II. Early Catholic Letters

FATHER BENSON'S kind and frequent spiritual letters, from a few of which the foregoing quota tions are taken, gave no idea of the mental suffering through which he was passing during this time. Anxious not to trouble him un necessarily, I did not write to him between May and September 1903. It was in reply to my question early in the latter month, " When are you going to preach another Retreat? " that I received the overwhelming news of his intended and immediate reception into the Church. The heading of his letter was enough. The fact rushed out full-armed before one had even glanced at the writer's words. Father Benson was going to become a Roman Catholic! Then, if he was not a Catholic now in the Church of England, what was he? What was I?

Up to the very day of his submission I fancy that very few of his spiritual children had any idea of the crisis through which he was passing. Speaking for myself, I know it came as a thunder clap. It is no exaggeration to say that the very foundations of Faith and all the realities of the Spiritual Life rocked and trembled from the violence of this utterly unexpected shock. " What is Truth? " was the only question it was at first possible to formulate in those hours of darkness 17 B i8 SPIRITUAL LETTERS TO A CONVERT and anguish. To all of us High Anglicans who were under Father Benson's direction he had ever been primarily and essentially a Catholic priest — a statement which may seem obvious nonsense to a born Catholic, but which will be understood by any Anglican convert. It was extraordinarily difficult to know why one whom we looked upon as a pillar of " English " Catholicism should have found it necessary for his salvation to submit to the Church of Rome. And it was precisely on account of our absolute conviction that he must necessarily have taken this tremendous step because he believed he could not otherwise save his soul, that so many of us were led to study the question under his direction, after he entered the Church, and finally to become Catholics ourselves. Those who were fortunate enough to know Father Benson in the days when he belonged to the Community of the Resurrection will bear me out when I say again that, before as well as after his conversion — i.e. before his ordination in June 1904 — he was to his spiritual children a Catholic priest above everything.

He was, as everyone knows, received into the Church on September n, 1903, at the Dominican Priory Church of Woodchester, in the beautiful Cotswold country he loved so well, and of which he wrote a few months later:

(i) " All that country is bound up with my own happiness in my mind; the great hills and valleys, and the miles of tableland at the top — like the life of prayer: monotonous, with sensational approaches, but high up."

Within a week of his reception Father Benson wrote to me to thank me, with gratitude which, considering the subject was intensely pathetic, for a letter I had written to him.

(ii) " The best I can do in answer is to do my best to reply to your questions as simply as I possibly can.

" First of all: the reason ' why I have done this ' (because I have taken the step, last week), is because I believe that our Lord intended the See of Peter to be the centre of Unity of the Catholic Church; and that it is upon that Rock that He has built His Church.

" I won't dream of bothering you with all the reasons that have led me to this; but it appears to me as certain as anything can be. Of course I do not deny that there are difficulties; but so there are everywhere. And in this theory of Church Order and Constitution, there seem to me far fewer difficulties than in any other.

" As regards the second question: as to Anglican Orders, I can quite frankly say that it was not doubt in my Orders that led me to this. So far as my own private spiritual experience goes I was quite satisfied of my priesthood; but now that same * experience ' has led me to an authority that tells me I am not a priest. Then it is a choice between which I must follow and believe — my individual feelings and arguments, or the feeling and argument of what I believe to be a Divine Authority: and there is no choice as to which I must follow.

4 ' Now I do not feel at all that this involves the renunciation and denial of all the graces that God has given me in the Church of England. God forbid I should ever do that! I still believe that He met me with pardon when I confessed my sins contritely; and fed me with the life of our Lord Jesus Christ when I went to Communion: but the difference lies in the mode of receiving the grace. But personally, I felt and still feel, that this is a minor point in the real question: the real question is, Where is the Authority of our Blessed Lord to be found now? Once a soul finds it, she must submit everything to Him: until she finds it, she must follow the best authority she can.

