Part II. Theological Knowledge Considered in Itself, or Subjectively

Theological knowledge should be considered under a twofold aspect: (1) as act of Faith; and (2) as theological science. Faith assents to revealed truths on the authority of God Who reveals them, whereas theological science, under the guidance of Faith, endeavours to gain a deeper insight into the truths believed.

Chapter I. Faith

§ 37. Etymology of the Various Words Used for Faith—The True Notion of Faith

I. The English word Faith is derived from the Latin Fides, and is akin to the Greek πίστις; Belief is akin to the German Glauben; Creed, Credibility are derived from the Latin Credere. We have, therefore, to examine the four words, fides, credere, πίστις, and glauben. Both fides and credere convey the fundamental meaning of trowing,¹ trusting (Germ. trauen). Credere is akin to κρατεῖν, to grasp firmly and to hold; Sanscr. Krat-dha, to give trust, to confide. The noun Fides conveys also the meaning of trust, confidence, and fidelity. The notion of confidence or trust appears in the derived forms, fido, fidentia, fiducia; the notion of fidelity, i.e. firm adherence, in fidelis, fidelitas, and fidus.

Πίστις, so often used in Holy Scripture, comes from πείθειν, which, according to its root bhidh, bhadh, originally meant to bind, fasten, hold fast. It afterwards became specialized in the sense of binding by means of speech—that is, to convince, to persuade. We can thus understand how πίστις has all the significations of fides. It must, however, be remarked that when used to express some relation between God and man, πίστις is used in a passive or middle sense, (πειθέσθαι = to be bound, convinced, or persuaded, and to allow one’s-self to be bound, convinced, or persuaded), and that this use is noticeable everywhere in the Sacred Writings. Hence πίστις involves, first, on the part of the πειθόμενος, the believer, a willing listening and submission (ὑπακούειν, obaudire, obedire) to the commanding call of God, by Whom the hearer allows himself to be bound; secondly, a cleaving to God, to Whom the hearer allows himself to be bound by accepting His good gift, and by entering into a pact, fœdus, with Him.

In these are included fidelity and confidence, in a form peculiar to religious πίστις, namely, as a docile and confident submission to the Divine guidance. The two elements of πίστις, obedience and fidelity, appear manifestly in the two expressions used to designate the contrary notions, ἀπείθεια, inobedientia, disobedience, and ἀπιστία, perfidia, faithlessness, and diffidentia, distrust.

The German word Glauben has the same root as lieben, loben, geloben, to love, to praise, to promise; viz. “lubh,” in lubet, libet = to wish to find good, to approve. Hence it has the radical meaning of accepting willingly and holding fast, approving.

It is plain that these various words, according to their etymology and theological use, do not exclusively refer to acts or habits of the intellect. They often express the affections and dispositions of the will, especially obedience and hope, as based on or aiming at some act of knowledge. As a rule, however, they express acts of the intellect only, in so far as these are dependent on or connected with acts of the will. In Holy Scripture πίστις and πιστεύειν, when used with reference to God, mean, purely and simply, to cling and hold fast to God, and consequently all the acts involved in clinging to God, or any one of them, according to the context. When applied to acts of knowledge, these expressions designate only those which have some analogy with acts of the will, such as to admit, hold, cling to, approve, consent, amplecti, adhærere, συγκατατίθεσθαι. The sense in which the “holding something for true” is called fides, πίστις, is manifold. Thus fides and πίστις are often used generically to designate every “holding for true,” every conviction; nay, they are sometimes used as the technical terms for conviction, like the German Ueberzeugung. On the other hand, “to believe” is often used as equivalent to mean, think, opine, as expressing a more or less arbitrary assent founded on imperfect evidence.

II. The special signification of the terms Faith, Fides, Πίστις, with which we are now concerned, is “assent on authority;” that is to say, the acceptance of a proposition, not because we ourselves perceive its truth, but because another person tells us that it is true. The notion of Faith implies that the assent is considered as something good and desirable. “Assent on authority” results from our esteem for the mental and moral qualifications of the witness, and is, therefore, accompanied by a willing acknowledgment of a sort of perfection in him, and also by a respectful and confiding submission to the authority which that perfection confers. Hence Faith is not simply an act of the intellect, but an act commanded and brought about by the will acting on the intellect: the assent of the intellect to what is true is determined by the consent of the will to what is good. This consent implies an approbation given to the assent of the intellect, and a willing acknowledgment of the authority of the speaker.

