by those who claimed
for it Catholicity, was a mere Protestant sect, differing
only from more recent denominations in that it retained
certain shreds and patches of the old faith. It was, in
�Why I left the Church of England
11
short, a compromise—a via media between Rome and
Dissent—and it was as unsatisfactory as compromises
usually are.
Meanwhile there came upon me more and more plainly
the claims of a Church which taught with authority
all that I believed; which claimed to be the one body
having a right to teach; and which, without equivocation
or hesitation, pointed out to its members one only means
of salvation. By one of those occurrences which we
call accidents I became acquainted with a Catholic priest
—one of the first of those Anglicans who gave up friends
and position and everything that could make life happy at
the call of their Master. From him I learned what was
hitherto lacking to my knowledge of the Church ; I realized,
as I had never done before, that the first mark of God’s
Church was unity—a mark which no one can pretend to
find in the Church of England : and after a period of anxiety
such as none can know who have not experienced it, I was
received into that unity.
Of my experience since, you will not expect me to speak.
If I must say anything, I will venture to employ the words
of Cardinal Newman, which express better than any words
of mine could, my feelings now :—“ From the day I became
a Catholic to this day, I have never had a moment’s mis
giving that the Communion of Rome is the Church which
the Apostles set up at Pentecost, which alone has ‘the
adoption of sons, and the glory, and the covenants, and the
revealed law, and the service of God, and the promises,’
and in which the Anglican Communion, whatever its merits
and demerits, whatever the great excellence of individuals
in it, has, as such, no part. Nor have I ever for a moment
hesitated in my conviction that it was my duty to join the
Catholic Church, which in my own conscience I felt to be
divine.”
When I told the friends with whom I was living that I
had become a Catholic, the result somewhat astonished me :
and those good Protestants who assume—as many do—
that persecution and Popery are inseparably connected,
while Protestantism and liberty of conscience are convert
ible terms, may like to know what happened. My desk
�12
Why. I left the Church of England
was broken open; my private letters were stolen; letters
sent me through the post were intercepted, opened, and
sometimes detained; I was prevented from going to a
Catholic church and from seeing a Catholic priest; a picture
of the Crucifixion which I had had in my room for years,
was profaned in a way which I do not care to characterize,
These things are small and trifling compared with what
many have suffered, but what light do not even they throw
upon that right of private judgement which Protestants pro
fess to hold so dear !
One thing which seemed to me at my conversion remark
able still remains to me one of the most wonderful features,
of Protestantism—the universal assumption that Catholics
do not know what they themselves believe, and that Pro
testants understand it far better. The average Protestant,
for instance, thinks and often asserts that we believe that
the Pope cannot sin, that we worship images, that we are
disloyal to the Crown, that we put our Lady in the place of
God, that we sell absolution for money and have a recog
nized tariff for the remission of sins, that we may not read
the Bible, that we would burn every Protestant if we could,
that we lie habitually, that our convents are haunts of vice,
that our priests are knaves or conscious imposters, and that
our laity are dupes or fools—I could, if time would allow,
easily bring extracts from Protestant writers in support of
each of these positions. Not only so, but—by isolated texts
of scripture ; by scraps of the Fathers, torn from their con
text, and often mistranslated; by misrepresentations of
history * by fragments of prayers and hymns, interpreted
;
as no Catholic would interpret them ; by erroneous explan
ations of what they see in our churches ; by baseless infer
ences arising from ignorance of the very language we use
— they formulate and are not ashamed to propagate charges
against us which in many cases we cannot condemn seriously,
because it is impossible to help laughing at them. Our
contradictions are not listened to ; our corrections are un
heeded ; our statements are disbelieved. “ Give us,” we say,
* See Mr. Collette as a historian, by the Rev. S. F. Smith, S.T.—
Catholic Truth Society, id.