" As regards the argument: * The Church which is good enough for So-and-so is good enough for me ' — may I say I don't think that is sound? After all the two real centres for each of us are, God and my soul. (' Whoso loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me.') It is a good argument as a buttress, but not as a central pillar: the central pillar must be one's own direct faith; not a vicarious faith. (I put it very badly, I am afraid.) Wesleyans may say that of Wesley... and many other really good and spiritual men who have lived and died satisfied with Wesley anism....

" As to 's argument, would you dare to say that Wesleyans do not 'find God in Wesleyanism '? Yet Wesleyanism is not the true Church, even though they claim it. Surely every Christian in good faith ' finds God ' wherever he may be serving Him; but in various degrees.

" I so much hate this letter of mine as I read it over: it seems controversial and argumentative; and yet I don't mean it to be that, because I don't believe that controversy ever was of any real good at all. And your letter has nothing of that sort in it.... Please write again as often as ever you please; I do so much hope that one's old friendships will not all have to be sacrificed. And I do from my heart wish you every blessing and good gift from God."

(In this connection — as regards Father Ben son's dislike of and disbelief in controversy — the following passage from a letter written just after his return from Rome in June 1904 is illuminating:

(iii) " I am trying to get hold of a principle about one's attitude to outsiders; and it seems to me to lie somewhere in the direction of ex pounding one's own positive principles freely, but never of attacking another's position: drawing people to one's own stronghold instead of driving them out of theirs. I have found... that it simply destroys every shadow of bitterness to go on that line.")

The next letter is dated September 22, 1903.

(iv) " I will do my best to answer your ques tions; for, poor as my answers will be, I think to attempt them is the best way to show my real gratitude for your sympathy.

" First, I would like to say this: that to my mind all such difficulties are secondary. There are unanswerable difficulties in Christianity, widely considered: but we trust our Lord personally in spite of them: knowing that there is an answer to them all in His Divine Wisdom. So with the Church. The first thing to make sure of is the grounds of Faith, (i) Did or did not our Lord intend there to be a Divine Teacher on earth to the end? (2) If He did, where is it to be found? All else to my mind is secondary to that. Once one has found the Divine Teacher one asks questions, indeed; but it is only in order to know what to believe.

"It is possible, I suppose, to hold all, or nearly all the Catholic doctrines one by one, individually, because we have examined them and found them probable and reasonable; but that is not the root of the matter. The root is to have made the Act of Submission to the Divine Teacher. Then one's business is to find out what She teaches: but even before one knows any theo logy, one implicitly believes the entire Faith in its principles and details, just because one be lieves the Teacher who delivers it.

" Having said that, may I go on?

" (i) You say: * If it was not wrong to use private judgment to go to an Authority, how can it be wrong to use it after? ' Test that by practical experience: e.g. you become persuaded, by Private Judgment, that a certain doctor under stands your constitution better than you do yourself: and you put yourself in his hands. Would it not be suicidal, after that, to judge of his remedies one by one, as to whether you would use them? The Church says: ' Here am I, with certain claims and credentials. I have a continuous spiritual experience for nineteen centuries; no break; I have a wide Catholic experience over all countries; my head is the Apostolic See with 1 200 bishops in unity of faith. I point to the Scriptures that you accept, and I ask you to look at your own heart. Judge whether I am trustworthy or not. If you think I am, then put yourself wholly in my charge, and let me deal with you as I have dealt with millions of others of all races and ages and characters. If not, you must see to yourself. But my claim is peremptory. Take it or leave it: but you cannot take my privileges, and I will take no responsibility unless you put yourself wholly in my hands.' Now, is not that very peremptoriness an echo, or rather the very voice of our Lord, who ' spoke with authority, and not as the scribes '? The scribes were always referring to schools of Rabbis and ' aspects,' and personal theologians. Our Lord breaks in: ' I SAY UNTO YOU.'

" (2) Indulgences. Briefly, indulgences are the remission of temporal penalties due to sin: e.g. David sins; Nathan rebukes, convinces, and ab solves him. Yet the child died. Supposing David had made some tremendous reparation immediately, it is conceivable that God would have remitted the temporal penalty — the death of the child. That would have been an Indulgence.

