CHAPTER XI.

The Maid Of Lille.

Incidents overlapped each other so thickly, and were of such different tendencies during the last two years of Mr. Spencer's life as a minister, that we have judged it better to give them singly, even at the expense of a little sacrifice of the order of time. One of these, and an important one, is selected for the subject of this chapter. On the 23rd of November, 1827, just before his Athanasian scruples had risen to their height, as he returned from his pastoral visitation, he found a letter, purporting to be from a gentleman in Lille, "who was grievously troubled about the arguments for Popery." This letter contains little more than a statement of tendencies towards Catholicity in the writer, with extracts from Papin, _De la Tolérance des Protestants_, to account for them. The extracts draw a parallel between the Church and a well-regulated kingdom, in many of her doctrines and chief points of her discipline. It was anonymous, and reasons were assigned for withholding the writer's name. Mr. Spencer, ever anxious to counsel the doubtful, lost no time in answering, and sent off a long letter to his unknown friend by that evening's post. It was shortly after this that he wrote the letters to his father and Dr. Blomfield about the resignation of his preferment, and whether the Lille letter had anything to do with increasing his doubts, or not, is a question. It had, however, one effect: it made him anxious to find out what kind of people Catholics were; and an incident that occurred about the same time aided this curiosity. There were some soldiers quartered in Northampton, and, as Mr. Spencer was talking to some of the officers in the court-yard of the barracks, the {175} Catholic priest entered, to look after such of the soldiers as might require his spiritual care. He saw the priest, and spoke to him; and, finding out the object of his mission, kindly introduced him to one of the officers, who, in consideration of Mr. Spencer, got all due attention paid to the priest; and the good parson was assured that he succeeded to his satisfaction before he left the place. A few days afterwards he met the priest, who thanked him for his charity, and said it was Providence sent him there at such a time, and arranged that his duty could be discharged among the soldiers with ease and honour, which had often-times to be done amid insults, or at least coldness on the part of the military authorities. Mr. Spencer began to think, "Really these Papists believe in Providence!" This wonderful discovery made him think they believed a little more also, and that they were not quite such idolaters as he had been taught to suppose. Another letter from the Lille correspondent confirmed him in this, and shook him in many of his older notions. He dines, in a few days after this despatch, with the celebrated Dr. Fletcher and a Miss Armytage, at Lady Throckmorton's. He has a long conversation with the last of the Douay controversialists after dinner; but the only effect produced is this: "I am thankful for the kindness of both those Papists. The Lord reward them by showing them His truth." He invites Dr. Fletcher to dinner at Brington--a favour the Doctor avails himself of on the 27th March, 1828. Another letter from his friend at Lille makes him acknowledge that he has not had proper notions of Catholicity; in his own words: "I expected easily to convince him that the Catholic Church was full of errors; but he answered my arguments. .... I discovered by means of this correspondence that I had never duly considered the principles of our Reformation; that my objections to the Catholic Church were prejudices adopted from the sayings of others, not the result of my own observation. Instead of gaming the advantage in this controversy, I saw, and I owned to my correspondent, that a great change had been produced in myself. I no longer desired to persuade him to keep in the communion of the Protestant Church, {176} but rather determined and promised to follow up the same inquiries with him, if he would make his name known to me, and only pause awhile before he joined the Catholics. But I heard no more of him till after my conversion and arrival at Rome, when I discovered that my correspondent was a lady, who had herself been converted a short time before she wrote to me. I never heard her name before, [Footnote 7] nor am I aware that she had ever seen my person; but God moved her to desire and pray for my salvation, which she also undertook to bring about in the way I have related. I cannot say that I entirely approve of the stratagem to which she had recourse, but her motive was good, and God gave success to her attempt: for it was this which first directed my attention particularly to inquire about the Catholic religion, though she lived not to know the accomplishment of her wishes and prayers. She died at Paris, a year before my conversion, when about to take the veil as a nun of the Sacred Heart; and I trust I have in her an intercessor in Heaven, as she prayed for me so fervently on earth."