�Why I left the Church of England
13
“at least fair play ; hear what we have to say for ourselves ;
do not condemn us unheard ; do not assume that we are
all fools or rogues.” But we are not listened to : we are not
allowed to know what we ourselves believe ! “ Oh for the
rarity of Christian charity,” or at any rate of Protestant
charity.
We are sometimes accused of omitting one of the
commandments : but it is the bigoted Protestant who does
this—he entirely forgets that there is in the Decalogue one
which says sternly—“ Thou shalt not bear false witness
against thy neighbour.” How many Protestants who speak
against the Church have ever expended a penny on the Cate
chism which contains a full clear statement of Christian
Doctrine, which is approved by authority, and on which
the religious education of our children is based? Yet they
would learn more from it of what we really believe than
from every tract in Mr. Kensit’s shop, or from all the books
which Mr. Collette ever wrote.
It often puzzles me how it is that Protestants do not
realize the utter futility of the attempts they have been
making for the last fifty years to arrest the tide of Catholic
tendency which is flooding the nation. Go into St. Paul’s
—say on the festival of the Gregorian Association—see the
long procession of surpliced choirs with their banners,
many of them bearing Catholic devices; listen to the old
antiphons, unauthorized indeed by the Book of Common
Prayer, set to the chants to which they are sung in the
Church throughout the world wherever the Divine Office is
chanted; see the preacher mount the pulpit, prefacing his
sermon with the invocation of the Blessed Trinity and the
sign of the Cross; hear him refer as one referred two years
since, to “our Lady”—a title only less dear to Catholics
than that of our Lord: and as you sit and listen, look to
the end of the church, with its dignified and decorated
altar and the gorgeous reredos, not unworthy of a Catholic
church, with the great crucifix in its centre, and over all
the statue of Mary with her Divine Child in her arms : and
as you leave the church, do not forget to notice the side
chapel and its handsome altar, with cross, and flowers and
lights, where the daily communion service is held. Then
remember that less than forty years since, not one of these
�14
Why I left the Church of England
ornaments or signs could be seen in the desolate, dirty
edifice, with its shabby communion-table well-nigh out of
sight under the east window. Go to Wesminster, and see,
prominent at the restored north door, another statue of
Mary with her Child. Go up and down the country, both
to your large towns and to your remote villages, and you
will find the same advance—only more developed. Last
year, I strolled into the magnificent old abbey church of a
little Oxfordshire village : the air was dim and heavy with
incense; there were three altars, each duly furnished with
lights, cross, and sacring-bell; on the notice board was a
copy of the parish magazine, in which I read an exhortation
on the duty of hearing Mass on Sunday which might have
been taken—and perhaps was taken—from a Catholic
manual of instruction : and a list of the services to be held
on the feast of Corpus Christi 1 The crucifix is now
common in Protestant churches ; pictures of our Lady are
not rare ; statues of her are to be found—why do not our
Protestant friends look to this, instead of raising their voices
against Catholicism ? They shriek and rant after their
manner ; yet one stronghold after another is captured, and
they stand by and are powerless to hinder it.
Look at the wealth of literature of every kind, which
pours forth from the ritualistic press : the manuals and
treatises, the dogmatic works, the numberless little books,
each more advanced than the last with which the country
is literally flooded, and of which the St. Agatha’s Sunday
Scholars’ Book, which lately received a notice from the
Protestant Alliance, is but one out of a thousand. Look
even at the levelling up which has marked the publications
of so eminently respectable a body as the Society for the
Promotion of Christian Knowledge. How is it that, with
all your power and influence and money, you cannot arrest
this advance in the direction of Rome?
And what about Rome itself? There are those who
think that England is rapidly becoming Catholic. I am
not of that number, but I cannot fail to see that the fields
are white unto harvest, and I see too that the labourers are
being sent forth into the harvest.
More than fifty years ago, Macaulay pointed out, in that
�Why I left the Church of England
15
wonderful essay on Ranke’s History of the Popes which I
would commend to all Protestants who do not know it, as
a “ most remarkable fact, that no Christian nation which
did not adopt the principles of the Reformation before the
end of the 16th century, should ever have adopted them.