" Every forgiven sin has an allotted penalty, to satisfy the Divine Justice. By the mercy of God He will remit even that if we will do some thing instead. His Church, to whom He has given the power of binding and loosing, has charge of that department, and says: ' If you, hating sin, free from guilt, full of purposes of amendment, will do this or that, you shall be let off a certain amount of temporal penalty.' That is an Indulgence. The old temporal punishment, or penance, generally lasted ' so many days ' — e.g. ' For a week you shall fast on bread and water.' But the Church might say: 'If you will say the Penitential Psalms, you need only fast three days.' That is an Indulgence of four days. Then the old phraseology lasted on; and the word ' day ' is a kind of measure — an unknown quantity — four ' days ' are four times as much as one ' day.' As regards the dead, the Church claims no direct jurisdiction, but only gives the indulgence ' as in a prayer,' praying that God will apply good deeds, &c., vicariously for their benefit.

" I haven't put it at all well, I fear.... But I would advise your reading Ryder's answer to Littledale.

" (3) Intention. This means no more than an intention to do what the Church does. An infidel priest may not believe in the Real Presence: but he deliberately vests and goes to the Altar, and means to perform the rite, whatever it may be. In such a case, Mass is truly said. If you think of it in that way it is almost inconceivable to think anything else, I believe.... Does that make it any easier?

" (4) Communion in one kind. If one once really believes in the Divine Teacher, this ceases to trouble one at all: because then the same Authority that said: ' Drink ye all of it,' now says: ' One kind is sufficient.' There are, too, just faint indications in our Lord's discourses. John vi. speaks repeatedly of the ' Bread that came down from Heaven ' — apart from the Cup — as if it were a central Truth. But I don't wish to build on that; for it is only a private interpretation after all. Is the change any more serious than the abrogation of the Sabbath, and of circumcision, and of ' not eating with the blood ' — all of which changes were wrought by the Divine Teacher?

" (5) The R.C. Nicene Creed is to all intents and purposes the same as the Anglican. The only difference is the addition of the word ' Holy ' in the expression of faith in the Church.

" You are thinking, I believe, of Pius IV's creed, which was found necessary to exclude certain heretics; just as the Nicene Creed itself was found necessary in the 4th century, when it had not been necessary before. As new heresies arise, the Church must continually be expressing herself more and more plainly to rule them out;

and it is, to my mind, a serious indictment of the Church of England that she does not claim that power with regard to the laity.

" Well, it is very late, and you will have got bored long ago. So I must stop.

" Please do not think me argumentative. I dare say I can do nothing for you by explana tions; but I can pray, and will, that the Holy Ghost will explain Himself to you.

" Do write if you wish, and can. I shall be delighted to hear and answer. But if you do not I shall quite understand: and shall only pray the more.

" I pray God to bless and keep you always."

Ten days later:

(v) " Now I will do my best.

"So long as a soul is persuaded that the Church of England is certainly as near to the truth, and that it contains the necessaries of salvation (&c.) as much as any part of Christendom, her duty is clear: she must remain in it. But many souls, of which mine was one, and perhaps yours another, become aware that there is one huge part of Christendom that makes an exclusive claim: and that that claim is at least not a preposterous one. The fact that it is the greatest Communion in point of numbers (1200 bishops); and that it rests in union with an undoubtedly Apostolic See; and that no historian can put his finger on any breach of continuity; and that the Church of England acknowledges her as a sister — all this entitles her to consideration; and causes these souls to whom all this has come as & fact, to ask themselves whether even her exclusive claim may not perhaps be true.

" The moment the soul has practically seen this, private judgment must begin. (Of course if the soul regards all this as an insidious temptation, she is bound in conscience to resist it.... But I am supposing that she begins to doubt whether, after all, it is a temptation, or whether it may not be Grace.)