III. The part played by the will in this sort of Faith resembles any other sort of deference to authority. It consists in submitting to a legitimate order or call to perform some action. The person who gives the order is the author of the action rather than he who actually performs it, whence comes the term Authority. In ordinary cases we are invited rather than commanded to assent on the authority of another. We may have some doubt as to his knowledge or veracity, and even if we have no such doubt, he has no power or right over us. But when the author or speaker is the Supreme Lord, Infinite Wisdom, and Infinite Truth, He is entitled to exact complete consent of our will, and to set before us His knowledge, not merely as a basis, but even as a rule, of conviction. The act of Faith is, however, distinguishable from most other acts of submission to authority by the peculiarity that the authority which exacts it must also make it possible, and must co-operate in its production. This is brought about by the Divine Author constituting Himself the guarantee of the truth of what He communicates. The speaker, in virtue of the moral perfection of His will, guarantees that He communicates only what He knows to be true; and that, moreover, by virtue of the perfection of His intellect all danger of error is excluded, thus offering to the mind of the hearer a foundation for certitude, surer than the latter’s own personal knowledge.

IV. The manner in which authority asserts itself to and is received by a believer varies according to the nature of the authority and of the communication made. The nearest approach to Divine authority and Divine Faith is found in the relations between parents and their offspring. Parents have a natural superiority and dominion over their children, as being the authors of their existence; hence their authority, unlike that of any other person, is in itself, apart from any external legitimation, sufficient to command the assent of their children. And in like manner, the respect and reverence due to parents cause the child to take for granted their knowledge and veracity. The relation between God and man is a sort of spiritual paternity (cf. Heb. xii. 9) whereby we are entitled to address Him as “Our Father.” Human parents, although their children reasonably assume their knowledge and veracity, may, however, deceive or be deceived. But our Heavenly Father is Infinite Wisdom and Truth itself.

§ 38. Nature of Theological Faith

I. Theological Faith is assent given to the Word of God in a manner befitting its excellence and power. It is also termed Divine Faith, in opposition to human faith—that is, faith founded on the authority of man; Supernatural Faith, because it leads to supernatural salvation and has God for its Author and Generator; Christian Faith, because its subject-matter is the Revelation made by Christ, and because it is interwoven with the Christian economy of salvation; Catholic Faith, because it is assent to the doctrines proposed by the Catholic Church. These four appellations are not exactly synonymous, but they all designate the same act, though under different aspects.

II. The nature of Theological Faith has been clearly defined by the Vatican Council, sess. iii, chap. 3: “Seeing that man wholly dependeth upon God as his Creator and Lord, and seeing that created reason is entirely subject to Uncreated Truth, we are bound to submit by Faith our intellect and will to God the Revealer. But this Faith, which is the beginning of man’s salvation, the Church confesseth to be a supernatural virtue, whereby, with the help of God’s grace, we believe what He revealeth, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of our reason, but on account of the authority of God the Revealer, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived. For Faith, according to the Apostle, is ‘the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not’ (Heb. xi. 1).”

This definition means (1) that Theological Faith is faith in the strictest sense of the word—that is to say, assent on authority, implying an act of the intellect as well as an act of the will; (2) that it is faith in an eminent degree, because it implies unlimited submission to God’s sovereign authority and an absolute confidence in His veracity, and is therefore an act of religious worship and a theological virtue; and (3) that it is influenced, not only externally by Divine authority, but also internally by Divine Grace, and consequently is supernatural. These three characteristics of Theological Faith distinguish it from all natural knowledge with which the Rationalists confound it, and also from all forms of rational or irrational, instinctive emotional Faith.