Catholic communities have since that time become infidel
and become Catholic again ; but none has become Protes
tant.” How is it at home ? Protestants have poured
money into Ireland; they did not scruple to avail them
selves, to their everlasting disgrace, of the sufferings of the
great famine in order to buy over with their funds the souls
and bodies of the destitute Irish. “ God has opened a
great door to us in Ireland”—such was the blasphemous
announcement which prefaced one of the appeals for those
liberal funds without which no Protestant missionary enter
prise, at home or abroad, can be carried on. What is the
result? Is Ireland less Catholic than she was? Come
closer—come to England—here are facts which Protestants
will not dispute, for they will come to you with the author
ity of the Protestant Alliance, from one of whose publi
cations I quote them. Since 1851, the number of priests in
England has more than trebled itself; of churches, chapels
and stations we have now 1387, where in 1851 we had
586 ; of religious houses of men we have 220, against 17,
forty years ago ; of convents—those favourite objects of
attack to a certain class of Protestants, those places whose
inmates, to judge from the rubbish one hears and reads,
have only one aim, to escape—we have just nine times as
many as we had in 1851 ; the numbers are 450 and 53.
Come nearer home: in 1851 the diocese of Southwark
included what is now the diocese of Portsmouth: there
were then in it 67 priests ; there are now, in the two dioceses
428—an increase of 363 ; there were 57 churches and
stations, where there are now exactly 200 ; there are 80
convents instead of 9 ; there are 38 monasteries instead of
one 1 Come to these very doors ; when I came to live in
Southwark, eight years ago, there was for this vast district
one church—the Cathedral—with four priests ; now the
staff at the Cathedral is more than doubled, and Walworth,
the Borough and Vauxhall are separated into distinct
�16
Why I left the Church of England
missions, each with two priests. Add to this such churches
as St. Alphege and St. Agnes, where the doctrines taught,
and the ornaments used, are almost identical with our
own ; All Saints (Lambeth), St. John the Divine, Christ
Church (Clapham), and many more, where sacramental
teaching of an advanced type is given : and then calculate
for yourselves what effect in this neighbourhood the puny
and impotent attacks of the Protestant Alliance is likely to
produce : a Society whose patron should surely be the good
old lady who thought to sweep back the sea with a mop :
whose members spend their money on red rags, and waste
their time by shaking them in the face of a bull—I mean
John Bull—who doesn’t care twopence about them. My
Protestant friends, there was one of old who gave sound
advice to those who took counsel to slay Peter and they
that were with him : “ Refrain from these men, and let
them alone ; for if this counsel or this work be of men, it
will come to nought; but if it be of God, ye cannot over
throw it; lest haply ye be found to fight against God.”
Remember that “ in spite of dungeon, fire and sword,”—
in spite of the penal laws, which the Lord Chief Justice has
lately styled “a code as hateful as anything ever seen since
the foundation of the world ”—the faith is among you still ;
the gates of hell have not prevailed against it.