" Therefore the ' two doctors ' analogy, on this view, cannot be pressed beyond a certain point. Remember that the first doctor, ' A,' holds that ' B ' is a doctor all right: but that ' B ' will not act in consultation with ' A,' but says: ' You must be wholly mine; or not at all.'

" Well, if the patient thinks this is wholly un warrantable arrogance, he must say so: but if he thinks that the exclusive claim of ' B ' may be the right treatment, he must consider it. I gather from your letter you are in this stage. You are moderately satisfied with 'A.' You would like to have ' B ' as well: but you find you can't. Well, you must consider then whether ' B's ' exclusive claim is justifiable. Now all that must be done by private judgment; because the Church of England denies the exclusive claim: as if ' A ' should say: ' I like " B " well enough, if only he wasn't so intolerably conceited. He is a good doctor, of course; but he thinks nobody is a doctor but himself.' This moderation of course sounds attractive and convincing: but grant for a moment that ' B ' is what he claims to be! What then?

" No. I did not mean for a moment that the Church of England was not far nearer the truth in most ways than the Wesleyans, but that in this particular point they stood — I won't say on the same platform, but on similar platforms. As I think I said before, it was not doubt of Anglican orders that made me take the step; but since I have taken it, I receive what I am told with as much humility as I can. The explanation the Church gives me, and which I humbly accept, of my spiritual experience, is that at moments of confession and communion I made a spiritual effort, and God blessed it; and gave me many graces; but she tells me it was not ' per sacramentum.' Now, can you imagine anything more arrogant than for me to turn and say to her: ' No. I can trust my spiritual sense better than yours, my Mother. I tell you I received it per saw amentum in spite of what you say! ' (I ask no one to accept my position or arguments, of course, until they are in my position.) No. I trust her knowledge of Divine Mysteries better than my own. She does not bid me disbelieve in the fad of Divine Graces received in the Church of England, but only the mode of reception.

" Next. I believe the best way to arrive at the Truth is to try to look at Christendom as an outsider, so to speak: as a visitor from another planet. Examine the notes of the Church: UNITY. APOSTOLICITY. HOLINESS. CATHOLICITY, e.g. What part of Christendom is most at one? Which part preserves Apostolic authority (as distinguished from Episcopal)? Which part produces eminent Saints? Which most breaks down racial distinctions, and is independent of nationality, language, climate, century?

" Again, noticing that the R.C. Church bases her claim on Peter: examine Peter's position in the Gospels and Acts: make a list of his doings and sayings and prerogatives, and notice their cumulative force.

" I believe, personally, in considerations of that kind, made first-hand, rather than in reading controversial books; because a skilful pleader, unconsciously even to himself, will only mention those things that make for his side: and when he is detected everybody says: ' How dishonest '! — whereas the poor man really did not mean it; and only had eyes for his own side.

" But if you do want books, let me recommend Luke Rivington's Authority and Dependence, and above all, Allies' See of Peter. And if you care for Newman, Development of Doctrine. To me he is the Prophet: but to many I know he is merely sophistical. Also, if you can borrow it, I would recommend your reading Carson's first Essay in Reunion Essays: and Mallock's Doctrine and Doctrinal Disruption.

" (I mention the books — these latter ones at least — that helped me most. Mallock is simply overwhelming: and he is not a Roman Catholic.)

" As for, may I say something?

His appeal is to the Primitive Church. But the Church is an organism, not an organisation. It is the Body of Christ, and therefore grows, de velops, and in a sense, changes.

appears to me to ignore this, always: i.e. his assumption is that the Early Ages are purer than the later: whereas the truth as it appears to me, is that the ' full-grown man ' is nearer Christ's ideal than the baby (as regards perfection of development). I think that is a thought worth considering....

" Forgive me if this letter is controversial. It is so difficult to steer a mean between a disloyal silence and an irritating garrulity! And the moment you say: ' Enough ' — I stop.

" After all, there is nothing to fear or to be anxious about: God does not lay traps for us: and * He never overdrives His sheep.' Pray for me that I may not, either."