The classical text Heb. xi. 1, is quoted by the council in confirmation of its teaching. It describes Faith as the act of spiritually seizing and holding fast things that are beyond the sphere of our intellect—things the vision of which is the object of our hope and the essence of our future happiness. It tells us that Faith is a conviction pointing and leading to the future vision, and even anticipating the fruition of it. Hence it implies that Faith, like the future vision itself, is a supernatural participation in the knowledge of God and a likening of our knowledge to His, inasmuch as our Faith has the same subject-matter as the Divine knowledge, and resembles it in its inner perfection. The literal meaning of the text is as follows: “The substance, ὑπόστασις, of things to be hoped for” is a giving in hand, as it were, a pledge and security for the future good gifts, and so a sort of anticipation of their possession; “the evidence ἔλεγχος, of things that appear not, μὴ βλεπομένων,” is an evident demonstration, a clear showing, hence a perfect certitude and conviction, concerning things invisible. These expressions are applicable to the habit of Faith without any figure of speech; to the act of Faith they apply only figuratively as being the result of the giving in hand and the clear manifestation. Moreover, these relations of our Faith to the Beatific Vision bring out, as clearly as the definition of the council, the difference between Theological Faith and every other sort of faith or knowledge.

III. We are now in a position to trace the genesis of Theological Faith. The believer, moved by grace, submits to the authority of God and trusts in God’s veracity, and strives to conform his mental judgment to that of God and to connect his convictions in the closest manner with God’s infallible knowledge. Grace makes this connection so perfect that a most intimate union and relationship are established between the believer’s knowledge and the Divine knowledge; the excellence and virtue of the latter are thus communicated to the former, and mould it into an introduction to and participation of eternal life.

IV. We subjoin some remarks on the use of the term Faith in theological literature. Fides is used to signify either the act (credere, fides quâ creditur); or the principle of the act (gratia fidei, lumen seu virtus fidei); or its subject-matter (fides quæ creditur), especially the collection of creeds, definitions, and the like. A distinction is sometimes drawn between Explicit and Implicit Faith, founded upon the degree of distinctness with which the act of Faith apprehends its subject-matter; also between Formal Faith, which supposes an explicit knowledge of the motive and an express act of the will, and Virtual Faith, which is a habit infused or resulting from repeated acts of Formal Faith, and produces acts of Faith as it were instinctively without distinct consciousness of Formal Faith. The expression Credere Deum signifies belief in God as the subject-matter of the act—“I believe that God exists;” Credere Deo means belief on the authority of God—“I believe what God says,” Credere in Deum implies both of the former meanings—“I believe in God on God’s authority.”

§ 39. The Formal Object or Motive of Faith

I. To the question, “Why do we believe?” or “What is the motive of our Faith?” many answers may be given. Some motives of Faith are similar to those which induce us to elicit other free acts of the will. They may be grouped under the head of what is fitting and useful (decens et utile, or justum et commodum), and are the following: Faith contributes to our moral perfection, and leads to our eternal salvation; it ennobles the soul and satisfies the moral necessity of submission to and union with God; it enriches and elevates our mental knowledge by increasing its store and by strengthening its certitude. As a rule, however, when we speak of the motive of Faith we understand that by means of which the act of Faith is produced. In the case of Theological Faith this is the Word of God, whence the name “theological,” that is, relating immediately to God, is applied to this sort of Faith. We believe a truth proposed to us because it is the Word of God—a word founded upon Divine Authority, and therefore entitled to the homage of our intellect and will.

II. Divine Authority influences Faith in a twofold manner: it is a call to Faith and it is a testimony to the truth of Faith. As a call to Faith, Divine Authority is the expression of the Divine will and power to which man is bound to submit. As a testimony to the truth of Faith, Divine authority acts as the Supreme Truth, guaranteeing the truth of the Faith and supplying a perfect foundation for certitude. In both respects the Divine authority is based upon God’s Essence, in virtue of which He is the Highest Being, the Uncreated Principle of all things, the Possessor of all truth, the Source of all goodness. Hence the classical form “God is the motive of Faith inasmuch as He is the First Truth.” Now God is the First Truth in a threefold sense: in being (in essendo), because of the infinite perfection of His Being; in knowledge (in cognoscendo), because He possesses infinite knowledge; in speech (in dicendo), because, being infinitely holy, He cannot deceive. Divine authority, as the motive of Faith, acts on the will. The will, moved by respect and confidence, reacts upon the intellect, urging it to elicit an act of Faith in what is proposed by the Infallible Truth. As in every act of faith, of whatever kind, the believer bases his assent on the knowledge and veracity of the witness, so in the case of Divine Faith, the will urges the intellect to base its assent upon the infallible knowledge and veracity of the great First Truth. The motive of Faith is impressed by the will upon the intellect as a light which enlightens and manifests the truth of the Word proposed, which thus in its turn acts on the intellect directly and not merely by means of the will. Again: the motive of Faith—that is, God as the First Being and First Truth—is at the same time, conjointly with the contents of Revelation, the end and object towards the apprehension of which the will moves the intellect.