And—speaking quite soberly and dispassionately—I do
not hesitate to say that some of the weapons which are
employed against the Church seem to me to come from
within those gates. I respect the conscientious, God-fear
ing Protestants who, under the influence of strong delusion,
feel it their duty to oppose the Church. I remember
the case of Saul, afterwards called Paul, and how he
persecuted the Church of God; and I do not despair of
their conversion. I have only sympathy for those who are
misled by prejudice and bigoted teachers. Every convert
can say, with the man in the Gospel, “ whereas I was blind
now I see; ” and I am not sure that those who have had
the happiness of being born Catholics always make sufficient
allowance for the imperfect vision of those without the
fold. But what shall be said in defence of those who are
not ashamed to write and to publish calumnies, as foul as
�Why I left the Church of England
17
they are false, against priests and nuns, and the Sacraments
of the Church—those “ lewd fellows of the baser sort ” who
under the guise of religion, do not scruple to pander to the
lowest and worst of passions by the circulation of fifthy
fictions of which ‘ Maria Monk ’ is by no means the worst-—
of works which, so far as I know, are to be found in only
two places in London— in the shop of a Protestant pub
lisher, and in a street which has for years obtained an evil
notoriety for the sale of indecent literature. I am not
going to name these books : but if any one is anxious, for
any good purpose, to know to what I refer, I am ready to
tell him. Some years since, one of the worst of these was
seized and condemned as an indecent publication; since
then, the Protestant purveyors * of pornographic publi
cations have been more careful to keep within the letter of
the law, although it is not long since the editor of Truth—
by no means a scrupulous purist—denounced some of their
wares as outraging decency. These and the highly spiced
lectures “ to men,” or “ to women only ”—appeal to a certain
class of persons; and I call upon all decent men and
women, be they Jew, Turk, heretic, or infidel—and above
all, upon Mr. Collette, who was at one time intimately con
nected with a body called the Society for the Suppression
of Vice—to dissociate themselves from any part in the
wholesale propagation of indecency which is carried on in
the name of religion. The cause must indeed be a bad and
a hopeless one which can stoop to avail itself of weapons
such as these.
But I will not refer further to a hateful kind of warfare
with which very few will sympathize. I will rather briefly
apply to two among the many schools of thought in the
Establishment the remarks which I have made.
To the Protestants or Low Churchmen I would say : Can
you conscientiously remain in a Church, the members of
which claim to hold all Roman doctrine, save that of sub
mission to the Pope—which permits the teaching not only
of Baptismal Regeneration and the Real Presence, but of
Confession, the Monastic or Religious Life, the use of
* See Truth. Dec. 28, 1893, for further remarks on one of these
persons.
�18
Why I left the Church of England
Images, Fasting, Prayers and Masses for the Dead, the
Invocation of Saints, Prayers to the Blessed Virgin, the
power of dispensing from religious obligations; which
not only allows these things to be taught, but permits them
to be emphasized by every external adjunct ? To the High
Churchman my question is exactly the converse of this.
You believe all or most of the points which I have just
enumerated : can you remain in communion with those who
deny them ? Read, if you have not read it, a pamphlet on
the Reformation by one of your own Bishops—Dr. Ryle—
one of those whom you regard as successors of the Apostles,
with the power of ordaining priests. He tells you how the
reformers “stripped the office of the clergy of any sacerdotal
character ”—how they removed the words ‘ sacrifice ’ and
‘ altar ’ from the Prayer-book, and retained the word priest
only in the sense of presbyter or elder—how they denied
the power of the keys—how they cast out the sacrifice of
the Mass as a blasphemous fable, took down the altars,
prohibited images and crucifixes, and “ declared that the
sovereign had supreme authority and chief power in this
realm in all causes ecclesiastical.” What is gained by the
wearing of cope and mitre and the teaching of Sacramental
doctrine by one bishop, if another can at the same time,
with equal authority, denounce all these things ? and how can
a Church, with any claim to be considered as teaching with
authority, tolerate with equanimity both of these extremes ?
