He returned soon to his mission in West Bromwich, and writes, in a letter to Mr. Phillipps: "I had a project in my head when I returned, more extensive than any that filled it of late. That is, going to Dublin to see if there I might find some unknown mine out of which I could draw what I want for Dudley. This soon grew into the thought of a tour round Ireland, and the subject of collecting alms for Dudley soon began to look trivial and secondary. I could hardly contain myself at the thoughts of preaching all over Ireland the conversion of England, and exhorting them all to forget their earthly miseries in the view of our spiritual ones, and to begin to retaliate the evils they have endured in the way of the true Christian, not by violent opposition, but by rendering good a thousandfold, or rather beyond reckoning." This scheme was put off for some time, by the advice of the Rev. Mr. Martyn, who seems to have been his director.
In the beginning of August, 1835, Father Spencer got a severe attack of illness: it proceeded principally from over-exertion. He began to spit blood, and as soon as his friends heard of it, his sister, Lady Lyttelton, and his brother-in-law, Lord George Quin, came for him and took him to Hagley, where he might be carefully nursed until he should recover. They set him down to say mass in Stourbridge, and allowed him all the spiritual aid he wished for, even going so far as to invite a priest to come and stay with him, and make Hagley his home for the time. This was in keeping with their usual kindness, and Father Spencer never forgot it; nay, he would treasure up the least act of kindness done him by any one, much more so when received from those who differed from him in religious matters. He writes now, apparently under the shadow of death: one thing looks strange to him when he thinks of dying, that he cannot see why God gives him such a strong desire for an apostolic life if it be not sometime carried into effect. "It may be that He will give me the merit of the desires without their accomplishment, but this seems less probable. His will be done. I only mention this to prevent your being discouraged on my account. What is an illness in His sight? It is easier to restore me my vigour than at first to give it to me. Let us only wait prepared for quick obedience to His call, whether for this world or the next." In another letter, written about the same time, he says: "What I am further to do must be decided by my present bodily director, Dr. Johnstone, to whom for my correction and humiliation the Bishop has committed me."
It seems most likely that he wrote the autobiography during this illness; it has the marks and tokens of his then state of mind upon the first part of it at least.
After his recovery there is talk of his being made a bishop, and some of his friends are doing their best, by writing and so forth, to help his promotion to the mitre. No better idea can be given of the way he felt with regard to this matter, than by introducing a letter he wrote at the time to one of his friends:
"I know you are as eager about everything that concerns me as about your own matters; and that you are now boiling to come and be busy about this most interesting affair. Yet it will prove better to go on quietly. To be sure I should exult if it please God of His own will to enlarge my powers and faculties of advancing His kingdom, trusting to Him to furnish me with graces sufficient; but the call must be clear, and His will manifest, or, I thank God, I have made up my mind to answer, I stir not. And how can I know this but by the rule of obedience? Many reasons strike me pro and con. immediately; but these I had better not meditate upon. I shall leave it to Dr. Walsh to decide whether I accept or do not. I cannot be right any other way. If he chooses to hear me plead the cause for myself, stating what I think are the motives pro and con., I will do it when he likes; if not, it is certainly better not to go against him. I was at Prior Park three years ago, when Dr. Baines knows that I refused the offer of an Irish clergyman to propose me for an Irish bishopric, on Dr. Walsh's judgment, and he approved of that decision. No doubt he will of this."
We hear nothing further of this, so it is likely Dr. Walsh judged it proper for him to refuse the contemplated honour.
CHAPTER VI.
Newspaper Discussions, Etc.
From the end of the year 1835 to the middle of 1836, Father Spencer was more or less engaged in newspaper controversy with some ministers. The first champion of Protestantism, or rather assailant of Catholicism, he condescended to argue with was a Mr. Gideon Ouseley. This gentleman is described in a letter written at the time as a "Low Church parson, or Methodist, of Armagh." There may be some distinction between the two characters, but it is only fair to say that we freely grant him the benefit of the doubt. They had a paper fight about the usual topics of controversy, beginning with mis-statements of doctrine from Mr. Ouseley and explanations from Mr. Spencer, and continuing through a very brisk parrying of logical thrusts to a conclusion which ended by the newspaper refusing to insert any more letters. Some good effects may have been produced by the controversy, which seldom happens, and also some breaches of charity; but there is one circumstance worthy to be mentioned, though perhaps it cannot well be traced back to The Watchman newspaper, that this same Rev. Gideon Ouseley is, at the time these pages are writing, the officiating chaplain of the soi-disant monks of Norwich, Br. Ignatius and his companions.
The next adversary was a Mr. Dalton. Father Spencer expends some very good arguments on him, among others, the following in the first letter: "You and other Protestants may say that they consider this doctrine (transubstantiation) unscriptural; but the arguments by which you endeavour to impugn it never are scriptural. I once used to argue against it myself, and the best arguments I could find were from reason." There may be fault found with this argument, because a thing could be unscriptural, though its denial or refutation were not; but F. Spencer establishes the positive side of the question afterwards. And the argument was good thus far that its denial is an Article of the 39, which should be proved by "sure warranty of Scripture." He does so in a passage which begins thus: "If Scripture be appealed to simply, I know not how any one can deny that it speaks altogether in our favour, whenever the Eucharist is mentioned or alluded to. When we are asked for proofs of our doctrine we invariably begin by an appeal to the simple words of Christ given in Scripture. 'This is my body,' 'This is my blood,' which, taken as they stand, can agree with no doctrine but the Catholic."