§ 40. The Subject-Matter of Faith

I. A proposition or fact becomes the subject-matter of Faith when God reveals it and commands us to believe it on His authority. When these two conditions are fulfilled, Faith finds in God both its “substance” and its “evidence” (Heb. xi. 1). All such truths must be believed with Divine Faith properly so-called. In the following cases it is doubtful whether, or at least how far, a truth can be believed with Divine Faith.

1. Truths which are revealed only mediately and virtually—that is, evidently inferred from truths directly and immediately revealed—are the subject-matter of Theological Knowledge rather than of Divine Faith. If, however, God intended to reveal them, and if they were known to the first promulgators of Revelation, some theologians (e.g. Reding) think that they may be believed with Divine Faith. But most theologians (e.g. Suarez, Lugo, Kleutgen) are of opinion that Divine Faith is possible in the case of these truths only when they are authoritatively proposed by the Church. The reason is that the proposal of them by the Church takes the place of the immediate proposal by God Himself, and assumes the form of an extensive interpretation of the Divine Word.

2. Truths which only indirectly belong to the domain of Revelation (supra, § 5, II.) are primarily the subject-matter of human knowledge; they become the subject-matter of Faith when the Church has authoritatively proposed them for belief. In such cases God Himself gives testimony by means of the Church, which acts as His plenipotentiary and ambassador. The assent given resembles Theological Faith in this, that it springs from respect for the knowledge, veracity, and authority of God, and is infallible. Nevertheless, as this assent is not directly founded upon God’s knowledge but rather upon the knowledge possessed by the Church, there is an essential difference between Theological Faith and the assent given to truths indirectly connected with Revelation. The latter, which is called Ecclesiastical Faith, is less perfect than the former, but still, by reason of its religious and infallible character, is far above any purely human faith. Many theologians, notably Muzzarelli, declare that these truths are the subject-matter of Divine Faith on account of the Divinely promised infallibility of the Church. They claim Divine Faith especially for matters connected with morals and for the canonization of Saints, because an error in either would tell against the divinely revealed sanctity of the Church, while the latter is moreover based upon the miracles wrought by God in proof of the holiness of His Saints. We may observe, in reply, that the relation of moral matters with the sanctity of the Church only indirectly bases Faith in them on God’s knowledge. Again, the miracles wrought through the intercession of holy persons are not direct revelations, but are only indications of the Divine Will which the Church interprets, and consequently Faith founded upon them is only Ecclesiastical Faith.

II. Foremost among the attributes of the subject-matter of Faith is its truth. Whatever is proposed for our belief must be true in itself. Still, Faith does not suppose in the believer a direct knowledge of the truths which he believes, nor an illumination of his mind similar to that of the Beatific Vision. On the contrary, Faith being “the evidence of things that appear not,” implies that its subject-matter is inaccessible to the natural eye of the mind, even when revealed; it is the peculiar excellence of Faith that it makes the unseen as certain to our minds as the seen (Heb. xi. 27). Trusting in God’s knowledge and veracity, Faith glories in truths above reason, and delights in mystery; it transcends all human faith and science, inasmuch as it embraces objects far beyond the sphere of the human mind. But although “the things that appear not” are the proper subject-matter of Faith, it must not be supposed that absolute invisibility is required. The relatively invisible can also be made its subject-matter (cf. St. Thom. 2a. 2æ. q. 1, a. 3: “Utrum objectum fidei possit esse aliquid visum,”² and a. 4: “Utrum possit esse scitum”³).

III. In accordance with its being “the substance of things to be hoped for,” and in accordance with the intentions of its Author, Faith aims at giving us the knowledge of the things concerning our future supernatural happiness. Hence, God Himself, in His invisible Essence, as He is and as He will reveal Himself to the blessed in the Beatific Vision, and God’s Nature as the principle which causes our supernatural perfection and beatitude by communicating Itself to us, are the chief subjects of Faith. Hence we see again how much the subject-matter of Faith transcends all human knowledge, for no natural faculties can reach the heights or fathom the depths of the Divine Essence and its relations with the soul of man (cf. 1 Cor. ii.). Indeed, the whole supernatural economy of salvation is subordinate to the belief in God as the final object of our eternal beatitude.