We Catholics are so accustomed to the unity of the
Church that we do not perhaps always think what a wonder
ful thing it is : and Protestants, I find, often do not realize
it. They sometimes point to our religious orders as if they
were equivalent to their own manifold divisions ! It is, I
believe, the literal truth that, as the sun shines day by day
on each part of the world, he sees at each moment the
blessed Sacrifice of the Altar uplifted to the Eternal
Father. Where, save in the Catholic Church, shall we find
such a fulfilment of the prophecy—“From the rising of the
sun unto the going down of the same shall incense be
offered to My Name and a pure offering?” Not only so,
but throughout the world—from “ Greenland’s icy moun
tains to “ India’s coral strand ”—wherever two or three are
�Why I left the Church of England
19
gathered together in the One Name is the same belief, the
same sacrifice, mainly the same ritual: so that the Irish
exile leaving the Old World for the New, where Catholi
cism is increasing with rapid strides, is as much at home
in the churches of New York as he was in his roadside
country chapel in the old country. Can any Catholic for
a moment conceive the possibility of finding any one
doctrine preached at St. George’s contradicted by the
priest at Walworth, controverted in the sermon in the
Catholic chapel at Vauxhall, and called in question by
Canon Murnane in the Borough ? Can he imagine Cardinal
Vaughan’s teaching on the Mass contradicted by our own
beloved Bishop ? But will any Protestant tell me that—to
take the two Anglican churches nearest to us—the teaching
at St. Paul’s is identical with that at St. Alphege ? Could
Mr. Allwork’s congregation next Sunday avail themselves of
Mr. Goulden’s ministrations, or join in the hymns and
prayers addressed to the Blessed Sacrament and the
Mother of God ?
The Catholic can go all over the world, and wherever he
goes he will find the same Faith and the same Sacrifice.
The Protestant cannot go at random into two churches in
the same neighbourhood with any certainty that the teach
ing or ceremonial will be similar, and that with regard to
the most vital points of faith. “ How can two walk together
except they be agreed ? ” Remember that, as the cowl
does not make the monk, so the most elaborate ritual and
the most advanced teaching cannot make a Catholic. A
few weeks ago I strolled into a handsome Church in this
neighbourhood, just as a lady dressed like a nun was taking
the school-children to service. There was the raised altar,
with its flowers and lights and crucifix and what looked
very like a tabernacle, and before the altar burned seven
lamps. “ Is this a Catholic Church ?” I said to the verger.
“ No, sir, Church of England,” was the reply. My friends
disguise it as you will, the truth will out: your Catholic
church is only the Church of England after all.
One point more. When I was thinking of becoming a
Catholic, I pointed out to a friend these differences exist
ing in the Church of England. Both, I said, cannot be
�20
Why I left the Church of England
true, but neither the Church herself, nor the State which
supports her, is able to say with authority which is right.
My friend told me—what I believe people still say—that
High and Low Church were united in essentials. Surely
the most ignorant and superstitious Papists ever invented
by a Protestant lecturer would recoil before such an
absurdity as this statement involves ! Surely it is “essential ”
to know whether Baptism is a mere symbol or a regener
ating sacrament; it cannot be a matter of indifference
whether the sons of men have or have not power on earth
to forgive sins ; it cannot be a matter of opinion whether
the sacrifice of the Mass is a blasphemous fable and
dangerous deceit, or the renewal of the great Sacrifice
offered on Calvary? There must be an authority to pro
nounce upon these points, and the Church of England
neither has nor claims to be such authority. From the
time of the Gorham Judgement, which left Baptism an
open question, down to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s
decision the other day, uncertainty, vagueness, and inde
cision have marked every attempt to formulate any definite
opinion. This last attempt has indeed justified ritualism
on the ground that it means nothing in particular, and
above all, nothing Roman. No wonder the Times spoke
of a “sense of unreality” in “the effort to treat, as neutral
or colourless, acts which we all know to be, in the view of
a party in the Church, technical symbols and unequivocal
doctrinal signs.” It is true that, with marvellous effrontery
a popular Anglican hymn asserts—
“We are not divided,
All one body we ;
One in hope and doctrine,
One in charity.” *
But does any Anglican believe it to be true?
“Not
divided 1 ” Is there any one who will assert that the
“ doctrine ” preached in the first half-dozen Anglican
churches he comes across will be “ one ? —or that the
[It would appear that even Anglicans themselves have been • struck
by the absurdity of this statement, for in the new edition of Hymns
Ancient and Modern the verse begins :
“ Though divisions harass,
All one body we.”]