The next letter deals very tenderly with that dread, inexplicable to Catholics, which so many converts feel at the thought of renouncing — with seeming ingratitude — the graces and ordinances and " privileges " of Anglicanism.

(vi) " I agree unreservedly with what you say about personal conviction. Of course it is absolutely essential; and until you have that you cannot dream of taking such an important step.

" I realise fully, I hope, that the wrench with you comes in feeling that you will have in a sense (if ultimately you take the step) to repudiate the past. But indeed that is not so. I could not dream of calling all the ordinances I joined in and celebrated, ' mockeries '! They were not, I now believe, exactly what I thought them; but they were acts of close and high communion with

God: they were acts of worship to the Divine Majesty, and acceptable to Him: they were the great stepping-stones on which my soul went on towards God.

" And nothing in the world could ever make me think differently to that. It is not my heart or will that I judge to have been wrong: I only now see that my intellect was not accurately informed as to the modes in which God gave Himself to me."

Just at the time I had been deeply shocked and wounded by repeated acts of what I considered outrageous irreverence before, during, and after the celebration of Anglican communion, on the part of an old and violently bigoted Protestant clergyman, who was, I was made aware, anxious to mark his disapproval of my " Roman " ten dencies. Into the nature of these irreverences — on one occasion affecting the sacrament of baptism — I need not enter. I had described them in detail to Father Benson, being greatly troubled by the knowledge that this old clergyman had, from every standpoint of law and common sense, as much right to call himself " priest " as had those High Church friends and guides of mine whom I still sincerely believed to be so. The thought was intolerable. How could a priest — a Catholic priest — be implicitly allowed to treat the elements of bread and wine, which were to me the Body and Blood of Christ, in such a way as to show ostentatiously that to him they were nothing of the sort? This was a difficulty — c now resolutely faced for the first time — which went far deeper than any mere differences of ritual in Anglicanism. I took the whole matter not only to Father Benson, but to the generous and charitable Ritualistic clergyman whose fatherly kindness was so great a comfort to me at this time. His explanation did not quite convince me. But Father Benson says:

(vii) " I think - — 's interpretation of the old Calvinistic clergyman's irreverence quite beautiful and true.... But how appalling, objectively, the thing that has to be so explained! I know it is no argument, but it is dreadful to re member that that kind of thing is tolerated by the authorities, and that reverent Reservation is not — or scarcely.

" Yes, as you say, there is one test, as I believe, of Catholic Communion; and that is Communion with the See of Peter. When that is gone, all is gone: Apostolic Succession, validity of sacra ments, this or that doctrinal question, are all secondary and comparatively unimportant."

In this letter Father Benson kindly offers to send me the rough draft of a paper that he was hoping to publish. This was the manuscript of the City Set on a Hill, now published by the C. T. S.; though the original preface, written by a well-known Dominican Father, was not at first included in the little volume. This, however, may possibly have been done in later editions.

Almost every convert will be familiar with the pamphlet in its present form, but all may not know that (like By What Authority?) it was written while Father Benson was an Anglican. " I drew it up to clear my own mind," he says in a later letter, " rather than to convince any one else."

Father Benson was, after this, strongly urged by the Dominicans to revise and publish the pamphlet; and it was the first revision that he very kindly sent to me.

" I do pray God," this letter ends, " to help us all to see His Truth more and more plainly every day."

(viii) " Please do not dream of ' troubling ' me," begins the next. "I will so gladly go on for two or twenty years, writing; because I am so certain where Truth lies... and I cannot believe that some day you will not, too. There are all kinds of things to keep you where you are, in good faith. In fear, reality and hallucina tions are so mixed that it is impossible always to distinguish. And your dread of (e.g.) Mariolatry is one such hallucination. It looks like a terrible phantom, and it is only the play of shadows. Remember that Neapolitans and Mexicans have their way of expressing devotion, and we have ours; and that a Church which really does visibly include all nations must include all temperaments.... Now it seems to me that we English people are almost bound to be insular in our ideas; and to feel that other nations are either irreverent or familiar or gushing, because they do not pray as we do. But I must confess I feel it an imperfection in myself to feel that.... That thought of yours about the insignificance of a soul, oddly enough, came to me startlingly strong yesterday.... But it won't do! To be made in the Image of God is to be capax Dei, and that means that God and the soul are the two great pivots of the universe.