[Footnote 7: The lady's name was Miss Dolling.]

This was the last of F. Ignatius's romances, and a beautiful one it was. As it may be interesting to see what was in those famous letters, we think it well to give a few extracts:--

The line of the lady's argument is this. That Scripture without Tradition is quite insufficient for salvation. We cannot know anything about the Scriptures themselves, their composition, inspiration, interpretation, without Tradition. Besides the New Testament was not the text-book of the Apostles--it is a collection of some things they were inspired to write for the edification of the first Christians and others who had not seen our Lord; and the Epistles are a number of letters from inspired men bound up together in one volume. The body of doctrine, with its bearings, symmetry, extent, and obligation, was delivered orally by the Apostles, and the Epistles must be consonant to that system as well as explanatory of portions of it. Only by the unbroken succession of pastors from the Apostles to the present time, can we have any safeguard as {177} to what we are to believe, and how we are to believe. The Apostles and their successors were "to teach all nations," and Christ promised them and them alone the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit. She then assigns to tradition the office of bearing testimony to what the doctrines of the Church have been, and are at present. The definitions of Councils are simple declarations that such and such is the belief then and from the beginning of the Catholic Church. They state what is, not invent what is to be. Now history, or written tradition, as contra-distinguished from Scripture, testifies to every single tenet of the Catholic Church--her creeds, liturgy, sacraments, jurisdiction. It testifies unerringly, too, even from the objections of heretics, to the fact that this Church has been always believed divine in her origin, divine in her teaching, infallible and unerring in her solemn pronouncements. This is fact, and who can gainsay it?

This peculiar way of arguing, by making tradition or history bear witness to the existence of the Church, as well as to what she always declared to be her doctrine, is a very felicitous shape to cast her arguments into. It draws the line between faith and the evidence of faith. Evidence, human evidence of the first grade of moral certainty, says: The Church believed this, and that, and the other, at such and such times, and not as a new, but as an old doctrine, that came down from age to age since the Apostles. The same evidence says: that she believed them as revealed by God, and that she could not be mistaken on account of His promise. That she never swerved, and never will swerve, from one single article which she has once believed. If this Church be not _The Church_ of Christ, I ask you where is it to be found?

In the second letter she says:

"After much reflection I must confess to you their system appears reasonable, natural, and convincing. With us, they consider the Holy Scriptures as the most respectable testimony of our faith, and they profess a strict adherence to them; they have for them the greatest respect; and the Catholic priests support from the Bible what they {178} teach the people, and I am certain that they study and understand the Scriptures as much as our ministers. The principal difference I remark is, that they do not undertake to interpret them according to their own opinions: they say that the inspired writings are replete with mysteries, which the eye of man cannot penetrate; and that He alone who gave them is able to comprehend their sublimity; consequently, to follow the impulse of reason in explaining them, would be incurring the danger of falling into error, and leading others into the same path. For this cause the Catholic minister will not suffer the Holy Scriptures to be separated from the instruction of their predecessors up to the Apostles; not that they by any means give the word of man precedence to the Word of God, since they believe that man alone cannot explain it, for 'who,' they ask, 'assisted at the council of the Almighty?' But they believe that those who heard the Apostles preach, understood the true meaning of their words; and that their immediate successors, _especially_, educated by them, and who taught the Gospel during the life of their instructors, necessarily understood the meaning of their writings, the doctrine of which was undoubtedly conformable to what they taught verbally. ...."