�Why I left the Church of England
21
teaching of what is termed, with unconscious irony, the
“ religious press,” has any claims to be considered ident
ical ? If the “ doctrine ” is one, why do we find in the
same Church two such organizations as the English Church
Union and the Church Association, each diametrically
opposed to the other, and the latter continually prosecut
ing the clergy who represent the views of the former ?
Is there anywhere such a spectacle of division as this —
a division which, as soon as the bonds of State Establish
ment shall have been broken asunder, cannot fail to be
even more manifest than it is at present.
“ Not divided ! ” It must be nearly thirty years ago, I
think, that St. Paul’s, Lorrimore Square, was in the fore
front of Anglicanism. There was a change of vicar, and
the congregation so little realized that they were “ one in
doctrine,” with their new clergyman, that a great part of
them seceded, and formed the nucleus of what is now the
large body of worshippers attending St. Agnes’, Kennington.
But why if they were “not divided,” if they were “one in
doctrine,” did they not stay where they were ?
“Not divided!” Is not division the very essence of
Protestantism ? and are not the divisions in the Establish
ment sufficient proof that it is Protestant? “We have
within the Church of England,” said the Times on one
occasion, “ persons differing not only in their particular
tenets, but in the rule and ground of their belief.”
Put it another way. Take the case of a Nonconformist
who' desires to become a member of the Church of
England: suppose him to be some one in this neighbour
hood : is he to be taken to St. Paul’s or to St. Alphege’s ?
Who is to decide ? Surely it is not a matter of indifference.
Mr. Ruskin has said that “ The Protestant who most
imagines himself independent in his thought, and private
in his study of Scripture, is nevertheless usually at the
mercy of the nearest preacher who has a pleasant voice
and ingenious fancy.” * Arid surely the faith which is
put forward as that of the Church of England, depends
entirely on the belief of the individual parson referred to,
How different is the case with the Catholic Church !
Our Fathers Have Told Us, iii, 125.
�22
Why I left the Church of England
I have said that the Church of England neither has nor
claims authority; and my last words shall be devoted to
making this plain. If she has authority, as our High
Church friends assert, whence does she derive it ? Not
from the old Church of England, for by the Reformation
of Elizabeth, the old Catholic episcopate was swept away.
Of the sixteen surviving Catholic Bishops, all save one—
Kitchin of Llandaff, who took no part in the Reformation,
nor in the consecration of Parker—were imprisoned, and
Parker and those consecrated by him were intruded into
the sees of the imprisoned Bishops. But granting that
Parker and the rest were validly consecrated, whence did
they get jurisdiction ? Certainly not from the old Catholic
Bishops ; most certainly not from the source whence these
obtained it, namely, the Pope; not by the fact of consecra
tion, for orders and jurisdiction are distinct, and received
independently of each other; not from either of Parker’s
consecrators—Barlow, Scory, Coverdale, and Hodgkins—
for not one of these was in possession of a see, and they
could not give what they themselves did not possess. The
only answer possible, however unpalatable it may be to
High Churchmen, is, that they got jurisdiction from the
Crown, or not at all.
Every Protestant bishop now takes the oath of suprem
acy, by which he professes that the Sovereign is the “ only
supreme governor” of the realm “in spiritual and ecclesi
astical things, as well as in temporal.” Whence the
sovereign obtained this supremacy, or what “ warranty of
Scripture ” can be adduced for it, 1 do not know ; nor do
I think it easy to ascertain.
Moreover, the Establishment not only does not possess
authority, but she expressly disclaims it. The First General
Council of the Church prefaced its teaching with—“It
seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us: ” and the
Catholic Church, right down to the present day, has spoken
with like authority. But what does the Church of England
say ? Her anxiety not to be regarded as having any
authority is almost pathetic : “All Churches have erred,”
she says, “ in matters of faith ” and it is implied that she may
fail also. The Church has power, indeed to decree rites
�Why I left the Church of England
23
and ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith, but
it cannot decree anything unless it is taken out of Holy
Scripture. General Councils are not only dependent on
the will of princes, but when assembled, may err and have
erred, nor may the Church declare anything of faith which
is not read in Holy Scripture. These things she tells us in
her Articles of Religion. But, to go a step further, who
gave Holy Scripture its authority ? It claims none for
itself as a whole ; it nowhere tells us of what books it is
composed; Christians are nowhere told to read it; no text
bids us keeps Sunday holy, or authorizes infant baptism, or
the taking of oaths. Who vouches for the authority of
the Bible, I repeat ? who, but that Church which from the
earliest times has been its guardian and its only rightful
interpreter.