" As regards what your friend said to you, I would like to say this. It is not, when once you get on this side, a choice between the Church of England and the Church of Rome. But the second is a Mother that asks all; there must be no other in competition... it is all or none. She must be the whole world, or nothing.... But the fact that your friend can say what he does, shows (unless I am... mistaken) that he has never heard that tremendous, insistent Divine Call at all. Ah! there is no question any more for a sincere soul when it is heard. That is why one is so confidently happy about good and learned men like him... that they simply cannot have heard that Call at all. They have only seen Her like a stranger, like one among other communions. They haven't seen Her eyes, and heard Her voice.

" I am getting rhetorical and lengthy.... Please forgive me.

" I know the Eirenikon well. Have you read Newman's answer in Anglican Difficulties (I think)?... As regards Papal Infallibility... it is all involved in Thou art Peter... ' gates of hell shall -not prevail '; i.e. the Church founded on Peter cannot be corrupt in things of life and death: (viz. Faith and morals). If we believe that of the Church, a fortiori of Peter."

I had evidently now reached a stage which many converts may themselves remember, when I sought frantically in the Eirenikon and similar publications, for instances of sustained and apparently successful rebellion against the Roman See — or rather, what was twisted by the Protestant writers to mean rebellion. The case of St. Cyprian impressed me less than some others, which I had evidently inflicted on my long-suffering guide, for in his next letter he deals with two such instances, the details of which I have completely forgotten, but which I probably found in Littledale, or the Eirenikon. The first I omit, as it has really no bearing upon anything at all, except the captious spirit of the Protestant critic. The second I quote, to illustrate Father Benson's crisp and brisk methods of dealing with such " difficulties."

(ix) " Fortunatus and Felix, (a) How do you distinguish an ' appeal/ and an ' application '? (b) Felix proves nothing. The fact that here in England I go to a Bishop for anything does not show I do not believe in the Pope! — but only that I think a Bishop is competent to settle it."

Looking back, it seems actually incredible that the case of " Fortunatus and Felix," whose conduct and history one has long forgotten, can really ever have mattered to one's soul! But a citadel, on the point of being taken by assault, neglects no stone which may serve to strengthen her fortifications. In this letter Father Benson refers again to the manuscript which I had recently returned to him, with my opinion upon it.

" You must not think it original! " he says. " It would be a fatal argument against it if it was. It is stated — I mean the theory — in full form in Development of Doctrine, and one or two other places — e.g. Mallock's book; and is found under other images in many writers. It all, of course, really is contained in our Lord's parable of the Mustard Seed.

" There are two kinds of minds, (i) Those who follow point by point through history, and trace out God's plan in that way: by details and dates and small facts — like a detective.

" (2) Those who go up on a hill and judge from the general lie of the country, and the main directions, &c., as to where God's Road, or Way of Salvation, lies.... Personally I trust (2) more. It is the way of the simple and the ' plain man,' and the ' wayfaring men though fools.' Since our Lord came to those folk I cannot believe that such an important question as the ' Church ' depends on being able to read, and be subtle and historical. Or else the ' fool ' is handicapped.

" So I hope, though I have got no kind of right to dictate as to the way God leads you — but I hope He will lead you by (2); and show you His Road, winding away, over hill and dale, dipping out of sight sometimes; crossing preci pices, but arriving; and not make you go with a microscope on hands and knees."

Referring to a question of mine about the Orthodox Church, Father Benson says:

(x) "I only did not touch on that (in the City Set on a Hill) because I was dealing with the present-day aspect of affairs; and to all practical purposes the Eastern claim does not reach England at all."

