FAITH AND REASON

_Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall

not enter into it_.--MARK X. 15.

_Some things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and the unstable

wrest, as also the other Scriptures, to their own perdition_.--

II PET. III. 16.

There are two great gifts, or faculties, by which men attain to truth:

faith and reason. From these two sides, therefore, come two more

assaults upon the Catholic position, a position which itself faces in

both these directions. On the one side we are told that we believe too

simply, on the other that we do not believe simply enough; on the one

side that we reason too little, on the other that we do not reason

enough. Let us set out these attacks in order.

I. (i) "You Catholics," says one critic, "are far too credulous in

matters of religion. You believe, not as reasonable men believe, because

you have verified or experienced the truths you profess, but simply

because these dogmas are presented to you by the Church. If reason and

common-sense are gifts of God and intended for use, surely it is very

strange to silence them in your search for the supreme truth. Faith, of

course, has its place, but it must not be blind faith. Reason must test,

verify, and interpret, or faith is mere credulity.

"Consider, for example, the words of Christ, _This is My Body_. Now the

words as they stand may certainly be supposed to mean what you say they

mean; yet, interpreted by Reason, they cannot possibly mean anything of

the kind. Did not Christ Himself sit in bodily form at the table as He

spoke them? How then could He hold Himself in His hand? Did He not speak

in metaphors and images continually? Did He not call Himself _a Door and

a Vine_? Using Reason, then, to interpret these words, it is evident

that He meant no more than that He was instituting a memorial feast, in

which the bread should symbolize His Body and the wine His Blood. So too

with many other distinctively Catholic doctrines--with the Petrine

claims, with the authority 'to bind and loose,' and the rest. Catholic

belief on these points exhibits not faith properly so-called--that is,

Faith tested by Reason--but mere credulity. God gave us all Reason! Then

in His Name let us use it!"

(ii) From the other side comes precisely the opposite charge.

"You Catholics," cries the other critic, "are far too argumentative and

deductive and logical in your Faith. True Religion is a very simple

thing; it is the attitude of a child who trusts and does not question.

But with you Catholics Religion has degenerated into Theology. Jesus

Christ did not write a _Summa_; He made a few plain statements which

comprise, as they stand, the whole Christian Religion; they are full of

mystery, no doubt, but it is He who left them mysterious. Why, then,

should your theologians seek to penetrate into regions which He did not

reveal and to elaborate what He left unelaborated?

"Take, for example, Christ's words, _This is My Body_. Now of course

these words are mysterious, and if Christ had meant that they should be

otherwise, He would Himself have given the necessary comment upon them.

Yet He did not; He left them in an awful and deep simplicity into which

no human logic ought even to seek to penetrate. Yet see the vast and

complicated theology that the traditions have either piled upon them or

attempted to extract out of them; the philosophical theories by which it

has been sought to elucidate them; the intricate and wide-reaching

devotions that have been founded upon them! What have words like

'Transubstantiation' and 'Concomitance,' devotions like 'Benediction,'

gatherings like Eucharistic Congresses to do with the august simplicity

of Christ's own institution? You Catholics argue too much--deduce,

syllogize, and explain--until the simple splendour of Christ's

mysterious act is altogether overlaid and hidden. Be more simple! It is

better to _'love God than to discourse learnedly about the Blessed

Trinity.' It has not pleased God to save His people through dialectics._

Believe more, argue less!"

Once more, then, the double charge is brought. We believe, it seems,

where we ought to reason. We reason where we ought to believe. We

believe too blindly and not blindly enough. We reason too closely and

not closely enough.

Here, then, is a vast subject--the relations of Faith and Reason and the

place of each in man's attitude towards Truth. It is, of course,

possible only to glance at these things in outline.

II. First, let us consider, as a kind of illustration, the relations of

these things in ordinary human science. Neither Faith nor Reason will,

of course, be precisely the same as in supernatural matters; yet there

will be a sufficient parallel for our purpose.