It is true that to claim authority is one thing and to
possess it is another. If saying we had a thing were
equivalent to having it, we should find nowadays authorized
teachers in abundance. But it is difficult to believe that a
body deriving its teaching power from God would take so
much trouble to deny the possession of it. The Catholic
Church does not act thus.
And when the spiritual head of the Establishment is
consulted, he shows himself her true son. Some years ago,
Mr. Maskell, who afterwards became a Catholic, asked the
Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Sumner, whether he might
or might not teach certain doctrines of faith ? “ To which,”
the Archbishop said, “ I reply : are they contained in the
word of God ? Whether they are so contained, and can be
proved thereby, you have the same means of discovering as
myself, and I have no special authority to declare.”
Here is the judgement passed upon the Church of
England by the learned Dr. Dollinger, a man who has
some claim to respect from Protestants, seeing that he had
the misfortune to die outside the unity of the Catholic
Church. “ There is no Church that is so completely and
thoroughly as the Anglican, the product and expression of
the wants and wishes, the modes of thought and cast of
character, not of a certain nationality, but of a fragment of
a nation, namely, the rich, fashionable, and cultivated
�24
Why I left the Church of England
classes. It is the religion of deportment, of gentility, of
clerical reserve. Religion and the Church are then required
to be above all things, not troublesome, not intrusive, not
presuming, not importunate.” “ It is a good church to live
in,” some one said, “ but a bad one to die in.”
The absence of authority and of definite teaching—these
were the reasons which induced me to leave the Church of
England. The step once taken, all was clear; and on
every side I found abundant evidence that, if there be a
Church of God upon earth, the Holy Catholic and Roman
Church alone can claim that title. That evidence I cannot
bring before you now—I have already detained you too
long. My Catholic hearers do not need it, and my
Protestant friends will do well to seek it from those better
qualified than myself, qualified to speak with an authority
which cannot attach to any sayings of mine. To both
Catholics and Protestants I would recommend the perusal
of the Lectures on the Present Position of Catholics in
England, * which were delivered by John Henry Newman,
“ the noblest Roman of them all ”—not long after he left
the Establishment, thus, as Lord Beaconsfield said upon
one occasion, “ dealing the Church of England a blow from
which she still reels.” In those lectures you will find
almost every popular objection against the Church met with
a charm of literary style and with a courteousness of
expression which, so far as I know, has never been equalled ;
and even those who remain unconvinced of the truth of
the Church will be constrained to admit that there is at
least another aspect of things which seemed to them to
admit of only one, and that a bad one. It has been well
said that the truths of the Church are like stained glass
windows in a building: look at them from without, all is
confusion : but go inside, Jet the light of heaven stream
through them, and each fragment takes its place in the
glorious aud beautiful picture which is presented to your
delighted gaze. So, from without, the doctrines of the
Church seem dark and confused ; but the light of heaven
pours through them to those within.
* [Of these a shilling edition is now published by the Catholic Truth
Society.]
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Why I left the Church of England
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Britten, James [1846-1924]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: "A Lecture delivered in March,1893, in St. George's School, Southwark, in answer to one given by a Mr. Fitzgerald, of the Protestant Alliance." Includes bibliographical references. Annotations in blue pencil. Date of publication from KVK (OCLC, WorldCat).
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Catholic Truth Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1894?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1539
Subject
The topic of the resource
Church of England
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Why I left the Church of England), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Church of England
Conversion-Catholic Church