IV. Faith is founded on God’s knowledge and veracity; it has God and His Divine Nature for its subject-matter; and it tends to the Beatific Union with Him. Seeing to a certain extent, as it were, all things in God and through God, it not only reduces all its own tenets to a certain unity in God, but also apprehends in God and through God all created truth, and judges of all created things with reference to God, Who is their ultimate End and immutable Ruler. Faith is therefore, in a certain sense, what modern philosophers call a “transcendental knowledge.” Adhering to God in all humility, it effects what philosophers have vainly attempted by their exaggeration of the natural powers of the human mind (Matt. xi. 25).

§ 41. The Motives of Credibility

I. To enable us to elicit an act of Divine Faith in revealed truth, the fact of its being revealed must also be perfectly certain to us. Without this perfect certitude we could not reasonably assent to it on the authority of God. Hence Innocent XI condemned the proposition: “The supernatural assent of Faith necessary for salvation is compatible with merely probable knowledge of Revelation, nay even with doubt whether God has spoken” (prop. xxi.). No certitude is perfect unless based upon reasonable motives. We cannot, therefore, accept with certitude any proposition as being the word of God without Motives of Credibility—that is, marks and criteria clearly showing the proposition to be really the Word of God.

The Motives of Credibility are not the same thing as the Motives of Faith. The former refer to the fact that a particular doctrine was originally revealed by God, the latter refer to the necessity of believing generally whatever God has revealed. Both are the foundation of the reasonableness of our Faith. This will be clear if we bear in mind that the assent given in an act of Faith is inferential: “Whatever God reveals is true; God has revealed, e.g., the mystery of the Blessed Trinity; therefore the mystery is true.” The Motives of Faith are the reasons for assenting to the major premise; the Motives of Credibility are the reasons for assenting to the minor.⁴ The Motives of Faith—that is to say, God’s knowledge and veracity—are, however, so evident that no one can call them in question; whereas the Motives of Credibility—that is, the proofs that a given doctrine is of Divine origin—are by no means self-evident, but are the object of the fiercest attacks of unbelievers. It is on this account that, in dealing with the reasonableness of Faith, stress is laid principally upon the Motives of Credibility.

II. The chief errors concerning the Motives of Credibility are: (1) Rationalism, which denies the possibility of any reasonable certainty in matters said to be revealed; (2) Protestantism, at least in some of its forms, which substitutes for external criteria inward feelings and consolations. (3) Some Catholic Theologians have also erred by assigning too prominent a place to these inward feelings. Against these errors the Vatican Council has defined the Catholic doctrine on the nature of the certitude concerning the fact of Revelation, and has especially declared how the proposition by the Church of doctrines as revealed, is a legitimate promulgation of the Divine word: “In order that the submission of our Faith might be in accordance with reason, God hath willed to give us, together with the internal assistance of the Holy Ghost, external proofs of His Revelation, namely, Divine facts and, above all, miracles and prophecies, which, while they clearly manifest God’s almighty power and infinite knowledge, are most certain Divine signs of Revelation adapted to the understanding of all men. Wherefore Moses, and the Prophets, and especially Christ our Lord Himself, wrought and uttered many and most manifest miracles and prophecies; and touching the Apostles we read, ‘They going forth preached the word everywhere, the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with the signs that followed’ (Mark xvi. 20). And again, it is written, ‘We have the more firm prophetical word, whereunto you do well to attend, as to a light that shineth in a dark place’ (2 Pet. i. 19). But in order that we may fulfil the duty of embracing the true Faith, and of persevering therein constantly, God, by means of His Only Begotten Son, hath instituted the Church, and hath endowed her with plain marks whereby she may be recognized by all men as the guardian and mistress of the revealed word. For to the Catholic Church alone belong all the wonders which have been divinely arranged for the evident credibility of the Christian Faith. Moreover, the Church herself, by her wonderful propagation, exalted sanctity, and unbounded fertility in all that is good, by her Catholic unity and invincible stability, is both an enduring motive of credibility and an unimpeachable testimony of her Divine mission. Whence it is that like a standard set up unto the nations (Isai. xi. 12) she calleth to her them that have not yet believed, and maketh her children certain that the Faith which they profess resteth on the surest foundation” (sess. iii., chap. 3).

