“June 11, 1844.—­On Saturday last I went into Boston and did not return until this morning (Tuesday). . . .  My purpose in going was to see Bishop Fenwick of the Roman Catholic Church, to learn what are the preliminaries necessary for one who wishes to be united to the Church.  I saw the bishop and his coadjutor, men of remarkable goodness, candor, and frankness.  I was chiefly interested with his coadjutor, and spent some hours with him on Monday.  And this is the result to which I have come:  That soon, probably next week, I shall go from here to Worcester, where there is a Catholic college, and stay there for a few days, perhaps a fortnight, to see the place, become acquainted with their practical religious life and their system of intellectual instruction.  From there I shall go on home to New York, and, after having gone through the requisite preliminaries, be united to the Roman Catholic Church in our city. . . .  Before I make any unalterable step, I wish to see you all and commune with you concerning this movement on my part. . . .

“Whatever theories and speculations may be indulged in and cherished by those opposed to the Roman Catholic Church, their influence, however important they may seem, is not sufficiently vital to prevent me from being united to it.  It satisfies and meets my deepest wants; and on this ground, setting aside any other for the moment, I feel like affirming, in the spirit of the man whom Christ made to see.* I know not whether this Church be or be not what certain men call it, but this I know:  it has the life my heart is thirsting for, and of which my spirit is in great need.

[* John 9:24:  We know this man is a sinner.  He said therefore to them:  If he be a sinner, I know not; one thing I know, that whereas I was blind, now I see.]

“A case in point:  The sermon of Dr. Seabury on the lamented death of Arthur Carey is as far from satisfying my heartfelt longings as Platonism would be to the Christian.  Read the doctrine of the Catholic Church on the Communion of Saints in the Catechism of the Council of Trent attentively and devoutly, and you will see and feel the wide difference in doctrine and life between it and that held even by the high-church Anglican.  It may be said in excuse for Dr. Seabury, that he has to be prudent and cautious on account of the state of mind of those whom he has to speak to.  Well enough; but why should one go to a weak and almost dried-up spring when there is one equally near, fresh, always flowing and full of life? . . .  There may be those, and I do not question there are many such good persons, who do not feel the deep demands of the spiritual nature as profoundly as others do, and that the Anglican Church fully satisfes all their needs.  But even in her bosom there are many who think that if the Oxford tendencies are Anglican, she is very idolatrous and exceedingly superstitious, because they feel no need for so much discipline and ceremony, and such faith in the invisible . . . all