Alluding to a passage in a previous letter, he says:

(xi) "All I meant was that in a Catholic Church you must have all sorts. And Infallibility sits up there like a great Mother, every now and then saying: ' Stop! children, that's enough! ' — or ' John, you're too rough.' ' Jane, you're too fastidious/ But Jane needn't necessarily for that reason play at cricket, nor John at dolls."

The next letter explains and applies what Father Benson meant by the two methods of arriving at the truth. The very patience and facility with which he answered questions, many of them ridiculous and futile, encouraged his converts to tax his kindness to the uttermost, though, I hope, never to presume upon it.

(xii) " I think the second [way] is the safest, because it is one that... children and simple people are as competent to travel as anyone else; but I fully recognise that historians and scholars, and all who are made that way are bound in conscience to satisfy themselves, and not to submit to the Church in bad faith.

" But, as I said, frankly I think your mind, like my own, is constructed on the simpler, and, may I say (?) more direct system. We are both deductive; we naturally look to principles first and details next. If I am right in that, then I suppose it is true that you are more likely to arrive at sound conclusions by following the deductive method. But again, if I am wrong then of course you are bound to follow the other line, and I will most gladly do my utmost to deal on that line.... I shall hardly feel my forgiveness assured unless I receive an enormous list of minute questions in a day or two. So you may imagine how I shall welcome them."

Towards the end of October he writes:

(xiii) " I needn't try to tell you how thankful I was... to hear that light was coming, even though it is intense pain to lift one's eyes to it.... I feel more and more sure that the writer that will help you most is Newman.... In slow, patient building up of the image of Truth he is unequalled. He puts his stones slowly together, showing you each before he lays it, and you don't see what he is doing; and then on a sudden he stands aside, and shows you that what has seemed an ideal dream is a sober reality in the Catholic Church.

" Do state your difficulties about the Inquisition, and I will do my best to answer them. But I expect we are entirely at one on that point."

The day I received that letter I went to my first High Mass, and heard my first Catholic sermon. It was on the Gospel for the day; and the preacher, a Benedictine, spoke of St. Peter's venture of faith, his casting of the nets on the other side of the ship, and the miraculous draught of fishes. That sermon was a long, long step on the Road of the Wayfaring Man. However, one's difficulties were not ended. I was then suffering greatly about the Inquisition! The notes which Father Benson drafted for my instruction I copy here verbatim.

(xiv) " The Inquisition. Everybody is agreed now, I suppose, that the old methods of the Inquisition are wholly indefensible, and alien to the mind of Christ. But it makes one more lenient to the persons who practised this indefensible system, to remember:

" (i) That the murder of souls is a greater crime than the murder of bodies; and that from this premise the medieval authorities (faultily) argued that, if it was lawful to punish ' body-murder ' with death, and to keep civil detectives, &c., it was, a fortiori, lawful to punish heresy with death, &c.

" (2) That, strictly speaking, the secular arm alone punished, and inflicted secular chastisement; in heresy cases as in others. And that therefore the civil power was technically to blame.

(Of course this does not excuse the ecclesiastics' connivance and encouragement.)

" (3) That in the days when Catholicism was the only guardian of morality, and other religious systems did not exist, heresy meant an influx of every kind of crime, in the long run; and the temptation therefore was great, to holy people, to use unlawful means for a good end.

" (4) That compulsion of a kind must always be used in teaching and maintaining religion; (e.g. education of children; legal penalties still due to blasphemy).

" (5) That barbarities were the general order of the day.

" (6) That in those days even heretics did not object to the fact of the death penalty for heresy, but only to the application of it in their own cases, (e.g. Calvin's connivance at the burning of Servetus).

" Nothing can excuse the Inquisition there fore, but it is easy to explain it. The Inquisition is still in existence to the extent that there is, I believe, a Congregation in Rome who still bear the name, and whose duty it is to enquire into the same kind of matters. But it is un necessary to add that they do not use the same methods."