The Catholic Church therefore teaches: (1) that we must have a rational certitude of the fact of Revelation in order that our Faith may be itself rational; (2) that this certitude is not founded exclusively on internal experience, but also, and indeed chiefly, on external and manifest facts; (3) that these external and manifest facts which accompany the proposition of Revelation can produce a perfect certitude of the fact of Revelation in the minds of all; and (4) that these facts not only accompany the original proposition of Revelation, and thus come down to us as facts of past history, but that by means of the unity and stability of the Church they are perpetuated in the same way as the promulgation of the Divine Word, and are at all times manifest to all who inquire.

III. The following paragraphs will serve to explain and prove the doctrine just stated.

1. First of all it is evident that our Faith cannot be a “reasonable worship” unless sound reasons, distinct from Revelation and the result of our own inquiries, persuade us of the fact that the doctrines proposed for our belief are really the Word of God. If we believe without any reason, our Faith is manifestly irrational. On the other hand, if we believe for revealed reasons exclusively, our Faith is also irrational, because we thereby fall into a vicious circle. We do not, however, maintain that the assent must be purely rational.

2. It is not necessary, according to the teaching of most theologians, nor is it implied in the terms of the Vatican definition, that the certitude of the fact of Revelation should be invariably, in each and every case, absolutely perfect. It is enough if it appears satisfactory to the believer, and excludes all doubt from his mind; in other words, a subjective and relative certitude is sufficient. But this applies especially to the cases of children and uneducated persons, and even then it supposes that those persons upon whose human testimony they rely have a perfect and objective certitude. Cf. Haunold, Theol. Spec., lib. iii., tract ix., c. 2; also Bishop Lefranc de Pompignan’s controversy with a Calvinist, Sur la Foi des Enfants et des Adultes ignorants, in Migne’s Curs. Theol., tom. vi., p. 1070.

3. Among the signs of the Divine origin of a doctrine must be reckoned the inner experiences of the believer. The effects of grace upon the soul are especially important. Nevertheless, these inner experiences cannot be either the exclusive or even the primary criteria of the Divine origin of a doctrine, because they are subjective, that is, restricted to the person who feels them, liable to illusions, and can be felt only after the fact of the Revelation of the doctrine has been otherwise apprehended. The Faith is proposed by public authority, and exacts public and universal obedience. It must therefore be supported by public and plain signs of its Divine origin.

4. Among the external signs of the fact of Revelation, purely human testimony has a place only in so far as it bears witness to the Divine facts connected with Revelation to those persons who cannot personally apprehend them. The proper criterion of the Divine origin of a verbal communication, as might be expected from the nature of the thing, and also according to the teaching of the Church, consists in external, supernatural, and Divine facts or effects, which God intimately connects with the proposition of His Revelation, and by which He signifies to us His will that we should believe that He has spoken.

5. As God has ordained that His word should be proposed to the faithful by the ministry of authentic witnesses, the first point to be established is the Divine mission of these witnesses. Although in theory it would be conceivable that it was only the first promulgators of the Faith who had their mission attested by Divine signs, and that this fact should have been handed down to us in the same way as any other historical event,—nevertheless, as a matter of fact, and as might be expected from the nature of Faith and Revelation, God has ordained that the signs or criteria of Divine origin should uninterruptedly accompany the preaching of His doctrine. The fact of Revelation is thereby brought home to us in a more lively, direct, and effective manner. This question is of the greatest importance at the present time, when the Divine mission of even Christ Himself is the object of so many attacks. When the Divine mission of the Church was denied, and thereby the existence of a continual, living testimony was rejected, Faith in the Divine mission of Christ thenceforth rested upon merely historical evidence, and so became the prey of historical criticism. Besides, without a continuous Divine approbation, Christ’s mission becomes such an isolated fact that its full significance cannot be grasped. Some Catholic theologians, in their endeavours to defend Christianity and the Church on purely historical grounds, have not given enough prominence to the constant signs of Divine approbation which have accompanied the Church’s preaching in all ages. The Vatican definition has therefore been most opportune. It is now of Faith that the Church herself is “an enduring motive of credibility and an unimpeachable testimony of her Divine mission.” Her wonderful propagation, in spite of the greatest moral and physical difficulties, not only in her early years, but even at the present day; her eminent sanctity, as manifested in her Saints, combined with their miracles; her inexhaustible fertility in every sort of good work; her unity in Faith, discipline, and worship; her invincible constancy in resisting the attacks of powerful enemies within and without for more than eighteen centuries: all these are manifest signs that she is not the work of man, but the work of God.