A scientist, let us say, proposes to make observations upon the

structure of a fly's leg. He catches his fly, dissects, prepares, places

it in his microscope, observes, and records. Now here, it would seem, is

Pure Science at its purest and Reason in its most reasonable aspect. Yet

the acts of faith in this very simple process are, if we consider

closely, simply numberless. The scientist must make acts of faith,

certainly reasonable acts, yet none the less of faith, for all that:

first, that his fly is not a freak of nature; next, that his lens is

symmetrically ground; then that his observation is adequate; then that

his memory has not played him false between his observing and his

recording that which he has seen. These acts are so reasonable that we

forget that they are acts of faith. They are justified by reason before

they are made, and they are usually, though not invariably, verified by

Reason afterwards. Yet they are, in their essence, Faith and not Reason.

So, too, when a child learns a foreign language. Reason justifies him in

making one act of faith that his teacher is competent, another that his

grammar is correct, a third that he hears and sees and understands

correctly the information given him, a fourth that such a language

actually exists. And when he visits France afterwards he can, within

limits, again verify by his reason the acts of faith which he has

previously made. Yet none the less they were acts of faith, though they

were reasonable. In a word, then, no acquirement of or progress in any

branch of human knowledge is possible without the exercise of faith. I

cannot walk downstairs in the dark without at least as many acts of

faith as there are steps in the staircase. Society could not hold

together another day if mutual faith were wholly wanting among its

units. Certainly we use reason first to justify our faith, and we reason

later to verify it. Yet none the less the middle step is faith. Columbus

reasoned first that there must be a land beyond the Atlantic, and he

used that same reason later to verify his discovery. Yet without a

sublime act of faith between these processes, without that almost

reckless moment in which he first weighed anchor from Europe, reason

would never have gone beyond speculative theorizing. Faith made real for

him what Reason suggested. Faith actually accomplished that of which

Reason could only dream.

III. Turn now to the coming of Jesus Christ on earth. He came, as we

know now, a Divine Teacher from heaven to make a Revelation from God; He

came, that is, to demand from men a sublime Act of Faith in Himself. For

He Himself was Incarnate Wisdom, and He demanded, therefore, as none

else can demand it, a supreme acceptance of His claim. No progress in

Divine knowledge, as He Himself tells us, is possible, then, without

this initial act. _Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a

little child shall not enter into it_. Every soul that is to receive

this teaching in its entirety must first accept the Teacher and sit at

His feet.

Yet He did not make this claim merely on His own unsupported word. He

presented His credentials, so to say; He fulfilled prophecy; He wrought

miracles; He satisfied the moral sense. _Believe Me_, He says, _for the

very works' sake_. Before, then, demanding the fundamental act of Faith

on which the reception of Revelation must depend, He took pains to make

this Act of Faith reasonable. "You see what I do," He said in effect,

"you have observed My life, My words, My actions. Now is it not in

accordance with Reason that you should grant My claims? Can you explain

away, _reasonably_, on any other grounds than those which I state, the

phenomena of My life?"

Certainly, then, He appealed to Reason; He appealed to Private Judgment,

since that, up to that moment, was all that His hearers possessed. But,

in demanding an Act of Faith, He appealed to Private Judgment to set

itself aside; He appealed to Reason as to whether it were not Reasonable

to stand aside for the moment and let Faith take its place. And we know

how His disciples responded. _Whom do you say that I am?... Thou art the

Christ, the Son of the Living God._

At that instant, then, a new stage was begun. They had used their Reason

and their Private Judgment, and, aided by His grace, had concluded that

the next reasonable step was that of Faith. Up to that point they had

observed, dissected, criticized, and analyzed His words; they had

examined, that is, His credentials. And now it was Reason itself that

urged them towards Faith, Reason that abdicated what had hitherto been,

its right and its duty, that Faith might assume her proper place.

Henceforth, then, their attitude must be a different one. Up to now they

had used their Reason to examine His claim; now it was Faith, aided and

urged by Reason, which accepted it.

Yet even now Reason's work is not done, though its scope in future is

changed. Reason no longer examines whether He be God; Faith has

accepted it: yet Reason has to be as active as ever; for Reason now must

begin with all its might the task of understanding His Revelation. Faith

has given them, so to speak, casket after casket of jewels; every word

that Jesus Christ henceforth speaks to them is a very mine of treasure,

absolutely true since He is known to be a Divine Teacher Who has given

it. And Reason now begins her new work, not of justifying Faith, but, so

to say, of interpreting it; not of examining His claims, since these

have been once for all accepted, but of examining, understanding, and

assimilating all that He reveals.

Paradoxes of Catholicism · 第 28 / 50 题