"St. Paul, in his Epistles to the Colossians, informs us that the Gospel was preached to all the world. This being the case, I see no possibility of introducing any new doctrine. The Apostles threatened with eternal punishment those who did not believe what they taught in the name of Jesus Christ. And whoever would have the temerity to add to the primitive doctrine they visited with a like anathema. Tell me, now, how could the Church have introduced such a doctrine as that of the Real Presence, after a priest has pronounced the words, "This is my body"? How is it possible that the faithful could reconcile themselves to the idea of acknowledging and adoring Jesus Christ present on the altar, as He was in the manger at Bethlehem, and as He is in Heaven at the right hand of His Father, if this doctrine had not always been received and believed as it is at present by the Roman Catholic Church? {179} Christians who knew the value of salvation could not so easily be deceived; several among them would have remonstrated against this superstition and idolatry. Do we find that they have done so?"

"I imagine myself in idea at the period of the Reformation, and consider the belief and customs of that time. All Europe, the provinces of Asia and Africa which had not embraced Mahomedanism, admitted and believed the contrary to what Calvin taught, especially concerning the Lord's Supper. I should be glad to hear your impartial opinion on this subject. Where did Calvin find this doctrine? As I observe, he did not learn it in the schools, nor in any book, nor in his own family, nor in the temple of God; the innovation was universally opposed; a million voices remonstrated against his impiety. What right had he to be believed? He proposed only the interpretation which _he_ gave to the words of Jesus Christ, _This is my body_. He supported his opinion in no other way, he proved it by no miracles, and therefore did not deserve belief, since he gave no proofs of a divine mission. He was but a man, and, what is more, one of whom historians do not speak as being virtuous. Tell me, then, how can I acknowledge that he possessed the Holy Spirit, knew the meaning of Scripture. .... listen to and follow a young man in his opinion and oppose the rest of the world. Could that be wisdom?

"But supposing, my dear sir, the Church to be in error, or even liable to err, how can we possibly profess to believe any mystery? For to have faith, it is impossible to doubt or hesitate. And if I believe not, I am lost. I am already condemned. 'He that believeth not is already judged.' If the Church be liable to error, may I not reply to our ministers:--'I doubt the truth of what you preach: I am not obliged to believe you'? You tell me I am not obliged to believe what _you_ so charitably wrote to me, and many passages of which letter have sensibly affected me: to whom, then, must I have recourse? You give me reason to conclude that you are not certain of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, as you do not oblige me to believe what you {180} say, but you desire me to compare your words with the Scriptures, and to reject them if I don't find them conformable to the Word of God. How can I imagine myself more certain than you that I rightly interpret them, or that I have the assistance of Heaven? I must continue to doubt during the rest of my life, and remain an unbeliever.

"You say, 'if a man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God.' To do the will of God is certainly to listen to those God has sent to teach us. ....

She quotes several authorities bearing witness in their day that the supremacy of the Pope was then believed to be of divine right, and closes the list with Sir Thomas More.

"By the grace of God I have always professed the Catholic religion. Having, however, often heard the power of the Pope was of human institution, I resolved to weigh the matter without, at the same time, injuring my faith. For seven years I followed up this study: I drank at the fountain head: I went to the origin of things. At length I found that the pontifical power is not only useful and necessary--but, strictly lawful and of divine appointment. ..."

"I cannot admit the system of _particular_ inspiration, since I see many, pretending to be inspired, fall into manifest contradictions, and consequently into error. .... I admit with you that divine authority must fix the faith of men. Where am I to find it? It must exist somewhere. ...."

The third letter is partly a continuation of the second, and partly on a new plan; so a few extracts from it must be welcome, especially as it really did such work upon poor Mr. Spencer's mind.

.... "It is certain that Jesus Christ founded a Church upon earth for the salvation of man; where, then, is it? This is certainly the whole question among the different sects opposed to each other. .... I must necessarily enter the true Church, for I cannot be saved in that which is false. ....

