Xttecac^ (Butbe

AND R A T IO NALIST REVIEW .

[ESTABLISHED 1889.]

No. 34. (N ew S eries.)

A P R IL i , 1899.

M onthly ; T wopence.

Contents.

rAC.E

T he Meaning of F a ith . liy J. McCabe . . 49 A Possiiilk Religion of Reason. By C. E. Hooper . 50 “ W e should not T h in k of H im a t all.” By F. J.

Gould . . . . . . • 51 A n E astern Sa in t . . . . . . 5 1 T he A nalysis of Paul . . . . . 5 2 “ T o what Stage of his A ctings have we Com e ?” 53 A Master of Synthesis . . . . . 5 3 K autzsch’s A nalysis of the Old T estament . 54 T he O ld C hild . . . . . . 5 4 SIGNS AND W arnings (g le an ed fr om the R e lig io u s P ress) 54 Random Jottings . . . . . . 5 6 C hats about Books and Miscellanea. XVII.— With

Mr. Herbert Flowerdew . . . . . 5 8 R ationalism in th e Magazines . . . . 5 9 A n Ominous F iasco . . ... 60

Gbc flfteantnfl of jfaitfo. F a ith is a term that has covered, perhaps, a larger number o f intellectual sins than any other in our vocabulary. The ordinary man who speaks o f his “ faith ” reveals a chaos in his thinking. It is something intangible, something vaguely clothed with mystery and reverence, something that dispenses him from listening to, or even forbids him to listen to, the common-sense suggestions o f his own mind. Benumbed or confused by the platitudes o f the pulpit, a man comes to think o f it as some sacred gift from which the veil must not be drawn, o f which analysis is sacrilege, and which must be preserved inviolate at the expense o f extreme self-stultification and persecution o f the opinions o f others. T h e man who appeals confusedly to the authority o f his “ faith,” and sets its dictates high above the mere vulgar truths or assurances o f reason— and his name is legion— is the despair o f everyone who has attempted to propagate a spirit of rational inquiry.

Yet, when one does take the trouble to analyse what these good people term their priceless gift of faith, it turns out, in the vast majority of cases, to be a piece of sentimentality which it is pitiful to take as a basis of conduct. There is, indeed, a legitimate meaning of the term which no Rationalist will reject. Faith has, in point o f fact, a definite and a large province in the economy of life. There are so many popular fallacies current about Roman Catholicism that it will be a revelation to many to hear that this logical and defensible acceptance of faith is found almost exclusively in the official teaching of the Church of Rome. To the vast majority of Catholics faith has no more rational significance than it has to the devotees of other creeds. Even the Roman clergy are most widely ignorant of the teaching of their professional theologians on the point, and they pour out the familiar platitudes about the superiority of faith over reason. Once, in the earlier years of my apostolate in the Roman Church, I accompanied Canon Akers, sometime rector of the principal seminary in England, to effect the conversion of an Agnostic. A fter listening for an hour to the story o f M r . ------ , the Canon arose, with the remark that they had no ground in common, since “ you want a religion that is founded on reason, and mine is founded on faith.” I protested, even then, that mine was n o t ; and I subsequently convinced the Canon that I was more in harmony with our official teaching.

The truth is that the definition of faith which is accepted by all Catholic theologians and philosophers is not at all inconsistent with rational methods of inquiry. Were it more widely accepted, the Theistic controversy would be greatly simplified, and the progress of Rationalism would be considerably increased. Faith, in esoteric Catholicism, is not an emotional element at all, but an act of the intellect. To believe, as distinct from “ to know,” means to assent to a proposition on the authority of another, when other sources of direct information are unavailable. In this sense it is clear that faith or belief is not merely a defensible process ; it is a necessity, at times a duty, and it plays a large part in the completion of our mental endowment. One cannot but smile at the solemnity with which writers of theological manuals insist on the value and the legitimate function of faith in the conduct of life. They elaborate with great care, “ against the Rationalists,” they say, the innumerable provinces of life and thought in which personal observation is impossible, and one must make an act of faith on the authority of another— in geography, history, ethnology, and in innumerable sciences, as well as in the ordinary relations of life.

Rationalists and theologians are evidently at cross-purposes on the point. The Rationalist no more rejects the legitimate use of faith than the theologian resists the critical claims of reason. In Catholic theology, in fact, the respective provinces of faith and reason are mapped out with a justice which no Rationalist can question. The popular notion of Roman teaching is entirely incorrect. Faith is defined as an assent to propositions on authority, in defect of personal ascertainment. In the application of that definition to religious matters it at once becomes evident that there must be a large exercise of reason before there can be any such thing as an act of faith. It rests with the individual to inquire into the character and the credentials of the authority which is urged, and into the alleged fact of the communication of information. Without such a preliminary inquiry of a purely rational character an act of faith would be an act of folly. Only when the authority has been proved to be reliable in point of information and of veracity, and when the fact o f his communication is placed beyond doubt, does the legitimate and sensible function of belief commence.

An examination of the Latin manuals o f “ Dogmatic Theology,” which present the official teaching of the Church of Rome, will prove that she is perfectly conscious of, and attentive to, this circumstance. Her position is ideally logical— not tyrannical and anti-rational, as is usually supposed. Theologians enumerate a number o f preliminary doctrines which they call the “ Pra-am bula f i d e i"— the preliminaries of faith. These propositions— the existence and personality and infinite perfection of the Deity is the principal one— must be established by human reason alone, without there being any question of faith or authority whatever, except of a mystical internal gift which is understood to intensify, but by no means supersede or change, the natural operation of the mind. Indeed, the Church has expressly decreed that even this legendary internal “ lig h t” is not given unless a man has a large amount o f purely rational conviction on these preliminary questions.

So far it has been the task of the philosopher to provide a basis for the structure of faith. The theologian proper then commences his function ; but there is still a wide field to be traversed by purely rational inquiry before the province of faith and authority is reached. The first question to be approached is the question of the fact of a positive revelation having been given. This must be established by purely historical inquiry, by evidence that will sustain the severest