6. The certitude of the fact of Revelation must be in keeping with the firmness required by Faith. Hence all theologians teach that the demonstration of this fact from visible signs, such as prophecies and miracles, must be so evident as to generate a certitude excluding all doubt and fear of error—a certitude sufficient to place a reasonable man under the obligation of adhering to it. This, however, does not mean that the evidence must be of the most perfect kind, so as to render denial absolutely impossible. The proofs of the fact of Revelation may admit of unreasonable dissent, as is manifest by daily experience. Our judgment on the credibility of the fact of Revelation—“It is worthy of belief that God has revealed these things; they must, therefore, be believed,“—is formed with reference to God’s veracity and authority; that is to say, the signs and wonders appear as indications of God’s command to believe and as pledges of His veracity. Now, it is clear that the moral dispositions of the inquirer exercise the greatest influence upon such a judgment. If he has a love of truth, a deep reverence for the authority and holiness of God, and firm confidence in God’s wisdom and providence, he easily sees how incompatible it would be with the supreme perfection of God to give such positive indications of the existence of a revelation if in fact He had made no revelation at all. The inquirer is confronted with the dilemma: “Either God is a deceiver or He has given a revelation to mankind;” and his good dispositions urge him unhesitatingly to accept the latter alternative. On the other hand, if he has a dislike for, or no interest in, the truth, and if he is wanting in submission to God and confidence in Him, he will endeavour to persuade himself that the signs do not come from God, or are not intended to prove a revelation. It is possible to refuse assent to the fact of Revelation by rebelling against Divine authority, and treating God as a deceiver, and herein consists the enormity of the sin of infidelity. Hence St. Paul says, “Having faith and a good conscience, which some rejecting have made shipwreck concerning the faith” (1 Tim. i. 19). Cf. Card. Newman, Occasional Sermons, v., “Dispositions for Faith.”

7. The prophecies, miracles, and other signs by which we prove the credibility of the fact of Revelation, must not be confounded with the Motive of Faith, which is the authority and veracity of God. The Motives of Credibility do not produce the certitude of Faith; they merely dispose, lead, and urge the mind to submit to the Divine authority, of which they are signs. This explains the condemnation of Prop. ix. among those condemned by Innocent XI: “The will cannot make the assent of Faith more firm in itself than is demanded by the weight of reasons inducing us to believe.” By the “weight of reasons” are meant the Motives of Credibility, the rational certainty of which is neither the measure of the confidence with which the will clings to the contents and facts of Revelation, nor the measure of the firmness with which the intellect impelled by the will adheres to them.

8. In order to elicit an act of Faith, we must know not only the fact, but also the contents, of Revelation: in other words, we must know not only that a Revelation has been made, but also the things which have been revealed. The latter are either communicated directly by God or are proposed by His infallible Church. In the former case, Faith is possible even without their being proposed by the Church. The ordinary way, however, in which God makes Faith accessible to mankind is the authoritative teaching of the Church. The object of this teaching is not simply to convey to our minds the knowledge of revealed truth, as a book would do, but to render possible the “faith which cometh by hearing,” upon which the Apostle insists. By submitting to the testimony and authority of the Church, our Mother, we yield that obedience of Faith which is the result of our reverence for our Heavenly Father, and which is of the very essence of Faith. It is, indeed, more difficult, because more against our pride, to submit to the Church than to God directly; but by so doing we act in the true spirit of Faith.

The authoritative teaching of the Church does not supply an entirely independent motive of Faith, or the highest motive, or even a part of the highest motive. It acts rather as an instrument or vehicle of the real motive. The Church sets before us the contents of Revelation as worthy of belief; she proposes detailed points of doctrine as a living and ever-present witness, and demands our assent thereto on the authority of God.

Notes