.... "I am persuaded the Catholics do not found their belief on the opinions and interpretations of men; {181} their authority is Jesus Christ, God Himself; certainly that must be infallible, and the reason of man ought to bend to it. They believe in such and such doctrines because Jesus Christ and His Apostles taught them; this is the simple and reasonable motive of their faith. The doctrine of Jesus' and His Apostles is not an opinion, but a fact, which I see so completely proved by an assemblage of facts and circumstances so striking, that, not to be convinced of its truth, would be to renounce all common sense. .... The fact that the Catholic Church is in possession of the true doctrine is a fact proved like all other historical facts; it is proved by a weight of testimony given by persons who saw and heard themselves. Observe, it is not the opinions or interpretations given by those persons which are advanced as proofs, as you suppose in your letter; but all these holy persons have shed their blood to support and defend the truth, not of their opinions, but of what they have seen or heard. I can understand that fanaticism would induce a man to sacrifice his life to support a favourite opinion, but it has never yet been seen that any one would lose his life to prove that he had seen or heard things which he, in fact, had not. Tradition is not, therefore, as you suppose, the opinions and interpretations of the Fathers, but their testimony to what they saw, heard, taught, and practised. In the same way, the general Councils have fixed the sense of Scripture only by declaring the fact that such has been the universal doctrine since the Apostles. It is the assemblage of these proofs that brings conviction to the soul; they must all be seen united and compared, and this is undoubtedly a laborious study.

"The Catholics believe that their Church is in possession of the doctrine taught by Christ, and listen to it as they would to Him. Judge from this how strong and lively must be the faith of a Catholic, how firm and immovable, since the voice of their Church is the voice of their Saviour, and the interval of eighteen hundred years disappears as they every day hear the voice of Jesus. There cannot be any division in this Church. It being an historical fact that the same doctrine has been taught from the beginning by the {182} infallible mouth of Jesus Christ and His Apostles, it follows that _all_ must yield to that authority, and that the rash individual who would dispute, disputes as it were with Jesus Christ, and consequently ought to be driven from the flock. ....

"The Catholics say:--_without the Scriptures we should not hear the Saviour speak, but without tradition we should not know what He says_. ....

"Why are not _our_ eyes opened--having every day proof that private interpretation is at fault?--let us try. Take your Bible, and read whatever passage you please; I also will read it. Let us both, then, invoke the assistance of God, and do you candidly think our inspirations would agree as to the sense of the passage? I think not. However, should we differ, who is to decide which is in error?

....

"I see by your letters you have not always had the same opinion on all points that you have at this time. ... What warrant have you that you are better inspired now than before? Inspiration does not cause change of opinion.

....

"We have in our country written laws of ancient date. Suppose some persons, even of great learning, were to give them a different interpretation to that hitherto received, would not they be confounded by showing them, by means of history or tradition, that the King himself who made these laws, his ministers and successors, have always understood and executed them in a different sense. That is the way Catholics avoid all difficulty. ....

"You are in error as to the Pope if you suppose that formerly, or now, Catholics give him their faith, as Calvinists do to Calvin, &c. I thought the same. The Pope is simply the chief administrator; the doctrines he has the stewardship of do not come from him or any other Pope, as that of Calvinism from Calvin; it comes from Jesus Christ, from His Apostles, and from their churches throughout the world. An administrator is not the master of the doctrines with which he is entrusted. The Pope and Bishops are charged to preserve the doctrine, to propagate it and {183} defend it against all attacks of the enemies of Jesus Christ.

....

"You interpret the text, 'lo! I am with you _always_,' that God promised His Holy Spirit to every individual; but that I am inclined by no means to admit. The whole of the passage must be considered. It was not to every one He addressed these words; it was only to His Apostles that He said, 'Go and teach all nations .... behold, I am with you.' From this it is clearly to the Apostles and their successors that He promised the Holy Spirit. I see in these words that they received from God himself the formal order or mission to go and preach, not what they found written, but what He had taught. .... I see also by these words that sovereigns of this world have not received the power of sending ministers to teach the Gospel, and certainly by so doing they usurp the power given to the Apostles and their successors. What we have to find is, to whom God has said, 'Go and teach.' It is physically impossible that it should concern our ministers, since they are established by temporal authority."