This very explicit statement finally laid the ghost of the Inquisition for me.

On All Souls' Day, 1903, Father Benson went to Rome. The last two letters he wrote me before leaving are so beautiful that I regret I cannot quote them in extenso. I had told him about the St. Peter sermon, and the insistence of the preacher upon the necessity of a venture of faith, a leap in the dark, on certain critical occasions.

(xv) " All one can do is to state considera tions by which the hesitating state of mind may perhaps be tested.

" (i) In every act of Faith there must be some where a leap into the dark. That, one may almost say, is of the essence of an Act of Faith.

" (2) One who is merely intellectually convinced must hesitate until the conviction has affected the will. Newman says somewhere that he ' knew ' that the Catholic Church was in the right for a long while before he made his submission, but he did not ' know that he knew.' Is not that a very ingenious way of describing a very complicated psychological fact? For example, you seem to ' know ' it; but only you can tell if you ' know that you know.' Until you do you are right to wait. But as soon as you ' know that you know ' you must wait no longer. I should gather from your letter that you have not yet reached the second stage; but I think you are very near to it.

" (3) No one has the slightest right to say that a week or an hour or twenty years is ' not long enough/ God works variously. St. Paul knew at once; but he didn't ' know that he knew ' till after three days of darkness and prayer.

" As regards Communions: I should say you are right in going on with them in spite of the darkness, unless you feel certain that they do not give you the Blessed Sacrament.... Complete darkness... doesn't really matter. The point is: Is the will aimed right?... I can't, I fear, feel with you that the possession of the Blessed Sacrament [in the case of a schismatic Church] would be sufficient in any case. The Arians had It, and the Donatists, and nearly all heretical sects, at least, for a time. It is, as you say, much more a question of jurisdiction. You see, if Peter is the foundation all jurisdiction must spring from him; and even if the Church of England had preserved undoubted Orders, and every Catholic doctrine and practice, and produced saints and martyrs by thousands — if she had not that one thing necessary, the Authority of the Holy See, all — I do not say falls to the ground — but all is on a shaky foundation, and must fall sooner or later, or be reconciled to the seat of power and stability. Yes! I agree that the Royal Supremacy is a tough matter; though I have never seen it till lately. Unless the jurisdiction which had been the Pope's was shifted to the Monarch — well, words mean nothing. Hardly anything can be more expressly stated in the Acts of Supremacy. Do read them, if you can get hold of them. Read Elizabeth's. I have just been studying that period. It is amazing!

" As to... the scholars who live and die satisfied with the Church of England, all one can say is this: Since our Lord came to save the ignorant and wicked He surely must mark His Church in such a manner that it is as evident to the ignorant and wicked, as to the wise and holy. Otherwise there is a premium on learning.

" No. You and I, who have not had opportunity for great study... MUST be as capable of recognising the Church when we see it as St. Thomas Aquinas. Faith is a moral act, not an intellectual.... It is good to know that you went to see the priest after Mass." [This was the Benedictine preacher referred to.] "I feel as if just one finger of the great Mother is on your head now; and that you will soon put out your hand and take it; and then be in her arms."

On the eve of his departure from England he writes:

(xvi) " I am as certain, since you ask me, that the step I have taken is the right one, and the one that I desire for every living soul — as of anything in the whole world. It isn't a question of hoping, or probability, or of anything short of the certitude of faith. The only puzzle about it, to me, is why on earth every one does not see it, too. I can't think myself back into the old frame of mind, any more than into a dream from which one has awakened. As New man says: one's old theories and suppositions have faded like mist when the sun rises — fairy palaces — beautiful and exquisite — but enchanted! And now one is on the Rock, and the mists have gone....

"It is a real happiness to think of being able to pray, at the tombs of the Apostles, for one's friends, and England. When I was there, eight years ago, I felt a stranger. Now, thank God! a child at home! "

Three days later the writer of these letters was in Rome; to return home, within eight months, a priest.