About the Reformers she says:--

"Can man reform the work of his Creator?"

"You say you will never claim any name but that of Christian, but still it is not with you a matter of indifference what communion you belong to; therefore, this being the case, it is not sufficient to bear the name of Christian, and say we trust in Jesus; we must be sure that the doctrines we adopt are really his. For it is not being a Christian to embrace doctrines contrary to those given by our Saviour; it is assuming the name of Christian without being certain we are so; we must find if we are in communion with His Church. Without faith there is no salvation; this cannot mean a faith of our own choosing, but what God has been pleased to command we should believe. ....

"Many of our ministers are ignorant or wicked enough to accuse Catholics of idolatry. It is Jesus Christ they adore really present though invisible in the Eucharist. They very loudly exclaim among us against images, &c. All this is nothing; on all sides that Church presents images to {184} render their faith more lively, and to induce them thereby to adore God the more truly in spirit and in truth."

These are arguments of no little strength, to say the least of them. It would be a pleasure to transcribe the letters _in extenso_, but the three cover thirty-two pages of closely-written letter-paper, and would consequently take up too much room in a biography. Some sceptically-inclined person will probably say,--"she had some Jesuit or other astute Romish priest at her elbow when she wrote these letters." The writer can only tell his reader that he verily suspects as much himself. But before any of us jump at a conclusion, it might be well to consider this sentence which occurs towards the end of the third letter. "Do not think I am under the influence of some priests who have induced me to undertake this examination. It was a lawyer first awakened my curiosity, telling me you may read in vain and argue--you will not, you cannot find the truth unless you pray for it as the free gift of God; and to obtain this you must be humble, your conscience must be as pure as you can make it: God alone can be your help; pray to Him unceasingly."

However we may think about their real author, the matter itself is very good, and their consequence to Mr. Spencer was of vital importance. There are no rough copies of his answers to the unknown to be found among his papers, or it would be very interesting to place them side by side with what we have quoted. The result of these letters we have in his account of his conversion:--

"After this period I entertained the opinion that the Reformers had done wrong in separating from the original body of the Church; at any rate, I was convinced that Protestants who succeeded them were bound to make a reunion with it. I still conceived that many errors and corruptions had been introduced among Catholics, and I did not imagine that I could ever conform to their faith, or join in their practices, without some alterations on their part; but I trusted that the time might not be distant when God would inspire all Christians with a spirit of peace and concord, which would make Protestants anxiously seek to be {185} re-united to their brethren, and Catholics willing to listen to reason, and to correct those abuses in faith, and discipline which kept their brethren from joining them. To the procuring such a happy termination to the miserable schisms which had rent the Church, I determined to devote my life. I now lost no opportunity of conversations with Protestants and Catholics. My object with both was to awaken them to a desire of unity with each other; to satisfy myself the more clearly where was the exact path of truth in which it was desirable that we should all walk together; and then to persuade all to correct their respective errors in conformity with the perfect rule, which I had no doubt the Lord would in due time point out to me, and to all who were ready to follow His will disinterestedly. I thought that when Catholics were at length willing to enter with me on these discussions with candour, they would at once begin to see the errors which to me appeared so palpable in their system: but I was greatly surprised to find them all so fixed in their principles, that they gave me no prospect of re-union except on condition of others submitting unreservedly to them; and, at the same time, I could see in their ordinary conduct and manner of disputing with me nothing to make one suspect them of insincerity, or of want of sufficient information of the grounds of their belief. These repeated conversations increased more and more my desire to discover the true road, which I saw that I, at least for one, was ignorant of: but I still imagined that I could see such plain marks of difference between the Catholic Church of the present day and the Church of the primitive ages as described in Scripture, that I repeatedly put aside the impression which the arguments of Catholics, and, yet more, my observation of their character, made upon me, and I still held up my head in the controversy."

{186}